Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

back to topic..

according to the title, I will say TD06-2og will be easy to drive around, and comes with some very good power, and if you can invest some $$ on cam gears / cams then it will be perfect..and this is back up by riding experience of Buster's car. thanks.

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I will ask buster to answer this questionin in detail..

But I will say what I saw..

Td06-20g 10cm sqr, trust manifold, front pipe,3 " exhaust system, external wastegate, Trust cooler, EVC, chipped R33 ECU..

from what can see at passenger side..spool around 3100...hard at 4000 (up) till red line...lag was there, but not what I expect..power come smoothly..

He sold the car....and the car now is in autostyle sydney..but both of us will have something similar come up soon..will keep you post.

mmm... on the other turbo's thing...

(don't shoot me i'm no expert)

I think i still have the stock t04E that came on GTS-R's.

Now my car has an RB25 though and it hits full bosst around 4300 and makes boost from around 3500 or something near that.

It produces 190rwkw @6600 on 9.5psi

at 4500 it has 120rwkw and 5500 it has around 160rwkw.

To drive it's nice, and between gears i don't drop 1,500 rpm (maybe i have modded box, no idea though), so i can stay on full boost in every gear.

I know that a t04 is like super old technology and stuff but you can mix/match the exhaust and front housings/wheels i think ??

And from what i've heard they aren't all that expensive. Like approx $1500-$2000 ?

just a thought that's open to discussion as i wouldn't mind learning some stuff :D

Usually on the compressor or front housing, and the exhaust or turbine housing.

Turbine housing is pretty important to determining when a turbo will come on boost, the smaller the housing, the sooner the boost comes on - the trade off being you wont have as much top end. The sort of power you are making is easily acheivable with a stock turbo, but they tend to come on boost just over 2K with a good exhaust setup.

If I had to guess, I would say that your exhaust AR ratio is a little on the large side.

EDIT: also the T04E isnt a small turbo for a 2.5

NFI!

i've got this extractor cover/shield thing. I'll get it off in the next day or two and have a look.

I do know though that the mouth (where it sucks air in) is reasonably big.

mmm, i've seen cars achieve what i am with the stock turbo, but they are all running more than 9psi of boost ?!?

Yes, true, but think about this: my car runs 12.5psi has a stock turbo and makes boost from 2000rpm full boost by 2500 and 203 rwkw peak,

You have 120rwkw at 4500,

I make 120rwkw at about 3300rpm, by 4500 I am making 165

rwkw. By the time your engine is making 160kw, mine has made 190.

It takes you nearly 1000 rpm to make your 9.5psi, I can get 12psi in about half that and it starts 1500 rpm earlier.

Which setup, if both were fitted to the same car do you think would make a quicker car?

Now, if you could make 12.5psi by 3000rpm...

Originally posted by sidewaymambo

I will ask buster to answer this questionin in detail..

But I will say what I saw..

Td06-20g 10cm sqr, trust manifold, front pipe,3 " exhaust system, external wastegate, Trust cooler, EVC, chipped R33 ECU..

from what can see at passenger side..spool around 3100...hard at 4000 (up) till red line...lag was there, but not what I expect..power come smoothly..  

He sold the car....and the car now is in autostyle sydney..but both of us will have something similar come up soon..will keep you post.

yep Phil you hit the nail on the head all I can see you missed is the 550 inj, Bosch fuel pump and Z32 afm

It did start to spool in the low 3000rpm's and had full 1.1 bar by 4000rpm the boost did come on pretty harshly hahaha all in all I think the set up is great when you look at the cost of one of these turbo's and how cheap they are to have rebuilt

Hi Guys, I posted this before....

Graph peaks at around 308 rwkw at 196 kph which would be 7,250 rpm allowing for 27 kph per thousand RPM. That means at 108 kph (around 4,000 rpm) it has 93 rwkw

So if you changed gear at 7,000 rpm in first the engine would have 300 rwkw and would drop to 4,000 rpm in second where it had 93 rwkw. It would then struggle to accelerate the car until it got to around 5,000 rpm when the power jumps to 180 rwkw. This would indicate not very much boost under 5,000 rpm.

Simple table follows; as shown on the TD06 dyno graph on page 1

At 7,000 rpm it has 300 rwkw

At 6,000 rpm it has 250 rwkw

At 5,000 rpm it has 195 rwkw

At 4,000 rpm it has 93 rwkw

That's an average of 210 rwkw.

