Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi all.

I have searched but cant seem to find a answer.

I am building a RB30/25, using RB25 oilpump, and 1.5mm restrictors to the RB25 head.

On the exhaust side of the RB30 block there is a oil out. I will be using that to feed my GT4084R turbo.

Do i need a oil restrictor before the GT4094R? Or should i just hook it up and leave it using the built in restrictor in the Gt4094R?

Also, there is only one oilreturn in the block, can i hook up, turbo drain, std head drain, and extra head drain to that using a T peice.. (Not T, but with 3 fittings. You get the picture)

Thank you.

Edited by nissan200sx.dk
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/285663-oil-restriction/
Share on other sites

Nissan ran 2 restrictors. One at the block and another at the inlet of the turbo.

GCG I believe supply turbo's with an additional restrictor. I reused the factory restrictor at the block on my old GT30 setup and will again be using a restrictor for the new setup.

Its not wise to T in to the turbo's oil drain.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/285663-oil-restriction/#findComment-4797379
Share on other sites

Adriano. Block will be cleaned very good.

Rest:

Garret specify 40 - 45 psi oil pressure on max engine speed, and say"For many common passenger vehicle engines, this generally translates into a restrictor with a minimum of 0.040" diameter orifice upstream of the oil inlet on the turbocharger center section" And I should always check that this is correct.

Info from garrett here: http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarre...r/faqs.html#t16

So i need to mount oil pressure gauge for that when running my engine?

I would prefer not to weld in the sump. So i will drill and tap 2 x 10mm holes in block. Both used as return for oil from the head. Will use the std hole in block for turbo return.

Thank you.

Edited by nissan200sx.dk
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/285663-oil-restriction/#findComment-4803668
Share on other sites

Huh? No restrictor at all?? I know there is one in the turbo, but I should fit no extra?

This is from Garrett's wesite.

"Ball-bearing turbochargers can benefit from the addition of an oil restrictor, as most engines deliver more pressure than a ball bearing turbo requires. The benefit is seen in improved boost response due to less windage of oil in the bearing. In addition, lower oil flow further reduces the risk of oil leakage compared to journal-bearing turbochargers. Oil pressure entering a ball-bearing turbocharger needs to be between 40 psi and 45 psi at the maximum engine operating speed. For many common passenger vehicle engines, this generally translates into a restrictor with a minimum of 0.040" diameter orifice upstream of the oil inlet on the turbocharger center section. Again, it is imperative that the restrictor be sized according to the oil pressure characteristics of the engine to which the turbo is attached. Always verify that the appropriate oil pressure is reaching the turbo"

I will be using RB25 oil pump, with hydraulic 24 valve head fitted with 2 x 1.5mm oil restrictors to the head from block. And 1.5mm restrictor for the VCT valve that will have it own hose. (Drilled in the head, and coming from side of block)

I have NO idea how much flow the oil pump makes with this setup. I have oil pressure for engine and can fit oil pressure for turbo also if needed to make sure. I dont want to blow my brand new GT4094R. hehe

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/285663-oil-restriction/#findComment-4803872
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

    • No, you're wrong, and you've always been wrong about this. The Nismo has 2 sets of openings. One is a real 2-way, and the other is a 1-way. There is no 1.5-way possible with the ramps that they offer. A real 1.5-way does exist. That Cusco stuff I posted is a prime example. If the forward drive ramps are, say 55°, and the overrun ramps are, say, 30°, then you will get about half as much LSD effect on overrun than you do on drive. It is real, it realy works. OK, you're slightly right. The Nismo has 55° and 45° ramps on the 2-way, so it does offer less LSD effect on overrun. But, I think that just means that they've (probably) sensibly established that you do not want actually equal LSD effect on overrun. You just want "quite a lot, but not quite as much as the drive LSD effect".
    • Just wanted to unearth this and post my baby with the new front ❤️😝 Took her to my wedding rehearsal today. Next up is getting wide skirts (after wedding)
    • Yea, that is what I was getting at in my ramblings too. The nismo one actually is a 1.5 way and a 1 way. They don't do a *2* way because a true *2* way would have equal ramp angles. Or is that a true 1.5 way? Realistically I think a "1.5 way" does not actually exist. A diff can either lock in two directions or one. It also doesn't help that a LOT of people in Australia speak about 1.5 way diffs are referring to their 1 way diff.
    • Well, the trouble with that ^^ is: The configuration shown is absolutely a 1-way, not a 1.5-way. There is no way that a 1.5-way can be said to offer LSD action only on acceleration. If Nismo cannot get that right, then it is impossible to believe their documentation. That ^ is not a 1.5 way setup. That is a 1-way.   And so now I have allowed all doubts to flourish and have gone back to look at the MotoIQ video. I originally made the mistake of believing him when he said "this is a 1.5-way" at the ~6:10 mark. Because what he did was take the gear assembly out of the 2-way opening and just rotate it one place to the left to drop it into the 1-way opening. When he dropped it in there, the cam was "backwards" compared to the correct orientation shown in all other photos of that config. The flat shold have been facing the 1° ramp side of the opening, not the 55° ramp side. And I thought, "gee that's cute", but I was concerned at the time, when he put the other ring back on, that the gap between the rings looked like it was wider then in the 2-way config. And then I said a lot of things in my long post on Tuesday that could only make sense if the guy from MotoIQ was correct about what he'd done. BUT... I have now done my homework. I grabbed a frame of the video with the 2-way config, and then grabbed another with the "1.5-way" config, snipped out the cam and opening of that frame and just pasted it direct on top of the 2-way config. I scaled it so that the triangular opening was almost exactly the same height in both. AND.... the gap between the plates is wider with the cam installed in the triangualr opening backwards. That is.... it cannot go together that way. There would be massive force on the plates all the time, if you could even reassemble it.  So, My statement on the matter? The Nismo diff is actually only a 2-way and 1-way. There is no 1.5-way option in it, regardless of what they say. Here's a photo of a real 1.5-way ramp opening from Cusco (along with the 1 way option). And the full set of 1 through 2 way options from their racing diff, which is not same-same as what we'd typically be using, but...the cams work the same. A little blurry, but it comes from this Cusco doc, which is quite helpful. AND.... Cusco do in fact do what I suggested would be sensible, which is to have rings that do 1 and 1.5, and 1.5 and 2. Separately.  
×
×
  • Create New...