Jump to content
SAU Community

Rb25neo Turbo Setup - Opinions/recommendations

Kmac92

By Kmac92,
in Engines & Forced Induction

 Share

Recommended Posts

Kmac92 Enthusiast

Kmac92

Posted
Posted

GTX3076 TS with 1.06 a/r.

Anyone used this setup before? Gathering from what ive read....people who opt for the twin scroll option in regards to turbo/manifold, always go the next housing size up to whats commonly used on the single, in this case .82 would be fair to say is most commonly used on the neos. (Please correct me if im wrong, its the most common one ive seen people using on dyno sheets, but they dont specify the type of manifold ect..)

6boost twin scroll manifold. T3 or T4 flange? Does it matter?

To go a single 50mm external gate or twin XXmm external gate ?

Im chasing a comfortable 300-350rwk on 98. Getting the most out of the turbo without going e85.

hypergear Grand Master

hypergear

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure how urgently you need this to be done. I'm currently working on a RB bolton turbo prototype that will get you a responsive 400rwkws on E85 fuel. Initial test results shown 380rwkws (out of fuel) and 353 on P98 (out of fuel) on the RB25 dyno sheet section.

That turbo has factory manifold and dump pipe patterns, uses all factory lines. Prototype should be completed towards the end of Aug.

hypergear Grand Master

hypergear

Posted
Posted

Can we see a graph of this prototype please stao?

R34 GTT RB25DET NEO unopened engine.

- Adaptronic​ ECU

- 1000CC ID injectors

- Factory cams, cams gears, and all manifolds.

- HyperGear ATR45SAT Internal gated RB25 bolton Turbocharger

- JJR 3 inches turbo back exhaust

- Walbro 470L/H Fuel pump

- 4 inches induction pipe

- Split fire coil packs

- PWR 600x300x81mm intercooler

- E85, 380rwkws run out of fuel.

- Tuned by Trent Hewitson​, Chequered Tuning​.

power.jpg

e85v98powerboost.jpg

enginebay1.jpg

R31Nismoid Grand Master

R31Nismoid

Posted
Posted

GTX3076 TS with 1.06 a/r.

Anyone used this setup before? Gathering from what ive read....people who opt for the twin scroll option in regards to turbo/manifold, always go the next housing size up to whats commonly used on the single, in this case .82 would be fair to say is most commonly used on the neos. (Please correct me if im wrong, its the most common one ive seen people using on dyno sheets, but they dont specify the type of manifold ect..)

6boost twin scroll manifold. T3 or T4 flange? Does it matter?

To go a single 50mm external gate or twin XXmm external gate ?

Im chasing a comfortable 300-350rwk on 98. Getting the most out of the turbo without going e85.

GTX no point without E85.

You won't be able to run the boost required to get the most out of it.

A GT3076 will match a GTX under about 20psi. The GTX's were supposed to deliver better response etc etc over the GT series but it didn't really happen. What did happen though is they are FAR more efficient at higher pressures, but you need E85 for that. Won't get away with it on PULP.

You can make a solid 300-320rwkw out of a GT3076 without going E85. That is what you would be aiming for IMO. If you want more, GT35 for around 350-370.

Twin scroll is "meant" to have dual gates in the ideal world, but given the results out there that suggest you can just get away with a merge/single larger gate - it's certainly more economical :)

  • Like 1
Kmac92 Enthusiast

Kmac92

Posted
  • Author
Posted

GTX no point without E85.

You won't be able to run the boost required to get the most out of it.

A GT3076 will match a GTX under about 20psi. The GTX's were supposed to deliver better response etc etc over the GT series but it didn't really happen. What did happen though is they are FAR more efficient at higher pressures, but you need E85 for that. Won't get away with it on PULP.

You can make a solid 300-320rwkw out of a GT3076 without going E85. That is what you would be aiming for IMO. If you want more, GT35 for around 350-370.

