Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Im looking into getting a bigger turbo on my R34, i was looking at a GT2835 and they seem to be the way to go, im chasing around 350-400rwhp, nengun have them for around $2500, does anyone know where i could get one at a better price or any other options for turbo's?

Cheers

Brad

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/137749-turbo-upgrade-on-r34/
Share on other sites

I've got a GT30 in my stagea s2 (same engine/turbo as r34) and with a 3" exhaust it goes really well. Not sure of its upper power capabilities but I know its slightly higher rated than the GCG hiflows.

I'm in SA and went to Adelaide Turbo Services. Great work and great advice.

Its got very little lag and quite good pull throughout the rev range, but then I'd only have between 120-140 awkw at the moment so not really the sort of power you're looking for...but I know this turbo can deliver some good numbers.

Others have had great results with the gcg hiflow as well.

Definitely do the research and talk to a turbo expert. Its not necessarily what is the better turbo but what one might be better suited to your setup (or planned setup).

Hope this helps :ninja:

Thanks guys, there are 4 different versions of the 2835 on nengun,

HKS GT2835 Pro S Spec 56T A/R 0.68 T3 Flange Strong Actuator Attached 100mm Diameter

HKS GT2835 Pro S Spec 56T A/R 0.87 T3 Flange Strong Actuator Attached 100mm Diameter

HKS GT2835 Pro S Spec 56T A/R 0.68 T3 Flange Strong Actuator Attached 80mm Diameter

HKS GT2835 Pro S Spec 56T A/R 0.87 T3 Flange Strong Actuator Attached 80mm Diameter

Which would be the most suitable for me?

Cheers

Brad

Matter of taste but I'd get the .87AR turbine housing version for an RB25 and definitely the Neo version since the better VCT should help pull the bottom end up a bit . I'm not 100% certain but it looks like HKS intended the .68AR housing for RB20's and the .87AR one for RB25's .

Cheers A .

Hey, was looking at 3037's on horsepowerinabox.com, 2k for one seemed pretty appetising but i heard these dont bolt up but they say they can get an exhaust housing to fit straight up? can anyone shed some light on this?

Actually don't do that because the kit only comes with the 0.68 rear housing and the 0.87 is much better.

Hi fellas,

Not too sure about the 0.87 rear housing being much better than the 0.68 - I had a chat with Grepin a few months ago when he went from the smaller 0.68 to the 0.87. Power went from 312rwkw to 320 with a bit of loss midrange. Looks like the 2835pros maxes out @ 300ish kw - no matter what you do it runs out of puff.

If you want 300rwkw it'll do it but don't expect much more.

Not too sure about what difference the 80-100 actuator will make - if it helps I got the .67 kit with 100 mm actuator. Also of interest both Grepin and I have problems keeping the wastegate shut - mine peaks @ 22psi then blows the wastegate open and boost falls to 17psi. Grepin got a higher tension wastegate spring and that helped a bit.

Something else I found a bit annoying with the kit was the wategate actually hits the dump so can only open a fraction.

Apart from that it fits up great with minimal headaches - the only thing we had to make sort of was the afm to hks intake pipe - we just cut down the factory rubber intake and it looks fine - a nice and factory look.

Cheers

Edited by gtst25

I'd go the HKS 2835/3037S Pro S because its internally gated which means less mess.

Also the 100mm front housings are meant to be better on the 3037.

I think with gtst25's statement, its really the compressor thats holding back the turbo from making much more power. Time to step up to the 3037.

2835 pro s gets my vote :ninja:

i make a lazy 251rwkw (337rwhp) with 11 flat afr...

but get the KIT, its so much easier with the kit its directbolt, also you DONT need a gasket for the turbo to dump pipe. i spent a few weeks tring to get incontact with hks etc to get the gasket and in the end hks reply with "the HKS GT2835 PRO S DOES NOT need a gasket at all"

ohh im not sure how the 3037 does with lag, but i dont really notice it that much with the 2835 i get full boost between 3000 and 3500rpm

what ..!

the biggest down fall of the 2835pro s is the fact that its internally gated...it doesnt stay shut above 18psi...these turbo's are meant to be efficent to 1.5bar .

the most i could get was 1.3-1.4

im running 16psi without a problem and i was told turbo was most efficent @ 1.2bar or something like that

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 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.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...