Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

If you can get United 100 you may push a little harder than you can on 98 ULP without the fuel system changes needed for E70/E85 .

The rule of thumb I hear is about plus 30/40 Kw for high eth fuel - maybe 270 from 240 with the lil GTRS .

A .

An odd chime in from me...

I met a dude recently who told me he is building an SR22DET with a GTX2867, Tial flange and EWG. Full house build... He is on the JDMST page on FB but I don't know if he is public with his build..

He is getting the car tuned at Mick's motorsport and has apparently been promised 330rwkw from the setup. I am honestly REALLY unsure. If I hear anything else I will report accordingly.... Or if anyone wants to thought-blurt on the topic go ahead. He isn't a member here or hadn't even heard of this forum (lol).

The sums don't add up to anywhere near that figure from that turbo, regardless of mechanical spec of the engine, or fuel being used. Be interesting to know the decision making process on coming to that choice, and if that was his targeted power output.

What is the car being used for?

Share results for it, regardless of outcome - if possible... very keen to hear what a GTX2867R with alcohol and on kill will do. I don't see it hitting that target on a "normal" Oz dyno. I can see somewhere near 330kw @ hubs (depending on dyno setup, etc) being plausible, pushing it HARD.

From what I gather its just an interest build. I probed about what he would use the car for but most questions lead back to the same answer; the car is too clean to *race*. To me, he is building a car to have cake and have cake, response and power. Mick's motorsport have promised him response that is as questionable as the power, but time will tell.

Mick's definitely use a roller, and recent results from people I know are in the league of normal.. IE 240-280 on TD06 SR20s, standard figures IMO.

I've got him on the book of faces, so I will continue to probe and will report back as requested.

I started a reply yesterday but didn't post it because much of it is just my opinion . Anyway .

I suppose if you went out to build a four cylinder that could take a lot of boost rally engine style then it could make impressive looking numbers though the drive experience and the effort to keep it reliable might be something else .

Note that it's hard to believe a GTX2867R is going to make GTX3071R type wheel wasp numbers using Garrets GT28 T2 flanged 0.64 AR IW turbine housings . I'd say very nearly impossible without Methanol and I don't know even then .

I generally look at what manufacturers like Garrett rate their as supplied turbos at and err on the conservative side a bit . Their aim is to sell turbos and if people read GTX3067R rated at 275-500 Hp they like to think that maximum number is an easy given . And sure , if your engine and support systems cope with maybe 25 pounds of boost it could be a reality . I don't think most roadies want to do that to a production engine and go with a bit more turbo and a bit lower boost pressure .

Just my thoughts , cheers A .

  • 4 months later...

I found a thread in the MazdaSpeedforum where someone has I think an American spec SP23 with a GTX2867R and changed to a GTX3067R .

A fair bit of reading but the guts of it was that the GT30 version lost little if anything in spool and gained more top end . The Mazda was using external gating and WMI plus the user was splash blending E85 and I think their 93 PULP in a 3:9 ratio which works out to E21.25 .

The power and torque numbers came up a bit over 400 each , HP and ft/lbs , and the dyno graph sort fell off at ~ 6700 revs .

This fella is using a front mount intercooler and home tuning the flashable std computer and by the fuel pressures he mentions these 2.3L fours must have direct chamber injection .

I'll try to post the link but if it doesn't work google Roads to a GTX3067R build .

Didn't work , cheers A .

If you find that thread there is cut/pastes of a few replies about this GT3067R on other engines like Honda S2000s and Toyota 3SGTEs . Some migrated from GT3071Rs and said they made as much or more power as the 3071R and spooled earlier . Gives the impression they are doing approximately what 2835 Pro Ss are with more efficient compressor ends . Maybe a tad more up high . Also note the Americans are pushing GTX3067Rs up into the twenties boost wise and the GTXs appear to cope with higher pressure ratios better than the GT compressors do .

IF what they are saying is true it seems that the GTX wheels better suit the GT30 turbines characteristics in some cases and with the 67R do it in a T04B compressor housing .

I do understand peoples reservations with a 67mm OD compressor but when you consider what a 71mm GTX compressor is capable of it shows the trend . Still a pity Garrett didn't have something between the X67 and the X71 but doubling up on turbine options would have kept the bean counters happy .

Four mm and a different comp housing ups the ante 10 pounds flow wise .

A .

So the indicators are that people are using them on smaller capacity engines requiring higher PR to make the grunt and benefiting from a more flow-efficient turbine.

Perhaps a candidate for a RB20 tragic

Edited by Dale FZ1

I definitely rate the GTX3067R as a potentially great thing for a lot of RB25 users, not a thing I'd go for personally but heaps of people liked the GT2835 and GT-RS turbos.... if I wanted that kind of response etc, then I'd FAR sooner put this on my RB25 than a GT2835 or GT2871R - and I'd do it with a .63a/r T3 housing. With that kind of combo the inlet versus exhaust pressure ratios and the energy caught by the turbine I suspect would be way more positive than some of the crap that would have been going on with some of the old combinations that people were doing.

I reckon people may be surprised at the power and performance versus boost levels people would get from these, per psi I think they'd school the old HKS GT-RS turbos - and giving little/nothing away in response.

So far my GTX has proved very promising on my pissy 2L, so I can only imagine that the 3067 would be an even better alternative for those aiming at the 300kw marker.

Am glad Garrett has at least some redeeming options available.. I have been all but wowed from some of the larger GTX variants, as I feel many of the others have been. I may recommend a 3067 to a friend with an upcoming build. I would be pitching it with a Kando 10cm housing :)

Yeah I feel similar from all I have seen, the GTX seem a bit hit and miss in relation to what they cost - the main redeeming feature the whole range have is they have a sturdier core than the old GT-series, but there are some (GTX2863R, GTX3071R, GTX3582R) which seem like pretty good things and I'd have no hesitation recommending those over a lot of other things to people in the right circumstances. The GTX3067R I still want to see some results before I give it a complete nod haha :)

  • Like 1

Those Kando housings are great for the price, there must be a fair amount of inconel in the mix, they are quite hard to die grind. I have a 12cm going on a GTX3076, 2.8 stroker atm.

Those Kando housings are great for the price, there must be a fair amount of inconel in the mix, they are quite hard to die grind. I have a 12cm going on a GTX3076, 2.8 stroker atm.

For reference I also tried a 12cm variant and found it opened up the bottleneck from a .63 Garrett as it should have. Agreed to be good value.

So I'm booked in to drop my car off at Galvsport on Monday (12th) for some work. Not 100% confirmed yet, but most likely will be going for the GTX3067.

If it does go ahead, will see what this turbo can do on a stock RB25 on 98. And of course will post results when they come in.

If you do you'll be the first with an RB25T engine AFAIK . From all I've been able to find with a 0.63 AR turbine housing it should be very similar to a HKS2835 Pro S and I'm guessing more responsive . If your intercooling exhaust and inlet tract is good I don't think 260 to 270 wheel wasps is unrealistic .

A .

Dropped the car off this morning. Confirmed GTX3067 is the go. :yes:

Not sure how long it all will take. I'm sure the guys at Galvsport could smash out such a simple mod in no time, but they're pretty busy at the moment. Hoping towards end of the week.

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...