Well, Turbonetics told me to fuk myself
10-08-2009, 08:02 PM
#1
Well, Turbonetics told me to *** myself
Many of you read my previous thread about turbo failure.
Well, turbo netics stood by their product 1 time, not the 2nd. So *** them.
Anyway, looking at a gt2871r 472560-15
I want my dyno to look like it does now, better spool would be nice, but definitely want the same TQ/hp.
Thing is, I need a turbo that wont **** itself from shaft speed.
Running up to 20psi is no issue..
Opinions please..
Thanks for your help
PS- Turbonetics suck ***..
Well, turbo netics stood by their product 1 time, not the 2nd. So *** them.
Anyway, looking at a gt2871r 472560-15
I want my dyno to look like it does now, better spool would be nice, but definitely want the same TQ/hp.
Thing is, I need a turbo that wont **** itself from shaft speed.
Running up to 20psi is no issue..
Opinions please..
Thanks for your help
PS- Turbonetics suck ***..
Reply
0
0
10-08-2009, 08:23 PM
#2
Try these guys
About_Billet.ews | www.billetturbochargers.com
their design is supposed to support higher shaft speeds and be more durable-although I've never used their turbos
About_Billet.ews | www.billetturbochargers.com
their design is supposed to support higher shaft speeds and be more durable-although I've never used their turbos
Reply
0
0
10-08-2009, 10:55 PM
#9
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: atlanta-ish
Posts: 12,659
Total Cats: 134
I have to throw it in here. 3071. Owner says he gets to target boost 500 rpm sooner at sea level than he did in Colorado. The smaller numbers are from a bitch *** 2560.
Note this is on a 2.0 and is corrected. Shift the power a little to the left and knock off 15-20% and I bet that's how your car would perform. Pretty much even to, maybe a pinch more, than where you were.
Note this is on a 2.0 and is corrected. Shift the power a little to the left and knock off 15-20% and I bet that's how your car would perform. Pretty much even to, maybe a pinch more, than where you were.
Reply
0
0
10-08-2009, 11:02 PM
#10
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,099
I have to throw it in here. 3071. Owner says he gets to target boost 500 rpm sooner at sea level than he did in Colorado. The smaller numbers are from a bitch *** 2560.
Note this is on a 2.0 and is corrected. Shift the power a little to the left and knock off 15-20% and I bet that's how your car would perform. Pretty much even to, maybe a pinch more, than where you were.
Note this is on a 2.0 and is corrected. Shift the power a little to the left and knock off 15-20% and I bet that's how your car would perform. Pretty much even to, maybe a pinch more, than where you were.
please, recommend a 450whp turbo when the guy only wants 350whp and his emphasis is on spool.
Reply
0
0
10-08-2009, 11:07 PM
#11
I want to see 300tq on a mustang. think 20psi will do that..
Hustler knows me all too well at this point. My issue isnt reaching power goals. Thats easy. Its when there is power.
My last dyno plot was fine. I just need a turbo to hold up and do the same.
I can get the gt2871r delivered for 1k even. Is that good??
What if the gt2871r came with a .48 a/r housing? Can that even happen??
What off the shelf turbo do you folks suggest?
I will be selling the engine, engine managment, and entire turbo set up in december
Reply
0
0
10-08-2009, 11:35 PM
#14
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: atlanta-ish
Posts: 12,659
Total Cats: 134
I thought you were running a 1.9.
I've been looking at T2 trims, but everything I see the 3071 gives up NOTHING to the 2871 and makes more power everywhere.
Keep in mind that chart is 2560 vs 3071. Note the very minimal difference in low end torque and then look what happens up top.
I've been looking at T2 trims, but everything I see the 3071 gives up NOTHING to the 2871 and makes more power everywhere.
Keep in mind that chart is 2560 vs 3071. Note the very minimal difference in low end torque and then look what happens up top.
Reply
0
0
10-08-2009, 11:36 PM
#15
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,099
I'd love to hear you explain this. He wants low 300whp, and his emphasis is on spool, so you recommended a 30R - and I'm the stupid one?
