Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Yeah good on them for being the guinea cops at that kind of expense, that is a LOT of unproven turbo to jump into using on a 2.8litre turn-corners-car.  Will be very interesting to see how they perform in the real world, they do definitely seem to be not shy of pumping some air!

  • Like 1
On 6/7/2018 at 7:36 AM, mr_rbman said:

Looks like the Integrated Motorsport Time Attack R34 GTR is going to twin Garrett new series turbos from a single EFR (9180 from memory) shall be interesting to see the differences, obviously custom everything, manifolds etc....

Nice cannot wait!

Will be fitting a 550.72wg to a very basic config SR20VET later this year. 

Low comp, P11/VET cam combo, franken DET/VE intake, hypex ex side. Will try access above 8000 RPM on Piss98. Hope to move close to 50lbm.

Yes, Lithium, I am still alive. I also have an R33 GTR. 

Posting for sake of what they look like in the flesh. This was the first one delivered to a customer in Aus (me). It is a highly finished product compared to last gen, I have handled all manner of GTX and EFR in the last 2 years and can say these are the prettiest. I hope it's pretty good rather than pretty average. 

Stay tuned. 

IMG_20180109_181956.jpg

IMG_20180109_182158.jpg

IMG_20180109_182143.jpg

IMG_20180109_182134.jpg

IMG_20180109_182016.jpg

IMG_20180109_182004.jpg

This may be the integrated motorsport set up mentioned earlier... look like an amazing setup regardless, sporting a bunch of local Platinum fruit [emoji1362]?

 

 https://www.facebook.com/545029935656927/posts/989437111216205/

 

 

IMG_2236.thumb.jpg.f5c4e669217ad06f6924996ecbb6a1dd.jpgIMG_2237.thumb.jpg.d85a67280c57bc2f5a8edbd1922ac82e.jpg

 

  • 2 weeks later...

Cut and paste post from Facebook:

Probably one of the easiest to compare, this shows boost, torque and power for a G25-660 (solid lines) vs a Gen2 GTX3076R on an EVO.

Very solid power from the frame, but not what you'd necessarily be expecting spool wise from a "2867 sized turbo"

IMG_4795.jpg

Cut and paste from Facebook:

Same car, comparing with the GTX3582R it had on it earlier. THIS case shows a substantial spool improvement, but obviously needs more boost to make the same power - while it did match the GT30 psi for psi.

No question it flows very much like a GTX30 series turbo, but would have been nice if the boost threshold was much like the GT28 sized turbos like the naming would have you hope

IMG_4796.jpg

  • 1 month later...
On 8/14/2018 at 9:01 AM, Snara said:

Anyone have experience with Garrett GTW3684R ? 

That's actually a GTW range turbo, a little off topic in here - but I've seen VERY little for the GTW range, most you can find is the GTW38s.  

  • Like 1
1 minute ago, sneakey pete said:

Apparently the twin G turbo engine made 1050 hp on the dyno with a little worse down low than the 9180 it replaced, 
probably not a bad result given the extra few hundred hp it picked up

Yep, pretty much as expected really - initially I thought they were saying they expected better spool than the EFR9180 which seemed like a tall ask... but it sounds like as you say, it's a reasonable amount laggier but makes >100hp more (not sure about a few hundred).  In the scheme of things - they are more turbo, they're laggier, and they make more power.

One of the more impressive things about the comparison for me was that apparently the twin G25s give nothing away to the Precision 6870 they tried, but makes more power and the 6870 fell on its face after 8000rpm - while the G25s hold on past 9000rpm. 

So yeah, as expected the G25s aren't really cooking until will into the 5000rpm range but if you've built it to rev like hell and they are holding up high then it sounds to match what they were looking for to a T.  

 

 

 

Not a long term proposition (for engine life), currently doing a durability run on 9180 (~1000bhp) with 3.4. Aiming for 20 hours, which is a topic not discussed or understood by most be it by deception or ignorance?.

The higher rpm required for twins along with associated exponential drop in engine life running it this way means we pretty much shit canned the idea ;)

7 minutes ago, RICE RACING said:

Not a long term proposition (for engine life), currently doing a durability run on 9180 (~1000bhp) with 3.4. Aiming for 20 hours, which is a topic not discussed or understood by most be it by deception or ignorance?.