Twin scroll is "meant" to have dual gates in the ideal world, but given the results out there that suggest you can just get away with a merge/single larger gate - it's certainly more economical :)

Awesome. Cheers mate. How about the rear housing size? Is it a 'rule of thumb' to go the bigger size up from normal when going the twin scroll manifold/turbo option if after response?

For example..

If i was going single scroll t3 manifold/turbo..id obviously get the .82 a/r housing.

but as im going TS...

would i be better off with a 1.06a/r to give me similar response time to the .82a/r single scroll (as ive heard TS spool up quicker) and given that i could put more flow through a 1.06a/r, thus giving me more power and yeh a comfortable 320-330 on 98 is what im after at this stage .

I just havent seen anyone with that setup and would be interested to see how it went....and if the response was good and lag minimal.

T3 TS GT/GTX3076 turbo/manifold combination with 1.06a/r

As for gate. Ive decided to run the single turbosmart 50mm. I feel the 700 for another gate could go towards some type b poncams

scotty nm35 Grand Master

scotty nm35

Posted
Posted

Definitely the 1.06 TS if you are sticking to 98, on e85 you can get away with the more restrictive .82 TS.

There is definitely a .82 TS graph in the RB25 results thread, but it was e85 and fitted to a 6 boost manifold.

Where are you getting quotes for your gates? That's nearly twice what I sell them for, in smaller sizes.

Kmac92 Enthusiast

Kmac92

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Definitely the 1.06 TS if you are sticking to 98, on e85 you can get away with the more restrictive .82 TS.

There is definitely a .82 TS graph in the RB25 results thread, but it was e85 and fitted to a 6 boost manifold.

Where are you getting quotes for your gates? That's nearly twice what I sell them for, in smaller sizes.

Thanks mate! Although, id really like to see a graph of some sort if someones got one? Otherwise i might just bite the bullet and see how i go.. I just hope its not 'Too' laggy with a slow response time.

That price was from sonic performance. Quite expensive! But being turbosmart you get that i guess...

scotty nm35 Grand Master

scotty nm35

Posted
Posted

Being Sonic you get that, MTQ aren't the cheapest. Like I said, I sell Turbosmart much cheaper. ;)

Too laggy is a matter of opinion, but if you want less lag get a smaller GTX3071, GTX28 or Hypergear SS2 and push it harder, no point getting a large turbo and strangling the exhaust side.

Kmac92 Enthusiast

Kmac92

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Being Sonic you get that, MTQ aren't the cheapest. Like I said, I sell Turbosmart much cheaper. ;)

Too laggy is a matter of opinion, but if you want less lag get a smaller GTX3071, GTX28 or Hypergear SS2 and push it harder, no point getting a large turbo and strangling the exhaust side.

Thats handy to know ! Cheers

Yeh thats it, thats why im deciding between the 1.06a/r or .82a/r...plenty of breathing room

scotty nm35 Grand Master

scotty nm35

Posted
Posted

The .82 TS is about the same as the .63 open housing imo, and too small for that compressor size (on an rb25) without running e85, which helps suppress the detonation smaller restrictive housings generate.

Kmac92 Enthusiast

Kmac92

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Heres the quote from mtq/sonic performance

The 1.06 a/r is same price....pitty its got big wait might source from somewhere else..

post-136710-14380564356106_thumb.jpg

Edited by Kmac92
R31Nismoid Grand Master

R31Nismoid

Posted
Posted

Contact SAU Traders mate, best advice I can give RE: pricing.

We have Street to Track who are almost unbeatable on turbo pricing from what I've seen in recent time, no doubt they will do a SAU'er a good package price as well.

Shoot them a PM - http://www.sau.com.au/forums/user/83240-street-to-track/

AngryRB Grand Master

AngryRB

Posted
Posted (edited)

When i had TS0.82 on a 6boost, felt same as an open 0.82 on stock mani, but i lost 500rpms response for some reason, was same tune and everything else identical.. single gate on the housing but further around the snail so maybe that caused it? E85

Stock mani, gate off housing was best setup...

