Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

^^^ i had a HKS T04E cast manifold kit for CA18 many moons back and it was sweet (sweet in a big turbo way) but the rear housing was exclusive cast HKS item that looked real small... i have an old HKS power book in storage i will see if i can drag it out this weekend if you really want the rb20 specs..

  • 1 month later...

Hey guys, just to add my two cents. i am no turbo expert in fact far from it but i have a rb20det with a sliding performance highflow turbo hitting boost at 5000 rpm and my mate just fitted a TO4E monsta turbo costing a whole 299 excluding postage................ into his r31 converteed rb20det with very similar supporting mods IC, fuel pump, exhaust etc........ i am running 12 psi and he is run 14 psi..... and the TO4E Hammers!

haha, now u may now abuse me turbo tech freaks......!@

Roy that cast low split pulsed HKS manifold (RB20/25) has a larged machined pad where the turbo bolts to it . Its large enough for a T4 flange even though std it has the split T3 flange sized exhaust ports and stud pattern .

To mount a Garrett GT3076R just bolt it up , it would pay to see if the housing needed a bit of grinding so that there is no step or overlap of the manifolds exhaust ports . Cubes did something like this recently with his GT3076R's exhaust housing when mounting it on his Nissan manifold .

Just for the record I've never seen the turbo HKS intended for their manifold but , if the HKS spec FJ20 T04E is anything to go by it would just be a small/med trim T04E compressor on a smallish trim T04 turbine with a small A/R ratio T3 flanged T4 exhaust housing . Nothing to rave about .

Your call but if I was using that manifold and an external gate there is NOOOOOOO way I'd use a single scroll turbine housing . Its been claimed by a very reliabe source in the US that the twin scroll version (hybrid) TS GT3071R can get reasonably close to 500 Hp if everything else is top notch . The TS version of the GT3076R I think nudged ~ 540 Hp with the same turbine housing which is not really the gun thing though availabvle housings are an issue - ATM .

Cheers A .

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...