-3.2
-Elgin re-ground S52 cams
-93+boost juice
-old steed speed manifold
-GT4094r .96
-4" exhaust
-Dynojet
-10 psi spring
-5psi @ 3151
-10psi @ 3672
-15psi @ 3968
-19psi @ 4174
-20psi @ 4362
1998 Turbo M3 Nick G tuned setting 5 934Whp 849Wtq @27.88 Psi. ignite E90 setting 6=
The 6766 is actually vincedahl's setup. It made plenty of power and had no problem breaking lots of driveline parts though. Going off boost pressure alone doesn't show that by 4300 the 6766 is already making more power and walking away from the 6262 car.
My 0.02, 6766 seems better suited for something with some RPM overhead like an evo or civic. A 6466 would be way more responsive in this application and still be able to max the injectors out.
I also expected it to be a little quicker onset though, but this was the best sweep data I could find running through a few logs.
Last edited by Kevin325i; 01-10-2018 at 09:26 PM. Reason: clarity
I bet something useful could be done by comparing spool times to ar/turbine sizes. I imagine there would be some fun findings.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1989 535i - sold
1999 M3 Tiag/Dove - sold
1998 M3 Turbo Arctic/black - current
2004 Built motor TiAg/Black - Sold
2008 E61 19T Turbo-Wagon - current
2011 E82 135i - S85 Swap - current
1998 M3 Cosmos S54 swapped Sedan - current
1998 Turbo: PTE6870 | 1.15 ar | Hp Cover, Custom Divided T4 bottom-mount, 3.5" SS exhaust, Dual Turbosmart Compgates, Turbosmart Raceport BOV, 3.5" Treadstone Intercooler, 3.5" Vibrant resonator and muffler, Arp 2k Headstuds | Arp 2k Main studs | 87mm Je pistons | Eagle rods | 9.2:1 static compression, Ces 87mm cutring, Custom solid rear subframe bushings, Akg 85d diff bushings, 4 clutch 3.15 diff, , Poly engine mounts, UUC trans mounts W/ enforcers, 22RPD OBD2 Stock ECU id1700 E85 tune, 22RPD Big power Transmission swap w/ GS6-53
Ken
95' Dakar M3
(GT35) 500whp+ and no clue what I'm doing....
Steedspeed Twin-scroll Manifold, Wiseco 8.8:1 CR, K1 Rods, Supertech Valvetrain, ARP Main Studs, o-ring block, GTR 12mm head studs, GT35R with 86mm HTA billet compressor wheel (GT3586RHTA) Twin-Scroll 1.06 AR, Schrick Cams, TRM Tuning, 6 Speed Transmission, UUC Twin Disc Clutch, HFS-6 W/M injection, Zeitronix, Coilovers, Chassis Stuffs.
Way too small. A GT3582R or GTX3582R or EFR8374 with IWG or 6262. The turbo you have sacrifices spool for a bit higher power which doesn’t work as well on our engines as others.
My EFR 9180 spools about the same as my GTX3582R which is way better than your GT3586R.
If I was in your shoes I’d probably go with the EFR 8374 with the IWG and EWG. A four port boost solenoid would be required to have any hope of controlling boost on that set up but you would have more power and much faster spool than you have now.
I’d be more than willing to sacrifice max power for drivability. I’ve run 3076’s before on a cammed 2.4L Dodge and made great power 459whp with good drivability. Granted that was forever ago and old technology. I just want something simple to swap mine with. I’ll have to look at the compressor maps for the 3582 and 6262. Isn’t the PT6262 huge (in physical size) in comparison to the Garrett’s?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ken
95' Dakar M3
(GT35) 500whp+ and no clue what I'm doing....
Steedspeed Twin-scroll Manifold, Wiseco 8.8:1 CR, K1 Rods, Supertech Valvetrain, ARP Main Studs, o-ring block, GTR 12mm head studs, GT35R with 86mm HTA billet compressor wheel (GT3586RHTA) Twin-Scroll 1.06 AR, Schrick Cams, TRM Tuning, 6 Speed Transmission, UUC Twin Disc Clutch, HFS-6 W/M injection, Zeitronix, Coilovers, Chassis Stuffs.
