Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Just was looking at the Garrett website and noticed they have put up some new part numbers!

GTX3071R_GT3071R_overlap.jpg

GTX3076R_GT3076R_overlap.jpg

GTX3582R_GT3582R_overlap.jpg

Wonder what pricing will be?!?

Those compressor maps look impressive for big boost and power (should go great with E85!)

Edited by SimonR32
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/344089-garrett-medium-frame-gtx-turbos/
Share on other sites

Oooo the 3071 looks brilliant in terms of a good RB25 upgrade/stock motor

GT3076 is very interesting too.

GT35 just gets fatter, almost 10lb/min :dry:

That would be a very good upgrade.

But indeed... all comes down to the price lol.

Interesting if they get some 2860 graphs up.

Found this interesting bit of text on a website selling these turbos.

"This is the new Billet version of the previous Garrett GT3076R model.This Dual Ball Bearing turbo has an Oil & Water Cooled center cartridge. This turbocharger is on track to replaced the older GT3582R model as the most popular mid sized turbo on the market. The original GT3076R paved the way for many performance enthusiasts earning its place as the best all around turbo out there for most peoples needs. The new GTX3076R makes more power, spools faster, and is all around better than the GT3076R."

http://realstreetperformance.com/store/57m...turbo-2009.html

So does this mean that your basically in a gtx3071r youll be getting more power than a 3076 and less lag and with the gtx 3076r youll be getting power like a 3582 with the response of a 3076?

So does this mean that your basically in a gtx3071r youll be getting more power than a 3076 and less lag and with the gtx 3076r youll be getting power like a 3582 with the response of a 3076?

as far as the comp maps show there it will be very close, the gtx3071 map is almost spot on the normal 3076 so they will make similar power but the normal 3582 map still flows a few more pounds/Min more than the GTX3076

as far as the comp maps show there it will be very close, the gtx3071 map is almost spot on the normal 3076 so they will make similar power but the normal 3582 map still flows a few more pounds/Min more than the GTX3076

Well aslong as gtx3076 makes more power than before without added lag then I think I found my next 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

    • I'm going to slap an old nismo logo sticker on my spare one and sell it to the land of the free for a thousand bucks
    • lol, probably should have read further!
    • Well - they have arrived.  And they are easy on the eye to put it mildly... These only have three bolts - but for a start there is a key that fits with vacuum like precision..  And as you can see by my ruler, the interface is large..   I listened to a podcast on HP Academy about Dan (KiwiCNC) and I'm more than comfortable he knows what he is doing. R35 Bearing assembly should arrive later today so can mock that up for a look. Can't wait to get these on and get some brake pressure logging too. IMG_3860.MP4
    • I would be very confident that they are the same parts (the 2 different SKUs). It seems very clear that you can drop the cam in the 2-way opening, or in the other opening. If you arrange it in the other opening in the same way that you see any other 1-way diff, ie, with the flat of the cam up against the 1° side of the opening, then it would work as a 1-way. It can only spread the ramps when driving forwards - cannot spread the ramps on overrun. It would then appear obvious that if you put the cam into the opening "backwards", that you would get the angled flats of the cam working onto the "points" of the 1° side of the opening, which would give you ramp spread in both loading directions. I do wonder if the forward direction of the 1.5-way config is equivalent to the forward direction of the 2-way, seeing as the cams are flipped and the angled surfaces on those would need to be the same on each side - AND - clearly when installed in either the 2-way or 1-1ay configuration they are not intended to work exactly the same (the ramp angles on the 2-way are 10° different between forward and backward, and the ramp doesn't exist in the 1-way config). 'twere me, I think I would rather actually have a set of rings that offered the 2-way with two different sets of ramp angles, say the 55/45 of the existing design and maybe a 45/37.5 combo for a less aggressive effect), AND another set of rings with a dedicated 1.5-way opening and a dedicated 1-way opening. The 1.5-way opening would actually have the steeper angle on the overdrive side that causes it to be less pushy than the forward drive angle, like you see in many other diffs. But really - if this Nismo thing is thought out properly and all those surfaces work on each other the way that they need to, who am I to argue?
    • I would be very confident that they are the same parts (the 2 different SKUs). It seems very clear that you can drop the cam in the 2-way opening, or in the other opening. If you arrange it in the other opening in the same way that you see any other 1-way diff, ie, with the flat of the cam up against the 1° side of the opening, then it would work as a 1-way. It can only spread the ramps when driving forwards - cannot spread the ramps on overrun. It would then appear obvious that if you put the cam into the opening "backwards", that you would get the angled flats of the cam working onto the "points" of the 1° side of the opening, which would give you ramp spread in both loading directions. I do wonder if the forward direction of the 1.5-way config is equivalent to the forward direction of the 2-way, seeing as the cams are flipped and the angled surfaces on those would need to be the same on each side - AND - clearly when installed in either the 2-way or 1-1ay configuration they are not intended to work exactly the same (the ramp angles on the 2-way are 10° different between forward and backward, and the ramp doesn't exist in the 1-way config). 'twere me, I think I would rather actually have a set of rings that offered the 2-way with two different sets of ramp angles, say the 55/45 of the existing design and maybe a 45/37.5 combo for a less aggressive effect), AND another set of rings with a dedicated 1.5-way opening and a dedicated 1-way opening. The 1.5-way opening would actually have the steeper angle on the overdrive side that causes it to be less pushy than the forward drive angle, like you see in many other diffs. But really - if this Nismo thing is thought out properly and all those surfaces work on each other the way that they need to, who am I to argue?
×
×
  • Create New...