Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Have searched but all i can find is people using the hks gtrs which i believe are a fair bit different, the turbo i am asking about is here http://www.slidingperformance.com/catalog/...products_id=312 i have pm'd slide twice but they have not replied.

My question is how much later will this boost compared to a standard r33 gtst turbo and will it be happy doing 15psi frequently and what sort of power would it make on 15psi.

My mods are a 3" turbo back exhaust 3" hi flow cat power fc and will be adding bigger injectors and z32 afm when i put the turbo on.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/202357-any-one-using-garrett-gtrs-turbo/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

That looks to be the Garrett 2871R 52 trim (aka HKS GTRS) with T2 ex housing as used on SR20's. They're more efficient run at around 18 -20 psi.

Funny you should mention that, got a pm off slide after i posted this thread, apparently they no longer sell garrett turbo's so i went looking for another option and found the garrett 2871R at tweak it http://www.tweakit.net/shop/product_info.p...ca9cb4763b25934 what sort of power could i expect from one of these, would like a .8 rear but they only seem to come with a .6

The 52 trim 2871R (aka HKS GTRS) is spec'd with the .64 rear in standard form. However, if you went to someone like GCG or horsepower in a box you could probably spec it with the .86 rear.

In all honesty if you were going the T2 .86 rear on a 2871R I would probably go with a 3071R (which is 56 trim comp) in T3 .63 rear with external gate as similar spool but much more top end. If internal gate is your thing as you probably know Garrett do the 3071R in a T2 footprint but it has the cropped turbine wheel - 56mm from memory (2871R has 53.5mm wheel). Whereas the proper T3 3071R has a 60mm turbine wheel.

Please note I'm not an RB engine expert as I come from a SR engine background so read what you want from my suggestions.

Late edit: just saw the link you posted it seems like the turbo it is a T3 housed 2871R. I can't help wonder whether the 52 trim comp might run out of puff tho'. For a 2.5 litre I would have thought the 56 trim comp might be better suited.

Edited by juggernaut1

Yes what he said .

IMO GT28 turbine based turbos are really a bit small for 2.5L and up . The only people who tried to do them properly were HKS and the premium you pay is for unique application specific housings to make the generic Garrett cartridge work properly .

The next size turbine is from the GT30 family and as mentioned comes in cropped and std sizes . Garrett don't make T3 flanged turbine housings for that either , HKS make them for their cropped turbine version and call it the GT2835 Pro S .

Garrett do make T3 flanged GT30 integral gate turbine housings in 63/82/106 A/R sizes .

Cheers A .

the main thing i am looking for is a good power increase that is a straight bolt on with a .8 exhaust housing, by the look of it im better off just getting a hi flow with a .6 for now and getting a full setup later.

Well your call , I'd say a GT2835 Pro S with the .87 A/R turbine housing would be my choice . The cost would be higher but IMO its a better turbo for an R33 RB25DET . Users of these say that they're running out of puff at ~ 270+ Kw and response is quite good . I defy anyone to make the claimed 400 Hp from a GT-RS (2871R 52T) especially with the only available 0.64 A/R GT28 turbine housing .

Just my opinions , cheers A .

Well your call , I'd say a GT2835 Pro S with the .87 A/R turbine housing would be my choice . The cost would be higher but IMO its a better turbo for an R33 RB25DET . Users of these say that they're running out of puff at ~ 270+ Kw and response is quite good . I defy anyone to make the claimed 400 Hp from a GT-RS (2871R 52T) especially with the only available 0.64 A/R GT28 turbine housing .

Just my opinions , cheers A .

Seen quite a few make close to 300kw@wheels, a couple a tad over. Thats 400HP@wheels, turbos arent rated at HP@wheels but how much they can flow, so if anything the turbo is underated, and you will find most turbos flow a lot more then their clamed HP ratings.

i have a garrett 2871r 56 comp trim and .86 A/R turbine, so you can get them with the .86 A/R and it pulls very nicely. Will get it dynoed soon, but on 9 creeping to 10 pound it will beat easly another 33 makeing around the 180rwkw mark

if that tells you anything??

why not just buy the HKS version?

bolt-on kit with everything you need ie T3 flanged, all lines, bolts on to exhaust with no mods.

you get a predictable result without trying to reinvent the wheel.

Not trying to reinvent the wheel trust trying to get a turbo with best bang for buck with easiest fitting, was looking at a kkr but after doing some research i would rather spend a bit more and get something with a proven reputation (a good one).

i have a garrett 2871r 56 comp trim and .86 A/R turbine, so you can get them with the .86 A/R and it pulls very nicely. Will get it dynoed soon, but on 9 creeping to 10 pound it will beat easly another 33 makeing around the 180rwkw mark

if that tells you anything??

That sounds like what im looking for, aiming at 250rwkw for now, just want the bigger housing so its not all down low power, im guessing with a bit more boost and a god tune that should be hittng the 250 mark, would'nt mind going for a spin sometime. i live in frankston as well, iv'e got a black 33 with a gtr wing and sr-071 number plates.

the HKS version will get you your target for just over $2k.

the alternative is a GCG hi-flow which makes very similar power, from my experience the HKS GT-RS comes on a little earlier (which i reckon is worth every dollar) but it is pretty close. if your standard turbo is ok you can sell that and then the HKS item is closer in price to the GCG unit.

