Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

3076 with 0.63 externally gated on a 6 boost sounds like a winner to me. Yes in 4th and 5th gears the 0.63 housing will be restricting top end power, but going by what you are asking for it sounds perfect.
I still don't like the idea of a 3076 with a .63.. tad small (the HKS housing is i think .78 ~ .74?)

Put a .82 on there or get a 3071

Nevertheless the 0.63 will give better response at the cost of some top end....but it will meet all the requirements and is sitting there ready to go. There will no boost control issues which is the major potential drawback of the 0.63 internally gated housing.

I think it is more a question of whether you want to go to an external gate vs internal gate as either turbo will work fine.

Hey guys, thought I would say I am almost finished putting on my 3076r with a .63 rear housing and welded steam pipe to 44m Tial gate on...

alot of people have told me alot of mixed answers, hoping to get a nice responsive 270-280kwish with roughly ~16psi... sound possible? (I checked dyno thread and as people have noticed, not much in there for this setup)

p.s soz, not trying to take over thread.

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I still don't like the idea of a 3076 with a .63.. tad small (the HKS housing is i think .78 ~ .74?)

Put a .82 on there or get a 3071

They're 0.73 Nismoid, I made 291kW on my 3037S on BP 98 (19psi) and 342kW on a 24-22psi spike on E85. Full boost was around 4500rpm on an SR but you can play with cam timing and get them on sooner.

I guess it's not really comparing apples with apples since it's on a 2 litre, but just goes to show what those baby HKS housing are capable of flowing, and they along with the 3076R's are very aggressive.

ATP make a 0.78 divided housing for them too, this in my mind with a twin scroll/twin gate setup is the ultimate combo for someone chasing a solid 300kW on pump fuel with mega response. They also come in 0.82 and 1.06.

Getting a bit off track but still interesting and I've posted this somewhere else on SAU I'm pretty sure. As an example my two setups on pump fuel, SR20DET, my first one had a T88-34D and made 315kW at the wheels on 21psi, my 3037S made 291kW on 19psi. T88 trapped 125mph, 3037S 134mph. Even when the T88 was making 387kW, it ran 137mph on 29psi and a race tune!

Peak power doesn't always mean a faster car, suiting the power to your gearing and a chunky mid range it where it's at....

PJ

Again my opinion only but depending on what you're looking for a 0.63 A/R turbine housing is workable on a GT3076R , HKS had 0.61 and 0.73 A/R turbine housings (sadly non gated and T25/28 flange) available and I don't remember anyone saying they surged - provided they had the 3037"S" port shrouded compressor housing on them .

I'll quote from my HKS spec sheet and you be the judge .

Std 3037 48T - 420 PS

Std 3037 52T - 440 PS

Std 3037 56T - 450 PS

3037S ... 52T - 450 PS

3037S ... 56T - 480 PS

Everything I've read seems to suggest that the std compressor housings are aimed at four cylinder apps - generally larger cylinders that sixes and a flat plane crank meaning 180 degrees between power strokes .

Quite often HKS have port shrouded housings for sixes and specifically the Pro S turbos for RBs all have them .

I personally think the 76.2mm GT37 compressors work better with the full sized GT30 turbine and its the port shrouded comp housing that lets them get away with spinning the turbine/compressor group up earlier with smaller A/R turbine housings .

AFAIK the most responsive GT3076R combination using Garrett marketed bits would be the 52 trim compressor version with the 0.63 A/R GT30 turbine housing option . ATM you can buy this combination of bits and even get the port shrouded comp housing for it just like the 56T version .

Every one's different but for me getting some boost and extra torque at sane revs is ultimately more important than a sheet of paper saying 300 RWKW .

The system is out to get you on public roads and the situation is getting better for the authorities every day .

I think of it like this , when you drive your turbo car up long hills at 100/110 on expressways in its highest gear do you actually get any boost and can you sail up these hills effortlessly without changing down ? If the answer is no then IMO its not a very street friendly setup .

Like someone said the smallest T housing will ultimately limit the top end but in a road car that's not as important as broad spread of torque where its needed most .

My opinions only cheers A .

no worries i had a look and it is :rofl: so i think that if i stick with that see how it is and if i want to i can change to the .82 rear when i want to move up in power

What do you guys think?

Recent post in RB25 dyno results thread:

"unopened Neo Rb25det

-3076 56t with .64 housing

-highmount AM Performance stainless steampipe manifold with HKS 38mm gate

-Profec Spec B

-600cc injectiors

-fmic

-3.5 inch exh

-Nistune

310 rwkw @17 psi at around 6800 rpm

fullboost by 3500

roughly 480 nm torque at engine (calculated) "

POW! I would love to see a dyno sheet too.

Edited by Harey

hub dyno or not that still more than what i was after with the same sort of mods i am looking at and nice boost response :thumbsup:

i am excited now my only next decision is which is better

HKS low mount cast manifold External gate..... or

6boost high mount manifold with 48mm progate?

