Welcome to the Toyota GT 86 / Scion FR-S / Subaru BRZ Community Forums | Toyobaru.net.
Results 1 to 23 of 23
  1. #1

    GT86/FRS HKS supercharger kit.

    The supercharger on the stock motor made 250whp and the rebuilded motor the supercharger made 394whp.



    I think HKS is going to have two versions of the supercharger. A street kit and a racing kit. If you look at version two they removed the A/C.

    I used the Google translator

    The Japanese forums said 250ps

    FT86.me 掲示板 フォーラム - 日本最大級のFT86(トヨタ86、スバルBRZ)専門サイト! -



    HKS86はノーマル状態で172psだったそうなので、

    今回スーパーチャージャー付けて250psということは78psアップ!

    夢が広がりますw



    Since it was HKS86 172ps in the normal state,

    That is 78ps 250ps supercharger up with this!

    W extends the dream



    Here are some more parts and another video from HKS.

    sts manifolds (86 look better for me)
    cams...
    supercharger kit and oilcooler kit
    6-speed sequential transmission
    HKS Racing Performer 86





    This is the street kit.





    This is the racing kit

























  2. #2
    Moddy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    all overrrr
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,486
    did it say what the rebuilt motor consisted of?
    05' STi
    Team Scoobie Member

  3. #3
    getting nearly 80 whp improvement on the stock motor? just tell me the price and i'll pay it

    also, found this vid on the racing version dyno test and i gotta say, it sounds like the car wants to eat you alive
    Last edited by celica00; 06-11-2012 at 06:07 PM.

  4. #4
    I am curious reliability wise how long it would last.
    Team Scoobie Member

    Quote Originally Posted by modifiedMR View Post
    Naw, "bang for the buck" as in performance. I'd rather than and need a shot of penicillin.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by ej25ti View Post
    did it say what the rebuilt motor consisted of?
    For them to make 394whp. They changed the Pistons,conrods,cams, and the headgasket but I heard the OEM headgasket works well too.

  6. #6
    So basically a built engine sounds.....expensive.

    Hmm am engine that is low power in stock form that needs new pistons and rods to be boosted......

    And Japan will soon have a turbo version of the engine (albeit a different car)

    Sound familiar to anyone?



    Hint: first question all 240sx owners ask.
    Team Scoobie Member

    Quote Originally Posted by modifiedMR View Post
    Naw, "bang for the buck" as in performance. I'd rather than and need a shot of penicillin.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Central Coast, CA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    103
    Those headers are beautiful! The gearbox is ballin'. These look like engineered upgrades. Do you think the SC is an Eaton or Vortech unit?

    I see they have no problem working with the drive by wire technology, so that's good news to me. I also see those stock strut-to-firewall braces seem good enough for a race team... I do beleive the new FR-S/BRZ might actually be built very well!

    Cal - reliability is a valid concern. Especially for so many who just bought this car new (can't get a used one yet...). The race version will be a good test of the overall strength of engine block and head I suppose. Though I don't recall any race teams reporting back to us how long their engines actually lasted before needing a rebuild, it would be nice to know.

    I don't see AC in either setup... do you?

    I wonder if the TBI on the race version is controlled by a stand alone ECU or piggy back. What do you smart F.I. guys think?

    Additionally, I don't see or read anything about a high flowing head so maybe the OEM is rather optimized? It's gotta be to meet the high efficiency standards of today right?
    Backroads... Nature's Race Track

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Central Coast, CA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    103
    Is it always raining on Japanese pavement?
    Backroads... Nature's Race Track

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Cal View Post
    So basically a built engine sounds.....expensive.

    Hmm am engine that is low power in stock form that needs new pistons and rods to be boosted......

    And Japan will soon have a turbo version of the engine (albeit a different car)

    Sound familiar to anyone?



    Hint: first question all 240sx owners ask.
    It Made 250whp with the stock engine. That's good for me.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by hiplainsdrftr View Post
    Those headers are beautiful! The gearbox is ballin'. These look like engineered upgrades. Do you think the SC is an Eaton or Vortech unit?

    I see they have no problem working with the drive by wire technology, so that's good news to me. I also see those stock strut-to-firewall braces seem good enough for a race team... I do beleive the new FR-S/BRZ might actually be built very well!

