Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Ok i know i might get flamed for this but i have had a look around and i can't really find much and answers im looking for.

Long story short i bought this turbo off a mate that converted it from bolting onto a SR by putting a OP6 rear housing on it, whilst doing that he rebuilt it and got it highflowed by Adelaide turbo services.

Turbo is no blown and in my possession and im at the point where im going to get it rebuilt bigger or to similar specs soon, only problem is im not too sure if i should go bigger as im chasing midrange and more responce.

The engine is a rb25 so i know what you are thinking "why more responce" i shift around the 4-6000 rpm and ill be using the car for hill climbs and motokahanas once shes all back together. The turbo was on his rb25 and he said it would spool up really quick witch is what i am after.

The turbo from what i can tell is a 2860rs with a .63 rear housing. Doing some searching this turbo will choke on a rb25 up top end but im not chasing top end power.

What type of power should i expect from this turbo if i rebuild it to it's current specs?

What do people recommend if i decide to go bigger? Something around the 3071r 3076 etc?

Anyone got dyno print outs or have fitted one of these to their car?

I have attached some pics below:

12032012394.jpg

12032012395.jpg

12032012397.jpg

I tryed looking around before posting as i hate reading noob threads :domokun: .

Thanks

Adam

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/394518-feed-back-needed/
Share on other sites

His post was not pointless...

What he is saying is that the rear housing and wheel has a ... LOT... of room.

This means it could potentially be quite laggy, and for such a small compressor - its sorta the worst of both worlds.

You'd be better off with a 3071, or going smaller to say a HKS2530 size turbo if you really want response (220rwkw).

Being highflowed in the past means it is no longer a GT2860RS.... it just has the RS front cover, who knows whats inside.

It does look poorly sized at the moment. If it is blown I recommend you send it to Hypergear and have him fit one of his CHRA into your housings. Should cost less than a full turbo.

If it is not blown I recommend you work out what spec it is then sell it used. Put that money towards a hypergear SS1PU.

GL

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...