Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Because going straight to a 94HTA might be too much of a jump in one shot? ;)

LOL no no, because of a reason he can't recall :P

Why not super 99? Because of reason cannot recall.

I find it interesting that FP no longer offer twin scroll housings........

E85 and other variants have probably reduced the dependency on twin scroll systems somewhat. This and twin scroll setups are still likely to cap peak outputs....which is no good from a marketing point of view.

Still prefer a twin scroll setup myself on a street car - coupled with E85.

E85 and other variants have probably reduced the dependency on twin scroll systems somewhat. This and twin scroll setups are still likely to cap peak outputs....which is no good from a marketing point of view.

Still prefer a twin scroll setup myself on a street car - coupled with E85.

Yeah, me too. My RB based dream build is pretty much an R33 GTR with an RB30/26 and a TS 3794HTA on the side of it - the concept seems like good thing I get probably a little too happy just thinking about it hahaha

Lol you clowns haha

You get that, because of a reason I can't recall ;)

Yeah, me too. My RB based dream build is pretty much an R33 GTR with an RB30/26 and a TS 3794HTA on the side of it - the concept seems like good thing I get probably a little too happy just thinking about it hahaha

You get that, because of a reason I can't recall ;)

LOL that's the spirit.

P.S. I would say we dream about the same things, but if you were dreaming about my wife I would be worried. So for now it will have to be just our R33 dreams, for reason I can't recall.

Yeah, me too. My RB based dream build is pretty much an R33 GTR with an RB30/26 and a TS 3794HTA on the side of it - the concept seems like good thing I get probably a little too happy just thinking about it hahaha

You get that, because of a reason I can't recall ;)

I cant recall how this all started..... But git farked :P

Quick question - does anyone know whether the HTA turbos use the Garrett cores with the metal bearing cages which I understand are used in the GTX turbo's or the plastic bearing cages as typically found in the traditional GT style turbos.

http://garrettbulletin.com/techcorner/garrett-by-honeywell-ball-bearing-turbochargers

Edited by juggernaut1

I asked FP this question about a year ago and did not get a direct answer. However, they did say the core is an off the shelf GT item and will be the same as what is found in a normal GT3076R.

Thus... Expect it to be a plastic cage.

I sent them an email today .......so will see if the response has changed. Am hoping they are using the gtx cores.

I was looking at the hta 3582 or hta 3586 for my G6E turbo. Otherwise the GTX 3576 would be a punchy performer on the falcon motor.

Edited by juggernaut1

Unless you are ordering this as a 'highflow' alternative to slot into the OEM housing I would definitely be looking at something bigger. Even their 3786 I would say is a better option... Not to go back on the said theme of going 'bigger' but I am sure you could get a local turbo builder to reprofile the OEM housing to accommodate the GT37 turbine, too.

To me I see the barra as wanting a larger hotside than it has a compressor, so if to pick from a 3582 or 3586 logically my theory would say to pick the 3582... BUT results have indicated the 3582HTA packs the usual 3582 punch but sports response closer to that of a garden variety 3076R.

So... It seems like you want a smallish upgrade, but personally I don't think those turbos are good options for the barra. Maybe Lith can chime in and push a super 94 LOL?? Now that would be an interesting upgrade :)

Am unsure if the sheer efficiency of these turbos will mean the 4L motor maxes it out super early (caps power at a low rpm but spools mega quick) or if their said efficiency will mean it can cope.. Perhaps the fact they can cope with 5 bar PR will mean the later... Unsure.

I think HG has also done some XR6 stuff, maybe ask him for a link to some results by PM. (if serious about the small upgrade/highflow path)

Did you see my post a few back of the 3794R on the XR6? There are a few 450-550kw XR6T HTA3794 things lurking in Oz if I understand correctly

450 -500 is gtx 3582 territory on e85 on a stock ford and generally 400 plus on 98. In any case is far more than I am wanting from my daily which has to pull my boat.

Happy to step it down to the gtx 3576 for bit less.

Edited by juggernaut1

I've reconditioned many XR6 BA turbochargers up to date, the highest power level I've seen was 430rwkws on E85 fuel. Probably because there are so many of them, I only found a small percentage of cars been modified. Out of the minority the average power level is between 330~360rwkws, many of them been autos.


On a Rb25det this turbocharger is horribly laggy, throttle response was poor, definitely nothing enjoyable for a daily.

Just for some fun, I dragged a close customer's R33 that currently has a GT3582R .82 turbocharger fitted, with my Kia sportage at his private run way at a farm yard. He's car is "said" to be tuned at 397rwkws, and my Kia has only 176fwkws. He wasn't been able to beat me till 140KM/H, and obviously at that point I could see him flying pass like a rocket.

