Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

wow- they bought that 2009 GT-R back from the future :D. lol

yes, looks like Nissan used close to the smallest turbos they could get away with for the power they wanted

US is weird. They do years of cars by model years, not actual year built. The R35 GT-R, is a 2009 model year in the US.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/209538-tiny-turbos/#findComment-3707083
Share on other sites

On paper, the stock turbos look like they are good for about 600 hp, however we are seeing about 520 hp at the engine at 11-12 psi. The size of the wastegate is also something to consider. Its large, and the exhaust wheel is small.

For such low boost (11-12 psi) you would need a large turbine bypass (wastegate) on a 3.8 litre engine.

Cheers

Gary

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/209538-tiny-turbos/#findComment-3707235
Share on other sites

True, not only Nissan switch to IHI, alot of the Japanese aftermarket tuner's choose them... Garrett are probably able to supply them to Nissan alot more competitively than other makers. I personally would love to see the RX6B used alot more. Power Enterprise have a nice kit using it now..

Edited by MintR33
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/209538-tiny-turbos/#findComment-3707361
Share on other sites

I have Power Enterprise Turbo's on my car that are IHI, and when the mechanic saw them told me they wouldn't be much better then stock turbs or maybe similar to N1 turbos, but after a good tune, our jaws dropped from the power the tiny twins produced. Mind you , not from such tiny amounts of boost the R35 is using but non the less, they were very impressive, and at least a couple years old now. I rated IHI after having these turbs.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/209538-tiny-turbos/#findComment-3708637
Share on other sites

These turbos are small for a very good reason :(

0-100 would not be 3.6s if they were bigger. And for the car's intended purpose these turbos are fine.

If you wanted to make an extra 150kw of course you'd put bigger turbos, or a big single (harder with a V6 i guess) but you'd lose that sharp, responsive performance i'd imagine.

I'd be interested to know how much the stockie turbos can be boosted. The Skyline turbos are sh1t for big boost, so we'll see if Nissan have done the same thing with these, as a cost saving measure perhaps.

Edited by R338OY
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/209538-tiny-turbos/#findComment-3710079
Share on other sites

I said before that they were close to a 2510 size. The inducer was around 47 mm and the exducer about 42 mm. Small overall. The car makes more power than these turbos should be able to do on paper.

R35 GT-R on Mustang Dyno

I can't post numbers yet, but Edmunds Inside Line will have numbers in a few days. On a Mustang dyno, then a Dynapack Dyno.

The car made a peak of 12 psi, and then dropped off to about 10 psi by redline.

Also, only run in 3rd gear to avoid the speed limiter that has not been killed yet. Cobb should have it any day we hope. 5th gear is 1:1.

Edited by tyndago
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/209538-tiny-turbos/#findComment-3710694
Share on other sites

I said before that they were close to a 2510 size. The inducer was around 47 mm and the exducer about 42 mm. Small overall. The car makes more power than these turbos should be able to do on paper.

R35 GT-R on Mustang Dyno

I can't post numbers yet, but Edmunds Inside Line will have numbers in a few days. On a Mustang dyno, then a Dynapack Dyno.

The car made a peak of 12 psi, and then dropped off to about 10 psi by redline.

Also, only run in 3rd gear to avoid the speed limiter that has not been killed yet. Cobb should have it any day we hope. 5th gear is 1:1.

I dunno what the secrecy if for....

There are numerous dyno results floating around on the net so nothing new has been done.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/209538-tiny-turbos/#findComment-3710956
Share on other sites

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...