Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Anti sure housing makes them abit doughier onto boost, and generally need more pressure for the same power.

Oh really? I never realized this! From what i can see there is no replacement comp cover without the anti surge

Might just have to sell this turbo then and go for something else.

Generally speaking what would be the best kinugawa for 400rwhp on an rb25 these days? something that doesnt need 4000rpm to start spooling! Oh also it seems i have the smaller exhaust housing of the 2 that are available, would getting the bigger one make it more laggy ?

it seems the anti surge is meant to act like somewhat of a blow of valve? very weird because when i got my car tuned i asked not to put a blow of valve on the pipework but it kept blowing of inter cooler pipes so we had to install one...

Just recently got my rb25 tuned ... I only got 350rwhp out of the td07 t25g with 10cm anti surge comp housing @ 18 psi... I was thinking its good for 400hp at those psi levels ? ...

Any ideas why it didn't hit 400?

Typical supporting mods, 550cc inj, z32 afm, powerfc, 3" dump intO twin 2.25 no cat, big fmic and forward facing plenum.

Who tuned it, and how do other RB25 compare on that dyno? Odds are that it's nothing to do with the turbo itself.

Anti sure housing makes them abit doughier onto boost, and generally need more pressure for the same power.

I've heard this quite a bit but haven't seen the testing which confirms this - is there a thread or some results which show this? I'm still really impressed with the only Kando turbo I've used so far, it appears to have no issue at all with spool or making power per psi - with an 8cm internal gate making 20psi by 3600rpm on a stock SR20DET, 250rwkw at 16psi on E85. If a non-antisurge one is substantially better, then wow.

I will backup the anti surge housing also, I had the t67-25g with anti surge, replaced it with his normal cover and gained nearly 800rpm response on same boost, brought it alive, this is all on e85 and 22psi. I wouldn't bother with the anti surge housing in the first place.

Hey Methz, I was totally wracking my brain to remember who it was who tried... I couldn't find your post in the 280 odd pages.

Thanks for chiming in.

Do you have the graphs to support?

I will backup the anti surge housing also, I had the t67-25g with anti surge, replaced it with his normal cover and gained nearly 800rpm response on same boost, brought it alive, this is all on e85 and 22psi. I wouldn't bother with the anti surge housing in the first place.

Interesting - what were the relative spool and power numbers? Was there absolutely no other change in the whole setup? Probably no need for the anti-surge in most cases anyway, but still... I'm surprised that there is that big a difference. I'm not surprised there is perhaps a slight difference - though.

no graphs, car came off dyno made 455rwhp 22psi stock rb25, drove around for a few weeks, was real slow onto boost, around 4800 I was making fullboost on dyno and road testing. had a mate with normal front cover lying around so I switched them and on the road its all on at 4k, nothing else was changed.

  • Like 1

Yes - as far as I know they are. The 16Gs from all I have heard have tended to be a little more flow friendly in the "TD06" compressor housings that most of them come from Kando with, not sure exactly how true that is but the 16G cars with the bigger housings seem to punch the better numbers... we treated that as plausible enough that it's what was decided on

Can someone tell me, is the trust t517Z comp wheel and the TD05 16G6 comp wheel the same wheel?

cheers

darren

YEZZZ is same.

The numbering is simple, T517Z for TD05 16G6 and 518 for 18G variant. Likewise T618Z is TD06 18G.

MHI do have a 17C compressor but it is not a suitable candidate, so don't fret its definitely not 517 for 17C.. They called it a 517 because the 16G6 is a larger version of the original 16G.

I will backup the anti surge housing also, I had the t67-25g with anti surge, replaced it with his normal cover and gained nearly 800rpm response on same boost, brought it alive, this is all on e85 and 22psi. I wouldn't bother with the anti surge housing in the first place.

Mines making 20psi and 250rqhp at about 4700 rpm at the moment on 98 pump fuel, maybe changing to non anti surge housing will help , but what rear housing did you have ?

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

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...