Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Fellas I've not tried these on RB's or anything for that matter .

From a technical viewpoint the combination of a 60.1mm turbine and an 82mm compressor is not ideal . Thats not to say it wont work at all but , Garretts production engineers believe that the turbine cannot develop adequate shaft power to efficiently drive a compressor of that size and capacity . Even if it could the sort of airflow that a GT40 compressor can develop would be let down by the shortage of exhaust flow capacity of the GT30 turbine/housing .

American Honda tuning firms spend their lives doing back to back tests with GT30R's , GT3040R's and GT3540R's and the results are always the same . The 3040R can develop higher power levels than the GT30R but high turbine inlet pressure (back pressure) becomes the limitation . The GT3540R has the same compressor/cover as the GT3040R but its turbine in 8mm larger in diameter or a smidge over 1.25 times its cross sectional area . So in effect the levers driving the shaft and compressor are longer (more mechanical advantage to develop shaft torque) and the path for exhaust gasses is less restrictive .

The GT3540R will nearly always be capable of higher power outputs than the GT3040R because it can get lots of air in and lets lots of exhaust out - in balenced proportions . They can be hamstrung with too small an exhaust housing in an effort to spool it on an engine really too small for them , but the result is nearly always compressor surge .

You won't be the first or last to try bridging the gap between the GT30R and GT3540R . To a degree it can be done , this is why different sized (ARR) turbine and compressor housings are made . If response is important then larger housings on the GT30R can extend it beyond the norm . Alternatively the mid size turbine housing and one of the mid or smaller T04E comp covers could wake up the larger GT3540R . Its always going to be a compromise .

which would be more suited to a 3ltr RB30det. the gt3040 or gt3540?

wats the difference in lag, much more from the gt3540?

Fellas I've not tried these on RB's or anything for that matter .

From a technical viewpoint the combination of a 60.1mm turbine and an 82mm compressor is not ideal . Thats not to say it wont work at all but , Garretts production engineers believe that the turbine cannot develop adequate shaft power to efficiently drive a compressor of that size and capacity . Even if it could the sort of airflow that a GT40 compressor can develop would be let down by the shortage of exhaust flow capacity of the GT30 turbine/housing .  

American Honda tuning firms spend their lives doing back to back tests with GT30R's , GT3040R's and GT3540R's and the results are always the same . The 3040R can develop higher power levels than the GT30R but high turbine inlet pressure (back pressure) becomes the limitation . The GT3540R has the same compressor/cover as the GT3040R but its turbine in 8mm larger in diameter or a smidge over 1.25 times its cross sectional area . So in effect the levers driving the shaft and compressor are longer (more mechanical advantage to develop shaft torque) and the path for exhaust gasses is less restrictive .  

The GT3540R will nearly always be capable of higher power outputs than the GT3040R because it can get lots of air in and lets lots of exhaust out - in balenced proportions . They can be hamstrung with too small an exhaust housing in an effort to spool it on an engine really too small for them , but the result is nearly always compressor surge .  

You won't be the first or last to try bridging the gap between the GT30R and GT3540R . To a degree it can be done , this is why different sized (ARR) turbine and compressor housings are made . If response is important then larger housings on the GT30R can extend it beyond the norm . Alternatively the mid size turbine housing and one of the mid or smaller T04E comp covers could wake up the larger GT3540R . Its always going to be a compromise .

which would be more suited to a 3ltr RB30det. the gt3040 or gt3540?

wats the difference in lag, much more from the gt3540?

I can only repeat what I was told by someone who's been there .

SK said that the RB25 or 26/31's make that much exhaust flow that they'll spool nearly anything . He said that ideally you want the turbo to spool up at approx 32-3300 revs otherwise it tries to spool up at the gearchange point and drinks copious amounts of fuel .

I imagine that twin cam RB30's are not lacking torque off boost as long as the compression ratio is adequate . This is where you need to understand the static and dynamic compression ratio part .

