Garrett Medium Frame Gtx Turbos

[jet_r31]

another mate has one..490rwkw on 30psi..manual..single cam.. runs 144mph.. its on song at 4000rpm..on a single cam with massive cam

at 30psi,, it just starting to tick over

t4 splitpulse would be way better..

[whatsisname]

Tried to find out the result of JMS VLT but no joy... yet.

[whatsisname]

Yeah I've looked at the PT stuff but reliability and significant additional oil filtration requirements don't excite me all that much.

[jet_r31]

i agree..my mates leaked from seals straight up...

i wonder how many pt problems are caused by using dash fitting drains..maybe they are worse than other brands when they get

"backed up"

Edited December 19, 2016 by jet_r31

[whatsisname]

Interesting side note; PT and Turbonetics have just joined forces.

[whatsisname]

At the end of the day if I can squeeze over 500+kW (ideally 530ish) out of a GTX3584RS using the 1.01 housing or a 1.06 machined to suit (can be done - confirmed) it will be a worthwhile increase on my current set-up that has already hit the wall. Only one way to find out using my specific combo'. The other option is to use the big 1.21 housing... but I want to see some results first before considering that path. A few 3.0L build projects running the turbo in question coming online in the new year.

[jet_r31]

46 minutes ago, whatsisname said:

Interesting side note; PT and Turbonetics have just joined forces.

The worlds best customer service and reliability.(turbonetics) .joins the worst..lol

i am not worried about them making 500..they will..the 3582/ 11 blade 67s already do that. its how they make it

cheers

darren

Edited December 19, 2016 by jet_r31

[whatsisname]

i agree..my mates leaked from seals straight up...

i wonder how many pt problems are caused by using dash fitting drains..maybe they are worse than other brands when they get

"backed up"

Perhaps it's a combination of issues.

Much like the problems Evo and some Subaru owners experienced with their FP turbos. The issues seemed isolated to specific engines.

[whatsisname]

The worlds best customer service and reliability.(turbonetics) .joins the worst..lol
i am not worried about them making 500..they will..the 3582/ 11 blade 67s already do that. its how they make it
cheers
darren

Ha-ha. Hey it worked for Lamborghini when the Volkswagen Audi Group bought them out and improved Lambo quality control out of sight - from speedo needles falling off press demo cars through to Audi levels of reliability (slightly questionable atm).

If the lag is horrendous, like 5500+ I'll be disappointed. Having said that, call me crazy but I actually liked the power delivery of my old set-up. The current combo just wants to turn tyres, even at 2500-3000.

[jet_r31]

depends  alot where oil supply is taken from in different engines, and how old the motor is for a start

as if it will be 5500rpm..lol

i like lag aswell..least you get more road speed up for traction..but i dont like needless lag and unmatched turbos..lol

 

 

Edited December 19, 2016 by jet_r31

[whatsisname]

Yep makes sense.

Ha-ha... I was just setting a 'very low' baseline of what's acceptable lag.

Good to know I'm not on my own with that one. Yeah fair call.

Adzy (ex-BW) gave me a run down on the power delivery of the BMW powered Benetton F1 car during the Adelaide Motorsport Festival. Boost starts building at about 6000-7000, full boost by 8000 till 13000RPM. 1-2 secs after WOT till it responds! Gerhard Berger is quoted as saying the driver had to go WOT at or before corner apex to get full throttle after straightening up. Get it wrong by 5-10 metres and around she went (spin).

.

[whatsisname]

Three more XR6T with GTW3884R results:
427kW 21-22psi on 98
423kW on 19psi also running pump 98
490kW on 24psi Unknown fuel - possibly 98.
Found a 512kW on 20psi running E85 but not sure if it's a GTW3884 result or not

Found another GTW3884R result
XR6T on E85 620kW at 26psi

https://m.facebook.com/TorquenTune/
Scroll down for a bit to find the dyno sheet and video of run

[Lithium]

On 19/12/2016 at 9:04 PM, whatsisname said:

At the end of the day if I can squeeze over 500+kW (ideally 530ish) out of a GTX3584RS using the 1.01 housing or a 1.06 machined to suit (can be done - confirmed) it will be a worthwhile increase on my current set-up that has already hit the wall. Only one way to find out using my specific combo'. The other option is to use the big 1.21 housing... but I want to see some results first before considering that path. A few 3.0L build projects running the turbo in question coming online in the new year.

Right, if you "only" want to crack 500kw then it sounds quite doable - you had been throwing numbers "conservatively" north of 900hp @ crank (which I read as - you were aiming at using up in the high 80lb/min flow wise around earlier and is a different kettle of fish).  That sounds pretty reasonable, potentially even with the 1.01a/r hotside.

