Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Don't rule out a hiflow as they are cheap and make good usable power for the street. The GT3076 is always going to need a few more revs to get going than a smaller turbo like the HG SS1 PU but ultimately if the turbo makes 180-200rwkw by 4000rpm it will be plenty quick.

Some will have more top end but suffer with transient throttle response and some will be make a few less hp but be much more lively to drive. Don't get too tied up in dyno plots of turbos in isolation since there is so much more to how they drive once you get behind the wheel.

^+++

100% agreed. Some setups will drive like a jet at 100% throttle, but lack the type of response others can deliver. Search for a couple of comments by Wolverine regarding a change from GT-RS to a GT2835. Same compressor, different turbine spec, not much different power numbers. WAY different delivery.

Application the car is being used for counts a lot in my books before you'd settle for something in particular.

GT3076IW hanging off an RB25 will do sterling service between 370-400rwhp on pump 98. But there are other setups that might top out around 370hp but feel more lively/satisfying if you're running mainly lighter throttle settings and rpm under 4500.

If you can get the gt3076 for that price then I know what I would be doing. It seems to have decent response and solid top end. How much do the gtx3071's go for from stt?

You will need to get a new flange on the dump pipe though with the Garrett's.

STT $1235 GT3076IW plus will need oil/water lines, spacer, dump and an intake solution.

That's what Wolverine posted...

I didn't get prices on the GT3076 as I'm looking for more flow than it can supply. Hence I got a price yesterday on the GTX3076 ($1400 no housing) and the GTX3576 ($2200 with Tial Vband rear)

Why don't you contact him for a quote as the dollar has fallen to parity recently.

Dales post at the top of this page is what people need to think seriously about - the bit about driving around below 4500 revs . I would even suggest thinking about what happens below 3500-4000 revs because thats where 95% of cars spend most of their time .

Realistically most petrol heads will be under that as well much of the time and really only wind it up for the odd squirt .

The killer is that people start out thinking I want (for example) 400 Hp but they've never been in a 400Hp GTS25T so they don't really know how such a car drives in relation to where the increased torque starts . Its that number be it 400 600 etc etc , big numbers sound good but in reality the result can be lackluster .

Generally manufacturers size turbosystems conservatively because they know where people want power rev wise and it needs to be early so people don't have to deliberatly rev their cars . The perception is that a car with no low down "pull" is gutless and hopeless if you have to rev it to make it go .

I have not spoken to wolverine recently to see where he is up to and no BTW my R33 has not been tuned yet .

He went as mentioned from a GTRS which my car now wears to a 2835 Pro S but I didn't realise that the power didn't change significantly . IMO the important thing is does it do what he wants as in did the bigger dryer make more torque where he needed it to - note needed not wanted .

Its no secret that all turbochargers are a compromise but often , GTS25Ts are not a good example , standardish ones can work pretty well in normal use .

The hardest thing to do is partly mimic what the OE one does and increase the low to mid range torque from what the manufacturer had to the limit of traction - and have it rev reasonably freely .

Anyway GT30 based units often get mentioned for RB25s and they can make great power - but mostly not from 2500 revs with 0.82 turbine housings on them . I don't think they were ever used as an OE turbocharger on anything and probably really need to be on a 3L engine to feel good for the masses .

There has been a lot of screwing around in recent years making different compressor ends for them ie GTX and FPs HTA machined wheels and some seem to be very effective .

Recently I was sniffing around Evolutionm.net to see where David Buschur was up to and he's really chuffed with the FP modified "HTA3076" and has good some pretty good results on his RPM spec 2.3L 4G63 . I think the numbers were something like 610 Hp and 609 foot pounds of torque (peaked at 4700 revs) and this is in a 0.82 TB31 turbine housing . I don't know much about David Youngs (Forced Performance) HTA wheels (Hydraulic Turbine assist ?) but the word on the street is that they spool earlier than Garretts ones and make strong mid range torque - which is what most crave in reality .

If I was looking for a GT30 based turbo today I'd be having words with Mark from GT Pumps because he has dealings with FP and may be able to get the necessary compressor and matching ported T04S housing to make them up . Probably not a cheap way to go but dialed in things rarely are .

The HTA3073 may also be worth looking into but theres not much feedback on these yet , possibly only 4-500 Hp is seen as wussy in a Lancer Stateside .

Seems I'm not the only "local" lurking around Evom , cheers A .

