PDA

View Full Version : GT30 Turbine Question....



Frank
01-04-2006, 09:43 AM
Which ones work with your 3" swingvalve? There is the common GT3076R (or normally called GT30R) and the GT3071R, with the later one slight prefered because of the smaller turbine, or so I would imagine. How would each of these turbine compare to a T3 StageIII turbine?

Thanks!

Chris W
01-04-2006, 01:31 PM
Which ones work with your 3" swingvalve? There is the common GT3076R (or normally called GT30R) and the GT3071R, with the later one slight prefered because of the smaller turbine, or so I would imagine.
They all work with our 3" SV




How would each of these turbine compare to a T3 StageIII turbine?

Thanks!

See attached photo.

Chris-TU

Frank
01-04-2006, 01:46 PM
QUOTE=Chris W]
They all work with our 3" SV
[/QUOTE]

Cool. I had thought that the turbines on the GT3071R didnt have the right bolt pattern to do this... just like my SC6152S turbo for a different car.




See attached photo.

Chris-TU
I take it that the GT30 wheel is on the right? Looks meatier, but of similar size. Sounds like a purchase in the very very near future!

Garrett pisses me off sometimes. I was restudying the GT30 line up. The big difference between the 71R and the 76R is the compressor. However the 71R has two turbines. One is the 76R's turbine, but it shows a different turbine flow even though the part numbers are the same. ERG! Of course the other 71R turbine is much different, flowing less for the same respective A/R on the 76R... I guess for the small liter big HP honda motors that rev - keeps the turbine from falling on its face at the upper range while still small enough to spool the system.


Frank

Chris W
01-04-2006, 02:41 PM
They all work with our 3" SV


Cool. I had thought that the turbines on the GT3071R didnt have the right bolt pattern to do this... just like my SC6152S turbo for a different car.

To clarify, the TU version of the DBB GT3071R will work with our 3" SV.



I take it that the GT30 wheel is on the right? Looks meatier, but of similar size. Sounds like a purchase in the very very near future!

Garrett pisses me off sometimes. I was restudying the GT30 line up. The big difference between the 71R and the 76R is the compressor. However the 71R has two turbines. One is the 76R's turbine, but it shows a different turbine flow even though the part numbers are the same. ERG! Of course the other 71R turbine is much different, flowing less for the same respective A/R on the 76R... I guess for the small liter big HP honda motors that rev - keeps the turbine from falling on its face at the upper range while still small enough to spool the system.


Frank

Correct! Old technology on the left and new technology on the right. Don't get caught up too much in the specs. Sometimes trial and error is usually the best way to determine the correct turbo for your vehicle.

Chris-TU

Frank
01-04-2006, 03:03 PM
To clarify, the TU version of the DBB GT3071R will work with our 3" SV.


So which GT3071R is that? The one with the 84trim .64a/r or the 90trim .86a/r? I would assume the later. Which guy just dyno'ed with a GT30R that had Paul's cal? What was his turbo?


Frank

8valves
01-04-2006, 03:17 PM
So which GT3071R is that? The one with the 84trim .64a/r or the 90trim .86a/r? I would assume the later. Which guy just dyno'ed with a GT30R that had Paul's cal? What was his turbo?


Frank

Possibly me? I run a GT30R (yes, the 3076 w/ 4" anti-surge cover) and my cal is done by Paul. Full boost on the big 'ole TAFT S3 cam by 4100. .63A/R exhaust housing, with the standard 30R exhaust wheel. I think this is the epitome of the "straight 30R".

Aaron Miller

Frank
01-04-2006, 03:22 PM
Yeh, it was you... Couldnt remember till now. Do you have your dyno sheet?


Frank

8valves
01-04-2006, 05:16 PM
I do have the dyno sheets, only one was posted online though, the one when the IC pipe blew at 5200 or so I think. It's back on td.com under vendor section, mini TU dyno day/possible record??... or something like that.

