Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

All very fuzzy info at the moment on this turbo, some info below.

The GT3071R has the same compressor(71mm) as the GT2835Pro but larger 60mm turbine....wouldn't it spool up later than the HKS item.. In what way is it better... is the 60mm GT35 turbine that much more efficient that it spools earlier than the cut down GT30....

cheers matt

From ATP TURBO

Turbo is the newest addition to the Garrett Ball Bearing Line up. It fills in the requirements for small displacement 4 cyl. engines and has a excellent response characteristics. It spools up 1,000 RPM sooner than the older GT30R. The Dual Ball Bearing GT3071R Turbo comes assembled with T3 style turbine housing with T3 inlet flange. Turbine housing style available in Standard GT or with T3/T4 Ford Style 5 bolt turbine housing. Compressor housing is T04E frame size with 2.00 outlet. Compressor inlet is available with 2.75 or 4.00 inlet.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/43864-new-garrett-3071r-experiences/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok have found some more info.

Has been installed on a Dodge neon 2.4ltr 8.1:1 compression 4cyl

20psi boost max by ~3000rpm resulted in 284rwkw @ ~6000rpm

-tIAL 38mm wastegate, cast manifold, .63 A/R exh(I think)

Very very nice. I have 2.5ltr 6cyl 8.7:1 redline at 8200rpm..... getting a little excited here.

http://www.atpturbo.com/root/releases/rele...lease051404.htm

Sounds pretty good to me. If it's as good as it sounds, then I can't see a reason to pay the HKS prices.

There was a turbo (from AVO from memory - presumably using Garrett parts) in a CA18DET turbo comparison in the latest Zoom mag that also performed better than the equivalent HKS.

Steve, I just found the mag and here's what it had in it generally (I'd rather not type out the whole article).

It was comparing the GT-RS with the AVO 320hp one (and a few other turbos, but these were the ones that stood out to me). The test conditions were pretty good as they tuned the car with a Power FC to a 12.5:1 AFR and advanced the timing as far as they could for each turbo. It was a CA18DET that got 137rwkw peak when fully tuned with the Power FC and stock turbo.

They had some trouble doing an exact comparison as they couldn't set the AVO one above 1.1bar because of a problem with their boost controller, so the HKS is at 1.2 Bar and the AVO is at 1.1 Bar. It's a little hard to explain the dyno charts in words, but here goes - the HKS one got a peak of 189kW with a curve that was under the stock turbo until 104km/h, then it overtook it and maxed out at 189. The AVO turbo followed the stock turbo perfectly all the way until, funnily enough, 104km/h and then continued ramping up all the way to 178kW (but this is at 1.1 Bar, the mag said it should have made around mid 180s at 1.2). To me the AVO turbo was the better buy by far (even though it had a slightly weaker top end curve) as it made similar peak power and a hell of a lot more power down low. The RRP prices on each were $4356 for the GT-RS and $2035 for the AVO.

It was a really good article and I'd recommend picking the issue up.

It's so hard to choose a turbo these days. There are so many different ones that get on boost early yet produce awesome top end power.

BTW if you want to know about the other turbos in the comparison, just ask.

I think the GT-RS is a bit too small for the CA18, its more suited to a SR20 so I would say its a bit biased to compare it to the AVO unit. Also, the AVO turbo it seems is exactly the same as the GT28 320hp units sold by Ray Hall, GCG & Horsepowerinabox. I emailed AVO to ask em what the difference is (because their "AVO" turbo seem to use the same wheel trims and A/Rs as the garrett unit) Ie looks the same as an S15 turbo!

They had some trouble doing an exact comparison as they couldn't set the AVO one above 1.1bar because of a problem with their boost controller, so the HKS is at 1.2 Bar and the AVO is at 1.1 Bar.

Seriously... That is the most retarded turbo comparison I have ever read in my entire life.

The HKS GT-RS is made for 1.6-1.7 bar of boost. It's designed for high boost and high power applications. Limiting it to 1.2 bar is an ABSOLUTE FARCE. How can they even print this complete bullsh1t story? Do they have no credibility at all in what they write?

Ohhhh!!! Look at this comparison boys! We'll compare a stock R33 GTS-t turbo vs. a Trust T88H-34D... But oh dear! We have a boost control problem so we'll limit both turbos to 0.9 bar! OH WOW!!! Look how responsive the stock turbo is, it's making 160rwkw at 5000rpm and the T88 is only making 120rwkw!!! Oh, what a crap turbo the Trust T88 is!!!

:) :) :D :uhh: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Yeah I guess you're right. If one turbo really isn't meant to be at a low boost level, then it's really killing it's potential. I suppose it really isn't fair to compare the turbos this way, but that's the way they did it to try and make it a level playing field. I'm not sure if they would be able to do this, but if they knew what the optimum boost level was for a turbo (maybe from those maps with the surge line on one side - I forget what they're called), then maybe they could do a comparison at each turbos most efficient boost.

With your T88 example though, it still would have killed the stock one at 0.9 Bar in the top end, but yeah, I get your point :)

So an S15 turbo is pretty much as good as a GT-RS then? If so, then that's pretty good news for S13 and S14 drivers.

Nah they are two different turbos indeed. The S15 unit is a very responsive turbo and is limited to about 210rwkw. The GT-RS is a touch laggier (but still very good) and can reach upwards of 260rwkw on an SR20 (using lots of boost as Merli says). Oh, and the GT-RS is almost triple the price aswell :)

What I was trying to say was that you can just buy an S15 Turbo 2nd hand or new from Nissan and its alot cheaper than the AVO turbo. Theres nothing 'unique' about it, but it seems a perfect companion to the CA18.