Edited by AngryRB
Kmac92 Enthusiast

Kmac92

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Contact SAU Traders mate, best advice I can give RE: pricing.

We have Street to Track who are almost unbeatable on turbo pricing from what I've seen in recent time, no doubt they will do a SAU'er a good package price as well.

Shoot them a PM - http://www.sau.com.au/forums/user/83240-street-to-track/

Cheers mate.

Haha when i click that link for some reason it takes me to a thread about a biodiesel skyline

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
    • GTSBoy
      DeAgostini 1/8 scale BNR32 Nissan Skyline GT-R Nismo

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      That's hilariously putrid!
    • GTSBoy
      R33 Fuel Pump & Brakes after alarm swap

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      When I said "wiring diagram", I meant the car's wiring diagram. You need to understand how and when 12V appears on certain wires/terminals, when 0V is allowed to appear on certain wires/terminals (which is the difference between supply side switching, and earth side switching), for the way that the car is supposed to work without the immobiliser. Then you start looking for those voltages in the appropriate places at the appropriate times (ie, relay terminals, ECU terminals, fuel pump terminals, at different ignition switch positions, and at times such as "immediately after switching to ON" and "say, 5-10s after switching to ON". You will find that you are not getting what you need when and where you need it, and because you understand what you need and when, from working through the wiring diagram, you can then likely work out why you're not getting it. And that will lead you to the mess that has been made of the associated wires around the immobiliser. But seriously, there is no way that we will be able to find or lead you to the fault from here. You will have to do it at the car, because it will be something f**ked up, and there are a near infinite number of ways for it to be f**ked up. The wiring diagram will give you wire colours and pin numbers and so you can do continuity testing and voltage/time probing and start to work out what is right and what is wrong. I can only close my eyes and imagine a rat's nest of wiring under the dash. You can actually see and touch it.
    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      So I found this: https://www.efihardware.com/temperature-sensor-voltage-calculator I didn't know what the pullup resistor is. So I thought if I used my table of known values I could estimate it by putting a value into the pullup resistor, and this should line up with the voltages I had measured. Eventually I got this table out of it by using 210ohms as the pullup resistor. 180C 0.232V - Predicted 175C 0.254V - Predicted 170C 0.278V - Predicted 165C 0.305V - Predicted 160C 0.336V - Predicted 155C 0.369V - Predicted 150C 0.407V - Predicted 145C 0.448V - Predicted 140C 0.494V - Predicted 135C 0.545V - Predicted 130C 0.603V - Predicted 125C 0.668V - Predicted 120C 0.740V - Predicted 115C 0.817V - Predicted 110C 0.914V - Predicted 105C 1.023V - Predicted 100C 1.15V 90C 1.42V - Predicted 85C 1.59V 80C 1.74V 75C 1.94V 70C 2.10V 65C 2.33V 60C 2.56V 58C 2.68V 57C 2.70V 56C 2.74V 55C 2.78V 54C 2.80V 50C 2.98V 49C 3.06V 47C 3.18V 45C 3.23V 43C 3.36V 40C 3.51V 37C 3.67V 35C 3.75V 30C 4.00V As before, the formula in HPTuners is here: https://www.hptuners.com/documentation/files/VCM-Scanner/Content/vcm_scanner/defining_a_transform.htm?Highlight=defining a transform Specifically: In my case I used 50C and 150C, given the sensor is supposedly for that. Input 1 = 2.98V Output 1 = 50C Input 2 = 0.407V Output 2 = 150C (0.407-2.98) / (150-50) -2.573/100 = -0.02573 2.98/-0.02573 + 47.045 = 50 So the corresponding formula should be: (Input / -0.02573) + 47.045 = Output.   If someone can confirm my math it'd be great. Supposedly you can pick any two pairs of the data to make this formula.
×
×
  • Create New...