Notices

Garrett Gt35r Install

 
Old 12-05-2006, 03:45 PM
  #16  
Trucho-951
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
Trucho-951's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Napa Valley, CA
Posts: 589
Default

Very exciting thread, good luck, may the boost be with you...
Trucho-951 is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 05:38 PM
  #17  
Dave951
User
 
Dave951's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 854
Default

Originally Posted by jean_noir
I know that you have not driven your car in a while but what were your lasting impressions? Was the spool up acceptable? Better than a k26? Was the power on the "OH ****!!!" side or was it more like - "GREAT, but could be better with some head work". How was the installation? Any other custom parts needed beside the adapter? If you did it again would you use the same turbo or would you go a different rout (ie gt28 or gt35 - or a totally different turbo?)
The lasting impressions from driving the car are profound and IMO the power levels that are obtainable are definitely within the "OH ****!!" category. Or at least that's what all my passengers say. The GT30R does take longer than the K26 to spool up but still is within my definition of acceptable. I think of the K26 as a rubber mallet and the GT30R as a sledgehammer. Certainly you can swing the mallet quicker but it doesn't hit very hard, while a sledgehammer takes a little longer to pick up and deliver but hits hard as hell. Another note is that spool times could be reduced slightly by using the anti-surge inlet instead of the standard at the cost of overall output.

The installation had its woes as most do when dealing with this level of complexity. Additional modification to the crossover pipe need to be done to allow it to reach the turbo since the GT sits higher then the K26. And you need to be creative in your routing the coolant pipes to the center section of the turbo. That being said though I wouldn't have done it any differently if I could do it over again (except having a larger budget to buy and install more go fast parts at the same time). Too many great lessons were learned by doing this installation to ever wish it never happened. Though when variable turbine turbos become more readily available and affordable I don't know if I'll be able to refuse.
Dave951 is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 07:34 PM
  #18  
Pauerman
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
Pauerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Valley of the Sun
Posts: 860
Default

Originally Posted by Dave951
Ask and you shall receive

Turbo: GT3076r aka GT30R
General Turbine Housing: K24/K26
Anti-Surge Equipped: No
Turbine:
Wheel: 60mm with 84 Trim
Housing: .63 a/r
Compressor:
Wheel: 76.2mm with 56 Trim
Housing: .60 a/r
Dave,

You mention that your 30R isn't equipped with anti-surge, are you referring to the compressor housing? Didn't your 30R come with the 4" port shrouded compressor housing? I thought that the port shroud was used to prevent or decrease the chance of surge.

BTW, great info on your install. Thanks for the pic of your adapter.
Pauerman is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 08:20 PM
  #19  
Chris White
Addict
Rennlist Member

Rennlist Small
Business Sponsor

 
Chris White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Marietta, NY
Posts: 7,396
Default

Nice write up, pretty much exactly the same set up that I am using on the 3.1 16v engine (except the I went with the stage 2 headers).
Should be fun!!!!
Chris White is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 08:24 PM
  #20  
Dave951
User
 
Dave951's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 854
Default

Originally Posted by Pauerman
You mention that your 30R isn't equipped with anti-surge, are you referring to the compressor housing? Didn't your 30R come with the 4" port shrouded compressor housing? I thought that the port shroud was used to prevent or decrease the chance of surge.

BTW, great info on your install. Thanks for the pic of your adapter.
My terminology was a little off, but what I meant is that my GT30R does not have a ported shroud, instead mine has the standard shroud (Like Porschefile's GT35R pictured). Your thoughts on its purpose are correct. Though a properly sized turbo for a given application shouldn't require this additional feature.

Honeywell / Garret says:

A Ported Shroud compressor is a feature that is incorporated into the compressor housing. It functions to move the surge line further to the left by allowing some airflow to exit the wheel through the port to keep surge from occurring. This provides additional usable range and allows a larger compressor to be used for higher flow requirements without risking running the compressor into a dangerous surge condition. The presence of the ported shroud usually has a minor negative impact on compressor efficiency.
Dave951 is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 08:25 PM
  #21  
Porschefile
User
Thread Starter
 
Porschefile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,458
Default

Compressor surge housings by themselves do not decrease spool times. Actually, in most cases they technically increase spool by ~100-300rpm or so.
Porschefile is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 08:33 PM
  #22  
Premier Motorsp
 
Premier Motorsp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 497
Default

Why the monster sized oil line?

Chris Cervelli
Premier Motorsports
Premier Motorsp is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 08:36 PM
  #23  
Dave951
User
 
Dave951's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 854
Default

Originally Posted by Porschefile
Compressor surge housings by themselves do not decrease spool times. Actually, in most cases they technically increase spool by ~100-300rpm or so.
You are correct. I don't know where I drew that incorrect conclusion from especially with the fact that surge housing decreases overall compressor efficiency. (Insert emoIcon with a dunce cap).

