Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Nothing comes easy with performance setups.

However - maybe the ITB setup is over-rated.  eg. Nissan persevered with it on the GTR and GTiR.

No sign of it on the VR38 engine, and Mitsubishi never put it on the Emo range.  Surely throttle response/control on a rally car is an important factor to performance?

 

In the case of the GTiR, ITBs are too much effort for what they're worth.
N/A it makes a bit more sense, and the setup is a bit more basic, but for forced induction... It makes no sense to me.

  • Like 1
On 10/16/2017 at 5:38 PM, Jordy32 said:

That plenum adapter is a shame, I asked Matt about it after seeing it installed on your car and he showed me a number of photos which look identical to the ones above. It's possible but no way is it as "bolt-on" as Otaku Garage claim..

From seeing how it was made to work in person I can confidently say there's no way they actually bolted an RB26 plenum to an RB25 head with this adapter.

Not sure what you mean? They definately work just need a decent amount of modification to existing parts which is not disclosed anywhere

  • 1 month later...

For anyone wondering what work is involved in getting the OtakuGarage ITS adaptor working, it's a lot. Firstly you have to get your RB26 coolant rail modified to clear the thermostat housing outlet. This is a fair bit of work and is certainly a job for a fabricator. When doing this you have to removed enough material for it to clear but also leave enough to not create a bottle neck in the coolant passage. Then you have to find an RB30 thermostat housing as a normal RB20/25/26 one won't work without a large amount of grinding on the acutal ITB's. Then you have to replace the bolts with M8 studs and nuts, and the top stud has to be shorter than the others. Then you have to grind  away the lip around the outside of the RB30 theromstat housing, and grind even more away where the bolt for the coolant rail will foul the housing. It is a small mission but doable.

You should be able to see most of what i am talking about in these pics.

 

 

20171115_130910.jpg

20171115_130916.jpg

received_1779815438726921.jpeg

received_1779815445393587.jpeg

  • Thanks 1
56 minutes ago, iruvyouskyrine said:

For anyone wondering what work is involved in getting the OtakuGarage ITS adaptor working, it's a lot. Firstly you have to get your RB26 coolant rail modified to clear the thermostat housing outlet. This is a fair bit of work and is certainly a job for a fabricator. When doing this you have to removed enough material for it to clear but also leave enough to not create a bottle neck in the coolant passage. Then you have to find an RB30 thermostat housing as a normal RB20/25/26 one won't work without a large amount of grinding on the acutal ITB's. Then you have to replace the bolts with M8 studs and nuts, and the top stud has to be shorter than the others. Then you have to grind  away the lip around the outside of the RB30 theromstat housing, and grind even more away where the bolt for the coolant rail will foul the housing. It is a small mission but doable.

You should be able to see most of what i am talking about in these pics.

Whoops, forgot to post the pics. But yours are basically identical to what I would have been posting. Cheers.

6 minutes ago, iruvyouskyrine said:

Got any pics of it fitted up in the end? Noticed you havent posted an engine bay shot since the update :)

Well what do you know, I haven't either haha. I'll get one up soon when I provide the remainder of the updates for this year.

  • 6 months later...

Hi, sir... I found this thread doing a search and it is nice :)

I was asked (as often happens) to try and match a nice turbo for a mates RB25 track car with some very specific requirements, ie ball bearing, within a limited budget, T3 open flanged and able to make around 450kw @ hubs on E85 on a Dynapack dyno.   I did some crawling around and decided to pay more attention to the GTW3476R than I had really given it previously (Garrett took AGES to release flow data for them) and I was actually pretty blown away by the match that they give, at least on paper.   They actually look like an awesome combination from that point of view.

How have you found you found yours so far?   Real world response etc fairly acceptable for the power you are making?  Was that power figure "all in"?


Cheers

  • 4 months later...
On 6/20/2018 at 12:27 PM, Lithium said:

Hi, sir... I found this thread doing a search and it is nice :)

I was asked (as often happens) to try and match a nice turbo for a mates RB25 track car with some very specific requirements, ie ball bearing, within a limited budget, T3 open flanged and able to make around 450kw @ hubs on E85 on a Dynapack dyno.   I did some crawling around and decided to pay more attention to the GTW3476R than I had really given it previously (Garrett took AGES to release flow data for them) and I was actually pretty blown away by the match that they give, at least on paper.   They actually look like an awesome combination from that point of view.

How have you found you found yours so far?   Real world response etc fairly acceptable for the power you are making?  Was that power figure "all in"?


Cheers

Thanks mate. Sorry the delayed response, don't really frequent on here anymore.

Have found the turbo to be great for what it is. I'm running the bush bearing version. Was previously running the .86 twin scroll rear housing which made 420rwkw on ~26-28psi. Response was great. We've recently changed the setup to a 1.01 rear housing to help with getting more heat out as I kept melting the diaphragms in the gates. As a result I'm currently making 370rwkw on 22-23psi (need a new boost controller) and I'd say a few hundred rpm laggier, but much nicer curve coming on. Will put together a big update post eventually, but feel free to pm me if still looking for info.

  • 5 months later...

Well guys, the time has unfortunately come. I guess I'm turning in to an old fart as my baby for the last (almost) 7 years is up for sale. If you know anyone that is keen, link below with as much info as I could remember.

 

  • 2 weeks later...

Well that was unexpectedly quick, but I guess this chapter of my life has finally come to an end. Car is sold (getting picked up this week). Big thanks to everyone on this forum that helped out in one way or another, or just talked banter. See you all around once I figure out what's next :)  ?

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

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...