Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What do they actually replace with these high flow units? And what kind of thrust bearings do they use? old, new, 360o? I have had mutiple garrett units fail in various applications and seem to see similar characteristics in all. However am yet to see it in my trust units...just wondering if there are any noted differences here.

LOL yes, but what components are used, what thrust washers.

I do know that two b/b units built by garrett only used smaller degree thrust washers, turbos failed soon after, apparently rebuilds do not automatically qualify for the 360o thrust washer...perhaps this is the problem.

So no one can confirm exactly what is used in each application? Or if its actually brand new?

Also in the failed applications are ppl running bovs?

The added surge increases load on smaller degree thrusts, (under 360o thrusts might already be a problem in themselves) and can easily be one of the contributing factors to these failures, not just in ball bearing units, but in all turbos.

Edited by 33gtst

You can always ring GCG if your worried.

For the 1000's of units they have no doubt sold, one or two failed. Doesnt mean much to me.

I had a GT30 fail in less than 5,000km's. But thats just how it goes.

ok so it doesnt mean much to you, but I was simply replying to what I believe might be one of the contributing factors as to why these units are failing...which is the original question, so I think it might matter to salad.

I'm certainly not worried, I have tried turbos from gcg, garrett, nissan and I will never install another garrett/or garrett supplied unit on any of my vehicles, but this thread wasnt about me.

I'm still yet to see valid evidence of how no BOV actually damages a turbo.

It just seems weird to me that all oem vehicles since the early 1990's come std with factory fitted bovs..I guess they like the wank factor and have no justification for them whatsoever. I'm sure they actually have put in substancial r + d into this prior to the added expense of fitment and supply on their vehicles. However sadly I cant confirm the exact reason, I can only speculate from what I have seen and tried with my cars and my garrett dramas.

Im not saying no bov causes premature turbo failure, on its own, but perhaps when consistancies are appearing in these failures that has to mean something.

Are the thrusts unable to cope with the added surge, that maybe the 360o thrusts cope better with? Are those running a bov still experiancing the same failure and symptoms?

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...