Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

The response won't change much, if anything was going to improve it'll build more aggressively from 10psi up to full boost from 3000ish rpm - thats what I found with mine. Did you ever post your dyno plot from Status?

The response won't change much, if anything was going to improve it'll build more aggressively from 10psi up to full boost from 3000ish rpm - thats what I found with mine. Did you ever post your dyno plot from Status?

Hmmm. Interesting. No I didn't.

Any thoughts on changing to a .63 hotside.

With a .63 you would need a large external to bypass enough exhaust or you wont make the power. Its too small imo which would cause massive pressure to build in the manifold and less energy to spin the turbine. I would say .82 is perfect for the GTX3076, if not the 1.06. You have another issue I think.

Want to swap? I have the GTX3071 and want to upgrade... :)

Any thoughts on changing to a .63 hotside.

On a GTX3076R? No way. If its laggier than you want to live with, and you can't find anything wrong persay - I'd say you're better off changing the whole turbo. How much are you willing to spend to get it right?

On a GTX3076R? No way. If its laggier than you want to live with, and you can't find anything wrong persay - I'd say you're better off changing the whole turbo. How much are you willing to spend to get it right?

I may have the option to.change fairly cost.effectively. why?

Yep, if I can offload this setup as a kit with a .82 Tial rear I will upgrade to the GTX3076, keep the 1.06 rear and make another set of pipes/adapters up. I have a fair bit of interest already for kits if I want to jig them up but i'm not set up for production runs.

I have been giving the 71 a hiding to iron out any issues it may have long term. The only problem found so far is the V-band didn't hold tight and allowed the turbo to twist, rubbing the compressor housing on the chassis rail around corners. I tightened it right up this time but if it moves again I might just weld the adapters onto the rear housing.

  • 1 month later...

Anyone fitted a GTX35 to a 3L capacity RB yet? If so how does it compare to a regular GT35? I'm trying to toss up whether its worth spending the extra $500 - $600 on the GTX

Currently running a .96 T04Z on my single cammer and not overly impressed with the repsonse. Without the transbrake its pretty much useless at the track. I certainly regret selling the 1.06 GT35 I previously had on the motor

Edited by PSI086

Why? An old school GT35 is cheaper and there is no evidence that the 76mm GTX wheel is any better.

I meant more appropriate than a gtx35 if he was set on a gtx turbo.

Edited by Rolls

Aiming for a minimum of 320rwkw on 98 through the auto and big converter. Previously made 321rwkw and ran 10.7 @ 127mph with my old GT35 set up. The GTX30 would be too small on the 3L I reacon. I'd eventually like to screw about 30psi into it with an E85 tune. Theres guys making close to 400rwkw with a GT35 so is the GTX going to be that much better?

I meant more appropriate than a gtx35 if he was set on a gtx turbo.

To small for a Rb30, even with a very conservative cam grind Rb30's swallow a f**k load more air than a pissy Rb25

cheers

darren

Edited by jet_r31

Aiming for a minimum of 320rwkw on 98 through the auto and big converter. Previously made 321rwkw and ran 10.7 @ 127mph with my old GT35 set up. The GTX30 would be too small on the 3L I reacon. I'd eventually like to screw about 30psi into it with an E85 tune. Theres guys making close to 400rwkw with a GT35 so is the GTX going to be that much better?

Ryan,

Being your not short of a dollar, you could buy the gtx35 and show some real world results in comparison to the g35

( insert smiley emoticon here : ). , damn I phone)

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...