Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hello! I'm new here, I have an R33 GTST that is currently being finished up! Last year was pretty rough, blew two stock turbos so I decided to build the car. Has been down since November, but I get it back next weekend!

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/486146-firstsecond-post/
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2025 at 5:49 AM, svenskalice said:

Hello! I'm new here, I have an R33 GTST that is currently being finished up! Last year was pretty rough, blew two stock turbos so I decided to build the car. Has been down since November, but I get it back next weekend!

Welcome! How much psi were you pushing I'm curious if you've blown 2 turbos? I was overboosting at one stage and went over 14-15 psi, surprised I didn't blow it right then lol.

8 minutes ago, silviaz said:

I was overboosting at one stage and went over 14-15 psi, surprised I didn't blow it right then lol.

It's a lottery. I ran my RB20 turbo at 17 psi for a while. It survived, went on to run for many many more years at 14 psi. Was still good when the engine was pulled to make way for the big block.

RB25 turbo died as it came onto boost, never having been over 12 psi in my 10+ years of using it.

  • Like 1
19 minutes ago, GTSBoy said:

It's a lottery. I ran my RB20 turbo at 17 psi for a while. It survived, went on to run for many many more years at 14 psi. Was still good when the engine was pulled to make way for the big block.

RB25 turbo died as it came onto boost, never having been over 12 psi in my 10+ years of using it.

From what I remember, the rb20 turbos can take a bit more boost than the rb25det engines? Thought I read that somewhere for some reason.

43 minutes ago, silviaz said:

From what I remember, the rb20 turbos can take a bit more boost than the rb25det engines? Thought I read that somewhere for some reason.

Yeah, but it's not "boost" that they can take more of. Well, I guess it actually is. They are the same turbine, driving different compressors. I think the failure is more of a turbine temperature and (probably mostly) speed thing. I think the RB25s end up needing the turbine to reach higher speeds in order to drive the compressor to achieve the same boost level. So they will fail at lower boost on a 25 because they've actually reached the same failure speed that they do on a 20 at a higher boost pressure. If that makes sense?

  • Like 1
1 minute ago, GTSBoy said:

Yeah, but it's not "boost" that they can take more of. Well, I guess it actually is. They are the same turbine, driving different compressors. I think the failure is more of a turbine temperature and (probably mostly) speed thing. I think the RB25s end up needing the turbine to reach higher speeds in order to drive the compressor to achieve the same boost level. So they will fail at lower boost on a 25 because they've actually reached the same failure speed that they do on a 20 at a higher boost pressure. If that makes sense?

The "ideal/formula" that used to be touted was death of the turbo is going to be caused by a combination of 3 things.

Heat

Speed of turbo (boost level you're pushing)

Time

 

Basically, you can get away with high heat and high boost for short periods. But start doing long hard pulls, or circuit driving etc, and now you've increased time as well which will shred things. From memory when Adrian was drag racing he was running 17psi, on a stock turbo, and running insane speeds. But he also had other additives helping in the setup too.

Some people have success at 14psi for a while, while others due to pushing the cars hard for long periods opt down to lower temps.

But also, generate a lot of heat (let's say bad tune), for a long time, and you'll be okay, until you try to spin that little guy up slightly. It's the one advantage of dumping a lot of fuel in, you'll be reducing EGT a bit and helping with the heat portion of the above 3 areas.

 

And these days, stock turbos are that old that there's the possibility of just outright failures due to material age. I'm not shocked that even when used in factory spec that a stock turbo fails when 30 years old. It's a worn out "precision" "balanced" performance item, that's likely no longer precise, or well balanced

4 minutes ago, MBS206 said:

The "ideal/formula" that used to be touted was death of the turbo is going to be caused by a combination of 3 things.

Heat

Speed of turbo (boost level you're pushing)

Time

 

Basically, you can get away with high heat and high boost for short periods. But start doing long hard pulls, or circuit driving etc, and now you've increased time as well which will shred things. From memory when Adrian was drag racing he was running 17psi, on a stock turbo, and running insane speeds. But he also had other additives helping in the setup too.

Some people have success at 14psi for a while, while others due to pushing the cars hard for long periods opt down to lower temps.

But also, generate a lot of heat (let's say bad tune), for a long time, and you'll be okay, until you try to spin that little guy up slightly. It's the one advantage of dumping a lot of fuel in, you'll be reducing EGT a bit and helping with the heat portion of the above 3 areas.

