Turbonetics Gtk Series

[phunky_monkey]

Wow, that really is the worst graph on an SR I can recall seeing for the GTK! Yikes...won't be entertaining that idea that's for sure.

Thanks for all the graphs and info Trent. I really thought the L2 would have run out of puff by then. So you'd recommend it over an 8cm T67 then, considering the extra capacity?

[STATUS]

Wow, that really is the worst graph on an SR I can recall seeing for the GTK! Yikes...won't be entertaining that idea that's for sure.

Thanks for all the graphs and info Trent. I really thought the L2 would have run out of puff by then. So you'd recommend it over an 8cm T67 then, considering the extra capacity?

not exactly, just saw some flaws in others comments on the L2, thought id clear it up.

My choice would be Hks gt3037s around the 0.73, or T67 8cm.

[phunky_monkey]

Any particular reason for the T67 over the L2 considering the power potential of the L2? Or is it a matter of a bigger gain without much tradeoff?

[Roy]

Come on fella, throw a TD06-20G on it then we can let the RB20 vs SR20 debate be fought out on the track!

[juggernaut1]

Any particular reason for the T67 over the L2 considering the power potential of the L2? Or is it a matter of a bigger gain without much tradeoff?

He's a blurb I found on the BWs200 vs T67...scroll down the link:

http://www.turbo-kits.com/s200_turbochargers.html

and dyno comparison

Edited October 17, 2009 by juggernaut1

[D_Stirls]

Hey Trent i have a question about using a TD06S-L2 20G on a RB25, I have found some graphs and they show that with the 8cm rear housing they choke the boost up top (Boost drops off from 25 PSI to 18psi). Do you have any suggestions on getting it to hold boost through to the redline.

I have also seen a graph of a T67 8cm and once again in the top end it was dropping off from 19psi to 14psi. It's weird because on the RB's the 8cm housing chokes them above 300kw but with the SR's they hold boost.

I know that they are a larger engine but flow is power so technically a 300kw RB will be flowing the same air as a 300kw SR so they should choke at the same power.

Also do you have any graphs of an L2 20G 10cm on a 25?

TD06S-L2 20G 8cm

Edited October 17, 2009 by D_Stirls

[STATUS]

Hey Trent i have a question about using a TD06S-L2 20G on a RB25, I have found some graphs and they show that with the 8cm rear housing they choke the boost up top (Boost drops off from 25 PSI to 18psi). Do you have any suggestions on getting it to hold boost through to the redline.

I have also seen a graph of a T67 8cm and once again in the top end it was dropping off from 19psi to 14psi. It's weird because on the RB's the 8cm housing chokes them above 300kw but with the SR's they hold boost.

I know that they are a larger engine but flow is power so technically a 300kw RB will be flowing the same air as a 300kw SR so they should choke at the same power.

Also do you have any graphs of an L2 20G 10cm on a 25?

TD06S-L2 20G 8cm

too small and never hold boost. The 10cm in not available in the L2 trim. We use the t67 8cm on some rb25's (decent mid) but they are restricted hevily up top, 10cm T67 is the go for rb25

[D_Stirls]

There is a company that is making Greddy copy versions of turbos that has designed a T3 10cm housing for the L2.

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi...e=STRK:MEWAX:IT

Looking at the Greddy turbo data sheet that was on the other page the inducer and exducer size is the same on the 06s-L2 and the T67.

EDIT!!

Sorry the data sheet was in another topic,

Here is it;

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/post-a251041-

I was thinking about extrude honing a 8cm housing to an in between size.

Edited October 17, 2009 by D_Stirls

[SRS13]

Have you seen these results?

This is an S15 engine with cams but a standard bottom end. That is the best result in terms of response I have seen from a 3071 turbo, 20psi@3600rpm and peak power of 285rwk@20psi. Throw another 4psi and it should hit 300rwk. You cant want much more than that!

Silvia NSW

[BoostdR]

We just finished building a rb28 with a GTK 850 and it is laaaaaagggy. We made more power and response with twin GTRS's(2871R) They are designed for huge boost. The turbine design gives the same impression. So I would pick the smallest you can to JUST achieve the power less your after.

My pick for an SR is a V band .63A/R GT2871R, external gate running 1.7bar. We made 299rwkw and very very little lag. Fantasticly broad power range.

For a rb25 3071R is the go.

I'm sure disco will say the same. and he knows....=)

Edited October 17, 2009 by BoostdR

[NYTSKY]

My friends RB25/30 will be getting tuned this Thursday. Has a GTK1000 strapped to it.