The 6262 would fit fine. Not sure about t4 twin scroll housing options for it. Last I checked they didn't really exist.
Just wait a few months and I'll have some s362sxe max effort data.
PTE 6262 twin scroll housing is .84 A/R and fits just fine on the new Steed.
She's built like a steakhouse but handles like a bistro
Has anyone tried a GT4202 or GTX4202?
Well crap. I should have looked harder and not gotten another turbo.
Ken buy my old turbo and get a different exhaust housing..
Garrett told me at sema that there would be major updates to the GT40 and GT42R line up coming up. They should be coming with this new 'G' series of turbo's, and that they should be out by next year, so 2018 sema.
This is great new as the new PTE 7175 gen 2 that just released will spank the GTX42R in both the 94 and 02 version. I just get un-easy about pte reliability and borg warner EFR stops at the 9180 (so a solid 850-900 max). So if your looking for a 950whp+ turbo and you want the best $$$ can buy only option is PTE 6870 or 7175. I hope Garrett does have big things coming with this new 'g' line. Time will tell. That new G25-550 and 660 is incredibly impressive for the size. No real data yet as I don't think they have shipped and customers have them in hand, but it will be interesting.
Attention TURBO LOVERS, Great book -----> How to turbocharge and Tune your Engine
Favorite Automotive Tuning Articles on the Internet: Engine Tuning Articles
My Car: Custom Build Lotus Super 7
Its sad Garrett has fallen so far behind. They obviously have the man power and technology to be the leader. I honestly thought years ago I would only but Garrett's, now I feel this way about Precision. EFR just isn't my cup of tea. Although I do like the v band center sections.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
1996 332IS
Built 3.2
CES/Steed TS Precision 6466, spraying a "$π!℅" load of meth.
Technique Tuning 80# tune.
1/4 mile 10.84 @ 136.72
Your 1 and only stop for all your BMW performance needs
WWW.CESMOTORSPORT.COM
Thanks for sharing this.
There are a few other turbo companies worth mentioning:
Forced Performance
Xona Rotor
Bullseye
Forced Performance appears to have a custom cover for the GT42 sized CHRA that is very close to the size of the GT40 cover. (4" inlet, 2.5" outlet) One of the models has a flow rating of 115 lb/min....which for the size of the turbo....I don't think anyone can match. (Including Precision's new stuff!)
I would be all over Forced Performance and of course their own turbo's in their joint adventure with Tial called Xona, if they would release compressor maps.
Show me the compressor map so I can see that it is flowing 115 lb/min and I would be ALL OVER THAT! The problem is that it's much easier to just claim what it can do and then tell the customer it must be something with their set-up when it doesn't perform as stated.
The nice thing about the Borg's and the Garrett (aside from the reliability), is the fact that I don't have to trust anyones word on what it will do, or have to look at the results of others, but instead can look at the compressor maps and go: "well look at that. The thing is doing 115lb/min of air, so this turbo will crack 1100 whp on a dynojet no problem".
Last edited by flexer; 01-25-2018 at 12:18 PM.
Attention TURBO LOVERS, Great book -----> How to turbocharge and Tune your Engine
Favorite Automotive Tuning Articles on the Internet: Engine Tuning Articles
My Car: Custom Build Lotus Super 7
I get your point on the compressor maps, but there are other variables that have MASSIVE affects on total engine power output when evaluating airflow.
Air/Fuel Ratio - If you're target is 800hp, simply changing from 11.0 to 11.5 AFR will increase the required airflow by over 3 Lb/min
BSFC - This one is a monster. Same scenario as above, changing from 0.55 to 0.60 will increase required airflow by nearly 8 Lb/min
Air Filter - 99% of the filters I see used on this forum are too small according to basic engineering principles. This creates a vacuum before the compressor as mass-flow demand increases. -2 PSI results in the Pressure Ratio being affected by HALF a POINT. (3.1 up to 3.6)
So you can have a compressor map, and be inaccurate on the above with guesses or ignorance, and still end up running out of airflow well before your HP target is achieved.