It's really not a great representation of the turbo's capabilities honestly. I think the intercooler (dual core TD's, 2" piping) was choking it WAY bad. I knew it wasn't quite up to snuff, but now I'm starting to see it even more after getting more into compressor maps. With the pressure drop that I have (probably somewhere around 4-7 psi) I'm now off the compressor map of the 76 wheel.

Power would peak around 5000-5800 rpms then start to dive off. Torque peak was from 4300 to 5300 or so. Now I know this is the "typical" TD graph, but it's not what I built the setup to do. I was expecting a constant power gain till around 6500 and for it to level off and hold till 7000.

DSM's have run this turbo to 505 AWHP, so the turbine flow should be there for our cars, I would assume. The compressor on the other hand, since we're up in higher boost levels might run out like you warned me of earlier on. However, I'm not too sure. Nate at SlowBoy Racing (we do a lot of work with them on my brother's car) says that even with the map that the 3076 has, that they found it still likes to sing up till about 34,35 psi. If you look at the maps with our motors we're WAY off the right side at that point, correct?

I truly expect that with a real intercooler on the car for it to exceed the 400 barrier on this turbo with no higher boost than it is now on pump 93.

Aaron Miller

Frank
01-05-2006, 08:27 AM
Thanks for the information Aaron! I think I am probably going to get a GT3076R provided I can use the 3" S/V that I have.

As for the compressor map details, attached is an example. I used James Reeves' motor because he probably has one of the best flowing 8v setups that is moderately obtainable, so in this example he will have better spoolup and less boost required per hp. Now you can achieve better spoolup, but that would be difficult. So since slower spoolup puts you more towards the center of the map and more boost shifts it up, then you can see you have plenty of room. A 2.2 would behave differently, but again, there is way more room. With the restrictions you mention, you could probably see results about .5pr higher then the example. I can see the DSM's making more power with this turbo then us even though we have more displacement. That is because displacement shifts you to the right, and as you add more boost which shifts you up, you run into where it slopes off up top. Basically with more displacement, you run out of compressor map sooner.



Frank

glhs875
01-05-2006, 09:05 AM
I've got a couple of questions. How do our turbine housings compare to, and do our (Chrysler) .63AR turbine housings flow as well as the .63AR Ford type that is used on the SC6152 turbo. And if it does, can a Chrysler turbine housing be used with this type of turbo? I really like the way this turbo performs. Also, If a Chrysler turbine housing with an internal waste gate is used vs. the Ford type and an external wastegate, would there be any difference in HP potential between the two. Spoolup with either setup should be fine with my combo, I have a 4000rpm stall converter, so I can run a pretty large turbo just fine. I guess this would also be similar to putting one of the Chrysler turbine housings on a GT series turbo as well, is there a HP potential difference?

Frank
01-05-2006, 09:12 AM
Chris can probably answer this better then I can, but it is my understanding that the GT turbines of similar T350 turbine sizes spool faster and similarily to the GT31 turbines that the chrysler used. The GT turbine housings come in multiple flavors allowing you to bolt them up to many different application including ours.

So basically the GT turbine will flow like a turbine on a SC6152 but spool similarly to a StageIII T3/T4 50trim Hybrid. Now also remember that because of the big compressor of the SC6152, it spools slower anyway.


Frank

glhs875
01-05-2006, 10:17 AM
Chris can probably answer this better then I can, but it is my understanding that the GT turbines of similar T350 turbine sizes spool faster and similarily to the GT31 turbines that the chrysler used. The GT turbine housings come in multiple flavors allowing you to bolt them up to many different application including ours.

So basically the GT turbine will flow like a turbine on a SC6152 but spool similarly to a StageIII T3/T4 50trim Hybrid. Now also remember that because of the big compressor of the SC6152, it spools slower anyway.


Frank

My main question is, would there be a difference in performance if you took the SC 6152 turbo and kept everything else the same except a switch to the Chrysler .63 housing instead of the .63 Ford or standard Garrett type that was originally used?

glhs875
01-05-2006, 10:27 AM
Power would peak around 5000-5800 rpms then start to dive off. Torque peak was from 4300 to 5300 or so. Now I know this is the "typical" TD graph, but it's not what I built the setup to do. I was expecting a constant power gain till around 6500 and for it to level off and hold till 7000.

