Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Interesting info ...:

HKS official Japanese web site http (//www.hks-power.co.jp/) rates their new(er) GTSS power output equal to their GT2530 at 320PS. This is perplexing in that the official HKS Australian web site rates GT SS at only 280ps and 2530 at 320ps.

Also the "new" Trsut T517Z's now look to be superior to the HKS items as they flow alittle more power and come onto boost earlier than the 2530's but probably later then the GTSS's.

Anyone gone from GTSS's to T51's ????

note; image below is HKS dyno graph for GTSS's !!! ... comments ?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/32258-hks-gt-ss-vs-2530s-vs-trust-t517zs/
Share on other sites

highly reccomend 2530's. been in a couple of gtr's with them and have good response.its wierd cos its almost like stock turbo's but with alot more power

Appreciate the comments but have you guys been in a car with GTSS's, I have and it was phenominal !

Must confess however I havent been in car with 2530's

  • Like 1
Jeremy, The 25/30s will make around 70rwhp more than your R34 made last time on the Dyno but with a very wide power band plus they can be had cheap these days.

Guys,

How do you insert an image into these messages (Im not too bad on computers but this has got me Fked)

I know someone who has Trust T517Z turbos in a GTR. Spools up around 3300rpm, starts pulling like a freight train after 4000rpm@ 12 psi. Higher boost + cams etc will see these babys pull well over 300awkw.

Quoting "Club Skyline" A Japanese tuning mag the Trust T517z turbos were designed to fit between HKS 2530 and HKS 2540 range.

But if I was in the market for turbos, the New GT-RS would be my choice.

Hi guys, as I see more of the results from twin GTRS's it starts to look more and more like they are a bit too big for a standard internals RB26. OK on 2.7 litre and 2.8 litre engines with high rpm limits (9,500 rpm plus). Just a little late building boost in the rpm range with 2.6 litres and the standard rpm limit.

Of course if HKS published compressor maps we wouldn't have this problem of having to wait for other people's results and they might actually sell more turbos faster. But I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Hi guys, moving onto T517's, no water cooling and no ball bearings, so long term reliability has to be a consideration. The most tricky bit is their wastegates open the other way, this makes using the common designs of split dumps almost impossible.

I'll pass thanks.

Uhh...ohh, i think you will find that BB turbos can be rebuilt, but if i owned a BB turbo i wouldnt be too concerned about the need to get them re-built.

Your likely to damage a turbine/compressor thru dodgy filters or engine crapping itself, before needing to rebuild the turbo's core/cartridge...that said if your buying 2nd hand, being able to cheaply re-build ($400) a bush bearing turbo is comforting.

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

    • But I think you missed mine.. there is also nothing about the 98 spec that supports your claim..  according to the fuel standards, it can be identical to 95, just very slightly higher octane number. But the ulp vs pulp fuel regulations go show 95 (or 98), is not just 91 with some additives. any claim of ‘refined by the better refineries’ or ‘higher quality fuel’ is just hearsay.  I have never seen anything to back up such claims other than ‘my mate used to work for a fuel station’, or ‘drove a fuel delivery truck’, or ‘my mechanic says’.. the actual energy densities do slightly vary between the 3 grades of fuel, but the difference is very minor. That said, I am very happy to be proven wrong if anyone has some hard evidence..
    • Hey guys I’m chasing a Rb20det complete or bare block need a good running engine as mine has low comp 
    • You're making my point for me. 95 is not "premium". It is a "slightly higher octane" version of the basic 91 product. The premium product that they want people to buy (for all the venal corporate reasons of making more profit, and all the possibly specious reasons of it being a "better" fuel with nicer additive packages) is the 98 octane stuff. 95 is the classic middle child. No-one wants it. No-one cares about it. It is just there, occupying a space in the product hierarchy.
    • 98 and 95 have to meet the same national fuel standards beside the actual RON.  91 has lower standards (which are quite poor really), so 95 is certainly not 91 with some octane booster. It would be an easier argument to claim 98 is just 95 with some octane boosters. Also RON doesn't specify 'quality' in any sense, only the octane number.  Anything different retailers decide or not decide to add to their 95 or 98 is arbitrary and not defined by the RON figure.
    • Anyone know alternatives to powerplus tungsten? Can't find an alternative online. 
×
×
  • Create New...