Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Ok guys heres 1 from the go pro. Cracked 4th gear skando's down the straight. Next time ill have the camera a littke bit lower soit can see out of the window better

If it doesnt embed can some one help with it.

[url="

[/url]

Ok guys heres 1 from the go pro. Cracked 4th gear skando's down the straight. Next time ill have the camera a littke bit lower soit can see out of the window better

If it doesnt embed can some one help with it.

[url="

%5B/quote%5D

Nice driving mate :)

Even when you just cruise out of the pit area you can tell that turbo gives the RB lots of low down zing. Very very nice.

I tried to embed the video but it didnt work, it seems simple enough but there must be a trick to it..

You would want this part of the URL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHj1yVLbPfw

And what you would have to embed it would look like this:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHj1yVLbPfw[/video]

Also it appears that simply putting in the URL above with no video tags works too:

Almost thinking of putting one of these on the 2.8 im building. Do they make something suitable for a greddy manifold? im not too sure if the flange is the same as a t4, i may have heard the bolt spacing is a little different.

Haha dude this car is built at home. That includes a by eye wheel alignment.

I honestly dont want to get a wheel alignment and do other mods because it handled exactly how i like.

But i ordered the gate and extra lock spacers so i have to get it done before wakefield on the 8th.

Im hoping the 44mm gate will do what i need even with a 38mm pipe from the manifold

No need for wheel alignment, jus undo the bolts from the hub and align the s/wheel till its straight or close to centre and rebolt back to hub lol

Hope it all goes well for ya. But by the looks of things, it will be a killer once boost is set up properly and on a small budget as well, good work mate.

Almost thinking of putting one of these on the 2.8 im building. Do they make something suitable for a greddy manifold? im not too sure if the flange is the same as a t4, i may have heard the bolt spacing is a little different.

What flange is on your greddy manifold? If its T4 then no.

T3 or 3 bolt then yes.

T67 10cm would be nice on the 2.8, be sure of how much power ur chasing then pick the turbo to suit. Dont concern yourself with picking one to suit your manifold, it doesnt work like that.

i know the power i want, but its the mani thats concerning me as if it dont fit then ill stick with the trust turbo. Use what i have available to me for now as i am thinking of going 6boob and an efr down the track when they sort the delivery issues with them out.

U guys post up dyno graphs too ok, dori's the next one i guess? I just hope these td06sl2-20gs are responsive- im using the benchmark gained from ss series turbos:

80rwkw@3000rpms and 180-200rwkw@4000rpms

But i guess how these turbos FEEL as in kick to the nuts is very different to a dyno graph...so thats gotta be the deciding factor--- i like a good hard kick to my nuts when it comes and lots low down snappiness

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...