 

And these days, stock turbos are that old that there's the possibility of just outright failures due to material age. I'm not shocked that even when used in factory spec that a stock turbo fails when 30 years old. It's a worn out "precision" "balanced" performance item, that's likely no longer precise, or well balanced

All of that is absolutely true. At any time in the history of these turbos the lottery has always been that it could die at stock boost treated exactly as the factory intended, or it could die when pushed to 10, or 12, or 14, or 16 psi, after a short time, or a longer time, or it could last seemingly forever. You have the combination of all the possible statistical (probably) normal distributions of manufacturing tolerances and quality outcomes, on top of the statistical distributions of failure modes (which might be normal, but are probably biased, like Poisson distributions). You get the lucky turbo and you can beat on it for years. You get the really unlucky turbo and it will crap itself as it rolls out of the factory gate. And every possibility in between.

But you can definitely still kill the lucky turbo. It's just that most people didn't try, once they knew they really shouldn't try.

50 minutes ago, GTSBoy said:

All of that is absolutely true. At any time in the history of these turbos the lottery has always been that it could die at stock boost treated exactly as the factory intended, or it could die when pushed to 10, or 12, or 14, or 16 psi, after a short time, or a longer time, or it could last seemingly forever. You have the combination of all the possible statistical (probably) normal distributions of manufacturing tolerances and quality outcomes, on top of the statistical distributions of failure modes (which might be normal, but are probably biased, like Poisson distributions). You get the lucky turbo and you can beat on it for years. You get the really unlucky turbo and it will crap itself as it rolls out of the factory gate. And every possibility in between.

But you can definitely still kill the lucky turbo. It's just that most people didn't try, once they knew they really shouldn't try.

Yep, agree with all of the above added on too.

I just love the age old "what boost were you running?" Question without getting any other surrounding data. IE, may have ran 20psi, and lived for 12 years, but it was an 80 year old granma driving it to Bingo once a week and never took it over 2500rpm.

4 hours ago, GTSBoy said:

Yeah, but it's not "boost" that they can take more of. Well, I guess it actually is. They are the same turbine, driving different compressors. I think the failure is more of a turbine temperature and (probably mostly) speed thing. I think the RB25s end up needing the turbine to reach higher speeds in order to drive the compressor to achieve the same boost level. So they will fail at lower boost on a 25 because they've actually reached the same failure speed that they do on a 20 at a higher boost pressure. If that makes sense?

Yep that makes sense, thanks! I guess flogging these turbos in winter is more preferrable lol.

On 3/4/2025 at 5:59 PM, silviaz said:

Welcome! How much psi were you pushing I'm curious if you've blown 2 turbos? I was overboosting at one stage and went over 14-15 psi, surprised I didn't blow it right then lol.

Not sure exactly, but I had a 20det wastegate on my 25det stock turbo lol

  • Like 1
On 3/2/2025 at 3:24 PM, Duncan said:

Welcome Alice......hope you have a bit more luck from here on!

What was done in the build?

 

Pulsar gtx3076r (.83 exhaust housing), ID1050cc injectors, full radium fuel setup, forgot pumps, Greddy intake mani, mishimoto intercooler, koyo radiator, 6boost top mount, custom exhaust. That's kinda the gist of the build

5 hours ago, GTSBoy said:

10 psi. 11-11.5 at the extreme max. Perfectly safe, just smoky, if not retuned.

Huh, wonder why it blew then. I never really beat on the car THAT hard lol I dailyed it and the turbo blew after 6 months

2 hours ago, svenskalice said:

Huh, wonder why it blew then. I never really beat on the car THAT hard lol I dailyed it and the turbo blew after 6 months

Foreign debris, physical shock, boost leak, could be anything honestly. The danger in taking all the timing out of a tune/hitting the R&R corner is that even if the engine doesn't detonate your turbo is taking a lot of abuse from high EGT. Also, even if nothing goes wrong it is a journal bearing that is spinning at 100k RPM on boost. Eventually it goes through enough cold start/pressure cycles to wear it out.

9 hours ago, joshuaho96 said:

Foreign debris, physical shock, boost leak, could be anything honestly. The danger in taking all the timing out of a tune/hitting the R&R corner is that even if the engine doesn't detonate your turbo is taking a lot of abuse from high EGT. Also, even if nothing goes wrong it is a journal bearing that is spinning at 100k RPM on boost. Eventually it goes through enough cold start/pressure cycles to wear it out.

Yeah that's true, but idk. Only a 6 month lifespan seems a little short. Oh also, is there a preferred way to send images? Like any sites? I'm used to just being able to upload them lol

2 hours ago, svenskalice said:

Only a 6 month lifespan seems a little short.

