Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

sorry to bring up this thread again however i have recently found out about mambatek turbos, they seem to be of the same quality of kando turbos and the same price range except ball bearing :D and have been looking at this turbo in particular:
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/MAMBA-GTX-Ball-Bearing-Turbocharger-GTX3063R-Nissan-Skyline-GTR-R31-RB20DET-300P-/181736850896?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_15&hash=item2a505c45d0

not knowing much about turbos myself would someone please tell me how this would work out on an rb20 lag/power wise? would be a great help if possible thanks

it is tempting and seems good value for money, i was going to get a kinugawa td05 18g 8cm before i found this
specs td05:
Compressor wheel: 50.5/68 mm

Turbine wheel: 49.2 / 56 mm

8cm housing

journal bearing

specs gtx3063r

Comp. Wheel : 47.1 mm / 63 mm/Trim 56 (11+0 GTX Billet Wheel w/ Extend Tip)

Turbine Wheel : 52 mm / 56.5 mm / Trim 84

ceramic dual ball bearing

10cm housing

This is the cropped GT30 turbine wheel not the real gt30 one.

It may perform anyway as the compressors is not that big.

I have the kinugawa version with much bigger turbine (garrett stage 3 wheel which is 65mm at the inducer), and a 20g compressor (52.5/68mm wheel).

With an EBC in good working order I was able to get 19 psi/1.3b at 4000rpm, without EBC I only get 14psi/0.9b at the same rpm and the engine doesn't relly wake up before 3500/3800rpm with a front facing plenum.

It was able to give 198rwkw/320 Nm at this boost through a standard S13 airbox and paper filter in it, FMIC, front facing plenum and 3 inch turboback.

This mambatek will spool fairly quicker maybe not as quick as you'd want, power wise I've no ideas but it will be able to break the 250 rwkw I guess.

In the same range of size sonic performance offers bolt-ons solutions based on the GT2860RS and GTX2860/2863/2867 but it ain't cheap.

too much hassle to get an adaptor and custom dump honestly, i've seen the range sonic performance offers and its probably a bit too much for me price wise, R_34 is your rear housing a 10cm or 8cm?

i can deal with it being at full boost by 3500, put a boost guage in recently and turns out my rb25 turbo is hitting 12psi by about 3400 and 7 at 2800 so that was a bad call on my part, sounds interesting, need some supporting mods before i get my turbo anyway so if i havnt gotten a turbo before 6 months i'll have a look at that too, the only thing putting me off this mamba turbo is the 10cm turbine housing

and what does your 25 turbo do at 6000, is it still holding 12psi?

My SS2.5 hyflow makes positive boost @ 2.8K and 20psi @ 3.8 and keeps it to 7500rpm

Not sure what kilowatts it make as I tune it myself

all my passengers have a big grin @ 4000

Mine is a 10cm², and it holds boost perfectly all the way to the rev limiter à 8200rpm when I was running 19psi.

I backed off because of the EBC and the gearbox which didn't liked the "high" boost.

Positive pressure begin in the low 2K but the turbo is lazy to gain boost and doesn't hit 0.5b before 3000 rpm with the ebc and 3500 without.

going by what you're saying the mamba turbo should spool faster than your kinugawa turbo with the smaller wheels and being ball bearing, if the housings are the same size it shouldnt be a problem for me then

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...