On 19/12/2016 at 9:54 PM, whatsisname said:

If the lag is horrendous, like 5500+ I'll be disappointed. Having said that, call me crazy but I actually liked the power delivery of my old set-up. The current combo just wants to turn tyres, even at 2500-3000.

It should be on well before 5500rpm.

 

On 19/12/2016 at 6:53 PM, whatsisname said:

1.06 vs 1.01 isn't A/R for A/R

 

 

I wasn't going to bother responding to this but I have to take the bait in case others are going to read this and not think.

No, the 1.06 GT35 turbine is not the same a/r as the 1.01 "RS" turbine, HOWEVER look at how dominant the 1.06 GT35 hotside is over the 1.01 "RS" one, every point it's all over it.  Look at the .83a/r "RS" turbine map versus the .82a/r "GT35" map, any gains it has are so discrete it's not funny.   The biggest bonus with the "RS" turbine is the option of a 1.22a/r hotside option which feels quite bandaid-y and it's hard to see how they couldn't have just released a new range of turbine housings to achieve that with the current GT35 turbine and then do something a bit more ambitious.  I'd like to be wrong here, but so far there isn't much on paper to indicate to me that a Precision 6466 wouldn't beat the shit out of a GTX3584RS.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Lithium

[whatsisname]

Look I would certainly consider a current generation PT6466, if I had confidence in its long term reliability. I don't. Far too many failures or oil leaks for my liking - multiple sources. I've also considered a XONA Rotor XR8267, even a XR9567. Reliability is the main cause for concern. There have been failures - info is hard to come by but it is out there.   

Can you give me a rough explanation on the relationship between Maximum Efficiency percentage and the overall turbine map? Is the 8% increase in efficiency of the RS turbine when compared to the older GT35 reflected in the turbine plot line? I can't seem to find any information that details the significance of this percentage and how it applies to the Garrett turbine map as a whole. Obviously there is corrected mass flow, how much the turbine and housing will flow for a given pressure ratio, but where does the max efficiency percentage factor in the equation?  Aerodynamics is not one of my strong points. 

Found this opinion piece from someone in your neck of the woods, Lith. Not you is it? That would be funny!

'Just noticed max efficiency of the new rs wheel is 78% vs 70 for the old .
According to my mickey mouse comparison on matchbot, this would put the GTX3584RS 68mm wheel with a 1.21 AR housing at about the same backpressure as a normal 74mm wheel in a 1.45 housing. Could be merit in this new design as the spoolup has to be better than a normal 74mm wheel. Spool is relative to wheel size as well as AR. A 68mm in a 1.21 is going to spool up better than a 74mm in a 1.21 (not sure I agree with this if all else remains constant other than wheel size). Which I think is what Garrett is trying to achieve with the RS wheel. Less flow, but the same backpressure and better spool than a larger wheel in the same sized housing. '

Thoughts?

 

---

 

 

[Lithium]

20 hours ago, whatsisname said:

Can you give me a rough explanation on the relationship between Maximum Efficiency percentage and the overall turbine map? Is the 8% increase in efficiency of the RS turbine when compared to the older GT35 reflected in the turbine plot line? I can't seem to find any information that details the significance of this percentage and how it applies to the Garrett turbine map as a whole. Obviously there is corrected mass flow, how much the turbine and housing will flow for a given pressure ratio, but where does the max efficiency percentage factor in the equation?  Aerodynamics is not one of my strong points. 

Found this opinion piece from someone in your neck of the woods, Lith. Not you is it? That would be funny!

'Just noticed max efficiency of the new rs wheel is 78% vs 70 for the old .
According to my mickey mouse comparison on matchbot, this would put the GTX3584RS 68mm wheel with a 1.21 AR housing at about the same backpressure as a normal 74mm wheel in a 1.45 housing. Could be merit in this new design as the spoolup has to be better than a normal 74mm wheel. Spool is relative to wheel size as well as AR. A 68mm in a 1.21 is going to spool up better than a 74mm in a 1.21 (not sure I agree with this if all else remains constant other than wheel size). Which I think is what Garrett s trying to achieve with the RS wheel. Less flow, but the same backpressure and better spool than a larger wheel in the same sized housing. '

 

Interesting opinion bit, it's not me - what do you mean by "My neck of the woods"?  NZ?  I don't know many Kiwis who get into it with that kind of depth... be helpful to know the context of that because it seems like they are comparing a divided Borg Warner turbine setup with an open Garrett one of a completely different size. 

I am no expert on this area, though the way I understand "turbine efficiency" is that it indicates the efficiency of the turbine of a given size to turn kinetic energy into twisting force.  That slight increase in efficiency I guess means that you can do stuff like "waste" slightly more exhaust gas (on gate... ) to transfer the same torque through the turbine shaft.  All things being equal this could result in slightly less exhaust manifold pressure for the same amount of flow through the engine, or the ability for a bit more flow through the engine before VE starts spiralling out of control - "a/r for a/r".  

