Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi Guy's,

I have a r32 gts-t and Ive been trying to fing out which would be a great turbo for the rb20, something thats responsive although still good on top end.

I thought of getting a hks 2540 although my budget does not stretch that far :)

Then I found out about the garrett gt28 thats basically half the price and said to be a similar turbo anyway. Apparently its rated at 400-450hp.

Does anyone know anything bout this turbo?

Also does it work any good with the rb20?

Thanks ;)

Mark

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/24678-garrett-gt28/
Share on other sites

Thats cool man, you can see it on this site-

http://www.horsepowerinabox.com/HPIAB2/cat...ategory26_1.htm

Also you can see there are two gt28's one has a larger exhaust housing so its rated at 450hp instead of 400hp :)

They also run internal wastegates so I think there wouldn't be much to fitting, then I dont know that much :D

At least you wouldnt have to screw round wit gettin an external gate fitted.

On the web site the price is just over $2000

:)

Mark

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/24678-garrett-gt28/#findComment-525763
Share on other sites

just get a HKS2530 very responsive, and you can get a good one for about $1500 second hand all you have to modify is oil feed, water feed and water drain. get one of those silicon bends from the compressor to intercooler pipe and you are done will pull up to 340hp on an RB20.

super responsive and a sh$%load more top end.

the GT28 series on there are also T25 flanges - the RB20/25 use a T3 flange

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/24678-garrett-gt28/#findComment-526262
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Bump!!

Need info on a good Turbo for Rb20det's is the standard flange on a 32 skyline a t3? wats the best bang for ur buck is it the GT2530 ? or do u think something for around 400hp be unrealistic? aand if so wat lag would u get ? if much at all..

note: Long time browser not a poster in this fourms as im building my car and dont have a start on it yet lol

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/24678-garrett-gt28/#findComment-922196
Share on other sites

From what i've heard and seen

HKS 2510 - spools faster,less top end

HKS 2530 - spools pretty damn good and good top end (allrounder)

HKS 2540 - spools later on 4500+rpm and great top end and works well with cams (good for track use)

this is all on a rb20det and all relative to each other, i'm sure u could find a greddy and apexi aswell

feel free to correct me :(

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/24678-garrett-gt28/#findComment-922470
Share on other sites

I recently purchased the 400hp version of the gt28. You need an adapter plate made up to go to the t3 flange, and you also need to bear in mind your standard dump pipe wont fit as its a 6 bolt pattern and the garret is 5.

But Morrie from hpinabox has been so bloody helpful to me, I'd recommend him to anyone. Knows what he is doing, and the adapter plate is very well made.

Haven't been able to test the turbo, as engine is being rebuilt atm, but yes it has a 4" bellmouth inlet. And also bear in the mind the wastegate spring is rated at 11.8 pound.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/24678-garrett-gt28/#findComment-922609
Share on other sites

Im looking for street/strip use for my car . so i rekon an uneducated guess for best turbo setup on an RB20DET would be gt2530 garret highflow ? Also i am thinking of doin the rebuild for the RB20 since im an Exv8 head at heart internals are my main stay of an engine still :( is it viable to do a full rebuild for the amount of extra HP u get outa it ? assuming ur running a say 2.1jun stroker kit forged pistons with a gt2530 turbo . What is the comparison to that and the standard 2 litre with just the turbo and intercooler?

I am seriously thinking about putting NOS on the RB20det thats why i sorta want forgeys but 100+hp is alot im thinking i wont need a boost that big with NOS. maybe just stick with the standard internals run a 50hp jet nos system and gt2530 turbo?

Is this a realistic goal ?

I just need some feedback from owners of RB20det's or wise know alls to lemme know ,has any1 done this setup before? and wat power gains do u think are achievable. Preferably i am lookin at about 400HP at the RW .. but ill be happy with 300hp RW with standard internals and no NOS and just the big turbo kit.

Yer so theres alot more into it then wat i said i know that :cheers: just give me a ruffy and ill work with it... Ive found these fourms to be a wealth of knowledge and im confident someone out there has done something like this ...

