Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

My SS2 made 290rwkws on 18psi and 307rwkws on 21psi, full boost around 3600rpms. very responsive and linear on road.

Price for a CNC billet turbo custom made for OEM bolton internally gated at given level of performance it is pretty cheap. if you want a bolton turbo that makes the power then that is probably the best turbo to go for.

Other wise there are plenty of options available for ext gated high mount setups, check the dynosection for their references.

simon-s14 think thats his user name said a few guys including him made 300rwkw with a stock manifold external gate low mount gt3076 with a .63 rear

hey kwickr33 whats the ss2 like driving around town boost like is it quick spooling compared to a garrett and whats the transition of boost ie when driving off the lights in 1st then into 2nd and so on

the price stao whants for his ss2 is what i can get a gt3076 and modified manifld with external gate for give or take $200-$300

95 model R33 GTST with 165,000KM stock motor

High flowed 650cc injectors

PWR Front mounted cooler

Xforce turbo back exhaust

Manual boost controller

44mm HKS external gate counted to turbine housing

Hypergear SS-2 stockie bolton turbo

Custom made 3inch intake pipe

PFC and Z32 AFM

Pump 98 fuel. Car made 307rwkws on 22psi, 296rwkws on 20psi.

isnt this ur results kwickr33

No no no, don't go the .63 - especially for that power level. Are you going with an aftermarket exhaust manifold as well?

i can point out 3 cars here all of which run same turbo and set up. well mines a little more crazy running e85 and other bolt ons. but all rb25's are making over 300 rwkw with a .63 rear and none show any taper off from the top end. mine made 365 rwkw in fact.

simon-s14 think thats his user name said a few guys including him made 300rwkw with a stock manifold external gate low mount gt3076 with a .63 rear

Technically possible, but imho its a bit rough - a lot of heat etc involved with that tight a housing - most of the results for that combo I have seen have involved ethanol blends or water/meth injection. I started off with a .63a/r external wastegate GT3076R and swapped it out for a .82a/r internal and never looked back. Well, sortof anyway.

The difference in drive wasn't much different aside from below 3000rpm, either. If I were doing the whole thing again I'd use an FP GT3076R HTA with external gate and 6boost style manifold :)

decent manifold + .63 ex gate housing and 44mm or larger ex gate = loads of flow really. EGT's dont get any hotter then .8 at same power levels.

i know i rather a 300 rwkw .6 rear on 18-20 psi which comes on earlier and has loads more midrange torque for the street then compared to a 300 rwkw .8 rear on 16-18 psi that is laggier.

and yes i have had plenty of exp with both housings and set ups.

I guess with a decent manifold it would make things easier. There is no reason for more midrange torque on the .63 unless the tuning was off with the .82, have any EGT log comparisons etc to show? Again, I've owned both and drove both for thousands of km and I never missed the .63. Everyone is going to have different views, but its worth the OP knowing that its not clear cut. I never had anyone go in or drive my car that considered it laggy, I actually had a bit of a queue of people keen to buy my turbo when word went around I was going to sell it off due to how nice the combo works as a road etc car.

Are you sure its .76?? Most likely to be a .73AR internal wastegate Skyline housing from AVO turboworld

http://www.avoturbo....ust_housing.pdf

Rated to between 280-300rwkw at around 20-22psi on 98Ron fuel.

Nothing wrong with this exhaust housing whatsoever, been running it for a number of years. Spools up nicely, puts down the power well.

"very shit" my arse

I'm not picking on you... But remind us how much power yours makes? Meeting its rating?

Actually you are more or less hitting the high average as it is. I dont recall seeing anyone with 300kw results out of one of those housings. Sorry to say, happy to be proven wrong though.

No no no, don't go the .63 - especially for that power level. Are you going with an aftermarket exhaust manifold as well?

+1

jet2nv - you are in Vic.

Why not just PM users like joeyjoejoejuniorshabadoo and go in their car and see for yourself?

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...