Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Anyone considered the new GTX3576 for an RB ?

http://www.atpturbo.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TP&Product_Code=GRT-TBO-185&Category_Code=

Reported to have same boost response of a 3076 with more power of a 3076 as per post 33 of this thread link who is a Garrett employee.

http://www.nissanroadracing.com/showthread.php?t=3241&page=4

The gtx3076 can't match a gt3076 for response I can't see the gtx3576 matching it

Might have misguided you with my previous post ...to clarify..... .the GTX3576 is reported to match the GTX3076 for boost response and make more power.

Edited by juggernaut1
Might have misguided you with my previous post ...to clarify..... .the GTX3576 is reported to match the GTX3076 for boost response and make more power.

This doesn't surprise me too much, the GTX3076R seems to behave like a GT3082R - in response and power from what I've seen and people I know have gone from GT3082Rs to GT3582Rs and been surprised and pleased to report the response is no worse, but they get more power.

Imho this renders the GTX3076R and GTX3576R redundant when there are cheaper alternatives in the form of the GT3082R and GT3582R, respectively.

No straight up comparisons which I have heard of tbh, but so far FP GT3076R have made the highest power I've heard of from GT30-based turbos and they also spool better than the vanilla GT3076Rs so I'm already sold that the FP unit is the better option, given they're clearly both going to be limited by the GT30 hotside and the GTX seem to struggle to match the GT for spool/response.

  • 3 months later...

I have been looking to upgrade the GTX3071 and cant find many reviews on the new GTX3576, it seems to be the best compromise for the new compressor's efficiency.

Hopefully I can find one of the new split Vband inlet turbine housings in GT35 size when they get released in around 2-3 months. Check out the Sema clip for the new housing i'm looking at. No word from Garrett yet as to what turbo's it will fit, it seems to be installed on a GTX28...

Divided t3 internal gate gtx2867 on an RB25 would be epic for a quick streeter

Those red turbine hosuings look like wax/plastic rather than Iron

I agree, it would almost mimic the stock turbo's boost curve and then just keep going. I would guess over 300kw on e85 if the housing flows well enough.

The housings haven't been released yet so you are right, they would be plastic pre-production models. By the look of the wall thickness it will be made of investment cast stainless. I just hope they make them for other turbo sizes...

ROFL @ sensible.

Any in any case, if you put 2 twin scroll turbos on an RB you have a '3s a crowd' situation X 2.

That being said, we will all have to go VK56s in tube frame front ends. There, I fixed it.

My gut feeking is that Garrett have a bit too much compressor capacity in a "GTX3076R" and their partial fix is to use a GT35 turbine with the "76X" wheel to get GT3582R type performance .

Time will tell if the GTX3071R becomes the replacement for the GT3076R 56T .

^ Agreed, I have to say I called the GTX3076R pointlessness ages ago - before they even showed up on cars.

GTX3576R sounds like it makes more sense, though I'd rather just use something already on the market that already spools and responds better than a normal GT3582R but makes way more power as well (GT3582R HTA).

The GTX3071R haven't yet done anything which make me feel like they have made the GT3076R redundant that I have seen yet.

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...