Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Very very nice boost/power curve, its on the verge of the magic 200kw by 4000rpm mark despite being not overly aggressive on boost :) Very much looking forward to seeing what ethanol does to the party!

The torque is ALWAYS going to drop off, unless the engine isn't being revved high enough :)

mine doesnt drop off much, i see alot of the hi flows have quick up down torque curves too,

Edited by SliverS2

Well it failed... looks like its to rich on cruise & decelatration...

Next EPA test is booked for 23Rd July..

oh well..

Hmmmm how does it work? Do they record it or you can keep going back again and again until it passes?

yeah you can go back as many time as you need.

the guy there was very helpful, they give you the print out of the test showing the nox,co,co2,thc levels so you know where the car is failing and where to change the tune

the guy was so helpfull there he marked on the graph where it was failing for the tuner to see and adjust to suit.

they even know i have an adjustable computer...

Ahhh good stuff, keep the updates coming :yes:

Is it an expensive exercise? And you can book in voluntarily? (If there is a webiste or something can you point me to it?)

the only extra costs would be making up an exhaust with 1 or 2 cats, a couple of hours on a dyno, and just go for it..

yeah its best to do it voluntarily they will see that and help you out.

just call RMS / EPA 137 247 and follow the instructions

the EPA test is for free also.

Yep, split .82 GT3076. 6 Boost, twin 40mm turbosmarts plumbed back into the 4.5 inch 100cpsi cat.

Here's hoping you crack 350 Owen. :)

:yes:

The way it makes the power will be awesome too!

It all had to be assembled on the bench and lifted into place. The front gate can't be unbolted with the turbo in the car and there is one turbo bolt that is almost impossible to get to. Other than that there is plenty of room. :)

It sounds like such a nice setup, how hard/labor intensive was it to plumb back the gates and make the front pipe?

Not that hard, there were two flex joins to fit before the cat/merge but it was getting the wastegate outlet merge right that took the time. I also got the 3.5 inch exhaust pipe tucked right up giving good clearance from the road, well over legal height at the moment.

I was happy with how it turned out, and the noise level with only a Hooker was very reasonable considering the size. (I was so impressed I fitted a hooker 3.5 inch to my car today.)

looks nice!

Is the rear housing from atp turbo?

The Vband was welded on to the housing, I haven't seen one like it before. I guess this one is equivalent to a .63 in response but with better top end.

The twin scroll is definently appealing due to the response it gives, but the tight fit/complexity of the dual wastegate plumbacks is slightly off putting and probably expensive to get made.

Top end wise it doesnt look too different to most gt3076r turbos with that boost, but i think the mid range would probably be better on the twin scroll setup

When is your setup getting on full boost 34geeteetee ?

Edited by Mitcho_7

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

    • I'm going to slap an old nismo logo sticker on my spare one and sell it to the land of the free for a thousand bucks
    • lol, probably should have read further!
    • Well - they have arrived.  And they are easy on the eye to put it mildly... These only have three bolts - but for a start there is a key that fits with vacuum like precision..  And as you can see by my ruler, the interface is large..   I listened to a podcast on HP Academy about Dan (KiwiCNC) and I'm more than comfortable he knows what he is doing. R35 Bearing assembly should arrive later today so can mock that up for a look. Can't wait to get these on and get some brake pressure logging too. IMG_3860.MP4
    • I would be very confident that they are the same parts (the 2 different SKUs). It seems very clear that you can drop the cam in the 2-way opening, or in the other opening. If you arrange it in the other opening in the same way that you see any other 1-way diff, ie, with the flat of the cam up against the 1° side of the opening, then it would work as a 1-way. It can only spread the ramps when driving forwards - cannot spread the ramps on overrun. It would then appear obvious that if you put the cam into the opening "backwards", that you would get the angled flats of the cam working onto the "points" of the 1° side of the opening, which would give you ramp spread in both loading directions. I do wonder if the forward direction of the 1.5-way config is equivalent to the forward direction of the 2-way, seeing as the cams are flipped and the angled surfaces on those would need to be the same on each side - AND - clearly when installed in either the 2-way or 1-1ay configuration they are not intended to work exactly the same (the ramp angles on the 2-way are 10° different between forward and backward, and the ramp doesn't exist in the 1-way config). 'twere me, I think I would rather actually have a set of rings that offered the 2-way with two different sets of ramp angles, say the 55/45 of the existing design and maybe a 45/37.5 combo for a less aggressive effect), AND another set of rings with a dedicated 1.5-way opening and a dedicated 1-way opening. The 1.5-way opening would actually have the steeper angle on the overdrive side that causes it to be less pushy than the forward drive angle, like you see in many other diffs. But really - if this Nismo thing is thought out properly and all those surfaces work on each other the way that they need to, who am I to argue?
    • I would be very confident that they are the same parts (the 2 different SKUs). It seems very clear that you can drop the cam in the 2-way opening, or in the other opening. If you arrange it in the other opening in the same way that you see any other 1-way diff, ie, with the flat of the cam up against the 1° side of the opening, then it would work as a 1-way. It can only spread the ramps when driving forwards - cannot spread the ramps on overrun. It would then appear obvious that if you put the cam into the opening "backwards", that you would get the angled flats of the cam working onto the "points" of the 1° side of the opening, which would give you ramp spread in both loading directions. I do wonder if the forward direction of the 1.5-way config is equivalent to the forward direction of the 2-way, seeing as the cams are flipped and the angled surfaces on those would need to be the same on each side - AND - clearly when installed in either the 2-way or 1-1ay configuration they are not intended to work exactly the same (the ramp angles on the 2-way are 10° different between forward and backward, and the ramp doesn't exist in the 1-way config). 'twere me, I think I would rather actually have a set of rings that offered the 2-way with two different sets of ramp angles, say the 55/45 of the existing design and maybe a 45/37.5 combo for a less aggressive effect), AND another set of rings with a dedicated 1.5-way opening and a dedicated 1-way opening. The 1.5-way opening would actually have the steeper angle on the overdrive side that causes it to be less pushy than the forward drive angle, like you see in many other diffs. But really - if this Nismo thing is thought out properly and all those surfaces work on each other the way that they need to, who am I to argue?
×
×
  • Create New...