Aaron Miller

That's the power range Iam striving for as well. I want to have a shift point around 7200 to 7500rpm's for the best ET. I feel some of the problem with the 8V acheiving those kind of R's lies in the valvetrain becoming unstable starting around 6000rpm. The Taft S3 cam is definitely a step in the right direction, as I was able to move my shift point up to 6200rpm on a stock setup, but I want more. I feel that a head that can flow 200+ cfm should be able to make power well past 6000rpm. That a fair amont of flow for a 34 cu. in. cylinder.

Frank
01-05-2006, 10:42 AM
A 200cfm head at 35cui/cylinder is roughly 6350rpm for peak power. You could get a 240cfm head for alot of money, and peak power is going to be around 7600rpms. There is more too it then that with bore stroke ratios, but its a good rule.


As for the SC6152 turbine, the big difference would be fast spool (right on into the surge area), and a chocked top end because you would be unable to achieve the proper shaft speeds for a viable compressor efficency.


Frank

glhs875
01-05-2006, 11:01 AM
A 200cfm head at 35cui/cylinder is roughly 6350rpm for peak power. You could get a 240cfm head for alot of money, and peak power is going to be around 7600rpms. There is more too it then that with bore stroke ratios, but its a good rule.


As for the SC6152 turbine, the big difference would be fast spool (right on into the surge area), and a chocked top end because you would be unable to achieve the proper shaft speeds for a viable compressor efficency.


Frank

Thanks, that answered my question. That means that the standard Garrett turbine housing will flow better than a Chrysler turbine housing, wheels being the same. What did you use to figure out cfm vs. rpm potential?

Frank
01-05-2006, 11:04 AM
A sweet table at the bottom of this page... dang, giving away all my secrets! LOL.
http://users.erols.com/srweiss/tablehdc.htm


Frank

glhs875
01-05-2006, 11:11 AM
A sweet table at the bottom of this page... dang, giving away all my secrets! LOL.
http://users.erols.com/srweiss/tablehdc.htm


Frank

I've always believed that if you give away secrets you'll get more and better ones down the road.

glhs875
01-05-2006, 12:07 PM
That chart is neat! Those numbers seem very close to being right. But they are based on NA. I would think forced induction or N2O could extend the rpm range somewhat with the proper efficiency.

8valves
01-05-2006, 03:15 PM
Thanks for the information Aaron! I think I am probably going to get a GT3076R provided I can use the 3" S/V that I have.

As for the compressor map details, attached is an example. I used James Reeves' motor because he probably has one of the best flowing 8v setups that is moderately obtainable, so in this example he will have better spoolup and less boost required per hp. Now you can achieve better spoolup, but that would be difficult. So since slower spoolup puts you more towards the center of the map and more boost shifts it up, then you can see you have plenty of room. A 2.2 would behave differently, but again, there is way more room. With the restrictions you mention, you could probably see results about .5pr higher then the example. I can see the DSM's making more power with this turbo then us even though we have more displacement. That is because displacement shifts you to the right, and as you add more boost which shifts you up, you run into where it slopes off up top. Basically with more displacement, you run out of compressor map sooner.

Frank

What's interesting is that mapped by the formula's I've been going by I am off the map at 32 psi. This is why I'm planning on not trying to raise the boost much more than where I'm at.

Reeve's motor seems to flow damn well, but I was struggling to see the relation you were going for there. I believe James car was at 29 psi when it did 406 or 409 and 464 tq. I was at 26 psi and gaining right on 10 whp per lb of boost on the dyno. Unfortunately we never got to see what it would do had the graph kept climbing like it should have. Coulda woulda shoulda though.

Excuse me if my thoughts seem cluttered, I'm actually in the middle of class right now responding real quick, so I'll try to get back on later and really read through what you were trying to get at.

