Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

GTX series turbos, albeit reliable are quite dated now.

I run a Garrett GTX3576R Gen 2 with a T3 1.01 divided housing and I get 0.8bar of boost by 4000rpm and about 4600rpm is when it's all in (1.8bar) on a 2.5L, VCT NEO, 264/272 cams + usual mods.

Makes a sensible 437kW on E85. I do rev the motor to 8600rpm but at about 7500rpm or so it's not making anymore power.

If I had the opportunity to do it again, I would get a Turbosmart 6262 or a Garrett G35-900. Probably same response but will go 500kW+

 

  • Like 1
4 hours ago, Eric0 said:

I’m thinking of parring the G30-660 with a T3 .82 twinscroll. What do you think? 

Which brand turbine housing are you getting? 

Garrett seem to have dropped focus on anything twin scroll as of late. They only have it in T4 1.06.

1 hour ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

Which brand turbine housing are you getting? 

Garrett seem to have dropped focus on anything twin scroll as of late. They only have it in T4 1.06.

That’s what I’m noticing… seems like a popular size is 0.82 A/R, I’m considering this:

T3 twinscroll .82AR, but I’m unsure what brand because I’m not seeing Garett having the option.  

Awwww, the 7670 was the best turbo I ever had! But it (and the 660) is probably 'too big'. It also does come in twinscroll and T4, waaaah, return the Garrett!

Realistically either is going to be great, presumably you can find a suitable housing for the rear. I had a T4 1.05 rear with the EFR (it's the only option, too) and it was great response wise, but I also had a 2.8.

Garrett's 1.05 might be alright? I mean they make it for a reason after all. Surely they don't expect the G30-660 to be suitable for like a 4L motor only and couldn't conceive of having a smaller housing for a smaller motor...

 

1 hour ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

GTX series turbos, albeit reliable are quite dated now.

I run a Garrett GTX3576R Gen 2 with a T3 1.01 divided housing and I get 0.8bar of boost by 4000rpm and about 4600rpm is when it's all in (1.8bar) on a 2.5L, VCT NEO, 264/272 cams + usual mods.

Makes a sensible 437kW on E85. I do rev the motor to 8600rpm but at about 7500rpm or so it's not making anymore power.

If I had the opportunity to do it again, I would get a Turbosmart 6262 or a Garrett G35-900. Probably same response but will go 500kW+

 

Those are some serious numbers! Based on the input I’ve received, seems like the G-series would be the move for same power and response 🙌🏾

Thanks for sharing, and confirming that a G-series turbo is the move! I can post my before and after dyno results and see what changes going from a GTX to G-series has 

  • Like 1
9 minutes ago, Kinkstaah said:

Awwww, the 7670 was the best turbo I ever had! But it (and the 660) is probably 'too big'. It also does come in twinscroll and T4, waaaah, return the Garrett!

Realistically either is going to be great, presumably you can find a suitable housing for the rear. I had a T4 1.05 rear with the EFR (it's the only option, too) and it was great response wise, but I also had a 2.8.

Garrett's 1.05 might be alright? I mean they make it for a reason after all. Surely they don't expect the G30-660 to be suitable for like a 4L motor only and couldn't conceive of having a smaller housing for a smaller motor...

 

I’m seeing T3 to T4 twin scroll adapters. This should work? 


https://privatelabelmfg.com/products/precision-works-t3-to-t4-divided-turbo-flange-adapter?variant=34085762138250&tw_source=google&tw_adid=&tw_campaign=18293857672&utm_term=&utm_campaign=**LP+Shop+-+pMax+-+Precision+Works&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=8464848152&hsa_cam=18293857672&hsa_grp=&hsa_ad=&hsa_src=x&hsa_tgt=&hsa_kw=&hsa_mt=&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADla3MIVCZh3G3-4mL4aDYDUhP9n8&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIo9q-2PyEiQMVmA6tBh3enzi_EAQYASABEgIgnfD_BwE

 

Feels kinda silly stacking plates and adding another gasket. 

Sorry for some reason I thought you had a T4 Twinscroll manifold, not T3! I wouldn't put adapters on adapters. Just another gasket to fail or thing to sit in the wrong spot or other annoying complication.

  • Like 1
6 minutes ago, Kinkstaah said:

Sorry for some reason I thought you had a T4 Twinscroll manifold, not T3! I wouldn't put adapters on adapters. Just another gasket to fail or thing to sit in the wrong spot or other annoying complication.

Well… maybe I do go back and look into the 7670? I’m seeing a .72 T3 twinscroll option. 
 

how does the spool compare to the g30-660 series?  

26 minutes ago, Eric0 said:

I’m seeing T3 to T4 twin scroll adapters. This should work? 

Issue with this are gaskets failures (x2) as mentioned above also it raises the turbo up further which may cause packaging issues etc.

I suppose if you have an experienced fabricator around, you could cut off the T3 flange and weld a T4 divided flange.

Another option (probably better) is to find an experienced turbo builder and they can machine a turbine housing to suit.

I would even ask Tao at Hypergear to machine and send one over to you. Might end up cheaper for you.

15 minutes ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

Issue with this are gaskets failures (x2) as mentioned above also it raises the turbo up further which may cause packaging issues etc.

I suppose if you have an experienced fabricator around, you could cut off the T3 flange and weld a T4 divided flange.

Another option (probably better) is to find an experienced turbo builder and they can machine a turbine housing to suit.

I would even ask Tao at Hypergear to machine and send one over to you. Might end up cheaper for you.

I’ll reach out to him and see what options we have on building a custom housing. I’ll report back 

9 minutes ago, GTSBoy said:

Close, but it’s not a twinscroll housing :( looking for a divided T3

Ah, yes. I forgot that part.

At this point I would concur with the earlier suggestion of having the manifold modded to get a T4 TS flange put on. I don't think there is a T3 TS housing option for these.

On top of that, there is the whole problem of what is your expectation for a wastegate?

Edited by GTSBoy
50 minutes ago, GTSBoy said:

Ah, yes. I forgot that part.

At this point I would concur with the earlier suggestion of having the manifold modded to get a T4 TS flange put on. I don't think there is a T3 TS housing option for these.

On top of that, there is the whole problem of what is your expectation for a wastegate?

I’ve reached out to HyperGear to see if they could build a compatible exhaust housing. We’ll see what they say! 
 

I currently have an external 44mm tial wastegate on my manifold. 

10 hours ago, Eric0 said:

Posting an update:

Contacted HyperGear, Tao said he might be able to build a T3 .82 TS Vband! Waiting to hear back on cost and shipping. 

Update 2: To make a custom TS T3 .82 Vband housing to suit a G30 super core, it will be $1000AUD. I’m still inquiring shipping cost 

9 hours ago, GTSBoy said:

Not too bad. Horrible compared to non-twinscroll options available, but not as much as genuine. So....workable.

Probably still smarter to convert manifold to T4.

Update 3: shipping will be 100AUD. 

I do think a total of 1100AUD is doable for a custom built G30-660 T3 TS .82 A/R Vband, but I’m also finding T3 to T4 TS adapters for $67AUD and a .85 A/R TS T4 housing for 500AUD.  I know the turbo would sit about 1.25cm higher (which means redoing my downpipe and intercooler piping) and two gaskets… 

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...