Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Here you go guys, sorry the quality sucks, it's a crap camera. The 2nd one should be readable if u zoom in a bit.

I still can't get a squint at the ID tag on the turbo yet but I'll post up what it says on the invoice from GCG and maybe Discopotato or someone can work out which one it is.

Part number: XTRGTST-GT3071R

Description: Turbocharger - GT3071R w/ GTS-T T/Hsg

Serial: KB0103J

Hope that helps

post-35130-1193729089.jpg post-35130-1193728962.jpg

post-35130-1193728895.jpg

post-35130-1193729248_thumb.jpg

Edited by Zilch*
  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

zilch, just guessing based on the numbers given on your receipt, but does yours have a stock style turbine housing or a proper garrett internal gate housing? What about actuator and boost controller? It just seems to be coming onto boost fairly slowly.

Yes, it does look a little lazy to get going. The GT35 compressor does take some rpm to shift the air, so with a large-ish turbine A/R it's not that surprising.

By comparison, my hybrid 2871 with a much smaller turbine gets up and boogies early, looks like it shades the 3071 until about 4600rpm when it begins to trail behind and "only" makes 300hp between 5800 - 6300. Partly an issue of compressor flow, but high-end turbine efficiency has a big hand in that result too. So it's a case of trade offs and different driving experience no doubt. 13psi by 2800 rpm plays a big part there.

I think Steve's setup in comparison with mine would be a better thing for track use due to the free breathing top end.

geeze, im hoping to have 12 psi way before 3600 rpm...

LOL, if you are worried about that then you shouldn't be looking at up to and over 300kw @ wheel turbos :P On the road its really not as bad as it looks, if you think it looks bad.

Remember RB25s are WAY under turbo'd stock. 12psi at 3600rpm is better than a stock turbo'd RB26DETT will do, and the RB25 comes in a much lighter car - makes it that much more streetable. With a "laggy" .82a/r GT3071R or GT3076R you'd out accelerate a stock turbo'd GTR from low revs, then it will catch up because your tires want to liquify.

Edited by Lithium

Have to sleep, got gym in the morning but will ask many questions to all about on road performance, especially Zilch as I thought the 3071 .82 would spool faster. 3076 with .64 and larger waste gate ?

From what I've seen the XTR tag is an extra GCG put on them . The Garrett ID tag should still be on the other side of the bearing housing . I don't go with the KB numbers , I think they are some form of complete turbo assembly number and there isn't one for the real GT3071R because they market them as a cartridge to which the user options housing kits .

GTS-T T/Hsg . Does this mean your using an original RB25 Nissan Hitachi turbine housing ? If it does then you can forget Garretts maps because they test their turbos with their own native turbine housings .

My opinion only , THE only housings that work properly with Garretts GT turbines are the native family turbine housings . HKS housings mostly work a little better than Garretts the exception being the bored out GT28 housings for the cropped GT30 turbine .

Before I go Garrett have hinted that they are going to release to the public their TR30R competition turbos and in I think four variations of compressor and turbine . Most importantly these TR30R's use the NS111 family of turbine (like the GT2860RS does) but in 60mm instead of 54mm . I knew there was an NS111 60mm 76T turbine but the maps also show a 73T version as well . From memory the compressors are 60 and 76mm and you can read about them if you became a "Garrett Gearhead" member through their turbobygarrett website . If they decide to sell them with more production oriented turbine housings there's a good chance they may help get around the low end response issues of the 60mm 84T GT30 UHP turbine .

Should be available in the new year - maybe . Cheers A .

Dang, I'll try and find out all this info for you guys, unfortunately my trade is not mechanics or anything to remotely do with cars so I can't understand most of this stuff.

I agree that it looks a bit lazy but believe me when I say it doesn't feel lazy! :) I'm pretty happy with the current setup on the car and I'm looking forward to testing it on the track as soon as I learn to drive better :)

But yeh I'll look into it for you and answer as much as I can

Cheers Steve.

Dang, I'll try and find out all this info for you guys, unfortunately my trade is not mechanics or anything to remotely do with cars so I can't understand most of this stuff.

I agree that it looks a bit lazy but believe me when I say it doesn't feel lazy! :) I'm pretty happy with the current setup on the car and I'm looking forward to testing it on the track as soon as I learn to drive better :)

But yeh I'll look into it for you and answer as much as I can

Cheers Steve.

I'd be happy with Steves response, i am at full boost just nearing 5000 with my gt30r with one hell of an exhaust housing i might add

Its a real pitty we don't have any real method of comparing the turbo's transient response which is where the GT3071 'should' shine over the GT3076.

Spool... I'm not surprised there's really no difference when on the dyno. If transient response is up you will notice the turbo makes boost easier with less throttle, low load gears feel as if the turbo spools once again easier/quicker.

Its a real pitty we don't have any real method of comparing the turbo's transient response which is where the GT3071 'should' shine over the GT3076.

Spool... I'm not surprised there's really no difference when on the dyno. If transient response is up you will notice the turbo makes boost easier with less throttle, low load gears feel as if the turbo spools once again easier/quicker.

Agreed. I did expect a better threshold (mine almost looks better) from the GT3071R but still on the road the 71R should feel better. Same with GT3076R vs GT3582R, the lag doesn't SEEM hugely different but GT35Rs start feeling quite weak on RB25s - you need to really give them some beans to get going.

I just got my 3071R from GCG and i was surprised to find the part number doesnt match anything from here.

GCG put their tag on it which states the P/N as GT3071R where as on the Garret tag it says

KF 0113J

GT2835R

700382-20

I asked for a GT3071R with T3 WG housing and the 60mm uncropped rear wheel... so what did i get?

Compressor 71mm GT35, 56T

Turbine 56.5mm, 90T

The number you have there is a Garrett part #, rather than the CHRA which should be 700177-5004 on the above specs.

GCG no doubt put their own tag on as a supplementary to help with tracking units in the field.

The cartridge with the uncropped 60mm turbine rotor comes as only that - a cartridge (CHRA) to which the housings are added. The number off that unit is 700177-5023.

I'll back it in you won't have a bad unit, so long as it's matched to the application and power range. It's only a pity you didn't get exactly what you asked for.

Any housing A/R available, and/or pics please?

They have buggered up.

http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarre...R_700382_20.htm

The 700382-20 uses the 56.5mm 'cropped' 90trim turbine wheel. >_<

Its not what you asked for so by rights they have to exchange it.

The turbo you want has the CHRA of 700177-23

With the 700177-23 (GT3071r 60mm turbine wheel) you have the option of a 2.75" inlet comp cover or a 4" inlet comp cover. Both are a .5 a/r.

Then the turbine; obviously the new Garrett style IW housing with the larger flapper; the letter M is on the end of the turbine housings part number.

I'm unsure if GCG import directly from Garrett USA or get all their gear from AUS garrett. If they get it from AUS garrett then they will have access to the M larger IW housings. If not.. I don't believe Garrett USA does them yet.

Basically all Garrett AUS do is machine and stick in a larger flapper; the additional cost is ~$100 more vs ~$300 if you were to get the local turbo shop to do the mod.

physically measure the turbine

quick edit. I was actually in there today buying assorted crap to get my car back on the road and had a look at the turbo catalogue sitting on the front desk, only cropped 3071's shown....

Edited by BHDave

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...