Lithium

Broken link...

That would be pretty cool if you did do that, I'd be really interested to see the result myself. If I lived in Oz I'd do similar, we don't have Mainlines here (that I am aware of) and Dyno Dynamics are FAR inbetween. So when I am over I'll be more legal to drive on Oz roads than you? Roadtrip?

Oorrrr what if JEM tune it more aggressive and it actually reads WAYYYY lower? Btw, there is no way I am suggesting that as indicating someone is squeezing SUBSTANTIALLY less power (ie 20-50kw) all other things being equality is ridiculous and I hope you are joking Yeah agreed, Trents is very "reasonable" reading - have tried it myself and SAEJ1349 definitely reads significantly lower than the other correction methods but doesn't mean another dyno won't read lower. I'm not saying it will either, but there is a huge list of results there to build trends from. I am not digging here, I am just OCD about getting facts straight so I can work out what to expect with this kind of thing - and it'd be a shame if people were deciding between two turbos (they can both be within the HG range) expecting x result and end up with x - 10% result. The numbers we are seeing here are very very good, especially for the money - and are genuinely giving more expensive turbos a bit of teaching... with recent results my curiosity is now more than piqued which is why I am trying to nail down a way of interpreting them. If someone has something more substantial than "Maybe JEM get way less power from cars" it'd be helpful to hear, as I would not hesitate to start pushing HG turbos locally. The same kind of process is what got me a fan of HTA turbos BTW, the results from JEM we are talking about are FAR from having stock manifolds....

I am still unconvinced your dyno tests are even parity with his results though so its not apples and apples, well at least I don't view it that way at this stage - this isn't a knock or anything, the results are clearly awesome... but again unless it's all on the same dyno then it is not directly comparable. A browse over JEM's dyno results shows that a typical GT3582R (as far as I know an equal or bigger turbo than any of the ones you are using?) on stock cams and E85 on that dyno makes under 360kw on similar boost to what yours is making ~400kw with a similar engine setup. Unless there are other sneaky mods (separate from the turbo) which result in more power being made, the numbers indicate that a stock cam RB25 with any turbo will not make near 400kw without having a huge amount of boost thrown at it. Unless I am missing something, at the boost levels you are talking about no turbo in the world is going to make those numbers happen with stock cams on an RB25 running EFlex on JEM's dyno. The turbo isn't going to make the engine flow more than it can flow at a given pressure ratio. Have a look through to get a gauge of what setups make at JEM so you can judge for yourself: http://www.justenginemanagement.com/index.php/dyno-diary Or an example of a GT35 setup on stock cams and E85: Jan Nissan R34 GT Haltech PS2000 E85-full flex RB25DET stock GT35 fmic, exh, ebc, fuel sys, plenum, 23-21psi 333kw A typical pump gas figure on 20-22psi for a built RB26 with GT2860-5s at JEM is 330-350kw while it is around 370kw @ Chequered (reference from someone saying Trent's reads the same as other dynos here: http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/topic/251820-got-over-400kw-atw/page-81#entry6300552). The way I see it, it indicates 34GeeTeeTee would make >400kw at Chequered. [Edit: I didn't hunt all that down to debate here btw, I spent some time analysing results etc to help 34GeeTeeTee choose turbos and work out expectations when he was deciding what to get and I had to make sense of how the different dynos over there read to help him build expectations from a known flow rate... and predicted the result within a few kw so feel I'm not far off the mark ]

OK I will just assume it is a T78-33D air pump and trust you have the rest of the setup optimised then Garrett make a GT4094R, GT4294R and GTX4294R which respond and flow between those two turbos - though I'd sooner see something like the Super94 HTA, which is currently $1899US which is VERY good value for the performance it offers. FP only have .85 T3 listed there, but if you got in touch with them there may be a chance they can sort out a T4 housing for you... I honestly don't know. Good thing about it is you are unlikely to ever need to upgrade beyond that, despite it not being GT42 sized! In essence it'd be like have a GT4202R that is more in the realms of the T78-33D in spool. A Precision PT6466 BB is the other option - a step down in lag and spool from the HTA and the most conservative option - definitely has T4 twin scroll option. Those two are basically the magic units for upgrading from the performance balance you are currently getting IMHO. If you went up to the lag level of the 6766 then you may as well go HTA (so long as you can get the T4).

