Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hiya. Yep im using a rb25 highflow from cgc...

Stage 1 450hp build... At the moment running 1 bar and full boost comes on by 3500rpm... Currently pushing out 232rwkw with usual mods, Fuel system, ECU, FMIC ect...

Does anyone know how much the turbo will flow boost wise?

LePpErFiSh.........

Hi Carl, we have 2 GCG Hi flow RB25 turbos, both Stage 1. One is on an R34GTT (RB25DET NEO) and the other on a R32 GTST (RB20DET). The R25DET has 240 rwkw at 1.1 bar and the RB20DET has 220 rwkw at 1.3 bar. The full weight R34GTT did a 12.4 for 1/4, and is used daily, in city traffic, freeways etc and has been that way, totally reliably for 20 months. The R32 is used for circuit racing and the turbo is very responsive in the RPM range we use, it isn't lag free but it's pretty close.

The RB25DET power band looks like this

7000 rpm 240 rwkw

6500 rpm 220 rwkw

6000 rpm 205 rwkw

5500 rpm 195 rwkw

5000 rpm 180 rwkw

4500 rpm 160 rwkw

Average 200 rwkw

There are plenty of 240 rwkw turbos around, but not many that average 200 rwkw from 4,500 rpm to 7,000 rpm. That's what performance is all about, a single hi maximum power at one rpm is point is next to useless. Unless you have a close ratio gearbox or an auto.

Our experience with Stage 2's is that they have to be tuned very carefully as they are very close to the compressor surge line on a 2.5 litre engine (OK on 3.1 litres though). I am personally not convinced that the few extra kw's is worth it on an RB25 and I wouldn't even think about it on a RB20.

Hope that helps

Hi Sydneykid,

What does this mean to us laymens ???

Our experience with Stage 2's is that they have to be tuned very carefully as they are very close to the compressor surge line

thanx for that sydney kidd , very useful info. my st1 pulled 204rwkws at 6300rpm at 1.2bar and that is before i change to a hi flow cat , split dump pipe, cam gears etc. at 7psi boost my peak power was 140rwkws at 6600rpm, why such a difference in peak rpm? would this be because of my restrictive dump/cat? thanx for the great advice, awesome thread!!! did the r34 use aftermarket cams to reach peak at 7000rpm?

7000rpm 253kw

6500rpm 250kw

6000rpm 245kw

5500rpm 227kw

5000rpm 220kw

4500rpm 191kw

Average= 231kw

This is my Hybrid VG30, still going strong with the ceramic wheel and T04 Vtrim comp. This turbo is not yet totally sorted as it will surge in 4th and 5th. Boost must come on after 4000rpm to eliminate surge, I am currently controlling it by dual stage boost controll which automatically switches from 11 to 14psi at 4000rpm.

How long it will last is another issue, been running with it for a few months now. Happy with the $350 outlay so far. :)

Heard alot of good things about GCG. Big outlay tho ,but, just the same as buying a brand new turbo....which is cheaper than any HKS, APEX, TRUST etc.

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...