Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

this is by no means a good and accurate representation. it is merely a cut and shut of the figures for reference and "ooo" purposes. i merely chopped up the twoogle graph and plotted it where i think it lays on the RB26 comparison chart. the temps, pressure etc arent the same so its not ideal. but the ramp rate is

post-2054-1150191824.jpg

this is by no means a good and accurate representation. it is merely a cut and shut of the figures for reference and "ooo" purposes. i merely chopped up the twoogle graph and plotted it where i think it lays on the RB26 comparison chart. the temps, pressure etc arent the same so its not ideal. but the ramp rate is

post-2054-1150191824.jpg

its pretty close...it would be closer if you joined the "knee"(where the stock turbo arrow is pointing) of the stock graph and the knee of your curve with a straight line, as from memory they were almost equal with the stockers and walked away from them at the knee. You have them coming on way too hard with your vertical line, 2530's don't come on like that...GT-RS turbo's and big singles do though.

And yes apoligies for the "wank factor" graph but its the only one i had available to me here at home.

Note...all the Willall runs were in 2WD mode.

Edited by DiRTgarage

i cant plot data below 116km/h as i dont have any data to work with, thats why it starts mid air as the first value i have from your graph is 116km/h do you have an other dyno sheets that i can use ?

but pressure is only useful for a given compressor wheel. its pointless comparing 15psi on a 2530 and 15psi on a single t04z as they both would have completely different airflow, in turn different power levels

The boost level used with each setup is also important.

According to HPI magazine TW0-06L 442RWKW pull was at 35PSI and C16, hardly a fair comparison if the GTR's are at 20PSI and pump fuel..

and ill say for the third time... the HPI graphs... Trust/GTRS/T04Z are just the same

No-one has been able top provide the motor spec that accompanies the turbos, so IMO all it really is achieving is a very very rough idea that i would say is not that accurate

i cant plot data below 116km/h as i dont have any data to work with, thats why it starts mid air as the first value i have from your graph is 116km/h do you have an other dyno sheets that i can use ?

your in luck....here's one i dug up (literally)...its got coffe spilt on it but its still legible.

the pink line is cam timing set at zero

the red is optimum cam timing....notice the gains without comprimising bottom end power and torque

post-23582-1150197339.jpg

Edited by DiRTgarage
The boost level used with each setup is also important.

According to HPI magazine TW0-06L 442RWKW pull was at 35PSI and C16, hardly a fair comparison if the GTR's are at 20PSI and pump fuel..

Dont believe everything you read.

I think Nismoid's comment a few posts back is one to consider. For example even on our engine...just changing the turbo's only was not a good comparison between 2530's and GT-RS's..... the cam profiles and engine capacity were a perfect match for one set-up....and a missmatch for the other. We struggled to make over 460 AWKW with the new turbo's due to missmatched components so you have to look at the entire package before turbo's are selected for each application....and more importantly budget.

Edited by DiRTgarage
updated with new data

yeah thats about right...they were running out of puff in the top end.....on the other graph we had the bastard iced up for about an hour or two (plenum, piping, intercooler etc) and all the belts off it (it was in a dyno comp at Powercruise) to stop the top end falling over.

Edited by DiRTgarage
updated with new data

post-2054-1150198361_thumb.jpg

According to that comparison Paul can make the legitimate claim that the 2530's make more power than the standard turbos EVERYWHERE. That's a true accomplishment :yes:

I have tried all sorts of turbos and I still prefer the 2530 on an RB26 everytime.

:D cheers :D

Are the 2530's still available? Or have they been dis-continued like the 2510's and 2540's?

I really must go for a ride in a GTR with 2530's, it seems everywhere i turn someone is praiseing them as the "best" turbo choice for the ultimate "allround" GTR.

When my 2540's give up the ghost ill have to look at them, or whatever replaces them.

The new GT-SS's share the same exhaust wheel as the 2530's, but a slightly smaller compressor i beleive. So faster spool up with a little less topend. I know CRD got 330AWKW from a pair so they're still very good up high.

The one thing that bothers me about the 2530's though is the very high boost levels required to achieve these kind of figures. I'd guess you would need 20PSI to get 330AWKW and 22PSI-24PSI to break 350AWKW. Thats a lot of boost for pump fuel while still retaining reliability. I wouldnt do a track day in my GTR at 20PSI and pump fuel, prolonged hard driving and warm weather would also not help.

Talking to Jim at CRD and haveing him setup up both of my cars, 18PSI is about as high as you should go on pump fuel, to still enable you to give your car a hard time out on the road and the odd track day and still have a high degree of reliability. The drag strip is a much shorter period of abuse, so higher boost is usually tolerated here.

2530's at 18PSI would struggle to top 320AWKW IMO. Still enough for the street, responsive enough for the track and powerfull enough to run 11s at the strip. Sounds like a very well rounded choice.

But if you want more than 320AWKW-330AWKW i think they start to lose their appeal as a genuine street option, as prolonged use at 20+PSI isnt going to be a very reliable option on regular pump fuel.

Thats why a turbo's performance at around 18PSI is important to me, as this is about the level a genuine street GTR is going to live at.

The 2540's fitted to my GTR by the previous owner are not a great street option. At 18PSI they make 330AWKW, but are laggy. The 2540'S strength is its ability to make big power in the 1.7-1.9BAR range, at this level 400AWKW is within reach and 10sec passes, but its hardly any use to me on the street and 99% of the time.

It just seems to me that most of the turbo options for the GTR are'nt overly practical, requireing dangerously high amounts of boost and funny fuel in order to run the turbo's in the meat of their efficinecy. Perhaps some owners have more funds or access to cheaper labour or parts than others, so can risk their engines longevity by leaning on it harder than others. Im on the other side of the fence, even one engine rebuild or turbo meltdown is almost certainly going to cost me the car, as many have stated in the past, just because you can afford to buy it doesnt mean you can afford to own it.

While running 10sec passes and makeing 440+AWKW on 2530's is achievable, its hardly practical for 99% of owners. A T88-34H will give you 400AWKW at 18PSI and the potential to run 10s, but be laggy on the treet and track. But to me, the cars that are most impressive are able to make their power or run their times as genuine "street' cars, in full street trim. Pump fuel, treaded tyres, no nitrous, exhaust with cat. These to me are the most impressive. Once this line blurrs then the car becomes a "drag" car and not a street car. To me a GTR running a 10sec pass with a big single on pump fuel is more impressive than a "drag" GTR running 9sec passes.

It would seem useing small responsive turbo's like 2530's to achieve a 10sec pass has really bridged the gap between track and strip turbo options, even if most owners will never lean on this setup anywhere near hard enough to get similar results.

Bored ramble over... :P

Edited by mazgtr

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...