Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • 3 months later...

What sort of noise does an M35 turbo usually make when its on the way out? I have always heard turbo failure as a whine, but mine and just started making a clicking/scratching noise under low boost/when i take off, but rectifying itself higher in the revs or in 3rd+ gear. Is this actually the turbo on the way out?

The Odo says its only done 66k, seems a litte early really...

What sort of noise does an M35 turbo usually make when its on the way out? I have always heard turbo failure as a whine, but mine and just started making a clicking/scratching noise under low boost/when i take off, but rectifying itself higher in the revs or in 3rd+ gear. Is this actually the turbo on the way out?

The Odo says its only done 66k, seems a litte early really...

try adding 50-100k to that figure for the real mileage...

Edited by ironpaw

What sort of noise does an M35 turbo usually make when its on the way out? I have always heard turbo failure as a whine, but mine and just started making a clicking/scratching noise under low boost/when i take off, but rectifying itself higher in the revs or in 3rd+ gear. Is this actually the turbo on the way out?

The Odo says its only done 66k, seems a litte early really...

That's pretty much the way they sound; mine made some very odd noises for a while (sounded like the BOV was leaking, then sealing) before it became extremely noisy, but still made boost (dropped a blade tip) then failed completely (dropped the rest of the blades) about 500km later.

You might want to start exploring your rebuild options before it fails completely.

try adding 50-100k to that figure for the real mileage...

Mine lasted until 105,000km but I'm pretty sure it had around 20-30,000km more in reality. There is no ironclad guarantee that the number on the odo, is the actual reading.

Cheers guys, as i bought from a dealer I may be able to get something under statutory warranty (only bought the car 4 weeks ago).

Completely understand about the ks thing, I have owned jap imports for years (s1 stag, silvia, cefiro) and they have all had "low ks" when they clearly have been wound back, but judging by the condition of this one there no way its done 150k plus, even if it had been wound back 30k, I wouldnt expect a bog stock car with under 100k on the clock to have turbo failure...shame on nissan ift his is a regular occurance.

Ha... yeah, happens all the time. Not always the kms, but blockages in the oil feed line don't help the matter and starve the turbo of oil. Its the sort of thing you should budget for when buying the car really. It was a bad design, and very restricted.

So plan would be - Scotty dump pipe, turbo rebuild with smallest highflow- whatever Dale got seems to be on the money. That will make it happy.

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...