Opinions on the Holset HX40 Turbo

[Swifty1638]

proven on dsmtuners? how so? who has actually tuned on them, or run times with them? any reputable shops even use them? just curious, cause all i see coming from that site is more of the same "hype"

-A. Swift

[MustGoFaster]

But dude it's awsome cause I say so.

[wheelhop]

Anyone trapping over 132mph with the HX40? Does anyone sell them for a reasonable price?


One from the thread I posted: There's one with a hx35/40 (http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/turbo-system-tech/313476-holset-turbos-results-only-complete-installed-systems.html#post151656755) (slip in his profile) and one with a hx40 (http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/turbo-system-tech/313476-holset-turbos-results-only-complete-installed-systems.html#post151659235) (slip here (http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/turbo-system-tech/303969-holset-turbos-part-4-a-24.html#post151645634))trapping 132mph with 2.0L motors.

As I mentioned the most affordable route with a holset is to get one used from the seller I posted. He can get you a holset with good wheels for a very good price. Or go to diesel forum classifieds. Then you get it rebuilt. This is far more affordable because they are rather common in the diesel world.

Or you can contact ht turbo which I linked. They may even be able to get you a holset with no turbine housing, so you can use which ever you want.

The fastest spooling option would be a t3 to mhi adapter plate and run to smaller bep housing, or ask to see if they have any t3 .55 a/r housings left. Its not like the small housing on the hx40 hasn't been proven to much over 600whp:) EDIT: I'd like to add that running an adapter plate will help with clearance with the water pipe since the holset typically runs a very larger compressor cover. Another reason why many feel a holset will be laggy or hasn't produced the results indicative of it's size.

The last two didn't read the thread I posted :) .

More from that thread. GV Autosport (http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/turbo-system-tech/313476-holset-turbos-results-only-complete-installed-systems.html#post151659653) ran one.

Only 5 holset users on tuners has ventured to the track out of only about 10 that run them. Guys brag abotu putting them on but never actually do it. You know how that goes. Regardless, every one who has gone to the track has an 11sec time slip. 4 lower than 11.4sec. If t00ners guys can do the above, Imagine what the rest of the world can do, right?

[JET]

Alright, I looked through the thread you linked to. Since when is 132mph>132mph? The highest anyone trapped in that thread was 132mph. Someone did make 653hp though, the next highest was 485 on a mustang dyno.

[At-Least-It's-An-Evo]

Alright, I looked through the thread you linked to. Since when is 132mph>132mph? The highest anyone trapped in that thread was 132mph. Someone did make 653hp though, the next highest was 485 on a mustang dyno.

That was 132mph on some 37psi or something too. There's nothing special about this Holset over hyped stuff....

It's not rocket science...... get a half-decent turbo and run a lot of boost. It will go fast/make power with a good tune unless you're completely retarded and throw a complete junk setup together.

[wheelhop]

You stopped reading. Again you're talking about turbochargers you are not willing to read enough about to know their sizes, flow capabilities, nor results. You're partial picture defends your choice. And that's great. Yet, the proof remains.

That was 33 psi with a full weight car. The 37psi was with a hx35 turbine wheel. The hx35 is a smaller frame size than the gt35r. The term hx35 is like the term t04b or t3. What boost would a 56trim compressor have to see to achieve a 600+whp trapspeed with the discopotato turbine wheel? The gt28rs spools as fast as the hx35.

The 'hype' is the spool speed vs. similar flowing turbine wheels. Or flow vs. turbine wheels of similar spool speed. Look at the hx40 results again. Please find a turbo that can run less boost make more power and spool as fast. Look at the hx35 results again. Please find a turbo that can run less boost make more power and spool as fast. Why compare a 600whp garrett turbine to a 500whp garret turbine? A 600whp garrett turbine can certainly reach said trapspeed at a lower peak boost. Why compare a 600whp garrett turbine to a 500whp Holset/BW/IHI/MHI turbine? Unless you don't even know and understand the flow of the frame sizes of the turbo brand in question. Yes, this isn't rocket science. The 'hype' is that I paid $350 for my h1c (older hx35) and bep housing and have a turbo that spools as fast as the 16g it replaces and flows more at less boost than my 16g. Airflow numbers much like a td06h 20g. Here's another h1c user with logs (http://www.dsmlink.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30519). Using a 2g maf, Bolton turbine housing, stock manifolds, HKS272s, 2.0L at 22psi. Airflow is airflow, efficiency is efficiency, faster spool is faster spool.

