Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Piggaz said:

BW EFR 8374/1.05.

Be on 500 rpm earlier than -5's and make more power everywhere.

In our course, two of my salaries are out. This is very expensive for me at the moment. Are there alternatives?

There's no cheap path to 600-650rwhp that doesn't include lag. 

You can make that with older tech/second hand singles but it will be laggy. 

If you want response AND power, you will pay for it. 

  • Like 2
  • 2 weeks later...
5 hours ago, Nismo 3.2ish said:

Not if you rearrange the SXE!

Haha this man always offers the best advice! 

You taken your little blue pill Pete? ?

 

Yes ball bearing over Journal all day. Especially if its only sees street duties ?

Edited by Mick_o
  • Like 1

this wheel is not a billet, when tuning the turbines said that these wheels lighter billet by 10%, however write that the billet wheels weigh 45g. Who made the tubes said that they had the same wheels gtx 63, they weigh 62g, (original 3712-0001 GT28 47.10/63.40mm 11+0 blade weigh 63g) and billet weigh gtx2863 50g, how many weigh gtx2860 can only guess, presumably 55-60g. So my 2510 hs wheels are the easiest. Rotors as I understood the same. Now I think what to do to put a billet or look for wheels from the GT2860. I looked everywhere, only these look like my wheels https://www.ebay.com/itm/120959146348?ul_noapp=true, but he says that they weigh about 60g, I do not understand what's the matter

My wheels were damaged and not balanced

50c8becd-84e0-49b8-a71c-eabeadcf1117.jpg

Edited by frakzz

Interesting Thanks for sharing Frakzz! ?

I have always been skeptical about billet wheel vs cast weights. A lump of billet is always going to be more dense hence heavier. Even if its made from a lighter material it seems?

I thought it was well known that billet wheels were about strength for high boost and cheaper prototyping and production costs?

Recall having read a bit about the myth of billet = faster spool through reduced weight.

the scales were in the wrong mode) my wheels weigh 50g each. Spool comes on 6500 and more 1.4 does not go up. Disconnected the solenoid and muffled the tube. Actuators were fixed. nothing has changed. I do not know what to do next, I think to turn the intake gear, if it does not help to return the wheels GT.

Can anyone have any thoughts why might it be so?

VJIlIzXRZVE.jpg

fdcb6d21-2b5a-4003-bb5b-1c910c03037d.jpg

af996aad-06a0-4c44-9bcf-957f54742950.jpg

Edited by frakzz
1 hour ago, ActionDan said:

I thought it was well known that billet wheels were about strength for high boost and cheaper prototyping and production costs?

Recall having read a bit about the myth of billet = faster spool through reduced weight.

Correct sir. A solid lump of billet being CNC machined is stronger which is why they can run the higher pressure ratios they do more reliably. Increases production and elimalimates inconsistencies you'd get with castings. 

What Dan said also cements alot of my dribble on the "twin guys" that wanna do these billet stock housing turbos. 

These billet wheels require "higher boost" to achieve the extra power they can produce yes?

How can this compressor generate the extra boost required if that other lil wheel that comes into contact with the exhaust gases up the back cant spin that billet wheel any faster?

So you now require a higher flowing turbine to move the gases out faster to spin that billet wheel faster i would have thought?

Well there goes your power gain from the "billet" there right!

Is the new fancy aero gunna help increase spool when its in a compressor  cover that it wasn't designed to be in?

Especially when the inlet to the compressor cover isn't even big enough for me to squeeze bell end into! 

Now another dream crusher thrown in by Frakzz now the wheels weigh the same?

So there goes the lower inertia dream...

Now to the expensive bit lol....

 So next thing to factor in is you are going to need to upgrade your cores now as the geriatric GT series plastic BB cages that are in your 7's, 9's & 5's aren't going to be up to the task of the faster shaft speeds required for the extra boost OR the extra loads that will be applied to them from this extra boost.

WILL there be gains made from new ceramic BB vs the old BB cartridges? Highly unlikely to be measureable i would of thought?

I can't lay it out any more basic than that its a costly exercise that simply WILL NOT WORK!

You really are pushing a septic tank worth of shit up hill with a tooth pick! 

I didnt even mention the packaging issue that are also going to work against you either like the "twin turbo" pipe or the super tight bends off the backs of the turbines LOL!! 

In other words twins are gay, the money you've blown and time you could have gone with a modern single, plus you would have change left over for hookers.

 

  • Like 1

Not too surprised the GTX weigh a bit more, they have 11 full-height blades and as Mick said - a dense chunk of alloy with everything that doesn't look like a compressor wheel cut away from it.   

