Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I am currently building an RB26/30 to replace my RB26.

My original plans were to use HKS GT-RS's(already purchased) which in theory should work reasonably well on a 3 ltr. I have just been advised not to follow this path due to the GT-RS's choking exhaust flow up top and restricting power to ~420rwkw @ 1.65bar. If a 0.7A/R turbine housing was available to bolt on, we would be set....

The Greddy t517Z and T618Z come in a 10.0cm2 turbine A/R which equates to 0.7A/R. I have seen these turbos make 40 odd kw more at the top end however they are 50 or so kw down in the mid range. I assume I won't have to much of a reasponse issue with the 3ltr but the GTRS will still be ahead in the mid range not matter what. I guess average power will end up similar.....I'm very undecided.

The other options I have considered was looking into abrasive porting of the HKS GTRS turbine housings or/and running an external gate setup to reduce to onset of exhaust gas choking...

Or if available running a 0.7A/R exhaust housing from another family and making custom dump pipes to suit.

Any thoughts would be appreciated

Matt

PS Cams will most likely be JUN 272 or less

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

T618z's onli if your are definately 3l bottom end.... they are weay to big for your average 2.6l streeter... on a 2.6 liter they need big cams and headwork to work effectively... i have a few trust T618z recipies somewhere they gave me when we put together one a few years back.... all reccommend sitting them in their 1.5-1.7bar efficiency range.

im personally not a big fan.... even though some of the trust turbos i rate very highly

Who said the GT-RS will restrict you @ that level and why?

They are a stroker motor turbo really, not that good on stock capacity 26, same as the 618... designed for a bit more power than 420rwkw too!!!

Thanks for the reply,

It's definately a 3ltr, It's already prepped to go.

Do you have any power figures from your experience?

What twin setup would you run for 450rwkw with optimal response?

Who said the GT-RS will restrict you @ that level and why?

They are a stroker motor turbo really, not that good on stock capacity 26, same as the 618... designed for a bit more power than 420rwkw too!!!

I have the upright respect for my engine builder/tuner. So the "he said she said" is not and arguement I am interested to have. Suffice to say he has tried the combination of HKS GTRS's on std to 3ltr capacity and they have come up short of the compressor flow ability. The mismatch between the compressor and turbine.......proven by the signature compressor surge causes restriction of the topend capabilty but obviously gives stonking mid range. They are pushed hard to make over 420rwkw on pump fuel, to the point where the exhaust manifold pressure and associated gas temps are not a combo that I can reliably get more than a few laps out of.

just to confirm again..capacity IS 3ltrs

so is there anyone out there with experience on the Greddy 10cm GTR turbo's?

Matt

I had a pair of T517Z 10cm's on a bone stock 2.6- made 393rwkw on pump 98 @ 22psi. Party was on at around 3600rpm and pulled hard all the way to 9000rpm (he he he). I ran mid 10's on them.

I had a pair of T517Z 10cm's on a bone stock 2.6- made 393rwkw on pump 98 @ 22psi. Party was on at around 3600rpm and pulled hard all the way to 9000rpm (he he he). I ran mid 10's on them.

do you have a copy of your dyno graph?

Sorry... I'm in Italy atm. A looong way from home ( and my car ). They were great little turbs, pulled hard when they came on..... they were on the border for street driving though around the twisties in Tassie, so for a street car I'd definatly recomend the 8cm versions.

I'll be going a set of gtrs's on a 2.8kit with a big ported head and cams. I'm also considering custom exh mans whith small external gates and a garett non internal wastgate housings.....

But for a 3lt w_ big cams and head work I'd go a set of T618Z's on matched, tubular manifolds. And the matching set of trust dump pipes.... I picked up 22rwkw with them as opposed to a set of ported HKS copy dumps and down pipes.

Edited by XRATED

I had GT-RS terbs on my 2.8L and topped out at 600 rwkw on more than 1 dyno.

I dropped to smaller Garrett -5 for the sake of gaining time on the track. Sure, my rwhp dropped by 40 to 50hp, but my lap times improved HEAPS.

For dyno comps, bragging rights, drag racing.......go the larger/high hp terbs. For a good streeter/track car (as you titled the post), forget about top end and chase response with a healthy 500 to 550 hp.

I originally advised Gav to change over to the -5's and I think he'll agree with me that it was the best thing to do. I still reckon they are the way to go even on a 3.0L.

Although hopefully Gav your car isnt TOO fast now since I have to race you next week :)

What twin setup would you run for 450rwkw with optimal response?

Me personally, I'd go for HKS GT-RS twins interestingly. I'm not arguing with what your tuner says - but if I had not heard that and for some strange reason I wanted to go for twins at that power level, HKS GT-RS would be floating around the top of my list. Going for under 272deg duration is probably not something I'd do when going for turbos that size/power that high however.

I'd be looking at something along the lines of a single Garrett GT4088R with a decent twin scroll manifold for that power level, should have better response than the laggy GT-RSs (800hp turbo combination only capable of making 560hp @ wheels, what a fricken joke) and just be way cooler.

