The 2H/12H-T/1HZ/1HD-T/1HD-FT Gturbo Alternative Tech Thread (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter ForealBoreal
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Nz Nath
SILVER Star
The drain is normally meant to be as vertical as possible. I think holset spec maximum 5deg from vertical for example. Yours looks more like 30deg?
I think it's fine. The more important part is that the bung on the oil pan is high up the side of the pan. Just my opinion.
Here's my Holset HX-30 return line on my HZJ80.
Looking at your pic again, the oil return outlet on the turbo side should be more closer to vertical. There's more leeway on the hose angle after that.
Nz Nath
SILVER Star
Well it took a while, but I finally got around to dynoing my land rover again, to see how the 8.5cm twinscroll he221w performed on my 13bt, vs the single scroll 5.5cm he221w.
So originally this was going to be the "perfect" comparison with as few variables changed as possible. However it turned out the 5.5cm he221 runs a smaller compressor and turbine wheel than the 7cm variant which is compatible with the twinscroll turbine housing. I moved to a different part of the country, so it's on a different dyno, though this dyno was installed/setup by the people who run the Auckland shop where the earlier run was done, and is meant to read very similar. And final thing that ruins the accuracy of the comparison is that I just found that I'd previously installed the inlet manifold gasket upside down, and had been running with a small boost leak for most of this year. That's now fixed, but the the earlier dyno run was with that boost leak. In reality I don't think that would have harmed the figures too much based on seat of the pants performance difference, but that's opinion rather than fact...
Comparing the dyno runs is made annoying as the Auckland dyno converted the figures to flywheel numbers in the graph, and lists the rear wheel peaks at the bottom. The Palmy dyno only has rear wheel figures, but there is something wrong with their torque figures/plot. From reading up on this, the power figures are the most useful and accurate as long as the rpm/speed ratio is correct. The Palmy dyno set this the same as the Auckland shop, so this should be a fair comparison. It looks like the Auckland dyno displays torque derived from the power readings, whereas the Palmy dyno is possibly showing measured torque but there is a setting off somehow. The below figures I'm comparing are rear wheel kw, and torque derived from that. Definitely not ideal, but that's the data I got.
I thought the 8.5cm TS would have better legs than the 5.5cm SS, and hold the torque curve later into the rev range. However that doesn't seem to be the case, infact pretty much the opposite is true. The 5.5cm made peak torque at 2300rpm, the 8.5cm peaks at about 1800rpm, but drops off slow enough to still better the 5.5cm.
The 5.5cm made 95rwkw at 2500rpm, and holds that roughly till 3300/3400rpm. The 8.5cm is making 100rwkw at 2550rpm, and holds that till about 3100rpm.
At 1750rpm, the 5.5cm is around 320-330nm and 60ish kw. The 8.5cm is 420nm and 77kw, and that's also peak torque. The 5.5cm peak torque is 370nm.
I turned up the fuel by approx 10cc, and this gained another 5kw, and about 30nm (450nm @1750rpm, so should be easily over 500nm at the flywheel).
So originally this was going to be the "perfect" comparison with as few variables changed as possible. However it turned out the 5.5cm he221 runs a smaller compressor and turbine wheel than the 7cm variant which is compatible with the twinscroll turbine housing. I moved to a different part of the country, so it's on a different dyno, though this dyno was installed/setup by the people who run the Auckland shop where the earlier run was done, and is meant to read very similar. And final thing that ruins the accuracy of the comparison is that I just found that I'd previously installed the inlet manifold gasket upside down, and had been running with a small boost leak for most of this year. That's now fixed, but the the earlier dyno run was with that boost leak. In reality I don't think that would have harmed the figures too much based on seat of the pants performance difference, but that's opinion rather than fact...
Comparing the dyno runs is made annoying as the Auckland dyno converted the figures to flywheel numbers in the graph, and lists the rear wheel peaks at the bottom. The Palmy dyno only has rear wheel figures, but there is something wrong with their torque figures/plot. From reading up on this, the power figures are the most useful and accurate as long as the rpm/speed ratio is correct. The Palmy dyno set this the same as the Auckland shop, so this should be a fair comparison. It looks like the Auckland dyno displays torque derived from the power readings, whereas the Palmy dyno is possibly showing measured torque but there is a setting off somehow. The below figures I'm comparing are rear wheel kw, and torque derived from that. Definitely not ideal, but that's the data I got.
