Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

My 2530 goes from 16psi to 12.5psi at the top. Got an EBC, but have a very quiet restrictive exhaust.

Even so, I think the turbo is just too small for top end power. Gives excellent response and mid-range.

No matter what we tried with the AVC-R we coun't get the wastegate to close at high revs. So we've still got drop at about 6500-7000 back down to about 16psi. It hits hard with about 20psi with exellent mid range though. I'll just have to learn to shift at 7000. Bit hard when I'm used to hitting it at 7900-8000 all the time!

We made just over 230rwkw's now so thats a 30kw gain from what I had at 14 psi. It pulls very hard now!

I think you will find there is so much back pressure at that boost level you need a monster spring to keep that bad boy closed. 230rwkws is a SHITLOAD of air and therefore back pressure in the that little housing whish will be jamming that wastegate open...

LOL or at least that the theory of these armchair critic :D

Yeah nar youre right Troy, no matter what we did it remained open.

Another thing we noted is that as soon as the boost started to drop, the manifold started glowing slighty. Its being strangled....the turbs just isnt big enough.

230 is a pretty good number from that turbo...Russ is happy to sit on that for the moment.

Turbo or Engine upgrade Russ?

:D

P.S Troy are you still going to Superlap? I cant see your name on the list anymore. (Maybe just blind)

Nah mate, i am stranded in Hyderabad, India. Car is still in pieces too :D

Surely the Garret geeks out there no of a larger housing that can go on the 2530? \ But in the back of my head i am thinking a 2530 with a bigger hot side will help extend the top end. Whether extrude honing and parting the gate flap is all band aids i dont know. Perhaps its easier to jsut go 2535, but then you have the larger compressor to overcome...i

Strange. Maybe the hks gt2535 is just that little bit bigger. Mine holds 19/20psi to redline (7400) Once i get a better dump and coils it will be getting a retune with as much boost it will swallow.

Hey guys,

Got a quick question.

We were on the dyno the other night with my mates 32, we upped the boost from 1.1bar (strong, flatline 1.1 with no dropoff) to 1.4bar had a nice increase in torque and power (around 220kw) but, after boost ramps up nicely to 1.4, it slowly drops all the way to 1.1 by redline. Its as if the turbo is running out of puff.

Currently running a HKS 2530 63T with 0.64 housing, Tomei 260 cams (timing unknown at this point, but EX looks to be retarded for nice midrange judging by the CAS), HKS Adjustable actuator adjusted to achieve 1.4 bar with no bleed off, PowerFC. We previously had a mech bleed valve with actautor set to 1bar, did the same thing.

After viewing plenty of RB20 dyno sheets it seems common that people have boost drop across the revrange, so im betting on an EBC but just thought id get some input cos theyre not exactly cheap.

Must we run a EBC to control the boost? Im doubting it but could it be the cam timing affecting the boost so dramatically? Should we '0' the cams? Theyre the only other thing untouched.

Cheers!

Mat.

common as hell on the GT2530, ive even gone to the trouble of fitting diff boost controllers and all taper off.

Nah mate, i am stranded in Hyderabad, India. Car is still in pieces too :)

Surely the Garret geeks out there no of a larger housing that can go on the 2530? \ But in the back of my head i am thinking a 2530 with a bigger hot side will help extend the top end. Whether extrude honing and parting the gate flap is all band aids i dont know. Perhaps its easier to jsut go 2535, but then you have the larger compressor to overcome...i

Roy.

The HKS GT2530, GT2535 and GT-RS all run the same NS111 turbine and the same turbine housing. If it’s big enough for the GT-RS then surely it’s big enough for the GT2530. I think the problem lies in the compressor.

So if we wish to maintain the hard midrange hit and grab a bit more power up top, what to do? Would hi-flowing the 2530 achieve this/be possible?

Or have a slightly bigger comp and wheel combo fitted?

This only needs the slightest upgrade...

I’m in the exact same position with my SR20. I have a GT2860RS (GT2530 equiv.) and the midrange is amazing. Hits 19psi at 3000rpm, but it trails off to 15psi up at 7500rpm. It only needs the slightest bit more on the compressor side to give it that 3lb/min or so more flow up top. The problem is the next step up from the Garrett GT range is the GT2871R (GT-RS) and that’s too large for a 2L running only 18psi. There’s no middle ground.

I'm sure someone has found a custom setup for this situation. Hopefully someone sees this thread who is more knowledgeable about available turbos. *cough* discopotato03 *cough*

Edited by Equinox

Here are 2 dyno graphs after tuning, first is with RB20, second is after rb25 conversion.

rb20 had gtr injectors, rb25 are stock, other than that both had same mods.

HKS2530 KAI kit (unsure which comp. housing it is but im guessing the most common one)

standard hks wastegate

Z32 AFM

FMIC (small, xr6 core)

hks dump into 3.5" lower dump pipe, into 5" stainless cat into 3.5" quiet TRUST exhaust

turbotech mech. boost controller

remap rb20 computer (no VCT controller on rb25)

standard airbox with paper filter

denso fuel pump (1JZ or 2JZ)

i am getting major boost drop after the conversion in the top end, i think it is a comination of problems, maybe a boost leak somewhere or maybe too much restriction on the induction side.

post-27754-1238590744_thumb.jpgpost-27754-1238590768_thumb.jpg

Edited by THENIG

Well if you actually read the whole thread you would find that what has been discussed is that the 2530 is too small for the RB20 to achieve good top end boost.

