View Single Post
Old 05-06-2014, 05:37 AM   #3
Pete_89T2
Lifetime Rotorhead
 
Pete_89T2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Elkton, MD
Posts: 874
Rep Power: 16
Pete_89T2 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by RETed View Post
Isn't this a compressor upgrade on the stock center housing? Isn't the stock center housing have some kinda built in restrictor?
Negative, the only stock part remaining from my turbo is the turbine housing, and even that was modified (ported waste gate). BNR now uses all new center housings along with the new compressor housing & comp wheel. I also got a new turbine wheel/shaft. According to Bryan, there are no oil restrictors in the turbo, not counting the orifices on the new journal bearings themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RETed View Post
Anyways, I wanted to comment on the "bigger is better" notion... Actually, the reality is opposite.
With the kind of engine (oil) pressures we run, it's closer to 100psi or even over. Smaller is better. What happens if you go "too big?" I knew a guy who tried to run a -6 on the oil feed into the turbo - some Garrett T4. He ended up spinning the front (stat gear) bearing, because too much oil was being diverted from that area - notice the turbo oil feed primarily comes from that area. So, yes, in this case, more restriction is better than more flow...
As a rule, don't run anything larger than a -4; a -3 is actually better for the turbo oil feed, in this case.


-Ted
Yup, I'm with you on that. I'm still using the stock hard piping to feed oil right up to the turbo, which by eyeball looks to be somewhere between a -3 & -4 ID size. I added the restriction via a plate under the oil feed flange on the CHRA, using a 0.09375 hole. This is a pretty significant restriction, compared to the stock -3-ish oil feed pipe, but not quite as much as the 0.060 Bryan suggested.
Pete_89T2 is offline   Reply With Quote