Either way I love this turbo... just look at the compressor wheel size from the super 50 to the 30R and realize they spool the same, then tell me which one you'd want to run! :p

Aaron Miller

Frank
01-05-2006, 03:21 PM
Oh trust me. I want to run the GT30R and will be soon. I didnt realize that your car was making so little power. Sounds like you need to uncork the sob. So yes you have some massive restrictions... about 10psi worth!

As for the equations, they are from my turbo sizing spreadsheet I developed which can be had here: http://www.squirrelpf.com/site/files/tech/turbo_v2_beta.xls It uses Excel and is developed off of equations from Garrett and a book of mine. You will find every map available including the 7.3L Powerstroke upgraded turbo.


Frank

Frank
01-06-2006, 08:59 AM
Chris, I just sent you a PM.

super60dodge
01-08-2006, 11:55 PM
Oh trust me. I want to run the GT30R and will be soon. I didnt realize that your car was making so little power. Sounds like you need to uncork the sob. So yes you have some massive restrictions... about 10psi worth!

So little power at what 370hp and 395tq on pump 93? I would say with a duell core I/C with 2" piping that is a solid number. I havent seen the dyno plot but I wouldnt say so little power that close to 400wtq.

He's got enough power now to need a cage any way:thumb:

By the way If you read this as if Im mad or something Im not. Im just confused at why you state it's such little power thats all.

Joe

glhs875
01-09-2006, 10:17 AM
So little power at what 370hp and 395tq on pump 93? I would say with a duell core I/C with 2" piping that is a solid number. I havent seen the dyno plot but I wouldnt say so little power that close to 400wtq.

He's got enough power now to need a cage any way:thumb:

By the way If you read this as if Im mad or something Im not. Im just confused at why you state it's such little power thats all.

Joe

That's what I was thinking. That's about the power level my Daytona was at, and that thing was a beast!!. Was running low 8.20's @ 91 to 93mph- 2.0's to 2.2's- 60' on DOT's, with the boost staged for traction. Iam sure with slicks and with the boost unstaged mid 7's would of been the result. Race weight was around #2850.

cordes
01-09-2006, 11:49 AM
So little power at what 370hp and 395tq on pump 93? I would say with a duell core I/C with 2" piping that is a solid number. I havent seen the dyno plot but I wouldnt say so little power that close to 400wtq.

He's got enough power now to need a cage any way:thumb:

By the way If you read this as if Im mad or something Im not. Im just confused at why you state it's such little power thats all.

Joe


I think he was either being sarcastic, or refering to the fact that his setup flows well enough to make much more power at that boost level. I know he has a ton of work done to that car.

Lets face it, the double core IC won't hold too many people back. Something to be proud of in my book.:thumb:

8valves
01-09-2006, 02:28 PM
To be entirely honest, I'm kind of dissapointed with the numbers it produced when I really think about it. 26 psi on the 30R's compressor wheel is a lot more cfm than a 50 trim, just simply off looking at the size difference of the wheels. I was expecting it to hit over 400 whp without a problem. Regardless, it'll be all set and ready to go this spring now.

But yes, Frank, can you give some insight on what exactly you were saying? Oh and please don't think I'm insluted in any way... not the case at all! I'm just curious where you were going with that or what you see going on. Where did you come up with the 10 psi number? Random guess or what?

As much as I know the IC was a problem, I have a hard time thinking that it was holding the car back THAT much. If that's the case putting the new cooler on the car should be an entirely different car, and I should have to turn the boost controller way down in comparison to the last time it was ran.

Aaron Miller

Frank
01-09-2006, 03:25 PM
All of this is done thru my Turbo Calculator that I developed...

Actually more like 9.5psi. Going off of formulas and BFSC for a more stock engine & pump gas, 300chp (15% loss for the tranny) should have been achieved at 16.5psi assuming a good cool temperature and clean power and zero psi/flow loss between turbo and intake.

If you recalculate the hp number such that the boost is now at 26psi with no loss, you should make 391chp.


Frank

Frank
01-09-2006, 03:30 PM
Oh and your 2" IC pipes are only causing 1psi of loss.

And in addition, the numbers above are a little in accurate. I used pressure as defining loss. However about 1-2psi of that could be caused by increased temperature due to the turbocharger running hotter because it is fighting against the choke in the intake route.


