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

    • I have no hard data to report, but I have to say, having driven it to work and back all week, mostly on wet roads (and therefore mostly not able to contemplate anything too outrageous anywhere)..... it is real good. I turned the boost controller on, with duty cycle set to 10% (which may not be enough to actually increase the boost), and the start boost set to 15 psi. That should keep the gate unpressurised until at least 15 psi. And rolling at 80 in 5th, which is <2k rpm, going to WOT sees the MAP go +ve even before it crosses 2k and it has >5 psi by the time it hits 90 km/h. That's still <<2.5k rpm, so I think it's actually doing really well. Because of all the not-quite-ideal things that have been in place since the turbo first went on, it felt laggy. It's actually not. The response appears to be as good as you could hope for with a highflow.
    • Or just put in a 1JZ, and sell me the NEO head 😎
    • Oh, it's been done. You just run a wire out there and back. But they have been known to do coolant temp sensors, MAP sensors, etc. They're not silly (at Regency Park) and know what's what with all the different cars.
    • Please ignore I found the right way of installing it thanks
    • There are advantages, and disadvantages to remapping the factory.   The factory runs billions of different maps, to account for sooooo many variables, especially when you bring in things like constantly variable cams etc. By remapping all those maps appropriately, you can get the car to drive so damn nicely, and very much so like it does from the factory. This means it can utilise a LOT of weird things in the maps, to alter how it drives in situations like cruise on a freeway, and how that will get your fuel economy right down.   I haven't seen an aftermarket ECU that truly has THAT MANY adjustable parameters. EG, the VAG ECUs are somewhere around 2,000 different tables for it to work out what to do at any one point in time. So for a vehicle being daily driven etc, I see this as a great advantage, but it does mean spending a bit more time, and with a tuner who really knows that ECU.   On the flip side, an aftermarket ECU, in something like a weekender, or a proper race car, torque based tuning IMO doesn't make that much sense. In those scenarios you're not out there hunting down stuff like "the best way to minimise fuel usage at minor power so that we can go from 8L/100km to 7.3L/100km. You're more worried about it being ready to make as much freaking power as possible when you step back on the loud pedal as you come out of turn 2, not waiting the extra 100ms for all the cams to adjust etc. So in this scenario, realistically you tune the motor to make power, based on the load. People will then play with things like throttle response, and drive by wire mapping to get it more "driveable".   Funnily enough, I was watching something Finnegans Garage, and he has a huge blown Hemi in a 9 second 1955 Chev that is road registered. To make it more driveable on the road recently, they started testing blocking up the intake with kids footballs, to effectively reduce air flow when they're on the road, and make the throttle less touchy and more driveable. Plus some other weird shit the yankee aftermarket ECUs do. Made me think of Kinks R34...
×
×
  • Create New...