Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

What do u guys think of this thingy to mount a Gt3076/GT3037 on the stock manifold?

post-42272-1260656649_thumb.jpg

Couple of points to note....

1) No internal WG so no f@&kin around with actuators and dump pipes for proper boost control. :D

2) No excessive heat in the engine room from using a ss high mount as the original heat shield can be reused.

3) No headaches to pull off the ss to repair when they crack

4) No need for a spacer to clear the compressor from touching on the manifold.

5) Everything just bolts up with new gaskets

6) Cheaper

7) Did i mention it was cheaper?

And the cons.....

1) Will it clear the strut tower with added 2.5" or so added to the side?

Does any one have pics with the Gt3076 mounted on the stock ex manifold using either this or the normal flat spacer???

What do u guys think??

Thanks.

is this a cheap chinese no-brander ebay part or is it a proven HKS / Trust / Greddy item?

im guessing a cheap chinese ebay no brander part so its probably not proven / useful

i mean, the exhaust gas is forced out one way and full throttle then a 90deg port is opened

i dont how other gates are setup but im certain they aren't 90deg bends ?

i agree with external gate for better control and stability sure

but if you goto the effort and $ of external gate, you should really do it properly

ghetto external gate setups = not my preference

you get what you pay for basically

Is is a ebay part and i have no evidence what so ever of its results.... kinda why i asked the question in the first place :D

Anyway i had the same concern with the ex gas venting at a 90* angle but i guess its ok since it vents where all the ports has already merged and in a common chamber.

The other ss ones that alot of ppl seem to be using vents from a common chamber also, but at 180*.... ie. in the total opposite direction of the air flow

post-42272-1260659353_thumb.jpg

As i said i have seen no results but it just seem as a very convenient option instead of using a high mount or welding a pipe for the ex gate off the stock manifold.

Its nothing but two T3 flanges connected by a piece of hollow section with a 38mm wastegate flange on one side...... can be fabricated pretty easily if u ask me...... the mechanics of it however is a bit questionable...

And spend the extra dollars on what?????

he is saying (as am i) that its probably a junker product

if you are up to trial fitting and mechanically minded etc then go for it

fit it at home and set it all up and away you go

if the part is ass you remove it and go to how it was

if you arent and you have to pay a workshop to do it then its probably wasted $ as the part could be ass

Do you already have the turbo? if so just pull off the intercoller piping in the engine bay, measure from the face of the flange on the exhaust to the strut tower then measure from the face of the flange on the turbo to the furthest side of the comp cover, add 2.5" and see where you are at, then post it up here coz i would like to know as well.

As for it being a cheap chinese part some are good some are bad, this one looks pretty simple with not a lot that could go wrong, whilst it is better to get name brand stuff sometimes little things like this sometimes have no difference from the name brand stuff.

I also dont believe that the 90o venting will make much of a difference, all a wastegate does it relieve pressure before it gets to the exhaust housing.

Edited by W0rp3D

I went thru the exact same dilemma when I installed the HX35 on my RB30det. and I looked at these but was stopped by the sheer size of the turbo. there was not enough room without the turbo touching the strut tower.

also I was worried about it cracking due to sheer weight.

I ended up using a 20 mm spacer to get the clearance I needed and then going and external gate mounted on the manifold from a section of steam pipe the same as worp3d's but joined at the collector on the top. I ended up with PERFECT boost control and decent clearance. I fabbed up the lot myself and it looks reasonable.

what foolboost has posted is the way to go. but it would require a lot of custom work making it to expensive to justify as by the time you had it done you could have bought yourself a 6boost manifold.

HAVE A LOOK HERE FOR MY TREAD WITH DETAILS AND PHOTOS

Could use one of these :)

post-31991-1260673950_thumb.jpg post-31991-1260673977_thumb.jpg post-31991-1260674000_thumb.jpg

post-31991-1260674031_thumb.jpg post-31991-1260674047_thumb.jpg

I had to use an adaptor like this to fit a gt35/40r to rb25/30 in r32. The compressor housing was touching the manifold so a spacer was needed and it was a good place to fit wastegate fitting.

If i used a straight spacer, the turbo would hit the chassisrail. as it sits now, i have about 20mm clearance

Yeh i figured the one with the angle will allow for more clearance as seen here

post-42272-1260834808_thumb.jpg

The one i pictured above and all others i have seen that is recommended for the Rb however doesn't seem like it would work without modification.

The holes on both sides are threaded so i guess it was designed to work with studs on either side which will be fine for the turbo side but impossible to bolt to the manifold because even if the thread is drilled out the hole is sooo close to the wall it would not allow for a stud to fit especially where the wastegate flange sits.

Someone on another forum went through this and was left to weld the adapter directly to the manifold

The one "Foolboost" posted however seems like a better option although i think the wastegate flange/type might be a little too big....44mm right?

Anyone know where i can get that type of adaptor???

Thanks.

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...