Lithium

No one else has weighed in so I'll bite Those turbos have been proven to make that power and more @ wheels on the "right dyno". I personally wouldn't expect that kind of number on a Mainline or a Dyno Dynamics, but a Dynojet or Dynapack I'd say is plausible IF the engine spec and all supporting mods are up to it. E85 would be a must, btw.

Awesome, look forward to it! Most of that logic I can understand, shame the "facelift" EFR range aren't out yet - the new Borg Warner EFR housings without the internal BOV etc on them look awesome, probably some of the "prettiest" housings out... basically like the SX-E range. The XR range is very frustrating, they COULD be really good things but I too have very little faith at the minute. As a side note, AMS have announced they are going to do extensive testing of much of the Garrett range on a stout EVO 8 test car they've got - by the sounds of it across the range, including different housings. I'm going to hazard a guess and say that it'll be from the GTX3071R up to the GTX3584RS seeing as the footprints will be the same or similar. They reckon they will provide a lot of data on the whole thing, that will be VERY interesting.

For sure, I haven't actually encountered anyone directly who have had issues but I know at least there was a random (easy to fix, but unacceptable from something that price tbf) manufacturing issue that at least a bunch of 6766s had. There are EFR and FP turbos which do well in the same range, but if no one tried the new interesting things we'd not learn as much! And on that note, one of the best parts of someone trying something out is it is a good way of testing how close the theory is matching reality and adjusting to suit one way or another. Sometimes it can mean (if results are less than expected) hinting at if something needs sorting, and sometimes it can mean the theory needs tweaking Cool, the max revs shouldn't be too much over where I suspect it might start getting "chokey" if I have any idea of what I'm playing with - to be fair I just skimmed over the math, but yeah. So it should be going on pretty soon after it arrives? Post pics, too - they look like the new wheels and housings are quite handsome for an air pump

Hmm. I decided to actually do some maths and now have half a mind that I may have had a bit too much of knee-jerk reaction to the concept of the small turbine wheel, breaking down a bunch of what I can imagine against what you are doing - your setup could possibly be one of the best possible setups to justify one of those turbos, right down to the hotside you've chosen. Actually think you could end up with a very good result, not sure what you aim to rev to but I still do expect exhaust manifold pressure to force things to tip over above 7000rpm but not before achieving some pretty decent numbers. Am definitely very curious now I've actually given it a closer look.

OK, it actually sounds like your expectations from the turbo aren't wildly different to mine when all is said and done... which in my eyes means it's basically walking into the territory the PTE6466 owns and I'm not sure it brings enough artillery to offer any serious threat to it in that area. Am very intrigued to see how this turbo goes, it is definitely the most interesting thing Garrett have done in ages and it'd be quite cool if it works really well. I have no doubt that tuning it to that boost map will result in a wicked power delivery, but will be particularly interesting to see how the turbine keeps up at that 3-3.2PR across the compressor area. I expect it'll do well regardless, but if the hot side can support that flow without pressure spiralling out of control then it could be a very very good result! Hope you've got some stiff WG springs/4 port boost control solenoid

Ahh sweet, my bad. Had a big weekend and rolled in to look at car stuff while I turned brain off to get ready to sleep - maybe turned it off a little too much Yeah, don't get me wrong - it's not like it does nothing better than the old GTX3582R at all, I'm just suspicious of the huge power claims relative to the old GTX... and also of the match of turbine vs compressor. Those results go nowhere to suggest to me the GTX3584RS is wonderful. I'll keep an open mind, but so far no real world results involving those turbos have surprised me. In regards to the hot side not being the issue, this again highlights and possibly backs up the concern I've had the whole time is not that there is a single issue... but that the combination of compressor vs turbine makes for a bad combination. I'd be completely unsurprised if the compressor was the limitation in that case, at the boost levels "smaller" motors (in the VR case, ~2litre per turbo) need to run to make big power the 3584 has peaked and it's choke flow is falling back to the range that anecdotal evidence suggests is no better than other common turbos with smaller compressors are achieving comfortably. The compressor DOES flow very well at lower pressure ratios, but that is where I have concerns the turbine side may not flow well enough to justify that - the exhaust backpressure MAY climb too much to allow that flow at low boost levels, bearing in mind VE can plummet when exhaust pressure starts exceeding boost pressure. If you have 45psi exhaust pressure and are running 35psi to make the power you're making, that's not so bad. If you are running 23psi (in the meat of the 84mm compressor's efficiency) and have 45psi of exhaust pressure - the odds are the engine's VE is going to be atrocious and the end result wouldn't be flattering... assuming the plug wasn't pulled before that point. That 1400hp is on an engine dyno, running methanol on a high compression motor. I don't rate that as very impressive for a pair of turbos rated at "1000hp" each - "very conservative" means little in this situation, I'd hope that would go without saying. 1400hp @ crank on a high compression methanol engine with a pair of GT3582Rs should be doable with some headroom, let alone Gen1 GTX3582Rs, LET ALONE something with a hp rating 33% higher than a GTX3582R.

