Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Fatz you do have a couple of options here , first is to replace the .50 ARR comp cover with the larger .70 ARR T04E cover and keep the backplate .

Second is to use the larger series T04S cover and backplate (adapter ring) which is what Garrett did with their GT3540R turbocharger .

If your finances are limited go the larger ARR .70 "E" cover . If the sky is your limit go the "S" bits . Also remember that the T04S covers are quite large so make sure there's enough real estate where your turbo lives .

Generally compressor covers are sized around airflow rates or speed . So for a given compressor wheel the larger the Area Radius Ratio the lower the gas speed will be and vice versa . Also the larger it is the less chance it will have of being a choke point at high wheel speeds . Someone did tell me that all else being equal going up in comp cover AR brings the boost on a little later and "hits" harder .

With most Garrett turbos there is a set compressor wheel diameter for each wheel/cover family , ie 60mm wheels T3 covers , 71mm wheels T04B covers , 76mm wheels T04E covers , 82mm wheels T04S covers .

In recent years Garrett started going up a size in cover with some of the GT BB series compressors . I think this is because the comp wheels are mechanically stronger , and and can still pump efficiently at much higher rpm's than the bush bearing has beens . This is a win win situation , the small high speed wheels are compact , cheap to produce and more importantly have less innertia so spool sooner .

Examples of this are the little GT28RS (T04B comp cover) and some of the GT2835R series turbos with 71mm compressors and T04E covers .

The Garrett people inthe US tell me that the up sized cover , and a little extra tip height on the wheel , gives extra pumping capacity and a few more points compressor efficiency .

I can only think of two examples of Garrett turbos that went smaller in cover size , they are the HKS GT2540 and the Ford GT3540R . The 2540 is getting on and was probably an attempt to get a bit more flow and power out of a small series turbo , and a low mount compact (convienent) fit for GTR's .

Its safe to say Ford was not looking for serious performance with the XR6T so a compact and probably cheaper adequate cover got the nod . You can bet they knew people would modify them for performance , so the limited cover capacity may have been intended to limit the performance with the std turbo but not affect the standard state of tune .

Cheers A .

yea just stuck a side pipe on the beast and took it out to the drift day

sadly budget has died in the arse so i will have to putt around for some time until a set of cam gears arrive and the powerfc which is probably about 3 months away

im quite happy with the power but as soon as those cam gears are in hopefull it will bring it on a bit better

if cam gears dont bring it down to 4000rpm with power fc and a decent tune then i will consider the upgrade to external wastegate and a .86 rear housing and combine it with the larger front cover

but hey im happy as a pig in shit at the moment and when i win lotto ill do the next big upgrade

ive also got a rb30 complete engine that will be getting a solid bottom end over the next few years to replace the gtr bottom end when or if it ever goes

yea baby

anyone have some cheap cam gears

pete

  • 5 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

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

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...