Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

My calculations are as follows: 1PS = .7355KW thus 579PS = 425KW and YES this must be measured at the crank.

Hi Elithar, if the engine is in good condition and the tuning is good, there is no reason why the RB20 won't make the same max power as an RB25 with the same mods, condition and tuning.  So almost 200 rwkw is entirely possible.   Average horsepower is of course a different question entirely, the RB25 is after all 25% larger.

Hi jezzrrr, let me use my sceptical bone here, what if the only reason the HKS supported workshops are using GTSS's is because it's "new" and there is money to be made.   What would be the point of pushing 2530's?  They are "old" news and everyone knows that "newer" must be better.

Looking at the GTSS power claims, 579 rwps, that's around 310 rwkw.  I have seen 330 rwkw out of a pair of 2530's locally in Shoot Out mode on a Dyno Dynamics.  But the extra 20 rwkw is not the point, it's how it gets there that is important.  Somewhere around I have seen the dimensions of GTSS's and they looked remarkably similar to 2510's.  The HKS ratings are;  

GTSS 300 ps

2510 310 ps

2530 320 ps

2535 340 ps

2540 350 ps

2540R 370 ps

2835 380 ps  

HKS rate the GTSS lower than a 2510, and I have driven a GTR with 2510's and it was awesome up to 7,000 rpm then it went flat line.  It felt like it had some boost just above  idle rpm, which is totally alien in a GTR, where the real pleasure for me comes from giving them a rev.  The guy who owned it loved it like that as he just stepped out of a grunter 6 litre Commondoor.  If HKS (and Garrett) had found a combination of compressor and turbine that gives a GTSS the bottom end of a 2510 with a slightly better top end, then for some people that would be perfect.  But I keep going back to the fact that HKS don't rate them with the same max power as a 2510, therefore they themselves are saying GTSS's have a lower top end than 2510's.

So, like many others, I await Merli's results with great interest.

  • Replies 283
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I can recall a post from someone with some credibility on these forums claiming that

we typically see 50 kw losses through 2 wd Skyline and 65 kw losses in 4 wd
. Taking that off the 576.2ps (423.79kw) gives you 358.79AWkw. Quote some number.
I can recall a post from someone with some credibility on these forums claiming that . Taking that off the 576.2ps (423.79kw) gives you 358.79AWkw. Quote some number.

Absolutely, I went for a ride in a car with GTSS's and it blew me away, it was a RB26 DETT lobbed into a GTS-T (ie rear wheel drive) the thing had NO traction in 1st or 2nd and you had to back off in third to get traction. It was pulling around 450RWHP at the time, which is a big figure in anyones speak. Without a doubt one of the most impressive rides ive had in a skyline.

Jeremy

Steve... Those power figures on the Phoenix Power site are engine hp figures, not wheel hp.

that explains a bit, but I was just going off SKs post. still seams like a hell of alot of driveline loss. Also, SK talks of 330rwkw from 2530, so that means, from the same loss, 115kw loss for rw drive (330rwkw for 2530 vs 310rwkw for GTSS)

either way, I still think that SKs sceptical bone needs a recalibration:D:P

Hey guys, give me a break here, it was a hard Saturday night, alright?

OK, this is how I do the engine PS to rwkw calculation in a GTR.

579 ps X 0.9 = 521 bhp

521 hp / 1.34 = 388 kw

388 kw - 78 kw = 310 rwkw

Chris is right I use 60 'ish kw losses for (big gearbox and drive train) rear wheel drive Skylines (R33 and R34) and 50 'ish for (small gearbox and drive train) R32 GTST's. But this was an R34GTR so with them I have found it necessary to run the transfer case and centre diff and disconnect the drive shaft. So I added 8 kw to my usual losses on an R33 GTR in 2wd and 18 kw on an R32 GTR in 2wd. Experience tells me that a GTR looses about 85 kw in 4wd drive, so I don't think 78 kw is too far wrong.

So maybe my sceptical bone is out by a few kw's, Jack Daniels will do that to you. But I don't think it alters the argument.

As for HKS revising their max power outputs on GTRS's, well there are two answers to that one;

1. HKS are so dumb they published the figures first with out testing them properly. But the Pheonix car only made 579 ps (that's 290 ps each) which is a lot closer to the 310 ps rating than it is to 330 ps.

2. HKS want to sell more GTRS's

Either way, it makes my sceptical bone ache a little more.

Hey guys, give me a break here, it was a hard Saturday night, alright?

OK, this is how I do the engine PS to rwkw calculation in a GTR.

