Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Where are you from?

If your in Sydney take it into MTQ in Wetherill Park, they are cheaper than GCG, and try a genuine Garrett housing on the manifold. It wont be the manifold as the flange is a standard sizing.

The housing needs some dents in the corners to accomodate the nuts. You might fix it by grinding this housing, but you might stuff it also, so its not worth trying until you confirm if there is an alternative that works properly

Or as someone else just said you could drill the threads out and use nuts and bolts but to me its still not right. Its much easier and less hassle to be able sit the turbo on a couple of studs and use only lock washers and nuts.

Call me fussy or silly or whatever you want. i like to build cars that are easy to work on and nuts and bolts when studs should do the job is just silly

Edited by ido09s

OK quit the nonsense, call Kyle and tell him what the problem is.

The simple answer is the housing needs to go back to ATP to have a machinist surface the bolt holes so a nut can fit in place. The housing was rushed and not finished properly, simple as that.

If ATP cannot do that for you ask Kyle if he can. If not, ask for a part refund on the housing and keep it OR buy the uber expensive GCG alternative. If you get a refund on the dud housing and get to keep it, you can find a place that can do the machine work for you, but don't be conned into going to that level UNLESS you have received some form of refund.

The comment about sending someone to China is absolutely correct.

i trial fitted my manifold/turbo setup the other night.

and you are RIGHT! it is a **milkshake** to fit.

here are some pics of the bolts that look impossible to do up unless we grint some of the exhaust housing....

what your thoughts guys?

Pretty much what others have found with that housing some years ago. pinch.gif

http://www.freshalloy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186058&page=4&highlight=twin+scroll

Can probably grind reliefs in the housing if there is sufficient meat.....email Geoff Raicer as he has fitted at least one of these to a Subaru that I am aware of.

Buy a Borg Warner twin scroll turbo. :ph34r:

oi order one in march called up the supplier at the end of april - they still had no response from borg warner on stock so got my deposit back and went for this set up :wacko:

DOES garrett make a T4 divided rear housing for the GTX35? when i did my homework 2months ago there was not garrett t4 divided rear exhaust housings for the GTX35 turbo

Edited by BMYHOE

Don't bother trying to use studs, pull them out and use cap screws... Got a turbo with the same housing here and it's no problem.

ok ill defenly look at this, thanks.

anyone ever welded the turbo to the manifold lol jokes

The one here hasn't been used yet, another mate has been running his for about a year and another I am not sure now... As he had been running the chra for years anyway but then swapped housing and manifold setup for response etc speaker some where along the line

I had the same concern (and plenty of others) with the ATP twin scroll housing. It's certainly not a budget option - as far as I could find it was the ONLY option if you want a t4 twin scroll rear for a gt35.

I could have made it work but decided the swearing come time to try and get a spanner on the water/oil lines simply wasn't worth it - so I sold the housing and the gt35. A borg warner s300sx delivers nearly identical results with a much larger/easier to work on foot print.

Btw I spoke to ATP about the problem at the time and was satisfied with there response which I've included below.

Hi Nick,

Thanks for the pics.

We undestand your concerns and we want to address them for you.

We'll be very upfront with you and you can decide if it's good enough.

If it isn't, we fully understand. We thought since you took time

out to raise the issue, we would spend equal time to explain where we

stand on this.

First, we have always used a local US foundry for our castings and

work closely with them to manage the quality of these castings.

This particular model housing has been the most, stand out, difficult

to work with. Every single production batch of this part (and only

this part) has resulted in 1 or many cosmetic blemishes throughout the

casting. The issues are some or all of the things that you described.

It's partly part complexity, partly tooling, and partly competence

of this foundry's process in handling this particular part. We have

about 30 other parts that we cast at that foundry regularly and seldom

have any of these issues on those parts.

Cosmetically, we have to do a lot of "touch up" work to make these

housings externally presentable.

The coring process of these housings do lend themselves to some

internal porosity as well. Machining of these housings is also tricky

due to the particular wheel to casting combo being a retrofit.

Yes, we do know about the one dip near the tonque.

The good news is in the course of the past 5-6 years of producing

thousands of these (unpretty parts), we have yet to have a failure of

any kind. We also have never gotten 1 single complaint of it's

performance. In fact, most shop or tuner that has used this housing

in their TS kit has turned into a repeat user if their kit is in

production.

Most of these housings do end up in high end turbo kits that do get tracked.

If it eases your concerns at all, we absolutely stand behind the

product and will warranty it for 1 same 1 year peroid and fully expect

it to perform.

The geometry of the unit has been tested and proven over and over so

you should not be concerned there.

We have a lot of wall on that casting so sometimes when the porosity

is real bad on 1 spot (like on yours), we just weld it so make it a

bit more visually pleasing than a big pit. We do not weld or repair a

casting that has any chance of breaking through where we find the

overall structural integrity of the unit is compromised and risks

failure during operation.

Thanks again for writing and if you still have any doubts on this

unpretty casting, send it back for a full refund.

Otherwise, if you decide to keep it and use it, we stand behind it

100% in its operation and integrity.

Edited by DCIEVE

I could have made it work but decided the swearing come time to try and get a spanner on the water/oil lines simply wasn't worth it - so I sold the housing and the gt35. A borg warner s300sx delivers nearly identical results with a much larger/easier to work on foot print.

Do you have a Borg Warner S300SX (83-75 I'm guessing..)? If so, any pics or results?

my atp housing was exactly the same, forgot to mention it earlier. you just have to grind the corners a bit, theres plenty of meat in the wall there. iirc though you'll have to use nuts with a 14mm head, 17 wont fit.

my atp housing was exactly the same, forgot to mention it earlier. you just have to grind the corners a bit, theres plenty of meat in the wall there. iirc though you'll have to use nuts with a 14mm head, 17 wont fit.

ok thanks jonno, it will be play time on the weekend

WTF? A company selling you a product that you have to potentially f#$k up to get it to work????

Surely they would get the relief cut into them in the manufacturing process or atleast when it arrives at their factory before sending out the customer.

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...