Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Very nice gains!  How does it drive with the new cams by comparison? Dyno sheet is suggesting much better spool - 60kw more at 3500rpm is quite a difference haha.

Who make 268/272 VCT compatible cams, too?

  • Like 1

Haven't driven the car at all. Car was meant to do Malalla last weekend (Skyline nationals) but I have some steering issues. Was going to be a good test but yeah...

Comparing the old graph with pon cams to this its interesting the larger cams make more low down power, even though the pon cams are "low down" Would be interesting to run the factory intake manifold and see how much more I would pick up down low.


Camtech are the cams. Supplied through Garage 7.

Did you get a boost graph to overlay?

ie. how much (if any) of the low-down comes from boost delivery.  Presuming a few extra psi will have been a big part in the numbers up top.

Whatever the changes, it's obviously a pretty happy setup and you've hit on a good combination.  Must be painful waiting until the steering is fixed to have a drive.

 

I am keen to take this thing out and drive it, but I have spent so much cash this year to get me out last weekend and its let me down. I'm packing it away until I get back from Bali after the new year and get everything sorted out once I arrive back.

I still need to get a suitable diff to bin the weldy, and get in one of the last 25 boxes Nissan have left in and fitted up.

IMG_2475.JPG

  • 2 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 7 months later...
  • 8 months later...

^ wrong thread guys.

The TD05 16G is an awesome turbo but the wastegate actuator that comes with the turbo is pretty crap - external gate or a different actuator detract from the cost effectiveness and ease of using these but in terms of reliability and performance for the price they would be very very hard to beat

 

  • 3 months later...

I've read through the forums (hypergear, garrett and this thread) in search for a new turbo and just need a bit of help. 

RB25DET with usual supporting mods ready for turbo upgrade. 

Looking at a garrett gen II gtx3076 ext gate low mount with 0.82 a/r

However I've since been pointed in the direction of Kando/Kinugawa. 

Looking at these two options - 

Kinugawa Gtx3076 

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com.au%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F292621030784

Or Kinugawa td06-sl250g 10cm

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com.au%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F292369075155

 

Anyone had experience with either? Will they fit low mount ext gate and which would be better for 300kw or close to on p98? 

I've checkout out hypergear but tuner isn't keen. 

Have scoured the forums but a lot of Kando info is a few years old now. Worst case I'll save for garrett gtx3076 but people have said good things about these and considering the $$, thought I'd research. 

Thanks! 

Edited by RR34GTT

The first one has more compressor capability than turbine.  BB cartridge probably means it would offer better streetable response.  Assuming impeller design is a copy from Garrett.

The second one has more turbine capability than compressor. More open turbine ought to function well on track with generally higher rpm and wider throttle openings.

Both are compromises if you want to fit it to a Neo 25, so depends what you are doing with the car.  They would drive differently if you could run back to back test.

That 20G would struggle to make 280kW on P98.

The GTX probably could exceed 300kW on P98.

Neither would be a bad thing, and it comes down to price.  Garrett pricing for a GTX around 25-2700, you'd hope for better performance and reliability from the real thing.

Have you looked at the BW S256 or S257? Viable alternatives and within the price range of the Kinugawa stuff too.

 

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...