Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Been offered some turbos, very close to -9 specs. This will be a on a 34.

-9 are as below and this reads comp to turbine.

Garrett 707160-9 44.46 - 59.41 56T 0.42 42.4 - 53.85 62T 0.64

But what I was offered has 60mm comp wheel and a 53mm turbine wheel.

Bigger comp wheel would normally mean more power, but in the same size housing will that mean more response and more power or more response and less top end as it will choke out.

Likewise, the slightly smaller turbine wheel tells me a little less response, but flow better top end in the same housing.

Any guesses on what the characteristics will be?

Edited by ActionDan

My guess is that unless the blade design of both is identical then the aerodynamic differences of each wheel could be more significant than those tiny diameter differences. Also, no mention made of the minor diameters of the other wheels.....mileage may vary there too.

If aero design was otherwise the same, then I'd say that your impressions are pretty close to correct and it might take a very sensitive bum dyno to feel the difference.

That I can't comment on.

All I know is it will essentially be a 2560R core (and turbine wheel) with a .64 rear housing and a -5 comp wheel in my .53 Comp housing.

To me that all equates to a more responsive -5 but will less top end?

my input and thoughts, feel free to ignore :)

Get those turbos, sell them.. then convert to a single GTX3576 or even GTX3582 on a proper twin scroll manifold and a proper divided housing with either twin gates or merge both pulses all the way to a single 50mm gate or larger. Eventually all response and power hungry GT-R owners convert to a modern single turbo.

  • 2 weeks later...

Same result, hence I was trying the phone.

I also tried FB messenger for Chris personally as we're still connected from DECA days.

All sorted now, turbos will be here today or tomorrow, tuner will supply the Haltech.

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...