Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

I went to see a reputable performance joint yesterday about installing a HKS 2835 Pro S kit I have got my hands on. I already have a 3" metal intake to the Z32 afm and then pod.

However, the new turbo has a 4" intake and the tuner is strongly recommending I move the afm to the cooler piping and run a 4" intake due to reversion and potential stalling issues arising when transitioning on/off boost. He said this seems to occur frequently with the larger compressor covers.

I want to keep my 3" metal intake and leave the afm in the factory location. Even though the turbo has a 4" intake its not designed for huge power (280rwkw max) and from what I can see all the other guys running this turbo dont run 4" intakes.

Has anyone had this issue? Or is it minor, the extra price of this work is scaring me off changing to this turbo.

just run a 4"-3" reducer, install the kit and be happy :)

That was my original plan, I hadnt even heard of anyone else doing that on this turbo. Do you have experience with this configuration or just everyone else's results?

not a problem even with an atmo bov fitted, but my HKS2835pros has a 3" intake and surge slots

oh wow yours has a 3" intake as well!! Mine has surge slots too but is definitely 4".

Joeyjoe's turbo has a 3" intake as well. I wonder why mine is 4"??

Think about how much air is going through the turbo on idle...... Next to none. 3" pipe will be fine. They supply a 3 inch pipe and reducer for a reason. Never heard of any issues

What size intake does yours have? Yours is the KAI version right?

Put the turbo in and see if you have any dramas before deciding to do the extra work?

We always do the 3076s with 3" hard piping and 3-4" reducer at the turbo and never have any problems. The factory arrangement should provide enough air mass not to disturb the AFM if/when the compressor surges.

Different turbos have different flow characteristics though. I say just give it a shot first then tackle the problem IF it arises.

From memory there are two versions of the GT Pro S compressor housing and both are port shrouded . The main difference is that one has a 100mm inlet snout and the other is 90mm with a separate machined boss fitted .

If you have the 100mm version I'd say the way to go would be a reasonable section of 100mm bore hose to let the PS'd comp housing do its thing then reduce to 80mm to suit the Z32 meter .

If tuning isn't a problem you could consider fitting the element and electronics into a 90mm AFM body making the difference only 10mm . 90mm is 3.543 inches and I reckon at 1mm over 3.5" you could stretch something to fit .

A .

reducer on the turbo will be fine. just make sure theres a bend and as much length as possible between the afm and turbo

I have just finished a custom 3" intake (90 deg bend) with the bov return and breather hose fittings for the current turbo and I do get the issue on my current turbo so I am thinking it might get worse.

Put the turbo in and see if you have any dramas before deciding to do the extra work?

We always do the 3076s with 3" hard piping and 3-4" reducer at the turbo and never have any problems. The factory arrangement should provide enough air mass not to disturb the AFM if/when the compressor surges.

Different turbos have different flow characteristics though. I say just give it a shot first then tackle the problem IF it arises.

Great to hear with your personal experience with the 3076s, thats great info.

That was my third option, 1. keep current turbo, 2. install new turbo and relocate afm, 3. install current turbo with reducer and see how it is

The only cost that I would double up on would be the tuning.

From memory there are two versions of the GT Pro S compressor housing and both are port shrouded . The main difference is that one has a 100mm inlet snout and the other is 90mm with a separate machined boss fitted .

If you have the 100mm version I'd say the way to go would be a reasonable section of 100mm bore hose to let the PS'd comp housing do its thing then reduce to 80mm to suit the Z32 meter .

If tuning isn't a problem you could consider fitting the element and electronics into a 90mm AFM body making the difference only 10mm . 90mm is 3.543 inches and I reckon at 1mm over 3.5" you could stretch something to fit .

A .

Bugger I have just finished a custom 3" 90 degree bend with the bov return and the breather fitting. Ended up being a fair bit of work.

Interesting idea with the larger AFM body. I was trying to stay on the beaten path though :)

Nengun says the two sizes are 80mm and 100mm:

http://www.nengun.com/hks/turbine-gt2835-pro-s

Although I trust you disco more than nengun!

Do you know the reasoning behind the larger intake? It seems funny for a turbo designed for a standard engine to require such modifications.

Mine is the KAI yes and has a 3" inlet on the turbo. Not the 4" like the pro s

The pro s kits come with a 4" to 3" reducer and a 3" hard intake pipe

See thats the thing all the people on here that I have spoken to with the Pro S (joeyjoejoe, 75coupe and others) all have the 3" intake.

Are you sure the Pro S kits came with a 4" to 3" reducer at the turbo? As far as I know the Pro S kits have been discontinued and only the KAI is still made.

Pro s kits came with a 3" to 4" reducer. The one I saw this reducer was black unlike the rest of the hoses which are purple.

They have a 3" hard pipe which is identical to the one supplie with the KAI kit. No need for the reducer with the KAI as it's 3" turbo housing to 3" pipe

Dave I will post the id number up when I get home.

89CAL, that is promising! Although I am just trying to point out that not all Pro S turbos have a 4" intake. There are two versions, 80mm and 100mm.

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...