Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I was looking at running a GT30R, but looking closely at the results there arent many ppl making early 300rwkws with them. Typically 280-290rwkws with a good lung full of boost. So not much headroom for pumping a few extra psi to get anpother 30-40rwkws out if it for ballpar 340rwks.

So from there GT30R, how much difference in driveability is there to a GT35R? Im hoping to get around 290-300rwkws from 16psi, with the occasional adventure to around 22psi where i would hope to net 340-350rwkws on Optimax.

Needs to be a single, and needs to be T3 flanged. Since i already run a Greddy setup was also considering the TD06SH-25G.

Not overly concerned about lag, as long as it makes strong power from 4,500rpm to 8,500rpm. (4,500rpm +200rwkws)

Speaking Garret talk, i suppose im curious to know if the 3240/3540 are good things etc, or can the GT30R be leaned on to credibly give the numbers i want?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/140989-turbo-reasonably-effecient-at-16psi/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

16psi on a 2L to make 300rwkw is a hard ask Roy. Its like asking a RB20DE to make 140-150rwkw in naturally aspirated form. The GT35R might do it, but 16psi is not much flow to work with unless you have big cams/porting etc. You are better off leaning on the GT30R to reach your goals rather than oversizing the turbo just for the 'lower boost' mentality. A GT35R is a huge thing for a 2L and the transient response even on boost will be less than desirable. Remember 300rwkw is 300rwkw, no matter what the boost; the strain on the motor is the essentially same really.

EDIT - of course this is assuming you have an RB20DET...

Edited by Busky2k

Ye, but they are 3ltr man... you are 2ltr.

You need more boost, the SOHC guys have ported heads/cams etc.

So its not something comparable.

And they are using more than 15/16psi for thier 300rwkw, closer to 20

You'll need 20+ psi to get close to 300. I had 270 on ~17psi

Oh... the latest crack pot idea you had eh? hehe :(

i cant remember, it had the biggest wheel offering at the time for the 600hp variant.

there were 500 and 550 also... wasnt those though :rofl:

btw - your weak as p|ss, going home @ 3am

Yes a big ask from a 2L six . How far are you prepared to go/spent to get it there Roy ? Probably needs a really flying head and healthy cams to get there . Its fair to assume that the GTS-R's exhaust manifold is good considering it was designed for the Grp A RB20 .

Does anyone know what spec the GMS R31's ran and what sort of power they made ?

Cheers A .

Ive got a pretty good idea of the Gibson cars since i know a guy that has just restored one and has spare Gibson blocks etc laying around. He is one of the little birdies in my ear saying that the std RB20 is pretty strong...hence me beign pretty comfortable about running 1.5bar for a few laps at Sandown :(

Its not a 2L either. Will be running 26 crank, Eagle 26 rods, Apexi cams and cleaned up head. :rofl:

Hmmm , well Watson we'd probably have doubts about using a hydraulic head to 8.5k so the evil Moriati may have the gun head in the wings ...

Whats with the negative waves....why cant you just dif what a beautiful day it is :laugh:

And im not that fussed about the std lifters. With the std springs at the moment im pulling 8,500-8,800rpm. I even gave it a hit at 1.5bar and it didnt seem to have any head problems. I hope with better springs and still only mild lift cams i can still get away with the hydraulic lifters. At the end of the day im hoping not to have to rev the new engine as hard as the std RB20...but will if i need to get the drive in the next gear

That said, i am on the lookout for a poor soul that has had dramas with a bottom end letting go and a ruined 26 head. It would be good to get my hands on the valve gear

My understading is 3037 is basically the GT30R

That said, i am on the lookout for a poor soul that has had dramas with a bottom end letting go and a ruined 26 head. It would be good to get my hands on the valve gear

i've still got my 26 bottom end (minus pistons & rods) which made way for an RB30 :laugh:

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...