579 ps X 0.9 = 521 bhp

521 hp / 1.34 = 388 kw

388 kw - 78 kw = 310 rwkw

Steve is right I use 60 'ish kw losses for (big gearbox and drive train) rear wheel drive Skylines (R33 and R34) and 50 'ish for (small gearbox and drive train) R32 GTST's.  But this was an R34GTR so with them I have found it necessary to run the transfer case and centre diff and disconnect the drive shaft.  So I added 8 kw to my usual  losses on an R33 GTR in 2wd and 18 kw on an R32 GTR in 2wd.  Experience tells me that a GTR looses about 85 kw in 4wd drive, so I don't think 78 kw is too far wrong.

So maybe my sceptical bone is out by a few kw's, Jack Daniels will do that to you.  But I don't think it alters the argument.

As for HKS revising their max power outputs on GTRS's, well there are two answers to that one;

1. HKS are so dumb they published the figures first with out testing them properly.  But the Pheonix car only made 579 ps (that's 290 ps each) which is a lot closer to the 310 ps rating than it is to 330 ps.

2. HKS want to sell more GTRS's

Either way, it makes my sceptical bone ache a little more.

Hey guys, give me a break here, it was a hard Saturday night, alright?

OK, this is how I do the engine PS to rwkw calculation in a GTR.

579 ps X 0.9 = 521 bhp

521 hp / 1.34 = 388 kw

388 kw - 78 kw = 310 rwkw

Chris is right I use 60 'ish kw losses for (big gearbox and drive train) rear wheel drive Skylines (R33 and R34) and 50 'ish for (small gearbox and drive train) R32 GTST's. But this was an R34GTR so with them I have found it necessary to run the transfer case and centre diff and disconnect the drive shaft. So I added 8 kw to my usual losses on an R33 GTR in 2wd and 18 kw on an R32 GTR in 2wd. Experience tells me that a GTR looses about 85 kw in 4wd drive, so I don't think 78 kw is too far wrong.

So maybe my sceptical bone is out by a few kw's, Jack Daniels will do that to you.  But I don't think it alters the argument.

As for HKS revising their max power outputs on GTRS's, well there are two answers to that one;

1. HKS are so dumb they published the figures first with out testing them properly.  But the Pheonix car only made 579 ps (that's 290 ps each) which is a lot closer to the 310 ps rating than it is to 330 ps.

2. HKS want to sell more GTRS's

Either way, it makes my sceptical bone ache a little more.

1PS = .7355KW

1HP= .7457 KW

Also we are talking about GTSS's here, not GTRS's, must have been a good night in Sydney last night !

Cheers

Jeremy

Regardless of what some websites claim, I'm still pretty skeptical about the output of GT-SS turbos. Merli's car should be pushing them to their max flow, there's another R33 with them installed without internal mods (apart from cams). Will try to get a copy of a dyno sheet when it's available.

As to manufacturer quotes and idealised output ratings - can you tell me one manufacturer, distributor or turbo sales outlet who's turbos actually put out the power they claim? Even when used in a twin configuration the power is less than the sum of the two parts.

Oh, and I think we're pretty much splitting hairs on the whole GT-SS thing - until you see anything first hand I wouldn't believe it.

just my 2c,

we all know that on the HKS Japan website, they claim that the RB26DETT (with GT-SS turbos) makes 422kw (574ps) @ 7070rpm on 1.4kg/cm2, although has anyone noticed that the engine capacity of the RB26 has been increased to 2628cc over the standard 2568cc along with the 264/264 cams?

Also fyi, the wheel specs on the SR20DET GT-SS differ from the RB26DETT GT-SS where the SR20DET spec GT-SS has slightly larger wheels and an A/R .60 comp housing compared to the A/R .42 on the RB26 spec GT-SS.

http://www.hks-power.co.jp/products/turbo/...ss/ac_gtss.html

personally, i don't think the GT-SS (for the RB26) is rated at 320ps, i believe that it is a marketing thing and that it really is rated at the original 280ps.

again, this is just my 2c, so think of it what you will.

Yup :cheers:

Truth be told, I don't believe the new 320ps rating either... I think 280ps is more accurate, but I guess we'll see when my engine gets done.

With my engine build, I'll pretty much be able to push these turbos to their absolute limit, so we'll see what these babies can do! :):D

Elithrar: 200rwkw is reachable @ 15psi with the stock unit, pfc, fmic and zorst.

Merli: Have you considered 2510's. I have been for a ride in an R with them fitted and I must say lag was not evident at all. The vehicle was fitted with external wastegates in japan. Bit of a strange set up however the bottle neck up top may have been relieved some what with the higher flowing gates.

Boostd: nope, never considered them. For me, the choice was either the larger top end of the 2530s or the response of the GT-SS, and I went for the most responsive turbos I could find on paper, which were the GT-SS.

I also wanted to try something new and not follow the GT2530 bandwagon ;)

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...