Does anyone have any pics of the FNT housing? I remember talking about that kind of idea years ago with mates over rums and we admittedly ruled it out due to lack of CBF/adventurousness - partly due to the idea that you'd need to make sure it was VERY sturdy etc. Have they been used for a good amount of km etc without problem? And are these turbos with this response journal or ball bearing? Very interesting that the major manufacturers don't seem to do this as the concept is reasonably simple and it clearly seems to work nicely, again - full credit to Stao for trying new things to find ways of providing good overall performance for a decent price Next thing, if it is reliable and does perform that well without issue - is there any option or consideration towards doing a custom modification to housings for "other" turbochargers to retrofit "FNT"? Ie, to TD05Hs/GT30s/whatever? Or any thoughts on that? Imagine the potential for an FNT HTA GT3076R... or even a VNT one, as the straight HTA GT3076R is only slightly behind the latest greatest VNT HG turbo in spool and matches it for power. Going by the improvement FNT and VNT gave to the HG turbos in terms of spool, the HTA could be moving near providing stock turbo response and potentially getting near hitting 400kw on full E85 with VNT... or at least GT2835 type spool with FNT? Am I completely off the rails here?

Detail - I guess some confirmation it is DEFINITELY a T78 somehow, and that you have a T4 twin scroll flange like is being assumed, and really it's a shame there are no ACTUAL dyno numbers/curve and that it is definitely a 2.6 litre still. If all that is true, I actually don't know how you are getting full boost at just over 4000rpm. I've met a T78-33D 2.6litre GTR before and it was laggy as hell - guessing yours may be a 29D? If it is a 29D, you're trying to save money, and want make a bit more power and keep optimal spool then maybe one of these might be worth looking at: http://www.extremeturbosystems.com/Precision-PTE-6266-CEA-Billet-Turbocharger.html The 6466 would be better, but they are a good amount more expensive.

That's kindof what I was thinking too - need more specific details if we're going to suggest anything, even if a suggestion is "keep the turbo and try and work out why the setup isn't performing as it should". >135mph is pretty broad (145mph is 135mph+), and 650hp @ crank on alcohol is not that flash for a T78.... also, full boost at just over 4000rpm is pretty surprising too. Are you still running 2.6litres? I'd say a PT6766 or HTA3794 won't spool that well, but then I wouldn't expect a T78 or T88 too either so makes me wonder if there is a chance detail is missing? And how much are you likely to spend? At this stage going face value that you currently have a T78 and want more power and as good spool as possible I'd be leaning towards a PT6466 but depends on if more detail comes to light

The R32 generation ones aren't

So the new Super94 HTA dyno testing results have been posted, initial driving impressions (that it was more responsive than the 6766 and 3794) don't match up with the dyno results - though the dyno results are still very impressive. This is with a .85a/r T3 turbine housing! Tested the 3794 Vs. the new Super94 (FPXX94R), and the results are very promising. The Super94 made around 60 WHP more then the 3794 with minimal spool difference . With my setup, I never even noticed the extra lag but the extra power is very noticeable!! In my opinion, the Super94 almost makes the 3794 obsolete - 60 more WHJP without almost any noticeable spool difference. Can't really beat that. {thumbup} With this Super94 on the car I've gone 8.4 @ 177 MPH with a not so good 1.55 60 ft time. When I get the Red Demon back out, with a good 60 ft time I'm hoping to go low 8.20's or 8-teens. Also competed in a standing 1/2 mile event with the Super94 on the car. The Red Demon went 213 MPH which is within 4 mph of the world record (held by a 1800+ HP Lambo). It was tricky to get the car to hook up on the street radials, but I used boost by gear with lower boost levels in 1st and 2nd gear to get the job done. :mitsu: The car ended up running great on the radial tires. "Like" our Facebook page to get the latest dyno/track results!! Video of Devin's 177.49 mph pass - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=628506815926 Video of Devin's 213+mph pass at the Chicago 1/2 Mile event - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=629866980146 Source: http://forums.evolutionm.net/10848310-post171.html

