Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

The T67 should do 400 easy. I sure am getting sick of the anti surge whistle on mine. I now answer the question about the whistle b4 my friends ask what the noise is lol

Mines not a daily so hopefully takes me a little longer to get sick of it.

Hey guys can someone clear something up for me.

I have a TD06H-20G serial on compressor (8371200035). Mine was internally gated but is set-up using a Progate 40 on stock manifold.

I was under the impression i had the larger of the rear exhaust housings because it reaches full boost ~5000rpm (unopened/non-cammed motor)

Before I have a good look at any numbers on the exhaust housing, how can I work out which housing it is?

Obviously I'm wishing to reduce lag with a smaller rear, but just need to sort out how to determine which one I have already. Or is mine one people were having issues with? I dont mind going to a external waste gate rear housing altogether

Cheers.

Edited by Kane_R32

Did you buy it from blake? Aka bsa?

if yours is t3 internal gate then its definitely an 8cm, its the only size they come.

to save money and get the better results, buy a td06sl2 20g core and a 8cm v band rear housing, then reuse your existing comp cover. You will make the same power if not more and spool will increase dramatically. You will need to fab a new dump, and buying the core and housing will be about 500.

Forget the 20G wheel on the TD05 turbine . Just run the 18G compressor (IMO ) Basically the same compressor sheer just a smaller trim. I have one on the bench that i wanted to back to back with my TDO6-20G but its never going to happen so Will be for sale sooner or later with a Trust 8cm rear housing. Would be a good think to throw a 68mm billet compressor at

TD06SL-20G 8cm or TD05-18G 10cm?

Using stock manifold with Progate 40mm controlling boost. Hoping to push 20-22psi

I'm tossing up between these two. Response/Less Lag are more priority over outright power.

Wanting 220+ rwkw with cam gears (obviously exhaust/555cc/pump/cooler/z32 are done).

TD05H 18G should not run 10cm on an RB20, it will be laggier than necessary and wont make any extra power.

The TD05H 18G 8cm will get you the most responsive 220kw out of the Kando range

TD06SL2 20G 8cm will probably get you 240+ kw for your setup, will probably be the same amount of lag as a TD05H 10cm

Hypergear SS1PU will be more responsive than a TD05H 18G and will probably make similar power to what a TD06SL2 20g 8cm will.

FYI I ordered and paid for my SS1PU on Monday, I have a tracking number for it already - its in the mail!

Really depends on my injectors man. At the moment I've got 555s, if I stick with those ill dial my cams for max response and get 230. If my budget allows for a change ill grab 1000s and aim for 260.

I dont recall reading what changes he was going to do.

I'd been talking to him a lot about the specs of those turbos a lot recently (which lead to me buying one).

Im not sure if he will have changed much TBH.

Two of my mates are running these turbos and I'm thinking i might get one for my 25. Wanting to keep it internal gate so it doesn't spoil the sound of my gtsr manifold.

What options do I have for good midrange to make awesome response?

I have the basic stuff. 3 inch turbo back.

Fmic

Surge tank setup with upgraded pumps

Pfc

550cc injectors

Clutch

Diff etc etc

Not chasing large numbers but 250 plus or around about would be good on a safe tune.

Any help would be awesome. I have read through parts of this thread so I understand most of it just looking for peoples opinions.

Adam

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...