Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey guys

i want to replace my standard turbo on my rb20 but i want one that spools up pretty early. i know most people go for big turbos for big power. i just one that will be very responsive. is that unrealistic or is lag the nature of turbos.? ;)

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/96297-which-turbo-for-rb20det/
Share on other sites

it is standard apart from boost controller, turbo back exhaust. i have heard power fc will make it more responsive backed up with a bigger fuel pump and injectors. intercooling ive heard helps too? as far as the exhaust housing goes i havent a clue which is proper or not is there any way i can tell without taking off the turbo?

Two good turbos that will get you a good amount more power with out affecting response too much are:

RB25 turbo (non-neo because they are weak turbos using epoxy plastics for the compressor wheel which are known to fly apart when pushed).

VG30 roller bearing turbo which are a bit rare to find in good condition.

They are both ceramic exh. wheeled which plays a big part in quick spooling up times.

Steel exh. wheels are heavier and take more time to get spooling escpecially when the wheels are bigger, inturn creating more lag.

It all depends what you want at the end of the day really

response over power or

power over response

a remap will give you a good comprimise. do you have a fmci or the standard intercooler still ? larger injectors wont help the spool up or fuel pump, as long as you aren't leaning out of course.

the VG30 turbo are LAGGY for Rb20, do a search

RB25 turbo is a good budget upgrade

HKS GT2510 / 2530 will be my pick for around $1500

remeber to prepare a budget for the support gear (fuel, cooling) and tuning

Edited by Maxx

VG30's are in no way laggy on an RB20 id know coz im running one. Making 180rwkw with boost from 2500-redline. Great little ball bearing turbo. But im in the same boat and wanting more. Apparantly TD05-16G's or 18G's are the way to go for a fair amount of power to lag ratio. 230-260rwkw with good response (Kelly McKinnon runs one). And the HKS 25-30's are a good mix with minimal lag for power giving around 230 as well.

VG30DET BB turbo's are indeed laggy POS.

I've had one on my rb20det, it made 1bar a shade over 4000rpm under general driving conditions, first gear was quite sloooooow and lazy. I pulled it off and put back on the stock turbo and pushed boost up to 1bar, the stock turbo has a much fatter mid range, sure it won't pull hard to 7500rpm but it did pull hard to 7000rpm with a good ebc so that the little turbo will hold boost. Holding boost is the key to having good top end with the rb20det turbo.

The VG30DET BB turbo is simply a glorified RB20DET turbo.. It runs the exact same compressor and turbine wheel as the rb20det.

So in thoery and practice you can grab a rb20det turbo, drop on the vg30det comp cover and turbine housing and whamo you have a vg30det turbo.

Put it this way... Rb25DET turbo R32 vs VG30DET turbo R32..

The RB25DET turbo R32 will rip the Vg30det's a new bum hole, much more mid range.

The R34 turbo runs the larger vg30det turbo turbine housing.

The R34 turbo is the pick of the bunch and will make more power than all of the other turbo's under it.

The Vg30DET turbo can be considered as favouring exhaust flow, not what a little 2ltr needs. Sure it works really well on a 3ltr and drops the power band in just the right spot but on a 2ltr it is slow.

PEAK POWER IS NOT EVERYTHING. :)

no FMIC at this stage, just standard. speaking of intercoolers that is next on my list, i have seen ones from $700 to about $1800. the cheap ones drop alot of boost about 5-8psi( so i have been told) and the internal fins are chunky(inefficient). i went to ASE and saw one with micro fins and no big blocked sections in the core. i was told a boost drop of 2-3psi would be expected and alot more cooling than the cheaper alternative. it is alot of money to fork out, is it realy worth it? i am not planning on making mega hosepower anyway. there is a hybrid kit r32/r33 at autoban for about $600 and it is a decent size looking unit. feedback???? <_<

I've been in a R32 GT2510, R32 with a RB25 turbo and my own R32 when it was running a VG30 turbo.