No, the efficiency is not reflected in that turbine map.  

In regards to the 6466 etc, yeah I understand the concern and it frustrates me too - Precision do GREAT performing stuff however there is definitely a mixed impression of reliability.  Have you seen stuff specifically on the Xona-Rotor universal turbos having reliability issues?  I have been keeping an eye out, like a lot of FP's stuff I like a lot of what they are up to on paper but I don't like their ethic or some of their bolt-on's reliability in the past.  It will be interesting to see what becomes of this Turbonetics/Precision merger and how it affects things - I already know people who swear by the new TNX-series Turbonetics turbos so maybe there is a revolution on the way?

 

[whatsisname]

Yes mate, your neck of the woods as in NZ based. Here is the thread where the info originated, interesting read:  http://www.rx7club.com/single-turbo-rx-7s-23/turbo-comparison-includes-new-2015-turbos-see-post-one-869614/page4/  Mixed opinions from the people contributing. 

Thank you for explaining it in basic terms.

I didn't think it was. It is all a bit of an unknown at this stage. Conventional theory suggests cold and hot side are poorly matched, which "should" result in poor response and sub-optimal top end horsepower. It's the worst of both worlds. All this comes on the back of Honeywell and Garrett boasting about 2 years of aerospace R&D and Honeywell stating it is their biggest development in Garrett turbochargers in the last decade! Hmm... not sure what to think.

They obviously went to the effort of "designing" a new turbine wheel for the GTX3584RS, so why didn't they simply increase the wheel size so it matched the 67mm-84mm compressor? Makes no sense to me at all. Is it all PR and marketing bullshit to try and gain ground on the likes of Borg Warner, Precision, and all the smaller players? Whip up a few new billet comp wheels for the majority of the range. Up the HP ratings. Job done. Flood social media with PR spin and sponsor a bunch of high profile players in the scene (Ken Block etc.) and a few local guys here and there. And then add the cherry on top with their new GTX3584RS golden child... whack on a new 'magical' turbine wheel and ramp up the PR spin.      

Makes me want to e-mail TurbobyGarrett and ask them the hard questions. Doubt they'd give a straight answer... and the reply would probably come from a PR rep anyway. Am I starting to sound a bit cynical? Ha-ha.      

I am hearing you regarding the alternative options (BW aside - EFR range in particular) As far as the Xona Rotor issue goes; just recently I stumbled across a couple of  threads on the US based GTR forums where people have dropped warnings about failures and to avoid going in that direction. Where there is smoke there is usually fire. I have absolutely no doubt the technology and performance is there, much like PT, but until reliability is squared away it's hard to commit.

Turbocharger upgrade options... I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.                

  

 

 

 

 

[Lithium]

1 hour ago, whatsisname said:

Thank you for explaining it in basic terms.

Makes me want to e-mail TurbobyGarrett and ask them the hard questions. Doubt they'd give a straight answer... and the reply would probably come from a PR rep anyway. Am I starting to sound a bit cynical? Ha-ha.      

I am hearing you regarding the alternative options (BW aside - EFR range in particular) As far as the Xona Rotor issue goes; just recently I stumbled across a couple of  threads on the US based GTR forums where people have dropped warnings about failures and to avoid going in that direction. Where there is smoke there is usually fire. I have absolutely no doubt the technology and performance is there, much like PT, but until reliability is squared away it's hard to commit.

Turbocharger upgrade options... I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.                

 

No worries, no doubt not everything I say is perfect but I try.

Haha yeah, I'd be very interested to see if you do go forth and achieve dialog with Garrett.  In regards to the PR spin, it's got to set off some alarm bells regarding Block's Hoonicorn - the fact that with a high compression methanol V8 they are claiming barely more crank hp than what people are putting to the wheels with street trim flex fuel R35s with conventional GTX3582Rs.

I'll make it clear here, I am just speculating and pondering - I am absolutely not hand on heart saying its a terrible thing, I could be totally underestimating things... even if talking about a turbo I really approve of, I still look at how it will perform with a conservative/critical eye.  If you do it, I am very interested to see how it goes and it'd be grand if it works out well.  I think 500-530kw is entirely plausible.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Lithium

[whatsisname]

I appreciate your input and know you have the best of intentions.

I might try contacting them in the new year. Interesting to see what kind of response I get.

It's only a matter of time till results start popping up. Looking forward to seeing what it is capable of, good or bad.

[r32-25t]

Someone in here said that Andrew Hawkins (motive) had not fitted a gtw3884 to his car, this video show that he has intact changed from the gtx3582

 

[whatsisname]

I noticed that earlier today. But if memory serves me correctly, they thought Andrew had fitted a GTX3584RS. Obviously it's a GTW3884R.