I wasn't accusing you of deliberately doing it - you may have not read the detail. I came to like the FP turbos after experiencing some myself, and reading lots of other peoples experiences and results from them... including the one you shared. I would say EXACTLY the same thing about if it were a Garrett, Borg Warner, Precision or whatever turbo if that happened and disregard the result altogether from that point (as I did there). Ignoring that result definitely does not make me a fanboy, you accusing me of being a fanboy for disregarding it says worse things about the subjectivity of your approach than mine... you must have gone to some effort to find a seemingly poor result for an HTA, and pulled one up that may as well have had a restrictor in the intake. If anything - that result frustrates me that good efforts were done with good turbos and part of the test makes the results all but worthless and would have been more interesting to have seen it done better and if it HAD been done more scientifically and shown results like that then I'd most definitely have taken it on board, and the odds are I'd not mention the HTA3794 with the fondness I do. My source for the 68HTA (which I didn't post because it was on Facebook), but since you ask: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=475658035842768&set=a.117337135008195.21587.115529075189001&type=1&theater

Awesome, thanks for the response - that makes things a lot clearer and probably handy to have around.

Is there are actually a break down page showing all the HG varients? The names make absolutely no sense in regards to power or features - that I can tell, and there isn't a place I have found which allows someone to look at and get an indicator of whether something is ball bearing, journal bearing, billet, cast, bolton or universal etc etc... just random names that someone has to follow this thread daily to understand. SLSS2 vs SS2, etc - PU? FNT? what does it mean? Maybe the first post in the thread could be updated as the varients change so one can go back there and see what is currently on offer? Apologies if there is something like that somewhere I haven't looked, but amongst other things I'd be much more likely to recommend HG turbos to people if I could make sense of the naming and specs - I don't really have the time to follow all the posts as new names and new specs roll out. Cheers

just caught wind of this ridiculous result from Boostin Performance in the US, a FP68HTA bolt on turbo (so basically a high flow TD05 turbo using a compressor with the same size exducer as the stock 16G) making 501whp on E85 on Boostin's Mustang Dyno which is not a ultra happy dyno like most consider the US dynos to be. This is a crazy power level from a turbo this size on a Mustang dyno, no doubt the quality of the setup used has a lot to do with with it but it's pretty amazing nonetheless. Check out the power band - I had mentioned that this compressor on a BB StageII T3 turbine would be an insane response alternative to the HKS GTRS guys which would be way better suited to an RB25 over the GTRS, I definitely do not take that back after seeing this:

Yeah, I had figured that I'd rather a 16G6 + TD06 housing than a stock position 18G for the same reason - the 18G is rated at around 40lb/min, the late 16G6 compressor maps show ~41lb/min at 2.4 pressure ratio, so it has all the flow we'd need at the boost range we'll be working with.

Awesome, nice find - that clears quite a bit up... thanks Now to investigate what people are getting from the T517Zs... wonder if the TD06 housing will free up the flow a bit.

Definitely not having a dig, you are right to raise it if you have doubts! Just be clear if they are doubts, or facts. We all do the best we have with the info we have at the time - I am just trying to make clear that there is further info which means that what people are treating as blanket rules aren't actually the case, and highlighting specific cases where that applies just in case it helps someone in the future. I think we are on the same buzz, end target is to refine a list of what ACTUALLY works it different situations and don't mind adjusting previous view points based on new information which may come to light, the mission is finding that info. My dig was actually at others who throw said info in my face, what that same kind of info should be invaluable to those it applies to. In regards to the T517Z - interesting you mention it is the same as what my mate got (which runs the EVO 3 16G wheel) as I've seen a thread where someone reconditioned their T517Z using an EVO 3 16G as an "upgrade", but Kando treat them as the same place and other places mention the T517Z as having a 16G6 (the EVO 4+ "EVO16G" wheel, which is designed to spin the other way). Man its fun filtering through the crap sometimes!