6 months since you bought it. 30 years since it was built!

2 hours ago, svenskalice said:

Oh also, is there a preferred way to send images? Like any sites? I'm used to just being able to upload them lol

You have to reach 10 posts first. One of our anti-spam anti-dickhead workarounds.

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, after the full circus this week (new gearbag, 14 psi actuator on, injectors and AFM upgraded, and.....turbo repair) the diagnosis on the wastegate is in. It was broken. It was broken in a really strange way. The weld that holds the lever arm onto the wastegate flapper shaft broke. Broke completely, but broke in such a way that it could go back together in the "correct" position, or it could rearrange itself somewhere else along the fracture plane and sit with the flapper not parallel to the lever. So, who knows how and when exactly what happened? No-one will ever know. Was it broken like this the first time it spat the circlip and wedged itself deep into the dump? Or was it only broken when I tried to pry it back into place? (I didn't try that hard, but who knows?). Or did it break first? Or did it break between the first and second event of wierdness? Meh. It doesn't matter now. It is welded back together. And it is now held closed by a 14 psi actuator, so...the car has been tuned with the supporting mods (and the order of operations there is that the supporting mods and dyno needed to be able to be done first before adding boost, because it was pinging on <<14 psi with the new turbo with only a 6 psi actuator). And then tuned up a bit, and with the boost controller turned off throughout that process. So it was only running WG pressure and so only hit about 15-16 psi. The turbo is still ever so slightly lazier than might be preferred - like it is still a bit on the big side for the engine. I haven't tested it on the road properly in any way - just driven it around in traffic for a half hour or so. But it is like chalk and cheese compared to what it was. Between dyno numbers and driving feedback: It makes 100 kW at 3k rpm, which is OK, could be better. That's stock 2JZ territory, or RB20 with G series 550. It actually starts building boost from 2k, which is certainly better than it did recently (with all the WG flapper bullshit). Although it's hard to remember what it was like prior to all that - it certainly seems much, much better. And that makes sense, given the WG was probably starting to blow open at anything above about 3 psi anyway (with the 6 psi actuator). It doesn't really get to "full boost" (say 16 psi) until >>4k rpm. I am hopeful that this is a feature of the lack of boost controller keeping boost pressure off the actuator, because it was turned off for the dyno and off for the drives afterward. There's more to be found here, I'm sure. It made 230 rwkW at not a lot more than 6k and held it to over 7k, so there seems to be plenty of potential to get it up to 250-260rwkW with 18 psi or so, which would be a decent effort, considering the stock sized turbo inlet pipework and AFM, and the return flow cooler. According to Tao, those things should definitely put a bit of a limit on it by that sort of number. I must stress that I have not opened the throttle 100% on the road yet - well, at least not 100% and allowed it to wind all the way up. It'll have to wait until some reasonable opportunity. I'm quite looking forward to that - it feels massively better than it has in a loooong time. It's back to its old self, plus about 20% extra powers over the best it ever did before. I'm going to get the boost controller set up to maximise spool and settle at no more than ~17 psi (for now) and then go back on the dyno to see what we can squeeze out of it. There is other interesting news too. I put together a replacement tube to fit the R35 AFM in the stock location. This is the first time the tuner has worked with one, because anyone else he has tuned for has gone from Z32 territory to aftermarket ECU. No-one has ever wanted to stay Nistuned and do what I've done. Anyway, his feedback is that the R35 AFM is super super super responsive. Tiny little changes in throttle position or load turn up immediately as a cell change on the maps. Way, way more responsive than any of the old skool AFMs. Makes it quite diffifult to tune as you have to stay right on top of that so you don't wander off the cell you wanted to tune. But it certainly seems to help with real world throttle response. That's hard to separate from all the other things that changed, but the "pedal feel" is certainly crisp.
    • I'm a bit confused by this post, so I'll address the bit I understand lol.  Use an air compressor and blow away the guide coat sanding residue. All the better if you have a moisture trap for your compressor. You'd want to do this a few times as you sand the area, you wouldn't for example sand the entire area till you think its perfect and then 'confirm' that is it by blowing away the guide coat residue.  Sand the area, blow away the guide coat residue, inspect the panel, back to sanding... rinse and repeat. 
    • The detail level is about right for the money they charge for the full kit... AU$21.00 each issue, 110 issues for a total of $2,300 (I mentioned $2.2K in the first post when the exchange rate was better). $20/week is doable... 馃槓
    • If planning on joining us for the day(s) please indicate by filling in this form. https://forms.gle/Ma8Nn4DzYVA8uDHg7
  • Create New...