Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey all, just wondering if anyone has ever changed the flange on an old HKS RB20/25 low mount manifold I've got one with a T3 divided flange but I want to run a turbo with a T4 divided inlet flange.

Does anyone know if it’s possible or advisable to weld a T4 divided flange onto these manifolds?

Or is it easier to just sell the manifold and get a whole new manifold such as a 6boost?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/440041-hks-low-mount-flange-change/
Share on other sites

Ive done pretty much that to an rb30 manifold years ago. As it is cast, it needs to be welded correctly or it will crack later (preheat, controlled cooling etc)

If you take it to a reputable welder it would be no worries. And not cost much.

Does it matter if the flange couldn't be ported out all the way to the full T4 size? Does it need to perfectly match the turbine inlet or do I lose much if it doesn't?

Just asking cos I think the edges of the openings would come closer to overlapping the existing T3 stud holes if they're ported out to the full T4 size.

If the manifold port is smaller than the exhaust housing inlet, provided it's not massively smaller it will still be OK. It's called an anti-reversion step (when it it occurs at the head face!) What it will do is locally make the gas speed higher with a small region or turbulence downstream the step, but it shouldn't be too ugly and should cost you power unless you are trying to work the turbo all the way up to the limit of what the exhaust housing can flow.

Agreed, 6boost actually makes this into his T3 flange design to improve the gas speed into the turbo, apparently keeps the response loss to a minimum. It's still a much larger opening than the nozzle of the turbo, so it won't be much of a restriction.

If the manifold port is smaller than the exhaust housing inlet, provided it's not massively smaller, it will still be OK. It's called an anti-reversion step (when it it occurs at the head face!). What it will do is locally make the gas speed higher with a small region of turbulence downstream the step, but it shouldn't be too ugly and shouldn't cost you power unless you are trying to work the turbo all the way up to the limit of what the exhaust housing can flow.

Good grief. Just read my post which can't be edited now and saw all the typos that I hate from other people in it. So I fixed them here so I don't look like an illiterate moron.

Most of the old HKS cast low mount mani's I've had or seen were all T4 flange, and have had the T3 bolt pattern drilled and tapped into the flange face... there is f-all difference in the actual 'hole' between T3 and T4... nothing that can't be sorted out with a die grinder anyway.

So if you have a manifold with a T3 flange (is it cracked?), I can't see why you wouldn't be able to drill and tap a T4 flange bolt hols into it.

OR... swap it for one with a T4 flange already?

... The other thing is that some turbo's just don't fitt on this manifold on and engine with the engine mounts on. I doubt the big ass comp housing on the BW turbo's will fit.

Just out of interest, is it cracked through the divider? every manifold I have seen is or has been cracked.

I don't think there's any way to hide a turbo of that size so probably not worthwhile worrying about a manifold that looks even vaguely "production" .

If you can live with a less exotic but more compact dryer Garrett do T4 TS turbine housings for the smaller and medium sized GT BB turbos .

Might want to dummy it up first. I've had a HKS low mount manifold that came with a TA45 turbocharger. its a tight fit, only few mms from hitting the engine mount. If that is the case then you might want to change the turbine housing's entry flange then bolting on an adaptor in between.

The divider doesn't look like it's cracked.

Is the fitment issue because of height or width?

GTSBoy, thanks - so a lip of 2 - 3 mm would be ok?

2-3mm is probably alright at the lower end of that range and getting a bit excessive at the upper end of the range. If you apply a little die grinder action you can improve that most of the way around.

If you're worried about the old T3 stud holes, then perhaps you could/should weld them up when getting the T4 holes put in. If you didn't want to do that, you just don't die grind too close to those and open up the majority of the rest of the ports to remove some of the lip.

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

    • If as it's stalling, the fuel pressure rises, it's saying there's less vacuum in the intake manifold. This is pretty typical of an engine that is slowing down.   While typically is agree it sounds fuel related, it really sounds fuel/air mixture related. Since the whole system has been refurbished, including injectors, pump, etc, it's likely we've altered how well the system is delivering fuel. If someone before you has messed with the IACV because it needed fiddling with as the fuel system was dieing out, we need to readjust it back. Getting things back to factory spec everywhere, is what's going to help the entire system. So if it idles at 400rpm with no IACV, that needs raising. Getting factory air flow back to normal will help us get everything back in spec, and likely help chase down any other issues. Back on IACV, if the base idle (no IACV plugged in) is too far out, it's a lot harder for the ECU to control idle. The IACV duty cycle causes non linear variations in reality. When I've tuned the idle valves in the past, you need to keep it in a relatively narrow window on aftermarket ecus to stop them doing wild dances. It also means if your base idle is too low, the valve needs to open too much, and then the smallest % change ends up being a huge variation.
    • I guess one thing that might be wrong is the manifold pressure.  It is a constant -5.9 and never moves even under 100% throttle and load.  I would expect it to atleast go to 0 correct?  It's doing this with the OEM MAP as well as the ECU vacuum sensor. When trying to tune the base map under load the crosshairs only climb vertically with RPM, but always in the -5.9 column.
    • AHHHH gotchaa, I'll do that once I am home again. I tried doing the harness with the multimeter but it seems the car needed a jump, there was no power when it was in the "ON" position. Not sure if I should use car battery jump starter or if its because the stuff that has been disconnect the car just does send power.
    • As far as I can tell I have everything properly set in the Haltech software for engine size, injector data, all sensors seem to be reporting proper numbers.  If I change any injector details it doesnt run right.    Changing the base map is having the biggest change in response, im not sure how people are saying it doesnt really matter.  I'm guessing under normal conditions the ECU is able to self adjust and keep everything smooth.   Right now my best performance is happening by lowering the base map just enough to where the ECU us doing short term cut of about 45% to reach the target Lambda of 14.7.  That way when I start putting load on it still has high enough fuel map to not be so lean.  After 2500 rpm I raised the base map to what would be really rich at no load, but still helps with the lean spots on load.  I figure I don't have much reason to be above 2500rpm with no load.  When watching other videos it seems their target is reached much faster than mine.  Mine takes forever to adjust and reach the target. My next few days will be spent making sure timing is good, it was running fine before doing the ECU and DBW swap, but want to verify.  I'll also probably swap in the new injectors I bought as well as a walbro 255 pump.  
    • It would be different if the sealant hadn't started to peel up with gaps in the glue about ~6cm and bigger in some areas. I would much prefer not having to do the work take them off the car . However, the filler the owner put in the roof rack mount cavities has shrunk and begun to crack on the rail delete panels. I cant trust that to hold off moisture ingress especially where I live. Not only that but I have faded paint on as well as on either side of these panels, so they would need to come off to give the roofline a proper respray. My goal is to get in there and put a healthy amount of epoxy instead of panel filler/bog and potentially skin with carbon fiber. I have 2 spare rolls from an old motorcycle fairing project from a few years back and I think it'd be a nice touch on a black stag.  I've seen some threads where people replace their roof rack delete with a welded in sheet metal part. But has anyone re-worked the roof rails themselves? It seems like there is a lot of volume there to add in some threads and maybe a keyway for a quick(er) release roof rack system. Not afraid to mill something out if I have to. It would be cool to have a cross bar only setup. That way I can keep the sleek roofline that would accept a couple bolts to gain back that extra utility  3D print some snazzy covers to hide the threaded section to be thorough and keep things covered when not using the rack. 
×
×
  • Create New...