There are turbine housing choices for the hx40 that will give just as much lag as the gt35r in the .63 a/r single scroll housing. If you're willing to accept that much lag to reach your goal, then you can see over 600whp trapspeeds with much lower boost than 33psi, respective of the housing choice. It's not rocket science, but not exactly like tetris either.

Oh well. This is what I get for mentioning an hx35/40 when ecoli asked about just the hx40.

. . .Since when is 132mph>132mph? The highest anyone trapped in that thread was 132mph. Someone did make 653hp though, the next highest was 485 on a mustang dyno.
Never mind his huge boost leak :) . The most he could get was 26-27psi that day. This is the same guy who trapped 132mph at 33psi.

You missed the other bolton hx40 that did 516whp (http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/turbo-system-tech/313476-holset-turbos-results-only-complete-installed-systems.html#post151659653) on a dynojet. They read high, right? Video of 11.08@128mph (http://homepage.mac.com/stevestrzempek/iMovieTheater88.html) fullweight car: "Full weight, still had bumpers, power steering, heat". 128mph at fullweight as quite a bit more than 516whp. I know you know where this is, but for any who don't: Stealth 316 HP from et and trap speed (http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-hp-et-mph.htm).

Please look back. I never said anyone trapped more than 132mph. Where are you getting this? There's only 5 guys out of 10 that have even been to the track. Only 2 hx40s. The rest are guys with the small hx35 turbine wheel.

Someone tried to argue trap speeds. When does 150+ mph with a 600lb lighter car disqualify a holset? . . . Preference does. That's fine. Performance hasn't. The HX40 has proven to deliver over 600whp through trapspeed/weight and dyno. No, it is not rocket science. Nor does my wallet mind the difference I paid for my hx40 in the shed versus a real turbo. Cost versus output is not rocket science either. Airflow is airflow, efficiency is efficiency. And faster spool speed is faster spool speed.

[JET]

You missed the other bolton hx40 that did 516whp (http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/turbo-system-tech/313476-holset-turbos-results-only-complete-installed-systems.html#post151659653) on a dynojet. They read high, right? Video of 11.08@128mph (http://homepage.mac.com/stevestrzempek/iMovieTheater88.html) fullweight car: "Full weight, still had bumpers, power steering, heat". 128mph at fullweight as quite a bit more than 516whp. I know you know where this is, but for any who don't: Stealth 316 HP from et and trap speed (http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-hp-et-mph.htm).

Those calculators give flywheel hp, not whp. I put my known numbers in there, 11.53 @ 123mph and it said I shoud be making 457-492hp, but I was really making 360awhp on a DD. 128mph isn't more than 516whp, even on a DJ.

The DSMtalk timeslips have a spot for whp also, it is a good place to see some other examples. Some people change their hp ratings without a new timeslip though, so if you see something odd, it probably isn'r right.

[sleepydsm]

Isn't anyone at least curious to see how these actually perform for themselves? I am.

[wheelhop]

JET, Ah! yes it does. Good point. Lucius is talking net horsepower which is at the clutch.

Further mentioned:

The plots show that Hale's formulas predict a much lower 1/4-mile elapsed time (ET) and a bit faster terminal speed (mph) than is typical for modern street cars. Hale's formulas may be more appropriate for strictly race-track cars that have better traction and drivetrains than most street cars.

Generally, this is typical of a well-prepped car like CB's car when referencing the Patrick Hale formula.

All the cars in the results thread posted have nearly or 100% stock drivetrains. Though AWD increases traction it certainly adds more drivetrain loss than Patrick Hale was working with. And Hale was still working with cars with great 60ft times.

As you can see, actual performance for the most part falls between the predictions of the LRT and Hale formulas, with the Fox formulas doing an excellent job of matching performance when engine power exceeds 500 bhp.

To me, that is a good conclusion; as Hale was working with cars with great traction (modern advancement in traction techniques), but less drivetrain loss. So, it would appear that, for accuracy, the Fox formulas apply here since they are compared with a stockish AWD drivetrain similar to the T/E/L and matched better. These guys havn't done much to alter that basic platform. The Hale formula would be very conservative with an AWD DSM.

I'd be curious what a well prepped DSM could do with one of these turbos.

[wheelhop]

Video killed the radio star.

Sorry. Been having fun at home. Carry on.