What makes you think it will be any better with an extra half a litre to flow?

So any ideas on how we can modify the turbo to flow that little extra?

possibly extrude honing the covers will give you a little extra but it would cost around $250 per cover plus the cost of removing it all.

if you only do the turbine cover it might work out ok but it would be an expensive exercise if it didn't achieve what you wanted.

The compressor wheel needs upgrading to support the larger flow, however the only step up from the 63T 60mm compressor on the GT2530 is the 48T 71mm compressor from the GT2871R which is a bit too large for an RB20. (Would be great on an RB25 though)

Do Garrett have a catalogue of wheels somewhere?

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

    • First up, I wouldn't use PID straight up for boost control. There's also other control techniques that can be implemented. And as I said, and you keep missing the point. It's not the ONE thing, it's the wrapping it up together with everything else in the one system that starts to unravel the problem. It's why there are people who can work in a certain field as a generalist, IE a IT person, and then there are specialists. IE, an SQL database specialist. Sure the IT person can build and run a database, and it'll work, however theyll likely never be as good as a specialist.   So, as said, it's not as simple as you're thinking. And yes, there's a limit to the number of everything's in MCUs, and they run out far to freaking fast when you're designing a complex system, which means you have to make compromises. Add to that, you'll have a limited team working on it, so fixing / tweaking some features means some features are a higher priority than others. Add to that, someone might fix a problem around a certain unrelated feature, and that change due to other complexities in the system design, can now cause a new, unforseen bug in something else.   The whole thing is, as said, sometimes split systems can work as good, and if not better. Plus when there's no need to spend $4k on an all in one solution, to meet the needs of a $200 system, maybe don't just spout off things others have said / you've read. There's a lot of misinformation on the internet, including in translated service manuals, and data sheets. Going and doing, so that you know, is better than stating something you read. Stating something that has been read, is about as useful as an engineering graduate, as all they know is what they've read. And trust me, nearly every engineering graduate is useless in the real world. And add to that, if you don't know this stuff, and just have an opinion, maybe accept what people with experience are telling you as information, and don't keep reciting the exact same thing over and over in response.
    • How complicated is PID boost control? To me it really doesn't seem that difficult. I'm not disputing the core assertion (specialization can be better than general purpose solutions), I'm just saying we're 30+ years removed from the days when transistor budgets were in the thousands and we had to hem and haw about whether there's enough ECC DRAM or enough clock cycles or the interrupt handler can respond fast enough to handle another task. I really struggle to see how a Greddy Profec or an HKS EVC7 or whatever else is somehow a far superior solution to what you get in a Haltech Nexus/Elite ECU. I don't see OEMs spending time on dedicated boost control modules in any car I've ever touched. Is there value to separating out a motor controller or engine controller vs an infotainment module? Of course, those are two completely different tasks with highly divergent requirements. The reason why I cite data sheets, service manuals, etc is because as you have clearly suggested I don't know what I'm doing, can't learn how to do anything correctly, and have never actually done anything myself. So when I do offer advice to people I like to use sources that are not just based off of taking my word for it and can be independently verified by others so it's not just my misinterpretation of a primary source.
    • That's awesome, well done! Love all these older Datsun / Nissans so rare now
    • As I said, there's trade offs to jamming EVERYTHING in. Timing, resources etc, being the huge ones. Calling out the factory ECU has nothing to do with it, as it doesn't do any form of fancy boost control. It's all open loop boost control. You mention the Haltech Nexus, that's effectively two separate devices jammed into one box. What you quote about it, is proof for that. So now you've lost flexibility as a product too...   A product designed to do one thing really well, will always beat other products doing multiple things. Also, I wouldn't knock COTS stuff, you'd be surprised how many things are using it, that you're probably totally in love with As for the SpaceX comment that we're working directly with them, it's about the type of stuff we're doing. We're doing design work, and breaking world firsts. If you can't understand that I have real world hands on experience, including in very modern tech, and actually understand this stuff, then to avoid useless debates where you just won't accept fact and experience, from here on, it seems you'd be be happy I (and possibly anyone with knowledge really) not reply to your questions, or input, no matter how much help you could be given to help you, or let you learn. It seems you're happy reading your data sheets, factory service manuals, and only want people to reinforce your thoughts and points of view. 
    • I don't really understand because clearly it's possible. The factory ECU is running on like a 4 MHz 16-bit processor. Modern GDI ECUs have like 200 MHz superscalar cores with floating point units too. The Haltech Nexus has two 240 MHz CPU cores. The Elite 2500 is a single 80 MHz core. Surely 20x the compute means adding some PID boost control logic isn't that complicated. I'm not saying clock speed is everything, but the requirements to add boost control to a port injection 6 cylinder ECU are really not that difficult. More I/O, more interrupt handlers, more working memory, etc isn't that crazy to figure out. SpaceX if anything shows just how far you can get arguably doing things the "wrong" way, ie x86 COTS running C++ on Linux. That is about as far away from the "correct" architecture as it gets for a real time system, but it works anyways. 
×
×
  • Create New...