Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I am also running HKS 2530's.

My engine also has:

260 9.15 Poncams

88mm pistons

SS manifolds

ARC twin entry intercooler

twin 3" exhuast merging through collector to 3.5" at the rear seats. (2x4" magic Cats)

It made 360rwkw @12.5 psi on ADVAN's dyno ( later found my exhuast cam gear had slipped...car felt very laggy but huge top end.)

I recently ran a 11.5 @120Mph on BP98 and 16psi boost and no-name street tyres (1.9 60') Turbo response is very near stock. My datalogger shows AFR's were around 11.6-11.7 up to 6500rpm then into the 10's.

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sometimes I find HPI stuff really annoying... I mean just going by their comparo graph, someone trying to choose a turbo setup could really get the wrong idea there. Especially when you look at examples like R32-GTS's graph, you see how good the T04 can perform.

Sorry i bring this up again, but from my understanding the TO4z HKS version only differs from the Garret version by having the extra holes in the compressor cover, supposedly to decrease spool time? Other than that the turbos are identical? Reason im asking is that ive decided to start with the tO4z on my rb28 instead of the T51R, and the HKS TO4Z kit prices are ridiculous at the moment!

Edited by SLY33

No it goes deeper than that . The compressor cover itself is of a higher AR ratio than Garretts and they have done a few sneaky mods (patiented) to the diffuser section of the housing itself . Notice how HKS don't have an AR ratio number cast into the covers on their TO4Z or T51R's . The drilled port shroud is probably bling factor though in small turbine housing form it may help a bit .

No doubt HKS have used any tricks they could think of in the turbine housing as well . You may have noticed that their custom TO4Z and T51R housings are circular cross section in the volute passage , their web site claims that circular rather than oval shape does something to boundary layer flow . More uniform acceleration into the nozzle ? At least the TO4Z housing has a T4/TA45 flange rather than the T51R's circular V band setup .

Damn you Cruiseliner , I really want to see the inside of the Z cover , still I'll have to rev up the spies OS .

Cheers A

PS I think I did see a pic of the HKS versions turbine with a slight back cut of the blades but unconfirmed . There were many conflicting claims that the HKS version used a slightly different or modded turbine . The fact that both versions use the same number cartridge would seem to prove otherwise .

Out of time cheers A .

I have heard and read many differing views on the power rating of turbo mnaufacturers, particularly HKS, in that they understate their HP ratings. At what PSI are these ratings? 15, 18, 20??? For eg, HKS T51R SPL is rated at 1000HP, but a few cars have made closer to 1200HP+ from them.

No it goes deeper than that . The compressor cover itself is of a higher AR ratio than Garretts and they have done a few sneaky mods (patiented) to the diffuser section of the housing itself . Notice how HKS don't have an AR ratio number cast into the covers on their TO4Z or T51R's . The drilled port shroud is probably bling factor though in small turbine housing form it may help a bit .

No doubt HKS have used any tricks they could think of in the turbine housing as well . You may have noticed that their custom TO4Z and T51R housings are circular cross section in the volute passage , their web site claims that circular rather than oval shape does something to boundary layer flow . More uniform acceleration into the nozzle ? At least the TO4Z housing has a T4/TA45 flange rather than the T51R's circular V band setup .

Damn you Cruiseliner , I really want to see the inside of the Z cover , still I'll have to rev up the spies OS .

Cheers A

PS I think I did see a pic of the HKS versions turbine with a slight back cut of the blades but unconfirmed . There were many conflicting claims that the HKS version used a slightly different or modded turbine . The fact that both versions use the same number cartridge would seem to prove otherwise .

Out of time cheers A .

I have a brand new HKS TO4Z at the workshop...what parts do you want pics of??

At a guess he wants pics of the HKS patented exh and comp covers, which Brett at GCG told him after being informed by Mark @ Hypertune.

It's nothing really, just shows the diffuser section being carried over to the scroll on the comp cover to improve high boost efficiency. The turbo cross section is similar to the TR race series of Garretts, again slightly more efficient.

As to the HKS stuff being worth double the price of Garrett shelf stock... maybe if you're racing for sheep stations but not many people are pusing the envelope with high boost to warrant the added expense.

I have heard and read many differing views on the power rating of turbo mnaufacturers, particularly HKS, in that they understate their HP ratings. At what PSI are these ratings? 15, 18, 20???

PSI is irrelevant in this case as it's partly a measurement of resistance in a system and the systems can be different. If they listed absolute pressure it might help but not much. HP ratings of turbos mean next to nothing when we're comparing claimed and measured power output.

Adrian

As to the HKS stuff being worth double the price of Garrett shelf stock... maybe if you're racing for sheep stations but not many people are pusing the envelope with high boost to warrant the added expense.

but it's also much more impressive to be able to say "I have an HKS turbo". hey it works for me! lol

I am also running HKS 2530's.

My engine also has:

260 9.15 Poncams

88mm pistons

SS manifolds

ARC twin entry intercooler

twin 3" exhuast merging through collector to 3.5" at the rear seats. (2x4" magic Cats)

It made 360rwkw @12.5 psi on ADVAN's dyno ( later found my exhuast cam gear had slipped...car felt very laggy but huge top end.)

