APS Intercooled Single Turbo vs Turbonetics Single Turbo
Originally Posted by tig488
even with the APS having the turbo much closer to the exhaust bank, its lag is still more than the turbonetics kit? hows that?
Banned
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
From: Australia
Originally Posted by accordfreak
that's nice but what are the specs on the turbo? How about a flow chart of the exact turbo you're using.
Thanks
Peter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
From: Australia
Originally Posted by MIAPLAYA
Well I don't have a flow chart for the specific compressor wheel used by Turbonetics as it is a newly desgined wheel. What I do have is a Boost/HP chart from the testing phase of the Turbonetics kit. Keep in mind this chart was with the wastegate set at 9 PSI and the AFR set to a VERY RICH 10:1. They actually saw as low as 9.5:1 during this run. Again this is only a prelim chart but should do ok for telling you what the boost response is. Just find the point where the system reachs 8 PSI. That will be the full boost and max boost point for this system. With the AFR set so rich the performance was hurt a little. BTW this is on a Dynapack. The curve on the left is boost...
Heres the APS chart to compare
Heres the APS chart to compare
1) 4 PSI at 2500 rpm
2) 6 PSI at 3000 RPM
3) 8.5 PSI at 3500 RPM
4) and produces this boost pressure till redline.
No doubt you can see that the Garrett GT series turbocharger produces sifgnificantly superior boost pressure (hence mass air flow) in the low to mid rpm range over that of a conventional sleeve bearing turbocharger.
I will post the boost graph of the APS intercooled single turbocharger system for you guys later on today.
Thanks
Peter
Originally Posted by APS
Thanks for posting that graph though that info is out of date, the APS single turbo produces boost as listed below,
1) 4 PSI at 2500 rpm
2) 6 PSI at 3000 RPM
3) 8.5 PSI at 3500 RPM
4) and produces this boost pressure till redline.
No doubt you can see that the Garrett GT series turbocharger produces sifgnificantly superior boost pressure (hence mass air flow) in the low to mid rpm range over that of a conventional sleeve bearing turbocharger.
I will post the boost graph of the APS intercooled single turbocharger system for you guys later on today.
Thanks
Peter
1) 4 PSI at 2500 rpm
2) 6 PSI at 3000 RPM
3) 8.5 PSI at 3500 RPM
4) and produces this boost pressure till redline.
No doubt you can see that the Garrett GT series turbocharger produces sifgnificantly superior boost pressure (hence mass air flow) in the low to mid rpm range over that of a conventional sleeve bearing turbocharger.
I will post the boost graph of the APS intercooled single turbocharger system for you guys later on today.
Thanks
Peter
Edit: Oh and not sure if you were hinting that it was but the Turbonetics unit is definitely NOT a standard sleeve bearing turbo.
Last edited by MIAPLAYA; Mar 14, 2005 at 03:29 PM.
question Mia about the turbonetics..... im really really close to buying the turbonetics around mid this summer for my Z and there are 2 questions that i need to know. If I went to turn up the boost for the turbo, is there going to be a reflash that can get our cars up to lets say.... 9 or 9.5 pounds of boost and keep the afr at 11:1? another... people keep mentioning something about this kit not being made for the auto, and i was under the impression that it was for either or. Thx for your input.
Banned
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
From: Australia
Originally Posted by MIAPLAYA
Not bad you make full boost about 500 RPMs sooner...
APS\Garrett GT series turbo
2500 rpm- 4 PSI
3000 rpm - 6 PSI
3500 rpm - 8.5 PSI
Turbonectics turbocharger
2500 rpm - 1.5 PSI
3000 rpm - 3 PSI
3500 rpm - 5.25 PSI
Originally Posted by MIAPLAYA
Question what power are you putting down at 8.5 PSI. I know Turbonetics system is making 386 RWHP at 8 PSI at 11:1 AFR on 91 Cali-Crap Gas... At 8.5 PSI the system made 409 RWHP again at 11:1 AFR on 91... This was all on a Dyna-Pack of course..
Originally Posted by MIAPLAYA
Edit: Oh and not sure if you were hinting that it was but the Turbonetics unit is definitely NOT a standard sleeve bearing turbo.
Thanks
Peter
Originally Posted by APS
I think the real proof of the superiority of the APS\Garrett GT series dual ball baring turbo v a more conventional turbocharger can be seen claerly by the low to mid RPM boost prerssure delivery,
APS\Garrett GT series turbo
2500 rpm- 4 PSI
3000 rpm - 6 PSI
3500 rpm - 8.5 PSI
Turbonectics turbocharger
2500 rpm - 1.5 PSI
3000 rpm - 3 PSI
3500 rpm - 5.25 PSI
I'd rather wait to test on the same fuel octane and dynamometer type before making any absolute comment though I'm confident that the APS intercooled single turbo system will produce much higher power and torque (averaged power) across the entire rpm range.
Fair enough though it's certainly not a dual ball bearing Garrett GT series turbocharger either as you can se by the superior boost curve.
