Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

AH. You must have got given the non-ported version. The ported one is 34mm.

As reference my SS1PU is 29mm. Fingers crossed for Saturday.

Success - strangely it holds ~.9-1bar of boost on wastegate boost, which is more like what we expected in the first place. Mysterious, but at least it's sorted now :)

Qu O/T.

has anyone used a kando turbine housing (like the ones below) on a garrett gt30 based turbo?

http://shopping.kinugawaturbo.com/turbinehousingkinugawagarrettgt3037gt3076rgt3071rgt30rar618cm.aspx

if so, what were the results and what are your thoughts on the quality?

would you think the A/R 8cm is too small for a 2.0L 4-cyl twin-cam engine?

thanks.

Qu O/T.

has anyone used a kando turbine housing (like the ones below) on a garrett gt30 based turbo?

http://shopping.kinugawaturbo.com/turbinehousingkinugawagarrettgt3037gt3076rgt3071rgt30rar618cm.aspx

if so, what were the results and what are your thoughts on the quality?

would you think the A/R 8cm is too small for a 2.0L 4-cyl twin-cam engine?

thanks.

It doesnt fit the good gt30's any way 56t / 84 version is the way to go.

It doesnt fit the good gt30's any way 56t / 84 version is the way to go.

yes it does.

- Turbine wheel Spec : 84 Trim / 60.0 Major / 55.0 mm Exducer

- There are three types of GT3071R turbine wheel. This housing can not fit 56.5mm/trim 84 nor 56.5mm/trim 90 turbine wheel.

And this is with Link boost control turned off on the dyno, so just wastegate boost:

attachicon.gifMaxInj.png

And an interesting update since the boost creep issue has been pretty much sorted, couldn't do 3rd gear because of lack of traction (??!!!!) on 18psi - even 4th getting a bit skatey (it's around 0 degrees here tonight)... decent spool even on 80% throttle though:

post-11136-0-68171000-1373537973_thumb.png

yes it does.

- Turbine wheel Spec : 84 Trim / 60.0 Major / 55.0 mm Exducer

- There are three types of GT3071R turbine wheel. This housing can not fit 56.5mm/trim 84 nor 56.5mm/trim 90 turbine wheel.

ahh thought it said it didnt fit the 56mm 84 version... which is the only one worth using.

  • Like 1

ahh thought it said it didnt fit the 56mm 84 version... which is the only one worth using.

Interesting.. Not a fan of the 60mm 84T?

I thought the creme of the crop was the 3037 60mm 84T?

  • 2 weeks later...

I have a feeling that IWG housing is a flanged version of the fail-whale 3 bolt one. If you remember there was a guy who hacked open his fail-whale housing to make it a proper open flanged rear end (a Jez customer) and that also failed.

I would probably do this with an EWG housing like urtwhistle, or would consider a G3 with some massive v-band outlet (IWG).

I have a feeling that IWG housing is a flanged version of the fail-whale 3 bolt one. If you remember there was a guy who hacked open his fail-whale housing to make it a proper open flanged rear end (a Jez customer) and that also failed.

I would probably do this with an EWG housing like urtwhistle, or would consider a G3 with some massive v-band outlet (IWG).

yes was concerned about that...but 830 bucks :woot: and its a 12cm so maybe it'll work a little betterer

some goose tried to convince me to put a EFR turbo on it which would be awesome but jeezuuz i can almost get a 2jz half cut for the same price...

also all the budget 7m manifolds are t4 it seems...its an NA+T so 9.something compression...only aiming for low boost and responsiveness and I would prefer IG to keep it simple , not aiming for big power just a meaty midrange and good spread...g3 could work well would prefer power from 3-6rpm

Got some tree stumps need pulling

hahahah dam iphone........... If your going for low boost I wouldn't go the TD06H like I did. I would probably stick to the ordinary TD06 so that it boosts a bit quicker. I went the billet compressor wheel too so I'm not sure what difference that made. Yeah I think it was the one you said wouldn't work hahhahaha. but then again if my memory serves me correct it has a 3" surge TD07 compressor cover not the normal ones. I can't remember, it was too many bourbons ago. All I know is that when I fix all the pipes that blow off above 20psi and fuel surge it will make more power by the feel of it.

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...