Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

CAn you elaborate on this GT3071R

What size ex. A/R should i use?

What is it rated at? I think 500hp

What its response like and full boost rpm?

Do i need a custom dump? How much?

How much is this turbo cost? Best price was $1750 on ebay

Is anyone running this turbo on a RB25? If yes please state mods and power made.

FOR F@#$%K SAKE! :O

Does anyone know the ANSWER to any of the above QUESTIONS???

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh much better now.... :(:(:(

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/139448-garrett-gt3071r-info/
Share on other sites

I have one with a .7 cover and a RB25 Turbo read ground out to fit.

Comes on full boost at 3200rpm in second.

I'd go for the .6 compressor cover - Your max efficiency will be on lower boost. With the .7 compressor cover, max efficiency is at about 22psi - which is too much for a standard internal RB25.

So yeah, .6 compressor cover, and about 16psi and you should see over 250rwkw easily. If you want a bit of lag and heaps of top end, go for the .86 rear.

just make sure they don't sell you one with a to4s compressor wheel.

:D

Talk to Slide off this forum! i just bought one for my rb25 & its being put on as we speak! its got the 0.82ar plus im putting in poncams etc so it should be fairly responsive!

:laugh:

Al_R33 I thought you had a 3076 as well???

i had 3071 on my rb20 in both .86 and .64 housings.

.86 reached 260rwkw @ 21psi, boost could be controlled lower, laggy as crap eg no boost at all until low3 full boost @ low 5rpm

.64 reached 257ewkw @ could not get boost below 22psi. 500rpm better.

Lots of fiddling to fit - not worth it IMO

Be careful peoples , not all Garrett GT3071R's are created equal .

Firstly the GT3071R-WG . Dog turbo becauses it uses the cropped GT30 turbine in a .64 or .86 GT28 IW exhaust housing . Failed concept , doesn't work acceptably and should not be on the market .

Rule (1) with GT3071R turbos , if it has a T25/28 flange (which is wrong for Skylines) its looking for a victim .

Secondly the R E A L GT3071R W I L L have a T3 flanged exhaust housing , not any old T3 flanged housing but a real Garrett GT30 type exhaust housing . The R E A L GT3071R will have an unmolested 60mm GT30 84 trim turbine , approx 60 x 55 mm dimensions . This turbine and its native turbine housing family are the critical components that make this turbocharger WORK properly . Its a production derivative of the Garrett competition specific TR30R turbocharger .

Do a few searches on Garrett GT3071R and wipe anything ending in WG or -WG . You'll find it at ATP Turbo in the US amongst other places . You'll also find it at turbobygarrett.com but only in the turbo comparison sheet . Scroll down the table to the last of the three GT3071R's , I think they quote is as the highest power capable variant at around either 440 or 450 Hp . Even search this site , at least one person here is using one on an RB20 .

Lastly , don't forget that genuine Garrett GT30 integral wastegate housings (T3 flange) are now available in .63 .82 and 1.06 AR ratio .

It it were me I'd read the turbos ID tag carefully if searching for one of these , it should say CHRA no 700177-0023 like that Garrett comparison sheet tells you . Don't accept any moron telling you that those numbers are unimportant or minor variations are insignificant .

Cheers A .

Thanks 'discopotato03' ill quote this CHRA no700177-0023 when i purchase the turbo.

While we are on the topic if a particular turbo is rated at 500hp. Is that the figure it can provide at the flywheel or the rear wheels?

Will this turbo clear the block and chasis? Will it need a spacer?

Hi Nabil , it seems the power figure of the turbocharger is worked out from its maximum compressor flow in pounds of air per minute . A conservative rule of thumb is 10lbs per hundred Hp so 50lbs of air to 500Hp .

No turbocharger manufacturer can work out how much Hp their turbo will make on any engine because there are so many variables . Its up to the person developing an engine to make it swallow as much air as possible and vent exhaust gas at a sufficient rate to not suffer reversion and pumping losses .So basically a 500Hp capable turbo may not get you 500 from your engine , it will depend on how well its developed .

Cheers A .

grim32,

Have you had yours tuned since mr squiggle had his way with it?

Nah i havent, i did notice on the last power run it was starting to roll out a cloud of smoke but didnt think to much of it at the time. A week or so later i saw it was blowing a heap of oil out the dipstick so i let it sit in the garage for a while. Recently i did a comp test and found no.2-6 were at 125psi but no.1 was only at 75psi. Lifted the head and no.1 bore was glazed up and there were detonation marks on the top side of the piston (melted). (Whoops accidently mis set the boost on the dyno and ran 30psi for a sec or two)

I decided to ditch the 20 for now and picked up a cheap R32 RB25de which i should have back in soon, i plan to run it at 15psi and see how it goes, if bad RB30DET here i come.

Bugger. :D

The 25 will work well with the turbo you have but the 30 may choke a little.

15psi through the 25 head will be roughly the same air flow as ~19-20psi through the 20. Throw your stock turbo RB20 cams into it, better suited for turbo. :)

The RB25 n/a springs actually are the RB20det springs.

Most experience valve float at higher boost levels as the rb25de valves are larger, so they really need a better spring.

But a lot have had good results when shimming their springs so that may be a cheap way out if your only looking to run lowish boost, which 15-17psi is. :D

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

    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
    • As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
    • With all the rust on those R32s, how can it even support all the extra weight requirements. Probably end up handling as well as a 1990s Ford Falcon Taxi.
    • Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.
×
×
  • Create New...