Static comp is worked out assuming no inlet restriction . Dynamic comp ratio takes into account the partly or nearly closed throttle plate/s . Obviously you can't have nearly as good cylinder filling with a closed throttle as an open one . The more air you can get into the cylinder the more there is to compress for high cylinder pressures post combustion . Higher static CR means all else being equal higher dynamic compression ie same volume of gas squeesed into smaller space = higher compression pressure .

Where this takes us to in the real world is more part throttle low rev torque to drive us down the road . This extra torque is not gained from boost so we get to start the onset of positive pressure higher up the rev range . We have the opportunity here to use larger turbines / housings to offset the restriction at the other end of the rev range and retain a little more volumetric efficiency . Part throttle driving off boost give us the ability to get good fuel mileage at 110 on the expressways .

I don't like the GT3040R personally (based on theory not practise) , and in the RB25 - 26/31 case we are not short of exhaust flow or part throttle torque so the bigger turbined GT3540R should pay off handsomely . My vote goes to the GT3540R .

Cheers Adrian .

RB25 speaking, actually using it.

I have a GT30, GT series wheel thats rated @ 600hp.

i wouldnt want it spooling any later than what it does now.

makes 16psi above 4000rpm and then power climbs nicely and fast, but limited to 7800rpm.

for the RB30DET/RB25DETT, the bigger GT35 is the go as the exhaust flow is a lot more.

a lot of the calaisturbo.com boys use the bigger GT35 on thier 30's and it gives them brilliant results as they can get away with running the slightly bigger version

Apparently the GT35R .82 exh. a/r makes ~1bar by 3500rpm on the RB30DET.

It makes serious boost by 4000rpm.

Its only what I've been told by another GT35R user on his RB30DET.

He also had the GT30R, which was to put it bluntly, crap.

It just didn't have the airflow to keep up with the 3ltr over 5500rpm causing power to flatten out and torque drop off.

The RB30DET. I wouldn't select any turbo other than the GT35R.

Play with exhaust a/r's to get the response and top end you are after.

According to turbine maps the GT30R .82 a/r flows the same airflow at the same pressure as the GT35R .63 a/r does.

Cubes I will probably go with the 1.06 ARR GT3540R just not sure about which comp cover . My engine will have 9 to 1 CR via the JE VG30 Piston solution , expensive but worth it . Wont be built in the near future , so far have 33 26 top end and pistons so still gathering bits as funds allow .

Chow Adrian .

Nice.. :/

My build took me around 2 years from the purchase of the first bits. :P

The VLT boys say the 1.06 a/r isn't laggy. I'm going to play with exhaust a/rs depending on how the .82 is. If its sweet then I won't bother. If its slightly laggier than I want I will drop down to the .63.

According to the 3ltrs airflow and where I would expect the gt35R to spool with a .63, it shouldn't surge.

2.5ltr.. it will surge.

G'day Cubes , some Garrett contacts in Torrance Calif are trying to push the GT40R turbo for the 26/31 hybrid . They reckon full boost from 4000 but its getting seriously big . I'm getting them to chase up details of available turbine housings but LOL probably a bigger mouthful than I can chew on !

I do know of someone over here with a custom "GT3542R" hybrid that reckons it spools fine . Its using the 102mm GT42 compressor , big enough to hide under .

I've gotta get back to SK to see if more than 9:1 CR is of any benefit ie 9.2 ?

Cheers Adrian .

If the GT35R is making 1bar by 3500rpm thats ~23.3lb/s which is some where around 250hp.

Torque = power / rpm * 5252

so to make around 250hp at 3500rpm it must be making around 375lb-ft or 500Nm of torque.

Some nice torque.

Obviously the calc is rough but gives us a rough idea.

Please tell me if I'm working it out wrong.. :P I think I have. I.e I have not taken in to account the compressors efficiency at that rpm & pr.

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

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...