Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

very good results and i'm sure the drivability is awesome.

Although, has anyone had any experience with the T67 or TD06SH-25G on an RB20?

We could do this with a T67 for shits and giggles considering this car and a T67 RB25 live very close to each other ;)

the reason i ask is b/c i have a complete T67 kit sitting in my garage which i'm thinking of bolting onto my rb20.

honestley its perfect for a RB25 but i would not put one on a std rb20... well actually i would if it was mine... but it will be quite laggy and they really require 1.2-1.3bar to make it into thier sweet zone..

if you were a customer i would say sell the t67 and fit the l2 to the kit you have, if it was me i would slap it on and start playing on the dyno :P

honestley its perfect for a RB25 but i would not put one on a std rb20... well actually i would if it was mine... but it will be quite laggy and they really require 1.2-1.3bar to make it into thier sweet zone..

if you were a customer i would say sell the t67 and fit the l2 to the kit you have, if it was me i would slap it on and start playing on the dyno :P

that's a fair point.

the car i bought actually had a stroker RB24 in it before i bought it which i also have all the parts to.

fitting it to the rb20 would just be for shits and giggles and to be honest, it would be better than the stocker that's on there now.

btw, 1.2-1.3 bar doesn't scare me :P

URAS,

after checking the Trust website, the T67 and the TD06SL2-20G actually share the same turbine wheel (54.1/61mm), although the T67 has the larger 25G comp wheel.

given this, i guess it wouldn't be that bad.

only one way to confirm this and that's to bolt it up to my POS ;-)

This has really got me thinking of going to the 8cm rear for mine now :P

Would be interesting to see a comparison back to back with nothing else changed and see what the results were between the two overlapped???

This has really got me thinking of going to the 8cm rear for mine now :P

Would be interesting to see a comparison back to back with nothing else changed and see what the results were between the two overlapped???

what turbo do u have?

This has really got me thinking of going to the 8cm rear for mine now :P

Would be interesting to see a comparison back to back with nothing else changed and see what the results were between the two overlapped???

What sort of power is it making with the 10cm?

What sort of power is it making with the 10cm?

It was making a little over 200kw on 14psi with stock injectors/afm and cat back exhaust.

ok, so the smaller turbine with the 20G comp wheel.

how does it drive with the 10cm housing?

Drove well, mind you i didn't get much of a chance after it was tuned as the motor let go about 30mins of fun later :D

New set up see's a healthier motor with injectors, cams, Z32 etc so hopefully can see better results that will last a little longer this time!!!

200rwkw ain't bad on 14psi, although with the new engine, supporting mods and an aggressive tune, results should also be very impressive.

was it laggy/doughy mid-rpm with the 10cm housing?

Yeah couldn't complain, just would of been nice if it lasted a little longer and i actually got to drive it ;)

Im keen to get it finished and tuned (still looking at who will tune it) and if i will run with an EBC or stick with the turbotech. It wasn't really what i would call laggy and the mid-rpm was where all the fun was :rofl:

I'll try and scan the graph and post it up so you can see :D

i'm happy to hear yet another great result from the RB20. these sorta threads keep me motivated to support the little ripper.

who gives a shit about lag down low when you have all hell breaking loose up top! :rofl:

;) exactly, i couldn't of said it better myself.

Im hoping with the larger cams it will help bring boost on a little earlier to overcome the low range lag :D

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...