Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hello new kid on the block - lets see if you can handle life on the track better than your Garrett and IHI buddies ;)

attachicon.gifT28-TD05H16G-PE1420.png

Got the TD05H-16G installed and running on the car today - went out for a quick road test, on wastegate boost the "1bar actuator" actually held 11psi with no adjustment. With boost control set up it made 18psi by 3700rpm on the SR20, which is pretty much as expected. About 400rpm laggier than the PE1420, but runs 1psi more boost with the same wastegate setup and certainly feels like it has more "grr". Seems like a great match for what is expected of it :)

Seems pretty good

Touch up tune should see boost response even better alil

But you won't get better boost response than the pe1420 as its much smaller even looks smaller than the t25g but should make abit more power up top and midrange aswell keen to see results

I got the td05h aswell on sr but 18g 264rwkw on e85 but full boost by 4000rpm so should be abit more responsive

Yeah if you put much stock in virtual dyno we were seeing ~220rwkw at 18psi on BP98 with the PE1420, quite a lot more on E85... very impressive turbo, but it failed. The TD05 definitely flows more, can already tell at this stage. I don't know that spool will improve drastically.

Fyi to anyone that wants to know. I put the td05 18g 8cm on my rb20. Adjustable cam gears. Forward facing plenum front mount. Splitfire coilpacks. 750cc injectors. Nistune i made 210 with full boost at 22psi by 4000rpm. Then retuned on e85 and made 241rkw. At 22psi full boost by 4k also. Road drive with both tunes. Very agressive with both tunes but i would say it starts with a better pull woth e85.

Hope this helps everyone if there is any unfinished questions. Ill try post a pic of the dyno sheet when i get a chance

anyone know the difference between the t67 t3 10cm anti-surge and the non anti-sure

also i noticed they had a t67 with a t04r wheel

trying to toss up between one of these or one of HGs for a rb25 on e85 either low or highmount ex gate for around the 330rwkw-350rwkw

anyone know the difference between the t67 t3 10cm anti-surge and the non anti-sure

also i noticed they had a t67 with a t04r wheel

trying to toss up between one of these or one of HGs for a rb25 on e85 either low or highmount ex gate for around the 330rwkw-350rwkw

FP HTA3073 for 350kw and epic response i reckon!

Not a cheap option but i can tell you, after the initial drive in mine with the HTA, ill never use another turbo! Its SO good!

Its appears that all the caste wheeled turbochargers are all in one boat, and all the billet turbochargers are in another boat with marginal differences between any of them.

That VNT turbocharger hypergear made is probably the only turbo that is different. Might be worth while waiting and get that.

Its appears that all the caste wheeled turbochargers are all in one boat, and all the billet turbochargers are in another boat with marginal differences between any of them.

That VNT turbocharger hypergear made is probably the only turbo that is different. Might be worth while waiting and get that.

Just our boat is faster and responds quicker :laugh:

i reckon the kando t67 will do same power with same boost as the fp hta but wont match the response. what the fp hta response like to the turbo hypergear are doing with the vnt cause that looks insane

i reckon the kando t67 will do same power with same boost as the fp hta but wont match the response. what the fp hta response like to the turbo hypergear are doing with the vnt cause that looks insane

So far I think the HTA3076 has made more than any of the T67s have - I could be wrong, but I haven't noticed any matching 391rwkw on a Mainline or Dyno Dynamics.

The rpm readings from the Mainline were a bit hard to work out but could tell that at 4000rpm the HTA3076 had more than the VNT, albeit not massive amounts more (and again the VNT was on a hub dyno) - and the HTA made more power peak... without the risk of having moving parts in the exhaust stream which could fail. Will be interesting to see how Stao gets on with reliability as otherwise it is pretty sweet!

So far I think the HTA3076 has made more than any of the T67s have - I could be wrong, but I haven't noticed any matching 391rwkw on a Mainline or Dyno Dynamics.

The rpm readings from the Mainline were a bit hard to work out but could tell that at 4000rpm the HTA3076 had more than the VNT, albeit not massive amounts more (and again the VNT was on a hub dyno) - and the HTA made more power peak... without the risk of having moving parts in the exhaust stream which could fail. Will be interesting to see how Stao gets on with reliability as otherwise it is pretty sweet!

yea i was going by simons but yes that was on a hub maybe ill push mine up 28 for couple runs on dyno see what it can go for comparrision were thinkin 350 on 20-21 on mainline.

Also agree i think it may run into reliability issues with moving parts it has but its a low bosst pressure for the power its making

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...