Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I used aerfoflow hose, can't remember what series. And I did all my water/oil/fuel lines at the same time so I can't really remember.

If you were just to do the soft lines coming out of the fuel tank hat, and in the engine bay I don't think it would be more than $100

Little value in going E85 with std RB25 turbo. E85 is great at allowing you to wind boost into an engine and you are capped at 12-14 psi

Given the expense of going to E85 a HKS 2530 on 98 will be you better results

not entirely correct, you're still able to run loads of timing around the middle of the rpm range without any knock and a few more degrees up top

Meh... It made my car a smidgen laggier but did allow way more ignition. But takes a better calibrated bump than mine to pick that up in back to back driving through the mid range.

But only really made more power as the engine was no longer boost and ignition sensitive so could wind both in.

With a std turbo it will be bye bye exhaust wheel. Though with lower exhaust temp maybe you can run 15-16psi...who knows

No problems with the M35 ceramic turbine, I bumped mine up to 19-20psi on ethanol, for 5 months in between Garrett GTX's. Perhaps the ceramic is glued better on the Stagea? They run 14psi stock.

It was a low K turbo so I suspect it's old age or heat cycles that kills ceramic turbos more than boost or shaft speed. Anyway it's not hard to shove a small highflow core inside it.

In addition if I were to get a upgraded turbo I'd need injectors and a nistune anyway so the only extra expense I'm seeing at this stage is fuel lines, rb25 highflows are quite cheap second-hand and plenty of them around however most say they are too laggy for an rb20

They run 14psi stock.

There's your answer. RB20/25/26 turbos were spec'd to run at 7-10 psi. So they would have been running at a certain shaft speed to achieve that. Try to make 14 psi and they have to go a lot faster. The M35, if standard is 14 psi, will be doing the same sort of sensible speed as the older ones at their standard boost. Wind it up to 19 psi and now you're probably approaching the same sort of speeds that limited the older turbos - just at a higher boost.

It's kind of like how you could get away with running a 25 turbo on a 20 at higher boost levels with less risk of it dying - because it wasn't having to spin quite so fast to make the boost on the smaller engine.

Well my car is about ready to be all put back together and get back on the road. Will be interesting to see how this weekends inspection of tank, lines and filters goes since it has been laying around with E85 in it for 12 months.

I mention that as my car has nothing done to it all to make it E85 compatible. Just 1000cc injectors and in tank pump with Nismo reg. Ran fine like that for 2 years but was driven every 2nd or so day with a tank a week

I've heard stories of the e85 gradually breaking down the stock rubber hoses leading to gunky buildup in the injectors/fuel filter, and as in your case people have left them untouched and it's been fine, honestly if it's a cheap and simple thing to do I don't see a reason not to

Here's an idea, just run whatever boost you run on 98RON safely, then on E85 run the same amount - however just pump in loads and loads of timing till the motor/turbo combination stops making power and back a couple if degrees.

At the end of the day, it's going to still make more power than 98RON, not a totally pointless exercise.

For reference, I tuned my mate's S15 and it made 197kW on 98RON.. when we moved it over to E85 it made 215kW - however it made heaps more mid range power as I was able to pump in heaps of timing into the notorious SR20 timing hole where max torque is achieved.

LOL...Ive actually been following my own advice and I'm up to P14 of the RB20 turbo thread and god dam, kudos have the that HKS on special for 3.14K...http://www.kudosmotorsports.com/catalog/hks-turbocharger-kit-hks-gtrs-11004an008-nissan-skyline-r32-gtst-gts4-r33-gts25t-r34-25gtt-p-1048.html

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

    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
    • You are all good then, I didn't realise the port was in a part you can (have!) remove. Just pull the broken part out, clean it and the threads should be fine. Yes, the whole point about remote mounting is it takes almost all of the vibration out via the flexible hose. You just need a convenient chassis point and a cable tie or 3.
×
×
  • Create New...