Jump to content
SAU Community

Garrett GT4088 Vs GTW3476


Fr3akyR33
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mick_o said:

Lol .63 on a 3L?! You have alot to learn young Jedi... Measure your turbine pressures or flog your car for a while and see how long the head stays on it with a .63? 

Depends what your doing with it, mines not corked at all, keeps making power past 7500rpm, its a street car and wont see a track to be flogged non stop, if its only street car then id rather it have more low end as id rarely hit 7500rpm on a local street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, AngryRB said:

Depends what your doing with it, mines not corked at all, keeps making power past 7500rpm, its a street car and wont see a track to be flogged non stop, if its only street car then id rather it have more low end as id rarely hit 7500rpm on a local street.

I guarantee you wont make more low end with a smaller turbine.

Trying to bring boost on early doesn't make more power earlier. 

If your engines exhaust gases cant get out due to a small turbine restricting flow its gunna lose power down low and produce less torque off boost when putting around on the streets off boost. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AngryRB said:

Gt3076 0.82 on my 30, plenty big enough, could even go down to 0.63 as still takes some revs to wake up.

Road use, the 3076 0.8A/R combination is damn hard to beat.  They pull down around 2000, and run up to 7000 without falling over.  They're not magical, but it's tried and proven.

If it's track, go to a 3576 0.8A/R.  Provided you're wearing blinkers and only want Garrett.  As per Piggy's comment, you need to let it breathe out.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Griffin said:

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

Would be a good set up but if you're looking to make over the 400kW Mark I would seriously jam a bigger rear on.

Once I outgrow my turbo I may look along those lines however a GTX3576 with a 1.0x ish rear and twin scroll everything - blah blah blah lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

Would be a good set up but if you're looking to make over the 400kW Mark I would seriously jam a bigger rear on.

Once I outgrow my turbo I may look along those lines however a GTX3576 with a 1.0x ish rear and twin scroll everything - blah blah blah lol 

I'm not looking for 400+ out of this as it's just a stock low km bottom end. It's in a cefiro . About 350 would do

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...