Frank

8valves
01-09-2006, 03:57 PM
All of this is done thru my Turbo Calculator that I developed...

Actually more like 9.5psi. Going off of formulas and BFSC for a more stock engine & pump gas, 300chp (15% loss for the tranny) should have been achieved at 16.5psi assuming a good cool temperature and clean power and zero psi/flow loss between turbo and intake.

If you recalculate the hp number such that the boost is now at 26psi with no loss, you should make 391chp.


Frank

So I'm guessing "chp" is calculated hp? So I'm 21 shy of your calculated numbers. The car does 310 whp and 315 wtq at 20 psi, so I'm already off at that point as well.

Now how does Reeve's motor do? When I saw his car at Turbopalooza he was running a 2 piece like I am (mine is highly worked inside, I would assume his is as well) and a 52mm TB if I remember correctly. He is/was on a Alabama Man header, and I have a similar TU header. His head I'm sure does a bit over 200, I'd be curious exactly where. Mine did 197/153, it should be up over 200 now with some extra little tricks for some power.

Now, he is on race gas and I've always been on 93, but other than that I always thought we were on pretty close levels of engine capabilities beyond displacement.

This is great stuff, please keep going with it. I think there is a lot for people to learn here, including myself!

Aaron Miller

Frank
01-09-2006, 04:11 PM
You said above that you made 10whp for ever 1psi of boost. I was under the impression that you made 260whp.... hence the 9psi of restriction assumption i made.

Oh chp was crank-hp.

From the sounds of it, you are dead on with your car and having about 3psi of loss in the intercooer and nearly 1psi of loss in the pipes/TB.


Frank

GLHNSLHT2
01-09-2006, 04:33 PM
4-7psi drop with a dual core stocker? I thought these were supposed to have closer to a 1psi pressure drop when running 2 of them? Does the motor flow that much more air that it's that restricted? Are the end tanks affecting it. I've been planning on running a dual core on my GLH with a GT30R. I'm going to try and fit a tripple core in there if I can but it may just benifit me going with a big spearco if these i/c's don't flow as well as I though when they're's 2 or more of them.

Frank
01-09-2006, 04:59 PM
I wouldnt go with extreme. These numbers can be off just a little bit... because of the way the formulas work. If I dont properly perdict the intake temp, then it could say I need 1 more psi of air to make that HP requirement I give.


Frank

8valves
01-09-2006, 05:10 PM
You said above that you made 10whp for ever 1psi of boost. I was under the impression that you made 260whp.... hence the 9psi of restriction assumption i made.

Oh chp was crank-hp.

From the sounds of it, you are dead on with your car and having about 3psi of loss in the intercooer and nearly 1psi of loss in the pipes/TB.


Frank

Ah! It all makes more sense now. I was saying that we were gaining 10 whp per lb of boost, from 20 psi at 310 whp to 26 psi to 370 even (okay, 369.9) whp. Glad we got that cleared up!

I don't think the dual core is so much of a restriction based on the turbo selection, but more the overall top end being geared towards a high rpm (relative) high flowing (relative) 8V head. :o

My end tanks are actually quite large w/ 3" inlet/outlets. They immediately are necked down to 2" IC piping though. It's a setup I've been running since the car was a complete S60 setup to the old Super 50 setup, to the current 30R. I just never got around to changing it. I think at this point the car is more lacking in in the air inlet department such as an open turbo inlet (now a decent cool air up where the battery was, 2.5" IC piping, a precision cooler, and hopefully a Mustang TB. For now the hogged out 2 piece will try it's best. I'ev thought about hacking off the elbow and welding on a true pipe bend as others have done, but the neck is hogged out so much I'm not sure if it's worth the effort.

Now Frank- earlier on in teh year, well, last early fall I guess, your estimations based upon calculations were that the 30R would run out of breath on our cars at about 420 whp I believe. It was back on td.com, but I'm pretty sure that's what you were guessing. Do you still think that's the case, or are you thinking it has the capabilities to go further now after seeing how it is acting?

