Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I find it a bit confusing when people say that the dyno is different to how it behaves on the street, my experience with the GTX was that it was very similar to its dyno graph, I havnt had the TS GT3076 on a dyno yet but so far the STREET feel is not night and day compared with the GTX, so the change from GTX to GT compressor doesn't seem to back up what was said about response in my case... seems to me that all these turbo's have the same size hot side, a 60mm turbine that can only speed up so fast and the motor itself doesn't seem to be able to ingest and flow the gas quick enough when the revs are under 4000rpm, maybe other peoples setup is making the difference... In future id be trying the Hypergear route..

Its a shame you didnt get the results you were looking for, but i think without finishing the job properly with the tune etc your setup left a lot out...

My car is totally different... In saying that from what i have seen online the GTX wasnt hugely impressive in terms of response so maybe it was a bad comparison.

If you had felt my car before and after you would know what i mean! Well i know i did but i knew the car damn well i guess.

Owen had really epic response on his TS GT setup so i think there is still way more in yours!

I find it a bit confusing when people say that the dyno is different to how it behaves on the street, my experience with the GTX was that it was very similar to its dyno graph, I havnt had the TS GT3076 on a dyno yet but so far the STREET feel is not night and day compared with the GTX, so the change from GTX to GT compressor doesn't seem to back up what was said about response in my case... seems to me that all these turbo's have the same size hot side, a 60mm turbine that can only speed up so fast and the motor itself doesn't seem to be able to ingest and flow the gas quick enough when the revs are under 4000rpm, maybe other peoples setups are making the difference... In future id be trying the Hypergear route..

We discussed you going from a GTX to a GT back in March - though you were talking about going .63 open T3 at the time:

AngryRB: 1) Do you think this makes sense to switch to a GT3076 0.63?

2) Will the transient response be worth this switch?

Lith: 1) To me, no - it sounds like a lot of effort and going to the GT wheel result in a backwards evolution, you have a more modern turbo now that makes more power for the spool trade off. How much power are you after? Is the current level pretty much on target?

2) Again, I doubt it - the transient response difference is likely (never actually driven a GTX3076R myself mind you) to be pretty similiar, all things being equal. The biggest difference will be the .63 vs .82 housing I reckon, and when I went from .63 to .82 I didn't really lose much transient response at all - really the main difference in lag was under 3500rpm... once the turbo was spinning it was much of a muchness.

I also went on to mention that I thought the likes of an HTA3073 would be more rewarding. So basically I am not surprised at all that you haven't had a day and night difference in performance, I expect it WILL improve with a tune but still nothing incredible.

One of the frustrating things about forums which have seriously dropped my enthusiasm for trying to help out is when people ask for help on deciding things, just listen to the stuff which validates what they are intending on doing anyway, then do it and then blame the "lack of success" on the wrong thing when they've already been told more or less what to expect when heading down certain paths. I don't agree at all with your hypothesis, and the only reason you should be venting your disappointment in this thread should be that you are disappointed that you didn't go for an HTA instead of going to an old cast Garrett GT compressor wheel.

pretty sure the gtx3582r has a lot bigger comp wheel then your standard gt3582r? which might be why its laggier, not 2 mention its rated at a higher hp over the gt3582r...cant expect to go bigger without giving up rpm

pretty sure the gtx3582r has a lot bigger comp wheel then your standard gt3582r? which might be why its laggier, not 2 mention its rated at a higher hp over the gt3582r...cant expect to go bigger without giving up rpm

Actually you can... If you read back you will see Sky30 went to a bigger HTA model and still improved response...

pretty sure the gtx3582r has a lot bigger comp wheel then your standard gt3582r? which might be why its laggier, not 2 mention its rated at a higher hp over the gt3582r...cant expect to go bigger without giving up rpm

The gtx 35 wheel is only .5mm larger exducer and 1mm larger inducer over the gt35. Where as the hta wheel is 4mm larger exducer, and is still more responsive than the gt wheel.

pretty sure the gtx3582r has a lot bigger comp wheel then your standard gt3582r? which might be why its laggier, not 2 mention its rated at a higher hp over the gt3582r...cant expect to go bigger without giving up rpm

