Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

One thing that has been lingering at the back of my mind since I've had my GCG 5 years ago (no longer have that turbo anymore) was- I have read in other threads back then discussing the Garrett 7 blade compressors, they were a very old design, and not really responsive compared to the more modern 6 blade etc. those topics were referring to other Garrett turbos like 3040 etc

Since GCG highflows are 7 blade as well, and likely to be using Garrett parts, does the above re Garrett 7 blade apply?

Edited by chiksluvit

The main issue is the GCG Garrett cores don't seem to like being shoved into small housings and boosted hard, I suspect high manifold pressure increases thrust load on the bearings to the point of early demise. The M35 Stagea ones they made all had wicked bearing whine in no time. The moral of the story should be to keep a Garrett chra in Garrett housings for best results.

Added to the fact Hypergear's SS2 billet compressor highflow wipes the floor with GCG's offering for half the coin... I just don't see the point just to retain a BB cartridge, it is impossible to tell the difference between a good bush core and BB's these days imo.

Hypergear can of course make BB and ceramic BB cores if you are keen, but I am more than happy with the ss2 bush core in my evo.

Scotty nm35

The ss2 evo highflow needs a new larger turbine

I end up sending back my evo slss2 turbo and sourced my own o6h4 turbine off eBay America for hypergear to fit

Made it 500rpm more responsive and a lot more torquier down low and cracked 303awkw on 28psi on rigoli dyno

Edited by hy_rpm

So there is more in it? I have a 2.3 and can't see how it could make any more torque down low, it is very strong off boost already. I will speak to Stao about it, I only just got it up and running but I am impressed with it so far, 260 at 20 seems pretty good, the response is excellent so far.

Funny the L2 reversion wheel is actually too small for the evo. That looked like a reversed TD06H turbine which worked out even better, they must got a well flowed head from factory.

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

    • How complicated is PID boost control? To me it really doesn't seem that difficult. I'm not disputing the core assertion (specialization can be better than general purpose solutions), I'm just saying we're 30+ years removed from the days when transistor budgets were in the thousands and we had to hem and haw about whether there's enough ECC DRAM or enough clock cycles or the interrupt handler can respond fast enough to handle another task. I really struggle to see how a Greddy Profec or an HKS EVC7 or whatever else is somehow a far superior solution to what you get in a Haltech Nexus/Elite ECU. I don't see OEMs spending time on dedicated boost control modules in any car I've ever touched. Is there value to separating out a motor controller or engine controller vs an infotainment module? Of course, those are two completely different tasks with highly divergent requirements. The reason why I cite data sheets, service manuals, etc is because as you have clearly suggested I don't know what I'm doing, can't learn how to do anything correctly, and have never actually done anything myself. So when I do offer advice to people I like to use sources that are not just based off of taking my word for it and can be independently verified by others so it's not just my misinterpretation of a primary source.
    • That's awesome, well done! Love all these older Datsun / Nissans so rare now
    • As I said, there's trade offs to jamming EVERYTHING in. Timing, resources etc, being the huge ones. Calling out the factory ECU has nothing to do with it, as it doesn't do any form of fancy boost control. It's all open loop boost control. You mention the Haltech Nexus, that's effectively two separate devices jammed into one box. What you quote about it, is proof for that. So now you've lost flexibility as a product too...   A product designed to do one thing really well, will always beat other products doing multiple things. Also, I wouldn't knock COTS stuff, you'd be surprised how many things are using it, that you're probably totally in love with As for the SpaceX comment that we're working directly with them, it's about the type of stuff we're doing. We're doing design work, and breaking world firsts. If you can't understand that I have real world hands on experience, including in very modern tech, and actually understand this stuff, then to avoid useless debates where you just won't accept fact and experience, from here on, it seems you'd be be happy I (and possibly anyone with knowledge really) not reply to your questions, or input, no matter how much help you could be given to help you, or let you learn. It seems you're happy reading your data sheets, factory service manuals, and only want people to reinforce your thoughts and points of view. 
    • I don't really understand because clearly it's possible. The factory ECU is running on like a 4 MHz 16-bit processor. Modern GDI ECUs have like 200 MHz superscalar cores with floating point units too. The Haltech Nexus has two 240 MHz CPU cores. The Elite 2500 is a single 80 MHz core. Surely 20x the compute means adding some PID boost control logic isn't that complicated. I'm not saying clock speed is everything, but the requirements to add boost control to a port injection 6 cylinder ECU are really not that difficult. More I/O, more interrupt handlers, more working memory, etc isn't that crazy to figure out. SpaceX if anything shows just how far you can get arguably doing things the "wrong" way, ie x86 COTS running C++ on Linux. That is about as far away from the "correct" architecture as it gets for a real time system, but it works anyways. 
    • Holy hell! That is absolutely stunning! Great work!!!
×
×
  • Create New...