Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I noticed the new 7275 and 6875 doesn’t have a T4 divided rear option

only Vband rear and T4 open

 

can anyone see any issue with running a twin scroll T4 divided manifold with twin gates into an open T4 rear ?

13 hours ago, SiR_RB said:

can anyone see any issue with running a twin scroll T4 divided manifold with twin gates into an open T4 rear ?

No, I really can't see an issue with it.   The merge may not be perfect but there are definitely worse ways of doing it - it could arguably work nicer than some 6>1 manifolds out there.

  • Like 2
21 hours ago, Lithium said:

Ha! That is ridiculous, nice work!  That's gotta be one of the more stout RB25 setups out there, being SAU people will probably make dyno comments but realistically - an RB25 with 270deg cams and 40psi pumped through it on E85 is going to make some serious power :)

What is the spool like?  There is no rpm scale on the dyno plot (NFI why people print plots like that), so a bit hard to tell.   Be very interesting to see how it goes at the strip, hope you have a decent trans! :D

 

spools insanely quick. that ramp up is within 1000 RPM. It takes off like a rocket. I roll race so I needed the snappy response.

 

On 7/31/2019 at 1:30 AM, Dale FZ1 said:

What turbine housing size - also single/split pulse + gate setup?

Perhaps drop something into the RB25 dyno results page

Strong result.

single pulse, 44mm wastegate , T4  - 81 AR

11 hours ago, feedmyfast said:

spools insanely quick. that ramp up is within 1000 RPM. It takes off like a rocket. I roll race so I needed the snappy response.

 

single pulse, 44mm wastegate , T4  - 81 AR

Would love to compare it to my rb25 6062 setup in terms of response.  

QLD or Syd roll racing?

 

Also curious on what headstuds youre using? 

Edited by r33ryan
  • 5 weeks later...

I've just found out that the "7675" I thought I had was actually a 7175 rated to 985hp. Explains why it was so responsive and why my IATs were so high on high boost ? 

The 7275 Gen 2 should be a pretty stout turbo considering its rated at 1200hp and biggest housing offered is a .96 which should mean it will possibly spool a bit quicker than my 1.12 7175?

Mine started to max out low 30s so im not sure how well matched the compressor is to the turbine but the newer wheel might make it better.

I've now upgraded to a 7685 so we'll see how that goes. Will report back once shes up and running again.

  • Thanks 1
3 minutes ago, klutched said:

I've just found out that the "7675" I thought I had was actually a 7175 rated to 985hp. Explains why it was so responsive and why my IATs were so high on high boost ? 

The 7275 Gen 2 should be a pretty stout turbo considering its rated at 1200hp and biggest housing offered is a .96 which should mean it will possibly spool a bit quicker than my 1.12 7175?

Mine started to max out low 30s so im not sure how well matched the compressor is to the turbine but the newer wheel might make it better.

I've now upgraded to a 7685 so we'll see how that goes. Will report back once shes up and running again.

What did you make with the "7675" again?

14 hours ago, SiR_RB said:

Anyone got any results from the newish 7275 or 6875 turbos yet?

 

or do I have to be a first and report how it goes lol

I get the feeling you’re going to be the guinea pig  

  • Haha 1
  • 7 months later...

Good afternoon Volks,
please let me grab out this old topic and try to get some experienced answers from your side for my little problem i got.
Engine is a Stock RB26 with metal head gasket and stuff (stock bottom end) except HKS 272 degrees camshafts and on that is sitting a PT 6466 CEA Gen2 TwinScroll with a VBand 0.82 A/R outlet (1 Wastegate).

In sum, im actually pretty unhappy with the spool and the driving style. I've got at around 612 HP @18 PSI but the spool at ca. 5,5K rpm is horrible for street drives. The car runs on petrol with 100 octan (E85 is not possible here, no gas stations available hard to organize etc.).

The problem i got is the bad spool and responsivness of the car. It is generally driven on the streets and in the hills, where i need a fast spool and good power band more than everything else and after driving in corners, with this kind of spool, it's feeling like that you shift everytime in a big nowhere.

Now i want to come back to my question. Im thinking about a setup change/switch but im not pretty sure, which is maybe the best solution and therefore I want to please you with some experiences.
The first option would be to get another Single from Precision which may fits on the actual Manifold etc. or go back to like Twin Setup  HKS GT-SS with a good spool but than, i have to change from the single setup (manifold etc.) to the twin.

Are there people here which may have experiences with a PT 5862 or a PT 5858 on 100 Octans for this application? I see some dyno sheets here but the most were done on E85, which is not comparable to the 100octans. I think that it's maybe also possible to just switch the turbo, until the Stroker is done and the head ported. But im still struggling, if this brings the final aim, that i have with the responsivness

The Aim is to get >600 horses at the engine on 100 octans, but the most important is a good responsivness with a good power band.

Friends of mine are driving those 2860-5 and HKS GT-SS Turbos in their r32 gtr's, on the same base and compared to their quick spool, they are completely different cars, but in the street and for some open time track days, it makes even more fun to drive with them.

If there's someone who can help, it would be great.

Thank you guys and stay safe

Edited by meX

A .82 rear housing is an open scroll turbine housing you need the .84 twin scroll one on a twin scroll manifold. i have a 6466 .84ts on my stock bottom end 2.6 and mine is all in at 4,100rpm

  • Like 2

My first suggestion would be to tone down the cams. Even to stock cams or some custom cams with less overlap but higher than stock lift (with some adjustable gears to get the optimum settings). So far as I can see aggressive cams are for engines operated principally at high revs...drag cars or circuit racers with a close ratio box.

Secondly  to convince you that going back to twins would be a retrograde step have a look at this video - it is definitely worth a watch: :http://www.goodezilla.com/rb26dett-skyline-gtr-single-turbo-vs-twin-turbo

Regarding turbo choice I have no advice for you - my experience runs only to an old school GT3540R. It could be that your turbo could be adapted but I will leave it to those with better knowledge than I have.

  • Like 1

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...