Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Did you measure them up Trustr32?

Na not yet got a set of Verniers on the weekend and I'll pull the front housings off on Wednesday night and measure them and let you know. I Have been too busy lately to get to them and I'm still waiting for my manifolds so haven't been in a rush.

Well I pulled them apart tonight and got to measuring and unless the tolerences are next to none then I think they're the same turbo's. I measured the bottom width of the comp wheels and they were 60.00mm and 60.06mm. The length of the longer fins are exactly the same at 23.35mm but the gap between the tips of the smaller and larger fins were a bit all over the place ranging from 5.83mm-6.11mm but even on the same turbo they varied. The only other thing I measured was where the wheel tapers up to the part that the nut sits on with one being 15.53mm and the other 15.6mm. I mean I dont know much about turbo technology and just how precise or not it is but both "look" the same and both comp housings fit on each other turbo with the wheels still spinning so I cant see that they are different. The only things I did notice is that both wheels have a different set of numbers/markings around the base of the fins with one having "294 A w R" and the other having "294 A C R" and one had what looked like an assembly lube and the other didnt. I aslo stumbled across another thread the other day where someone mentioned the same thing as me about one turbo having 2860 and the other 2560 and someone said that as long as they both have 707160-5 they're the same. Anyway here's a few photo's any idea's would be appreciated.

Cheers Brodie.

post-58307-0-06556000-1314270261_thumb.jpgpost-58307-0-45915500-1314270283_thumb.jpgpost-58307-0-10150000-1314270310_thumb.jpgpost-58307-0-70849600-1314270218_thumb.jpgpost-58307-0-50407200-1314270346_thumb.jpg

Sounds good so far.... disco may be able to shed some more light on the numbers

Have you compared the turbine....if not, you should

I have never done it but maybe you could get some modelling clay or similar and make impressions of one and compare to the other

Sounds good so far.... disco may be able to shed some more light on the numbers

Have you compared the turbine....if not, you should

I have never done it but maybe you could get some modelling clay or similar and make impressions of one and compare to the other

Turbines look identical and both measure the same at the base 53.03mm they also both have the same numbers "166 A 01 H"

Yeah hopefully it wont come to that but I will if i have to I guess.

post-58307-0-92587400-1314275449_thumb.jpgpost-58307-0-66253700-1314275489_thumb.jpgpost-58307-0-18625000-1314275527_thumb.jpgpost-58307-0-76832500-1314275409_thumb.jpg

Hey guys sorry to keep hassling everyone but can anyone shed a bit more light on the situation now with these measurements? Disco? Nizmoid? I'm at the stage where I think they're about as close as you'd get without bring exactly the same but id still like another opinion or two.

  • 2 weeks later...

Ok here goes...

My next turbo arrived and it has the "S" on the pn. (GT2859R - 780371 - 5001S)...This turbo however was made by Honeywell the other one which the supplier had from before, and have to pair up with (GT2859R - 780371 - 5001) was made by Allied signal.

I measured up the wheels and both measured the same, visually looked the same and even had the same numbers stamped on in the same spot.

However the comp housing on the Allied signal was visually larger (fatter) where the text is printed on to the front and just had "garrett" and M24 printed where as the Honeywell had "garrett" M24 and .42A/R and some other stuff on it....You could clearly notice a difference between size of the comp housings.

I taped up the comp inlet and outlet with duct tape and filled them with water and they both basically measured up the same

I was thinking the difference is just due to different casting, as u could feel the bigger housing (Allied signal) was thicker and heavier.

Both housings are .42A/R so does this mean technically that they should flow and perform the same even though one is physically larger looking on the outside??...Inside bore looked the same but hard to tell.

Not my pics but this seems to be the newer castings for the gtss/-9/-1

post-42272-0-10631500-1315712398_thumb.jpg

This is the older style casting

post-42272-0-47964800-1315712560_thumb.jpg

I have one of each

You can see the difference in the "hump" on the comp...the older style is definitely larger but both are 0.42A/R

Trustr32 not hijacking,.... just want to keep this info in one place

Not my pics but this seems to be the newer castings for the gtss/-9/-1

post-42272-0-10631500-1315712398_thumb.jpg

This is the older style casting

post-42272-0-47964800-1315712560_thumb.jpg

I have one of each

You can see the difference in the "hump" on the comp...the older style is definitely larger but both are 0.42A/R

Trustr32 not hijacking,.... just want to keep this info in one place

Na thats no probs at all man if this is going to become a more regularly asked question it's good to have 1 place to find answers wel hopefully anyway lol. So it's only different externally? Like the inner chambers look/feel the same?

Well thats the thing....the comp outlet at he end is the same but its really hard to measure otherwise.....Thats why I filled both with water to check the volume, which basically measured the same.

Hear this....

