Thoughts on this .. G35-1050 pulsar result

[Lithium]

On 30/06/2022 at 1:46 AM, Butters said:

So this is a lot to take in ....

 

The housing on the g30 , just mad, not what i expected at all.

Still the g35 on race fuel is not making numbers I want to see

Hard to know how much to take from those guys.  They seem lovely, and do share a lot of information and mostly (aside from being Garrett drones - understand selling your soul is lucrative but it's been responsible for a heap of misinformation and starting to really frustrate me) sharing sensible data, but mannnn there is what I reckon or at least suspect is some super murky data.

A few points I take from this video which I feel even though some of it is not hidden, is easily missed and makes the "data" not super useful at all:

1) The .61 G30-770 test.  What a absolute waste of time, the fact that at the start they suspected that it'd be the dream and what was suggested to them indicates they have some poorly informed people advising them.   While I've definitely seen an undersized turbine housing actually cost response, I strongly suspect they probably had a super bad boost leak in this test.   You can see signs of the compressor hitting full choke pretty much at the point it's hit full boost, its a flat power curve that starts late and low, and they report it's running at max turbiine speed at under 400whp.   Seriously.   They SHOULD have questioned that and started investigating things before just going "this is what it is and what a fail".     The .61 will be a nugget, but not THAT much of a nugget.  

2) They straight up admitted that they are not optimising timing for various reasons.    Awesome.

3) They also admitted they're not "sending" the G35 900.  They did put timing in it, but not optimising it, and not running it up to as much boost as it potentially had up it's sleeve.  You can't really take anything from this test other than what it spools like, and the fact that their tuner/data is not complete.

There was something else as well but I can't recall it.   I feel like they put a lot of time and effort into this, and by doing a bit half arsed job at times made the data not completely valid- but presenting it as though it's authoritative. 

Honestly, it makes me want to hook up with a mate that has an EFR8474 on his 2JZGTE and try and make a video addressing/tagging these Gseries combos which have been clearly at least partially bankrolled by Garrett as advertisement and provide all the map, turbo speed etc data transparently and show how full of shit some of these sponsored youtuber videos are.  Especially when they claim they have "ultimate response 2JZ" which really is not.   Sure, it's partly comparing an EFR8474 on a setup which is performing relatively optimally against people who are being Garrett puppets to show results which blow them completely out of the water and isn't necessarily a fully fair comparison.  But these clowns are doing sometimes sub par jobs and STILL making people think it's the ultimate result and proven with "data" and it clearly triggers the shit out of me.

You could throw a $1000 Holset on one of these engines on a $1000 exhaust manifold and show up these results on a 2JZ.   And this isn't me hating on the G-series, as much as there are better (EFR) options out there.   

 

Edited June 30, 2022 by Lithium

[Butters]

On 6/30/2022 at 8:18 AM, Lithium said:

Seriously.   They SHOULD have questioned that and started investigating things before just going "this is what it is and what a fail".     The .61 will be a nugget, but not THAT much of a nugget.  

Ha, I thought exact same, those results are like nothing I have seen before. 

 

On 6/30/2022 at 8:18 AM, Lithium said:

They also admitted they're not "sending" the G35 900.  They did put timing in it, but not optimising it, and not running it up to as much boost as it potentially had up it's sleeve

Yes it would have been very interesting to see what it could have made on the same boost numbers.

 

 

I was also taken back by the difference in spool on the g35 and would have loved to see the step down in housing to .82.

 

[r32-25t]

@Lithium I completely agree and i watch some of their stuff just face palming the whole time. The gtr build have made me want to hang myself with their f**k ups and really shows how clueless they really are 

[Lithium]

On 30/06/2022 at 1:23 PM, Butters said:

I was also taken back by the difference in spool on the g35 and would have loved to see the step down in housing to .82.

 

Ahh yes, this was another thing that irked me.   Seriously, going "the 1.01 was really what we needed when we're running the G30 so we'll use that on the G35" when they are running an entirely different turbine wheel and have no intention of pushing the compressor... it's no better than people identifying turbo specs by saying "I've got an Ar70 turbo".   