Yep, which is why I prefer the HTA turbos - they tend to go the other way. Compare some of these sizes (rounded to the nearest whole so I don't have to remember specifics):

3076:

HTA - 55mm/76mm

GT - 57mm/76mm

GTX - 58mm/77mm

3582:

HTA - 59mm/82mm

GT - 61mm/82mm

GTX - 63mm/83mm

HTA86 - 62mm/86mm

So before you even get into the more aggressively focussed on outright performance than the GT/GTX which are intended for industrial use that the HTA wheels have, you have smaller/lighter wheels which can make more power than the GT equivalents.

The gtx 35 wheel is only .5mm larger exducer and 1mm larger inducer over the gt35. Where as the hta wheel is 4mm larger exducer, and is still more responsive than the gt wheel.

As much as I love the HTA turbos, that's surprising to me - I know people who have gone GT3582R to HTA3586 and lost a bit of low down (though once up on threshold the response has been good), though that has been on 2litre engines to be fair and the 3litre probably has enough natural torque for that to not be a noticeable issue.

The HTA3586 is also a weapon of a thing, though - so the fact it even comes into this conversation says a lot!

Yea i was very suprised on my first drive, car definately starts building boost slightly earlier, but the biggest difference is how fast boost gets from 5 psi to 20 psi, the old gt would build to 5 psi then slowly to 10psi before it would start spoeding up to 20, where as the hta just straight to 20psi much faster.

Yea i was very suprised on my first drive, car definately starts building boost slightly earlier, but the biggest difference is how fast boost gets from 5 psi to 20 psi, the old gt would build to 5 psi then slowly to 10psi before it would start spoeding up to 20, where as the hta just straight to 20psi much faster.

its interesting how theres only 2mm difference between HTA and GT versions of the 3076, that's less than 5% which looking at the dyno graph it looks like 200rpm quicker on the boost curve which is 5% at 4000rpm, is this a coincidence?

Anyone have the weights of the various comp wheels?

its interesting how theres only 2mm difference between HTA and GT versions of the 3076, that's less than 5% which looking at the dyno graph it looks like 200rpm quicker on the boost curve which is 5% at 4000rpm, is this a coincidence?

Anyone have the weights of the various comp wheels?

I know someone measured an HTA vs GT 3582R and there was a difference in the realms of 93g (HTA) vs 120g (GT) from memory? Something like that.

No doubt some coincidence and some connection - hard to say how much, bare in mind it still uses the same shaft and turbine wheel. Also remember that the compressor wheel design is different, the HTA compressor has quite a lot less meat on it for the size - so it means both less weight and also more airflow through it.

I know someone measured an HTA vs GT 3582R and there was a difference in the realms of 93g (HTA) vs 120g (GT) from memory? Something like that.

No doubt some coincidence and some connection - hard to say how much, bare in mind it still uses the same shaft and turbine wheel. Also remember that the compressor wheel design is different, the HTA compressor has quite a lot less meat on it for the size - so it means both less weight and also more airflow through it.

Side by side that is VERY noticable.... The GT blades are so thick and old school looking :P

So guys, for those that have read this from the start.... This thread has been lacking the vital info on my car in terms of boost levels and plots to show just how good this HTA turbo is.... On the weekend i was booked in with DVS JEZ for some power runs to do some checks but by fluke the car ended up back on JEM's dyno due to an issue with it while down there for a photoshoot.

I was nothing but impressed when i saw the HTA does NOT need big boost to make the power and is in fact killing the GT on the same boost levels.

My low boost is still set around 20-18psi and has gone from 348rwkw up to 368rwkw

My high boost is now set around 25-23psi and has gone from 362rwkw up to 388rwkw (I think we were touching 24-25psi on the GT but it was bleeding to 22ish).

The orginal graph i posted showed the hero run of 28-24psi but when overlayed with the normal 25-23psi run there is no difference up top, just a stronger mid range which is to be expected given the few extra PSI.

I have posted some graphs in my build thread and will have more coming soon!

So, i do believe there were quite a few in the thread that were assuming boost was the reason for the power increase but this proves otherwise.

