Oil feed for Borg Warner S366

[JackyBoi]

Just a quick question on oil feeds for this turbo. I've done some research and the majority of people seem to run a -4 oil feed but there are also people saying to use a -3. Apparently some people who have used the -4 have experienced oil getting through the compressor so have fitted a restrictor and smoking etc, but again lots of people have said they've always ran a -4 for years with no issues.

 

I used an unrestricted -4 feed for my 6266 (as recommended by Precision) so do people reckon this would work fine with a S366 journal, or would a restrictor be a good idea? I don't want to push too my oil into the turbo but I also don't want to starve it from oil! Thanks guys

[np89]

AN -3 feed on mine dude

 

 

[sebas]

I used -4 feed for my Borg Warner S300 SXE no problems.

[Wez]

Might be worth emailing the turbo supplier and asking them

[np89]

From the manufacturer when I enquired for my own:

 

His exact words were:

 

"We normally run -4 on the 2JZ GTE but in certain cases it flows a little bit too much. I believe the -3 will be sufficient."

 

"You need 1/4" NPT to -3 or -4. We've ran both without issues, but it all depends on the application. I would not suggest an oil restrictor"

 

 

 

[bignum]

-3 here no probs for 5 years.

[JackyBoi]

Hmm more mixed opinions then! Had a read of this thread here: http://www.clublexus.com/forums/performance-and-maintenance/578517-any-one-using-borgwarner-s366-3.html

 

Some people saying -4 was too much oil, some saying -3 wasn't enough, even some saying use -6?! Is there such thing as a -3.5 or modifying a jet to make it -3.5?

 

I'm thinking about going -4 if I do go for an s366 and if it does seem to be too much either jet it or swap to a -3

 

 

 

[JackyBoi]

From the manufacturer when I enquired for my own:

 

His exact words were:

 

"We normally run -4 on the 2JZ GTE but in certain cases it flows a little bit too much. I believe the -3 will be sufficient."

 

"You need 1/4" NPT to -3 or -4. We've ran both without issues, but it all depends on the application. I would not suggest an oil restrictor"

 

 

/QUOTE]

 

So frustrating that there isn't a solid answer! To be honest it sounds like a 50/50 chance, seems like people are experiencing different results so it's just whatever works on your specific setup. So you haven't noticed any issues whatsoever using a -3?

[np89]

You can use a hydraulic fitting which an inbetweeny but thats a load of ballaxing about tbh. , -3 will be perfect but go -4 if you are worried. It might over pressurise the seal and leak but as said before the seals are more like piston rings so as soon as you take the pressure off they will just seal again so of it did happen you could just replace with a -3 and no harm done

 

 

[Paul Whiffin]

AN4 with no restrictor is correct, that's what we've been using/supplying for about 9 years now on these turbos.

[JackyBoi]

You can use a hydraulic fitting which an inbetweeny but thats a load of ballaxing about tbh. , -3 will be perfect but go -4 if you are worried. It might over pressurise the seal and leak but as said before the seals are more like piston rings so as soon as you take the pressure off they will just seal again so of it did happen you could just replace with a -3 and no harm done

 

/QUOTE]

 

Alright cheers mate think I'll go -4 then since I already have one

 

AN4 with no restrictor is correct, that's what we've been using/supplying for about 9 years now on these turbos.

 

Thanks Paul