Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

HPI reckoned the HKS GT25 series (2530 2540 2535) were ideal as a "low mount" more efficient turbo upgrade of course the different turbo's will have different characteristics (2540 more top end power) (2530 a bit less top more mid) (2835 is a little different, bigger compressor wheel, same size exhaust wheel...gives a nice even band .. more torque) talk to Supraman for a price

[email protected]

he can get you a price on SECOND HAND one's

NEW... check out

www.hks.com.au

Loz

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/29036-hks-2835-on-rb20/#findComment-597652
Share on other sites

well at 1.5 you should make 240RWKW at least....

Tyre smokin fun.....

the thing is makaveli the torque will be right up there... so you'll have more "pull" power... if that makes sense...

240 is a fair bit at the wheel's..... I'm sure more could be made if you wanted it....

get a clutch too bro... you'll need it

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/29036-hks-2835-on-rb20/#findComment-597702
Share on other sites

HPI reckoned the HKS GT25 series (2530 2540 2835) were ideal as a "low mount"

The 2835 is not part of the GT25 series of turbos. You are thinking of the 2535. The 2835 as the "28##" suggests is part of the GT28 range.

If looking at using a 2835 i think you will find that it needs to be used with the HKS exhaust manifold and an external wastegate to get worhtwhile results.

As for the power it can make, well the info i have rates the turbo at around 380ps, as opposed to 320ps of the 2530. So about 230-240rwkws would be my guess at around 1.2bar.

This is a huge leap of faith, but my turbo is rated at 430hp and is not ball bearing and my engine is 100% stock, no cams not even cam gears and i get 8psi at 4200rpm, so expect you should be able to expect better response then this.

Also dont forget your old RB20 is liekly to be around 10 years old now, so figures can vary from engine to engine depending on condition.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/29036-hks-2835-on-rb20/#findComment-597890
Share on other sites

The 2835 is capable of making around 270rwkw when you use an external gate and hks manifold at around 1.5 bar if you believe what HPI prints (I'm starting to doubt them a bit after the numbers their CA18T is supposedly putting out).

At 1 bar you will be well below the efficiency window of the turbo so wont get any real benefit from using it as it will be laggy and not make a huge amount of power.

That said, it will make bloody good power if you are willing to wind in the boost but don't expect too much below about 3500-4000. You'd also need all the support systems in place like fuel, intercooler, ecu etc.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/29036-hks-2835-on-rb20/#findComment-598442
Share on other sites

The 2835 is capable of making around 270rwkw when you use an external gate and hks manifold at around 1.5 bar if you believe what HPI prints

Wasnt that figure on an SR20 with cams and cam gears? Is it fair to compare an SR20 power output at 1.5bar to a std RB20?

I seem to be following you around the forum like a bad smell Dave :rofl:

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/29036-hks-2835-on-rb20/#findComment-598477
Share on other sites

I seem to be following you around the forum like a bad smell Dave :D

Leave me alone :) I figure you're just looking for interesting reading too.

I'd forgotten about the cams, thanks for reminding me. I still think it's a fair call, not saying that it'll make stupid power on all cars, just giving an idea of the potential flow of the turbo itself. 270rwkw is a shit load of power for any 2 litre engine to handle and is more than most people will aim for.

Plus you're talking about an sr20 which is still a two litre engine so ulimately with the same sort of mods they can flow a similar amount of air through them.

All that aside, HKS make some bloody good turbos so I wouldn't be surprised to hear of even bigger numbers coming from Japan.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/29036-hks-2835-on-rb20/#findComment-598661
Share on other sites

Looking at the dollars needed for a full 2835 setup, that is turbo, exhaust manifold and wastegate, (new very $$$, 2nd hand rare and still rather pricey)

...is it worthwhile being one of the first to bolt a HKS GT-RS onto an RB20?

You would imagine more power then a 2530, and still bolts to std exhaust manifold and is still responsive enough for the street.

Who knows what could be achieved if you do as per the Jap S13/14/15 boys and use one of these turbos with a tubular exhaust manifold.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/29036-hks-2835-on-rb20/#findComment-599631
Share on other sites

I haven't seen a GT-rs with a T3 flange yet. Do HKS make them at this stage?

There have been a few guys looking/waiting for them for a while now. Apparently there is one for a WRX, not that that helps any of us :)

A mate of a mate makes around 270rwkw with one of these on a highly modified SR20 (at least when its running and not cracking heads)

Guess you got online before me tonight Roy :)

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/29036-hks-2835-on-rb20/#findComment-599655
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...