Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

They are a fair bit bigger but shouldnt be ridiculous on a rb20 id say this mod in conjuction with cam gears it should bring on full boost by around 3.2-3.8k....

If it a high flow they are generally good for around 220rwkw, and if it is a high flow dont worry about the turbos age just ask when it was high flowed cuase all the wearing items should have been replaced at the same time!!!

  • 2 months later...

wow.. 3300rpm.. Is that on the street say rolling on in second gear from low rpm or loaded up on the dyno.

My rb20det with the stock rb20det turbo rolling on in second used to see 15psi by around 3500rpm.

Loading it up I could see 15psi by 2800rpm or so.

A friend has a VLT, rolling on from low rpm in second saw 12-13psi around 3000rpm.

I've seen some real dodgy T3/T04 hybrids so make sure what you get is reasonably well thought out . The most I would ever do to the VL spec dinosaur T3 is go up to the last size ie 60 to 65 trim T3 compressor as its the turbine thats lacking and definatly not designed to power T4 comps .

Avoid eight bladed T04B compressors at all costs as they are low speed surging dogs . If you must use a "B" wheel use a six bladed one as they have some chance of working - kind of .

I doubt an RB20 will thank you for a bush bearing turbo , the oil and optional water fittings are all different as is the actuator waste gate and outlet pipe . The fiddly bits make it an expensive conversion .

It goes against the grain but something like a GT28RS in the RB25 exhaust housing will at least bolt up to everything on the hot side . Oil water and air plumbing are not std but what else is ? I'd be thinking about the std turbo with the RB25 exhaust housing or the complete unit if its on a cheap budget .

Cheers A .

I have a T3/T04 turbo on my RB20 with a exhaust housing identical to a VL and a TO4 compressor housing. Not sure if the wheels are similar or not.

As Disco said, if your upgrading, a bush bearing turbo is not the most ideal thing to replace it with but I guess it all depends on what your budget is and what you want from the car.

On my car, lets say second gear and rolling at low rpms and then mashing the throttle it will see about 16psi at approx. 3800rpm but I have a decent manifold thats been designed for this turbo.

The power delivery is very harsh. There is nothing linear at all about its delivery. The motor seems asleep and a split second later the boost gauge is peaking and the car is skating all over the road. If friends come for a drive they have a grin from ear to ear for an hour but living with it everyday is a real pain.

To answer your question if it could be called an upgrade? Personally I would say its a step backwards.

FATGTS-R that tends to be the real world experience .

The problem was heavy (for their size) turbines and oil shear drag from bush bearings with their excess contact area compared to ball bearings . Exhaust housings had to have smaller ARR's to overcome the drag and innertia and give a reasonal boost threshold . The problem is this then limits total gas flow creating thermal and detonation dramas (reversion/polution/charge heating) .

Modern turbos use low friction bearings and low innertia rotating group which require less exhaust eneregy to get them going .

Turbine housings have come along in leaps and bounds , the modern ones have less surface flow losses and the gas retains more enery by being ducted through wider nozzles . If you compare A T3 turbine to a GT BB turbine (eg GT30) the tip heights (the inducer where the gas is fed into the blades is quite high or wide) are much greater on the GT's . The earlier designs were trying to harness the exhaust energy from low or narrow tip height inducers and the exducer section tended to wrap around more than the GT's to gain a little more trapping efficiency . The narrow nozzle of the earlier types tended to speed up the gas flow more so and the partially avoidable restriction cost the turbine some energy and the housing some flow for its size .

Its easy to think that the old dinosaurs are easy and cheap - but if you were buying them brand new the price difference is often small compared to the newer ones once they're in place .

Cheers A .

  • 2 weeks later...
wow.. 3300rpm.. Is that on the street say rolling on in second gear from low rpm or loaded up on the dyno.

My rb20det with the stock rb20det turbo rolling on in second used to see 15psi by around 3500rpm.

Loading it up I could see 15psi by 2800rpm or so.

A friend has a VLT, rolling on from low rpm in second saw 12-13psi around 3000rpm.

nah dude thats in 4th gear, 2nd it doesn't come on till 4 grand roughly. you know you measure boost in 4th and 5th gear don't you, as its inconsistent in the lower gears

How often do you accelerate hard from low rpm in 4th. :O

You do however punch it hard from down low out of corners in second. Testing second gives more of an indication how the car drives under 'general' street conditions.

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...