Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Both those graphs are my 20G. I dont have results for my 18G. I gave it to a friend who is going to run it on his SR20 Cortina :)

The Plazmaman plenum is actually laggier than std but the curve doesnt nose over at the top. For me I wouldnt put a plenum on an RB20. You lose torque and the only way they end up faster is if you absolutely flog the guts out of them with revs. I used to use 8,800 in 1st, 2nd and 3rd gears and about 8,000 in 4th gear. If you care about the life of your engine I am not sure that is a good recipe for a std engine with std oil punp etc etc and 23psi

No worries!

In the case of the 18G I have done I honestly feel that the stock position housing could be holding it back somewhat. I have no evidence to back this up though. It made roughly 210kw with ease on a Mustang dyno. I've noticed knock here and there recently so may speak to Jez about a touch up on his current dyno.

You make me wish I'd gone a 16G6 on that car though :)

Yeah, I had figured that I'd rather a 16G6 + TD06 housing than a stock position 18G for the same reason - the 18G is rated at around 40lb/min, the late 16G6 compressor maps show ~41lb/min at 2.4 pressure ratio, so it has all the flow we'd need at the boost range we'll be working with.

Lith stop giving me regrets! LOL it seems the 18G is obsolete, unless its completely application specific.

Kane the graph looks tops :) Good stout power for an RB20. Keep it on the boil and that would be a very quick car.

Stao should make bolt on TD05H 16G6 turbos for RB20s the same way he used the T28 housing to make his SS1PU.

The revs and road speed dont quite match my run on a Mainline dyno with std diff and 235/40/17" RE55 semis. My road speed and revs match up prety well according do the AiM dash so I suspect your car may actually be a little more responsive as I suspect the revs are calculated from road speed? so perhaps a tad wrong with the rpm? I dont know how the Mainline dynos work out rpm.

Did Jem seem to think cam gears are a good option? I would be doing that years before I think about putting a FFP on a car

Ordered a td06 20g 10cm for my s2 rb25 now I have sold my other turbo that I wasn't going to be happy with the out come. Staying pump fuel for the time been and hopefully pull 300kw out of the old girl but ill find out in time, still have a a lot to do before the tune next year sometime but I can't wait to see the results.

Does anyone know if kando dynamics do front housings on their own?

I know they do rear housings, because i was thinking of changing a XR6 turbo to a the larger .70 front housing and then using the smaller .82 rear housing rather than the 1.06 they come with stock to compensate for the lag on the larger front. Just hope he .82 won't be too small for the 4L.

There is very little lag with the larger front imo, it simply slows the air speed down a little in the outlet pipe due to the extra area. I have an aftermarket 0.7 housing here for a GT35 if you want to try it out before swapping the rear.

AFAIK Kando don't sell a 35R front housing on its own, and from memory the XR6T CHRA isn't a normal GT DBB core... So the backing plate on the front housing MIGHT be different. I really stress the might...

In terms of lag, I believe only initial spool up from idle/cruise conditions will be effected and only a minor amount. To my knowledge the larger housing will actually have better boost recovery (response when at speed).

That being said, you should hit up Scotty for his :)

Does anyone know if kando dynamics do front housings on their own?

I know they do rear housings, because i was thinking of changing a XR6 turbo to a the larger .70 front housing and then using the smaller .82 rear housing rather than the 1.06 they come with stock to compensate for the lag on the larger front. Just hope he .82 won't be too small for the 4L.

check with Stao?

mates, please help me.

so there is a big chioce of TD06 types turbos with anti surge, 15G 20G 25G and so on. but as I understand all these needs the wastegate (better then actuator), custom manifold and down pipe - am I right?

second question - if to choose the TD06 series - which model is the best one(minimum lag, fast spool, optimal for rb25det neo)?

and the last question - doen anybody have experience with bolt on one (dyno graph, feedback) : http://shopping.kinugawaturbo.com/upgradeturbochargerrb20detrb25detwstage3turbine68mmcomp450bhp.aspx

40101035001A.JPG

i checked the size of compressor and turbine - they are similar to Greddy TD06-20G:

http://www.ztechz.net/id1.html

The only one that is a 'bolt on' turbo is the one you linked. It is a T04E stage 3 turbine with what appears to be a 20G compressor. It has been hypothesized that it will make a good highflow and fall between the performance of a GTRS or 3071. So likely to achieve 270kw when pushed and reasonable response.

However, we are yet to see an actual result from it. I believe one was posted to FB at some stage but it hasn't made its way to this thread yet.

If you looking at something of highflow level have a look at a Hypergear. The highflows he does are tried and proven, with countless positive results and good feedback. A safer bet IMHO. His thread is on the main page like this one.

Have booked the dyno to tune my mates S14 with a 8cm TD05H-Evo3 16G on flex fuel, we will go to full E85 and at this stage may go up to around 20-21psi. Will post results for that when it's done.

Do people realise (or have any thoughts) on the sentiment that the Evo3 16G is often considered to flow similar to the 18G? This fact was part of the grounds we chose the Evo16G compressor over the 18G though will soon enough know if that was folly. So far it happily pumping enough air to keep the SR20's thirst for air quenched, so seems good so far.

Also, I had previously posted ~3700rpm for full boost - that was rolling on throttle, later testing showed that it gets 19psi by 3500rpm in 3rd gear and holds power nicely past 6000rpm, compared to the old PE1420 which hit a wall before 6000rpm.

This turned out to be a very frustrating day on the dyno - after doing plenty of testing on the road before booking the tune etc, the thing decided to be a dick on the dyno and we lost a good couple of hours trying to resolve a major boost creep issue that we had never seen before. We ended up giving up on doing that with paid for dyno time (quite hard to secure a booking for this kind of thing) so we decided to try and make the best we could of the situation, which ended up being able to hold roughly 16-17psi up to 5800rpm and then try and get the boost control sorted later, then just tidy up the last bits of fuelling on the road as the main purpose of the dyno was really to get a picture of what timing the engine wanted on a variety of different loads and ethanol blends - which we achieved.

End result on E77 was 250kw @ 5800rpm running about 17psi with full boost at 3500rpm on a 9 second run which is pretty decent, I reckon. Power was still climbing with more rpm, so if we could have held 17psi the full way it would have made more than 250 at that boost level... and it was also very keen on power gains with more boost. We saw over 270kw on 20psi with soft timing at just over 6000rpm before we gave up on trying to tame the boost control, so there is plenty more power in this setup.

Unsure at this stage whether the issue is a Kando Dynamic quality issue or if something else in the setup decided to be funny, will update if it turns out to be a Kando fail however it must again be noted that the car never previously had a boost control issue - though it does sound like it may have developed a few days before the dyno and at the time the owner thought nothing of the cut out he experienced thinking it was something else.

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

    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
    • If they can dyno them, get them dyno'd, make sure they're not leaking, and if they look okay on the dyno and are performing relatively well, put them in the car.   If they're leaking oil etc, and you feel so inclined, open them up yourself and see what you can do to fix it. The main thing you're trying to do is replace the parts that perish, like seals. You're not attempting to change the valving. You might even be able to find somewhere that has the Tein parts/rebuild kit if you dig hard.
×
×
  • Create New...