Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

could you honestly have more than twin gt-rs's worth of street power?

on a 26/30 i would have thought they would have been spot on for max power and quick wind up (well the quickest possible for massive power)

are the gtrs's ball bearing or plain bearing?

i recall the twin 2530's are plain bearing

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

could you honestly have more than twin gt-rs's worth of street power?

on a 26/30 i would have thought they would have been spot on for max power and quick wind up (well the quickest possible for massive power)

are the gtrs's ball bearing or plain bearing?

i recall the twin 2530's are plain bearing

im 99.9% sure they are both ballbearing, as with all the hks turbos (recent ones anyway)

ok anyone with twin 2530s

do you have a restrictor on the oil feed

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...pic=93332&st=20

that thread seems to be very helpful

it seems to indicate if you have a restrictor then they are ball bearing

maybe there are two versions of the 2530's in twin format

this page seems to indicate they come with restrictor bolts http://forums.freshalloy.com/showthread.php?t=148813

which would indicate they are ball bearing

the gtrs's are only rated to 440hp each (+/-10hp, cant remember exactly) and that only equates to 880hp at the flywheel, when they are set up to the max, with the most boost they can run, i presume somewhere in the high 20's. taking out the 20% drivetrain loss, for rwd, this would only give me 704rwhp, not the 700awhp i was looking for. so i'd need a twin set-up rated at roughly 500hp each, and want all of your opinions on which turbos would be the most responsive.

reason for responsiveness required is this car is going to be set-up for track work, but sitll be driven on the street for cruises etc.

could you honestly have more than twin gt-rs's worth of street power?

on a 26/30 i would have thought they would have been spot on for max power and quick wind up (well the quickest possible for massive power)

are the gtrs's ball bearing or plain bearing?

i recall the twin 2530's are plain bearing

for track work having that much power i would think you would be creating quite possibly a slower car then what you could have. For that sort of power you would have alot of top end, i believe that much power would make your car slower, whether its from wheel spin, or boost drop off during gear changes. I think v8 super cars are nearing 700bhp, and you want 700awhp! Most quick circuit cars are generally around 650bhp max i believe. My opinion is that a fast circuit car is built around excellent midrange power with good top end, but it depends on what track your running as to how usable that power will be to you.

strangely enough my hks t04z needs a restrictor but my mates BB garrett gt30/40 doesnt need one, any reason y????

They all have an internal restrictor Brad.

On the cartridge itself that you cant see unless you pull it all apart.

Interesting you need a restrictor at all :(

My guess is the trust turbos on the dyno graph are 518z with the 0.72 rear housing. I am not sure whether that is the 8cm or 10cm (or neither) which is how trust measure the rear housing but that would be my guess.

Maybe someone could convert the 8cm and 10cm to a/r.

the gtrs's are only rated to 440hp each (+/-10hp, cant remember exactly) and that only equates to 880hp at the flywheel,

this would only give me 704rwhp, not the 700awhp i was looking for. so i'd need a twin set-up rated at roughly 500hp each, and want all of your opinions on which turbos would be the most responsive.

reason for responsiveness required is this car is going to be set-up for track work, but sitll be driven on the street for cruises etc.

Mate 700AWHP and responsive track GTR are at complete odds with each other.

Like a few boys have said, for a quick track car, masses of topend power doesnt make it quicker around a track. Mid range torque and responsiveness makes it quick. A really quick track GTR usually selects turbo's for the midrange, 700AWHP is enough to run a low 10sec quartermile, possibley a high 9sec pass with suspension and transmission work. Not many 9sec GTRs are quick around a track or on the street mate.

For the best street GTR, with a bit of track work id suggest the HKS GT-SS twins. 300-330 AWKW.

But if your building up a bigger engined GTR, theres no point going with turbo's this small.

2530's would also IMO be to small for your application.

2540's can produce up to 400AWKW, and GTR Jason on this forum has clocked some amazing track times around some Sydney circuits with them. But their getting a bit old now, and have since been replaced by the GTRS's. Looking at that dyno graph id say these turbo's would be great for your application. You could get 600-700 AWHP outta them, and they're more responsive than a T04Z.

GTR's are the biggest/powerfull low mount turbo's you can fit.

After them, your looking at a large single like the T04Z or a small high mount kit, like the Trust TD05 twin setup. TD06's would be to laggy for track work IMO.

Personally i think you need to rethink your power goal and your intended use for your GTR. Becasue at the moment i think they're at loggerheads. You'll find that a 550-600 GTR with GT-SS's will more than likely be quicker around a track than a laggy 750BHP monster.

Mate 700AWHP and responsive track GTR are at complete odds with each other.

Like a few boys have said, for a quick track car, masses of topend power doesnt make it quicker around a track. Mid range torque and responsiveness makes it quick. A really quick track GTR usually selects turbo's for the midrange, 700AWHP is enough to run a low 10sec quartermile, possibley a high 9sec pass with suspension and transmission work. Not many 9sec GTRs are quick around a track or on the street mate.

For the best street GTR, with a bit of track work id suggest the HKS GT-SS twins. 300-330 AWKW.

But if your building up a bigger engined GTR, theres no point going with turbo's this small.

2530's would also IMO be to small for your application.

2540's can produce up to 400AWKW, and GTR Jason on this forum has clocked some amazing track times around some Sydney circuits with them. But their getting a bit old now, and have since been replaced by the GTRS's. Looking at that dyno graph id say these turbo's would be great for your application. You could get 600-700 AWHP outta them, and they're more responsive than a T04Z.

GTR's are the biggest/powerfull low mount turbo's you can fit.

After them, your looking at a large single like the T04Z or a small high mount kit, like the Trust TD05 twin setup. TD06's would be to laggy for track work IMO.

Personally i think you need to rethink your power goal and your intended use for your GTR. Becasue at the moment i think they're at loggerheads. You'll find that a 550-600 GTR with GT-SS's will more than likely be quicker around a track than a laggy 750BHP monster.

Good advice. I've got a lot of hardware installed along with my GT-RS terbs. I'm changing the inlet cam to a longer duration 272 item, but I really doubt I'll crack the 600 rwhp level. I think 570 to 570 rwhp is a more realistic maximum for these terbs.

Good advice. I've got a lot of hardware installed along with my GT-RS terbs. I'm changing the inlet cam to a longer duration 272 item, but I really doubt I'll crack the 600 rwhp level. I think 570 to 570 rwhp is a more realistic maximum for these terbs.

But are you using a 3ltr engine? Not sure if i did metion it or not, but my engine consist's of an rb26 head with rb30 bottom end

I think i'll just be happy with what the gtrs's produce and see what time i can get around qld raceway in...but then again the power mite not be enough n i may strive for more...as it always happens >_<

Mate 700AWHP and responsive track GTR are at complete odds with each other.

You could get 600-700 AWHP outta them, and they're more responsive than a T04Z.

GTR's are the biggest/powerfull low mount turbo's you can fit.

If you basing the GT-RS vs T04Z on the graph comparo here... im not too sure.

Im still un-convinced by one dyno graph comparo with unknown spec'd motors.

Its too hard to make a call without the detail of every car used, and the subsequent modifications.

the gtrs's are only rated to 440hp each (+/-10hp, cant remember exactly) and that only equates to 880hp at the flywheel, ... 704rwhp, not the 700awhp i was looking for.

As you said, give you 704rwhp... thats 704awhp

So i dont see how it isnt what you are looking for.

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...