If by "good" you mean like "250whp MAX with horrible spool". You want a .64 at minimum. I'd actually give some serious thought to a .86 2860RS - a little more response and low-end than the 2871, and probably a better match if your endgame goal is 300wtq on a Mustang.
If by "good" you mean like "250whp MAX with horrible spool". You want a .64 at minimum. I'd actually give some serious thought to a .86 2860RS - a little more response and low-end than the 2871, and probably a better match if your endgame goal is 300wtq on a Mustang.
Reply
0
0
10-08-2009, 11:48 PM
#17
so you have this 2871
TurboByGarrett.com - Catalog
and this one
TurboByGarrett.com - Catalog
what about that smaller trim compressor wheel?? with a .64
Would that smaller trim help much?? compressor map looks like its right there for me. But will it spool quicker with a smaller inducer?
TurboByGarrett.com - Catalog
and this one
TurboByGarrett.com - Catalog
what about that smaller trim compressor wheel?? with a .64
Would that smaller trim help much?? compressor map looks like its right there for me. But will it spool quicker with a smaller inducer?
Reply
0
0
10-08-2009, 11:51 PM
#18
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
He doesn't have a super-manifold either, so it will spin up later. He needs a custom job and he'll be happy. I say tiny AR on both housings, crazy-aggressive wheels, big EWG. He can make 300whp at 16-18psi though.
Reply
0
0
10-08-2009, 11:59 PM
#20
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: atlanta-ish
Posts: 12,659
Total Cats: 134
Originally Posted by Jeremy
If I was only going for 300-350 I'd look at the 2871R and the 3071R. If the 2871R spooled faster it would be a bonus, but based on my experience with the 2860RS spooling basically the same as a 3071R on cars here I wouldn't put my money on it. (IIRC the 2860RS and 2871R have the same NS-111 9 blade turbine wheel, and my guess is that the 2871R is turning a bigger compressor wheel..)
The 3071 does on paper have a less restrictive hotside (it certainly looks bigger) and therefore better thermal management and possibly more timing advance potential, not to mention more airflow potential for future mods. I could not get any more timing with the 2860RS at 12 psi than I could on the same car with a 2560R. On other cars with the 3071 however I've been able to consistently get more advance at that level of boost.
When weiging the variables therefore for 300-400 rwhp I'd still go with the 3071. It makes for a very fast car when done right.
The 3071 does on paper have a less restrictive hotside (it certainly looks bigger) and therefore better thermal management and possibly more timing advance potential, not to mention more airflow potential for future mods. I could not get any more timing with the 2860RS at 12 psi than I could on the same car with a 2560R. On other cars with the 3071 however I've been able to consistently get more advance at that level of boost.
When weiging the variables therefore for 300-400 rwhp I'd still go with the 3071. It makes for a very fast car when done right.
Originally Posted by Savington
I might be confused, but you're saying that you think the 2871 and the 3071 are going to have equal spool?
Which 3071R do you guys normally use? T25 or T3 turbine, which A/R, etc?
Which 3071R do you guys normally use? T25 or T3 turbine, which A/R, etc?
Originally Posted by Jeremy
I'm saying that my guess is that their spool is pretty comprable, and the 3071 is probably more efficient. Maybe someday I'll set a 2871 up here and I'll have a more complete information set by which to compare.
We use the T25 flanged 3071 so that it bolts into our FMII kits. .64AR turbine.
We use the T25 flanged 3071 so that it bolts into our FMII kits. .64AR turbine.
Originally Posted by Jeremy
Regarding response and the 3071, on our tired old 95 (basically a stock engine) pushing a whopping 160psi of compression hot, with our standard FMII kit & log manifold, I'm getting full mechanical base boost (10 psi, rock solid) just before 4000 RPM up here at the shop- 4700' elevation. I've driven many of the turbos on "the list" and I still think this one is the best option for a ~300-~450 rwhp Miata.
Reply
0
0