The likes of the FP HTA arguably are better if you are aiming for spool as they don't tend to have a higher blade count and tend to result in a similar-ish profile to the old blade/hub design but with less "fat" in each direction.  I remember someone weighed the 59/82mm 82HTA compressor wheel and the 61/82mm Garrett cast GT wheel and the difference was 121g for the GT and 93g for the HTA.  It's not specifically that it was billet, but it's the actual wheel design they could get away with by milling the wheel as opposed to using a cast.

A lot of this is probably beside the point, the majority of the mass is in the turbine side - a lot of the spool is likely to come from the aero as opposed to the weight for the compressor in the grand scheme of things.

Just for my 2c .

Personally I would never use these GTX compressor wheels without a port shrouded compressor housing , I can't remember too many if any being supplied complete by Garrett without them .

RB26 twins don't appear to be an application that can use port shrouded compressor housings because there wouldn't be space for them .

I think there are good reasons why Garrett supply RB26 replacement turbos with conventional style compressor wheels , mainly compressor surge .

I'm not a GTR person but what I've always read is that GTSS/-9 or 2530s seem to give guaranteed results , for bolt on twin turbos .

ATM I think the single twin scroll EFR is probably the better overall package . Playing with experimental turbos is always expensive and the results are often iffy .

A .

 

 

Low mount twins are fine for sub 400rwkw and not costing the earth or having mad lag. 

Can you have a faster spooling sub 400rwkw? Yes, but with much more $$. 

If you want to go beyond decently 400rwkw, you really are mad to try anything other than a good quality fully TS single setup. 

You have 2 choices, accept that it will not give you the result you set out for and try to maximize the current setup, knowing full well it will never achieve the initial goal, or go back to square one and ditch the twin setup in favour of a better single solution and stick to your original goal. 

 

 

3 hours ago, ActionDan said:

Low mount twins are fine for sub 400rwkw and not costing the earth or having mad lag. 

Can you have a faster spooling sub 400rwkw? Yes, but with much more $$. 

If you want to go beyond decently 400rwkw, you really are mad to try anything other than a good quality fully TS single setup. 

You have 2 choices, accept that it will not give you the result you set out for and try to maximize the current setup, knowing full well it will never achieve the initial goal, or go back to square one and ditch the twin setup in favour of a better single solution and stick to your original goal. 

 

 

I don't really think a basic T3 .82 single scroll setup like GTST boys use is realistically gunna be anymore expensive to setup than if you were to try setting up the twins properly going from stock to stock??

You dont need a super fancy twin scroll single setup to get a better drive outta your R than the twins provide. They really are very easy to improve on lol

