Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

You post the most retarded shit on these forums, as soon as i see your oversized signature picture i sigh

Yeah yeah and you cant drive for shit. :yes: also I didnt say all billet wheels are heavier then the std and also they do spool slower in most cases.

Edited by 51NNA
also I didnt say all billet wheels are heavier then the std and also they do spool slower in most cases.

Actually you said:

Billet wheels spool slower because there heavier.

So yeah, you basically said "there" heavier as an explanation of why they spool slower. Best favour you could do yourself is stop talking, at least until you've tried to understand what you're talking about.

For what its worth, here's a couple of interesting stats I've encountered in my travels:

Garrett GT3582R cast compressor wheel weight: 120.2 grams

FP GT3582R HTA billet compressor wheel weight: 93 grams

Wouldn't be surprised if the Garrett GTX compressor wheels are heavier, but they have more blades and are overall larger than their cast equivalents.

Some more stats for compressors, while we're here:

GT3076R HTA - 54.8mm in, 76.0mm exd.

GT3076R - 57.0mm in, 76.2mm exd.

GTX3076R - 58.0mm in, 76.6mm exd.

T67-25G - 60.5mm in, 78.0mm exd.

GT3582R HTA - 60.0mm in, 82.0mm exd.

GT3582R - 61.2mm in, 82.0mm exd.

I ordered that loosely on overall wheel size, and bet a mince pie that you'd find that it matches order of transient response for said turbos too.

So yeah, you basically said "there" heavier as an explanation of why they spool slower. Best favour you could do yourself is stop talking, at least until you've tried to understand what you're talking about.

I do understand actually, I guess ile have to copy and paste info next time hey :yes:

Should have worded it that way, you make a blanket statement and "forum heros" will tend to try and crush statements which could start a perpetuation of misinformation. It will typically be for the good of people who read through the thread in future, if the comment was ignored and left there it would turn into a "fact" and people who knew no better will be all like "Sweet I need a cast compressor so I get better response" and potentially forgo the latest greatest options. I have NFI what the billet Kandos are like, and wouldn't want to recommend them until I had even an inkling of how they performed and lasted.

hey hey hey now, those who voted labour are looking back laughing that we actually made it through the GFC quite OK. we might have done better if we were under liberal, but thats anyones guess.

Not to get in to politics anyway, just dont give him that much credit.

And Kando Billet heavier? Allow me to introduce Sir ebay himself:

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Turbo-Compressor-Wheel-Billet-7075-Kinugawa-Garrett-GT3076-GT3037-57-76mm-BB-/280877255518?pt=AU_Car_Parts_Accessories&hash=item416596cb5e

30% lighter than genuine cast wheel they said

Offer extra 30% airflow than stock cast wheel they said

I suddenly am very very suspicious of Kando, I wouldn't touch that with a 10ft barge pole - at least until I saw some fairly decent evidence it wasn't going to explode. 30% more power with what looks like essentially the same design, albeit milled out? Garrett "only" claim around 10% more.... I'd love to know what kind of testing they have done to make those claims, and ensure it's not going to fly apart.

I suddenly am very very suspicious of Kando, I wouldn't touch that with a 10ft barge pole - at least until I saw some fairly decent evidence it wasn't going to explode. 30% more power with what looks like essentially the same design, albeit milled out? Garrett "only" claim around 10% more.... I'd love to know what kind of testing they have done to make those claims, and ensure it's not going to fly apart.

It's not like a ebay seller would let the truth get in the way of a good story haha

The extra flow does come from the smaller shaft hub creating longer blades, in the photos you can actually see there is a fair difference in blade length. I don't know if there was testing done on actual flow but I would imagine the CNC machine would be able to calculate the extra volume created by the changes and maybe they did rough calculations from there... In terms of them blowing up, I'm sure once someone tries them out they will find out :)

Edited by SimonR32

Yeah definitely aware of the tricks - hence the reference to "milled out", trick is that same thing which is a lot of why billet turbos tend to flow and spool better is also some of the same stuff required to keep strength. Whether there has been any design consideration to ensure optimal flow where material has been removed, or structural integrity to the level required to hold together at those speeds - who knows.

Kando turbos have typically been about effectively mimicking proven design, as soon as they go about redesigning (even if it means "just" trimming the existing design) we're moving into relatively unchartered territory. Doesn't mean its not going to work, just I'd rather watch the guinea cops and see how it goes for them.