Also, driving the car more since my last post, the thing is just amazing under all conditions... Its got SO much grunt when on the throttle yet its still got plenty putting around at low revs.

I cannot say how much i love this combo!

  • Like 1

GOD DAMMN IT MATT.

Stop making me jealous. Haha

That's awesome to prove the non believes on just how awesome these FP hta turbos are. I'm still saving for my 6booba and hta 3073 iss the plan at the moment. :)

I wonder what the difference would be between there 76 and 73.? Only want to really try the 73 to be different.

Josh.

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 everyone always seems to refer to them as S13 wheels however they came on R32 Skyline, A31 Cefiro, C33 Laurel etc., and also came polished diamond cut or painted depending on the model. Congrats on your GTS purchase! I'd personally leave it NA.
    • In this thing about this 100% renewal energy stuff I hear no one really talking about anything other than power and fuel really Power and fuel, whilst being a huge part of how we use the billion year old Dinosaur juices, are only 2, of the probably thousands of things that we need to use it for in the chemicals industries for making nearly everything we use nowadays I'm all for a clean planet, but if we want to continue to have all the day to day appliances and stuff that we rely on everyday we will still need fossil fuels Whilst I do love science, and how it can bring innovation, there's really a limit to how far it can go in relation to "going green" As for EV's, unless your charging of your own solar panels, it isn't helping the environment when you consider the the batteries, the mining processes required,  the manufacturing process required, and how long a batteries (read: the vehicle) lasts long term If I was supreme dictator of the world, I would ban the use of sugar for fizzy drinks and food additives and use that for ethanol manufacturing, petrol engines would be happier, and people would be alot healthier  Disclaimer: Whiskey manufacturing would still be required, so says the supreme dictator of the world Same same for all the vegetable oils that get pumped into all our food, use that for bio diesel Disclaimer: the supreme dictator would still require olive oil to dip his bread in This would take some of heat off the use of the use of fossil fuels which are required for everything we use, unless you want to go back to pre 1800 for heat and power, or the early 1900's for plastics and every thing else that has come from cracking ethylene  Would I be a fair and just dictator, nope, and I would probably be assassinated within my first few months, but would my cunning plan work, maybe, for a while, maybe not Meh, in the end in an over opinionated mildly educated arsehole typing out my vomit on my mobile phone, which wouldn't be possible without fossil fuels And if your into conspiracies, we only need the fossil fuels to last until a meteor hits, or thermonuclear annihilation, that would definitely fix our need for fossil fuels for manufacturing and power issues for quite some time  Meh, time for this boomer to cook his lunch on his electric stove and then maybe go for a drive in my petrol car, for fun    
    • It really helps that light duty vehicles have absolutely appalling average efficiency due to poor average load. Like 25% average brake thermal efficiency when peak is somewhere around 38% these days. So even a 60% BTE stationary natural gas plant + transmission and charging losses still doing much better with an EV than conventional ICE. And that's before we get into renewables or "low carbon nonrenewable" nuclear which makes it a no-brainer, basically. In commercial aircraft or heavy duty diesel pulling some ridiculous amount of weight across a continent the numbers are much more difficult to make work. I honestly think in 5-10 years we will still be seeing something like the Achates opposed piston diesels in most semi trucks running on a blend of renewable/biodiesel. Applications where the energy density of diesel is just too critical to compromise. CARB is running trials of those engines right now to evaluate in real world drayage ops, probably because they're noticing that the numbers just don't work for electrification unless our plan is to make glorified electric trains with high voltage wires running along every major highway and only a token amount of battery to make it 30 miles or something like that after detaching. Transport emissions is not insignificant especially in the US, but yes there's a lot of industrial processes that also need to be decarbonized. I agree the scale of the problem is pretty insane but EDF managed to generate ~360 TWh from their nuclear reactors last year and this is with decades of underinvestment after the initial big push in the 70s and 80s. I don't think the frame of reference should be solar-limited. France is not exactly a big country either. Maybe it doesn't work everywhere, but it doesn't have to either. We just can't live off of fracking forever and expect things to be ok.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...