Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

I have been looking at lots of different turbos that would work well on my RB25. So I had a few minutes spare at work and thought I would put them on a chart to do a comparison. Let me stress this is very approximate, I only took 7 different rpm readings and rounded off the power figures to at least 5kw. Its just more to get an idea of the different shapes etc.

- 3071R dyno sheet was obtained from the Nistune Forum, in particular Matts own one

- 3076R dyno sheet was obtained from the RB25 dyno results thread on this forum

- Hiflow was off Hypergears website

- PU Hiflow was also off Hypergears website

- Std Turbo is my own dyno sheet

Some of the inconsistencies:

- boost level, generally it is around 17psi dropping off to around 15psi (except for the std turbo which is only 10psi).

- speed vs rpm seemed to vary between the dyno sheets, could be the different model cars having different diff gears.

So please take it for what it is.

post-29432-1269923514_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/314283-quick-turbo-comparison-on-rb25/
Share on other sites

so how about seeing the HKS 2835 ProS or the HKS 3037 on there... :thumbsup:

how many power curves can you fit on there before it becomes hard to read.

they are out of my budget so guess I hadnt even been thinking about them. will see if i get some more "spare" time at work hehe

Can you also start @ 2000rpm? :P

Fussy i know, but a fair bit of driving is between 2000-3000rpm for a lot of people, IMO it's an area that can be important.

Larger turbo you have, more of a "hole" you have before 3000rpm meaning around town the car tends to feel lazy.

Which result of 3071 did you use? Perhaps try one of the ones from this forum?

The 3071 seems to be a bit slower than i'd expect...

I'll have a chat to Paul and Christian and see if we can't get our own version going - one similar to anti-lag's where you can remove graphs and add them in at will.

Will take someone to manually plot them i think, but once initial work is done could prove quite handy overall.

sau.garagespank.com dyno thingy was the old tool we used

RPM = (SPEED / 28) * 1000

this assumes 4th gear with 4.11 diff gears

so for BNR34 it should be dynoed in 5th gear, HR32,ECR33, BCNR33 all 4th gear

oh cool I made the right choice with the 2835 then with the earlier power range, which is what Im after.... I cant wait...

but geez the 3076 really does have some mid range doesnt it... oh well...

thanks btw..

Great idea Harvey. I am freaking out about my turbo selection now, I went and bought a 3071R (real spec) in 0.63A/R, but I keep being told that I should have gone with a 2871R instead for chasing a responsive 250-260kw? Is there any way to add a 2871R (HKS GT-RS) to the chart, just for comparison? And maybe show the exhaust A/R to legend?

Thanks mate!

Can you also start @ 2000rpm? >_<

Fussy i know, but a fair bit of driving is between 2000-3000rpm for a lot of people, IMO it's an area that can be important.

Larger turbo you have, more of a "hole" you have before 3000rpm meaning around town the car tends to feel lazy.

Which result of 3071 did you use? Perhaps try one of the ones from this forum?

The 3071 seems to be a bit slower than i'd expect...

I'll have a chat to Paul and Christian and see if we can't get our own version going - one similar to anti-lag's where you can remove graphs and add them in at will.

Will take someone to manually plot them i think, but once initial work is done could prove quite handy overall.

Yup will try and get some 2000rpm readings.

I got the 3071R chart from here:

http://forum.nistune.com/viewtopic.php?f=2...fa&start=15

Its really hard to compare apples with apples as I mentioned with different boost levels and other differing setups.

I reckon the really surprising result is the PU High Flow offered from Hypergear!

All turbos (except standard and std hi flow) have a 0.82 equivalent size exhaust housing. Im a mid range top end person so thats what I naturally focussed on. In my opinion you want to make sure a turbo makes power all the way to redline, no point having a such a nice revvy engine like the rb and then a restrictive turbo. Yes there are plenty of turbos that can still have some nice low down as well which is the ideal of course. If low down torque is your number 1 preference then why buy an rb25, plenty of other larger capacity engines with more low down torque. I agree though its about the overall package.

Yeah would be great to get a more detailed one going. I have always found it hard to look at different dynos and compare them.

Edited by Harey
Great idea Harvey. I am freaking out about my turbo selection now, I went and bought a 3071R (real spec) in 0.63A/R, but I keep being told that I should have gone with a 2871R instead for chasing a responsive 250-260kw? Is there any way to add a 2871R (HKS GT-RS) to the chart, just for comparison? And maybe show the exhaust A/R to legend?

Thanks mate!

I think you have chosen well with the 3071R. I think a 2871R is too small for an rb25. I would actually choose the 0.82 housing with the 3071R but thats just me. I think the 3071R has the nicest curve (excluding the hks turbos) on that chart.

Do you know what A/R Matt has on his 3071? From what I have read boost control seems inevitable with the 0.63, but I just don't know what the lag would be like for the 0.82. However, if confirmed that Matt has 0.82 then I will gladly swap over as the 3071 curve follows a similiar progression to his stock turbo setup.

Yup will try and get some 2000rpm readings.

