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

    • 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...