I did measure the depth at various points around as shown in the pic on the Honeywell (newer) casting and even though it was smaller on the outside, it actually measured deeper at some points than the other casting which was physically larger watching it from the outside, so that means the extra bulge was in fact due to the thickness of the casting itself...I would say almost 3/8" thicker around where the rectangle is printed close to the outlet.

post-42272-0-89202000-1315794006_thumb.jpg

You could clearly tell the difference between manufactures as the newer housing was much cleaner / smooth / neat than the older style gtss / -9 which everyone knows

I'm not clear how A/R is calculated, but seeing that both are the same 0.42A/R and both hold the same volume of water, even though the shape is not 100% the same internally does it mean that it will flow the same?

It should have the same comp map right?

  • 11 months later...

It's just Garrett adding a new classification far as I'm aware as they do from time to time (although, it's not exactly "new").

Could be more-so that people stocking the turbos were simply not listing them correctly after the ID tag change, given there is only one option for 2860R's for bolt-on GTR :)

For the GT Series, model GT4082SN translates as follows: GT40 = (77mm turbine); 82 = 82mm compressor wheel; S = single passage bypass turbine; and N = ported shroud.

http://garrettbyhone...identification/

Garrett-Turbo-GT-Series-Model-Designations-.gif

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

    • As you're looking at using a Link ECU, then large injectors are not a problem. But there's not really any need to go 1000s on an RB20 unless you're planning >>600HP on E85, which would seem unlikely. There are other options for injectors. The Xspurt ones are available from a number of places and you can get them in the mid 600s and 725cc, which is probably a sensible place to be. These are all EV14 based. If you are not using the stock AFM (at all, which would be the case with a Link) then a large turbo intake pipe to suit the ATR turbos is not an obstacle, so you should use one instead of a highflow. Results will be better.
    • Hey guys,  I'm after some advice and this here is the best place to get it imo. I was a member a looong time ago under another account, with a lost email address. Its nice to jump back on and see some of the same names still giving good advice.  I mothballed my car when i moved to perth in 2013, and after getting towed across the nullabor a few times it has officially done more km's on a trailer than under its own power. Now that i have started the process of tidying up and modifying it, i see the fruit available (and the fruiterers selling the produce) is different than back in the day. hence my questions, as i used to 'know' what to get and now, i'm not so sure. Engine wise the car (92 gtst) has a walbro 255, k+n, fmic, cam gears and and turbo back 3"exhaust. Wish list is a Hypergear high flow or ATR43G1, Link G4x and some newer injectors before a tune up. My goals are modest, only low 200's power wise. i know i could achieve this with less, but i've been swapping out old for new where i can. Every cooling hose has been replaced, along with mani gaskets, WP, thermostat and radiator, fuel pump and timing belt, tensioner and idler, and i rebuilt the steering rack. Regarding the injectors, the fruiterers all seem to sell what used to be considered quite large injectors. There are a lot of options for bosch 1000cc EV14's, and i would like to know if that is a suitable choice for my build. Is modern injector design good enough to run these at the low duty cycles that i likely would be? is there a downside to running a too large injector these days? or, would there be an upside to running a smaller injector at higher duty cycle? I can see that there are smaller injectors still available, but the ones i have seen specifically marketed for RB's are pretty large (see: https://golebysparts.au/collections/fuel-rail-injector-kits/products/nissan-rb20-fuel-rail-bosch-980cc-1150cc-injectors-turbosmart-fpr800-regulator-kit), and i dont know enough about them to say one not marketed for RB's would fit or not. I have searched the forums, and amongst all the posts on older tech, I did see gtsboy recommend EV14's, but no size was mentioned... again, i'm not clear on if the smaller size bosch injectors are also EV14's as they do look similar.  also, if someone can recommend a tuner familiar with RB's in the Geelong or West Melbourne area i'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance guys. Cheers, Rowdy  
    • FWIW the depth of the groove in the rubber pad is not super essential, the blocks are rubber and squish a bit. If you are worried an angle grinder will make a deeper groove quick smart
    • I mean, if you were to move the jacking points away from the original location, that is, away from the wheels and closer to the centreline of the car, then it will be more likely to overbalance and tip off the supports. Same as we talked about before. I was talking about moving for-aft. If the sill is bent outward or inward, then the car would obviously look unstraight from the outside. Hopefully that hasn't happened either. Again, you can do comparative measurements from the chassis rails to see if there is much deflection.
    • Can you elaborate what you mean with your first sentence? I meant move as in the bulge kinda seemed like it got pulled "outward" meaning it got pulled down and to the side with the jacking rail itself, so the load bearing bulge now sits lower than usual and is not level with the sill on the other side of the jack point. Either that or the jacking rail just got pushed in a good bit.
×
×
  • Create New...