  • Like 1

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

    • Well, that's kinda the point. The calipers might interfere with the inside of the barrels 16" rims are only about 14" inside the barrels, which is ~350mm, and 334mm rotors only leave about 8mm outboard for the caliper before you get to 350, And.... that;s not gunna be enough. If the rims have a larger ID than that, you might sneak it in. I'd be putting a measuring stick inside the wheel and eyeballing the extra required for the caliper outboard of the rotor before committing to bolting it all on.
    • OK, so again it has been a bit of a break but it was around researching what had been done since I didn't have access to Neil's records and not everything is obvious without pulling stuff apart. Happily the guy who assembled the engine had kept reasonable records, so we now know the final spec is: Bottom end: Standard block and crank Ross 86.5mm forgies, 9:1 compression Spool forged rods Standard main bolts Oil pump Spool billet gears in standard housing Aeroflow extended and baffled sump Head Freshly rebuilt standard head with new 80lb valve springs Mild porting/port match Head oil feed restrictor VCT disabled Tighe 805C reground cams (255 duration, 8.93 lift)  Adjustable cam gears on inlet/exhaust Standard head bolts, gasket not confirmed but assumed MLS External 555cc Nismo injectors Z32 AFM Bosch 023 Intank fuel pump Garret 2871 (factory housings and manifold) Hypertune FFP plenum with standard throttle   Time to book in a trip to Unigroup
    • I forgot about my shiny new plates!
    • Well, apparently they do fit, however this wont be a problem if not because the car will be stationary while i do the suspension work. I was just going to use the 16's to roll the old girl around if I needed to. I just need to get the E90 back on the road first. Yes! I'm a believer! 🙌 So, I contacted them because the site kinda sucks and I was really confused about what I'd need. They put together a package for me and because I was spraying all the seat surfaces and not doing spot fixes I decided not to send them a headrest to colour match, I just used their colour on file (and it was spot on).  I got some heavy duty cleaner, 1L of colour, a small bottle of dye hardener and a small bottle of the dye top coat. I also got a spray gun as I needed a larger nozzle than the gun I had and it was only $40 extra. From memory the total was ~$450 ish. Its not cheap but the result is awesome. They did add repair bits and pieces to the quote originally and the cost came down significantly when I said I didn't need any repair products. I did it over a weekend. The only issues I had were my own; I forgot to mix the hardener into the dye two coats but I had enough dye for 2 more coats with the hardener. I also just used up all the dye because why not and i rushed the last coat which gave me some runs. Thankfully the runs are under the headrests. The gun pattern wasn't great, very round and would have been better if it was a line. It made it a little tricky to get consistent coverage and I think having done the extra coats probably helped conceal any coverage issues. I contacted them again a few months later so I could get our X5 done (who the f**k thought white leather was a good idea for a family car?!) and they said they had some training to do in Sydney and I could get a reduced rate on the leather fix in the X5 if I let them demo their product on our car. So I agreed. When I took Bec in the E39 to pick it up, I showed them the job I'd done in my car and they were all (students included) really impressed. Note that they said the runs I created could be fixed easily at the time with a brush or an air compressor gun. So, now with the two cars done I can absolutely recommend Colourlock.  I'll take pics of both interiors and create a new thread.
    • Power is fed to the ECU when the ignition switch is switched to IGN, at terminal 58. That same wire also connects to the ECCS relay to provide both the coil power and the contact side. When the ECU sees power at 58 it switches 16 to earth, which pulls the ECCS relay on, which feeds main power into the ECU and also to a bunch of other things. None of this is directly involved in the fuel pump - it just has to happen first. The ECU will pull terminal 18 to earth when it wants the fuel pump to run. This allows the fuel pump relay to pull in, which switches power on into the rest of the fuel pump control equipment. The fuel pump control regulator is controlled from terminal 104 on the ECU and is switched high or low depending on whether the ECU thinks the pump needs to run high or low. (I don't know which way around that is, and it really doesn't matter right now). The fuel pump control reg is really just a resistor that controls how the power through the pump goes to earth. Either straight to earth, or via the resistor. This part doesn't matter much to us today. The power to the fuel pump relay comes from one of the switched wires from the IGN switch and fusebox that is not shown off to the left of this page. That power runs the fuel pump relay coil and a number of other engine peripherals. Those peripherals don't really matter. All that matters is that there should be power available at the relay when the key is in the right position. At least - I think it's switched. If it's not switched, then power will be there all the time. Either way, if you don't have power there when you need it (ie, key on) then it won't work. The input-output switching side of the relay gains its power from a line similar (but not the same as) the one that feeds the ECU. SO I presume that is switched. Again, if there is not power there when you need it, then you have to look upstream. And... the upshot of all that? There is no "ground" at the fuel pump relay. Where you say: and say that pin 1 Black/Pink is ground, that is not true. The ECU trigger is AF73, is black/pink, and is the "ground". When the ECU says it is. The Blue/White wire is the "constant" 12V to power the relay's coil. And when I say "constant", I mean it may well only be on when the key is on. As I said above. So, when the ECU says not to be running the pump (which is any time after about 3s of switching on, with no crank signal or engine speed yet), then you should see 12V at both 1 and 2. Because the 12V will be all the way up to the ECU terminal 18, waiting to be switched to ground. When the ECU switches the fuel pump on, then AF73 should go to ~0V, having been switched to ground and the voltage drop now occurring over the relay coil. 3 & 5 are easy. 5 is the other "constant" 12V, that may or may not be constant but will very much want to be there when the key is on. Same as above. 3 goes to the pump. There should never be 12V visible at 3 unless the relay is pulled in. As to where the immobiliser might have been spliced into all this.... It will either have to be on wire AF70 or AF71, whichever is most accessible near the alarm. Given that all those wires run from the engine bay fusebox or the ECU, via the driver's area to the rear of the car, it could really be either. AF70 will be the same colour from the appropriate fuse all the way to the pump. If it has been cut and is dangling, you should be able to see that  in that area somewhere. Same with AF71.   You really should be able to force the pump to run. Just jump 12V onto AF72 and it should go. That will prove that the pump itself is willing to go along with you when you sort out the upstream. You really should be able to force the fuel pump relay on. Just short AF73 to earth when the key is on. If the pump runs, then the relay is fine, and all the power up to both inputs on the relay is fine. If it doesn't run (and given that you checked the relay itself actually works) then one or both of AF70 and AF71 are not bringing power to the game.
×
×
  • Create New...