The short of my rant is that I'd take much of this test with a big grain of salt.  

[Butters]

SO THIS ... is a lot more promising.  

G35-900 on a 2jz 1.01 rear. 

Low boost is U98 and high is E85 

Does suggest I will be well into 35 psi range on the wee 2.6 but numbers are impressive. 

[Lithium]

Sorry I guess I should have posted links when I said both data and results I've seen elsewhere suggest there is plenty more on top with a G35 900 even.  

Will see if I can cross over old tracks so you can see for yourself if you've not actually encountered other promising results yourself

https://fb.watch/e0I3wVP5ZT/

[Lithium]

1.5JZ with 550+kw at hubs on G35 900

https://www.facebook.com/192234970820442/posts/pfbid02mAiMFLVhZvvi6aXURwunTmwGTAb6s14JsYW2qpzjZ4JAjbPxQNj7JDZNHDSshD5Ml/?sfnsn=mo

[Lithium]

G35 1050 2JZ with 630kw @ hubs: https://www.facebook.com/groups/jzpowered/permalink/879655039397081/?sfnsn=mo&ref=share

 

Thinking about it, with these results from different tuners, setups, dynos and factoring in that Hawkins got high 600kw with his G35 1050 on his RB I feel like there is some credible data around to show that with the setup working right there is definitely decent power to be had with the G35s

[Butters]

interesting, doesn't look like the g35 1050 has much over the 900. 

[Lithium]

On 03/07/2022 at 2:15 PM, Butters said:

interesting, doesn't look like the g35 1050 has much over the 900. 

There are a couple of solid G35 1050 results already posted in here suggesting they definitely have a noticeable ceiling above the G35 900 but a couple of things are potentially big factors with the G35 1050 not making the numbers you'd expect.

1/ they are great at high pressure ratios and I also feel that people often package them like a typical 70lb/min turbo and when you're looking for 90+lb/min you need to ensure that the plumbing can support that volumetric flow even though it doesn't LOOK like a big turbo. 

2/ The hotside has definitely been identified as being on the weak side for tbe higher power levels.  This is one of the reasons the G40 ended up being pretty highly anticipated.

For a mix of these reasons I think there are cars running G35 1050s with the intent to get 90lb/min of airflow from the turbo, and the turbo is capable of supporting that airflow in the right situation, but the combination is such that it's not really viable.

A drag car I'm involved we had extensive yarns on what turbo to use, as you do, and it basically ended up with the G35 900 as being the choice because as you've kinda observed - potentially the G35 1050 becomes less of an optimal combination and you may as well go G40 if the G35 900 isn't enough for your tastes.  Not to say the G35 1050 isn't a weapon, just it feels like a turbo you're going to be really beating on things if you want to max it out.

[Lithium]

Here's a link to an article which shows some quotes from someone who tested a 1.21a/r G35 1050 on his 2JZ.  48psi EMAP with 31psi of boost is getting a bit ugly.

 

https://www.garrettmotion.com/fr/news/newsroom/article/dylan-hughes-builds-946-horsepower-e46-bmw-with-3-0-l-2jz-g42-1200-garrett-turbo/

Edited July 3, 2022 by Lithium

[burn4005]

On 6/30/2022 at 10:18 AM, Lithium said:

Honestly, it makes me want to hook up with a mate that has an EFR8474 on his 2JZGTE and try and make a video addressing/tagging these Gseries combos which have been clearly at least partially bankrolled by Garrett as advertisement and provide all the map, turbo speed etc data transparently and show how full of shit some of these sponsored youtuber videos are.  Especially when they claim they have "ultimate response 2JZ" which really is not.   Sure, it's partly comparing an EFR8474 on a setup which is performing relatively optimally against people who are being Garrett puppets to show results which blow them completely out of the water and isn't necessarily a fully fair comparison.  But these clowns are doing sometimes sub par jobs and STILL making people think it's the ultimate result and proven with "data" and it clearly triggers the shit out of me.

You could throw a $1000 Holset on one of these engines on a $1000 exhaust manifold and show up these results on a 2JZ.   And this isn't me hating on the G-series, as much as there are better (EFR) options out there.   