Its not ETS' car, its a TopSpeed car running an ETS Kit. The same guys have posted >1500whp for twin Gen1 GTX3582Rs with .82 hotsides on E85 and over 2000whp for PTE6870s so the dyno isn't a heart breaker but the 3584s are obviously more potent than the old 3582s. The amount extra in that case is not at all proportional to the extra flow gains they've claimed but obviously could be more to the story. It's not far off what I suspected could prove to be the case with the new turbos though, still suspect there is a chance the compressor match won't prove great to smaller motors which need lots of boost to justify them

Awesome, thanks for sharing - very useful information!

What S-chassis record was broken?

If it does it will be the first of his to do that! It would be a remarkable effort to get into the turbo, too.

So this divider extends to the face of the poppet, and there is a full seal between manifold and gate. Any imperfection there is enough to completely screw any advantages of having a divided housing?

Let me get this straight, There are 3 pipes meeting a dead end at a closed valve, and a separate 3 pipes meeting at a dead end at a closed valve, somehow the pulses from cyl 1-3 pipes will interact with the pulses from the other 3 cylinders despite (beyond maybe ever so slight leaks if there is not a perfect seal with the fabrication) there being no clear path to get there? Sort of like quantum entanglement? What you describe would make sense if you were a useless flamin mongrel and just joined 1-3 and 4-6 into a single pipe and had THAT meet the gate, but I'm talking about is what I described above - so there is literally a divider in the middle of the manifold's WG flange which keeps 1-3 and 4-6 separate at the join to the wastegate.

You're quite right, and I can't edit the post And yes, that was my assumption - I stated that in the comment Never heard of a back to back, and there has been some pretty strong argument for it - the argument FOR makes sense in terms of "on gate" behaviour but when most of the claims relate to spool and on-boost behaviour, in which situations there should be no difference at all I don't know what the story is. Fwiw everyone I know that have done single gate setups have done the manifolds more or less how you'd expect from twin gates, as in sets of 3 cylinders have individual feeds which merge at the gate but pretty much the only way that the two pairs of 3 can interact are from the point the gate opens. In terms of the tubing while the gate is closed I'd expect that the gases shouldn't know much, if any difference from if it were twin gate - and the performance that guys I know who are running single gate setups as I describe is decent, to be fair if they got 500rpm better spool from what they have currently then they'd be rewriting the rules on spool with a given turbo size!

Any theory on why that would be the case? While they are spooling the gates should be both closed, if the system is correctly divided and sealed up to the gate then surely everything should behave the same

No worries, no doubt not everything I say is perfect but I try. Haha yeah, I'd be very interested to see if you do go forth and achieve dialog with Garrett. In regards to the PR spin, it's got to set off some alarm bells regarding Block's Hoonicorn - the fact that with a high compression methanol V8 they are claiming barely more crank hp than what people are putting to the wheels with street trim flex fuel R35s with conventional GTX3582Rs. I'll make it clear here, I am just speculating and pondering - I am absolutely not hand on heart saying its a terrible thing, I could be totally underestimating things... even if talking about a turbo I really approve of, I still look at how it will perform with a conservative/critical eye. If you do it, I am very interested to see how it goes and it'd be grand if it works out well. I think 500-530kw is entirely plausible.

Interesting opinion bit, it's not me - what do you mean by "My neck of the woods"? NZ? I don't know many Kiwis who get into it with that kind of depth... be helpful to know the context of that because it seems like they are comparing a divided Borg Warner turbine setup with an open Garrett one of a completely different size. I am no expert on this area, though the way I understand "turbine efficiency" is that it indicates the efficiency of the turbine of a given size to turn kinetic energy into twisting force. That slight increase in efficiency I guess means that you can do stuff like "waste" slightly more exhaust gas (on gate... ) to transfer the same torque through the turbine shaft. All things being equal this could result in slightly less exhaust manifold pressure for the same amount of flow through the engine, or the ability for a bit more flow through the engine before VE starts spiralling out of control - "a/r for a/r". No, the efficiency is not reflected in that turbine map. In regards to the 6466 etc, yeah I understand the concern and it frustrates me too - Precision do GREAT performing stuff however there is definitely a mixed impression of reliability. Have you seen stuff specifically on the Xona-Rotor universal turbos having reliability issues? I have been keeping an eye out, like a lot of FP's stuff I like a lot of what they are up to on paper but I don't like their ethic or some of their bolt-on's reliability in the past. It will be interesting to see what becomes of this Turbonetics/Precision merger and how it affects things - I already know people who swear by the new TNX-series Turbonetics turbos so maybe there is a revolution on the way?

Think you'll find he means response, not necessarily rpm on a dyno plot. I'd not count on the EFR to show a heap of improvement on a boost curve on a dyno plot - but if you get two otherwise identical cars side by side and step on the throttle from 3500rpm from vacuum you may see something more tangible.

