Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

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 by Lithium
  • Like 2
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.

 

@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 

  • Like 1
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.  

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. 

image.thumb.png.cef11051ec39901151ddb80e3a411ede.png

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/

  • Like 1

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

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.

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 by Lithium
  • 2 weeks later...
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.

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.

 

FB_IMG_1657755859046.jpg

FB_IMG_1657755965661.jpg

  • Like 1
On 14/07/2022 at 12:50 PM, Butters said:

Just showing off now with your 3 litre :P 

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

 

FB_IMG_1657760148766.jpg

Edited by Lithium
  • Like 2

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 :/ 

 

 

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 

  • 1 month later...

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 by Butters
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.

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?

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

    • So, that is it! It is a pretty expensive process with the ATF costing 50-100 per 5 litres, and a mechanic will probably charge plenty because they don't want to do it. Still, considering how dirty my fluid was at 120,000klm I think it would be worth doing more like every 80,000 to keep the trans happy, they are very expensive to replace. The job is not that hard if you have the specialist tools so you can save a bit of money and do it yourself!
    • OK, onto filling. So I don't really have any pics, but will describe the process as best I can. The USDM workshop manual also covers it from TM-285 onwards. First, make sure the drain plug (17mm) is snug. Not too tight yet because it is coming off again. Note it does have a copper washer that you could replace or anneal (heat up with a blow torch) to seal nicely. Remove the fill plug, which has an inhex (I think it was 6mm but didn't check). Then, screw in the fill fitting, making sure it has a suitable o-ring (mine came without but I think it is meant to be supplied). It is important that you only screw it in hand tight. I didn't get a good pic of it, but the fill plug leads to a tube about 70mm long inside the transmission. This sets the factory level for fluid in the trans (above the join line for the pan!) and will take about 3l to fill. You then need to connect your fluid pump to the fitting via a hose, and pump in whatever amount of fluid you removed (maybe 3 litres, in my case 7 litres). If you put in more than 3l, it will spill out when you remove the fitting, so do quickly and with a drain pan underneath. Once you have pumped in the required amount of clean ATF, you start the engine and run it for 3 minutes to let the fluid circulate. Don't run it longer and if possible check the fluid temp is under 40oC (Ecutek shows Auto Trans Fluid temp now, or you could use an infrared temp gun on the bottom of the pan). The manual stresses the bit about fluid temperature because it expands when hot an might result in an underfil. So from here, the factory manual says to do the "spill and fill" again, and I did. That is, put an oil pan under the drain plug and undo it with a 17mm spanner, then watch your expensive fluid fall back out again, you should get about 3 litres.  Then, put the drain plug back in, pump 3 litres back in through the fill plug with the fitting and pump, disconnect the fill fitting and replace the fill plug, start the car and run for another 3 minutes (making sure the temp is still under 40oC). The manual then asks for a 3rd "spill and fill" just like above. I also did that and so had put 13l in by now.  This time they want you to keep the engine running and run the transmission through R and D (I hope the wheels are still off the ground!) for a while, and allow the trans temp to get to 40oC, then engine off. Finally, back under the car and undo the fill plug to let the overfill drain out; it will stop running when fluid is at the top of the levelling tube. According to the factory, that is job done! Post that, I reconnected the fill fitting and pumped in an extra 0.5l. AMS says 1.5l overfill is safe, but I started with less to see how it goes, I will add another 1.0 litres later if I'm still not happy with the hot shifts.
    • OK, so regardless of whether you did Step 1 - Spill Step 2 - Trans pan removal Step 3 - TCM removal we are on to the clean and refill. First, have a good look at the oil pan. While you might see dirty oil and some carbony build up (I did), what you don't want to see is any metal particles on the magnets, or sparkles in the oil (thankfully not). Give it all a good clean, particularly the magnets, and put the new gasket on if you have one (or, just cross your fingers) Replacement of the Valve body (if you removed it) is the "reverse of assembly". Thread the electrical socket back up through the trans case, hold the valve body up and put in the bolts you removed, with the correct lengths in the correct locations Torque for the bolts in 8Nm only so I hope you have that torque wrench handy (it feels really loose). Plug the output speed sensor back in and clip the wiring into the 2 clips, replace the spring clip on the TCM socket and plug it back into the car loom. For the pan, the workshop manual states the following order: Again, the torque is 8Nm only.
    • One other thing to mention from my car before we reassemble and refill. Per that earlier diagram,   There should be 2x B length (40mm) and 6x C length (54mm). So I had incorrectly removed one extra bolt, which I assume was 40mm, but even so I have 4x B and 5x C.  Either, the factory made an assembly error (very unlikely), or someone had been in there before me. I vote for the latter because the TCM part number doesn't match my build date, I suspect the TCM was changed under warranty. This indeed led to much unbolting, rebolting, checking, measuring and swearing under the car.... In the end I left out 1x B bolt and put in a 54mm M6 bolt I already had to make sure it was all correct
    • A couple of notes about the TCM. Firstly, it is integrated into the valve body. If you need to replace the TCM for any reason you are following the procedure above The seppos say these fail all the time. I haven't seen or heard of one on here or locally, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Finally, Ecutek are now offering tuning for the 7 speed TCM. It is basically like ECU tuning in that you have to buy a license for the computer, and then known parameters can be reset. This is all very new and at the moment they are focussing on more aggressive gear holding in sports or sports+ mode, 2 gear launches for drag racing etc. It doesn't seem to affect shift speed like you can on some transmissions. Importantly for me, by having controllable shift points you can now raise the shift point as well as the ECU rev limit, together allowing it to rev a little higher when that is useful. In manual mode, my car shifts up automatically regardless of what I do which is good (because I don't have to worry about it) but bad (because I can't choose to rev a little higher when convenient).  TCMs can only be tuned from late 2016 onwards, and mine is apparently not one of those although the car build date was August 2016 (presumably a batch of ADM cars were done together, so this will probably be the situation for most ADM cars). No idea about JDM cars, and I'm looking into importing a later model valve body I can swap in. This is the top of my TCM A couple of numbers but no part number. Amayama can't find my specific car but it does say the following for Asia-RHD (interestingly, all out of stock....): So it looks like programable TCM are probably post September 2018 for "Asia RHD". When I read my part number out from Ecutek it was 31705-75X6D which did not match Amayama for my build date (Aug-2016)
×
×
  • Create New...