Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

SO i am stripping my 33 Gtst with a built 26/30 down for racing and am considering converting from a single GT3582r with a 1.06 housing to twins.

What twins to drop in is the million dollar question. Previously had good fun with a 3076r - is there a chance to do two of these. Aiming for good boost response say upwards of 3000 rpm. Currently have 310 KW so around this mark will be perfect.

Thanks in advance

Mike

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/363127-twin-turbo-reccomendations/
Share on other sites

Save your dollar and change the turbo to suit your application, the 35R with 1.06 housing is more like your aiming for 400rwkw. You could simply swap out your rear housing to a .82 item and shoot for 350rwkw, response will be great and power will be thick and plentiful.

If your aim is honestly 300rwkw, the above mentioned 3076 with .82 rear will be an all out animal. I would recommend this over the said twins (-9s), not to undercut the stripey horse but redeveloping your entire setup to achieve 300rwkw is not necessary.

Consider the twins will cost you over 2k to buy, plus redoing your exhaust and intercooler, obtaining all the factory piping etc etc etc and making your car THAT much harder to work on.

You could buy a 3076R that uses the same rear housing arrangements and dimensions as the 35R, it will also have the same 4" intake and your intake pipes will even easily accomodate the change. The 3076 would set you back a maximum of something like $1800 from GCG and you would have near the ultimate 300rwkw turbo for a 3L motor.

Youtube amuse supra, its got a 3076R on it and has BULLSHIT levels of power/response.

Save your dollar and change the turbo to suit your application, the 35R with 1.06 housing is more like your aiming for 400rwkw. You could simply swap out your rear housing to a .82 item and shoot for 350rwkw, response will be great and power will be thick and plentiful.

If your aim is honestly 300rwkw, the above mentioned 3076 with .82 rear will be an all out animal. I would recommend this over the said twins (-9s), not to undercut the stripey horse but redeveloping your entire setup to achieve 300rwkw is not necessary.

Consider the twins will cost you over 2k to buy, plus redoing your exhaust and intercooler, obtaining all the factory piping etc etc etc and making your car THAT much harder to work on.

You could buy a 3076R that uses the same rear housing arrangements and dimensions as the 35R, it will also have the same 4" intake and your intake pipes will even easily accomodate the change. The 3076 would set you back a maximum of something like $1800 from GCG and you would have near the ultimate 300rwkw turbo for a 3L motor.

Youtube amuse supra, its got a 3076R on it and has BULLSHIT levels of power/response.

You are absolutley correct - when i built the motor , I was originally planning for 400RWKW plus - but we hit the limit of the fuel system - and without moving to a surge tank and additional pumps, I was stuck at 310 - hence the original turbo choice.

This year I have decided that my new project will be to race the car, and as such she is being stripped ready for a full cage and re-spray. I always knew that he current set-up would not be optimal and hence the question.

Cost whilst a consideration is not prohibitive, and i have no requirement for factory piping, unless it fits, as I have no need to remain RTA legal.

Back when she was an RB25 - the 3076 was a great piece of gear - but will it still stand now its 26/30 and is going to be raced. I reckon given teh cage, sprayjob, new wheels and tires, big brake upgrade, new ECU, electronic dash and all of teh other goodies - I am unlikely to see much change out of $30-35K. The engine is already built, so only the head will need work, besides a strip down and check/balance.

So the question still stands - single or twins, which will be thebest for a 970 - 1000kg RWD track car????

I am running 383 kw at the rear treads (dyno'd in RWD so as not to detonate front diff) with twin HKS 2530's on an rb26/30 setup. Still running (ported) OEM cast iron manifolds. Very responsive.

With tubular manifolds (expremes or similar) i reckon could be even more responsive.

What boost?

What other mods?

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/topic/275548-andrews-r32-gtr-bolt-on-build-thread-phase-i-of-my-mods/page__st__60

22psi. Anyhow, the main point is, the turbos are now the major bottleneck in the system, but the HKS2530's are capable of making that kind of power on a 3.0, even with stock cast iron manis.

2530's are bigger than -5s right.

So - if most people get 380rwkw on 20psi with -5s on 2.6ltr... running more boost, on bigger turbos, bigger motor... I think you've got issues somewhere.

You should be well over the 400rwkw marker.

no, 2530s and -5s are basically the same. few small differences in the HKS ones but nothing major. 350kw @20-22psi is more like the norm for a good set-up so 380rwkw on a 3.0L is about right. it's a good result.

most people get 380rwkw on -5's at 20psi? bit high wouldn't you say? - i had a dig through the rb26 dyno thread for 2530 results and from what i could tell, around the low 20 psi mark, 21,22,23 people were making 350-360aw/rwkw - which i thought was about spot on for the 2530's?

on 3 different dynos i've had 358, 353 and 357 around 21psi

High how? Look @ people like Aaron34, Tangomatt etc making 400-415rwkw with 2.8ltr's on 20-22psi with -5s

Im @ 365rwkw on 19psi with timing pulled out. Jack & Snowy both made 370-380 (-5, 2.6ltr). I've posted the graphs up before.

i had a dig through the rb26 dyno thread for 2530 results and from what i could tell, around the low 20 psi mark, 21,22,23 people were making 350-360aw/rwkw

Don't forget we aren't talking stock motor results. They do indeed sit around the 350rwkw marker on stock motors (hence i think -5s are a bad choice) - so no argument there from me at all, totally agree.

Built motors with some porting and so on make more in almost every case.

-9s and GT-SS are identical - 2530 and -5 are not.

2530s are bigger, and will make more power. A 3ltr, running more boost again (when you factor things in), evidence would suggest it should be higher.

Could be exhaust restrictions, or perhaps just a conservative tune or something else entirely.

It'll be good to see when Paul & Steve get their -5s tuned on 3ltr and 2.8ltr respectively. That'll hopefully provide some more results.

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...