Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi all... i have conducted a TRUE comparison between the two turbos thanks to Sonic Performance and Garage 7. By true comparison i mean the only thing changed was the turbo. nothing else was touched. The result was suprising and disappointing both at the same time. We found that the GTX version DID spool quicker and hence started making torque and power earlier in the midrange. i now have FULL boost around the 3500 rpm mark which for a turbo like that is impressive. Its highly streetable!

The downside is that for the same boost level peak power is changed by .1 of a kw! its pretty much lineball! the two turbos match each other on the graph pretty much spot on.

runs were done with air temp probe and same correction mode and dyno that STatus uses for real world comparison.

Heres the pics.

Solid pink line is GTX, thin red line is GT.

p1020473s.jpg

p1020471v.jpg

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Question:, is running the GTX at the same boost pressure as the other turbo a true 'fair' comparison? I mean... for example if your comparing a gt2871 with a gt4088 you don't leave them at the same boost.

It's interesting to see it ramp hard @ 3500rpm.

And then @ 4000rpm the GTX suddenly stops making power almost as if it's hitting surge. Was that just a case of the tune?

(ie back to back test, no tune adjust?)

Also interesting that its more responsive when other results all seem to show the opposite thus far.

Question:, is running the GTX at the same boost pressure as the other turbo a true 'fair' comparison? I mean... for example if your comparing a gt2871 with a gt4088 you don't leave them at the same boost.

what do you want me to do? run less or more boost?

i feel same boost level should give a truer comparison yes?

Lithium: no tuning.. was just run up. Declan ran out of time on the dyno but the AFR's were the same as before so its still fine.

It's interesting to see it ramp hard @ 3500rpm.

And then @ 4000rpm the GTX suddenly stops making power almost as if it's hitting surge. Was that just a case of the tune?

(ie back to back test, no tune adjust?)

Also interesting that its more responsive when other results all seem to show the opposite thus far.

yeah it probably needs a degree or two added in one part of the map to bring it back inline. this could be due to different airflow charactoristics of the two turbos.

i have seen other peoples results.. but they often have changed other things in their set ups which couldn potentially cause issues. as i said mine is a back to back. use the info as you please.

If the new turbo can flow more than the old one then potentially without raising the boost and/or adjusting the tune to maximize the new found goodness then potentially not really telling of the real difference. That result suggests to me the old turbo had more on it too...

If it didnt nose over hard, it would be looking to pickup a solid ~40kw @ 4500rpm.

Now that would be very interesting indeed.

Good to see a 18psi comparo too where most comparo's have been on 20-24psi for the most part.

Perhaps with more boost the differential between the two would be more noticeable.

Its a good comparison in that most cars are probably only going to run around this level of boost but this result is exactly what I would expect - apart from earlier spool. If you had of reved it to 7500rpm you may have actually seen some results.

I just dont know why you guys are so dissapointed - you only need to compare the compressor maps to see that there are f**k all gains unless your running around 2bar of boost with the gtx.

PS what type of engine management?

Been waiting for this.....the next step is to tune/map for the GTX but don't lift the boost. I reckon the ramp up will likely maintain its margin over the GT a bit better throughout the rev range . But I have a sneaking suspicion that the peak power [for 18psi] will be very similar.

But the GTX would be a lively package on the street, an extra 30rwkw at 3500!!! I'm almost tempted to sell my GT and try one [but I have other plans involving a dirty 30, so this challenge is not for me].

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...