I love the illiterate use of "there" instead of "they're"

They're spelling is going to improve because their going to back to school on Wensday nights and will get some lessons than come back and post on the forum, provided the whether is ok

They're spelling is going to improve because their going to back to school on Wensday nights and will get some lessons than come back and post on the forum, provided the whether is ok

They're spelling is going to improve because their going to back to school on Wednesday nights and will get some lessons than come back and post on the forum, provided the weather is ok.

You go to yeah?

Edited by 51NNA

Oh god no. You did not just type that! :domokun:

Man, I know my typing is often full of typos and occasional poor grammar/english but i pray I get ribbed on a car forum and correct it before my boss or customer reads it and sacks me for not being able to spell better than his 10yr old :spank: Just a gentle ribbing as I do see western civilisation going down this path :)

But back on topic....is a second hand turbo an option? If so what about the Apexi RX6 turbos. You see them from time to time and they are meant to be very good things with regards to response and torque, don't quite match the T67 but give a pretty meaty power curve.

Also, have you already grabbed the R34? They are rather heavy for a rwd car and quite expensive. If budget and speed are more of a concern than styling I think a cheap R33 shell would be the way to go as they weigh about the same as an R32 (by the time you have considered gearbox/brakes weights etc but at least a full fuel load lighter then an R34 GTT)

Yep, I blame texting for my poor grammar, it auto spells so I dont have to think :woot: , but yes back on subject I was wrong about the billet wheels being heavier but I was right about a slower spool. Turbo choice would be a T67 or Twin Scroll GT3586 on E85

Edited by 51NNA

Check out the link above the dyno graph on this page. There's some graphs with a PTE5857. It spools between the 30 and 35 but kicks ass all the way to 7500rpm. The others don't hold boost as well and both their torque and power drop off considerably more. They hardly make power after 7000rpm, not quite ideal in a track car. I reckon it needs to be thrown into the mix seeing that.

Thanks Simon.

Also, have you already grabbed the R34? They are rather heavy for a rwd car and quite expensive. If budget and speed are more of a concern than styling I think a cheap R33 shell would be the way to go as they weigh about the same as an R32 (by the time you have considered gearbox/brakes weights etc but at least a full fuel load lighter then an R34 GTT)

Yes, done deal. Always wanted an R34 and whilst this may not be a GTR it doesn't matter as I'll just refer to it as my 34 and say nothing more! Haha.

This one was basically given to me so don't worry about cost, and it's for now just something I want to build for MRA, Irace etc and not worry about a bit of argy bargy like I would do in my 32. I'm trying to make it as different as I can to my 32 so it's a totally different experience to drive, hence single turbo and rwd and anything else I can do to make it different. Why have two cars essentially the same? Same to be said for the build cost, my 32 is no expense spared (plenty wasted) but this will be budget.

It will be interesting to see what gives me more grief over time..........

Thanks for all the feedback guys, appreciate it!

Edited by bri73y

I'm trying to make it as different as I can to my 32 so it's a totally different experience to drive, hence single turbo and rwd and anything else I can do to make it different. Why have two cars essentially the same? Same to be said for the build cost, my 32 is no expense spared (plenty wasted) but this will be budget.

It will be interesting to see what gives me more grief over time..........

Will be interesting to see what you go with, and the results - have you made a decision?

Re: The PT5857 results, they look really good... and had thought about suggesting that one, but didn't because it starts shooting in territory closer to the GT3582R in power, and obviously response. ie, capable of well eclipsing 370kw on E85.

If you are "only" going for ~370kw then the extra pull up top you are seeing in those dyno plots (which are using US 91 octane) may not really make themselves as obvious when you are using E85 and a lower boost level. I was shooting for the "torque wins races" end of the scale, and equivalent power for equivalent power the PT5857 will argueably be slower than some of the "smaller" choices. If you want to shoot for a power level past what the smaller ones can do however, the PT5857 starts becoming a wicked choice.

Threads like this are a bit tricky, because a lot of these turbos haven't been tried on RBs and I have no idea which turbo you are going to be using or what boost level you're actually going to target etc etc etc. So many variables, so "results may vary". I like where you're heading with it though, and keeping an eye out on how it all turns out. Did FullRace come back with a suggestion?

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...