The 3576 isn't much better then a 3582, which I originally thought it might pickup some response, the difference was very marginal, but it did pull 347rwkws on a stock manifold internally gated at 29psi.

I have finely tuned a ATR45 turbocharger (XR6 BA replacement) to work with a Rb25det, which I will use it for a base map running against those billet SS4 prototypes that I've made. At this point it is pretty derivable unlike the original item. I should have some results tomorrow, and very interested to see if HTA can tackle the lag issue better.

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

    • If you really don't want to touch anything you can try to trigger off the timing loop just to see if it's sparking semi-regularly. Don't trust it for actual timing measurements.
    • Also replace the fuel filter aswell today
    • Hey everyone, I have a r34 GTT s1, im having a problem with my skyline, ive let the car sit in the garage for the last couple of months and havent run it and ive gone to fire her up today and it cranks but doesnt fire, i have been having problems with it previously where it wouldnt start again after driving it around for a bit. It use to start fine on cold start ups but if you drove to the petrol station and fueled it up and went to go start it again, it would just crank and not fire untill you let it rest for a few hours, the car doesn't over heat it sits perfectly in the middle while driving when warmed up. Im thinking this problem has caught up maybe and now it just wont start at all. The car runs on e85, ive checked the e85 seems to be fine. I can hear the fuel priming before you go to start it and checked all my fuses and relays. List of things I replaced today - New battery - New sparkplugs - New Coolant temp sensor I was thinking about testing the CAS but from what ive seen online, if the CAS is cooked, the car will actually start up but then die instantly? as mine just doesn't fire at all. Does anyone have any idea or have encountered the same problems? thanks
    • Modern reg stuff now, they'd have a wide input range which would push through a buck converter, it would need to be able to maintain voltage for cranking conditions (sub 9V at times). Likely runs something like an internal 6V rail, and then further voltage regulators depending on which circuit/area it is feeding. Modern voltage regs, like what I'm starting a new power supply design with at work, will let me run a 5V rail output, and as long as my input is equal to or greater than 5V, I have a 5V output. Except I'm not pushing a 5V rail in our system as I don't need one, we're setting up for a 3.8V rail. Our new design will allow me 6 to 60VDC input, and everything else doesn't care, even when I start pushing a few Amp outputs.   Realistically, the voltage drop off could be caused by a few things though, one could be literally the alternator is dieing, and hence charge power is dropping, which also means on a straight hard pull you're starting to send the battery flat... (Not that likely from a single couple of gear pull if the battery was fully charged). However, having earth issues, like stray earths not connected, or someone having put a ground loop in, will see the ECU appear to end up with lower voltage "input", mainly because the "ground" is no longer equivalent to battery negative. If they're comparing the input voltage using sensory ground for example, and sensor ground is what is in that ground loop, than the sensor output voltage will actually start to be reduced, when compared to battery ground... Yeah, ground wiring design can start to be a bitch... Also voltage going weird from inductive loads not being managed properly is another real bitch... Hence, why I asked above about how everything was wired in. If OP knows, and can post all of the actual connections from the ECU pin out, as well as what wires are joined where in the loom, which grounds from the ECU have ground points and where they are etc. Would help to see if there is a ground issue. The part I'd start with though, is putting a mechanical oil pressure gauge on to confirm the theory. Otherwise the next track day when the threshold is lowered could result in another of @Duncan favourite types of jokes... Knock knocks... Pretty sure this is what @GTSBoy is also self high fiving...  Is all great that we have a decent theory... But they need to prove it before relying on it...  
    • When I worked at BlueScope Steel, we had an Ethernet network, with every switch setup with a duplicate switch. Even when looking at all the primary switches, they had duplicate links, there was then also duplicated links between the primary in section A, to the duplicate in section B. So for each location that had networking, there was 8 network links. This was all back around 2007. That setup caused sooooo many issues, as many of those links were fibre. The network guys ran everything with Spanning Tree Protocol. And then we had great joy... The FOC Transceivers were slowly dieing, but in an intermittent way. And a lot of the time as they started to die, they'd drop offline for about 30 seconds... Spanning Tree Protocol was requiring 45 seconds to "rewire" the network... And by the time it was mostly finished, it had to start again as the transceiver was back online... Queue entire production network being constantly spammed with the spanning tree protocol messages...   My god I do NOT miss working in huge environments like that!
×
×
  • Create New...