Yeah I guess you're right. If one turbo really isn't meant to be at a low boost level, then it's really killing it's potential. I suppose it really isn't fair to compare the turbos this way, but that's the way they did it to try and make it a level playing field. I'm not sure if they would be able to do this, but if they knew what the optimum boost level was for a turbo (maybe from those maps with the surge line on one side - I forget what they're called), then maybe they could do a comparison at each turbos most efficient boost.

With your T88 example though, it still would have killed the stock one at 0.9 Bar in the top end, but yeah, I get your point :)

They should run the turbos with as much boost as they can pump out of them until they fall off their efficiency curve and start blowing hot air. It's complete CRAP to set a boost limit like that to "make a level playing field"... All they're doing is giving the smaller turbo a MASSIVE advantage.

As for the T88 making more power top end, you don't know that... You're guessing. But even if that were the case, that's why I chose sample figures at 5000rpm, before the T88 would spool up.

The T88's curve would also be WAY below the stock turbos up until 5000rpm (just like the GT-RS in Zoom's stupid comparison)... Does that make the T88 a crap turbo? NO!!!

Very true. It definitely isn't level at all.

Yeah I am guessing on the T88 - I was just going on what I've read about them and that's that they hit really hard up top. I definitely agree that it isn't a crap turbo by any means - I never thought it was. just like any other turbo, it's got to be well matched to the engine and tuned properly.

The reason I brought it up in the first place was that the article just interested me as I kind of like the idea of a turbo that spools up with a similar to stock curve, yet with a much nicer top end. I didn't really ever question the lowish boost levels on the turbos.

yes but most people dont have the internals to run 1.6bar.. most people run 1.1 or 1.3 bar. even though i got a t88 that could handle 2bar.. doesnt mean im going to run it. most people want their engine to hang together and know they can push it with out worrying.. i know its in the tuning but "most" people only run lowish boost levels.. so i think its a fair comparison.

Well if those people are running such (cough cough) "low" boost then they are obviously using the wrong turbo. I mean if you're only going to put 1.1 to 1.3 bar through your motor then you should be getting a turbo that does that well.

yes but most people dont have the internals to run 1.6bar.. most people run 1.1 or 1.3 bar. even though i got a t88 that could handle 2bar.. doesnt mean im going to run it. most people want their engine to hang together and know they can push it with out worrying.. i know its in the tuning but "most" people only run lowish boost levels.. so i think its a fair comparison.

Exactly put as abobob said.

Further, then that's really a study of what the stock engines can do, and not a comparison of what the turbos are capable of isn't it?

Also, if you buy a T88 and strap it to a stock engine, you'd probably be the kind of person who would believe every word they read in Zoom and take it as gospel :D:)

The GT-RS is a touch laggier (but still very good) and can reach upwards of 260rwkw on an SR20 (using lots of boost as Merli says).

Thats a pretty big number... have you actually seen an SR20 make those numbers with that turbo, if so did it have cams, exhaust manifold or anything else going on?

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

    • Very decent bit of kit. Definitely black it out I reckon.  
    • Because people who want that are buying euros. The people with the money to buy the aftermarket heads and blocks aren’t interested in efficiency or making -7 power, they’re making well over 1,000hp and pretty much only drive them at full throttle  best way to way make money is know your customer base and what they want and don’t spend money making things they don’t want. 
    • It's not, but it does feel like a bit of a missed opportunity regardless. For example, what if the cylinder head was redesigned to fit a GDI fuel system? It's worth like two full points of compression ratio when looking at modern GDI turbo vs PFI turbo. I'm pretty reliably surprised at how much less turbo it takes to make similar power out of a modern engine vs something like an RB26. Something with roughly the same dimensions as a -7 on an S55 is making absolutely silly power numbers compared to an RB26. I know there's a ton of power loss from things like high tension rings, high viscosity oil, clutch fan, AWD standby loss, etc but it's something like 700 whp in an F80 M3 vs 400 whp in an R33 GTR. The stock TF035HL4W turbos in an F80 M3 are really rather dinky little things and that's enough to get 400 whp at 18 psi. This just seems unwise no? I thought the general approach is if you aren't knock limited the MFB50 should be held constant through the RPM range. So more timing with RPM, but less timing with more cylinder filling. A VE-based table should accordingly inverse the VE curve of the engine.
    • I've seen tunes from big name workshops with cars making in excess of 700kW and one thing that stood out to me, is that noone is bothering with torque management. Everyone is throwing in as much timing as the motor can take for a pull. Sure that yields pretty numbers on a dyno, but it's not keeping these motors together for more than a few squirts down the straight without blowing coolant or head gaskets. If tuners, paid a bit more attention and took timing out in the mid range, managed boost a bit better, you'll probably see less motors grenading. Not to name names, or anything like that, but I've seen a tune, from a pretty wild GT-R from a big name tuner and I was but perplexed on the amount of timing jammed into it. You would have expected a quite a bit less timing at peak torque versus near the limiter, but there was literally 3 degrees of difference. Sure you want to make as much as possible throughout the RPM range, but why? At the expense of blowing motors? Anyhow I think we've gone off topic enough once again lol.
    • Because that’s not what any of them are building these heads or blocks for. It’s to hold over over 1000hp at the wheels without breaking and none of that stuff is required to make power 
×
×
  • Create New...