I know compressor maps don't always give the most direct idea of how the turbo will act on a car, and what it can provide. You seem quite knoweldgeable on this (I'm not into the huge math complexities quite yet) so I was wondering if you think there might be more in it now.

Next question... what happens if I juice it? :D

Aaron Miller

Frank
01-09-2006, 05:23 PM
On a 2.5L according to the math, 420whp (480chp) is the most you are going to get without some serious modifications.... full out flow ones... 3" pipes good IC and TB, etc. With those, you should get 450whp.

On a 2.2L, pretty much the same. At their respective peak HP RPM points.

Juicing it is nice because you dont run the compressor as hard to achieve the hp you want. Its all a different game then. I feel that if you were to do some really smart intake track modifications to your car, you could easily pull the Reeves power that you want.


Frank

8valves
01-10-2006, 03:09 PM
Juicing it is nice because you dont run the compressor as hard to achieve the hp you want. Its all a different game then. I feel that if you were to do some really smart intake track modifications to your car, you could easily pull the Reeves power that you want.
Frank

I'm already working on that. I just found an old one piece intake that is going to get entirely ripped apart and used for it's injector mounting and flange with the rest being up to me. On from there will be a large TB and 3" IC piping w/ a similar sized TB. The best part is that I should be able to get away with it for decently cheap. We'll see how it goes. Anyone want a bad---- two piece intake w/ fuel system? :D

Aaron Miller

Frank
01-10-2006, 03:14 PM
Sounds like you have a good plan. You will be on your way to making big power cleanly!!!!


Frank

Frank
01-10-2006, 11:41 PM
I just ordered my GT30R! Should go well with my Steve M head, my future PT1000 A/W Intercooler, TU Header, and soon custom intake. (Some of that installed of course)


Frank

glhs875
01-11-2006, 09:00 AM
I'm already working on that. I just found an old one piece intake that is going to get entirely ripped apart and used for it's injector mounting and flange with the rest being up to me. On from there will be a large TB and 3" IC piping w/ a similar sized TB. The best part is that I should be able to get away with it for decently cheap. We'll see how it goes. Anyone want a bad---- two piece intake w/ fuel system? :D

Aaron Miller

Why don't you build a custom larger upper plenum, with no added runner length over what the lower piece has? Then on the lower piece, port the runners at the plenum to achieve a velocity stack design. And also try to center the throttle body inlet at the plenum if possible for more equal flow distribution. I have noticed that cylinder #1 gets the most air, then #2, #3, &#4 on a 2 piece intake. There not that far off from each other, but there is a difference. From my findings, the 1 piece, with the way the plenum is designed seems to be better in this department. But seriously modifying the 1 piece could change the flow distribution if your not careful. I've not yet decided if there is much of a difference between the 1 piece or 2 piece, at the stock throttle body size levels. But I have noticed the 2 piece having a little better throttle response. You have a great combo going Aaron, but now it's time to get down to the nitty gritty. One thing I would do, is to see how much of a pressure drop before & after the cooler you actually do have @ 26psi.

Frank
01-11-2006, 09:30 AM
Well said!

cordes
01-11-2006, 12:36 PM
I just ordered my GT30R! Should go well with my Steve M head, my future PT1000 A/W Intercooler, TU Header, and soon custom intake. (Some of that installed of course)


Frank


Which car is that going in and what are your plans for it street/strip, or all out drag car? That is going to be one whicked setup.

Also, had anyone managed to get a large TB on a custom intake which is over the valve cover to feed the cylinders equally? I have heard it talked about many times, but I don't think I have seen any pictures. Seems like the next logical step when building the ideal intake. Although directly over the motor isn't exactly the prime place for it.

Frank
01-11-2006, 02:13 PM
It is going on my 2.5L Daytona... Steve M head, TU header, 3" swingvalve and exhaust, PT1000 a/w intercooler (soon), TU fuel rail, Ross Pistons, Eagle SRT4 rods, 3spd Slowe Tranny, etc. All around car... summer daily driver. I need to put a cam and a LW Intake on.


