Jump to content
SAU Community

Rb20Det Max Power

swirto

By swirto,
in Engines & Forced Induction

 Share

Recommended Posts

zebra Grand Master

zebra

Posted
Posted

You can run whatever turbo you want...whether its useable or not is another matter, as said above have a look at the TD-06SL2-20G if you want a good top end rush but still be useable. if if you want response the HKS2530..or even a GT-RS would be a good in betweener.

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Nissan Nutter Contributor

Nissan Nutter

Posted
Posted

Im running a gt2860r (disco potato) on my rb20 and im getting 200rwkw with full boost (16psi) at 3500rpm. Imo its a great street setup, it's very fun to drive and can give some higher horsepower cars a run for there money.

swirto Contributor

swirto

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Im running a gt2860r (disco potato) on my rb20 and im getting 200rwkw with full boost (16psi) at 3500rpm. Imo its a great street setup, it's very fun to drive and can give some higher horsepower cars a run for there money.

gt2860 is .86 turbine and .60 a/r???

gt35 .63 and .70 a/r.

why wouldnt it spool untill 5k??

zebra Grand Master

zebra

Posted
Posted

gt2860 is .86 turbine and .60 a/r???

gt35 .63 and .70 a/r.

why wouldnt it spool untill 5k??

You have a lot to learn my friend :)

the A/R is just that, an Area Ratio...means nothing when comparing differnt turbos..only relevance it has is when comparing different hosuings of the same type of turbo, eg GT3582R has 3 turbine options, .63, .82 and 1.06

Have a look at a GT35 and a GT28 side by side.

You will see why there will be a difference in response

Roy Grand Master

Roy

Posted
Posted

Once you start getting past 220-230 rwkw with a rb20 you'll get nothing but lag, the best turbos out there ie least amount of lag for a 20 will get you 230 rwkw max...

I'm sunning a standard turbo highflowed and have 219 rwkw and its not to laggy, still more then standard of course but no where near as bad as say a 33 highflow. I make full boost by around 4-4.5k, i personally think around 210-230 is perfect for a 20.:thumbsup:

A TD06-20G hits 20psi before 4,500rpm. And at 5,000rpm is making something like 210rwkws on its way o 260rwkws! So its all in the tune and setup.

med_gallery_462_50_59282.jpg

I made some mods with a different gate, manifold and now a plasmaman plenum and have lost response :( I did gain a tad in the top end but no very happy with the result. So stick with the std inlet manifold if you want better response and torque.

med_gallery_462_50_44142.jpg

A GT-RS on std manifold is laggier then a full TD06-20G setup, with gate and manifold. Years ago I backed to backed my car on a dyno with a friends GTS-4 in rwd which ran a similar exhaust, same intercooler and both std RB20. Though I had cam gears he didnt. So a GT-RS isnt a good in betweener with regards to performance, it performs worse then a 20G from both response and grunt. But if you need a std manifold low mount turbo then its a good solution, but performance is compromised.

med_gallery_462_50_8431.jpg

As you can see my 20G was running more boost but you can see the boost response is about the same, but the 20G actually make spower sooner

med_gallery_462_50_171164.jpg

Kris.. Mentor

Kris..

Posted
Posted

I'm sunning a standard turbo highflowed and have 219 rwkw and its not to laggy, still more then standard of course but no where near as bad as say a 33 highflow. I make full boost by around 4-4.5k, i personally think around

full boost at 4-4,500rpm on a standard high flow seems realy laggy, my 25/35 is on full boost before then

Roy Grand Master

Roy

Posted
Posted

Boost response is very similar as you can see. With cam gears boost curve could be a little bit better. But the amount of flow and actual torque and response is superior with the 20G over the GT-RS. With cam gears then perhaps the GT-RS may have similar actual hp and torque curves. The catch of course is that whilst the cars were on teh same dyno within minutes of one another....the cars had different tuners. I went on to make a further 25rwkws and a tad more response by leaning on the tune after the dyno comparison and that subsequent tune still was perfectly reliable. So nothing to suggest that the 20G tune at the time of the comparison was a lot more aggressive as I later found out with a re-tune it was actually pretty conservative

R31Nismoid Grand Master

R31Nismoid

Posted
Posted

As you can see my 20G was running more boost but you can see the boost response is about the same, but the 20G actually make spower sooner

med_gallery_462_50_171164.jpg

The GT-RS has failing boost control though Bris!