The RB25 turbo spooled a little quicker and felt as if it came on smoother than the GT2510.

The GT2510 went well and went hard once on boost.

The VG30 turbo sucked compared to the others.

Edited by Cubes

Dude ive been drifting my VG30 and ive got nothing but praise for the little unit - i think the sppol up is great and not too laggy at all, but i might get either a fuel cut and reg and get a 2530 or i might fork out and grab a powerfc and larger injectors with a 2530 - unless i can manage to find an R34 turbo - but im hell happy with VG30 its got great response and is wicked for drift on 1bar

I do hate the VG30DET turbo on a 2ltr.. On a 3ltr it works nice.

The 2ltr simply does not need the larger turbine housing when paired up with the small compressor wheel it runs, sure it works but it produces the same lag as what a GT2530 or GT2510 produces yet it doesn't deliver the goods.

The larger turbine is required on the larger motor as you don't want peak power being made at 4000rpm. :O

Drop a RB25DET turbo on Nathan and you will drift better. :O

Edited by Cubes
  MattSR said:
Get a Garrett GT17.

/Thread

wasnt the GT17 off a SAAB. i read somewhere they are pretty small, and not much of

an upgrade and can only run on low boost. i think i will consider the 2530 see if i can

pick one up cheap 2nd somewhere. ive only heard good things about it. thanks guys :O

i was down Asian Autospares (just near Moss st) and he had an rb25neo turbine there. he wanted $750 for it (without water/oil lines, but he says i can use the rb20 ones?). i thought thats a bit expensive, but, whats your opinion? it actually looked rather bigger then th rb20 turbos he had down there..

shaun.

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

    • So, if the headlights' cutoff behaviour (angles, heights, etc) are not as per 6.2.6.1.1 without automatic levelling, then you have to have to have automatic** levelling. Also, if the headlight does not have the required markings, then neither automatic nor manual adjusters are going to be acceptable. That's because the base headlight itself does not meet the minimum requirement (which is the marking). ** with the option of manual levelling, if the headlight otherwise meets the same requirements as for the automatic case AND can be set to the "base" alignment at the headlight itself. So that's an additional requirement for the manual case. So, provided that the marking is on the headlight and there is a local manual adjustment back to "base" on the headlight, then yes, you could argue that they are code compliant. But if you are missing any single one of these things, then they are not. And unlike certain other standards that I work with, there does not seem to be scope to prepare a "fitness for purpose" report. Well, I guess there actually is. You might engage an automotive engineer to write a report stating that the lights meet the performance requirements of the standard even if they are missing, for example, the markings.  
    • Vertical orientation   6.2.6.1.1. The initial downward inclination of the cut off of the dipped-beam to be set in the unladen vehicle state with one person in the driver's seat shall be specified within an accuracy of 0.1 per cent by the manufacturer and indicated in a clearly legible and indelible manner on each vehicle close to either headlamp or the manufacturer's plate by the symbol shown in Annex 7.   The value of this indicated downward inclination shall be defined in accordance with paragraph 6.2.6.1.2.   6.2.6.1.2. Depending on the mounting height in metres (h) of the lower edge of the apparent surface in the direction of the reference axis of the dipped beam headlamp, measured on the unladen vehicles, the vertical inclination of the cut off of the dipped- beam shall, under all the static conditions of Annex 5, remain between the following limits and the initial aiming shall have the following values:   h < 0.8   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   0.8 < h < 1.0   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   Or, at the discretion of the manufacturer,   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The application for the vehicle type approval shall, in this case, contain information as to which of the two alternatives is to be used.   h > 1.0   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The above limits and the initial aiming values are summarized in the diagram below.   For category N3G (off-road) vehicles where the headlamps exceed a height of 1,200 mm, the limits for the vertical inclination of the cut-off shall be between: -1.5 per cent and -3.5 per cent.   The initial aim shall be set between: -2 per cent and -2.5 per cent.
×
×
  • Create New...