I thought the 8.5cm TS would have better legs than the 5.5cm SS, and hold the torque curve later into the rev range. However that doesn't seem to be the case, infact pretty much the opposite is true. The 5.5cm made peak torque at 2300rpm, the 8.5cm peaks at about 1800rpm, but drops off slow enough to still better the 5.5cm.
The 5.5cm made 95rwkw at 2500rpm, and holds that roughly till 3300/3400rpm. The 8.5cm is making 100rwkw at 2550rpm, and holds that till about 3100rpm.
At 1750rpm, the 5.5cm is around 320-330nm and 60ish kw. The 8.5cm is 420nm and 77kw, and that's also peak torque. The 5.5cm peak torque is 370nm.
I turned up the fuel by approx 10cc, and this gained another 5kw, and about 30nm (450nm @1750rpm, so should be easily over 500nm at the flywheel).
Nz Nath
SILVER Star
Well it took a while, but I finally got around to dynoing my land rover again, to see how the 8.5cm twinscroll he221w performed on my 13bt, vs the single scroll 5.5cm he221w.
So originally this was going to be the "perfect" comparison with as few variables changed as possible. However it turned out the 5.5cm he221 runs a smaller compressor and turbine wheel than the 7cm variant which is compatible with the twinscroll turbine housing. I moved to a different part of the country, so it's on a different dyno, though this dyno was installed/setup by the people who run the Auckland shop where the earlier run was done, and is meant to read very similar. And final thing that ruins the accuracy of the comparison is that I just found that I'd previously installed the inlet manifold gasket upside down, and had been running with a small boost leak for most of this year. That's now fixed, but the the earlier dyno run was with that boost leak. In reality I don't think that would have harmed the figures too much based on seat of the pants performance difference, but that's opinion rather than fact...
Comparing the dyno runs is made annoying as the Auckland dyno converted the figures to flywheel numbers in the graph, and lists the rear wheel peaks at the bottom. The Palmy dyno only has rear wheel figures, but there is something wrong with their torque figures/plot. From reading up on this, the power figures are the most useful and accurate as long as the rpm/speed ratio is correct. The Palmy dyno set this the same as the Auckland shop, so this should be a fair comparison. It looks like the Auckland dyno displays torque derived from the power readings, whereas the Palmy dyno is possibly showing measured torque but there is a setting off somehow. The below figures I'm comparing are rear wheel kw, and torque derived from that. Definitely not ideal, but that's the data I got.
I thought the 8.5cm TS would have better legs than the 5.5cm SS, and hold the torque curve later into the rev range. However that doesn't seem to be the case, infact pretty much the opposite is true. The 5.5cm made peak torque at 2300rpm, the 8.5cm peaks at about 1800rpm, but drops off slow enough to still better the 5.5cm.
The 5.5cm made 95rwkw at 2500rpm, and holds that roughly till 3300/3400rpm. The 8.5cm is making 100rwkw at 2550rpm, and holds that till about 3100rpm.
At 1750rpm, the 5.5cm is around 320-330nm and 60ish kw. The 8.5cm is 420nm and 77kw, and that's also peak torque. The 5.5cm peak torque is 370nm.
I turned up the fuel by approx 10cc, and this gained another 10kw, and about 30nm (450nm @1750rpm, so should be easily over 500nm at the flywheel).
So originally this was going to be the "perfect" comparison with as few variables changed as possible. However it turned out the 5.5cm he221 runs a smaller compressor and turbine wheel than the 7cm variant which is compatible with the twinscroll turbine housing. I moved to a different part of the country, so it's on a different dyno, though this dyno was installed/setup by the people who run the Auckland shop where the earlier run was done, and is meant to read very similar. And final thing that ruins the accuracy of the comparison is that I just found that I'd previously installed the inlet manifold gasket upside down, and had been running with a small boost leak for most of this year. That's now fixed, but the the earlier dyno run was with that boost leak. In reality I don't think that would have harmed the figures too much based on seat of the pants performance difference, but that's opinion rather than fact...