Frank

8valves
01-12-2006, 11:49 AM
Why don't you build a custom larger upper plenum, with no added runner length over what the lower piece has? Then on the lower piece, port the runners at the plenum to achieve a velocity stack design. And also try to center the throttle body inlet at the plenum if possible for more equal flow distribution. I have noticed that cylinder #1 gets the most air, then #2, #3, &#4 on a 2 piece intake. There not that far off from each other, but there is a difference. From my findings, the 1 piece, with the way the plenum is designed seems to be better in this department. But seriously modifying the 1 piece could change the flow distribution if your not careful. I've not yet decided if there is much of a difference between the 1 piece or 2 piece, at the stock throttle body size levels. But I have noticed the 2 piece having a little better throttle response. You have a great combo going Aaron, but now it's time to get down to the nitty gritty. One thing I would do, is to see how much of a pressure drop before & after the cooler you actually do have @ 26psi.

I have actually thought of this, the only thing is stopping me is I'm not sure i like the runner length. I'd like to shift the rpm band farther right, and shortening up those runners should aid in that. Also, I'm not sure how bad the plenum area on a two piece really is...

The new head is absoloutley wicked, it should surpass 200 cfm by a good margin, and even better overall performance. I need something that is for sure going to feed it.

The lowers of my two piece are hogged out a lot, and done with velocity still kept in mind, they're pretty damn awesome. Also, inside the lowers the runners are coated in an anti-friction coating for air, used by Dart inside their heads and intakes on their pro-stock Cobalts.

It's still a possibility, but a center inlet isn't happeneing. I'm not cutting up a hood to fit a pipe. Millions of way higher performance cars use a side inlet (see, every AMS EVO/DSM intake called the VSR intake, huge plenum, side inlet) so there is a way for equal distribution. Key to it is utilizing velocity stacks inside the plenum to capture the high speed air trying to go past.

Do you think if I take a spare 2PC gasket to a machine shop they could mill me a flange to build off of? I'll need to measure to see how much room I have to build the plenum then and stay inside the stock hood and firewall.

Aaron Miller

Mike_Shepard
01-12-2006, 03:59 PM
Frank & Aaron, I talked to Chris yesterday and he suggested to me that I should get the GT30 for my daytona (I origanally wanted the GT28) but he said I would be more happy with this one, but a freind iis saying that this is too big. This is my summer fn and occasional strip car

What kinda lag should I expect from it I hit boost at 3K now. The motor is built but it has a stock head( I have 1mm over valves just need to get a spare head to work them into. What are your opinions

Frank
01-12-2006, 04:05 PM
Its a tough call IMHO. The GT30R can help you go further, however with more lag. I am of the impression that a GT38 would better then something like a S60, but wouldnt peak out much higher then the S60.


Frank

8valves
01-12-2006, 04:27 PM
Frank & Aaron, I talked to Chris yesterday and he suggested to me that I should get the GT30 for my daytona (I origanally wanted the GT28) but he said I would be more happy with this one, but a freind iis saying that this is too big. This is my summer fn and occasional strip car

What kinda lag should I expect from it I hit boost at 3K now. The motor is built but it has a stock head( I have 1mm over valves just need to get a spare head to work them into. What are your opinions

From my personal car, lots of head work, large cam, TU header, 2.25 displacement w/ low compression (somewhere around 7.8 is my guess) I have full boost at 4100 rpms. A 50 trim w/ stage II exhaust and .63 housing was 4000 even. That's 100 rpms for a HUGE compressor wheel difference.

I'm not a big believer in "too much lag." If it's a have fun driver car, occasional strip car, as long as the next gear drops you back into full boost then don't even worry about it. Don't drive your car lugging it at 2000 rpm shifts and get pissed because it's not making boost! :eyebrows:

Aaron Miller

Mike_Shepard
01-13-2006, 07:18 AM
Thanks guys, Im in a hard place here I think the gt30 would be a good Idea because of future boost possibilities and is it worth the extra cash vs the gt28

Frank
01-13-2006, 08:16 AM
Exactly.