I am sure they know this, and I am sure a good percentage of the people discussing this realise that - I doubt it is either deception or ignorance so much as just like top level drag racing, time attack is pretty much getting the most you can out of a setup while still HOPEFULLY having it hold together long enough to get a result.  Its clearly not going to be an endurance engine... though those reasons are why I assumed when they said "more drivability/wider power delivery" that they were hoping it'd be more responsive earlier - not at the drag racing end of the rpm range.

It kind of backs up a lot of initial discussions of these turbos, considering wheel size wise they are comparable with GTX2867Rs or SMALLER than Trust T517Zs - they are not spool monsters by any stretch of the imagination, the G-series don't seem like a threat to EFRs in their realm however for this car the logic in why they went for them seems sound... so long as they can hardness the power delivery and keep the engine together long enough to achieve the results they are aiming for.

 

The RB34/EFR9180 combo sounds like fun!  What kind of rev range will that operate in?  In Evo world from memory the "more reliable" setups tended to be shorter stroke/longer rod combos (so nearer stock displacement as opposed to 20% more than stock) resulting in slightly less displacement - the bit of extra rpm needed to make a given power level usable was considered to often be a better reliability trade off from the effects come from the lower rod/stroke ratios the strokers resulted in.

Edited by Lithium

These guys (Integrated / PMC) are building a car to be damn quick, not reliable longevity...

They have even gone to the extent of now running alloy rods purely to save weight etc...

They want to win WTAC oz, end of story...

 

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

    • https://www.facebook.com/share/19kSVAc4tc/?mibextid=wwXIfr
    • It would be well worth deciding where you want to go and what you care about. Reliability of everything in a 34 drops MASSIVELY above the 300kw mark. Keeping everything going great at beyond that value will cost ten times the $. Clutches become shit, gearboxes (and engines/bottom ends) become consumable, traction becomes crap. The good news is looking legalish/actually being legal is slighly under the 300kw mark. I would make the assumption you want to ditch the stock plenum too and want to go a front facing unit of some description due to the cross flow. Do the bends on a return flow hurt? Not really. A couple of bends do make a difference but not nearly as much in a forced induction situation. Add 1psi of boost to overcome it. Nobody has ever gone and done a track session monitoring IAT then done a different session on a different intercooler and monitored IAT to see the difference here. All of the benefits here are likely in the "My engine is a forged consumable that I drive once a year because it needs a rebuild every year which takes 9 months of the year to complete" territory. It would be well worth deciding where you want to go and what you care about with this car.
    • By "reverse flow", do you mean "return flow"? Being the IC having a return pipe back behind the bumper reo, or similar? If so... I am currently making ~250 rwkW on a Neo at ~17-18 psi. With a return flow. There's nothing to indicate that it is costing me a lot of power at this level, and I would be surprised if I could not push it harder. True, I have not measured pressure drop across it or IAT changes, but the car does not seem upset about it in any way. I won't be bothering to look into it unless it starts giving trouble or doesn't respond to boost increases when I next put it on the dyno. FWIW, it was tuned with the boost controller off, so achieving ~15-16 psi on the wastegate spring alone, and it is noticeably quicker with the boost controller on and yielding a couple of extra pounds. Hence why I think it is doing OK. So, no, I would not arbitrarily say that return flows are restrictive. Yes, they are certainly restrictive if you're aiming for higher power levels. But I also think that the happy place for a street car is <300 rwkW anyway, so I'm not going to be aiming for power levels that would require me to change the inlet pipework. My car looks very stock, even though everything is different. The turbo and inlet pipes all look stock and run in the stock locations, The airbox looks stock (apart from the inlet being opened up). The turbo looks stock, because it's in the stock location, is the stock housings and can't really be seen anyway. It makes enough power to be good to drive, but won't raise eyebrows if I ever f**k up enough for the cops to lift the bonnet.
    • There is a guy who said he can weld me piping without having to cut chassis, maybe I do that ? Or do I just go reverse flow but isn’t reverse flow very limited once again? 
    • I haven’t yet cut the chassis, maybe I switch to a reverse flow. I’ve got the Intercooler mounted as I already had it but not cut yet. Might have to speak to an engineer 
×
×
  • Create New...