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

    • Good morning all, Bit of a random question but figured I’d finally throw it out after wondering for a long while. Before I start, I'm hoping to do this purely out of personal preference. I think it would look better at night, and don't mind at all spending a few hours and dollars to get it done. I've copied this from a non-Skyline specific forum, so I apologize for the explanation of our headlight switch setup that we all know. Here we go: Zero lights (switch off) Parking lights (switch position 1) being a rectangular marker on the outside of the housing, my low beam being the projector in the centre (position 2), and a high beam triggered by my turn signal stalk. Most North American cars I’ve owned of this era have power to the amber corner (turning indicator) light as part of the first switch (parking lights). I’d love to have these amber corners receive power when the headlights and parking lights are on (headlight switch), yet still blink when using the turn signal which is of course a separate switch. Hopefully I’ve explained my question correctly. Is anyone aware of a way in which I might be able to achieve this? Thanks in advance
    • My heads are cathedral port! It's likely possible, but I don't want to add any extra moving parts (I know they don't move) between the heads, manifolds, etc. It will also affect how injectors/fuel rails etc sit and I don't really know if it would change how the FAST manifold goes/sits/fits. I have the LS6 steam pipes already as I have a very late LS1 block so it should be fine. I couldn't find anyone who had ever actually used one for this purpose, it seems 100% of people grind the water pump. The thermal spacers are 12mm and are half way to the cost of the newer water pump anyhow... so if it comes to that I suppose I'd rather buy a new pump. The bearing in the pump I do have is a little.. clunky, but it hasn't done that much time and I never noticed it when the car was together in the past few years, so..
    • The bushing has failed, not all that uncommon for a car of this age.  Any mechanic should be able to push in a new bushing for you, or you can probably buy the entire lower control arm, complete with bushes.
    • Could you not use "thermal" spacers to give the clearance, like the ones I used between the blower and head? That raised the manifold height by around 10-15mm Albeit the ones I used were for cathedral ports, but I assume they have similar for rectangular ports????
    • Thanks Paul I reached out to Autotainment but they no longer work on JDM cars as the guy who used to do the work moved on and is no longer doing that kind of work. I am talking with Level Up Audio though.
×
×
  • Create New...