Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Was it hard to modify the inlet manifold?.

I've seen that done a few times but haven't seen the results or whether they create problems.

Have heard alot of ppls thoughts on them but no real world experiences.

PS: does tripleG have something to do with this motor?

It was the .82 a/r.

The specs are some where in the damn long thread, I rememeber the total power made was somewhere around the 250rwkw mark, which sounds a little low when I've also heard of them topping around 300rwkw. :)

Do you think the SB8006 should be able to keep up 1.06?

With the GT30 I don't think it was the compressor side of things causing a problem, I think it was more so the exhaust side dropping VE.

they will rev to what you want, so will any engine, it just wont be that good for it...

I dont know why people think another 500rpm or so is alot more, or will achieve something- its does relatively nothing!!!

A well built rb30 will rev to 7.5k all day; an rb26 only revs to 8k (standard), maybe 8.5k with good pistons and over 9 with a forged crank. Sure 9k now thats alot more, but buy the time you have a forged crank you could of built a billit main girdle for the rb30 and molloyed your crank and have the rb30 reving around 8.5-9k as well.... Another note an rb26 with stock cams stops making power at 7200 so what the point reving it to 8k you achieving nothing!!!

You have to remember it is a 3L you dont need to do that to make power, for example the guys in the states are reving 2j 3L toyo motors to around 7.5-7.8 and making 800hp at the wheels.

In short your cams wont let the engine rev harder only change the rev characteristc of the engine!!!

for an RB25/30 i would never use a GT30 or GT35/40 with a smaller A/R on the turbine than 1.06

people use them on 400+hp RB30's with the 1.06 and have 15psi by 3500rpm. with a head that's flowing 30% more the .82 or anything less is going to be a large restriction in terms of back pressure. go the 1.06 or bigger IMHO. a friend has a 25/30 which (when it was running) used a TO4E with a 1.33 exhaust housing from a rotor. it made 20psi no worries and had huge top-end stonk, but did not feel laggy at all. there is quite simply enough torque off-boost to get you there quick as a flash anyway, unless you're drifting and need the response i'd use a large exhaust A/R on an engine like this.

I'm Just about to put the rest of my parts that I have been colecting for a while onto the car.

I'm just trying to decide on 2 things. What size injectors to go 550's or 600's and weather or not I want a Exhaust Cam gear. Is it worth putting one onto the RB30's at all?

StockyMcStock.

I know of a RB30DET making around 320rwkw using a GT35R .82.

That only just makes 1 bar by 3500rpm on the road accelerting as you would in gear, by 4000rpm it will make any boost you throw at it.

Big exhaust a/r's scare me. I think the Rb20DET mentally scard me.

Comparing a/r's doesn't give the same result.

For example a .82 GT35R creates the same amount as back pressure and flows the same as a 1.06 GT30R. Imagine a 1.06 GT35R. :)

I guess all you can do is select the exhaust a/r to match the power output.

My thinking is its no good going a GT35R 1.06 rated to flow 700hp when you are only going to use 500-600hp. A GT35R .82 apparently flows 620hp where the GT35R .62 apparently flows 550hp or just over 500hp, I forget the exact figure.

General Street driving results in less time for the turbo to spool.

So 3500rpm any boost you dial in is more likely to be 4000rpm+ depending on the gear and he is running a huge 4" exhaust. :)

The boost characteristics I think I will still settle on at least a .82.

If I like it I will stick with it if not I will drop to a .62.

Peak power really doesn't interest me. Which is why I went the 3ltr.

A little quote from the thread.

it will be very similar, the .82 was 23hp down at peak power for me compared with the 1.06 both at 25 psi. but the .82 came in sooner and much more violently.

Some food for thought.

I have trimatic with 3500 stall and it is just instant wheel spin, I'm only running 10 degrees timing thoughout hole rev range, its hardly driveable on the street.
I found the .82 housing to be very hard to drive at the track due to 1/4 throttle being 90% hp at 4000rpm up, so it was very hard to drive it off the turns (I wish I got that race meeting on video) it was just on or off like the grp A Sierras were, one particular part of the track has a nasty left hander that you go around at about 150 - 160kph and then get back on the gas for a while before a hairpin, anyway I left it in top (3rd) round that corner, fully straightened up and gave it like 30-50% gas and it would just light up the tyres lap after lap (with 18 psi), thats with 265 dunlop slicks that were up to temp. now with the 1.06 I can feed the power in as I want (within reason for a turbo car) and can eliminate wheelspin whilst still pushing the car and now its running 25 psi so that shows you the difference that it made for me.

I suppose... the 1.06 may be a nicer option.. 10psi at 3000rpm would still have the rb30det going fairly hard. Depends on the efficiency. Might have to check out the compressor map to see what its doing at 3000rpm, 10psi on the rb30.

If you want to see what the 35 is like on the track rather than a dyno, here is a vid of HSVSUX. Think it is the 1.06, but can't remember exactly.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/dialup_v90_user...SUX_one_lap.mpg

Note:If you want both speakers to work, open it on "mplayer2.exe" and then go into the properties and choose "2nd channel" makes both mono then and sounds better.

I must say I like the corner exit around the 50sec mark. :)

I've done a couple of calcs. With the same VE it appears the Ford 4ltr swallows as much air at 5250rpm as the 3ltr does at 7000rpm.

The XR6 turbo may be a near perfect match for the RB30DET. If it small comp cover poses a probelm with the rb30 at high rev's the .7 a/r comp cover could then be bolted on.

hrmm.. I might take the plunge and grab one of these xr6 turbo's.

The .5 comp cover may actually work quite well with the 3ltr considering it will make peak power on the stock cams around the 6000rpm mark. Maybe slightly more if I'm lucky. ;)

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

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...