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

    • Wheel alignment immediately. Not "when I get around to it". And further to what Duncan said - you cannot just put camber arms on and shorten them. You will introduce bump steer far in excess of what the car had with stock arms. You need adjustable tension arms and they need to be shortened also. The simplest approach is to shorten them the same % as the stock ones. This will not be correct or optimal, but it will be better than any other guess. The correct way to set the lengths of both arms is to use a properly built/set up bump steer gauge and trial and error the adjustments until you hit the camber you need and want and have minimum bump steer in the range of motion that the wheel is expected to travel. And what Duncan said about toe is also very true. And you cannot change the camber arm without also affecting toe. So when you have adjustable arms on the back of a Skyline, the car either needs to go to a talented wheel aligner (not your local tyre shop dropout), or you need to be able to do this stuff yourself at home. Guess which approach I have taken? I have built my own gear for camber, toe and bump steer measurement and I do all this on the flattest bit of concrete I have, with some shims under the tyres on one side to level the car.
    • Thought I would get some advice from others on this situation.    Relevant info: R33 GTS25t Link G4x ECU Walbro 255LPH w/ OEM FP Relay (No relay mod) Scenario: I accidentally messed up my old AVS S5 (rev.1) at the start of the year and the cars been immobilised. Also the siren BBU has completely failed; so I decided to upgrade it.  I got a newer AVS S5 (rev.2?) installed on Friday. The guy removed the old one and its immobilisers. Tried to start it; the car cranks but doesnt start.  The new one was installed and all the alarm functions seem to be working as they should; still wouldn't start Went to bed; got up on Friday morning and decided to have a look into the no start problem. Found the car completely dead.  Charged the battery; plugged it back in and found the brake lights were stuck on.  Unplugging the brake pedal switch the lights turn off. Plug it back in and theyre stuck on again. I tested the switch (continuity test and resistance); all looks good (0-1kohm).  On talking to AVS; found its because of the rubber stopper on the brake pedal; sure enough the middle of it is missing so have ordered a new one. One of those wear items; which was confusing what was going on However when I try unplugging the STOP Light fuses (under the dash and under the hood) the brake light still stays on. Should those fuses not cut the brake light circuit?  I then checked the ECU; FP Speed Error.  Testing the pump again; I can hear the relay clicking every time I switch it to ON. I unplugged the pump and put the multimeter across the plug. No continuity; im seeing 0.6V (ECU signal?) and when it switches the relay I think its like 20mA or 200mA). Not seeing 12.4V / 7-9A. As far as I know; the Fuel Pump was wired through one of the immobiliser relays on the old alarm.  He pulled some thick gauged harness out with the old alarm wiring; which looks to me like it was to bridge connections into the immobilisers? Before it got immobilised it was running just fine.  Im at a loss to why the FP is getting no voltage; I thought maybe the FP was faulty (even though I havent even done 50km on the new pump) but no voltage at the harness plug.  Questions: Could it be he didnt reconnect the fuel pump when testing it after the old alarm removal (before installing the new alarm)?  Is this a case of bridging to the brake lights instead of the fuel pump circuit? It's a bit beyond me as I dont do a lot with electrical; so have tried my best to diagnose what I think seems to make sense.  Seeking advice if theres for sure an issue with the alarm install to get him back here; or if I do infact, need an auto electrician to diagnose it. 
    • Then, shorten them by 1cm, drop the car back down and have a visual look (or even better, use a spirit level across the wheel to see if you have less camber than before. You still want something like 1.5 for road use. Alternatively, if you have adjustable rear ride height (I assume you do if you have extreme camber wear), raise the suspension back to standard height until you can get it all aligned properly. Finally, keep in mind that wear on the inside of the tyre can be for incorrect toe, not just camber
    • I know I have to get a wheel alignment but until then I just need to bring the rear tyres in a bit they're wearing to the belt on the inside and brand new on the outside edge. I did shorten the arms a bit but got it wrong now after a few klms the Slip and VDC lights come on. I'd just like to get it to a point where I can drive for another week or two before getting an alignment. I've had to pay a lot of other stuff recently so doing it myself is my only option 
    • You just need a wheel alignment after, so just set them to the same as current and drive to the shop. As there are 2 upper links it may also be worth adding adjustable upper front links at the same time; these reduce bump steer when you move the camber (note that setting those correctly takes a lot longer as you have to recheck the camber at each length of the toe arm, through a range of movement, so you could just ignore that unless the handling becomes unpredictable)
×
×
  • Create New...