Comparing the dyno runs is made annoying as the Auckland dyno converted the figures to flywheel numbers in the graph, and lists the rear wheel peaks at the bottom. The Palmy dyno only has rear wheel figures, but there is something wrong with their torque figures/plot. From reading up on this, the power figures are the most useful and accurate as long as the rpm/speed ratio is correct. The Palmy dyno set this the same as the Auckland shop, so this should be a fair comparison. It looks like the Auckland dyno displays torque derived from the power readings, whereas the Palmy dyno is possibly showing measured torque but there is a setting off somehow. The below figures I'm comparing are rear wheel kw, and torque derived from that. Definitely not ideal, but that's the data I got.
I thought the 8.5cm TS would have better legs than the 5.5cm SS, and hold the torque curve later into the rev range. However that doesn't seem to be the case, infact pretty much the opposite is true. The 5.5cm made peak torque at 2300rpm, the 8.5cm peaks at about 1800rpm, but drops off slow enough to still better the 5.5cm.
The 5.5cm made 95rwkw at 2500rpm, and holds that roughly till 3300/3400rpm. The 8.5cm is making 100rwkw at 2550rpm, and holds that till about 3100rpm.
At 1750rpm, the 5.5cm is around 320-330nm and 60ish kw. The 8.5cm is 420nm and 77kw, and that's also peak torque. The 5.5cm peak torque is 370nm.
I turned up the fuel by approx 10cc, and this gained another 10kw, and about 30nm (450nm @1750rpm, so should be easily over 500nm at the flywheel).
Last edited:
FJBen
SILVER Star
Nice work. Good to see the dyno reports even if they aren't basically back to back on the same system.
I wonder if turning up the fuel on the 5.5cm would realize the same 10kW/13hp gain as the 8.5?
A 140hp to the wheels from a 13BT sounds fantastic compared to the at best of a 90~95 to the wheels on a stock 13BT.
How's it driving overall now?
Nz Nath
SILVER Star
I had my pump rebuilt with 10mm elements, so I’ve got a lot of fueling potential. That dyno run with the 5.5cm, and the lower run from yesterday were with the fueling as set by the diesel shop, they benched it at 124cc at 3400rpm. Before working on the pump they benched it at 102cc at 3400rpm, which was with the stock 9mm elements maxed out.
I don’t think you’ll be at all disappointed with the 5.5cm, compared to the ct26 it will feel like a rocket. What will piss you off is that the stock 9mm elements delivery terminates with a fuel cut. So when your accelerating hard, you’ll find that if you slowly back off the throttle the motor will start pulling harder. But as the throttle controls rpm and load, as your speed increases you need to use more throttle to continue the same acceleration, but if you push it too far you’re back into the fuel cut…
I don’t think you’ll be at all disappointed with the 5.5cm, compared to the ct26 it will feel like a rocket. What will piss you off is that the stock 9mm elements delivery terminates with a fuel cut. So when your accelerating hard, you’ll find that if you slowly back off the throttle the motor will start pulling harder. But as the throttle controls rpm and load, as your speed increases you need to use more throttle to continue the same acceleration, but if you push it too far you’re back into the fuel cut…
well well..... as explained the Mamba parts are from chong feng industries
not bad but need a lot of extra work.
coolant and oil pipes, vacuum fittings etc.
I managed some things with a pipe bender, tig brazing and electro galvanising the water pipes.
running a fmi and 3 to 2.5" exhaust with a small muffler (you need a muffler if you not totally insane)
and a K&N filter, I cant complain so far.
Still stock boost, not touched the fuel pump
The truck spools up quicker compared with the OEM CT26, torque range is more or less the same
Madman EMS3, and some other goodies get installed next year.
Enjoy you live, there is only one
Have a nice Christmas etc
not bad but need a lot of extra work.
coolant and oil pipes, vacuum fittings etc.
I managed some things with a pipe bender, tig brazing and electro galvanising the water pipes.
running a fmi and 3 to 2.5" exhaust with a small muffler (you need a muffler if you not totally insane)
and a K&N filter, I cant complain so far.