Thanks
Peter
APS\Garrett GT series turbo
2500 rpm- 4 PSI
3000 rpm - 6 PSI
3500 rpm - 8.5 PSI
Turbonectics turbocharger
2500 rpm - 1.5 PSI
3000 rpm - 3 PSI
3500 rpm - 5.25 PSI
I'd rather wait to test on the same fuel octane and dynamometer type before making any absolute comment though I'm confident that the APS intercooled single turbo system will produce much higher power and torque (averaged power) across the entire rpm range.
Fair enough though it's certainly not a dual ball bearing Garrett GT series turbocharger either as you can se by the superior boost curve.
Thanks
Peter
APS: 8.5 PSI 11.5:1 AFR? 94 Octane fuel Power Output= 386 RWHP
Turbonetics: 8 PSI 11:1 AFR 91 octane fuel Power Output= 386 RWHP
8.5 PSI 11:1 AFR 91 octane fuel Power Output= 409 RWHP. Thats 23 MORE RWHP then the APs kits make at the same pressure. AND thats at a VERY conservative tune.
Like I said I think we should both hold off on making claims until they are compared side by side. As is already apparent I'm putting my money on Turbonetics.
Originally Posted by bhk1004
question Mia about the turbonetics..... im really really close to buying the turbonetics around mid this summer for my Z and there are 2 questions that i need to know. If I went to turn up the boost for the turbo, is there going to be a reflash that can get our cars up to lets say.... 9 or 9.5 pounds of boost and keep the afr at 11:1? another... people keep mentioning something about this kit not being made for the auto, and i was under the impression that it was for either or. Thx for your input.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: Connecticut
Calm Done
You are pushing that turbo-netic system very hard. Are you trying to get sponsered or something. APS knows what they are talking about. They make good systems and are very stable. You are disregarding everything except your point of view
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,715
Likes: 0
From: CA, Riverside
What are the release date's on both kits for the G35 coupe? What is the estimated price on both kits for the G?
Can we release some photos and information on both turbos?
Can we release some photos and information on both turbos?
Banned
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
From: Australia
Originally Posted by G2FAST
Well sorry to say this but as you already know spool up is determinent on more then just turbo design.
Originally Posted by G2FAST
I would say that it is VERY incorrect to assume that the Garret turbo is by nature a better design simply because of spool up...
Originally Posted by G2FAST
Piping and many other things play into this...
Originally Posted by G2FAST
As for the turbo in the Turbonetics kit it is a ceramic ball bearing unit. Much the same as the dual ball bearing you use.
The Turbonetics turbocharger has one ceramic bearing only at the compressor end from memory (I remember well when the founder of Turbonetics Bob Keller commissioned this bearing concept and why he started to develop this ceramic bearing in the first place) to eliminate thrust bearing failure at high boost pressure that Turbonetics were experiencing many years ago.
Bob is a really good guy and I have loads of respect for Bob and the team at Turbonetics though to say that the single ceramic bearing turbocharger and it's 40 year old Garrett comp and turbine wheel design is close to the latest Garrett dual ball bearing turbo technology is simply absurd.
Originally Posted by G2FAST
I think you will find it is a VERY nice quality unit that is built to last.
Originally Posted by G2FAST
As for power delivery. I would seriously think about not making any claims until you have test data to support it. By the looks of things now I can honestly say you are incorrect.
Originally Posted by G2FAST
Not only is the Turbonetics kit making the same power
Thanks
Peter
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,715
Likes: 0
From: CA, Riverside
Originally Posted by xxlbeerZ
LEEETS GET READY TO RUUUUUUMBLE!!!!
on this post!!! This has been VERY VERY informative to have two quality kits compared and be able to compare them with out bashing!!! 
I just wanna know if I can get the turbonetics for my auto.... since I can have it installed and all the good stuff for around 5500-5700.... i mean seriously.... with a 12 month warranty..? what more can I ask for... if I was loaded yes I would go for APS but for a price shopping pig like me... turbonetics has hit the nail on the head.
Here is a post from Brad. He emailed it to me when the forum was down. He will be online tomorrow to answer any questions
Originally posted by Brad from Turbonetics
Pretty interesting thread…and interesting post from Peter and I am sure with some input from David Inall, Peter’s ex- applications engineer from Garrett Australia. Both of these guys are very intelligent individuals and of course are trying to sell the product they have chosen to use as they do not manufacturer their own.
Peter is correct in the fact the Garrett makes some very good turbochargers and why shouldn’t they after all they are the world largest OE supplier of turbochargers. Garrett’s steel ball bearing design was meant for an OE application running in relatively low boost conditions and in these applications is certainly a good choice.
