Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Im planning on rebuilding an rb engine for my Silvia (actually, first time touching the internals of an engine) and am thinking of going twin turbo parallel. Reason I am concidering, I use to own a 300zx and I just loved how it delivered the power. It felt like driving a non turbo with heaps of power. Now, has anyone done this to an RB engine?

Can I use a Y pipe to combine both turbo's to go into a normal intercooler? or would I need a 2 in 1 out intercooler?

Edited by Gameboy

He definitely means just like a GTR.

And yes, the opinion given above is the correct one. Single is better. Much easier to fit in, much easier to pipe, and, depending on power target, with modern turbo designs, no worse lag.

Twin turbo sounds like a cool thing, but the reality is not as good as the theory.

He definitely means just like a GTR.

 

And yes, the opinion given above is the correct one.  Single is better.  Much easier to fit in, much easier to pipe, and, depending on power target, with modern turbo designs, no worse lag.

 

Twin turbo sounds like a cool thing, but the reality is not as good as the theory.

Disagree. Driven many singles and twins before I built mine. Twins up to -5s are much nicer to drive than any single setup I have driven. It sounds good in theory because it is good in practice

nah gonna do a 25/30.

if going into a silvia, and you want twins, go 26/30.

the slightly extra on the head, will more then be saved by the fab work which the 25 would need.

if you keep the 25, just get a GOOD single.

theres alot out yhere now that can make very decent power with good response.

  • Like 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

    • 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...