Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi all , hearing good things about the T3 flanged split pulsed turbine housing ATP sells as an option for GT3071R turbos . In the US some work is being done on larger A/R versions of this housing that should better suit the GT3076R type turbos . The aim is to have better response with less exhaust restriction so should have more torque at lower revs and boost pressure . The down side is that it means external wastegates with two being better than one .

I'm trying to find out more about the larger ratio housings which sound like .82 and 1.06 , ATP's is .78 so not really enough for a GT3076R to pulse properly and not choke up . Also will look around to see who has the most compact external wastegates .

Cheers A .

do you have a link where anyone has done a direct comparison with say a .63 vs the .78 twin scroll?

I've looked at it a few times and wondered how it would perform on my hks manifold with a 56 trim 3071

No and those looking at this stuff are in the US and working with SR20DET's and KA24DE+T's . Not the same as an RB six but I like to look at things from an individual cylinder capacity point of view .

Jeff Raicer who posts here occasionally has put a lot of effort into micky mouse split pulse exhaust manifolds and twin scroll turbos and says he can get big turbos to spool more like smaller ones do with single entry turbine housings . I'd say it has a lot to do with getting the most advantage from the exhaust gas energy innitially ie when the valves first crack open into an area of low restriction and reasonably low pressure . So hopefully low restriction and best energy gain by the turbine so least pumping losses/reversion and more ignition timing to make the most efficient use of the charge air and fuel .

You can find him at FullRace.com and there is a forum there .

Cheers A .

Edited by discopotato03

There are some good reads on the net about this stuff . Search PDX Tuning Results with GT32 Turbokit and APS twin scroll rotated mount turbo system model designation TSR 70 . There's a lot of wading through the dross on this 2nd one , APS has made a split pulsed manifold kit and sells a GT3582R (with fancy drilled port shrouded comp housing like the TO4Z at ATP's site) with a petrol material spec (read high temp capable) twin entry .82 A/R T3 flanged Garrett turbine housing and 3.5" V band outlet) as part of the kit . It uses a single TiAL external gate fed by twin pipes sort of like the pic in the last post . If you don't have half an hour to read through it they're hinting that it spools up ~ 400 odd rpm sooner than a normal GT35 .82 turbine housing - on an EJ25 anyway .

More later cheers A .

post-9594-1172301981.jpg

Edited by discopotato03

i too would be keen to know what kind of gains can be had converting to the twin entry turbine housing.

after all a gt30r on a rb20 isnt exactly the fastest spooling thing in the world and the hks cast manifold is already setup for twin entry...

Hi Carl , there is not as much out there in the way of T3 flanged twin entry housings for GT30BB turbos as I had hoped .

A couple of interesting things though . First Garrett have had for ages a series of GT bush bearing turbos called GT32 ie GT3267 and GT3271 . They use either a .69 or a .78 A/R turbine housing with 70 or 73 trim turbines . They are reasonably cheap and not a bad thing for approx 350+ wheel Hp .

Secondly ATP in the States appears to be machining these housings to fit the real GT3071R turbo in .78 A/R . You really need a larger A/R version of this housing for a GT3076R and while there's a few different types out there I dont have their details . I've been looking into TA/TB34 housings but nothing screaming eureka yet .

With your RB20 I don't know where to go with a GT3076R , they are not easy to excite with an RB25 and single entry housings (not without small turbine housings anyway) . The smallest propper housing I know of for that turbo is the HKS .61 A/R and it is non gated and T28 flange . You could try ATPs divided housings but its a lot of stuffing around plus an external gate and still may not get you what you want . Selling the GT30 and buying a GT28 based turbo like a 2530 may be a better solution .

Your call .

wouldnt you need a suitable split pulse manifold to actually benefit from the twin scroll design? or there is some gains to be had from just twin scroll and if you can run split pulse (sr20) then its even better?

split pulse manifold and split pulse housing (all else being equal) is always better than open collector and open housing. less turbulence at the gas merge, less chance of a cylinder's exhaust valve being caught open when another one is pulsing as well (so less pressure spike variations across all cylinder's exhaust runners = lower average backpressure when the valve is open).

i would only go an open collector if it was significantly cheaper, or there was no other choice. manifold must be split pulse as well though.

well ive already got the gt3076r mounted onto a hks cast manifold with an external gate...so that really isnt a problem.

im currently running the .63 ar 't' 2.5" outlet and it comes on full song round 4.1k give or take.

would the divided entry help in spool time some, i dont want to plunk down the coin only to have a slower spooling turbo.

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...