    Cal - reliability is a valid concern. Especially for so many who just bought this car new (can't get a used one yet...). The race version will be a good test of the overall strength of engine block and head I suppose. Though I don't recall any race teams reporting back to us how long their engines actually lasted before needing a rebuild, it would be nice to know.

    I don't see AC in either setup... do you?

    I wonder if the TBI on the race version is controlled by a stand alone ECU or piggy back. What do you smart F.I. guys think?

    Additionally, I don't see or read anything about a high flowing head so maybe the OEM is rather optimized? It's gotta be to meet the high efficiency standards of today right?
    Toyota said they "designed the engine to take abuse".

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by hiplainsdrftr View Post
    Is it always raining on Japanese pavement?
    Yes it was raining.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by hiplainsdrftr View Post
    I wonder if the TBI on the race version is controlled by a stand alone ECU or piggy back. What do you smart F.I. guys think?

    Additionally, I don't see or read anything about a high flowing head so maybe the OEM is rather optimized? It's gotta be to meet the high efficiency standards of today right?
    This is either a fully programmable stock ecu or full-on stand alone. Lower CR pistons, cams and a supercharger??? It's going to need a lot of tuning. I'd say the street version is a stock ecu flash and the race is either a flash or v-pro (or whatever hks unit is for sale now).

    The head probably flows very well. Even the 3sgte from years ago, will flow 400 whp with new cams easy. Only minor gains from a 3 angle valve job and ~10-20 whp from larger valves at 400-600 whp range.

    The gear box is actually a concern. Why did they need to mod it??? Is it for gear ratios or for strength?? That is the question there. E153 tranny will take 500+ wtq and supports gearing from a variety of cars (solara, alltrac, gt4, caldina, etc). 390 whp and a new gear box doesn't sound strong to me.

    The fueling looks tricky too. I am guessing they either added another fuel injector + fuel injector, fuel injector + water injection for the race version or water and meth. Water and fuel would be better, IMO, from the tank with a split line or off the fuel rail. I don't like meth injection.

    Controlling twin injectors, adding supercharger with cams, pistons, etc, and then a new tranny????? I wonder how much that costs???? You could probably afford a cayman or 1m or something MUCH more expensive than the FRS. It better go like stink. Although, at 390 whp and sub 2800 lbs, that should hit low 12's.
    91 hardtop mr2 turbo

  13. #13
    What are the weight specs on the supercharger housing and the intercooler / piping? It is concerning that what seems to be quite a bit of weight is being added so far from the vehicle's polar moment of inertia. That will negatively impact handling, which is more the car's mission than straight line speed.

    I'd like to see more power, but I'd like it done responsibly with respect to the handling and balance of the vehicle. Even a top-mount intercooler keeps things further back on the chassis, albeit higher and requiring a new hood...

  14. #14
    A supercharger is probably ~20-30 lbs with the fittings up near the manifold. Add another 15 lbs in piping and IC core. Then add another 10-15 lbs for the supercharger cooler with fluid. So all in all 40-60 lbs total. Just a battery relocation away from getting closer to stock weight distribution and a dry carbon hood from maybe getting it more rearward. Although, the aftermarket exhaust manifold and exhaust are probably lighter, so it'll be hard to get more weight off the front. AC, light clutch/fly, and adding larger rear tires will help even it some too. Shedding the stock airbox should also shed a few lbs. You can add power and drop weight, but the further you go, the more it costs.

    IMO, a turbo mounted under the car should be better for weight distribution and possibly make more power. I'm betting HKS and Greddy had problems with combustion temps and that's why a supercharger is more likely.
    91 hardtop mr2 turbo

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by modifiedMR View Post
    A supercharger is probably ~20-30 lbs with the fittings up near the manifold. Add another 15 lbs in piping and IC core. Then add another 10-15 lbs for the supercharger cooler with fluid. So all in all 40-60 lbs total. Just a battery relocation away from getting closer to stock weight distribution and a dry carbon hood from maybe getting it more rearward. Although, the aftermarket exhaust manifold and exhaust are probably lighter, so it'll be hard to get more weight off the front. AC, light clutch/fly, and adding larger rear tires will help even it some too. Shedding the stock airbox should also shed a few lbs. You can add power and drop weight, but the further you go, the more it costs.

    IMO, a turbo mounted under the car should be better for weight distribution and possibly make more power. I'm betting HKS and Greddy had problems with combustion temps and that's why a supercharger is more likely.
    Agreed, I want a Turbo.

