Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Since i doubt anyone has results to post, :D to get an idea...

The TD06 describes the turbine, so has a similar exhaust wheel to my TD06-20G. Similar because i think mine has the TD06SH wheel which may be a little bigger then other TD06 turbines.

The 20G v 17C refers to the compressor, so the 17C is smaller, so less inertia meaning better response. You have the 8cm housing me the 10, so again you would expect better response.

Im getting 17psi at about 4,600rpm out of a completely std RB20...and making 222rwkws pretty easilt out of it.

So i would suspect (im guessing, dont know any better then anyone else, but a feeling from the resutls im getting) that you wouls be able to make 15-17psi by 4,000rpm and able to make 210-220rwkw with a good tune.

Looking at tunes as being conservative / normal / aggressive ... then im told my tune is pretty conservative, so with a more normal tune id expect to see the 200rwkw mark at 15-17psi...which for a street RB20 is plenty:)

If you are getting it at the right price and its in good condition, and is internally gated with T3 flange, then it could be a good thing.

Worst case scenario if you are inclined to get it, if it turns out it dies or your not happy, then with the TD06 turbine and 8cm housing with 360deg bearings, when you get it rebuilt you can easily get it hi-flowed using the 20G compressor or better again a later model Garret wheel:)

Some things to consider that you perhaps have not already thought of

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/56124-td06-17c-on-rb20/#findComment-1089553
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply Roy! Yeah my target is 200-220rwkw (would be happy with 200!) so this seems to fit the bill.... :D and the less lag the better...

The price is good, it's a direct bolt on, internally gated.

15-17psi by 4k sounds good to me...

The worst thing will be waiting for it to arrive !

Thanks for the rebuild option! I never thought of it that way, and it's a great option... tho will the internal gate struggle to control the boost?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/56124-td06-17c-on-rb20/#findComment-1089565
Share on other sites

Dont know, so may ppl say internal wastegates struggle to control boost?!?!?!?...so ok they are a cost and packaging compromise, but on an engine making 200rwkws (ie RB20) i dont think you will haev too much in the way of boost control problems, you arent talking massive amounts fo airflow...

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/56124-td06-17c-on-rb20/#findComment-1089697
Share on other sites

I've driven an SR20 (GTI-R) with a TD06SH-25G 12cm external gate setup and it would have to be the fastest car I've driven. absolutely insane. There was another GTI-R with a smaller trust turbo kit on it, that came with dyno sheets showing 312ps at all four, the 25G equipped one was miles quicker so I'd say 350hp at all four+. I think if you are aiming for up to 200rwkw this will be a good choice, after that you may require something bigger.

Richard

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/56124-td06-17c-on-rb20/#findComment-1089828
Share on other sites

I have been reading up bigtime on this turbo, it does not seem that this is a Trust turbo... can anyone confirm?

edit: I just found a listing on the CAPA website listing this as a trust turbo :confused:

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/56124-td06-17c-on-rb20/#findComment-1089882
Share on other sites

Ok so I'm thinking of getting either this turbo or a RB25 turbo.

What is leading me to spend the extra $$ on the 17C is the steel exh wheel, this seems to be the single most limiting factor of the RB25 turbo.

Or am I barking up the wrong tree seeming it only has the 8cm exh housing? This seems to be the limiting factor of the 17C......

Any feedback?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/56124-td06-17c-on-rb20/#findComment-1090881
Share on other sites

I have the 10cm housing on my 20G...my opinion go the 8cm housing!

Look up the Taka Kaira (spelling?) Jap parts website, their Trust Catallogue is pretty comprehensive.....will eb able to find out for sure whether the 17C is a Trust turbo (or just plain Mitsubishi) and what cars they recommend it for.

The 25G on a RWD car are good for between 280-330rwkws, so i think its a little oversized for 200rwkws on an RB20, so would be the TD06-20G. I think the 17C woudl be fine if had at the right price

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/56124-td06-17c-on-rb20/#findComment-1090945
Share on other sites

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

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...