Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi guys.I currently have a turbosmart boost T ,one of the latest type with the ball and spring and was just wondering if a turbotech would be any better? I will be getting a retune soon with bigger injectors and z32 afm to go with my current turbo which is a apexi ax53b70p25.The common trend with these internal wastegate turbos is that they tend to drop a few pounds of boost towards redline. Cheers

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/348562-turbotech-vs-turbosmart/
Share on other sites

there is a thread on here some where thats like 70 hundred pages long about the turbotech boost controller being the best so i brought one in short it was shit. i now have a turbosmart T and think it is heaps better.

I had a better boost curve running the Turbosmart than the blitz ebc I upgraded to, although the ebc does ramp on the boost a little quicker.

Either of these cheap manual regulator style controllers should do the job perfectly. If your boost curve still drops off it wont be the controller, more likely you would need a stronger wastegate actuator.

+1 to turbotech!

Had a GFB bleed installed set to 12psi,

then switched to a turbotech (just to test) and the car hit 12psi so much quicker then the GFB, ditched the GFB immediately.

turbotech will be my only manual bleed valve choice, other then that, EBC it is :)

Thanks for the replies guys. I think i will look into getting a stronger actuator to suit my turbo.Does anybody know if a hks or garrett actuator will fit my apexi turbo?The actuator on it is apparently a 12psi.Cheers.

Buy an EBC. The cheapness of skyline owners never ceases to amaze me. It is scrooge season though I suppose.

So do you believe an EBC will stop my boost dropping at high Rpm,cause if so that is all i'm looking for?

A decent electronic boost controller is always going to be better then a bleed valve if set up right.

Just Jap have the Blitz Dual SBC Spec R boost conrollers going for $599. Its not cheap but you will get great results....

here is my boost graph its holding 22psi with a 15psi actuator.

post-32514-0-25374400-1293926323_thumb.jpg

A decent electronic boost controller is always going to be better then a bleed valve if set up right.

Just Jap have the Blitz Dual SBC Spec R boost conrollers going for $599. Its not cheap but you will get great results....

here is my boost graph its holding 22psi with a 15psi actuator.

post-32514-0-25374400-1293926323_thumb.jpg

The actuator is doing most of the work in your setup, try that with a 7psi spring. I have the same Blitz unit, it wont hold boost any better than the Turbosmart as my actuator is blowing open.

The Turbosmart and Turbotech ones are not bleed valves, they are regulators that are run in line, just like an ebc. They are great if hooked up correctly, not just for tight arses.

and a turbotech is not a bleed valve. it's a ball and spring type that blocks the pressure to the actuator until desired boost is reached, at which point the pressure is passed through.

very simple. very effective. very cheap.

but it only holds one boost level throughout the rpm range, and isnt configurable in any other parameters, obviously.

so depending what you need. ebc may be better, or may be a waste of money.

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...