Still stock boost, not touched the fuel pump
The truck spools up quicker compared with the OEM CT26, torque range is more or less the same
Madman EMS3, and some other goodies get installed next year.
Enjoy you live, there is only one
Have a nice Christmas etc
Last edited:
What are peoples thoughts on the new TD06SL turbos being sold by mamba and kinugawa?
I have an older mamba TD05-18g on my 1hd-fte. It was great on my old 1hd-t, but after i got a unichip on the FTE, and the newer mamba wg actuatoer with a 2 bar spring, i'm able to do 1.85bar from 2100 up to 2800rpm but seem to lose steam after that, going down to about 1.6. I'm quite sure the exhaust manifold pressure is very high, which has necessitated the 2 bar spring, as smaller ones would open on exhaust pressure alone regardless of boost control settings. It's still a great turbo, it just seems like the engine might be able to do more with a larger turbo.
I am not seeing any other negative effects of high exhaust pressure like high egts or the like. And am also considering the Kinugawa TD05-20g ball bearing one. Kinugawa sent me a 10% coupon and with their free shipping and no tax+duties their price becomes very competitive compared to other options for me here in denmark, where import duties and taxes are through the roof.
Ball bearing TD06:
store.kinugawaturbosystems.com
I have an older mamba TD05-18g on my 1hd-fte. It was great on my old 1hd-t, but after i got a unichip on the FTE, and the newer mamba wg actuatoer with a 2 bar spring, i'm able to do 1.85bar from 2100 up to 2800rpm but seem to lose steam after that, going down to about 1.6. I'm quite sure the exhaust manifold pressure is very high, which has necessitated the 2 bar spring, as smaller ones would open on exhaust pressure alone regardless of boost control settings. It's still a great turbo, it just seems like the engine might be able to do more with a larger turbo.
I am not seeing any other negative effects of high exhaust pressure like high egts or the like. And am also considering the Kinugawa TD05-20g ball bearing one. Kinugawa sent me a 10% coupon and with their free shipping and no tax+duties their price becomes very competitive compared to other options for me here in denmark, where import duties and taxes are through the roof.
Ball bearing TD06:
Kinugawa Turbo Systems Offers Drop-IN Bolt-on Performance Turbocharger
Just Less Than 3 Steps! Easily Customize DROP-IN or BOLT-ON turbocharged solutions with innovation, performance, and uncompromised quality. Kinugawa Turbo Systems helps people boosting their "creativities" into the powertrain such as Subaru, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Nissan, VOLVO, SAAB, VW, FCA with...
store.kinugawaturbosystems.com
Hi fvaleur,
what I can say about those mamba and kinugawa turbos;
they are not bad but none of those turbos have never been mounted and tested by the seller.
they also need a lot of extra work, water and oil lines, fittings etc.
I got the TD05-18G, have not done any adjustment to the fuel pump etc.
with stock settings I dont see any better performance compared to the CT26, the TD05 spools up a bit quicker in low revs, but above 3thsd rpm there is nothing
more power (here the CT26 was actually better)
So adjustements are vital if you change the turbo, that needs time and an expert for the fuel pump to tweak in the right way.
what I can say about those mamba and kinugawa turbos;
they are not bad but none of those turbos have never been mounted and tested by the seller.
they also need a lot of extra work, water and oil lines, fittings etc.
I got the TD05-18G, have not done any adjustment to the fuel pump etc.
with stock settings I dont see any better performance compared to the CT26, the TD05 spools up a bit quicker in low revs, but above 3thsd rpm there is nothing
more power (here the CT26 was actually better)
So adjustements are vital if you change the turbo, that needs time and an expert for the fuel pump to tweak in the right way.
Would you care for a super late reply?
I have this on my 94 running ~24psi. (fmic, 3" free flowing exhaust, ZEAL power rod) It's... overall great. Really good response, very strong. I somewhat wish it was maybe a little lazier, much as i know that sounds backwards. The truck is running 10-12psi running down the highway at 72-75mph, which means it's right in the meat of the map at all times, which is again... great for response. However, i don't really need something that immediately heads to max boost once i glance at the go pedal sideways.