What do you guys think will work well with what i want to do with the car or either will be ok?

both i think have good and bad points HKS low mount so the police dont double look 6boost high mount so there is no hidding the turbo from them :P

what titan said

unless money isn't an option go etm manifold :(

i wanted to try and not use the stock manifold with a welded on gate but if the gains from either of the 2 in minimal then i do whats cost effective for the setup :P

Whats an ETM manifold i havnt heard of them before? Do you think that the HKS or 6boost would be better than the stock one?

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



  • Latest Posts

    • Who did you have do the installation? I actually know someone who is VERY familiar with the AVS gear. The main point of contact though would be your installer.   Where are you based in NZ?
    • Look, realistically, those are some fairly chunky connectors and wires so it is a reasonably fair bet that that loom was involved in the redirection of the fuel pump and/or ECU/ignition power for the immobiliser. It's also fair to be that the new immobiliser is essentially the same thing as the old one, and so it probably needs the same stuff done to make it do what it has to do. Given that you are talking about a car that no-one else here is familiar with (I mean your exact car) and an alarm that I've never heard of before and so probably not many others are familiar with, and that some wire monkey has been messing with it out of our sight, it seems reasonable that the wire monkey should be fixing this.
    • Wheel alignment immediately. Not "when I get around to it". And further to what Duncan said - you cannot just put camber arms on and shorten them. You will introduce bump steer far in excess of what the car had with stock arms. You need adjustable tension arms and they need to be shortened also. The simplest approach is to shorten them the same % as the stock ones. This will not be correct or optimal, but it will be better than any other guess. The correct way to set the lengths of both arms is to use a properly built/set up bump steer gauge and trial and error the adjustments until you hit the camber you need and want and have minimum bump steer in the range of motion that the wheel is expected to travel. And what Duncan said about toe is also very true. And you cannot change the camber arm without also affecting toe. So when you have adjustable arms on the back of a Skyline, the car either needs to go to a talented wheel aligner (not your local tyre shop dropout), or you need to be able to do this stuff yourself at home. Guess which approach I have taken? I have built my own gear for camber, toe and bump steer measurement and I do all this on the flattest bit of concrete I have, with some shims under the tyres on one side to level the car.
    • Thought I would get some advice from others on this situation.    Relevant info: R33 GTS25t Link G4x ECU Walbro 255LPH w/ OEM FP Relay (No relay mod) Scenario: I accidentally messed up my old AVS S5 (rev.1) at the start of the year and the cars been immobilised. Also the siren BBU has completely failed; so I decided to upgrade it.  I got a newer AVS S5 (rev.2?) installed on Friday. The guy removed the old one and its immobilisers. Tried to start it; the car cranks but doesnt start.  The new one was installed and all the alarm functions seem to be working as they should; still wouldn't start Went to bed; got up on Friday morning and decided to have a look into the no start problem. Found the car completely dead.  Charged the battery; plugged it back in and found the brake lights were stuck on.  Unplugging the brake pedal switch the lights turn off. Plug it back in and theyre stuck on again. I tested the switch (continuity test and resistance); all looks good (0-1kohm).  On talking to AVS; found its because of the rubber stopper on the brake pedal; sure enough the middle of it is missing so have ordered a new one. One of those wear items; which was confusing what was going on However when I try unplugging the STOP Light fuses (under the dash and under the hood) the brake light still stays on. Should those fuses not cut the brake light circuit?  I then checked the ECU; FP Speed Error.  Testing the pump again; I can hear the relay clicking every time I switch it to ON. I unplugged the pump and put the multimeter across the plug. No continuity; im seeing 0.6V (ECU signal?) and when it switches the relay I think its like 20mA or 200mA). Not seeing 12.4V / 7-9A. As far as I know; the Fuel Pump was wired through one of the immobiliser relays on the old alarm.  He pulled some thick gauged harness out with the old alarm wiring; which looks to me like it was to bridge connections into the immobilisers? Before it got immobilised it was running just fine.  Im at a loss to why the FP is getting no voltage; I thought maybe the FP was faulty (even though I havent even done 50km on the new pump) but no voltage at the harness plug.  Questions: Could it be he didnt reconnect the fuel pump when testing it after the old alarm removal (before installing the new alarm)?  Is this a case of bridging to the brake lights instead of the fuel pump circuit? It's a bit beyond me as I dont do a lot with electrical; so have tried my best to diagnose what I think seems to make sense.  Seeking advice if theres for sure an issue with the alarm install to get him back here; or if I do infact, need an auto electrician to diagnose it. 
    • Then, shorten them by 1cm, drop the car back down and have a visual look (or even better, use a spirit level across the wheel to see if you have less camber than before. You still want something like 1.5 for road use. Alternatively, if you have adjustable rear ride height (I assume you do if you have extreme camber wear), raise the suspension back to standard height until you can get it all aligned properly. Finally, keep in mind that wear on the inside of the tyre can be for incorrect toe, not just camber
×
×
  • Create New...