Right, if you "only" want to crack 500kw then it sounds quite doable - you had been throwing numbers "conservatively" north of 900hp @ crank (which I read as - you were aiming at using up in the high 80lb/min flow wise around earlier and is a different kettle of fish). That sounds pretty reasonable, potentially even with the 1.01a/r hotside. It should be on well before 5500rpm. I wasn't going to bother responding to this but I have to take the bait in case others are going to read this and not think. No, the 1.06 GT35 turbine is not the same a/r as the 1.01 "RS" turbine, HOWEVER look at how dominant the 1.06 GT35 hotside is over the 1.01 "RS" one, every point it's all over it. Look at the .83a/r "RS" turbine map versus the .82a/r "GT35" map, any gains it has are so discrete it's not funny. The biggest bonus with the "RS" turbine is the option of a 1.22a/r hotside option which feels quite bandaid-y and it's hard to see how they couldn't have just released a new range of turbine housings to achieve that with the current GT35 turbine and then do something a bit more ambitious. I'd like to be wrong here, but so far there isn't much on paper to indicate to me that a Precision 6466 wouldn't beat the shit out of a GTX3584RS.

I think you missed the point of what I shared.... the difference in turbine flow between the old GT35 and the "RS" one used on the GTX3584RS is 2/10ths of f-all. Based off what is available on paper I would wager than the GTW3884R will make more power than the GTX3584RS but will obviously come at some cost in terms of lag but I don't know what people have actually made from the GTW3884R. I'm guessing something close to what people used to make with GT3794HTAs

Yeah, I am very interested to see how it goes! Obviously this is all theory, and I think there is worth in the thought experiment side of things. If you haven't checked them, here's the turbine flow map for the normal GT35 turbine (ie, like from your 3586HTA) And for the "RS" version: By Garrett's own admission/claims the increase in flow "A/R for A/R" the new RS turbine is only margainally better flowing than the existing GT35. On paper the 1.06a/r GT35 housing will actually outflow the 1.01a/r "RS" turbine though obviously there is more to it than just that.

To be fair the fact that the difference in peak compressor flow between a GTX3582R and Gen2 GTX3582R is ~4-5lb/min, it uses exactly the same turbine wheel and they are claiming 850hp for the Gen2 version has got to raise alarm bells in regards to what they are prepared to suggest is doable.

No worries, good luck Yeah that turbo has absolutely got the compressor flow to make that power @ crank at that boost level, on E85. With all due respect, your mate probably has a reasonable idea to come up with what he has but if thinks he can determine spool/response from a compressor map then my standards for what earns the "guru" title are somewhat higher Response is affected by a shitload more than just potential compressor flow. Maybe there is other stuff you guys have factored in that you haven't mentioned there, but my biggest concern with the GT3584RS isn't the compressor flow - it's the dynamic between turbine and compressor side... at 2.7PR on the compressor side I have my suspicions that the turbine side may be WELL over that pressure, meaning that the VE you are counting on at the rpm you aim to spin at may not be there to flow at that pressure ratio. Normally I'd just assume I was missing something, but Garrett have a patchy history of releasing crap mismatches and advertising them as awesome things (Awww yeah the "responsive 500hp" GT25/40R of the mid 90s. YUCK.) so I hope this is a break from tradition. For what it's worth, Precision's old PT6765 was based off the old T-series P-trim turbine wheel and choked their 67/88mm CEA turbine wheel - even at high boost, same goes for the GT3794-HTA... both turbos capable of similar compressor flow to the GTX3584RS. Precision released the 66mm "CEA" turbine wheels, and FP released the "Super" series turbos to allow their 67mm compressors a bit more breathing space on the hotside and got quite decent gains as a result. The old Precision/FP 65mm turbines would likely be quite a bit better flowing than the new "RS" Gen2 turbine wheel <edit - I just looked it up> The GT3584RS .83 housing flows quite a bit less than the old Garrett P-trim turbine in a .84 divided housing, HOWEVER the 1.01a/r "RS" turbine actually flows slightly more, and the 1.21a/r housing has pretty stout flow. I would suggest using AT LEAST the 1.01 housing, it might not help your spool targets but if you aim to spin your motor and try and make the most of that compressor it may be an idea.

Good on you - I was never going to suggest one to anyone because I don't feel confident that they're going to be worth it versus the likes of a Precision 6466 etc, but I am very interested to see how it goes and you never know if they've come up with something brilliant. Let us know how you go! When do you expect to have it running?

Maybe @Full-Race Geoff may have some inside word on when the new EFR housings may become available? They look a lot like the SX-E housings which imho are some of the nicest looking units on the market, a far cry from the ugly things currently available

400kw would be pushing it on an EFR7670 but high 300kw @ wheels with epic response should be doable. I wouldn't rely on an EFR7670 being a lot smaller than a GT3582R, haven't seen one in person but they're not little things. I'd definitely go external with an RB26, partly because you'd want the 1.05a/r hotside. A GT3582R would clearly do it easily but won't touch the 7670 for response.