This would make, firstly a fairly slow accelerating car through the gears as it has a relatively low average amount of power (210 rwkw) compared to its maximum. Secondly this would make it very difficult to drive as it would be constantly moving from over 300 rwkw to under 200 rwkw with only a 1,500 rpm drop in revs.

I would say that the turbo is too big and the car would be faster with a smaller turbo, say one with a 260 rwkw maximum. Power table like this;

At 7,000 rpm it has 260 rwkw

At 6,000 rpm it has 240 rwkw

At 5,000 rpm it has 200 rwkw

At 4,000 rpm it has 170 rwkw

That's an average of 220 rwkw.

Higher average therefore faster accelerating and it would only drop from 260 rwkw to around 220 rwkw in the same 1,500 rpm bracket. Result = much easier to drive.

Hope that made sense.

*Now, read it, and stop talking about TD06's unless you all own a Mitsubishi Canter*

Sorry, that was way too harsh....had the 5am blues....rally didn't mean to say that like that...I meant to say

"now, stop talking about it

unless you own a Mitsubishi canter....."

In that i beleieve everything had been talked about here, and all the numbers have been shown... not that they are crap turbos so don't talk about them...i did not mean that

I honestly have no doubts that the TD06 could be a very effective turbo. I personally believe that running one on a 2.5 litre engine is not the best option. On a 3litre + engine i believe that could be very good, and would spool up 25% earlier. I have seen one on a diesel Hilux that was VERY interesting

I'm sorry if that sounded like me telling you you picked the wrong turbo, or that you are all worong, i really didn't mean that. I have personally never driven a car with a TD06..or for that matter any Trust turbos. I have driven a toyota hilux with one....that was scary. But the numbers coming out of the dyno graphs all seem to say the same thing, and spool up, at the bet off an RB25 was 4,000 rpm.... And i believe that does not add up to a very streetable turbo. But i could be wrong

Son of Sydneykid - Amended by Son of Sydneykid

..................................quote......................................

Now, read it, and stop talking about TD06's unless you all own a Mitsubishi Canter

..................................quote......................................

Hi, SydneyKid..thanks for the replied (not the ....quote.....part), and be honestly I do learn from it..but Were the fact and theory are brothers? Were they sometime back up each other and sometime don't due to some reason? I don't drive a canter, just what I saw is a bit different then theory..please don't take it as offense (I know you don't...hahaha..thanks.)

If there is any chance, we do love to offer you a drive..and maybe you can help us to find out why?..thaks

If I was to consider either a rework of my turbo or a garett combo what in your experience gives the best performance. Mick from Subzero now works were I take my car to so he says an exhaust manifold helps alot plus you know his plenums. For interest to back this up he is doing a standard turbo with exhaust manifold. Its on a friends car so should be interesting.

I would like to see 250rwkw for wank factor plus I believe this is a reasonable level to get to before needing injectors and maybe other internal mods. I have all else required.

So I could look at a Garett 3040 or a 3035. I would prefer to keep my origonal turbo however could have that reworked. End of the day though these all seem to pan out to the same cost.

Thanks

Hi Grepin

250rwkw is not a whole lot really. this is easily achievable with the hi flow, for a fraction of the cost... it simply bolts straight back onto the original exhaust manifold... very simple. you do not need such a large turbo for these figures. It is far simple and far more cost effective to simply get a Hi Flow job done on the existing turbo. Save the cash you save from not buying a new turbo and use it elsewhere on the car.

Son of Sydneykid

hey rob

it isn't the most effecient manifold, but for the 250rwkw, its sufficient... It is not an equal lenth manifold.... but its not worth spending the cash on another unless you are going way further than 250rwkw...In my opinion...but i will ask the old man

Son of Sydneykid

I guess I should have stated that to get 250rwkw that the standard manifold will do. However would a nicely designed manifold make it work all the better. I guess the proof will be in the car that is keeping the stock turbo however getting a manifold. Certainly a different way of going about things. Consider if I havent got it wrong it may be possible to get more top end out of a set up manifold. Like how it can be said that a larger turbo can be brought on boost earlier by a specifically designed manifold.

Sydneykid, so you havent had much experience with Garett turbos like 3040 etc. Cost wise considering Sacrifice $500 worth of turbo for a $2400 (GCG price) rebuild is more expensive than buying a Garett turbo (from $2300). Given the fact that I want to keep all my stock parts I would prefer to keep my turbo. The only reason to rebuild it is if it would be far superior than a garett turbo.

Cheers.

I hope I finally get it right when I do comit to something. Its even more frustrating when you have the money but no idea what to do.

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

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...