Will someone please explain what a TRUE ball bearing means…ours are certainly not fake they are ceramic (silicon nitride) and yes the main reason for the design was for reliability as our design can safely handle over 900 lbs dynamic thrust loading and is rated for 185,000 rpm and they take roughly half the power to drive the turbine…is it overkill…perhaps but this is also why Turbonetics is the only turbocharger manufacture in the world with a 1 year no fault no/hassle warranty. If any of our products (Turbo’s, Intercoolers, Wastegates, Blow-off valves, Silicone hose, etc…) fail within the first year of ownership for any reason we will repair or replace it at no cost…right here in the good o’l Southern California. No international customs to deal with, no world wide shipping issues and no questions. I am proud to say that our warranty claims run .4% that’s less than half a percent across the board…something not even Garrett can lay claim to. Not remotely like the GT…we did not want to be…we wanted a better and more robust design that could withstand the punishment of racing applications…not go to the shelf get the box… that’s why we manufactured our own.
All our turbochargers are hand build one at a time, VSR tested one at a time, we are not a massive production line meet the volume numbers type of manufacturer. Our units a specifically matched for each and every application not made in masses for an OE application somewhere and then adapted to the aftermarket by using what ever is available in a size that’s close to what you may need and then call it a performance turbocharger.
Peter is correct Garrett did spend millions designing the GT (Garrett Turbo) design to find roughly 1-2% increase in efficiency over their existing product…some would say that was an internal political hot potato for their engineering group but no turning back…investment was already made and the hype for the EO customer base had already been exposed.
It’s been what 10 years since Turbonetics was supplying APS with their turbochargers and much has changed over this period of time.
Brad
Pretty interesting thread…and interesting post from Peter and I am sure with some input from David Inall, Peter’s ex- applications engineer from Garrett Australia. Both of these guys are very intelligent individuals and of course are trying to sell the product they have chosen to use as they do not manufacturer their own.
Peter is correct in the fact the Garrett makes some very good turbochargers and why shouldn’t they after all they are the world largest OE supplier of turbochargers. Garrett’s steel ball bearing design was meant for an OE application running in relatively low boost conditions and in these applications is certainly a good choice.
Will someone please explain what a TRUE ball bearing means…ours are certainly not fake they are ceramic (silicon nitride) and yes the main reason for the design was for reliability as our design can safely handle over 900 lbs dynamic thrust loading and is rated for 185,000 rpm and they take roughly half the power to drive the turbine…is it overkill…perhaps but this is also why Turbonetics is the only turbocharger manufacture in the world with a 1 year no fault no/hassle warranty. If any of our products (Turbo’s, Intercoolers, Wastegates, Blow-off valves, Silicone hose, etc…) fail within the first year of ownership for any reason we will repair or replace it at no cost…right here in the good o’l Southern California. No international customs to deal with, no world wide shipping issues and no questions. I am proud to say that our warranty claims run .4% that’s less than half a percent across the board…something not even Garrett can lay claim to. Not remotely like the GT…we did not want to be…we wanted a better and more robust design that could withstand the punishment of racing applications…not go to the shelf get the box… that’s why we manufactured our own.
All our turbochargers are hand build one at a time, VSR tested one at a time, we are not a massive production line meet the volume numbers type of manufacturer. Our units a specifically matched for each and every application not made in masses for an OE application somewhere and then adapted to the aftermarket by using what ever is available in a size that’s close to what you may need and then call it a performance turbocharger.
Peter is correct Garrett did spend millions designing the GT (Garrett Turbo) design to find roughly 1-2% increase in efficiency over their existing product…some would say that was an internal political hot potato for their engineering group but no turning back…investment was already made and the hype for the EO customer base had already been exposed.
It’s been what 10 years since Turbonetics was supplying APS with their turbochargers and much has changed over this period of time.
Brad
Last edited by MIAPLAYA; Mar 14, 2005 at 07:45 PM.
Originally Posted by Georgidis
You are pushing that turbo-netic system very hard. Are you trying to get sponsered or something. APS knows what they are talking about. They make good systems and are very stable. You are disregarding everything except your point of view
Interesting thread fellas and I must admit that both parties make great points. Being a professional salesperson in a technical field, I understand the "perceived" value among both kits. Combine that with the fact that I own a Greddy TT and I'm getting pretty dangerous 
Bottom Line: Graphs, charts, dynos . . . are moot in a controlled environment--show me some real world results of cars after 6 months of street wear & tear. Obviously, neither kit has been released for that period of time, so we're all stuck at 1st base. I just hope everyone remembers that we all praised Greddy during their release and had to learn from "experience" about the pros & cons of each unit. I respect both manufacturers and I'm sure we all equally respect real-world results.
My hat goes off to Turbonetics & APS . . . Make them go fast, not KABOOM.
Bottom Line: Graphs, charts, dynos . . . are moot in a controlled environment--show me some real world results of cars after 6 months of street wear & tear. Obviously, neither kit has been released for that period of time, so we're all stuck at 1st base. I just hope everyone remembers that we all praised Greddy during their release and had to learn from "experience" about the pros & cons of each unit. I respect both manufacturers and I'm sure we all equally respect real-world results.
My hat goes off to Turbonetics & APS . . . Make them go fast, not KABOOM.
