Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

always looking to go faster .:D

I pretty much know that the GTX2967R will spool the same as the GTX2867R being a better comp/turbine  wheel match with more power/ less heat on the hotside.

just would like to see a visual result somewhere

(wanting to keep the same .60 /.64 housings and not go to gt30 comp housings) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/466451-gtx2967r-turbos/#findComment-7769511
Share on other sites

Since you have comparatively more space under there than the 26, why not get some borg warner efr 6258's bolted up?
I mean, a bit extreme and requires lots of swapping of stuff but results may be more worth it?

 

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/466451-gtx2967r-turbos/#findComment-7769578
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stealth400 said:

Go for the GTX2871r faster spool loves boost as all GTX turbos do.

You want to run a 71 mm GTX front fan and have it squeezing out a 28 series peanut ass end with a small wheel?

Keep adding compressor, it's the answer to everything! 

Whatever happened to air in AND out? Talk about a mismatch. Maybe just run GTX 2876's. Compressor map says yes, right?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/466451-gtx2967r-turbos/#findComment-7770083
Share on other sites

On ‎24‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 4:47 PM, sneakey pete said:

Since you have comparatively more space under there than the 26, why not get some borg warner efr 6258's bolted up?
I mean, a bit extreme and requires lots of swapping of stuff but results may be more worth it?

no cost of custom isn't worth it and space is a problem redesigning manifolds.

I'll stick to bolt on garrets ,happy with results so far .

 

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/466451-gtx2967r-turbos/#findComment-7770778
Share on other sites

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 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...