Jump to content
SAU Community

Garrett GT4088 Vs GTW3476


Fr3akyR33
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

You're better off with a Hypergear turbo to be honest.

His latest high flow will get you close to 300kW on 98RON in the stock location, stock dump, etc. (Just need the right supporting mods).

On E85 or WMI you'll easily go 350kW+

Is there a reason you push hypergear so much over other brands? I notice it's not just in this thread but plenty of others as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, r32-25t said:

Is there a reason you push hypergear so much over other brands? I notice it's not just in this thread but plenty of others as well

In context there are probably not many current alternatives which bolt on so easily and perform fairly well - though as soon as you go to custom piping etc I think you're better off looking at the likes of Garrett etc.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best reason I can think of.  They are a bit cheaper but they are also relatively laggy for the power they make compared to more popular/big name options - in my experience

Edited by Lithium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m open to opinions and reviews on turbos that you guys have had in the past. 

Ive had a look at garret, precision, kinugawa, hypergear, done research on all and it’s between hypergear and garret probably! Still learning as we discuss anyways. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, r32-25t said:

Is there a reason you push hypergear so much over other brands? I notice it's not just in this thread but plenty of others as well

It's because it's a complete bolt on solution, yes a GTX3071 "might" be bolt on, but you still need a new intake new water/oil lines and by the time you're done that's nearly double the price of a Hypergear.

Most GTS-t owners:

  • are on a budget
  • usually do the work themselves because of point 1
  • want power fast
  • want not so much lag
  • want plug and play

If someone had a built motor, and wanted 400kW+ etc. said they wanted power/response for roll racing/track work then I wouldn't recommend a Hypergear. There are other threads where I've mentioned GTX3576s or EFR8374s, etc.

Just to be clear, I am not sponsored by Hypergear nor is there any financial benefit for me in recommending the brand.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I met a guy having trouble with an rb30 chewing through gt3582r turbos with .63 rear. 

What ended up happening was rear of chra turned blue and cooked the bearings. 

They only lasted a few thousand kms.

Put a Borg Warner airwerks on with bigger rear and the car fell apart around the turbo.

I'd imagine a .82 on 3576 would work much better.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
 Share




  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Well, yeah, the RB26 is definitely that far off the mark. From a pure technology point of view it is closer to the engines of the 60s than it is to the engines of the last 10 years. There is absolutely nothing special about an RB26 that wasn't present in engines going all the way back to the 60s, except probably the four valve head. The bottom end is just bog standard Japanese stuff. The head is nothing special. Celicas in the 70s were the same thing, in 4cyl 2 valve form. The ITBs are nothing special when you consider that the same Celicas had twin Solexes on them, and so had throttle plates in the exact same place. There's no variable valve timing, no variable inlet manifold, which even other RBs had either before the 26 came out or shortly afterward. The ECU is pretty rude and crude. The only things it has going for it are that the physical structure was pretty bloody tough for a mass produced engine, the twin-turbos and ITBs made for a bit of uniqueness against the competition (and even Toyota were ahead on the twin turbs thing, weren't they?) and the electronic controls and measuring devices (ie, AFMs, CAS, etc) were good enough to make it run well. Oh, and it sounds better than almost anything else, ever. The VR38 is absolutely halfway between the RB generation and the current generation, so it definitely has a massive increase in the sophistication of the electronics, allowing for a lot more dynamic optimisation of mapping. Then there's things like metal treatments and other coatings on things, adoption of variable cam stuff, and a bunch of other little improvements that mean it has to be a better thing than the RB26. But I otherwise agree with you that it is approximately the same thing as a 26. But, skip forward another 10 years from that engine and then the things that I mentioned in previous post come out to play. High compression, massively sophisticated computers, direct injection, clever measuring sensors, etc etc. They are the real difference between trying to make big power with a 26 and trying to make big power with a S/B50/54 (or whatever the preferred BMW engine of the week is).
    • Is the RB26 actually that far off the mark? Honestly from where I'm sitting a VR38DETT is not actually that much more advanced than the RB26. Yes, there is a scavenge pump on the VR38, it's smarter in a number of ways but it's not actually jumping out to me as alien technology. Something like a B58 or V35A-FTS on the other hand has so many surprising little design features that add up to be something that just isn't comparable. 
    • https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/details/2021-nissan-skyline-400r-auto-rv37/SSE-AD-17857548/ Well there you go 
    • Chris won't reply. He doesn't visit the forum much anymore. You can try these guys https://www.facebook.com/autotainment/ They did mine many years ago
×
×
  • Create New...