I recently ran a 11.5 @120Mph on BP98 and 16psi boost and no-name street tyres (1.9 60') Turbo response is very near stock. My datalogger shows AFR's were around 11.6-11.7 up to 6500rpm then into the 10's.

Have you had the car on another dyno. I have now seen a few results from Advan that perhaps flatter the car.It has rana quick time at a good mph, and Advan obviously punch out nice cars, only i suspect their dyno reads higher then some

360RWKW at only 12.5PSI seem a little high compared to the other 2530 equipped GTR's ive seen. Either the boost is higher than 12.5PSI or the dyno reads a little high.

Ive seen several GTR's with the same mods and turbos register figures as high as 360RWKW but all of them needed closer to 20PSI.

Also if it made 360RWKW at 12.5PSI then at 16PSI it would be closer to 380RWKW-390RWKW and 120MPH doesnt support that.

Not in any way detracting from your results, just like Roy said, that dyno figure does seem a fair bit higher than most..

But a mid 11sec pass is a fecking great result, well done..

Cheers....

HKS turbo's have always had a reputation for being able to generate good numbers at very high boost pressures. Where others seem to run out of puff, most HKS turbo's seem to be right in the meat of their efficiency curve at levels up to and beyond 2.0Bar. Now unless your running C16/Avgas you might never need this ability to run such high boost, but if your after every last KW and are hunting for a Dyno-graph or Drag strip time to frame and put on your wall then HKS does seem to have that little bit more topend efficiency.

Me, id rather buy the Garret and use the money i saved on alcohol and hookers... But thats just me....

well i'd rather pump 2 bar in and see the gains :D

its like buying a watch from bali, it looks as good but it aint, and u get what u pay for in the end.

when u spend a small fortune on a bottom end and head then an extra $800 or so seems minimal when chasing big numbers anyway

the word "budget" and "big power" dont seem to go together very well

as they say, different horses for different courses

Edited by CruiseLiner
i dont think there is that much difference in the t04z's... slight yes. much, no

so how many garrett and hks t04z have u seen at 2 bar plus to compare?

i bet hks didnt do the comp cover bigger and different design for looks and going by other hks vs garrett stuff the garrett stuff always dies off around 2 bar.

i know most people dont want to run over 25psi or whatever so it wont matter but at the top end of pushing em im sure they will show their true characteristics

i see it as comparing a nissan rb26 stock to a gibson built rb26 for the group A cars.

Edited by CruiseLiner
PSI is irrelevant in this case as it's partly a measurement of resistance in a system and the systems can be different. Adrian

The smartest post on this page. :):D:(

The fixation with boost versus power is meaningless. A car with more boost does not necessarily make more power than a car with less boost. Airflow is what makes power, removing restrictions decreases boost, but increases airflow. So lower boost can actually mean more power.

When you apply that logic, the “HKS turbos make more boost” argument falls over. What if my power target is achieved at “low” boost because I have removed the restrictions? What if the Garrett turbo produces the airflow I need to make my power target at that “low” boost level? If I used a HKS turbo I would be using it “outside” its efficiency band. That would be pretty stupid wouldn’t it?

I have great fun with guys who brag “my car runs 2 bar boost”.

My response is “WOW, you haven’t removed many restrictions have you”. :laugh::D:(

:D cheers :D

so how many garrett and hks t04z have u seen at 2 bar plus to compare?

and how many have you seen to say there is a leaps and bounds difference?

when wheel trims are very similar, and housings mildly different... how can there be major differences?

I once believed yoo that the garrett gear was a "lower boost" turbo. Got the GT30 on there, screwed 24psi into it and its was amazing. Really woke up. 17psi was lazy, it felt lazy. Get to 24psi and it was feeling quite good.

admittadly that was no cams and everything else so i did need to run a bit more to get more out of it. But i honestly think the "HKS GT30" would really be worth the pricetag

Get the wheem maps maps (if possible) and compare between the both, i doubt large difference

The smartest post on this page. :D:(:D

The fixation with boost versus power is meaningless. A car with more boost does not necessarily make more power than a car with less boost. Airflow is what makes power, removing restrictions decreases boost, but increases airflow. So lower boost can actually mean more power.

When you apply that logic, the “HKS turbos make more boost” argument falls over. What if my power target is achieved at “low” boost because I have removed the restrictions? What if the Garrett turbo produces the airflow I need to make my power target at that “low” boost level? If I used a HKS turbo I would be using it “outside” its efficiency band. That would be pretty stupid wouldn’t it?

I have great fun with guys who brag “my car runs 2 bar boost”.

My response is “WOW, you haven’t removed many restrictions have you”. :);):no:

:D cheers :D

Whats the major way to reduce restriction so you can flow more air, run less boost and get more power? I understand that if you remove restirction the engine can breath easier so it doesn't need as much pressure to force the same amount of air into it. I'd guess CAMS are the first/biggest difference? What else can you do? ... sorry if this is a dumb question, i really don't know.

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...