Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

if you compare micko's gtx3071 with the gtx3076 the power curves are almost identical, even the boost response is identical, i do admit i have cams ( not sure if they really benefit the boost response, might even slow it down) and external gate so maybe this has brought my turbo up to his level , but the difference in boost levels is just as significant, im running 5-6psi less in the whole rev range..

Seems the gtx3076 has been taking a bad wrap for a long time, and the gtx3071 is described as more responsive/better turbo and the turbo of choice, compare the two graphs and they are equal, the gtx3076 should even be in first place, and with over 350kw potential its a winner in my eye..... obviously setup dependent ( external gate, E85, proper tune, engine condition etc)

might add some in car footage soon ..

Edited by SliverS2
  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's the issue Mark, not many cars have a good enough setup to attain those sort of figures, and that's why it got a bad name. Stock manifolds or 3 inch exhausts aren't going to cut it, we are talking 4 inch system here, and how many would run that on the road.

I can say after running both the GTX3076 isn't quite as responsive as the 71 but spools in a similar fashion, with approx. 40kw higher potential imo.

I think the gtx range is very impressive going off some of the most recent results.

But I personally would probably still sway to the gt3076 If I didn't want to run more then 18-20psi and was internally stock. The gtx3076 would be epic on a built 25/30 running an external gate and pumping 25+psi.

Has there been any twin scroll setups for the gtx3076 to combat the smidge of extra lag?

Edited by Mitcho_7

I think the gtx range is very impressive going off some of the most recent results.

But I personally would probably still sway to the gt3076 If I didn't want to run more then 18-20psi and was internally stock. The gtx3076 would be epic on a built 25/30 running an external gate and pumping 25+psi.

Has there been any twin scroll setups for the gtx3076 to combat the smidge of extra lag?

Yep, its in the RB25 results! Was REALLY responsive...... Wish i went that way now!

Yep, its in the RB25 results! Was REALLY responsive...... Wish i went that way now!

The only one I can find is a regular gt3076r twin scroll that Scotty did the exhaust etc for. It's got a pretty freakin epic looking graph on 98 let alone the e85 tune!

What is the difference between the gtx3076 and the gt3040 wolverine?

I have a GT3040 sitting in the garage, I reckon it will produce the same numbers on E85 as a GTX3076 but much cheaper.

How much you after? That is the 3082 equivelent yeah?

The only one I can find is a regular gt3076r twin scroll that Scotty did the exhaust etc for. It's got a pretty freakin epic looking graph on 98 let alone the e85 tune!

What is the difference between the gtx3076 and the gt3040 wolverine?

I think the compressor is bigger? Power potential is similar though!

Yep, GT3040 is a GT3082.

The compressor is an 82mm compressor with similar flow potential of a billet 76mm compressor. Same 60mm turbine.

My GT3040 has extrude honed front and rear covers. I changed to a TS GT3076 so the old turbo is still sitting in the shed.

i dont know much about gt3082's, my turbo doesnt feel like its an on/off turbo like the gt3082sounds, mine feels very efficient and on throttle is torquey even off boost and with 5psi in third is taking off, the mightly rush happens at 4000-4500rpm and never runs out to 7000rpm, but its not like a switch, up some steep hills it will pull you in the seat even at 3000rpm...

so without experiencing a gt3082 i cant say, but i can say this turbo is showing its presence even without the 4000rpm etc revs...

i agree though if you dont want to run atleast 20psi then the gt is better...

Ts housing on the 3040 for science?

Or will it not fit?

TS housing would fit .

If I had a highmount manifold, for science, it would go on. Since there was enormous difficulty getting the manifold, oil drain etc fitted with an RB25 from a Stagea in the R33 there is no chance the current turbo is coming off unless the engine comes out.

i dont know much about gt3082's, my turbo doesnt feel like its an on/off turbo like the gt3082sounds, mine feels very efficient and on throttle is torquey even off boost and with 5psi in third is taking off, the mightly rush happens at 4000-4500rpm and never runs out to 7000rpm, but its not like a switch, up some steep hills it will pull you in the seat even at 3000rpm...

so without experiencing a gt3082 i cant say, but i can say this turbo is showing its presence even without the 4000rpm etc revs...

i agree though if you dont want to run atleast 20psi then the gt is better...

