Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

tru but i guess it depend on what they were thinking when they designed the one that you have shown.

a lot of engineers design things in two dimensions and wont change unless forced too.

At a guess I'd say its cheap and easy to make two round holes and from the outside would look spiffy to some .

I reckon if I was going to make one I'd do something similar to what HKS did with the Pro S style dump pipe . I'd leave the divider in the flange plate and section (cut in half length ways) a smaller section of pipe and weld it to the side of the main outlet pipe . This gate vent path section would need to be fashioned with the nockometre to match the flange plate and probably Mig welded in place . The main turbine vent tube would be a mandrel bend and so would the "halved" wastegate vent pipe .

It would be nice if the flange plate was an exact match for the IW housing inc the divider , if the gasket is close enough it could be used for a template to laser cut provided the ask was for a reasonable quantity not just one or two .

Cheers A .

just posting a reply so I can keep track of this thread..very interesting..

If you look up the top of a thread you can click options "track this topic" that way you will still get email notifications without having to reply, pretty handy.

I would check to see if the Ford versions gasket has the divider section because their housings divider does not rise to the same height as the Garrett Housings . At least thats what my pics show .

Cheers A .

i think it does but cant remember 100%.

it fitted perfectly...

just as a matter of comparison,what was the boost threshold for the GT30 vs the GT35

was the swap worthwhile for street performance,do you notice the 40+ extra KW all through the rev range or do you have to lean on it harder to feel the extra with the GT35

there's no doubt the ET/terminal velocity would be significantly different down the 1/4,but that's not what i'm getting at

which was the most fun as a daily driver?

cheers

ps let me know if/when you are looking at getting rid of your GT30 and how much you are chasing

on a serious auto then the gt35 is very smooth.

on a manual i would say its to big for a daily.

the gt30 felt a lot more agressive thru the mid range, and would well suited the manual skyline.

i will post up all the info on the package that im selling once i get the turbo back from gcg.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...