Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Yea but im sure that rb30 was build to handle 30+Psi lol

Can front wheels and covers be swapped over like rear ones?

Yes they can but you will find it is a very expensive exercise! Rear housing from Garret from memory was $600+

And yes +1 to a .63 housing being way to small on a 3L it will choke up for sure IMHO it is a bit of a misfit size in the Garrett range...

The .82 is not too bad on a stock RB25 more suited to a built motor but it will be a good balance between not having to buy a new turbo when you get the 3L cause a .82 on a 3L is a response monstor :domokun: I personally have a 1.06 rear on my 3L and wouldnt have it any other way as it feds on the power so nicely. Also I might add mine is internal gate and am having no problems with boost control 7psi actuator and a Turbosmart T and holds dead on 15psi.

And is it definately internal gate?

hahaha

Thanks for the info guys, For now i think im going to wire the Internal Gate shut, Mod my manifold to house an external gate and still use the .63 rear. I like it at the moment how i can cruise around at the moment like everything is normal but flat foot it off the line in first and it doesn't break traction. If the .63 generates too much heat ill put an external gate rear .82 housing on the turbo and keep it that was until i wack it on a 3L.

Thanks for the Info.

Hey guy,

I think 'the mafia" did a gt30 with a .63 rear end. Search for his threads. I dunno if you're already onto it, but it makes for a good read.

Also, just something I would consider if I was in your shoes... Why don't you use the GT35 with a ext gate setup until you get your 3.0l

from what everyone on hear says, the ext gate spools the turbo quicker, and then you have an upgrade path. You may or may not want a .82 rear house when you 3.0l, but that's then, not now.

Yes they can but you will find it is a very expensive exercise! Rear housing from Garret from memory was $600+

And yes +1 to a .63 housing being way to small on a 3L it will choke up for sure IMHO it is a bit of a misfit size in the Garrett range...

The .82 is not too bad on a stock RB25 more suited to a built motor but it will be a good balance between not having to buy a new turbo when you get the 3L cause a .82 on a 3L is a response monstor :( I personally have a 1.06 rear on my 3L and wouldnt have it any other way as it feds on the power so nicely. Also I might add mine is internal gate and am having no problems with boost control 7psi actuator and a Turbosmart T and holds dead on 15psi.

hahaha

You have the XR6T version yeah? with the 0.50 front cover?

How does that affect compressor flow?

You have the XR6T version yeah? with the 0.50 front cover?

How does that affect compressor flow?

I do but also have a .7 cover

There is no noticeable difference between the .5 and .7 without changing the tune, might get some gains when it gets retuned though...

I have found that bigger turbo's with low boost make heaps of wastegate air. So if the gate is too small, and or the waste gate dump is to small, the issue comes where the gate cannot dump enough gas to stop the turbo from spooling up.

yea we figured that one out, going external gate so will resolve that...I was talking more of whether the .63 rear can flow enough through it to cope with the gt35 front cover and the volume of air its producing to not create too much heat.

If i were in your predicament, i would seriously consider selling it and buying a proper matched turbo. As you seem aware, a 3082 is behind the 8 ball, as teh ex wheel is too small to generate enough torque to accelerate the rotating mass quickly. And by using a .63 exhaust, it is partially alliviating that, but adding high backpressure to the equation. I would be fitting a .82 3076, as IMO it is the ideal turbo for an rb25 after 280-300rwkw. Even if you fit the rb30 (which i dont think you will need to)the same turbo can be used, and fry the tyres up to the legal speed limit with more response than you can poke a stick at. If you feel you must have more than 300rwkw, then bite the bullet and get a real gt35r, with a .82internal or you can get away with an external gate .63, but i believe on pump fuel the exhaust backpressure will limit the power to far less than the comp wheel is capable of making. We need something between a gt30 and gt35!

i find this topic interesting....

Just incase anyone cares...

my gt35 with .63 rear isn't as laggy as you'd originally expect.

3000rpm = 0.56bar 8psi

3500rpm = 0.82bar 12psi

4000rpm = 1.04bar 15psi

Once external gate is fitted should be fairly good.

Just hoping the .63 rear doesn't choke up the gt35 housing too much in the top end. For the conservative boost ill be using it shouldn't.

^^ thats fairly laggy IMO.

I had my GT30 .82 on by 4200rpm and was over 15psi and make more power than you will be able too :yucky:

500rpm to get that last 3psi once spooling is indicative of the large compressor side

after 4k the boost sky rockets but thats when i back off, yet to see what it does after that.

yea but at the end of the day, It's all about experimenting....gimme a break...i just spend 2k on this turbo, gotta stay positive hehe.

I'm not doin it to beat anyone else...doin if for my own thrills.

It's fairly laggy i know but off boost it drives great and doesn't break traction which is what i was after.

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...