Sounds just like a GT3040 which isn't very different from a GT3076 in my experience.

  • 2 months later...

Just read the whole thread, sounds like an impressive build.

I've got a fresh forged + camed 25 waiting to go in my 32, Gtx3076 + ext gate + 20-22psi on e85 seems a good way to go in your experience?

I'm still tossing between 76 & 71..

Out of interest, a local workshop here have done a built SR20VE+T using a GTX3076R and tuned it to 30psi and made a fairly impressive 477kw @ hubs with it. When given a bit of shite about dyno setting fiddling they gave a bunch of info on how they ran it so people can scrutineer it for themselves.

Looksy here: http://www.shredmotorsport.co.nz/2012/sr20vet-results-and-the-truth-about-dyno-corrections/

622274_413213968746634_1172936981_o-1024x819.jpg

Just read the whole thread, sounds like an impressive build.

I've got a fresh forged + camed 25 waiting to go in my 32, Gtx3076 + ext gate + 20-22psi on e85 seems a good way to go in your experience?

I'm still tossing between 76 & 71..

i dont see the point in a gtx3071, the gtx3076 seems to respond just as good and makes more power from the dyno graphs ive compared and with less boost,( micko's compared to mine for example) im still thinking wether the 0.63 rear would of been the best option seeing my power goal was 300-320kw, the spooling and area under the curve may have been better and still had the top end, thats using E85..

Edited by SliverS2

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

    • @Haggerty you still haven't answered my question.  Many things you are saying do not make sense for someone who can tune, yet I would not expect someone who cannot tune to be playing with the things in the ECU that you are.  This process would be a lot quicker to figure out if we can remove user error from the equation. 
    • If as it's stalling, the fuel pressure rises, it's saying there's less vacuum in the intake manifold. This is pretty typical of an engine that is slowing down.   While typically is agree it sounds fuel related, it really sounds fuel/air mixture related. Since the whole system has been refurbished, including injectors, pump, etc, it's likely we've altered how well the system is delivering fuel. If someone before you has messed with the IACV because it needed fiddling with as the fuel system was dieing out, we need to readjust it back. Getting things back to factory spec everywhere, is what's going to help the entire system. So if it idles at 400rpm with no IACV, that needs raising. Getting factory air flow back to normal will help us get everything back in spec, and likely help chase down any other issues. Back on IACV, if the base idle (no IACV plugged in) is too far out, it's a lot harder for the ECU to control idle. The IACV duty cycle causes non linear variations in reality. When I've tuned the idle valves in the past, you need to keep it in a relatively narrow window on aftermarket ecus to stop them doing wild dances. It also means if your base idle is too low, the valve needs to open too much, and then the smallest % change ends up being a huge variation.
    • I guess one thing that might be wrong is the manifold pressure.  It is a constant -5.9 and never moves even under 100% throttle and load.  I would expect it to atleast go to 0 correct?  It's doing this with the OEM MAP as well as the ECU vacuum sensor. When trying to tune the base map under load the crosshairs only climb vertically with RPM, but always in the -5.9 column.
    • AHHHH gotchaa, I'll do that once I am home again. I tried doing the harness with the multimeter but it seems the car needed a jump, there was no power when it was in the "ON" position. Not sure if I should use car battery jump starter or if its because the stuff that has been disconnect the car just does send power.
    • As far as I can tell I have everything properly set in the Haltech software for engine size, injector data, all sensors seem to be reporting proper numbers.  If I change any injector details it doesnt run right.    Changing the base map is having the biggest change in response, im not sure how people are saying it doesnt really matter.  I'm guessing under normal conditions the ECU is able to self adjust and keep everything smooth.   Right now my best performance is happening by lowering the base map just enough to where the ECU us doing short term cut of about 45% to reach the target Lambda of 14.7.  That way when I start putting load on it still has high enough fuel map to not be so lean.  After 2500 rpm I raised the base map to what would be really rich at no load, but still helps with the lean spots on load.  I figure I don't have much reason to be above 2500rpm with no load.  When watching other videos it seems their target is reached much faster than mine.  Mine takes forever to adjust and reach the target. My next few days will be spent making sure timing is good, it was running fine before doing the ECU and DBW swap, but want to verify.  I'll also probably swap in the new injectors I bought as well as a walbro 255 pump.  
×
×
  • Create New...