Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

If you roll back through this thread you will find a thread about some guy 'back-to-back'ing a range of turbos on some kind of Audi.. Posted by Lith.

From memory the test list is as follows:

- GT3076

- 3076HTA

- GT3582

- 3582HTA

- Some PT thing

So putting my understanding of those results together with results I have seen elsewhere; the 3582HTA packs the usual 35R punch for outright power but brings response back towards the realms of a garden variety 3076R.

Elsewhere I have noted that a 3586 seems to keep things on the '35R' playing field in terms of response but packs a heavier punch with more outright power.

So in your case you could make the following generalisations:

- 3582HTA = better spool than stock FG turbo, as much power (if not a little extra due to larger comp housing) as BA/F stock turbo

- 3586HTA = BA/F stock like spool with more outright power

(for the uninitiated following this topic the FG turbo is a 3576R and BA/F is a 3582R, both with .50ar comp housing)

I hope that helps.

  • Like 1

Beat me to it, GTScotT :-D Comparing response between the HTA3582 and a HTA3586 is not like comparing with a normal 3582

Cheers for sharing that juggernaut, good info. Any thoughts?

If you roll back through this thread you will find a thread about some guy 'back-to-back'ing a range of turbos on some kind of Audi.. Posted by Lith.

From memory the test list is as follows:

- GT3076

- 3076HTA

- GT3582

- 3582HTA

- Some PT thing

So putting my understanding of those results together with results I have seen elsewhere; the 3582HTA packs the usual 35R punch for outright power but brings response back towards the realms of a garden variety 3076R.

Elsewhere I have noted that a 3586 seems to keep things on the '35R' playing field in terms of response but packs a heavier punch with more outright power.

So in your case you could make the following generalisations:

- 3582HTA = better spool than stock FG turbo, as much power (if not a little extra due to larger comp housing) as BA/F stock turbo

- 3586HTA = BA/F stock like spool with more outright power

(for the uninitiated following this topic the FG turbo is a 3576R and BA/F is a 3582R, both with .50ar comp housing)

I hope that helps.

Is the order in your list is a bit arse about - you've got the HTA3582 after the GT3582?

Beat me to it, GTScotT :-D Comparing response between the HTA3582 and a HTA3586 is not like comparing with a normal 3582

Cheers for sharing that juggernaut, good info. Any thoughts?

Yeah I wasn't comparing the HTA's to the GT3582 I was comparing like for like. If the HTA3586 was say 200rpm laggier than the HTA 3582 I might have considered it. But 500rpm is a bit more than I was expecting. The HTA3586 is GTX3582 territory both flowing 75lbs from memory - but i do realise from this thread that the HTA would be the better thing.

I keep coming back the the HTA3582 as the weapon of choice as I prefer response over outright horsepower (my other car is an S15 with twin scroll 3076 52 trim)

Will pick a Barra tuner here in Perth.......thinking either Monsta Torque or Extreme Ford Tuning and get their opinions.

Oh yeah, I expect that the HTA3582 would have a pretty big flow advantage over the stock FG turbo... Or even an edge over the normal 3582

The stock FG turbo is no slouch in the real world with bolts on's - approx 11 seconds neat with ZF - according to the Nizpro website - which ain't bad for a heavy family car.

The HTA3582 can only be better though!!

Is the order in your list is a bit arse about - you've got the HTA3582 after the GT3582?

The list was in no particular order, the comments are where the data is.

Josh

Id be definately goin the 3586hta on a falcon 4litre, with motor that size i dont think ud notice the spool much. U gota remember when FP say 500 rpm difference most of their turbos go on 2litre evos, id guess ud be very gard to notice when actually driving the car on a 4litre.

Also the hta3586 is more responsive than a gtx, there is a guy who had a similar setup to mine, we both had gt35r and i switched to hta3586 and gained 200rpm im spool, he switched to gtx35 and lost around 300rpm spool. Both were without any other changes.

Haha, if u can get the thing off the manifold u can, id say its near impossible with out an oxy torch. Lol.

I nearly went the gt35/to4z hiflow before i decided on the hta, aparantly a fair bit of extra lag

Is what put me off, is that the case with steves?

Btw, how does steve get away with running in the 10s without andra approved car? Or has he had it passed? They were straight onto me last meet

apparently..f**k me, a 3540 is faster with a manual...as it makes way better"average" power, comp wheels to big!

auto with converter, yep would be faster..think the 67 wheel only make another 30 rwkw more ...way up top

Don't think Steve does get away with it..last meet he did one 10.5 and then put it straight on trailer, before they asked him

He at least has a 1/2 cage with front door bars..so they are going to be more lenient maybe, you have nothing though

cheers

darren

Edited by jet_r31

Yea r32 gts4. Unfortunately at adelaide you cant run under 11sec without a cage so only get one shot at it.

I did do a 1.67 60' on my first run but got off it at half track coz i thought it wasnt a very good launch. Have done 1.58 at another track before but was only 1/8 mile.

Just so you know..the adelaide four/rotary turbo nats in 11 weeks, has got special insurance

Just like heathcote you can go as fast as you want with no cage, meaning for this one meet you could go as hard as you can

be your chance to do your best!, it won't happen again

cheers

darren

Edited by jet_r31

Finally found a result for an HTA3794 on an engine a bit closer to the RB world in displacement and behaviour - someone did a "budget" high power build with an Audi A6 using one on pump gas, following mods:

Stock 2.7 with more than 100k miles only upgraded with IE rods (stock piston)
Running stock 2.8 heads (no 2.7 hardware) they were OEM factory rebuilt units.
Rs4 intake with 75mm BBk throttle body
Custom Single turbo HTA3794
034 IIc standalone Tuned by Dynodoc
Aem water Meth
Eurokracy_-_Autodrome_St-Eustache_le_26_
DynoDoc_mikeGT3794_wtq_whp.JPG
Spool actually looks not really any worse than a T04Z from what I can tell, and these turbos are known to be able to make much more power than this on E85 - can clearly tell that it's not struggling with flow looking at the dyno plot, too. A built RB30, E85 and hearty boost and I reckon one of these things would be almost scary :)

Stands up like i was hoping it would, now to find someone to be a a guinea pig..lol

If you know anyone who might be that way inclined, let them know about this:

Super94 HTA: http://store.forcedperformance.net/merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=FP&Product_Code=NTFPSUPER94&Category_Code=Turbo-FP

Super99 HTA: http://store.forcedperformance.net/merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=FP&Product_Code=NTFPSUPER99&Category_Code=Turbo-FP

The T3 Super94 and Super99 HTA turbos are currently at US$1725 which is getting near standard Garrett GT turbo price, they are doing a clearance (and also looking like they are digging the boot into Precision as they said let on EvoM to them know if you are looking at getting a PT BB and they'll price accordingly...) as the new generation HTZ turbos will be coming soon.

Thats a good deal.

Darren, u should twist steves arm to get one, probly still more responsive than his hiflow thing and tell him he will bewt corran and run in the 9s.

i bet the .82 3794 would be closeish enough response wise to the 1.06 67/3540..and a massive increase up top...

I am trying,

but even a 3586 put in his 1.06 internal gate housing would work ...

ive been twisting for months..lol, its hard work

but because he can't.... or doesn't want to work on cars like us, hes up for all the labour aswell, so its a expensive exercise for him, for us it would be fark all

its a pity, as with a rebearing and rering, one of those turbos and use the nitrous he has on it..it would kick ass..

cheers

darren

Edited by jet_r31

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...