I got the 3071R chart from here:

http://forum.nistune.com/viewtopic.php?f=2...fa&start=15

Its really hard to compare apples with apples as I mentioned with different boost levels and other differing setups.

I reckon the really surprising result is the PU High Flow offered from Hypergear!

All turbos (except standard and std hi flow) have a 0.82 equivalent size exhaust housing. Im a mid range top end person so thats what I naturally focussed on. In my opinion you want to make sure a turbo makes power all the way to redline, no point having a such a nice revvy engine like the rb and then a restrictive turbo. Yes there are plenty of turbos that can still have some nice low down as well which is the ideal of course. If low down torque is your number 1 preference then why buy an rb25, plenty of other larger capacity engines with more low down torque. I agree though its about the overall package.

Yeah would be great to get a more detailed one going. I have always found it hard to look at different dynos and compare them.

Didn't see that.

Well in the name of ressearch, to compare apples with apples, is there anyone out there with a reasonably priced genuine 0.82 exhaust housing that they could sell me? I could do dyno runs with both setups (3071R 0.63 & 3071R 0.82) at the same boost levels and post them up. Anyone interested to see that?

Didn't see that.

Well in the name of ressearch, to compare apples with apples, is there anyone out there with a reasonably priced genuine 0.82 exhaust housing that they could sell me? I could do dyno runs with both setups (3071R 0.63 & 3071R 0.82) at the same boost levels and post them up. Anyone interested to see that?

Hells yes I am interested >_<

Fair effort for you though.

oh cool I made the right choice with the 2835 then with the earlier power range, which is what Im after.... I cant wait...

but geez the 3076 really does have some mid range doesnt it... oh well...

thanks btw..

Personally I the HKS 2835 is the choice off all those turbos. I would be very content if I were you.

Interesting........the 3076 obviously is not on the best combination of motor/mods otherwise is would continue to go up the chart rather than dip and turn over.

The 3037 is a really good progressive turbo, but has less midrange than I thought it should have, but as you say they are all 'snapshots' of one! Ohh to be able to have the time to take a sample of say 20 for each turbo and then plot the average. Never mind in a braod sense it is all relative.

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

    • H2 (for cars) will never happen. It's not reasonable for any number of reasons. It's also not reasonable for almost all of the industrial uses that the fanbois say that it will be used for, again for a large number of reasons. There are some cases where it will be good. But, even those will be massively hampered by the economics. The only way that H2 can be economic is if we somehow manage to get from where we are to the other side of the economic-valley-of-death in which no-one can operate. You need there to be sufficient renewable generated electricity to be available so that it is effectively free. Once you are there, you can do whatever the hell you want and hang the efficiency. But until you get there, the ever diminishing value of electricity makes it harder and harder to encourage businesses to build the new generation capacity, and they will simply stop investing in generation projects. (I kinda think there needs to be just government money spent on building the required capacity in a non-commercial way, similar to how the first fossil fueled grids were built, as national-government owned utilities. And probably some nuclear in there to start. But this all should have started 10-15 years ago to avoid the chasm of death that we face right now). Synth fuels will be much more likely, but will only occur is there is at least some renewable H2 production, because you need H2 to do it. And you need stacks of free (or at least extraordinarily cheap) energy because assembling molecules back into fuels is exactly the opposite process to burning the fuel, and the reason we burn fuels is because there is so much energy squeezed into each molecule. So you're somewhat subject to the same economic valley of death problem as above anyway. That is unless people are willing to pay the current equivalent of $5 or $6 per litre of petrol-ish liquid fuels. Can you imagine it? The squealing at $2 now is bad enough.
    • This is so cool. Get a dashcam that records audio and hopefully you'll catch it.  Maybe there's a brand or some kind of markings on the back ? Are the pics hand drawn? I love it so much.
    • Hahaha yep, point(s) taken. I just like seeing different things and an EV in an R32 is pretty different. I'm not on the EV band wagon, I'm waiting for synthetic fuels or hydrogen personally. 
    • I mean it's probably likely that people overestimate their skills in dialling in a setup and noticing the changes. I had SK shocks and springs, and added heavier springs and got them revalved by Sydney Shocks to suit based upon what I told them I wanted the car to handle like. I got back a completely different feeling set of shocks, which probably (?) feel great on track but holy hell are they rough on tram tracks and the like. The shock dyno actually looks pretty similar to Shockworks (from what I can surmise from a screenshot of a youtube video - and my dyno printout...) Truth be told I doubt I'd be any faster or slower with either setup, or camber/castor combination. I also had whiteline eccentric castor bushes up front of my R34. I removed them and put in poly non-adjustable ones to soothe my OCD (nobody ever set the castor the same side to side, and it'd be near impossible to do) and be happy the wheel is centered in the well now for clearance reasons. Yes I wanted it to move 1mm 'back' :p I've effectively set my castor back to stock, negating all the benefits of that which is supposedly massive. I've probably also altered toe and camber in a negative (detrimental) way. I can't tell any difference steering the car.
×
×
  • Create New...