Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

determining the difference between fake turbos using the same name . recently purchased a' kkrturbo off ... Pcpa in western aus. for nearly 200 less than what grant from otomoto was asking for it . has anyone else come across this ? ill be mighty depressed if i do have a fakie. means ill have to sell the rb30 det :P due to financial issues . if anyone can get back to me that'll be grand

www.pcpa.com.au

the model of turbo i apparently purshaced was kkr 560 help anyone !

Edited by butch
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/273506-another-kkr-thread/
Share on other sites

i know a guy who buys KKR turbo's directly from factory in china and he says they are close to half the cost of what otomo charge for them here in australia.

so $200 cheaper will still mean they can make a profit on the turbo. I wouldnt worry about it

Yep looks like a copy to me.

Genuine: http://www.driftgarage.com.au/images/KKR330_sm.gif

Yours: http://www.pcpa.com.au/index.php?main_page...mage&pID=10

ID plate doesn't have any black KKR writing and the actuator is slightly different.

would anyone run this though ? even if its a copy . though it looks like the pcpa turbo has a benefit due to fact its water cooled as well .. but dunno - G

they all come out of the same factory in china anyway. just send it somewhere in AUS to get re-balanced and see how it goes.

not only shitty turbos, but fakes of a shitty turbo????

Yeah why copy KKR when you could copy HKS? GuiltToys explanation passes the common sense test. Its probably like the D2 G4 brake stuff. Manufacturing company makes it, sales/wholesaling companies badge it and sell it.

determining the difference between fake turbos using the same name . recently purchased a' kkrturbo off ... Pcpa in western aus. for nearly 200 less than what grant from otomoto was asking for it . has anyone else come across this ? ill be mighty depressed if i do have a fakie. means ill have to sell the rb30 det :) due to financial issues . if anyone can get back to me that'll be grand

www.pcpa.com.au

the model of turbo i apparently purshaced was kkr 560 help anyone !

Jesus Christ man !

Sell the RB30 due to financial crisis!

That's simply not an option mate.

If you're even close to the average ball park asshole, sell your body or soul first man..

genuine can only be bought from otomoto and their official kkr distributors.

ask for a refund dude

recieved an email back today . in regards to this turbo. refund is not an option . been doing some more research and this kkr 560 style turbo and the company that makes them is new power an offshoot company of kkr. still waiting on the reply from Pcpa into this matter heres there info if anyone wants a geeze into the dilemma

Ningbo Motor Industrial Co. Ltd

18 # Tian long shan Road,Beilun

Ningbo

Zhejiang

China 315806

Tel: (86 574) 86113256

Fax: (86 574) 86113257

Chat with supplier using:

Homepage Address

http://www.globalsources.com/turbocharger.co

Other Homepage Address

www.gpturbocharger.com

Key Contact:

Mr Chen, steven

Vice General manager

Auto parts & Auto accessories

Mr Chen, james

General manager

Auto parts & Auto accessories

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...