An Example: I recently built the maths channels in my data analysis software using temp/pressure traces to validate turbo air flow and P/R. I found that I had peak mass flow of 70 lb/min on my GTX3076R turbo while at the drag strip. This was WELL off the compressor map, and also validated why I had massive increases in discharge temperature as I increased manifold pressure from 15 PSI up to 19 PSI. Then I had to bring down the ignition timing to keep knock at bay. I was literally slinging hot air...but mass flow didn't increase with pressure as compressor efficiency was dropping so fast. (A working turbine speed sensor probably would have helped with that)
Using the above as an example, would I have still done this if I didn't have a compressor map? Absolutely! I'm just an average car guy trying to get the most HP from what I've got. No mater what the specification is, 90% of us are going to keep dialling things up until we EXPERIENCE something restrictive. It won't matter the spec of the part....at least for me.
This leads me to Precision Turbos. The HP # they specify for their turbo seems to be conservative, but then this is skewed by practical examples where people exceed it. The 6870 for example is billed as a 1000hp capable turbo. Not 1000rwhp.....1000 crank HP. Then people run it on various engines....showing results over 1000rwhp....and people get disappointed when it only makes 930rwhp on their car. I think Precision Turbo and Forced Performance specify the peak performance of their turbos with some margin. The evidence is there. Other companies I can't comment on, I don't have as much information.
In the case of the HTZ GT4205R from Forced Performance: FP is taking a GT42 CHRA and turbine, which Garrett slaps a 76mm GTX wheel onto to claim 1130hp, and adds their own slightly larger compressor wheel to claim 1150hp. I don't think their claims are likely to be far off....
Another thing that comes into play is the pressure differential between the inlet and outlet ports. This explains why a 2JZ for example can sometimes make more power with a given turbo than a BMW engine.
If you have less efficient intake port (2JZ), you will need to run a higher PR for a given mass flow. So the 2JZ has higher pressure in the port than a good BMW port. When the engine goes through valve overlap, the 2JZ combustion chamber will have more pressure pushing the charge into the exhaust port. This isn't such a big deal until you start to reach the choke limits on the exhaust. (High exhaust pressure) Where the BMW might have 20 PSI intake, and 40 PSI exhaust, the 2JZ might have 25 PSI intake, and 40 PSI exhaust. Which one is going to flow more? The funny thing is that the BMW will make more power than the 2JZ up to reaching exhaust choke....then above that, the pressure ratio has a bigger effect on the BMW.
Pei, Small air filters are for girls..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1989 535i - sold
1999 M3 Tiag/Dove - sold
1998 M3 Turbo Arctic/black - current
2004 Built motor TiAg/Black - Sold
2008 E61 19T Turbo-Wagon - current
2011 E82 135i - S85 Swap - current
1998 M3 Cosmos S54 swapped Sedan - current
1998 Turbo: PTE6870 | 1.15 ar | Hp Cover, Custom Divided T4 bottom-mount, 3.5" SS exhaust, Dual Turbosmart Compgates, Turbosmart Raceport BOV, 3.5" Treadstone Intercooler, 3.5" Vibrant resonator and muffler, Arp 2k Headstuds | Arp 2k Main studs | 87mm Je pistons | Eagle rods | 9.2:1 static compression, Ces 87mm cutring, Custom solid rear subframe bushings, Akg 85d diff bushings, 4 clutch 3.15 diff, , Poly engine mounts, UUC trans mounts W/ enforcers, 22RPD OBD2 Stock ECU id1700 E85 tune, 22RPD Big power Transmission swap w/ GS6-53
Some of the top mount air filters that people use are ridiculously small and restrictive.
^sometimes that's all we can fit.
I’d like to see a dyno comparison between a small filter and ffilter replaced with a velocity stack.
It can affect things both ways.
If for example the engine was operating to the left side of the compressor map, adding a restriction to the inlet would shift everything up, but you would be further away from the maximum efficiency point in the center resulting in less power at lower RPMs. So in that case, a big air filter might be better.
The opposite case would be if you were running a smaller turbo, and found yourself running off the compressor map to the right at lower pressure ratios, adding a restriction might bring you up and into a more efficient place on the map. The down side is that if you have a restricted exhaust, you might be pushing the turbo past it's exhaust capability...and the whole engine makes less power. A restriction on the inlet could be used to tune where the peak RPM point landed on a compressor map though.....
Last edited by PEI330Ci; 01-28-2018 at 06:34 AM.
Bookmarks