Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

specs

GT3071R garrett ball bearing turbo

comp housing

0.50a/r

inducer wheel diameter 53.1mm

exducer wheel diameter 71.0mm

trim 56

exhaust housing

0.64 a/r (mod 21u)

turbine wheel diameter 56.5mm

trim 84

Was told and I thought should make 260...but it isnt, thinking it would be better suited to a rb20

Edited by Arthur T3
exhaust housing

0.64 a/r (mod 21u)

turbine wheel diameter 56.5mm

trim 84

Was told and I thought should make 260...but it isnt

So what is it making - somewhere around 230-235?

Looks like you've got a milled (high flowed) OEM turbine housing. If so I think you'll find they're somewhat smaller than 0.63, but there is no marking on them to indicate. Might not be a good match with the rotor, can lead to a bit of choking and below expected outputs.

You might do well to consult with a turbo manufacturer/remanufacturer about housings - perhaps Hypergear can help out if that is the culprit.

yeah its making a solid 240..

and spoke to hypergear a while back who straight up recomended a bigger rear housing..

But for that amount of trouble Id consider just getting a better turbo..

might just run some e85 see what happens...I got no problems with the power ,thought it would be a tad more responsive for what it is really. And its kind of odd having a turbo that comes onto boost but doesnt really make alot more power than it did b4..It pulls hard but there's not that boost kick .Not to worry..I should stop complaining and just be happy its running again. ;)

its very tempting, I dont think there is any point trying to get anything more out of this one pretty much maxed out already..

And i could probably get the same power from a 2871 with far better response

I have a bad habit of jumping in the deep end, i did plenty of research after i bought it.. ;)

Edited by Arthur T3
It pulls hard but there's not that boost kick .Not to worry..I should stop complaining and just be happy its running again.

It helps to know what characteristics you want before you start. Some combinations are deceptively fast ie. cover ground quickly and don't feel it. Despite the power number, it might deliver the goods if you can directly compare with something else.

I'd be interested to see a dyno sheet, even if it only tells part of the story... :rofl:

and spoke to hypergear a while back who straight up recomended a bigger rear housing..

But for that amount of trouble Id consider just getting a better turbo..

Well you've already asked someone who is a specialist in the field. I wouldn't think that a housing upgrade would cost the earth, and if it stops the thing choking up high then trialling it would be worthwhile. You may also find that any loss of response is academic when you look at the entire picture.

its very tempting, I dont think there is any point trying to get anything more out of this one pretty much maxed out already..

And i could probably get the same power from a 2871 with far better response

You might be surprised what a bigger turbine housing will do, and the extra ignition timing that it allows you to run. If you went with a -32 spec 2871 all you would get is a smaller turbine rotor with the same sized compressor :P FWIW, I found a -31 spec (ie 48 trim) GT2871 high flow very good, progressive and fast with 225rwkW. Never looked fast but it really covered ground nicely for a road car.

Edited by Dale FZ1

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 came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...