I have an op6 hi flow on my car at the moment and it doesn't have a lot below 3500rpm. From what I have seen gt3076/gtx3076 in .82 seem to pick up around that sort of rpm as well, but they will give a lot better top end flow.

I have not spoken to wolverine recently to see where he is up to and no BTW my R33 has not been tuned yet .

He went as mentioned from a GTRS which my car now wears to a 2835 Pro S but I didn't realise that the power didn't change significantly . IMO the important thing is does it do what he wants as in did the bigger dryer make more torque where he needed it to - note needed not wanted .

Firstly, get the bloody thing tuned. :D

Secondly, the ProS made more power than the GT-RS but surprisingly they appear to track almost identically until the ProS out muscles it at the top end on a dyno plot. What it doesn't tell you is that the response to small throttle inputs are deceptively different. The GT-RS has the smaller turbine and you just need to look at the throttle and it is away. The ProS needs comparatively a bigger crack of the throttle to get it to move in traffic. So in traffic the GT-RS is a killer for the fat slug (stagea), on the open road the ProS is better. Both turbos are a good thing just like chocolate and vanilla icecream but they are different.

If we are talking an R33 with 400kg less to lug around I imagine the difference would be less noticeable.

Firstly, get the bloody thing tuned. :D

Secondly, the ProS made more power than the GT-RS but surprisingly they appear to track almost identically until the ProS out muscles it at the top end on a dyno plot. What it doesn't tell you is that the response to small throttle inputs are deceptively different. The GT-RS has the smaller turbine and you just need to look at the throttle and it is away. The ProS needs comparatively a bigger crack of the throttle to get it to move in traffic. So in traffic the GT-RS is a killer for the fat slug (stagea), on the open road the ProS is better. Both turbos are a good thing just like chocolate and vanilla icecream but they are different.

If we are talking an R33 with 400kg less to lug around I imagine the difference would be less noticeable.

Is there a Garrett equivalent to the pro s? Might be worth a look.

What was the difference uptop between the pro s and gtrs on your car and on what boost?

I the 56 trim 3071r is the closest you will get to the pro s.

Practically the same turbo but the hks has a cropped rear wheel and a unique rear housing.

Someone correct me of I'm wrong but that was my understanding when I bought my pro s.

Just my opinion but I reckon the pro s feels a more "lively" than a 3071, but I have only been in a car that has the .82 rear as the hks has a .68

I have an rb20 turbo highflowed on my rb25det, it makes 5psi by 2000rpm if you load it up in 4th, makes 18psi by around 3k and makes about 240kw

It honestly feels like it comes on sooner than the stock turbo and has mountains of midrange, top end isn't massive but for a street car it is fantastic.

I have an rb20 turbo highflowed on my rb25det, it makes 5psi by 2000rpm if you load it up in 4th, makes 18psi by around 3k and makes about 240kw

It honestly feels like it comes on sooner than the stock turbo and has mountains of midrange, top end isn't massive but for a street car it is fantastic.

That sounds pretty crazy!

ive bought 2 gt35s and 1 gt3076 from paul aka street to track and i must admit he is the biggest help i put alot of people from sau onto him ive known him for 4 years now and his service and price is perfect i recieved my turbos within 4 days and thats from the US he is cheaper then HG just depends on what you want really

i found it hard to compare as so many people have solid results of the gt3076 internal or external on a rb25 and the power in withing 10kw give or take where HG i couldnt see a solid result to make me pay a couple of hundred more

so im keeping the gt3076IW you can be lucky and get things cheap as i got mafias old dump pipe for under $200 down to the cat and spacer plate and longer studs where only $25 total and all the braided lines i can get cheap kits ie the kinguwawa brand off ebay ive had them on all my engines and never had any problems or leaks and for $70 delivered you cant go wrong :)

just my 2c

HG just released a G2.5 version that appeared extremely promising.

The main reason I picked a HG SS2 is for the convince of bolton, saving time of running around and chasing bits, for me it actually worked out cheaper and I can't be happier with my end result (307rwkws with full boost at 3600rpms)

Performance level is very dependent on setups, same as every other turbos, I found HG's final results are far more concentrated, each and every model performs extremely unique in their own way. They are the most convenient internally gated turbos for a Rb25 turbo engines.

The Kandos are also making some good results, but getting there is far more involving. For a road car stick to the HG units.

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 know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...