Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I wana change my current turbo a t88-33d with 18cm housing to either a t51r kai or spl (depends on what i can get at a good price)

first up its on a stock capacity 2.6l but with all usual built bottom end and has some head work done aswell as a complete fuel system so it has all correct supporting mods

what i want to know is if i go and get the kai version will it make more power than my current turbo if they use the same boost level?

i dont want to go and buy the turbo n find out that it will still make the same power as i currently make.

i just love the sound of a t51r spooling up and t88's are quite an old turbo even tho mine has only done 13,000 kms

so yeh any help would be nice and i dont wana hear all the usual stuff like t51r shouldnt be on a 26 n its going to be laggy blah blah blah.

im used to lag with the t88, to me driving it around is still perfectly fine

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/386919-turbo-change-same-power/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

yeh that was kinda my understanding, i think the spl non ball bearing with 1.0 rear housing was rated to about 900hp but i couldnt find a definative answer on the kai.

i think my t88 is rated to 750-800 hp

How hard have you pushed the T88 you've got now? Tried the larger rear? If you havnt tried over 25psi or so, turn it up more before buying a new turbo :)

Edit; T88 ratings are pretty typical Japanese, eg they'll say "800hp engine" but there's guys here making nearly that at the wheels with them.

You aren't necessarily going to make anymore power unless the T88 was reaching its flow limit. Iirc the T88 is twin scroll, might be easier to go a GT4202R which is also twin scroll, sounds awesome an flows well :)

yeh its the 18cm housing on a 33d.

high boost is currently set at 25psi. it pushed out 427kw on uni group dyno when i just did a power run. figure seems quite low in my opinion, also as said above love the sound of a t51r coming on boost

may seem stupid but i want more power lol

If wanting more power is stupid, then a lot of us here are in trouble haha

It's worth moving max boost to 30psi for a run (Yavuz shouldnt need much convincing to do that haha), if that's not enough, try the larger reared 34D - that will put a smile on your dial. Or, when you're totally crazy, throw a GK on there.....i'll come watch that dyno run ;)

As nice as a T51R sounds, I'd be taking a GK over a T51R every day of the week. Who gives a shit about spooling noise when you're putting close to 1000rwhp to the floor

That does seem low. Is there other issues? Exhaust big enough? I doubt it's the turbo's fault....

i have a full 4" exhaust from turbo back so there is no restriction there.

cant run e85 as closest station to wollongong is heathcoate (half hour away)

yavous didnt tune the car either, croydon did, only did a power run at unigroup

As nice as a T51R sounds, I'd be taking a GK over a T51R every day of the week. Who gives a shit about spooling noise when you're putting close to 1000rwhp to the floor

Isn't a 38GK no better flowing than a T51R SPL BB but laggier? Haven't experienced both back to back but its certainly the impression I have from other results I have caught wind of.

no there will be no t62 r.

wonder if i should take it somewhere else to have a look at what they think bout the power level

have seen people with very similar set ups to mine making 460kw+

Isn't a 38GK no better flowing than a T51R SPL BB but laggier? Haven't experienced both back to back but its certainly the impression I have from other results I have caught wind of.

I dont know back to back either regarding response/lag. Surely a tiny bit more lag one way or the other when you're talking this amount of lag isnt going to make too much of a difference. Asking a friend of mine who knows all things T88, the GK has been proven to do 1000rwhp - I'm not sure, and not feeling well from NYE so not going in search of T51RSPLBB figures, but isnt the T62R the one that competes with those numbers? Im a twin turbo kind of guy so not up to date on every single turbo spec

Chris I asked that same person who knows all about T88's about your setup. He's very confident that turbo at 30psi and maybe a touch more will get 480kw, his one makes 460kw at 27psi. I asked if you were to change to hit 480/500kw what would he suggest. 34D 22cm was the answer and it will have more left in it for when you're tired of that number, but even the 22cm rear on the 33D should get there he said without any worries as long as the rest of the car is right.

Unigroup dyno isnt a high reading one, it's pretty common knowledge it's a bit of a low reader. They focus on getting the engine running perfectly and having great drivability rather than just a high figure and sending someone on their way out the door.

They focus on getting the engine running perfectly and having great drivability rather than just a high figure and sending someone on their way out the door.

This I like. It's what matters, unless using for dyno comps of course....

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

    • Great interview on damper settings and coil selection by HPA https://www.facebook.com/HPAcademy/videos/30284693841175196/?fs=e&s=TIeQ9V&fs=e
    • Yeah, it was a pretty deep dig.
    • The values for HID colour are also defined ~ see https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2006L02732/latest/text  ~ goto section 3.9 onwards ....
    • So, if the headlights' cutoff behaviour (angles, heights, etc) are not as per 6.2.6.1.1 without automatic levelling, then you have to have to have automatic** levelling. Also, if the headlight does not have the required markings, then neither automatic nor manual adjusters are going to be acceptable. That's because the base headlight itself does not meet the minimum requirement (which is the marking). ** with the option of manual levelling, if the headlight otherwise meets the same requirements as for the automatic case AND can be set to the "base" alignment at the headlight itself. So that's an additional requirement for the manual case. So, provided that the marking is on the headlight and there is a local manual adjustment back to "base" on the headlight, then yes, you could argue that they are code compliant. But if you are missing any single one of these things, then they are not. And unlike certain other standards that I work with, there does not seem to be scope to prepare a "fitness for purpose" report. Well, I guess there actually is. You might engage an automotive engineer to write a report stating that the lights meet the performance requirements of the standard even if they are missing, for example, the markings.  
    • Vertical orientation   6.2.6.1.1. The initial downward inclination of the cut off of the dipped-beam to be set in the unladen vehicle state with one person in the driver's seat shall be specified within an accuracy of 0.1 per cent by the manufacturer and indicated in a clearly legible and indelible manner on each vehicle close to either headlamp or the manufacturer's plate by the symbol shown in Annex 7.   The value of this indicated downward inclination shall be defined in accordance with paragraph 6.2.6.1.2.   6.2.6.1.2. Depending on the mounting height in metres (h) of the lower edge of the apparent surface in the direction of the reference axis of the dipped beam headlamp, measured on the unladen vehicles, the vertical inclination of the cut off of the dipped- beam shall, under all the static conditions of Annex 5, remain between the following limits and the initial aiming shall have the following values:   h < 0.8   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   0.8 < h < 1.0   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   Or, at the discretion of the manufacturer,   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The application for the vehicle type approval shall, in this case, contain information as to which of the two alternatives is to be used.   h > 1.0   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The above limits and the initial aiming values are summarized in the diagram below.   For category N3G (off-road) vehicles where the headlamps exceed a height of 1,200 mm, the limits for the vertical inclination of the cut-off shall be between: -1.5 per cent and -3.5 per cent.   The initial aim shall be set between: -2 per cent and -2.5 per cent.
×
×
  • Create New...