Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

With everything else the same - just take off the GCG and put on the HKS top mount manifold and HKS3040 (1.12 rear AR) 330 rwkw - no problems. Oh - Trust type R 45 mm eternal wastegate too.

I had this really long response in mind, but I think this will surfice...........

You went up 3 sizes in turbine and cover and went to an external wastegate and you got the result I would expect, 30% more power and 30% more lag. I believe that this is not an example of HKS having better R&D, it is an example of someone choosing a turbo that better suites their requirements.

Ahhhh see here-in lies my point though.

I asked my supply chain for a turbo & engine combination for a certain power spec. My spec was not met and I was being dicked around a bit (so this is twice now I've been dicked)

I relied on the experts in the supply chain to come up with the goods. They didn't, so I took over and went with a brand that I knew worked.

I sourced the parts myself - got my mechanics to fit and am happy with the power result.

And I spent less $$ that I did with the GCG. (albeit the GCG was new and the HKS pre-loved)

So when you are in laymens land like me - It paid off for me to go with tried a proven. And my previous experiences lead me to believe that I went the right way eventually.

It won't be the same story for the next guy who does the rebuild - no two stories are alike.

I asked my supply chain for a turbo & engine combination for a certain power spec. My spec was not met and I was being dicked around a bit (so this is twice now I've been dicked)

You have seen a lot of dick in your adventures aint ya B-Man :D j/k

mm... Hopefully i can bring back the garrett name once my motor is finished.

Im expecting good results out of my GT30 if INASNT is anything to go buy with his 300+rwkw

hrm. Personally im not a fan of hi-flowing etc. Garret make the turbo with thier own testing (remember they aint just an Aust company) and to change it by changing the engineering of housings etc to 'suit' i think is a bit risky.

Just my thoughts there.

I think at the end of the day, the convienence of taking off your turbo, sending it away for a week, getting it back, installing it the same way it came off. And bang you got an extra 100hp with some tunning is definately an advantage.

Although a 2530 would be nice,

Whats involved in installing a 2530? Obviously water/oil lines, but these only need to be extended yes? And the 2530 just bolts straight on?

I don't think this is off topic for this thread, but I apologise in advance if others think that it is. :)

SK, just because HKS are made by Garrett, why does that mean they are the same turbo?

As SATO GTS points out, HKS have spent possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years doing R&D,

Hang on Steve, I never said HKS turbos and Garret turbos were the same turbo. :innocent:

I said Garrett make HKS's turbos, and I asked

can you please explain to me how HKS turbos are "better quality"?
I also asked about
"better performance"
That is not saying that they are the "same". :D

As for HKS spending hundreds of thousands of dollars doing R&D, when I see a picture of HKS's aerodynamic department or buy a turbo or a turbo part actually made by HKS (not Garrett), then I might have some reason to agree. But I have never seen anything, anywhere in magazines, brochures, personal visits, pictures, videos or DVD's to support that HKS do ANY turbo work at all. For example, all the CAD drawings of HKS turbos I have seen have been done by Garrett. :angel:

Secondly, HKS don't publish compressor maps, why do you think that is? :confused: Don't give me the crap about protecting their intellectual property from copiers. If anyone wanted to copy a HKS turbo it would be much easier and cheaper to just go and buy one. My personal opinion is they don't publish compressor maps because it would be so easy to compare them to Garrett (who do publish compressor maps). Maybe we would all find out that there isn't any real difference, and that would kill HKS's inflated margins. :cuss:

Finally, why is it that magazines all over the world avoid back to back testing of HKS and Garrett turbos? Maybe it's because if they did, HKS would never advertise in their :uzi: magazines again. They do some Trust versus HKS, or Apexi, or Blitz etc but never HKS versus an equivalent Garrett. :throwup:

Anyway that's my 20 cents worth, :wavey:

I'm happy to volunteer my car - take the HKS GT3040 off - put teh garret GT3040 on - no other changes - see what happens.

Thing is - I don't want to pay for any of that ........

Come on supply chain - who is up for it ?

Guys, there is no difference. It's just HKS have done some homework + put together some combinations of Garrett parts, and put some sort of exclusive manufacture contract into place as well on the availability of some of the items.

Any person with knowledge of compressor maps etc + a Garrett catalogue can put together a combination that works. I don't have much faith in the GCG chuffmaster range of highflows, but that's just their interpretation of what works. HKS combo's have been proven to work, time and time again.

ps. I stole the "chuffmaster" comment from someone, it's damn funny and... accurate.

Edit: My new motor is using a combination of Garrett parts that I've put together (and hope work), so feel free to bag me out on my interpretation on what works :rant:

Edit: Actually there are a few custom touches that HKS do on their range, such as a larger variety of turbine housing with a T25 flange, ported shrouds with well contoured ram tube inserts, and those funky aerodynamic lock nuts on the large frame turbos (that anodizing on the T51R series looks special)

Edit3: And HKS turbos are actually pretty well priced compared to pure Garrett ones - it's those f*cken large, big named shops that milk the Jap names/reputations that put a stupid price on the stuff to exploit the masses.

Edit4: And I'll be damned if I ever buy a product off those large "tuning" shops ever again!! Damn it really p1sses me off to no end, + it's the reason why I started importing parts for myself in the 1st place.

Edit5: And it's those damn shops that some people in this thread are sticking up for! RARR!!!1!!

Sydneykid

yes i do agree with you 100% on that .

but why do HKS tell garrett how they want there turbo's set up as in compressor design and housing design's??

ppl cant ring garrett and ask for HKS spec turbo's because HKS dont want ppl not paying for all the R&D that HKS have been thru..

has try09 ever ran with a hks turbo on it to see if there is any difference over the quarter??

the GARRETT turbo may work very well for that application and it has been proven with the times sheet but the car has only run 1 brand of turbo..

the HKS may offer a better torque range then the GARRETT because of the difference in the design of the turbo but it has not been tested.. what is the GARRETT like to drive on the street?? it may not perform as well as it does on the mile as what it does on the street ..

i dont know and the owner/builder may not know that aswell.

i dont work for either companies so i dont have enough info to be able to back me up this enquiry..

SK, so seriously, do you think garrett do the R&D for free?

why is it when HKS showcase a new turbo design at an autosalon, that isnt quite ready for production, that garrett dont showcase it instead? esp if garrett are fully responsible for it.

And why do you think it is that Nissan send cars to HKS for R&D on turbo conbinations, instead of garrett, if garrett are the ones doing all the work. Money talks, and I am sure if garrett were the driving force behind HKS turbos, wouldnt it make economic sense to go straight to the creator?

Basically, common sense doesnt point to HKS merely stamping (or casting) its initials on a turbo and flogging it for a premium.

The 'chuffmaster' range (thanks DoughBoy) may work for you, but apparently not for others.

And I must agree with DoughBoy, I have seen the price of brand name turbos almost double here when certain companies stock them - really not necessary. If you look at the price of name brand turbos in Japan, they really are not alot dearer than garret here in Aust (and can be had at decent prices if you know where to look, in full ready to bolt on kit form, arent that expensive AND they work).

There are a few places that sell for reasonable prices, but they dont seem to be the mainstreem companies.

Whilst there are companies that do get certain combinations right, it seems alot are still guessing.

Why dont they publish compressor maps? because they dont make turbos for mix and match? I am not 100% sure. They are not the only ones. There are turbo companies here in aust that when they develop a particular turbo wont release the compressor maps, so they arent on their pat malone.

lastly, if I remeber correctly, it was you that described HKS2530s on a gtr as 'heaven on a stick' - havent heard a comment from you like that about the chuffmaster range. (your right DoughBoy, that is damn funny:))

You really do have a thing about companies hiding those compressor maps from you, makes me laugh:)

Woa, I didn't mean to add to the assault on SK's school of thought. I have been more inclined to agree with SK's way of thinking regarding turbos, based on a few facts.

1) Having GCG as my local turbo outlet

2) Getting trade discount at GCG (25%)

3) Going by their list prices (which are outrageous for Garrett's, and totally Rene Rivkin on HKS)

4) Having researched a fair bit into engines, and being able to match a turbo properly to the output and characteristics of a particular engine

Number 4 is more important than any other point, and if you don't have reliable information regarding a product, then you cannot use it. Period.

Then again you can rely on someone else's opinion on what will work (follow the HKS catalogue) and based on previous experience, be prepared to be let down. In racing you can't afford such risks, so again SK comes out in front.

Oh and Keir is pretty much sponsored by Trust and OS Gherkin now, so I doubt you'll see him choose another company's products over them, no matter what the result.

John's running a GCG special now, some big f*ck off single XTR ball bearing number. Expect to see quite a number of chickens and stray cats sucked into the bellmouth of that thing.

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

    • Very decent bit of kit. Definitely black it out I reckon.  
    • Because people who want that are buying euros. The people with the money to buy the aftermarket heads and blocks aren’t interested in efficiency or making -7 power, they’re making well over 1,000hp and pretty much only drive them at full throttle  best way to way make money is know your customer base and what they want and don’t spend money making things they don’t want. 
    • It's not, but it does feel like a bit of a missed opportunity regardless. For example, what if the cylinder head was redesigned to fit a GDI fuel system? It's worth like two full points of compression ratio when looking at modern GDI turbo vs PFI turbo. I'm pretty reliably surprised at how much less turbo it takes to make similar power out of a modern engine vs something like an RB26. Something with roughly the same dimensions as a -7 on an S55 is making absolutely silly power numbers compared to an RB26. I know there's a ton of power loss from things like high tension rings, high viscosity oil, clutch fan, AWD standby loss, etc but it's something like 700 whp in an F80 M3 vs 400 whp in an R33 GTR. The stock TF035HL4W turbos in an F80 M3 are really rather dinky little things and that's enough to get 400 whp at 18 psi. This just seems unwise no? I thought the general approach is if you aren't knock limited the MFB50 should be held constant through the RPM range. So more timing with RPM, but less timing with more cylinder filling. A VE-based table should accordingly inverse the VE curve of the engine.
    • I've seen tunes from big name workshops with cars making in excess of 700kW and one thing that stood out to me, is that noone is bothering with torque management. Everyone is throwing in as much timing as the motor can take for a pull. Sure that yields pretty numbers on a dyno, but it's not keeping these motors together for more than a few squirts down the straight without blowing coolant or head gaskets. If tuners, paid a bit more attention and took timing out in the mid range, managed boost a bit better, you'll probably see less motors grenading. Not to name names, or anything like that, but I've seen a tune, from a pretty wild GT-R from a big name tuner and I was but perplexed on the amount of timing jammed into it. You would have expected a quite a bit less timing at peak torque versus near the limiter, but there was literally 3 degrees of difference. Sure you want to make as much as possible throughout the RPM range, but why? At the expense of blowing motors? Anyhow I think we've gone off topic enough once again lol.
    • Because that’s not what any of them are building these heads or blocks for. It’s to hold over over 1000hp at the wheels without breaking and none of that stuff is required to make power 
×
×
  • Create New...