Built engine

Poncams

CR 9.5:1

E85

On its run in tune its making 11psi by 4200rpm however rev limit was capped at 5000rpm

Will post results soon.

[STATUS]

Have you seen these results?

This is an S15 engine with cams but a standard bottom end. That is the best result in terms of response I have seen from a 3071 turbo, 20psi@3600rpm and peak power of 285rwk@20psi. Throw another 4psi and it should hit 300rwk. You cant want much more than that!

Silvia NSW

i'll chasse some 3071 sheets too.

Edited October 18, 2009 by URAS

[discopotato03]

Ah , no . If you want 300 plus Kw the one to have IMO is a GT3037/GT3076R as URAS mentioned .

For whatever reasons the GT3071R has not really shaped up to be the GT3076R's little brother as in the 1000 revs lower boost threshold that a few mobs claimed when they first hit .

Without being blunt I think the original poster has to look at the final result rather than thinking that if I spend a big wad of cash I have to have a big maximum power number to justify it .

IMO there is more to be gained from properly sizing and tuning everything than the just 40-60 Kw more . Ideally you want the thing to be torquey/free revving/good throttle response/good turbine response/minimal restriction .

This is why I'd start with the quad throttle inlet system , Nissan did it to the GTR (6) and GTiR and they would not have bothered if there was nothing in it .

Also you don't want to confuse throttle response with turbine (turbo) response because they are two very different things .

What the individual throttles do is make for a rapid pressure rise in the inlet manifold (up towards atmospheric) which brings the dynamic or effective compression ratio up quickly too . When you have a single throttle/plenum manifold you have four cylinders all demanding air from the one source so the pressure and dynamic CR transients will not be as fast .

ITB's also allow you to run warmer cams than the single throttle ones and not get the reversion or hot cam cranky spluttering nonsense . I know that cam profiles and compression ratios are set for a reason but go look at std cam specs for say an S13 SR20DET and a GTiR SR20DET , ditto R33 RB25DET and RB26DETT .

Geoff Raicer has worked with quite a few different manufacturers toys but I think the faves might be Nissan Mitsy and Subaru . You obviously know he does tasty bits for SR20DETs so you could do worse than to explain exactly what you want to do and ask him how he'd go about it . He'd know what spec engines he's had his exhaust manifolds on so he should be able to give you his personal findings .

At this point in time I know he has been building manifolds to take the current Mitsy Evolution 10 turbos and importantly Garretts upgrade twin scroll GT3076R turbo for the Evo 10's . It's not impossible that he'd think a TS manifold made to suit that turbo would work well . The only issue could be that there have been some teething problems with the Garrett/Mitsy TS integral waste gate turbine housing but when they fix it the theory is will cream every other single scroll GT3076R out there and not be laggy .

In the past some of the more successful GT3037 (satisfied) SR20 people in the US have used HKS's 0.73 A/R turbine housing (T28 flanged non gated thing) with good results . Garrett's T3 flanged GT30 turbine housings are either side of that A/R size at 0.63 and 0.82 , the largest 1.06 one would be too big IMO .

Again no offense but trying to compare a Silvia to say an Evo 6 is like comparing apples to cricket balls . The Evo has short diffs and close ratios big IC/TS turbo etc etc etc . There will be limits to how much power a Silvia can put to the tarmac and making much more than that would be an exercise in frustration I think .

Your calls , cheers A .

[phunky_monkey]

Totally understand what you're saying, and I do agree with you. I'm not just looking for a total power figure, but I do know whereabouts I want it to be. Adam in his RB25 Skyline track car doing the rounds here in vic puts comfortably more than 300rwkw's to the ground and I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to have a turbo setup with a nice linear response put down somewhere in the high 200's, even if it is after aero work and more suspension tuning. I simply want the potential and do not want to change setups again. I'm not chasing a power figure as such, but rather using it to define the size of turbo whose potential I will find acceptable.

I'm not going to be changing my inlet plenum anytime soon, so I'll see how it goes. My cars powerband with the stock capacity was acceptable before, but not perfect so I'm used to a car that operates in a high rpm powerband, but I also know I can get more power and better response with another setup. I do circuit sprints, not door to door racing, so the cut and thrust of traffic is not a concern.

Also, I'm already speaking with Geoff, and he recommended the 3071R setup after taking a look at my specs and considering my use for the car. We're also discussing the BW options and he's keeping me updated on progress with the new range. Geoff also liked the look of my CPC plenum, so we'll see. I'm just obtaining some quotes at the moment from the sales department.

