Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

currently been thinking about upgrading my HKS GT-RS turbo on my R33 GTST. im after the 320 rwkw make but dont want a laggy ass turbo. Currently making 260rwkw and bored of it.

What turbo's have you people seen make 320rwkw without too much lag (preferably HKS turbos). considering the HKS 3040 but not too sure on how it goes.

any help/dyno graphs will be appreciated.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/105432-upgrading-turbo/
Share on other sites

320rwkw shouldn't be difficult to achieve with the HKS3040R or Garrett equivalent provided you do have a built engine. I think there are a few people on here who can personally vouch for that...

I've got a GT3040R on my R33 making around 280rwkw on 17psi (see dyno graph below). I've only got a std bottom end, so I haven't really pushed the limits of the turbo too much at this stage, but there's definately potential to make a lot more power.

Obviously it's not going to be as responsive as your current set up, but full boost by just over 4000rpm isn't too bad when you making approx 300rwkw.

Hope that helps :rolleyes:

post-10992-1139663951.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/105432-upgrading-turbo/#findComment-1942129
Share on other sites

The Garrett GT3040R is rated is 600hp.

SEE HERE

I also forgot to mention that i have the 0.82a/r turbine housing, so I guess you could go for the 0.63a/r if you wanted less lag, although power would come on like a light switch which would make traction a bit of a problem. The 0.82 is nice and progressive.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/105432-upgrading-turbo/#findComment-1943555
Share on other sites

Wouldn't the 0.63 choke the top end too much and stop you from getting to 320?

What about the GT2835 Pro S with the 0.87 rear housing? That should get you there.

What was B-Man running when he had 330rwkw? Was that the 2835 or the 3040?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/105432-upgrading-turbo/#findComment-1944036
Share on other sites

Wouldn't the 0.63 choke the top end too much and stop you from getting to 320?

I used to think that 300+ would be pushing it with the 0.63, but after seeing Wilchs results in the rb25 dyno thread - i.e mid 270's @ 16-17psi with a .63 GT30R on rb25 w/std internals (I think?) - I guess 300 could be possible with a little more boost and a rebuilt engine.

What was B-Man running when he had 330rwkw? Was that the 2835 or the 3040?

I think it was a HKS3040R from what I remember when I was researching a while ago (may be wrong)
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/105432-upgrading-turbo/#findComment-1944288
Share on other sites

1.0 Japanese PS = 0.98632 BHP

actually PS is not a japanese measurement. i dunno where you got that from but it's the (old) german standard of horsepower. it stands for Pferdestärke which i am quite positive is not japanese. basically means horse power in german.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/105432-upgrading-turbo/#findComment-1945350
Share on other sites

That had a lot of stuff done to it to get that.

An R33 RB25 head isn't the most amazing piece of gear and it's still only 2.5 litres.  Imagine how peaky 300-350rwkw would be.  Sounds ilke a waste of time if you ask me.

I'd agree. Much over 300rwkw and its gonna be peaky.

My setup (in my opinion) with the 600hp GT30 was as late as i would want a turbo to come on (4200/4500rpm/17psi)

With a redline of high 7000's thats not the "greatest"

Hence why im RB26, aiming for 330rwkw but rather than 4500rpm, it'll be more like 3500rpm, with a MUCH broader span of power, with 240rwkw in before 3000rpm (where rb25 was more like 150rwkw) based on results of other cars with a setup similar to me

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/105432-upgrading-turbo/#findComment-1945579
Share on other sites

Turbo's aside...

Have you considered using an RB30 bottom end?

If I ever had to rebuild my engine, I'd seriously contemplate going that way as the RB30 bottom end should definately give a much broader power band than the RB25. Add in a GT30 or GT35 turbo (with the usual supporting mods) and 320rwkw should be a formality. The bonus being that the power is usuable over a large part of the rev range as opposed to having peak power at the top of the rev range and not much else for the rest of it if you had the same power with the RB25.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/105432-upgrading-turbo/#findComment-1946895
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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...