 

now the 8474 has been around the traps a bit, whats an optimal setup result look like? I had my finger on the trigger for a supercore for a long time but never pulled the trigger. my 8374 is at 127k rpm so I'm out of puff.

[Lithium]

On 14/07/2022 at 11:40 AM, burn4005 said:

now the 8474 has been around the traps a bit, whats an optimal setup result look like? I had my finger on the trigger for a supercore for a long time but never pulled the trigger. my 8374 is at 127k rpm so I'm out of puff.

This is a dyno plot for the 2JZGTE/ 8474 I mentioned, pushed to the point it's working reasonably hard but not ridiculous - 111,000rpm turbine speed and 39psi EMAP for 25psi of boost.

It's a nice working solid setup but nothing wildly exotic.  Unported VVTi head with drop in cams.

 

[Butters]

Just showing off now with your 3 litre  

[Lithium]

On 14/07/2022 at 12:50 PM, Butters said:

Just showing off now with your 3 litre  

True, but compare it with the uncorrected G35 900 2JZ you posted above... the dyno plot I shared was SAEJ1349 corrected which brings dynapack numbers into alignment with Mainline hub etc, basically it's "not so generous" mode.  I did that to make sure I wasn't giving an overly inflated number.

This is the same pull in SAE, which depending on conditions is likely to be more in alignment with the G35 900 result you shared. Basically 870hp @ hubs with full boost a good part of 1000rpm earlier.

Another mate has one on his RB26 and it's over 20psi before 4500.  Someone else I know has one on his 26 which isn't running yet, but that will be run full send on E85 - I can post the result here if I don't get piss people off too much by sharing EFR results lol

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by Lithium

[Butters]

Spool is one thing I am happy with so far with the g35-1050. It makes 21psi before 4500 on a stock rb26(e85).  I always tend to quote 15 psi, which is at 4150, slight earlier than my old school gt3582(4300).   

Hopefully i will see that improve 300ish rpm with VCAM, which should make it a very responsive setup. 

Just need the top end  

 

 

[Lithium]

On 14/07/2022 at 6:06 PM, Butters said:

Spool is one thing I am happy with so far with the g35-1050. It makes 21psi before 4500 on a stock rb26(e85).  I always tend to quote 15 psi, which is at 4150, slight earlier than my old school gt3582(4300).   

Hopefully i will see that improve 300ish rpm with VCAM, which should make it a very responsive setup. 

Just need the top end  

 

 

That's actually awesome.  The turbo should definitely be capable of plenty of power if everything else is working well, as per the other posts people have made solid numbers with them.  If you can live with the spool, then the power should be able to come 

[Butters]

Car was tuned today.    Seemed to struggle to make numbers again but got to a good place in the end. 

722 rwhp on 26 psi climbing to 28psi. 

I was very happy. 

My tuner did think we should be nearer or over 800 on this boost. 

 

The VCAM worked amazing, picking up on average 50% more torque from 2000rpm to 5000rpm 

 

I still have a 3inch exhaust, which steps down twice from the 4inch dump. So that's next on the list to change. Not sure if 3.5 or 4 is the answer. 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Butters

[Dose Pipe Sutututu]

On 03/09/2022 at 6:38 PM, Butters said:

still have a 3inch exhaust, which steps down twice from the 4inch dump. So that's next on the list to change. Not sure if 3.5 or 4 is the answer.

Do a run with the exhausts dropped from the down/down pipe and see if you make more power. If you're making a fair whack more then you know what you need.

[bcozican]

On 03/09/2022 at 4:38 PM, Butters said:

Car was tuned today.    Seemed to struggle to make numbers again but got to a good place in the end. 

722 rwhp on 26 psi climbing to 28psi. 

I was very happy. 

My tuner did think we should be nearer or over 800 on this boost. 

 

The VCAM worked amazing, picking up on average 50% more torque from 2000rpm to 5000rpm 

 

I still have a 3inch exhaust, which steps down twice from the 4inch dump. So that's next on the list to change. Not sure if 3.5 or 4 is the answer. 

What rear housing?