Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Currently have our rb34 underway atm. Hopefully have it back next week ready for assembly. Wont be until early next year when its ready to run though.

I must say the quality of the kit is astounding. The crankshaft looks mint.

Z0mGZ1!!!! Post Copious amounts of photos of EVERYTHING! :P

  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Currently have our rb34 underway atm. Hopefully have it back next week ready for assembly. Wont be until early next year when its ready to run though.

I must say the quality of the kit is astounding. The crankshaft looks mint.

Knew it wouldnt take you long haha

for the Race car?

Yeh its for the race car lol.

Gtst circuit car. Using a new 6boost split pulse manifold with gtx3076r 0.82 divided rear, twin 40mm turbosmart gates, 25 head with solid lifters, gtr inlet manifold/throttle bodies.

So its going to be ultra responsive which is the plan with this new engine. However, if it is too much so and runs out of legs real early then we will throw the 35r back on with a split pulse housing as well and see how it goes then. Either way its going to be interesting!

Yeh its for the race car lol.

Gtst circuit car. Using a new 6boost split pulse manifold with gtx3076r 0.82 divided rear, twin 40mm turbosmart gates, 25 head with solid lifters, gtr inlet manifold/throttle bodies.

So its going to be ultra responsive which is the plan with this new engine. However, if it is too much so and runs out of legs real early then we will throw the 35r back on with a split pulse housing as well and see how it goes then. Either way its going to be interesting!

I was amazed with the torque level my rb30 made - so were many of my passengers...i cant even imagine what an rb34 would feel like!

has anyone here actually experienced an rb34 or even an rb32?

Yeh its for the race car lol.

Gtst circuit car. Using a new 6boost split pulse manifold with gtx3076r 0.82 divided rear, twin 40mm turbosmart gates, 25 head with solid lifters, gtr inlet manifold/throttle bodies.

So its going to be ultra responsive which is the plan with this new engine. However, if it is too much so and runs out of legs real early then we will throw the 35r back on with a split pulse housing as well and see how it goes then. Either way its going to be interesting!

Given Al's results with a GT30 in .82, non-split, it was well and truly maxed out and nosing over in the top end.

With another 400cc it'll be quite interesting to see where the GTX will sit!

GTX3076R with 0.82 divided rear sounds too small for a 3.4L. That would be closer to the equivalent of a 0.63 single rear on a GTX3076R which would be too small for a 3L let alone a 3.4L.

The 1.06 divided rear on the GTX3076R would sure be interesting, would still be ridiculously responsive.

Although I would think the GTX35R with 1.06 divided rear would still be very responsive and make lots of top end on a 3.4L.

Either way super jealous :)

GTX3076R with 0.82 divided rear sounds too small for a 3.4L. That would be closer to the equivalent of a 0.63 single rear on a GTX3076R which would be too small for a 3L let alone a 3.4L.

The 1.06 divided rear on the GTX3076R would sure be interesting, would still be ridiculously responsive.

Although I would think the GTX35R with 1.06 divided rear would still be very responsive and make lots of top end on a 3.4L.

Either way super jealous :)

i cant remember the exact size, however, when i built my rb30 - rips advised a .9 rear if i was to go for a single setup.

i do agree with you Harey...1.06 would be a good fit for the larger 3.4ltr

GTX3076R with 0.82 divided rear sounds too small for a 3.4L. That would be closer to the equivalent of a 0.63 single rear on a GTX3076R which would be too small for a 3L let alone a 3.4L.

The 1.06 divided rear on the GTX3076R would sure be interesting, would still be ridiculously responsive.

Although I would think the GTX35R with 1.06 divided rear would still be very responsive and make lots of top end on a 3.4L.

Either way super jealous :)

Yeh I agree with you there. Unfortunately what happened was the manifold and turbo was originally intended for just a regular rb30.....then as things often do, the plan changed. Using the 3.4L was an afterthought and not initially intended for that setup. But we are going to try it anyway and see what happens and then more then likely throw the gt35r with a .82 divided rear on and see what happens.

Like I was saying its going to be interesting! Its always fun to try new setups.

GTX3076R with 0.82 divided rear sounds too small for a 3.4L. That would be closer to the equivalent of a 0.63 single rear on a GTX3076R which would be too small for a 3L let alone a 3.4L.

The 1.06 divided rear on the GTX3076R would sure be interesting, would still be ridiculously responsive.

Although I would think the GTX35R with 1.06 divided rear would still be very responsive and make lots of top end on a 3.4L.

Either way super jealous :)

only problem is the only divided 1.06 on the market is the ATP housing, which is pretty average.

looking forward to seeing how this goes

I for one am plesently surprised to see someone put together an engine/turbo combination where the turbo isn't running at 50-60% of its capability. While the motor may run out of legs at the redline, really who cares! It will still make 700hp and its mid range power will be simply monsterous. And if you want to go faster you just change gears.

I for one am plesently surprised to see someone put together an engine/turbo combination where the turbo isn't running at 50-60% of its capability. While the motor may run out of legs at the redline, really who cares! It will still make 700hp and its mid range power will be simply monsterous. And if you want to go faster you just change gears.

Some people only see the big fat figure up the top..... not the area under the curve.

Michael, Do you know what the .82 divided housing is off originally?

Not too sure to be honest, I think kyle told me he gets them from the states. Im sure he said its from ATP. I suspect it is this one http://www.atpturbo.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=tp&Product_Code=ATP-HSG-080&Category_Code=GTX

But I will find out for sure next week when it all turns up.

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

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...