Last edited by Dave951; 12-05-2006 at 11:14 PM.
Dave951 is offline  
Old 12-05-2006, 10:08 PM
  #24  
333pg333
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
333pg333's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,491
Default

I'll be interested in your tuning pursuits with the standalone.
333pg333 is offline  
Old 12-06-2006, 03:12 AM
  #25  
Porschefile
User
Thread Starter
 
Porschefile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,458
Default

Originally Posted by Premier Motorsp
Why the monster sized oil line?

Chris Cervelli
Premier Motorsports
The stainless braided exterior is pretty generously sized, though internally it is not quite that size. At the moment I am not sure exactly what size restrictor was used, however it is an AN restrictor threaded into the oil port inlet.

Here is a shot of the turbo mount part of the center section since some of you asked:
Attached Images  
Porschefile is offline  
Old 12-06-2006, 04:51 AM
  #26  
Duke
Super User
 
Duke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 5,528
Default

BTW I just want to add in that this thread is great...
I got a "very" similar turbo for my project last year but the engine won't be finished until this spring.
Will be great to compare the results with other GTBB-big-boy-brothers

What are the plans for the rest of the engine? Stock displacement? Stock 4-2-1 headers? What cam? What EMS?
Duke is offline  
Old 12-06-2006, 06:31 AM
  #27  
Porschefile
User
Thread Starter
 
Porschefile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,458
Default

Originally Posted by Duke
BTW I just want to add in that this thread is great...
I got a "very" similar turbo for my project last year but the engine won't be finished until this spring.
Will be great to compare the results with other GTBB-big-boy-brothers

What are the plans for the rest of the engine? Stock displacement? Stock 4-2-1 headers? What cam? What EMS?
Thanks Duke. If you don't mind my asking, what kind of turbo are you going with, and do you have a specific power goal in mind?

My plans for the rest of the engine is to MAKE UP MY MIND! I'm so indecisive much of the time, and there are just too many routes to take with a project like this. I've considered a 2.5 16v, 2.8 stroker or bore 16v, and a 3.0 16v (S2 motor). Ultimately, I've come to the conclusion that I do want to at least use a 16v head (preferrably the S2 from what my research has shown). Judging by what a few others have said, apparently the 16v heads flow some insane cfm numbers. That by itself doesn't mean much, though I have some theories related to this topic that I will get into a bit later. Before too long I'm going to hopefully buy an S2 head, have it flow benched and go from there. Because I want to go with a 16v head, and because of the power level I'm looking for, ideally I will have some custom cams made for the specific setup. Also, I'm planning on going with an AEM engine management. I'm going to eventually go with the SFR Stage 2 headers.
Porschefile is offline  
Old 12-06-2006, 12:42 PM
  #28  
RolexNJ
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
 
RolexNJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 5,321
Default

Originally Posted by Porschefile
I've considered a 2.5 16v, 2.8 stroker or bore 16v, and a 3.0 16v (S2 motor). Ultimately, I've come to the conclusion that I do want to at least use a 16v head (preferrably the S2 from what my research has shown). Judging by what a few others have said, apparently the 16v heads flow some insane cfm numbers. Before too long I'm going to hopefully buy an S2 head, have it flow benched and go from there. Because I want to go with a 16v head, and because of the power level I'm looking for, ideally I will have some custom cams made for the specific setup. Also, I'm planning on going with an AEM engine management. I'm going to eventually go with the SFR Stage 2 headers.
Kool. Let's finally get some hard data for the public! Why not flow a S2 versus a 968 head and go from there on the project? I'd love to see the differences. What are your RWHP expectations again, now with a 16V head too? And lastly, be forwarned, the SFR Stage 2 Headers "will" shift that curve a bit. Fact, not fiction my friend. I look forward to hearing some concrete data from your findings.

Cheers,

RolexNJ is offline  
Old 12-06-2006, 04:22 PM
  #29  
Porschefile
User
Thread Starter
 
Porschefile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,458
Default

Originally Posted by RolexNJ
Kool. Let's finally get some hard data for the public! Why not flow a S2 versus a 968 head and go from there on the project? I'd love to see the differences. What are your RWHP expectations again, now with a 16V head too? And lastly, be forwarned, the SFR Stage 2 Headers "will" shift that curve a bit. Fact, not fiction my friend. I look forward to hearing some concrete data from your findings.

Cheers,

My horsepower expectation hasn't really changed. I mainly want a 16v head to be able to hold power better on the top-end as well as to be more efficient so I won't have to run as much boost and to take better advantage of higher rpm. I'd like to flow both heads, however that's quite a few thousand $$ for just a couple heads and just to flowbench. I'll do what I can, but I'm not made of money. I completely understand about the stage 2 headers, though I feel the improvements would be necessary considering the power level I want.
Porschefile is offline  
Old 12-06-2006, 04:25 PM
  #30  
RolexNJ
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
 
RolexNJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 5,321
Default

Originally Posted by Porschefile
I'll do what I can, but I'm not made of money.
You would fool me with those nice list of cars you have down below?

RolexNJ is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Garrett Gt35r Install


Contact Us - About Us - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: