Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Time for a new turbo for my RB20. It's more than likely been covered many a time before but i'm new to site and in my random browsing haven't come across it yet!

I'm after something as easy as possible to fit to the car, leaving the car as drivable as possible (don't want the turbo spooling 2000rpm before redline like some other setups i have seen), and something that will leave me a fair bit of headroom for the future!

Thanks!

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/79546-what-turbo-for-rb20/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'll agree with the above regarding the HKS GT2530 but don't dismiss the GT2535 either !

The thing I found with the 2530 was that you smoke the tyres too much just trying to get the power down ( not really a problem for most I guess :) ) But when I fitted the 2535 that problem went away as the bulk of the power moved up in the rev range. I tiny bit more laggy than a 2530 and doesn't kick you in the butt like the 2530 but it does provide very smooth power all the way to the top ( even after you've done a whole bunch of mods ). Still, if you're only planning on normal bolt on mods the HKS GT2530 is prol one of the best hair dryers around for an RB20DET. By the way, it MUST BE A HKS !! Not a garrett GT2530 !! They are not the same animal.

My 2 cents :)

hi-flow the RB20 turbo, not a huge difference between the RB25 turbo and the RB20 turbo, just a slight size difference in the impeller wheel (can't remember if im thinkin of the right thing or not). Anyway, there's another option, not sure if u'd get as much bang out of it though, can anyone clarify this matter?

How would a turbo from a VL perform on an RB20?

I ask as I have a GTSR with the standard fitment T03/TO4e which I think would be similar in specs to a standard VL turbo.

Yes, the technology is from the dark ages but I gather they are also cheap to pick up for the budget concious (sp).

I currently have 235+ rwkw with all support systems at 16psi which is reached at about 3900rpm.

How well would a GT30 be suited to an RB20 with cams?

I reckon it'd be a good match if the RB20 could handle ~8500-9000 rpm or so

Cheers,

Matt

From memory, R31nismoids GT30 equipped RB25 sees about 16psi at about 4,000rpm with a tuned length exhaust manifold and all support systems.

The RB25 is 25% larger in capacity than the RB20 so in theory it would see 16psi 25% later in the rev range at approximately 5,000rpm.

So I guess, if funds allowed and you wanted to take that route a GT30 might be a decent match for a no holds barred 9,000rpm RB20.

why is the hks 2530 so much better than the garrett item and is it just the exhaust housing that is bigger on the 2535hks?

Wheel AND Housing profiles are different between HKS and Garrett ( even though Garrett makes the parts for HKS ). HUGE difference in power delivery ( IMHO ).

As for the physical differences between the HKS 2530 & 2535, I honestly never stopped to look nor did I even ask. :bonk: It was a spur of the moment swap as both myself and the other guy wanted what the other had performance wise so we just swapped turbo's and got what we wanted :thankyou: .

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, 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)
    • As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
    • With all the rust on those R32s, how can it even support all the extra weight requirements. Probably end up handling as well as a 1990s Ford Falcon Taxi.
    • Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.
×
×
  • Create New...