Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys,

I have query about the 3076 that I was sent. I am certain that I requested one with the usual 4inch anti surge, 6 fin compressor wheel with the .60 A/R housing, however I was sent the one in the image below.

It has the 7 fin inlet wheel (T04 wheel I think?) and .70 A/R compressor housing with a 4" inlet.

The exhaust housing is spot on and is the usual .82 that most of you guys seem to use.

post-59604-0-13352600-1315456144_thumb.jpg

My question is if I decided to use this turbo how much worse off would the response be compared to the newer style 3076 with the 4" anti surge and 6 fin wheel?

Is anyone running one like this and what sort of power do you make?

Couldn't find any info in other threads regarding how much power people are making with this turbo with this front housing.

Cheers

post-59604-0-13352600-1315456144_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/376583-gt3076-query/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

that will still make very similar power to the other version, there isnt much difference in them power wise

Thanks Titan.

What about response wise is there much difference?

Another thing will this turbo fit ok between the standard manifold and wheel arch / tower. I have the 10mm spacer. Reason I ask is because of the size difference in the A/R compressor housing size and it looks like It might cut it close..

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/376583-gt3076-query/#findComment-6006186
Share on other sites

Personally I would return that 7 blade version and get the proper 6 blade version with the 4" ported comp cover...thats what you ordered and thats what you should get...there is some material on here about how the 7 blade versions are inferior...discopotatoe is the guy to speak to...hopefully he'll chime in...

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/376583-gt3076-query/#findComment-6006273
Share on other sites

Titan is 100% wrong.

I had one, and it made 240rwkw. Maxed. Mater meth, and it made 250rwkw.

Then I got a real gt3076r, 6 blades, surge slots, etc, made 300rwkw. Attached water meth and made 320rwkw.

All on a 0.63 rear housing. Full boost by 3200rpm in 4th. Made 720nm and held that to the limiter.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/376583-gt3076-query/#findComment-6006411
Share on other sites

Ye the 7-blade one is not the one you want. Bad and nasty performance for what should be the same price for a proper 6-blade.

I actually thought they'd stopped making them in that option given the choices of 3076s out now with various trims etc.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/376583-gt3076-query/#findComment-6006438
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replys guys.

I have contacted them asking to change it to the correct .60 A/R housing. Will have to wait and see what happens.

Dude, you want a whole new turbo with the 6 blades. Not just the cover.

Ask them for the GT3037. Or CHRA 700177-5007

It looks like the one in my avatar.

Edited by The Mafia
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/376583-gt3076-query/#findComment-6007050
Share on other sites

Yes as Mr Mafia said get the real one which was and still is a HKS spec turbo , only sold through Garrett as well .

The real ones Garrett part number is 700382-10 using cartridge number 700177-7 .

Do it once do it right and think seriously about what he said about the 0.63 A/R turbine housing if lag troubles you at all .

A .

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/376583-gt3076-query/#findComment-6007100
Share on other sites

I had that issue in NZ back when I was trying to get a GT3076R for my car, all the local outfits kept telling me either its pretty much the same or that it was actually the one I wanted - I had to order from the states to get what I wanted in the end. There is definitely a pretty noticeable difference between the two, using this version would be regrettable.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/376583-gt3076-query/#findComment-6007235
Share on other sites

Dude, you want a whole new turbo with the 6 blades. Not just the cover.

Ask them for the GT3037. Or CHRA 700177-5007

It looks like the one in my avatar.

Thats what I told him mate. And now he is going to exchange the entire turbo (1 with the proper 6 fin and .60 A/R) so it should all be fine.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/376583-gt3076-query/#findComment-6007661
Share on other sites

Yes as Mr Mafia said get the real one which was and still is a HKS spec turbo , only sold through Garrett as well .

The real ones Garrett part number is 700382-10 using cartridge number 700177-7 .

Do it once do it right and think seriously about what he said about the 0.63 A/R turbine housing if lag troubles you at all .

A .

Thanks Disco.

I was wanting to still use the .82 housing, my mate has that housing on his 3076 and the lag on that doesn't trouble me at all, so I will stick with that.

And I would have to stick with the Garrett as thats all I can get a replacement for.

What is the difference between the 700382-12 (700382-5012) and 700382-10 (700382-5010) products? Is one 52trim and one 56trim? is there any difference?

Cheers

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/376583-gt3076-query/#findComment-6007716
Share on other sites

Do it once do it right and think seriously about what he said about the 0.63 A/R turbine housing if lag troubles you at all .

I don't know what reasoning you have for that, but its not the best recommendation you've made imho - especially after having had both myself. The .82 only loses any noticeable amount of go below 3000rpm, where isn't a place RB25s are "about" anyway. Above there the .82a/r feels nicer, is nicer on the engine (Mafia needed WMI to suppress detonation, I and others have battled boost creep with .63s) and naturally is capable of more power.

I never looked back from upgrading from the .63 to the .82 - though again the OP has obviously also experienced a "real" 56T with .82a/r hotside and knows how nice a setup they are to drive.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/376583-gt3076-query/#findComment-6007757
Share on other sites

I don't know what reasoning you have for that, but its not the best recommendation you've made imho - especially after having had both myself. The .82 only loses any noticeable amount of go below 3000rpm, where isn't a place RB25s are "about" anyway. Above there the .82a/r feels nicer, is nicer on the engine (Mafia needed WMI to suppress detonation, I and others have battled boost creep with .63s) and naturally is capable of more power.

I never looked back from upgrading from the .63 to the .82 - though again the OP has obviously also experienced a "real" 56T with .82a/r hotside and knows how nice a setup they are to drive.

I just sent the incorrect turbo back to them and told them I want the real 56T one which had the part number 700382-5012

I also told them to stick with the .82 rear housing. I wanted to keep the .82 housing as it has the potential of more power if I desire it.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/376583-gt3076-query/#findComment-6008036
Share on other sites

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...