Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

No worries Biz , actually I stuffed up earlier on and was thinking RB20 .

The real GT3071R is shown on the turbobygarrett site , you need to have a look at the turbo comparison sheet by clicking on the lower RHS of the small or medium or large frame turbo list boxes . Its the last of three and the table quotes 450Hp compared to 420 for the two victim versions .

I looked at the maps for 71mm 56T in .50AR TO4E cover (GT3071R) and 76mm 56T in .60AR TO4E cover (GT3076R/GT30R) . While the maximum or choke flow is not too different the compressor speed lines are .

The GT30R gets to ~ 50lbs air at approx 60% efficiency and a little over 115,000 rpm and 1 bar boost . The GT3071R just gets there at 2.2 bar (positive) and up around 145,000 rpm .

So you can see that the 3071R is really spinning its tits off at twice the positive pressure to move the air .

To me it seems that the 71mm or GT35 compressor is at its end in the TO4E series comp cover which was originally intended for 76mm compressors . The 76mm or GT37 compressor (GT30R/GT3076R/GT3037) would probably do a similar thing if used in a TO4S cover designed for 76 and 82mm wheels .

Its difficult to make a direct comparison of the GT30R and GT3071R because they give different results based on comp diametre , trim size and comp cover series and AR ratio .

The best results I've heard of on an SR20 was using a HKS GT3037 in 52 compressor trim/.50AR TO4E comp cover and HKS's .73AR non gated T28 flanged GT30 style turbine housing . I think it came on boost at 2500 rpm and made around 400 ponies at the wheels of a Sentra SE/R . It could have been an old article from the American site Nissan Performance Magazine . By best I mean usable on the street , don't know about the front wheel drive though . O/T but its far far simpler , and cheaper , to fit a GT28RS on the GTiR exhaust manifold for ~ 300 at the wheels - assumes early high port head . Its what I'd do for a road car because larger turbos raise the state of tune enough to make them tiresome to live with .

Also the GTiR's quad throttle inlet system fits the early head . I'd do this because it fits in with the more flow and power for less boost . Factory engineering is hard to beat when they've developed homologation special performance bits .

Cheers A .

Hmm... Since the HKS T300 is rated at 450hp im not really sure anymore if it would be worthwhile upgrading to a new one, getting new piping etc made. The T300 started making boost from memory at 3300ish and full boost by around 4000-4200rpm, if possible i could get some input on modifying that.

I've gotten some measurements off it, but are unsure of the trim as i havent pulled the housings off it:

Compressor

a/r .60

Inducer 53mm

Turbine

a/r: .63

Exducer 57mm

Its also due for a service, as whoever owned it before didnt look after it, and has some shaft play, and has damage to the compressor wheel from running no air filter. So i guess my questions are:

If the turbo is rated at 450hp, tuned correctly and everything being normal, should it be making more than 270rwkw?

If it is at the limits of the turbo, when i change the cams/valvetrain apart from the usual power advantages, the rev limit can be raised from the 7300rpm its at now to 9000rpm. Will the current turbo have a boost drop and suffocate the engine at that high rpm?

Would say changing to a bigger exhaust housing fix that?

Cheers - i know this isnt skyline/RB related and might irritate some people, so thanks for the input

Lets see. 450hp = ~330kw flywheel style. So you would estimate around 270-280rwkw would be expected.

By putting a bigger exhaust housing you can probably pick up another 10rwkw but it really depends on whats holding you back. Is the compressor is at max flow or is the turbine choking the engine? Probably the former. Or both.

So, if the turbo is limiting the engine, raising the rev limit will do nothing. On the dyno you'd probably see the power just fall away as the revs rise past the power peak. If the turbo had more steam in her, the power would continue rising.

So yeah, you need a bigger turbo to reach your goals. A turbo rated at least 500hp to get comfortably over 300rwkw.

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

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...