Its very lazy onto boost and then takes the entire rev range to increase from 17psi to 19psi.

If it has better boost control i think the results would be much closer with 19psi in around 1800rpm sooner than it was.

Still the TD06 does win out, not arguing that... I just think the GT-RS looks like a very bad loser when if the setup was better it wouldn't be too bad at all. If you added in cam gear and maybe picked up another 200rpm it could be very interesting.

TD06 will make more peak power either way though.

Roy Grand Master

Roy

Posted
Posted

I run an 8cm housing (posted above)

This is an earlier tune when i was running the 10cm housing and pretty conservative tune

462Dyno5.jpg

The 8cm is clearlt the better option

Ash, no doubt if both our cars ran ebcs rather then just bleeds on std wastegates both could be improved, especially the GT-RS. But the shape of them ramping onto boost is the main thing I look at rather then whether they taper off at set boost pressure due to a bit of diaphragm creep

R31Nismoid Grand Master

R31Nismoid

Posted
Posted

That's what im talking about though man.

The boost ramp on the GT-RS is terrible, and it's due to the control setup, not the turbo.

TD06 ramps up nice and sharp yes, the GT-RS is just lazy from 4200-5000 where it should hit firm @ 4200 based on how the ramp starts. It's definately blowing the gate open or a lazy actuator

Still good info though either way i just don't agree with the comment "GT-RS isn't a good inbetweener", I'd say it is - if the setup is... actually... setup correcrtly. :)

Still the TD04 is better, but more costly for the whole kit IIRC?

Roy Grand Master

Roy

Posted
Posted

That's what im talking about though man.

The boost ramp on the GT-RS is terrible, and it's due to the control setup, not the turbo.

TD06 ramps up nice and sharp yes, the GT-RS is just lazy from 4200-5000 where it should hit firm @ 4200 based on how the ramp starts. It's definately blowing the gate open or a lazy actuator

Still good info though either way i just don't agree with the comment "GT-RS isn't a good inbetweener", I'd say it is - if the setup is... actually... setup correcrtly. :)

Still the TD04 is better, but more costly for the whole kit IIRC?

I am only really compairing them between 3,000rpm and 4,000rpm to get a good feel for how they ramp on. When we compared the two setups it was a very early tune of mine. Actually its the 234rwkw tune below. The 260kw tune also showed before is the exact same setup, only with 100rom shell fuel. The 100tune mostly helped with the ability to run a little more boos and a touch more ignition safely at the track.

98 safe tune

Dyno_RacePace.jpeg

100 track tune

med_gallery_462_50_59282.jpg

The 100ron track tune above still has 4 deg igntion taken out of what we can get out of it

BUT, this is getting a little off thread... Based on what swirto has posted I would be throwing a 3071 on the car. No lil RB20 is every going to pull in the 3,000rpm range. A short stroke 2L six needs revs to come on to cam and fill its lungs. Drivign a 2530 pwered RB20 vs a TD06 RB20 isnt all that different from seat of pants. The 2530 is a little nicer through the early 3,000rpm range but the 20G does not lose out by so much that the lag loses you a lot of general performance.

So i think a 3071 is a good balance (based on your mods)between between being small enough for response and drvability bit size to spin and give you a good hit of 250rwkws up top

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • pacman_1219
      Blue/grey smoke after idle

      By pacman_1219 · Posted

      Even with the piston at TDC there was room for it to drop, but I don't think it can drop fully into the cylinder, the problem you have is that you need something pushing against the valve to hold it up so you have enough room to put the new stem seal on and the spring etc.  I used compressed air only because putting rope in the cylinder seemed a bit risky to me, I know people have done it countless times before like this. Overall it's a pain in the ass job. Honestly you'd probably be better off taking the head off because the risk of dropping something in the engine and the finicky-ness of it all is very stressful. If you are going to attempt it though i 10000% recommend a 36050 valve spring/keeper tool. I had both the traditional lever type and after doing 1 cylinder it was absolute pain to get those valve keepers in place, even with 2 people. That 36050 is amazing, you do have to push hard to get them in place but it works perfectly almost every time. Back to my actual issue I think my engine is just tired and old and the rings have gone bad. The comp numbers (cold, no oil) were: Cyl 1 -129psi Cyl 2 - 133psi Cyl 3 - 138psi Cyl 4 - 137psi Cyl 5 - 157psi Cyl 6 - 142psi   Cylinder 5 and 6 having the most carbon on them.
    • MBS206
      R33 Fuel Pump & Brakes after alarm swap