    The supercharger looks expensive to the point you'd consider engine swaps.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by modifiedMR View Post
    A supercharger is probably ~20-30 lbs with the fittings up near the manifold. Add another 15 lbs in piping and IC core. Then add another 10-15 lbs for the supercharger cooler with fluid. So all in all 40-60 lbs total. Just a battery relocation away from getting closer to stock weight distribution and a dry carbon hood from maybe getting it more rearward. Although, the aftermarket exhaust manifold and exhaust are probably lighter, so it'll be hard to get more weight off the front. AC, light clutch/fly, and adding larger rear tires will help even it some too. Shedding the stock airbox should also shed a few lbs. You can add power and drop weight, but the further you go, the more it costs.

    IMO, a turbo mounted under the car should be better for weight distribution and possibly make more power. I'm betting HKS and Greddy had problems with combustion temps and that's why a supercharger is more likely.
    Even with battery relocation / lithium cell / CF hood (which is minimal weight savings over the stock Al hood) you aren't going to change WHERE this weight is going... very far out over the front axle line. It isn't about moving it front to rear, either.. move the battery from in front of the firewall to the trunk, add the supercharger, and you have still impacted the overall polar moment of inertia negatively.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickBRZ View Post
    Even with battery relocation / lithium cell / CF hood (which is minimal weight savings over the stock Al hood) you aren't going to change WHERE this weight is going... very far out over the front axle line. It isn't about moving it front to rear, either.. move the battery from in front of the firewall to the trunk, add the supercharger, and you have still impacted the overall polar moment of inertia negatively.
    I think you missed my point. I pointed out ways to kill 90% or more of the weight. An AC compressor, bracket, lines and exchanger are almost the same weight as the whole supercharger setup and in the front. Add beefier rear wheels with lighter fronts and you have made any gap very narrow. Add to that, dropping the stock airbox and you are just about even and getting rid of weight up high. There are things you can do and talking about it won't prove much, corner balancing and racing one will prove what works.
    91 hardtop mr2 turbo

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Central Coast, CA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by cess View Post
    Yes it was raining.
    I see. I found rainfall data for Japan and on average it rains 1 in 4 days! Sometimes I get tired of watching pros slip cars around in the rain is all.
    Backroads... Nature's Race Track

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Central Coast, CA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by modifiedMR View Post
    This is either a fully programmable stock ecu or full-on stand alone. Lower CR pistons, cams and a supercharger??? It's going to need a lot of tuning. I'd say the street version is a stock ecu flash and the race is either a flash or v-pro (or whatever hks unit is for sale now).
    Yeah, lot's of tuning for sure on that pro setup.

    Quote Originally Posted by modifiedMR View Post
    ...Only minor gains from a 3 angle valve job...
    I see 3 angle valve job in rebuild options for things like the KA24DE I want... Thing is, OEM IS already a 3 angle job. I think. I need to look at FSM again. I'm pretty sure it was... at least on the OBD-II setup. Aren't new engines all at least 3 angle these days?

    Quote Originally Posted by modifiedMR View Post
    ...The gear box is actually a concern. Why did they need to mod it??? Is it for gear ratios or for strength?? That is the question there. E153 tranny will take 500+ wtq and supports gearing from a variety of cars (solara, alltrac, gt4, caldina, etc). 390 whp and a new gear box doesn't sound strong to me...
    It could all just be for the sake of a sequential gear selector couldn't it? Maybe it's all internal or just the housing on the ouput end is larger to accomodate the mechanics. I don't see dog box teeth except on reverse (typical). The forks and synchros have a neat configuration, IMHO. The counter shaft is broken into pairs, so changing of gear ratios is a viable option, though I have no evidence it was done to this tranny. Without knowing the OEM gearbox, I don't know why we'd guess this one to be stronger or the other to be weaker. I would just hope that isn't the case until I hear otherwise. Now that these cars are hitting the streets and getting modded, I'm sure some breaking points are on the horizon!
    Backroads... Nature's Race Track

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Central Coast, CA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by modifiedMR View Post
    I think you missed my point...
    You guys might have missed eachother's points? Modified mentions ways to compensate for weight added, even relocating some, in both vertical and longitudinal directions. PatrickBRZ is focussed on the location of the new weight in the vertical direction or at least how it affects roll, pitch and yaw by increasing leverage and momentum of weight. All weight shifts in any direction are a valid concern in a low and balanced car I think.

