Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

lol my bad probably should of checked from page 1 I started reading backwards for 20 pages or so.

lol nws, atleast you can cop the flack.

Page 185 has Simons most recent result, with a direct comparison T67 vs 3076R.. the only difference being the ethanol content of their fuel (but I doubt you need more than the Jew mix simon runs).

You asked your question 2 pages later, within the quoted 20 :P

lol nws, atleast you can cop the flack.

Page 185 has Simons most recent result, with a direct comparison T67 vs 3076R.. the only difference being the ethanol content of their fuel (but I doubt you need more than the Jew mix simon runs).

You asked your question 2 pages later, within the quoted 20 :P

Yeah saw that just brain was lazy and didnt click that the boost was in kpa instead of psi so wasnt making sense until I realised this and converted it lol.

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! mines anti surge...ive never seen a garrett loose power from anti surge.. :unsure:

TD06 25G anti surge 50mm wastegate. better make me my 300kw on e85...damn kando bastards!

Edited by 51NNA

Well on Dori's car which is a head fck as it has some weird issue's.

It was laggier, and less top end. Wanted to ping at 240kw where as last time it was making 280kw on the edge. Lost 30 kw at 100kph also. Had the exact same surge issue as the non anti surge housing which we think is the profec playing silly buggers with us.

It wasnt until we went for a run on the road that i noticed it hitting the boost warning. Weird thing is the boost warning is set at 26psi and profec isoinly reading 20. So i turned warning up to 33psi and it didnt surge once on the road after that.

We couldnt find a bleed valve lying around as i lent my last one out to another customer during the week.

Only things changed since last tune where anti surge housing and the exhaust leak was fixed (other end of the plumb back pipe for external gate wasnt sealing) but is running screamer

well thats a mystery, I cant say ive ran Kando anti surges before but I have run alot of garrett anti's and the most ive seen is a 1-2kw loss, ill pull my cover off tomorrow and compare it to a garrett thats laying around.

Page 185 has Simons most recent result, with a direct comparison T67 vs 3076R.. the only difference being the ethanol content of their fuel (but I doubt you need more than the Jew mix simon runs)

Not the only difference, Simon's was running a bit more boost too if I remember rightly?

I'm wondering if I will have the same issues with mine then. I got a TD06H 25G with 3" anti surge housing. I',m wondering if I should have gone 4" from what your saying

you should be fine bro, that housing is an actual TD07 MHI spec item

the housing Jez and Dori are having issues with is a 'drilled' TD06 3" cover. The Trust style one that never came with drill holes in it normally lol

its a shame it didnt work though :(

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...