Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What method did you use to do this man? I should really have a better look at mine.

I put my plug with valve stem in the throttlebody join and plugged the join coming out the turbo, aswell as any other vac lines to the carbon cannister/plenum. So effectively pressurizing from just after turbo to just before the throttlebody.

See the plugging is where I struggled

The one I found was the same size as my joiners and so wouldn't fit into my silicone to make a tight fit.

No plumbing place had the correct size

Also when I finally tried to get pressure it would just go via the hose to the cam cover and leak

So I guess the trick is blocking directly from the turbo with a suitable plug (couldn't find one)

Then as you said directly at the throttle body

I have a little electric bike pump haha.

Would purchase them off you if you could make 2 the correct size for a good price.

Also a small hole to put a bike nipple thing

So one to fit in that silicone going to the throttle body. (This is between the crossover and the throttle body itself?)

Then one to fix straight to the front of the turbo.

If the intake is 3inch then what size silicone hose do you purchase to make a snug fit?

You have one of my intakes, they are 80mm, like the afm.

Why do you want to block the pipe at the throttle? You want to test the vac lines and manifold too.

I usually just put a brass hose barb in the end, just let me know what size you need (they are imperial like all air fittings.) A bike pump won't cut it, you need a compressor to supply enough flow or the leaks will drop the pressure.

Has anyone pressurised the intake to over 40psi? I noticed the new silicone joiners compress and leak no matter how tight you do up the clamp, making funny squeak noises. (like blowing through a gum leaf.)

I found that it leaked to much air via the hose coming out of the cam cover.

So when I was doing it from the intake pipe it would just leak.

Doing it direct from the turbo cuts out that.

Also I found my engine just wouldnt build or hold the compression when I had it going into the manifold etc.

This is why I just gave up and took it for a smoke test, which in the end didn't tell me anything really

Because there is a problem. Like I have already said, as long as there are no valves in overlap, there should be no leaks. If your catch can/breather is leaking or not plumbed into the intake then you will have issues, either fix them temporarily or permanently.

I might go measure my little thing I made up

And see if I can get a silicone joiner to go over your 3inch intake & over it.

Sounds funny but when I first installed your intake I purchased the wrong silicone joiner

And had to use heaps of time making it fit over it.

Thanks for all the info scotty

How do you purchase the wrong silicon joiner? Their measurements are for internal diameter, so unless your intake pipe has like 5mm walls then a 3" joiner should go onto a 3" pipe just fine.

The one I used between the AFM and the intake pipe. - Silicone Straight Hose Coupler 3 inch/ 76mm Black (Was hard as fark to fit)

The one I used between the intake and the turbo - Silicone Straight Hose Coupler 3.125" 80mm (This was easy)

Yep, it's an 80mm (3.125 inch) intake, with 2 mm wall = 3 inch internal. Tube is measured as outside diameter though.

3 inch silicone will stretch over luckily as 80mm silicone reducers are impossible to find. You may need to heat the silicone to soften it enough.

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...