250-275rwkw seems likely with good tuning but will probably need cams to get the higher of the two figures. i seriously doubt claims of 300rwkw out of the GT-RS so providing more sheets will help.

ps. i agree with disco the HKS 2835 ProS is the one i would buy if money was no object but the price difference is quite large once you buy the full bolt-on kit and if you are looking for good bang for your buck....

Edited by wolverine

Look honestly people , I don't want a he said/she said war in here .

The facts of the matter are that yes the compressor on a GT2871R 52T is more than capable of churning enough air to make 400+ Hp . The turbine in a large A/R turbine housing may get close but I think its not very likely that any ones gonna get 400 Hp's worth of exhaust gas flow through a 0.64 A/R GT28 turbine housing .

Next time you look at one of these housings shine a light down through its mounting flange and have a look at its internal passage .

Now if you could get the 0.86 A/R version of the GT28 turbine housing and fit it you could be in with a fighting chance , problem is that neither Garrett or HKS make such a housing in T3 mount flange so its a problem . This is one instance where a four cylinder like an SR20 is a bit better off .

As I've mentioned before someone here has a hybrid GT2871R 48T I think in bored out (re-profiled) R33 RB25 type turbine and compressor housings . Actually the turbine housing may have been the larger VG30 BB OP6 type .

Its going to come down to what you can afford to spend and how much power/what kind of power delivery you can live with . If money is an issue then maybe look into a Garrett cartridge and RB25 housings , some turbo places have these housings from dead turbos and can make something up for you . Fred at Turbologic in Port Kembla (Wollongong area) is good at what he does so worth a call - just don't go wasting his time if not really serious .

Turbo wise if you choose to go this way its worth chasing up that OP6 turbine housing to have one in hand . This is possibly the easiest way to get a larger turbine housing on a GT28 turbine based turbo and have it easily fit an RB25's std manifold and dump pipe .

Turbine housings and waste gates - always the largest stumbling blocks . Mostly if you can solve these issues the rest is pretty straightforward , also don't use the largest trim compressors available because they are a significant part of the turbo (turbine) lag equation .

Another 2c spent , cheers A .

I'm the bloke with the 48T 2871 hybrid. It runs in R33 spec housings, and runs pretty well. No, it probably won't go past 230rwkW. Yes, it is quite responsive. Yes, I would recommend it to anyone who wants a mild upgrade. No, I wouldn't recommend that hybrid to be run with the OP6 housing. There are other cartridges better suited to the use of that housing - see paragraph 3.

The T25 flanged Garrett 2871 could probably be fitted with a flange adapter plate, but I'd find it difficult to understand why you'd go that way. Wolverine is right, and he has good experience with the HKS GT-RS. Bolt up, and good to go. Worth the money, and you'll find not a great deal of difference in price between the HKS kit, and the Garrett turbo with all the fittings and lines you'll need to make it work.

The HKS 2835 Pro S and a hybrid version of the 3071 with OP6 copy turbine housing available from GCG and HP InaBox are broadly similar in specification, and in characteristic of operation too, I would say. Both will be slightly tamer delivery under 3500rpm, and hold torque longer as the rpm goes over 6000, so more power.

Each turbo above will require the same supporting mods, though I have got away with a stock AFM. Cost differential across those turbos is not great, though the 2835 Pro S would weigh in heaviest $$ wise. I would not expect a 270kW turbo to respond down low like a 230kW one, and I would not expect the 230kW to have the freer breathing delivery of the 270kW. Hope that helps, and best of luck. Update this thread with your eventual selection, and opinion of its operation.

cheers

Well your call , I'd say a GT2835 Pro S with the .87 A/R turbine housing would be my choice . The cost would be higher but IMO its a better turbo for an R33 RB25DET . Users of these say that they're running out of puff at ~ 270+ Kw and response is quite good . I defy anyone to make the claimed 400 Hp from a GT-RS (2871R 52T) especially with the only available 0.64 A/R GT28 turbine housing .

Just my opinions , cheers A .

QUOTE wolverine

250-275rwkw seems likely with good tuning but will probably need cams to get the higher of the two figures. i seriously doubt claims of 300rwkw out of the GT-RS so providing more sheets will help.

very true iv got a gt-rs cams blar blar blar and i tell you 100% you will never see 300kwatw with this turbo never and if you do i would love to know how cos i know you can't unless you use nos.which ill bee doing soon.i listened to some highly rated forum members about a year ago and went on a mission to build one of these 300kw gt-rs skylines and all i can say is bull**** who ever thinks there got one id love to see it better still ill pay for a dyno at DART so i can see it.but if its under 295rwkw you can pay

Edited by WARLORD
Next time you look at one of these housings shine a light down through its mounting flange and have a look at its internal passage

disco is spot on they are definitely small.

they seem to work well though for cheap streetable power. certainly not as good a design as a group of enthusiasts like us could make if Garrett or HKS gave us an unlimited budget for testing (hint hint if you are reading).

Well your call , I'd say a GT2835 Pro S with the .87 A/R turbine housing would be my choice . The cost would be higher but IMO its a better turbo for an R33 RB25DET . Users of these say that they're running out of puff at ~ 270+ Kw and response is quite good . I defy anyone to make the claimed 400 Hp from a GT-RS (2871R 52T) especially with the only available 0.64 A/R GT28 turbine housing .

Just my opinions , cheers A .

See attached link of .64 2871R on stock bottom SR20 with 400whp. OK so its a 56 trim and it was on a dynojet with extrude honed stock exhaust manifold and exhaust housing.

http://forums.freshalloy.com/showthread.ph...ight=JWT+S3%27s

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...