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.

  On 30/06/2011 at 9:01 AM, sneakey pete said:

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.

  On 30/06/2011 at 9:05 AM, R31Nismoid said:

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

    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
    • Yes they do. For some maybe. But for those used the most by abusers, ie Skylines, the numbers are known. The stock eyebrow height for R32/3 Skylines is about 365/375mm or thereabouts. The minimum such heights are recorded in adjacent columns in the database.
×
×
  • Create New...