Please don't see this as ignoring your advice, but I have a fair bit of experience with the car on road and track (have had it for 6 years) and different setups so am not throwing up pie in the sky options without taking into considerations the pro's and cons. I'm not someone saying I must have 300rwkw's because that will make me fast, so perhaps I'm not articulating well enough. I'm just considering all options to work with my existing engine setup and I guess this is why I have this thread in the first place!

Troy: May do mate! Bu I can't have your skill outshining my engine power...

Jugg: Thanks for that. Interesting reading and would be good to see a few more comparisons. BW is still a really big consideration, depending on when Geoff decides/is able to test out the smaller range of T3 divided. They're cheap too, which is an added bonus and the results thus far are pretty promising for the rest of the range.

BoostedR: Do you have a dyno sheet by any chance? And is that a full V-Band system (ie Tial exhaust housing), or just for the dump pipe?

SRS13: Yeah I have mate, and it's bloody impressive to say the least. I think I'd go the twin scroll version if I were changing manifolds as well though, just for the increased transient response. But it is an option if I were to just change my manifold now, and then move on to a 3071 down the track for cost purposes.

[badhairdave]

Please don't compare evos and silvias, it's insulting to those of us who can steer and modulate the throttle and brake.....

I'd be going a 3076 on your car phunky. Possibly look at reducing the duration on the cams while keeping high lift to promote better low-mid range as you have the big valves already to keep the top end flow. Go the TS housing and manifold if you feel that way inclined, on the plus side it'll soften the torque hit as the turbo gets going (though the 2.2 will do that a bit anyway by bringing it on in a more linear way) and make it a bit easier to drive out of corners.

[phunky_monkey]

Thanks for the advice Dave. I contemplated going the 264/272 setup and regret not doing it a bit now... But I may change to that if I'm not happy with it. Softening the torque hit with the TS is what I was thinking, as I think that part of the reason why I've always achieved quite good drive out of corners with little wheelspin is I'm using an old HKS T300 turbo which is not BB. The added lag induced could be a contributor... though I could be way off

[STATUS]

Thanks for the advice Dave. I contemplated going the 264/272 setup and regret not doing it a bit now... But I may change to that if I'm not happy with it. Softening the torque hit with the TS is what I was thinking, as I think that part of the reason why I've always achieved quite good drive out of corners with little wheelspin is I'm using an old HKS T300 turbo which is not BB. The added lag induced could be a contributor... though I could be way off

the T300 is a bit how-you-going when compared to the later stuff, i did a few t300 ca18's years ago and they definitely needed a fair peddle to get going

The 312rwkw l2 i posted the graphs for ran 264 inlet and 272 exhuast

[phunky_monkey]

Yeah, it's certainly not the most responsive of things but has held up pretty well for me thus far. I've been hanging to get i tuned with the 2.2 as we were only able to do a run in tune before the manifold gave way, but with that it was doing 225rwkw's at 14psi and was making 20rwkw's more at 3900rpm than it was with the 2l, and 20rwkw's more at 3200 despite the big cams. I'd like to find out what it's limit is, but some niggling problems have kept me from it so far.

I remember having Athid's 180 on the dyno and mine on the same day, and the curves were quite similar and power similar too. Interestingly I'm making 30rwkw's more at 3910rpm than the 312rwkw L2 dyno with the 264/172 combo, but Athid's S15 dyno creams it at the same RPM by around 30rwkw's!

[Roy]

I am with Dane on this one. No doubt Emo drivers are spoilt with ass tickling dildos, fish finders and electric tooth brushes doing all the stuff the rest of us require a little grey matter for. But at 260rwkws my car isnt challenged for traction at all. And only recently did i really get some decent suspension under my car.

i see no reason why a decent S13 chassis cannot handle 300rwkws. I am hoping to be up around 280-300rwkws by years end and still think with decent susp and tyres its not going to be as lively to drive as i had hoped. Adams R33 that was referred to was what i wanted my car to drive like, unfortuantely i wont have the extra 1oorwkws required for that sort of thrill seeking

[Lithium]

gtk on sr loll u sure it wasnt a civic?

If it was a VTEC engine running that turbo, it could have been more at the start and even more at the end The peaky thing is for when they don't have a turbo doubling (or more) its effective displacement

+1 for twin scroll GT3076R!

Edited October 19, 2009 by Lithium