      By MBS206 · Posted

      Who did you have do the installation? I actually know someone who is VERY familiar with the AVS gear. The main point of contact though would be your installer.   Where are you based in NZ?
    • GTSBoy
      R33 Fuel Pump & Brakes after alarm swap

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Look, realistically, those are some fairly chunky connectors and wires so it is a reasonably fair bet that that loom was involved in the redirection of the fuel pump and/or ECU/ignition power for the immobiliser. It's also fair to be that the new immobiliser is essentially the same thing as the old one, and so it probably needs the same stuff done to make it do what it has to do. Given that you are talking about a car that no-one else here is familiar with (I mean your exact car) and an alarm that I've never heard of before and so probably not many others are familiar with, and that some wire monkey has been messing with it out of our sight, it seems reasonable that the wire monkey should be fixing this.
    • GTSBoy
      After market rear camber arm adjustment

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Wheel alignment immediately. Not "when I get around to it". And further to what Duncan said - you cannot just put camber arms on and shorten them. You will introduce bump steer far in excess of what the car had with stock arms. You need adjustable tension arms and they need to be shortened also. The simplest approach is to shorten them the same % as the stock ones. This will not be correct or optimal, but it will be better than any other guess. The correct way to set the lengths of both arms is to use a properly built/set up bump steer gauge and trial and error the adjustments until you hit the camber you need and want and have minimum bump steer in the range of motion that the wheel is expected to travel. And what Duncan said about toe is also very true. And you cannot change the camber arm without also affecting toe. So when you have adjustable arms on the back of a Skyline, the car either needs to go to a talented wheel aligner (not your local tyre shop dropout), or you need to be able to do this stuff yourself at home. Guess which approach I have taken? I have built my own gear for camber, toe and bump steer measurement and I do all this on the flattest bit of concrete I have, with some shims under the tyres on one side to level the car.
    • Jarsky
      R33 Fuel Pump & Brakes after alarm swap

      By Jarsky · Posted

      Thought I would get some advice from others on this situation.    Relevant info: R33 GTS25t Link G4x ECU Walbro 255LPH w/ OEM FP Relay (No relay mod) Scenario: I accidentally messed up my old AVS S5 (rev.1) at the start of the year and the cars been immobilised. Also the siren BBU has completely failed; so I decided to upgrade it.  I got a newer AVS S5 (rev.2?) installed on Friday. The guy removed the old one and its immobilisers. Tried to start it; the car cranks but doesnt start.  The new one was installed and all the alarm functions seem to be working as they should; still wouldn't start Went to bed; got up on Friday morning and decided to have a look into the no start problem. Found the car completely dead.  Charged the battery; plugged it back in and found the brake lights were stuck on.  Unplugging the brake pedal switch the lights turn off. Plug it back in and theyre stuck on again. I tested the switch (continuity test and resistance); all looks good (0-1kohm).  On talking to AVS; found its because of the rubber stopper on the brake pedal; sure enough the middle of it is missing so have ordered a new one. One of those wear items; which was confusing what was going on However when I try unplugging the STOP Light fuses (under the dash and under the hood) the brake light still stays on. Should those fuses not cut the brake light circuit?  I then checked the ECU; FP Speed Error.  Testing the pump again; I can hear the relay clicking every time I switch it to ON. I unplugged the pump and put the multimeter across the plug. No continuity; im seeing 0.6V (ECU signal?) and when it switches the relay I think its like 20mA or 200mA). Not seeing 12.4V / 7-9A. As far as I know; the Fuel Pump was wired through one of the immobiliser relays on the old alarm.  He pulled some thick gauged harness out with the old alarm wiring; which looks to me like it was to bridge connections into the immobilisers? Before it got immobilised it was running just fine.  Im at a loss to why the FP is getting no voltage; I thought maybe the FP was faulty (even though I havent even done 50km on the new pump) but no voltage at the harness plug.  Questions: Could it be he didnt reconnect the fuel pump when testing it after the old alarm removal (before installing the new alarm)?  Is this a case of bridging to the brake lights instead of the fuel pump circuit? It's a bit beyond me as I dont do a lot with electrical; so have tried my best to diagnose what I think seems to make sense.  Seeking advice if theres for sure an issue with the alarm install to get him back here; or if I do infact, need an auto electrician to diagnose it. 
×
×
  • Create New...