    I understand PatrickBRZ's point and agree with potential to impact the overall polar moment of inertia. I don't agree that it will be negative, or I mean, a significant amount of negative, especially considering the mods ModifiedMR suggests. Some higher weight in trade for quite a bit of power seems great to me! Modified has great compensation ideas also. CF hood and no AC could easily return the balance to stock I think (AC stuff is already far out and in front so delete it). Move your battery lower, to the center and make it smaller. Staggered wheels could help, though I'd stick to equal and light and just appreciate the reductions of unsprung weight. If I had this car, I'd put a cage in there for safety. There's not enough stuff to remove from the roof to fix that weight gain, but safety wins for me.

    I realize this is much about opinion now. If we were to actually take these things to a test vehicle and track, measuring vehicle dynamics in movement and G's, we could see what the real effects are. However, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that typical race modification, like HKS is doing, will make a faster, better handling car that wins races, compared to a friendly, balanced, stock sports car. Both are likely very fun to drive!
    Backroads... Nature's Race Track

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by hiplainsdrftr View Post
    You guys might have missed eachother's points? Modified mentions ways to compensate for weight added, even relocating some, in both vertical and longitudinal directions. PatrickBRZ is focussed on the location of the new weight in the vertical direction or at least how it affects roll, pitch and yaw by increasing leverage and momentum of weight. All weight shifts in any direction are a valid concern in a low and balanced car I think.
    Exactly.

    I understand PatrickBRZ's point and agree with potential to impact the overall polar moment of inertia. I don't agree that it will be negative, or I mean, a significant amount of negative, especially considering the mods ModifiedMR suggests. Some higher weight in trade for quite a bit of power seems great to me! Modified has great compensation ideas also. CF hood and no AC could easily return the balance to stock I think (AC stuff is already far out and in front so delete it). Move your battery lower, to the center and make it smaller. Staggered wheels could help, though I'd stick to equal and light and just appreciate the reductions of unsprung weight. If I had this car, I'd put a cage in there for safety. There's not enough stuff to remove from the roof to fix that weight gain, but safety wins for me.

    I realize this is much about opinion now. If we were to actually take these things to a test vehicle and track, measuring vehicle dynamics in movement and G's, we could see what the real effects are. However, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that typical race modification, like HKS is doing, will make a faster, better handling car that wins races, compared to a friendly, balanced, stock sports car. Both are likely very fun to drive!
    It might not have a huge impact, but it is absolutely putting weight in one of the worst locations. Adding some weight is acceptable, considering the power gains, but the upset to overall balance with the added power along with hanging the extra weight way out in front of the front wheels is never a good idea. This is what is always wrong with Audi's handling, take a look at the relation to where the weight (engine, intercooler, etc) are in relation to the front axle line. The push for the 50:50 weight distribution is a valid one.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickBRZ View Post
    The push for the 50:50 weight distribution is a valid one.
    IMO, 46 F : 54 rear is ideal. When you hit the brakes, weight shifts forward, so having weight towards the back aids in braking. Add to that, rear weight helps with traction on the rear tires and I'd prefer a slight rear balance. If you go too far, the front gets light and you understeer, to snap oversteer too easy. Like my mr2 turbo. lol. Been removing rear weight from day 1. No AC, No engine hook, 17 lb single exhaust (over 45 lbs stock unit), etc.
    91 hardtop mr2 turbo

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by modifiedMR View Post
    IMO, 46 F : 54 rear is ideal. When you hit the brakes, weight shifts forward, so having weight towards the back aids in braking. Add to that, rear weight helps with traction on the rear tires and I'd prefer a slight rear balance. If you go too far, the front gets light and you understeer, to snap oversteer too easy. Like my mr2 turbo. lol. Been removing rear weight from day 1. No AC, No engine hook, 17 lb single exhaust (over 45 lbs stock unit), etc.
    Vehicle dynamics are a deep and varied discussion, lol. Yes in a lot of circumstances shifting the weight is to your advantage, assuming control in a controlled environment such as on a race track. We encounter a lot more situations day to day that don't give you the necessary setup time to accomplish this, which is why the neutral balance is ideal. We're talking about a few percent, though... same as is the case with the addition of the supercharger. Normally I'd say it is nothing, as I'm used to dealing with heavier vehicles but I have grown accustomed to the smoothness and ease with which that weight distribution allows you to drive.

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •