Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi all... i have conducted a TRUE comparison between the two turbos thanks to Sonic Performance and Garage 7. By true comparison i mean the only thing changed was the turbo. nothing else was touched. The result was suprising and disappointing both at the same time. We found that the GTX version DID spool quicker and hence started making torque and power earlier in the midrange. i now have FULL boost around the 3500 rpm mark which for a turbo like that is impressive. Its highly streetable!

The downside is that for the same boost level peak power is changed by .1 of a kw! its pretty much lineball! the two turbos match each other on the graph pretty much spot on.

runs were done with air temp probe and same correction mode and dyno that STatus uses for real world comparison.

Heres the pics.

Solid pink line is GTX, thin red line is GT.

p1020473s.jpg

p1020471v.jpg

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Question:, is running the GTX at the same boost pressure as the other turbo a true 'fair' comparison? I mean... for example if your comparing a gt2871 with a gt4088 you don't leave them at the same boost.

It's interesting to see it ramp hard @ 3500rpm.

And then @ 4000rpm the GTX suddenly stops making power almost as if it's hitting surge. Was that just a case of the tune?

(ie back to back test, no tune adjust?)

Also interesting that its more responsive when other results all seem to show the opposite thus far.

Question:, is running the GTX at the same boost pressure as the other turbo a true 'fair' comparison? I mean... for example if your comparing a gt2871 with a gt4088 you don't leave them at the same boost.

what do you want me to do? run less or more boost?

i feel same boost level should give a truer comparison yes?

Lithium: no tuning.. was just run up. Declan ran out of time on the dyno but the AFR's were the same as before so its still fine.

It's interesting to see it ramp hard @ 3500rpm.

And then @ 4000rpm the GTX suddenly stops making power almost as if it's hitting surge. Was that just a case of the tune?

(ie back to back test, no tune adjust?)

Also interesting that its more responsive when other results all seem to show the opposite thus far.

yeah it probably needs a degree or two added in one part of the map to bring it back inline. this could be due to different airflow charactoristics of the two turbos.

i have seen other peoples results.. but they often have changed other things in their set ups which couldn potentially cause issues. as i said mine is a back to back. use the info as you please.

If the new turbo can flow more than the old one then potentially without raising the boost and/or adjusting the tune to maximize the new found goodness then potentially not really telling of the real difference. That result suggests to me the old turbo had more on it too...

If it didnt nose over hard, it would be looking to pickup a solid ~40kw @ 4500rpm.

Now that would be very interesting indeed.

Good to see a 18psi comparo too where most comparo's have been on 20-24psi for the most part.

Perhaps with more boost the differential between the two would be more noticeable.

Its a good comparison in that most cars are probably only going to run around this level of boost but this result is exactly what I would expect - apart from earlier spool. If you had of reved it to 7500rpm you may have actually seen some results.

I just dont know why you guys are so dissapointed - you only need to compare the compressor maps to see that there are f**k all gains unless your running around 2bar of boost with the gtx.

PS what type of engine management?

Been waiting for this.....the next step is to tune/map for the GTX but don't lift the boost. I reckon the ramp up will likely maintain its margin over the GT a bit better throughout the rev range . But I have a sneaking suspicion that the peak power [for 18psi] will be very similar.

But the GTX would be a lively package on the street, an extra 30rwkw at 3500!!! I'm almost tempted to sell my GT and try one [but I have other plans involving a dirty 30, so this challenge is not for me].

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

    • Had I known the diff between R32 and R33 suspension I would have R33 suspension. That ship has sailed so I'm doing my best to replicate a drop spindle without spending $4k on a Billet one.
    • OEM suspension starts to bind as soon as the car gets away from stock height. I locked in the caster and camber before cutting off the kingpin. I then let the upright down in a natural (unbound) state before re-attaching it. Now it moves freely in bump and droop relative to the new ride height. My plan is to add GKTech arms before the car is finished so I can dial camber and caster further. It will be fine. This isn't rocket science. Caster looks good, camber is good, upper arm doesn't cause crazy gain and it is now closer to the stock angle and bump steer checks out. Send it.
    • Pay careful attention to the kinematics of that upper arm. The bloody things don't work properly even on a normal stock height R32. Nissan really screwed the pooch on that one. The fixes have included changing the hole locations on the bracket to change the angle of the inner pivot (which was fairly successful but usually makes it impossible to install or remove the arm without unbolting the bracket from the tower, which sucks) and various swivelling upper arm designs. ALL the swivelling upper arm designs that look like a capital I (with serifs) suck. All of them. Some of them are in fact terribly unsafe. Even the best one of them (the old UAS design) shat itself in short order on my car. The only upper arm that works as advertised and is pretty safe is the GKTech one. But it is high maintenance on a street car. I'm guessing that a 600HP car as (stupidly, IMO) low as you are going is not going to be a regular driver. So the maintenance issues on suspension parts are probably not going to be a problem. But you really must make sure that however your fairly drastically modded suspension ends up, that the upper arms swing through an arc that wants to keep the inner and outer bolts parallel. If the outer end travels through an arc that makes that end's bolt want to skew away from parallel with the inner bolt, you will build up enormous binding and compressing forces in the bushes, chew them out and hate life. The suspension compliance can actually be dominated by the bush binding, not the spring rate! It may be the case that even something like the GKTech arm won't work if your suspension kinematics become too weird, courtesy of all the cut and shut going on. Although you at least say there's no binding now, so maybe you're OK. Seeing as you're in the build phase, you could consider using R33/4 type upper arms (either that actual arm, OEM or aftermarket) or any similar wishbone designed to suit your available space, so alleviate the silliness of the R32 design. Then you can locate your inner pivots to provide the correct kinematics (camber gain on compression, etc).
    • The frontend wouldn't go low enough because the coilover was max low and the upper control arm would collapse into itself and potentially bottom out in the strut tower. I made a brace and cut off the kingpin and then moved the upright down 1.25" and welded. i still have to finish but this gives an idea. Now I can have a normal 3.25" of shock travel and things aren't binding. I'm also dropping the lower arm and tie rod 1.25".
    • Motor and body mockup. Wheel fitment and ride height not set. Last pic shows front ride height after modifying the front uprights to make a 1.25" drop spindle.
×
×
  • Create New...