Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Note how the 20G falls over on top end. This is from our re-worked version: SL20.5 mentioned earlier. It is made to have the same down low torque as the 20G, while holding the power band up top. Running against Kando's TD06L2-20G on a standard RB25det motor, Same response, more power with much wider power band. Nothing is changed apart from the turbocharger. Price difference is within $100 to listed kando item.

power.jpg

Less then $100 difference, why would you buy the Kando :/

Do you do this or can you do this as a bolton for the RB26 running in twin form, like the Kando do with the TD06L2S-20g ?

^^ I would like to see this also.

In the absence of boost plots, the 20.5G looks to be a little lazier coming on, and then in the best useful torque zone (4000-7000) it flattens by comparison to the 20G up until 5500. And then it seems able to hold torque from 6500-7200 thereby producing the bigger power number.

The 20.5G unit looks more linear (which I like) up where it's doing its thing across 4000-7000, but you've got to be able to consistently use that last 750rpm to make it worthwhile. Debateable which spec would be quicker point-to-point or around a track for a given car setup and driver of average/good ability. That aside, there is value in supporting an Australian business. For the minor cost difference customer service history might influence the final choice.

It does appear that the dyno graph differences are related to boost delivery, and the 20.5G making more boost over 5000rpm. Whether that's more strongly related to pumping capacity (surely the 20G is hitting its peak, if the numbers on the graphs are an indication?), or boost controller settings only the tuner will know for sure.

It's looking like a case of gain in top end at the cost of some spool and mid range. Would be interesting to drive the two back-to-back and see how they feel, rather than base it only on graphs.

The 20G can't be dismissed as obsolete.

If you are making 290-310rwkws (dyno differences and all) out of a 20G compressor based turbo you are getting near/to the limit of what the poor lol thing can pump, lol surely. :)

The 20.5G seems to be a smidgen slower to build boost but hangs in nicer up top. Boost taper suggests the 20G is at its limit..the hp and torque drop off really confirm it. Why wouldnt you take the extra hp in the final 700rpm if its given to you for $100.

But i wonder if its a compressor thing or turbine. I have always felt that the L2 wheel is a bit rubbish. My TD06 always held on way better up top compared to the L2s despite all their hype. Perhaps the 65mm turbine gives a bit more torque and helps the compressor keep the boost up. Indeed those in the Evo world hi-flowing all the billet 68-82mm compressors on Evo and STI use the 65mm and 67mm turbines...not the lil 61mm L2 version.

Accessing/using the grunt is where I see priority. It could simply be a matter of driver preference and ability. Running them back to back on the road/track would make it clear which best suits, and proves whether the bigger number on a graph equates to a faster car.

I'm not against the 20.5G, and agree its looking like a case of rob Peter/ pay Paul with the response/flow equation. You'd fully expect that the 20G boost tapering at higher rpm indicates it's running out of puff, but it might be that the quicker spool and beefier hit of mid range torque would fire that Skyline off each corner easier/faster than the 20.5 which then has a job to chase it down and hope the straight is long enough to make a pass before the next corner.

The $100 price difference is not an issue in my mind. HG does have a lot of satisfied customers with positive comments about the service, which counts for a lot.

So what do you think roy.? The 20.5g be cool on a built and pon cammed rb25? It wouldnt make it to 330kw-350kw mark though on wmi/e85. What would it make on p98 ypu think for a tune that I can use to get the most/best fuel economy for long trips. A mate just thinks I should get a efr7670 as itll give made response and probably nearly hit 380-400kw but I have no Idea im currently stripping it and painting it in the few weeks so I want to get everything organized. Another mate said ge kando to make me up a gtx3073 in 52 trim on a smaller 1" runner mx performance top mount manifold for better spool up with a 44mm gate off the housing from scotty. Iv also got to choose a new ecu as ive sold the Vi-Pec v44 I had. Was one of the first ones. Adaptronic worth a try you think or just go a link vipec or haltech?

Edited by Joshbigt62r

Josh if you have a reasonable budget to play with, I'd urge you to consider a BW. It's good to examine all reasonable options/combinations but I think there's better options than what's been discussed here.

Look closely at the Airwerks range S200SX 7670, running T4 split pulse. Combine that with the small runner manifold you've mentioned and you ought to achieve extremely good response and hit the 450-480rwhp mark. That particular turbo is quite price competitive with what's been discussed here, but likely to easily outperform both for overall response:flow. No dicking around with "special" builds, and durability proven.

It is evidently a reasonably well trodden path in the US, so perhaps worth a bit of wider searching, and enquiry through Full Race. They are also quite responsive to customers.

Your biggest associated cost would be plumbing it all up with twin gates etc if you want to get the very best from it. The pictures of GTRJoey's 8375 install tells a story, but his results bear witness to the return on effort/expense.

SR22 with 7064 on 98 vs my RB20 with 20G on E85 made DOUBLE the power i had at 4,000rpm. We made the same peak power. So on a 25 it would be uber on 98 with WMI and expect it would knock on 330 and leave any Mitsu based turbo in its dust. The SR22 was running under 20psi too so there is some headspace....EFR all the way if you can

Any dyno sheet of that SR22 ?

I need some data to finish convincing a mate with a SR to go EFR and he's thinking in going darton sleeves, 90mm bore if he ever needs to.

It currently has a china 2871 which won't last long @26psi on his still 2L SR.

A pair of EFR6758s as boltons would be very nice :yes:

They are a very interesting looking turbo... I would love to run a pair!

Only issue I can see is they look long, and wouldn't fit. And definitely not bolt on. You'd need some pretty wild mods down there to fit them

I would love bolt on borg warner twins for my GTR to replace my HKS 2530s. Anyone know if this could be possible?

Do you think the front and rear housings would be usable?

AB1D3231-698F-4E76-9FD9-C49917044AE3_zps

C91700BF-E978-462A-B5F2-BD1063C7357B_zps

Two chances of making them fit in factory location.

What you can use is your current front pipe. They bolt up when using the Full Race dumps.

  • 2 months later...

does anyone here have dyno graphs of the kando td05 18g and td05 16g on an rb20? ive been searching through and getting mixed results but not too many graphs, i'm considering getting one of these turbo's and would like to compare spool times mainly so boost/rpm/power graphs are much preffered, thanks :)

  • 3 weeks later...

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...