I have the upright respect for my engine builder/tuner. So the "he said she said" is not and arguement I am interested to have. Suffice to say he has tried the combination of HKS GTRS's on std to 3ltr capacity and they have come up short of the compressor flow ability. The mismatch between the compressor and turbine.......proven by the signature compressor surge causes restriction of the topend capabilty but obviously gives stonking mid range. They are pushed hard to make over 420rwkw on pump fuel, to the point where the exhaust manifold pressure and associated gas temps are not a combo that I can reliably get more than a few laps out of.

just to confirm again..capacity IS 3ltrs

so is there anyone out there with experience on the Greddy 10cm GTR turbo's?

Matt

Its not really an argument mate, just a point.

As lithium posted... your talking 800hp+ turbo setup, and your limited to 420rwkw?

A T04Z (800hp) rattles off 440rwkw like its a walk in the park, GT-RS's are not different far as i see it.

I had GT-RS terbs on my 2.8L and topped out at 600 rwkw on more than 1 dyno.

I dropped to smaller Garrett -5 for the sake of gaining time on the track. Sure, my rwhp dropped by 40 to 50hp, but my lap times improved HEAPS.

For dyno comps, bragging rights, drag racing.......go the larger/high hp terbs. For a good streeter/track car (as you titled the post), forget about top end and chase response with a healthy 500 to 550 hp.

Do you mean 600rwhp?

I am currently using GT2860R-5's on my 87mm bore 2.6, .5mm larger valves and tomei 260 9.15 poncams. Response is 1bar @4050rpm in 4th and positive pressure at anything after 1600rpm. My main goal obviously is not to go backwards in response. They make 350rwkw on std manifolds, 380rwkw on stainless manifolds and more on jungle juice. Peak power isn't my main concern however a usable power range is. From what I can see anything bigger than the GT-RS's will give a hole in the mid range... Just not a whole lot of info on twin Greddy turbo's on GTR's out there. We are building the same planned GTRS setup for John Munro's Track car so we will see how that goes on the engine dyno and go from there.

Matt

PS. on the subject of manifolds, we flow tested a chinese stainless manifold and std cast manifold and the stainless flowed 50% more! Then we spent 6 hours porting the std cast manifolds paying particular attention to the short turns and they flowed 46% more(4% less than the ebay ones). With the relability and heat retension properties of cast I know what I'll be using

hey Gav when is your car pulling hard with the 2.8L capacity with the -5s? im building another engine (26/30) and unsure if i want single or twins yet, but if i go twins its out of the 2860 range of turbos, either -5s or -7s, im aiming for outright response and limit power to 450rwhp maximum, would u reccomend the -5s or stay with -7s if i dont plan on going over 500hp?

you dont happen to have a graph comparing your -5s with simons t04z setup to compare?

Edited by unique1

There's another GT-R in Perth with an RB26/30 with -5s fitted (Silver 32 driven by Matt). A very strong car and heaps of midrange as you would expect.

Don't a direct dyno graph with what I have now and Chooka's old setup, but his response was close to the GT-RS, but with another 50hp or so up top.

To give you an idea, however, have a look at this link of my old setup with GT-RS terbs and the -5s on a lower boost runin tune

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/up...05_63_75621.jpg

The power difference now is probably only 40hp or so lower now that I've raised the boost and dialed in a bit more timing

our car easily made 450AWKW at all fours on BP98 @ 20psi with GT-RS's. 2.6ltr as well and was only ran in the day before this dyno run. Not as responsive as Racepace's much touted RB29 but with your extra capacity i think you would go the 'pepsi challenge' with it. Our car also made around 470AWKW at all fours on 25psi and over 500AWKW on Sunoco fuel. Look at the mid-range difference...thats where you RPM rage will be on the circuit. GT-RS's are a great turbo choice for your application...what tracks will you be racing on?

link to thread..

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/Rb....html&st=40

Edited by DiRTgarage
They make 350rwkw on std manifolds, 380rwkw on stainless manifolds

PS. on the subject of manifolds, we flow tested a chinese stainless manifold and std cast manifold and the stainless flowed 50% more! Then we spent 6 hours porting the std cast manifolds paying particular attention to the short turns and they flowed 46% more(4% less than the ebay ones). With the relability and heat retension properties of cast I know what I'll be using

Interesting again that one, many a car has made 380rwkw on stock manifolds here and for many years its been done, even more so on some setups (and fuel etc).

hmm.

unique1 - if 450rwhp is your goal, GT-SS/-7 will do it... but it'll virtually make boost on idle with the extra capacity as they spool early enough on my 2.6ltr thats choked up.

Gav - that graph still amazes me everytime i see it with the smaller puppies on there and a stroker - love it :P

There's another GT-R in Perth with an RB26/30 with -5s fitted (Silver 32 driven by Matt). A very strong car and heaps of midrange as you would expect.

Don't a direct dyno graph with what I have now and Chooka's old setup, but his response was close to the GT-RS, but with another 50hp or so up top.

To give you an idea, however, have a look at this link of my old setup with GT-RS terbs and the -5s on a lower boost runin tune

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/up...05_63_75621.jpg

The power difference now is probably only 40hp or so lower now that I've raised the boost and dialed in a bit more timing

Thanks for the info, what capacity engine was the dyno graph comlpeted on?

So you are currently making 534rwhp with the -5s on a 2.8ltr?

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...