Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Scott/Simon/who ever else has a kando

Can anyone confirm if the T67 oil feed hole in the CHRA is teh same as my T78? mine looks like a 12mm thread, doesnt have a 2 bolt flange thingo like a lot of Garrett/BW turbos

The TD05 looks like its got a 12mm thread also but thats a completely different turbo...

Why don't you email Mr Takada of Taiwan and ask him if he stocks what you require.

If you said 'Trust T78 to 1JZ oil line' I bet you he will be able to post you exactly what you need.

Awesome, what diameter steam pipe did you use?, those housing are so skinny compared to a garrett

cheers

darren

Its 40mm internal, about the same diameter as the nozzle, into a 44mm gate.

Artz, just finished hacking up your rear housing. It looks the goods man, hoping for 300kw out of this for you. :thumbsup:

Love your work, looks like you have the angle and everything sorted... Should control boost well!

Is this a TD06SL2 or T67?

Thanks guys, I definitely like to design around a good airflow path. Hopefully this works well. If David gets some pics of the inside you will see its ported nicely which was critical if he wants 300+ imo. I hope it pulls the numbers.

I wonder if a T67 will fit under my Stagea... Simon, can you measure the front housing for me one day? :whistling:

Definitely looking forward to see the results from Artz. Are you going to be running 98 or E85? When is it hitting the dyno?

I'm trying to talk him into an eflex tune as theres a Caltex with it not far away. Its a big ask of a stock engine though, whats it going to run, between 300 and 350kw?

Hey guys..sorry bros bday, been drinking and bowling..

If i can run ethanol i definately will..injectors are 650 sards form a JZ..see how they go..hopefully PULP results are decent enough anyway

Scott has done an absolute ripper job of it, once again he has turned my warped dreams into reality :cheers:

IMG_8892.jpg

I will also install a decat for tune so if there is any restriction it will only be my china cooler.

Zeb..just measured and the oil feed is definately 12mm thread :thumbsup:

^^^what manifold/gate setup u use?

You can see in this video from the weekend that in 3rd gear on a couple of the slower corners I am struggling for a little bit of drive on corner exits....Winton is the reason why I want to get a TD05H-18G to try, et more poke out of the corners. Winton is the toughest circuit for the RB20 running a 20G...but it makes you really work hard to try and carry as much corner speed as possible to keep boost up it

Yeh, yeh... i know i am whoring this vid everywhere :whistling:

Dont blame you its a good vid, having to keep corner speed up is a good thing isnt it, keeps you on your feet so to speak

Its like watching one of Russmans old vids before he went crazy

did you forget to bolt your seat down?..

Zeb..just measured and the oil feed is definately 12mm thread :thumbsup:

Do you have a pic, of the turbo...looks like mine has a built in restrictor and the Kando ones show a bolt on flange for their feed.

Ill grab a pic of mine in a minute (MUST FINISH COFFEE or I will die lol)

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...