Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

yeah for the 1jz....figure if i can merge the stock manifolds into a twin scrolll should yield some decent results in a tidy package...

heaps of external gate options but trying to keep it simple for packaging sake...something i can mount low under a stock looking heat shield would be nice...

I did think of the EVO turbo actually, Think it could work ok?

Not by joining the two factory manifolds...ive seen nothing but rubbish results doing it that way.

Won't be atrue twin scroll anyway.

I'd either have a log manifold made up, or if you want it standard looking. Either find a hks t3g setup (good luck) or have stao rebuild the ct12a's

..it will be true twin scroll if merged properly....3 cylinders into each scroll

have seen twin ct12 results and they aren't flash...though stock they do make quite a bit of power...but they are pricey.. 1000 each for hiflows...so theres 2 k that would buy me a 7670 that could make 400kws..whether or not this would be possible with those stock manifolds I don't know..but if 400kws can be pushed through an RB log I dont see why its not plausible.

..it will be true twin scroll if merged properly....3 cylinders into each scroll

True but 3 cylinders will be firing through the worlds worst turbo manifolds in existence. ...they are laughable...if you dont believe me pull them off and have a look.

One result that stands out is a 1j manual soarer with a gt30..peak boost 20psi at 5500rpm or later and made 230rwkws and just would not take anymore than a few degrees timing...there was no doubt other issues..but still...I will happily enjoy my etm manifold when it arrives

woah!!! didnt realize a JZZ30 was that heavy...

theres one cressida running 11s on stock turbs...10s with nos....hes selling most of his setup at the moment actually....if only i had some play cash

I will be sticking with the stockies for a while anyway ,probably just try tune them for e85.....twin scroll thing was just an idea running through my head...

get a good dump pipe

makes a huge difference

haha, yeah thats what he was selling...I'll get Scotty to knock me one up later..

that and i have some 750cc injectors and Eflex sensor...assuming my old tin tank isn't full of rust...

was about the only mods i have planned for the near future...

yeah that idea was considered, i also considered twin gates off the j-pipe as well into a twin scroll tdo6h ...but with both its too messy and too much work It would be easier and more beneficial to go with a proper manifold...

a simple J pipe into twin scroll IG turbo is the only option I am willing to entertain, that way if its a flop I could easy swap to better manifold and keep the turbo

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...