Basically what i'm saying is: For North America highway use, i wouldn't shy away from going bigger. BUT, this thing is a MASSIVE improvement in every measurable way from stock, and it bolted right in. Big power from about 1500-3500rpm.
What are peoples thoughts on the new TD06SL turbos being sold by mamba and kinugawa?
I have an older mamba TD05-18g on my 1hd-fte. It was great on my old 1hd-t, but after i got a unichip on the FTE, and the newer mamba wg actuatoer with a 2 bar spring, i'm able to do 1.85bar from 2100 up to 2800rpm but seem to lose steam after that, going down to about 1.6. I'm quite sure the exhaust manifold pressure is very high, which has necessitated the 2 bar spring, as smaller ones would open on exhaust pressure alone regardless of boost control settings. It's still a great turbo, it just seems like the engine might be able to do more with a larger turbo.
I am not seeing any other negative effects of high exhaust pressure like high egts or the like. And am also considering the Kinugawa TD05-20g ball bearing one. Kinugawa sent me a 10% coupon and with their free shipping and no tax+duties their price becomes very competitive compared to other options for me here in denmark, where import duties and taxes are through the roof.
Ball bearing TD06:
Kinugawa Turbo Systems Offers Drop-IN Bolt-on Performance Turbocharger
Just Less Than 3 Steps! Easily Customize DROP-IN or BOLT-ON turbocharged solutions with innovation, performance, and uncompromised quality. Kinugawa Turbo Systems helps people boosting their "creativities" into the powertrain such as Subaru, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Nissan, VOLVO, SAAB, VW, FCA with...
If you think exhaust pressure is high then you can measure it. Sounds like you need a firmer wastegate spring.
I found the TD06SL2 turbos in the CT26 housing category. No mention of ball-bearings: Kinugawa Turbo 3 - https://store.kinugawaturbosystems.com/collections/toyota-land-cruiser-1hd-t-1hd-ft-1hd-fte/products/kinugawa-turbo-3-td06sl2-18g-toyota-land-cruiser-1hd?variant=42193063182590
Ball bearing one here: Kinugawa Ball Bearing Turbo 3 - https://store.kinugawaturbosystems.com/collections/toyota-land-cruiser-1hd-t-1hd-ft-1hd-fte/products/kinugawa-turbo-3-td06sl2-18g-toyota-land-cruiser-1hd-1?variant=42193000268030
Hard to say really. Definitely targetted at higher rpm power but there are no maps or efficiency numbers to go off.
My friends car turbo build.
His hdj81 landcruiser comes from Japan with installed front mount blitz intercooler and small T3 Td05-18g turbocharger.
To replace a broken old Td05 we buy kinugawa bolt on kit for 1HD engine kinugawa ball bearing Td05-18g with small 7 centimetres housing.
It’s a completely bolt on kit, all studs, nuts, hoses, fittings included.
Stock 63mm intake pipe from filter to turbo changed to 76mm.
It’s an awesome turbo. Spools from 1200 rpm. Boost up to 1,3 bar, after adjusting fuel pump egt don’t rise up higher 740’C. Egt sensor mounted before turbo flange.
His hdj81 landcruiser comes from Japan with installed front mount blitz intercooler and small T3 Td05-18g turbocharger.
To replace a broken old Td05 we buy kinugawa bolt on kit for 1HD engine kinugawa ball bearing Td05-18g with small 7 centimetres housing.
It’s a completely bolt on kit, all studs, nuts, hoses, fittings included.
Stock 63mm intake pipe from filter to turbo changed to 76mm.
It’s an awesome turbo. Spools from 1200 rpm. Boost up to 1,3 bar, after adjusting fuel pump egt don’t rise up higher 740’C. Egt sensor mounted before turbo flange.
Old td05 turbo.
Mount on exhaust manifold with a spacer from t4 to t3.
Runs very well. Boost 1.2 bar, egt less 750’C
Mount on exhaust manifold with a spacer from t4 to t3.
Runs very well. Boost 1.2 bar, egt less 750’C
What FMIC setup and display?
Oh i see now you stated it was a Blitz FMIC, looks like a good fit!
Oh i see now you stated it was a Blitz FMIC, looks like a good fit!
