Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I got a GT3540 with a 1.06 rear on my car, and ive got a GT3040 with .82 rear.

I was wondering if i was able to use the 1.06 rear and put it on the GT3040 ? what would this achieve compared to the .82 that came with the 3040 ?

I am looking to downgrade the power, the 3040 will go a little tooo low, probly about 280rwkw with the 1.06 this would go up to about 300ish ? or not work at all?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/266043-question-for-the-turbino-gurus/
Share on other sites

I got a GT3540 with a 1.06 rear on my car, and ive got a GT3040 with .82 rear.

I was wondering if i was able to use the 1.06 rear and put it on the GT3040 ? what would this achieve compared to the .82 that came with the 3040 ?

I am looking to downgrade the power, the 3040 will go a little tooo low, probly about 280rwkw with the 1.06 this would go up to about 300ish ? or not work at all?

i reckon you will make more than 280rwkw with the GT3040. you should exceed 300rwkw with the 0.82

no, the turbine housing from the GT35 won't fit.

Edited by wolverine
Sadly no , the GT35's turbine diameter is ~ 68mm where the GT30 is around 60mm .

I always wanted to know how a GT3076R with a 1.06 AR turbine housing on an RB30 DOHC would go but I can't talk Cubes into it ...

A .

what happens if i try it? will it be very laggy and not work ?

what happens if i try it? will it be very laggy and not work ?

Basically. Their will be a gap between the turbine wheel and the exhaust housing. If would sping super slowly and with out much force if at all.

Why don't you just change to a .82a/r GT3582R housing? They are a fair bit less laggy than a 1.06 and the 1.06a/r GT30 housing on a GT3082R has about the same amount of exhaust flow as a .82a/r GT35R but you have less matched wheels. ie, you'll probably have a nicer drive on a .82a/r GT35R than a 1.06a/r GT3082R.

In the old days of T04B's, to hi-flow them, the turbines were machined back. This ranged from trimming the tips to machining the whole wheel back.

In a modern turbo, the clearance between the wheel and the housing act as a seal to help spin the turbo up early in the rev range.

I would think that the 3040 with a turbine that is that big would be a slug. but once it come onto boost, it would have awesome topend power.. I would think that it would actually make boost. but it would come on rather slow at first.. and be kinda spongy.

my 2c anyways

Maybe it's just me, but I've only ever heard of a turbine wheel being "clipped" on the top or crown i.e. the surface that faces you when you look into the turbo's pooper, not around the edges. In effect, you make the turbine wheel "shorter".

Those petrol spec GT UHP turbines (GT30 and GT35BB) have quite thin section blades particularly towards their outer extremities to help keep inertia down .

This is a lot of the reason why they are easily damaged if anything goes through them .

I don't know how you'd go trying to alter the profile of the blades , if you did it would probably have to be some kind of grinding operation and its probably more trouble than its worth .

Older T series turbines were a lot more rigid in their blades so can possibly be attacked with a tool and cutter grinder .

I always felt that you can get stuck between a rock and a hard place with those GT3040R's/GT3082R's (same thing) . They are really a GT30 hot side with an 82mm GT40 hot side and arguably the match is a bit squiff . They can be cheaper and more plentiful than either a GT3076R or a GT3582R and I could never work out why .

I do know that HKS had a Garrett make a slightly different version of the GT3040R/GT3082R , their spec had the 82mm GT40 compressor in 50 rather than 56 trim so no doubt they had issues using the larger trim compressor .

I guess all you can do with those two is to use smaller ratio turbine housings and if they surge modify the comp housings to have a ported shroud .

Another option would be to swap someone with a GT3076R that wants your larger turbo .

Cheers A .

I want to play with what i have got, and i got a 3040 and a 3540

OK sweet as, was unsure as to how much effort you wanted to put into it - as you can't mix and match the parts between the two turbos your only other option is to just use the .82a/r GT3082R for reasons others have already outlined. It won't exactly be gutless, and will make a reasonable amount of power.

For what its worth EVERYONE I know who have had GT3082R have not stayed with them for long and moved on to a GT3582R and have been happier with them, the main thing I think which leans towards a better daily drive is at least its not a 1.06a/r housing like your GT35R.

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...