Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Interesting info ...:

HKS official Japanese web site http (//www.hks-power.co.jp/) rates their new(er) GTSS power output equal to their GT2530 at 320PS. This is perplexing in that the official HKS Australian web site rates GT SS at only 280ps and 2530 at 320ps.

Also the "new" Trsut T517Z's now look to be superior to the HKS items as they flow alittle more power and come onto boost earlier than the 2530's but probably later then the GTSS's.

Anyone gone from GTSS's to T51's ????

note; image below is HKS dyno graph for GTSS's !!! ... comments ?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/32258-hks-gt-ss-vs-2530s-vs-trust-t517zs/
Share on other sites

highly reccomend 2530's. been in a couple of gtr's with them and have good response.its wierd cos its almost like stock turbo's but with alot more power

Appreciate the comments but have you guys been in a car with GTSS's, I have and it was phenominal !

Must confess however I havent been in car with 2530's

  • Like 1
Jeremy, The 25/30s will make around 70rwhp more than your R34 made last time on the Dyno but with a very wide power band plus they can be had cheap these days.

Guys,

How do you insert an image into these messages (Im not too bad on computers but this has got me Fked)

I know someone who has Trust T517Z turbos in a GTR. Spools up around 3300rpm, starts pulling like a freight train after 4000rpm@ 12 psi. Higher boost + cams etc will see these babys pull well over 300awkw.

Quoting "Club Skyline" A Japanese tuning mag the Trust T517z turbos were designed to fit between HKS 2530 and HKS 2540 range.

But if I was in the market for turbos, the New GT-RS would be my choice.

Hi guys, as I see more of the results from twin GTRS's it starts to look more and more like they are a bit too big for a standard internals RB26. OK on 2.7 litre and 2.8 litre engines with high rpm limits (9,500 rpm plus). Just a little late building boost in the rpm range with 2.6 litres and the standard rpm limit.

Of course if HKS published compressor maps we wouldn't have this problem of having to wait for other people's results and they might actually sell more turbos faster. But I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Hi guys, moving onto T517's, no water cooling and no ball bearings, so long term reliability has to be a consideration. The most tricky bit is their wastegates open the other way, this makes using the common designs of split dumps almost impossible.

I'll pass thanks.

Uhh...ohh, i think you will find that BB turbos can be rebuilt, but if i owned a BB turbo i wouldnt be too concerned about the need to get them re-built.

Your likely to damage a turbine/compressor thru dodgy filters or engine crapping itself, before needing to rebuild the turbo's core/cartridge...that said if your buying 2nd hand, being able to cheaply re-build ($400) a bush bearing turbo is comforting.

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

    • 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...