I dont see the fire. Looks like a nice pleasant discussion to me.

I havent had the pleasure of inspecting any of the BBK turbos. So everything that comes from me is complete bench racing. But for the most part compressor flow is simply a function of blade area. More area = more flow. From the dimensions of BBK it falls between the old and new green. There is no good info available on the new BBK. except they rate it at 58lb turbo. We dont really know where the red is. its been rated at 56-60 by FP themselves. Then we dont know how accurate the 58 for new BBK is either. with The BBK at 50 and the new at 58 is should be making more than 30 more that it made over the old.

 

But would you agree that every turbo has a slightly different design for a slightly different purpose.

You are, after all, the resident turbo expert.

 

So more flow = more power???? Most likely more lag too in a 2.0 L engine. Effificiency (compressed air temperature) has to play a role too. I am sure two turbos flowing 41 lb/min will not necessarily produce the same power.

I am flowing 41 lb/min on my 20G and only making 350 awhp on a dynojet. Timing is preety much max out without inducing knock. A more efficient turbo (i.e HTA or BBK) should make more power at the same flow rate. Right?

 

Don't both the HTA73 and the 80mm Red have larger cast compressor housings?
The BBK and BBK-B both use the OEM housing.

Am I correct in that statement?
If so, wouldn't the larger compressor non OEM housing allow these turbo's to make more power?

And if so, wouldn't their designation as stock framed turbos be removed since it wouldn't be the case anymore?

-Jalal

 

Someone likes small turbo's lol

 

From FP's website on the HTA Green:
"This unit features the 54lb/min 73mm HTA compressor wheel and a new 65mm revision of the high efficiency 67mm turbine wheel used in the FP Red™ for the perfect combination of power and rapid spool."

Dyno chart from FP's website 2.3L motor with 4R cams and run in 3rd gear on 93 octane gas @ 24psi


I believe the compressor housings are the same as stock, and the intake port is still the standard 64mm. However, there is an extra port surrounding that intake port that prevents compressor surge and some of the bucking that people see with these high flowing smaller turbos. The 64mm standard inlet plus this 16mm "surge port" make the total intake pipe size needed to bolt up to it, 80mm. You can send in your stock IX turbo and they can convert it to a 64mm HTA Green, but they have to use one of their housings to make an 80mm.



It is also my understanding that most "stock frame" or "stock appearing" turbos do use the same stock configuration and/or compressor housing, however some sizes of it can vary. To me "stock frame" means that it is mostly similar appearing, and it will also use the same setup (i.e. exhaust manifold and intake locations) so it can bolt straight in. At least that is what I have learned.

 

Buchnerj, where did u get your car tuned? Was it a guy named jay in Penn hills, just wondering if he is good for me to go to.

 

okay I did some rough measuring. The inducer is indeed 2mm smaller. The exducer is 3mm smaller.
so if you add 2+3 you get 5mm smaller

 

You don't have any other wheels lying around you can take pics with do you?

Thanks a TON for posting these up. Stuff like this is rare.

 

What turbos are you interested in?
I have had most everything in my hands up to 35r size turbos. anything over that kills the fun factor on these cars. I collect all the data for myself. shops dont seem to be interested. They just bolt them on and see what they do.

 

Any chance of having the compressor maps ? ? ?

 

first tests of the gtpumps HTA green73 with 10.8 hotside and unknown turbine are a little disappointing, 27psi is reached at 5krpm and max power was 265kw,98 RON dropping to 23psi, bbkfull on same dyno made 280kw @24psi 100RON, holding boost flatline, full spool was earlier on bbk and it outpowered it too. Maybe the turbine wheel makes all the difference?

 

Any dyno charts or times to show this? Why the variance in fuel (even though it is 2 RON)? I would be very interested to see this, Mike@AWDmotorsports is coming out with a test too, so I am excited to compare.

 

yeah heres the graph here.

heres the bbk graph

I was a bit disappointed as the turbo showed promise.
variance in fuel is because they're two different cars?

 

also note the bottom graph is done at 150 ramp rate, top is 140, which is why both seem to be laggy, however 150 would make it laggier than 140