Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I'm only guessing but surely that run was done with an engine dynomometre . Its easy with a well set up one to create the sorts of engine loads that are impossible to sustain in the real world . High figures would not be hard to get with that engine at a constant rpm/load ie no acceleration losses .

Just on HKS's T51R series turbos , don't forget their GT42 turbines use a smaller trim than Garrets same family turbos (GT4294R/GT4202R) ie 76T vs 84T though the housings are very different . Other turbos such as Garretts GT4088R and the more recent GT4094R are getting up with the T51RKAI anyway . Ask Full Race Geoff what he gets out of GT4088R's .

Cheers .

;)

I'm only guessing but surely that run was done with an engine dynomometre . Its easy with a well set up one to create the sorts of engine loads that are impossible to sustain in the real world . High figures would not be hard to get with that engine at a constant rpm/load ie no acceleration losses .

Just on HKS's T51R series turbos , don't forget their GT42 turbines use a smaller trim than Garrets same family turbos (GT4294R/GT4202R) ie 76T vs 84T though the housings are very different . Other turbos such as Garretts GT4088R and the more recent GT4094R are getting up with the T51RKAI anyway . Ask Full Race Geoff what he gets out of GT4088R's .

Cheers .

thanks Disco, one of the other thoughts i had was maybe they plotted Hp/ps instead of kw by mistake.

post-26406-1166983334.gif

150kw @ 3000rpm

450kw @ 4000rpm

660kw @ 6500rpm

That looks pretty impressive to me. What do you guys think? Could this be off an engine dyno not a chassis dyno?

Anyone have much experience with the Kai? They seem fairly popular in the Uk.

Merry Christmas

These are ENGINE FIGURES, not rear wheel figures. Plus they would not be running pump 98 with 2bar boost.

And it certainly wouldnt outperform a T04Z in "every way" as the the 0.86 rear t04z would be a more usable street turbo than the 1.00 rear t51.

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

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...