Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys,

Seen a few threads on here but really just wanted some clarification from the experts and I know that the GT3076R is quite a popular upgrade for an rb25.

Looking at putting one on myself, but there's 2 different options.

Apparently Garrett released a GT3076R part no (774067-5001) and it has a T04S 4" bellmouth comp housing, specs below -

Turbo Family: GT30

Turbine Inducer: 60.0mm

Compressor Inducer: 55.0mm

Compressor Exducer: 76.0mm

Compressor A/R: 0.70

Turbine A/R: 0.82

Bearing Type: Ball Bearing

Bearing Cooling: Oil & Water

Pic listed on their site for this particular turbo -

photophp.jpg

And then there is the other Garrett option - GT3076R (aka HKS3037S) part no (700177-7)

Turbo Family: GT30

Turbine Inducer: 60.00mm

Compressor Inducer: 57.00mm

Compressor Exducer: 76.2mm

Compressor A/R: 0.60

Turbine A/R: 0.82

Bearing Type: Ball Bearing

Bearing Cooling: Oil & Water

post-9594-1163673630.jpg

Very slight variances apart from the 0.70 A/R compared to 0.60...

I can get the first one for around 1650, and the one with the anti surge (700177-7) comp housing for about $300.00 more..

Going a .82 ext gate option, has anyone tried the first one? and results?

Edited by evsr31

The part number for the port shrouded turbocharger one is 700382-12 , 700177-7 is its cartridge number - basically the center section with both end housings removed .

This is my opinion based on my research and hundreds of peoples findings all over .

The surge ported one has the more modern compressor wheel and is the same era technology as its turbine wheel . What people call the S wheel is a "T" series wheel designed to work with T era turbines .

That aside the cheaper one with the "S" compressor has a larger bulkier heavier compressor housing so it's a bit more difficult to package . If nothing else weight and bulk are best avoided where possible .

There are a lot of reasons why the surge ported GT3076R is the superior unit and there is a weeks worth of reading on this site just on these units .

It the cost was the only criteria you buy the cheaper one - and regret it ever after . $300 is a tidy sum of money but it's chicken feed compared to buying an inferior turbocharger and having to right the wrong . Those wise to the topic won't want to buy the inferior turbo no matter how new it is and the only cost recovery strategy is selling to a newbie or cost cutting to get rid of it . So lets just say you resell a now "used" turbo for several hundreds less than you paid for it and have to wear the cost of the new more exy better turbo .

So with the real GT3076R you get a better compressor wheel in a lighter more compact compressor housing AND you can use any of the available Garrett or HKS GT30 turbine housing sizes ranging from 0.61 A/R to 1.12 A/R and it shouldn't surge .

Search GT3076R and GT3037 and take note of people who have real world experience because they've been there done that .

I'm cooking up , if I can source the bits , a slight variation of the GT3076R which is all Garrett parts and no sneaky back yard BS . If you can wait a little while we'll see if it gives the desired results . If not buy the real GT3076R and know you have one of the better "GT30" family BB turbo options .

Over to you , cheers A .

Edited by discopotato03

Cheers mate, I was hoping that you would post in this thread. That has cleared up everything.

I will be going a .82 ext garrett housing, supporting mods (z32 afm, 600cc squirts, 38mm gate) and eventually cams to help with the lag issue that would probably be expected with the bigger .82 housing.

just to give you an idea my 3076 hits full boost (19psi) around 3600-3800 depending on load. may sound laggy but it really isnt once you drive it. down low i actually prefer it to the stock turbo. mynes on stock manifold with internal gate btw, so with a good manifold and external gate you should decent boost even earlier

I just bought myself this a few weeks ago.

32160820069_large.jpg

32160820071_large.jpg

Some people i have been speaking to in the SA section say that this turbo is too big for a RB25, and that it is going to be real laggy. But i wont really know for a few weeks till i have it installed. That is the 0.82 rear housing i think, it has it stamped inside somewhere.

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

I got mine on a few weeks ago, see's full boost around 4k rpm. It is running 15psi and the car is making 265rwkw, boost hits pretty hard....love it. As it is spooling sounds like a jet.

full boost at 4k sounds abit laggy

is it an internal gate

when i had the internal .73ar it was laggy but still full boost before then

with my external mine hits 18psi around 3200 - 3500 (.82ar) and thats with a .5 bar spring with the gain turned up on the EBC to crack at 14psi

so its way more responsive then the internal gate

I think it will get better still when I put in the 1 bar spring

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...