Or would it be better of just wacking in the RB25det and using that as a benchmark block?

I know most ppl will say GO BIGGER but how easy it that ... If i wanted to go bigger i woulda just got another V8 im after something else this time , any ideas would be extreamly helpful

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/24678-garrett-gt28/#findComment-922677
Share on other sites

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

    • Yeah everyone always seems to refer to them as S13 wheels however they came on R32 Skyline, A31 Cefiro, C33 Laurel etc., and also came polished diamond cut or painted depending on the model. Congrats on your GTS purchase! I'd personally leave it NA.
    • In this thing about this 100% renewal energy stuff I hear no one really talking about anything other than power and fuel really Power and fuel, whilst being a huge part of how we use the billion year old Dinosaur juices, are only 2, of the probably thousands of things that we need to use it for in the chemicals industries for making nearly everything we use nowadays I'm all for a clean planet, but if we want to continue to have all the day to day appliances and stuff that we rely on everyday we will still need fossil fuels Whilst I do love science, and how it can bring innovation, there's really a limit to how far it can go in relation to "going green" As for EV's, unless your charging of your own solar panels, it isn't helping the environment when you consider the the batteries, the mining processes required,  the manufacturing process required, and how long a batteries (read: the vehicle) lasts long term If I was supreme dictator of the world, I would ban the use of sugar for fizzy drinks and food additives and use that for ethanol manufacturing, petrol engines would be happier, and people would be alot healthier  Disclaimer: Whiskey manufacturing would still be required, so says the supreme dictator of the world Same same for all the vegetable oils that get pumped into all our food, use that for bio diesel Disclaimer: the supreme dictator would still require olive oil to dip his bread in This would take some of heat off the use of the use of fossil fuels which are required for everything we use, unless you want to go back to pre 1800 for heat and power, or the early 1900's for plastics and every thing else that has come from cracking ethylene  Would I be a fair and just dictator, nope, and I would probably be assassinated within my first few months, but would my cunning plan work, maybe, for a while, maybe not Meh, in the end in an over opinionated mildly educated arsehole typing out my vomit on my mobile phone, which wouldn't be possible without fossil fuels And if your into conspiracies, we only need the fossil fuels to last until a meteor hits, or thermonuclear annihilation, that would definitely fix our need for fossil fuels for manufacturing and power issues for quite some time  Meh, time for this boomer to cook his lunch on his electric stove and then maybe go for a drive in my petrol car, for fun    
    • It really helps that light duty vehicles have absolutely appalling average efficiency due to poor average load. Like 25% average brake thermal efficiency when peak is somewhere around 38% these days. So even a 60% BTE stationary natural gas plant + transmission and charging losses still doing much better with an EV than conventional ICE. And that's before we get into renewables or "low carbon nonrenewable" nuclear which makes it a no-brainer, basically. In commercial aircraft or heavy duty diesel pulling some ridiculous amount of weight across a continent the numbers are much more difficult to make work. I honestly think in 5-10 years we will still be seeing something like the Achates opposed piston diesels in most semi trucks running on a blend of renewable/biodiesel. Applications where the energy density of diesel is just too critical to compromise. CARB is running trials of those engines right now to evaluate in real world drayage ops, probably because they're noticing that the numbers just don't work for electrification unless our plan is to make glorified electric trains with high voltage wires running along every major highway and only a token amount of battery to make it 30 miles or something like that after detaching. Transport emissions is not insignificant especially in the US, but yes there's a lot of industrial processes that also need to be decarbonized. I agree the scale of the problem is pretty insane but EDF managed to generate ~360 TWh from their nuclear reactors last year and this is with decades of underinvestment after the initial big push in the 70s and 80s. I don't think the frame of reference should be solar-limited. France is not exactly a big country either. Maybe it doesn't work everywhere, but it doesn't have to either. We just can't live off of fracking forever and expect things to be ok.
    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
×
×
  • Create New...