Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

I have a strange issue with my RB25DET. It seems to have a weird fluttering/wooshing sound when coming on boost, a lot louder than normal. It seems to build and hold boost ok, maybe a little laggier than usual. I'm thinking maybe a boost leak, but here's the spanner in the works: the weird wooshing sound disappears during medium-hard left turns?? How weird is that? Does anyone know what could cause this issue and why it disappears during left turns only???

Any help appreciated. Thanks.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/430790-weird-boost-issue-help/
Share on other sites

After the sound got worse I eventually found the problem - broken stud where the dump bolts to the turbo, letting a heap of exhaust through the gap. Now I have a worse situation than a boost leak, the stud is broken inside of the turbo exhaust housing and I need some way to get it out...Preferably without removing the turbo >_>

Trust me - I had the same problem last year... Take your turbo out and take it to a thread doctor or machinest... If you do it yourselves I can guarantee you'll ruin it.

Try removing the turbo yourself - if you need help just post on here and I'm sure you'll get plenty of help!

There are many brands. Just go into any hardware or auto parts store and see what they sell. Loctite do one, as do many other big brands. We use one at work with graphite in it and it seems to work well (although it's a bit messy). I have a can of stuff somewhere that I got when I was working at an exhaust shop that we used to use there which worked well too. If I can find it I'll post up what it is.

There are many brands. Just go into any hardware or auto parts store and see what they sell. Loctite do one, as do many other big brands. We use one at work with graphite in it and it seems to work well (although it's a bit messy). I have a can of stuff somewhere that I got when I was working at an exhaust shop that we used to use there which worked well too. If I can find it I'll post up what it is.

Thanks for the info.

The thing is, I can go and buy another brand, but if it works just as well as WD40, is there any point in paying more for it (if it costs more)? Hopefully the other brands can provide a stronger product, or one that lubricates better.

The graphite stuff sounds good.

Wd40 is only really a water dispersant and thin oil. It has very little in the way of actual lubricating properties. You can find some friction test videos on YouTube. If you search "friction master wd40" on YouTube there is a 2:36 long video of a test between protecta spray (which I've used and it's pretty good) and wd40. Protecta also have a video on YouTube doing the same test with more oils. I know the guy doing the protecta video and he told me about some other lubes that performed well on the test (almost to the level of protecta), but they didn't show them for obvious reasons. They were bicycle chain lubes though, so not much use for anything else.

Fyi, I am in no way affiliated with protecta.

And using some sort of grease or anti-seize paste when installing things certainly makes life easier in the long run.

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...