One way or another I am sure you will hear how it turns out, I may not share it here given I am getting sick of making an effort sharing ACTUAL information on here to help folks out to be told that those results won't happen because this guy at the dairy's mates Auntie's boyfriend's penpal said that they don't perform. I am definitely open minded to the fact that other housing/wheel combinations may have issues (this is actually an EVO3-16G, not a 20G) but I was told as a blanket rule by yourself and others that the anti-surge was a lemon, so far it seems not the case - will see how the final flow is but spool is already looking good. I don't know how the internal gates will perform on RB25s with bigger turbos, but as I clearly fabricated earlier... we have no spike, no drop in boost, no creep and so far tested from 10-19psi and are actually well impressed with the internal gate TD05 so far.

Clearly I was lying then, I'll stop feeding this thread with BS and leave you guys to turn it into a Hypergear thread, as well as the FP thread, and I think the Precision thread is also lacking in Hypergear propaganda too

Why does it need to be an external gate one? To me this seems like something which could be a bit of fun... http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Upgrade-Turbocharger-RB20DET-RB25DET-w-Stage-3-Turbine-68mm-Comp-450BHP-/281117739250?pt=AU_Car_Parts_Accessories&hash=item4173ec48f2 Or even this if there is any doubts about the stock compressor housing flow: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Kinugawa-Turbocharger-3-Anti-Surge-RB20DET-RB25DET-TD06-20G-T3-8cm-V-Band-/271219785633?pt=AU_Car_Parts_Accessories&hash=item3f25f57fa1 From our testing so far, the Kando anti-surge/lag thing is bollux - we are very impressed with the internally gated bolt on anti-surge Kando so far. Boost holds 19psi perfect with electronic boost control, or 10psi without creep on wastegate boost which leaves heaps of room for us to sort out boost-per gear with a wide range. Very much looking forward to seeing how it behaves on the dyno.

You have to wonder - its quite a lot of effort to go to though! They do mention the flow/restriction issue (though potentially understate, or underestimate it) of having a divided turbine housing and an open manifold - so maybe it was just a case of the units being on hand to try out. Regardless of their reasoning or motivation I'd take it with a grain of salt The HTA3794 and PT6766 have been tested "all in" on a properly built 2litre in the past and the PT6766 had slightly better spool, the HTA3794 made more power at every boost level until ~54psi where the gap closed - but the HTA3794 still had the edge by around 20whp from memory (at ~930whp!!!). The HTA Super94 is being tested and so far its meant to spool better than and make more power than both, I will definitely update the thread when that is made public.

Is it comparably priced?

Have seen that, it's one of the most flawed comparisons ever - it kind of sucks that people can put that kind of data out there to confuse research people may be doing. Major flaws with the testing or data: - No boost plot - No tuning done to suit each turbo - Putting a large a/r divided housing turbo on a open manifold in a comparison against two small a/r open housing turbos. Wtf? I don't know why you would go to the effort of attaching that turbo to that manifold and expect a decent result, let alone try and pass it off as a fair comparison with three turbos actually suited to that layout. Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2

Wow, stout - got to be happy with that! Nice work, and its nice to know it's capable of that kind of performance

I have heard some historical stories about that kind of thing, I wonder if they are trying to improve that image? They got Mat his turbo within a week and had a bit of reasonable input (I think?) and recently posted on their Facebook page that people could send requests regarding sponsorship based on a few requirements. They have also been seeking input and providing Q&A on the US EvolutionM forum. Hard to say though. The housing options are just what is posted on the site, unlike Precision the universal FPs are mostly Garrett based which means you can essentially use off the shelf Garrett (or 3rd party) GT28/GT30/GT35/whatever turbine housings with them - they will probably also do hybrids or a preferred turbine housing per request. I would hope so, but I guess I can't speak for them - though seeing as they have made people HTA4094s, HTA3073s, HTA2868s etc I am guessing it is true.