Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

interested to see how u go with that turbo i have been thinking about using the same one except low mounted on the stock manifold with a spacer/wastegate adaptor. but im thinking its gonna be restricted greatly by the manifold so i might just use their td06L2 with the 10cm rear.....

interested to see how u go with that turbo i have been thinking about using the same one except low mounted on the stock manifold with a spacer/wastegate adaptor. but im thinking its gonna be restricted greatly by the manifold so i might just use their td06L2 with the 10cm rear.....

Exactly what my plan was until the turbo arrived... The front compressor housing is big (like a Garrett 0.7) and it was going to need like a 30mm spacer!

In the end I figured getting a spacer, another gasket, the exhaust housing welded etc was all going to be a headf**k (and decent cost) so I just ended up going a 6boost. Plus as you said the standard manifold was probably going to be a restriction at the power I'm trying to make.

The TD06L2 10cm also seems like a good option, I think the only difference being it is water cooled as well. Plus I have read that the 20g front wheel really runs out of puff at about 270rwkw

PS. Shouldn't have to wait long, car is going to be on the dyno this week (fingers crossed maybe even tonight)

T67-25g 10cm Photos

2010-11-15174456.jpg

2010-11-15174549.jpg

2010-11-15174521.jpg

Tial 44mm Gate

2010-11-15145654.jpg

6boost Manifold

2010-12-06190502.jpg

2010-12-06190705.jpg

Looks pretty good :)

2010-12-08183913.jpg

Edited by SimonR32

Turbo looks good, Simon & Battery, the T67-25G and the TD06-20gL2 share the same turbine wheel and housing, the difference is the T67 uses a TD07S comp wheel and housing, which is also the same as the TD06-25G

the adaptor i have is similar to this...

post-31991-1260673977_thumb.jpg

but yeh that t67 is pretty big :) ill be putting it into a 33 which i think will give me a little more room?

i'd love a 6 boost but im not really interested in paying the $1300 to get one!!

there seem to be a few guys pushing 260-270kw with the td06L2 8cm rear on sr20/rb20, so i think it may be possible to get to 280kw with the 10cm rear...

Keep looking around for a 2nd hand 6-boosy, I sold mine which was a twin scroll T4 for $500.

yeh i could stomach $500..

i think ill wait for simons result before i decide on anything, should be interesting...

what are the lines and fittings included in the kit like?

yeh i could stomach $500..

i think ill wait for simons result before i decide on anything, should be interesting...

what are the lines and fittings included in the kit like?

Oil feed is good (you need a fitting to go into the block), oil drain was a tad short so we are replacing with a braided line (better to be safe with heat + oil = fire)

I'm crossing fingers for results tonight... All we have to do is the oil drain, dump pipe and gate screamer pipe!

SO, sick of toasting RB25 boxes behind a 20 so you throw a more powerful RB25 engine in front of the same sort of gearbox? :) Any excuse to lose the RB20 ay? :)

Interesting to see how it goes...you guys are just rough bastards. My car will hit 200,000kms this weekend at Winton and its still the original gearbox !

SO, sick of toasting RB25 boxes behind a 20 so you throw a more powerful RB25 engine in front of the same sort of gearbox? :) Any excuse to lose the RB20 ay? :)

Interesting to see how it goes...you guys are just rough bastards. My car will hit 200,000kms this weekend at Winton and its still the original gearbox !

Don't you like my reasoning haha

Roy I love my RB20's and always will, but times are changing and I just couldn't see a way to keep up with the Jones without going more capacity :)

Got some results via text message, made another 100hp will post graphs soon

Actually ended up going 517rwhp (386rwkw) without correction...

So that is a 127hp more than the RB20, plus it's 700rpm quicker to come on boost and nearly doubles torque between 3000rpm-5000rpm

Does nothing but burnouts in pretty much all gears

Actually ended up going 517rwhp (386rwkw) without correction...

So that is a 127hp more than the RB20, plus it's 700rpm quicker to come on boost and nearly doubles torque between 3000rpm-5000rpm

Does nothing but burnouts in pretty much all gears

I know what turbo my 1jz is going to get now!!@!@!@!@1

What fuel? Throw some decent suspension and tyres at it now.

I've got all adjustable links but my rear shocks are not the best... I have a pair of RE55's at home but don't want to lap them on the street so the plan is to get some KU36 and see how they grip.

I know what turbo my 1jz is going to get now!!@!@!@!@1

I'll post the graph up pretty soon but it makes 15psi at 4000rpm which is a bit later than STATUS results but it may be because of the fuel (which seems to make turbos laggier on most cars) or because the turbo was literary brand new when it drove on the dyno with no run in.

Still massively impressed with the results, the car feels about on par for pace as my old GTR which makes for a scary RWD

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...