APS Intercooled Single Turbo vs Turbonetics Single Turbo
03-14-2005, 09:25 PM
#41
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Hi Brad, Good to hear from you and sorry that this thread has dragged you away from your work. As you know we we at APS have a vey high respect for Turbonetics, and in particular Bob Keller, please give him our best regards when you see him.
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.
Brad this Depends on your definition of ''relatively low boost pressure''. The OE applications that the CHRA was designed for operate at approx 1 bar of pressure, (approximately 14.5 PSI turbo pressure) I would not call this low boost pressure and certainly not low for 91 octane fuel.
Since their OEM release in the mid 90's the Garrett Dual ball bearing CHRA has been commonly used in international motorsport at extremely high boost pressure (up to 30 PSI) and in real motorsport applications not just 7 second drag race cars.
In addition this dual ball bearing turbo charger (GT series turbocharger) is the identical turbo/CHRA utilised in all HKS race cars.
Will someone please explain what a TRUE ball bearing means…
Happy to Brad. What you have done very successfully is to substantially improve the thrust bearing of a 40 year old turbocharger design (the Garrett TO4 design).
A true dual ball bearing turbine wheel shaft is supported by ball bearings only, both radially and axially.
There is no seperate thrust bearing in a true dual ball bearing CHRA design, (turbo). Brad that's the explanation as to what's a true dual ball bearing design is (according to Garett) and I do not intend any disrespect to Turbonetics with this answer.
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.
Had the true ball bearing CHRA been available in the early 90's when Bob commissioned the Turbonectics thrust bearing improvement I feel sure that Bob would not have bothered to invest in his own solution to thrust bearing failure.
After all the true ball bearing design not only addresses the thrust bearing failure issue it significantly improves turbocharger response and shaft bearing durability at the identical time, all good.
All our turbochargers are hand build one at a time, VSR tested one at a time,
Brad as I'm sure you know the Garrett dual ball bearing CHRA are only built at one Garrett plant (Garrett Japan) in very low volume by Garrett's standards and they are VSR tested one at a time just like your own turbocharger.
The only difference being the VSR balancer they use at Garrett cost 1.5 million US to build and it the most accurate VSR balancer on the planet!
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…
Are you quoting mechanical efficiency or areo dynamic efficiency and compared to what model turbocharger (certainly not the TO4)?
It’s been what 10 years since Turbonetics was supplying APS with their turbochargers and much has changed over this period of time.
Brad I'm sure that your turbochargers are excellent quality units compared to a sleeve bearing type conventional TO4 turbocharger though let's be honest they should not be compared to the GT series dual ball bearing Garrett turbocharger, as clearly ther Garrett technology is much newer and more advanced.
David sends his best regards to both you and Bob.
Regards
Peter
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.
Hi Brad, Good to hear from you and sorry that this thread has dragged you away from your work. As you know we we at APS have a vey high respect for Turbonetics, and in particular Bob Keller, please give him our best regards when you see him.
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.
Brad this Depends on your definition of ''relatively low boost pressure''. The OE applications that the CHRA was designed for operate at approx 1 bar of pressure, (approximately 14.5 PSI turbo pressure) I would not call this low boost pressure and certainly not low for 91 octane fuel.
Since their OEM release in the mid 90's the Garrett Dual ball bearing CHRA has been commonly used in international motorsport at extremely high boost pressure (up to 30 PSI) and in real motorsport applications not just 7 second drag race cars.
In addition this dual ball bearing turbo charger (GT series turbocharger) is the identical turbo/CHRA utilised in all HKS race cars.
Will someone please explain what a TRUE ball bearing means…
Happy to Brad. What you have done very successfully is to substantially improve the thrust bearing of a 40 year old turbocharger design (the Garrett TO4 design).
A true dual ball bearing turbine wheel shaft is supported by ball bearings only, both radially and axially.
There is no seperate thrust bearing in a true dual ball bearing CHRA design, (turbo). Brad that's the explanation as to what's a true dual ball bearing design is (according to Garett) and I do not intend any disrespect to Turbonetics with this answer.
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.
Had the true ball bearing CHRA been available in the early 90's when Bob commissioned the Turbonectics thrust bearing improvement I feel sure that Bob would not have bothered to invest in his own solution to thrust bearing failure.
After all the true ball bearing design not only addresses the thrust bearing failure issue it significantly improves turbocharger response and shaft bearing durability at the identical time, all good.
All our turbochargers are hand build one at a time, VSR tested one at a time,
Brad as I'm sure you know the Garrett dual ball bearing CHRA are only built at one Garrett plant (Garrett Japan) in very low volume by Garrett's standards and they are VSR tested one at a time just like your own turbocharger.
The only difference being the VSR balancer they use at Garrett cost 1.5 million US to build and it the most accurate VSR balancer on the planet!
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…
Are you quoting mechanical efficiency or areo dynamic efficiency and compared to what model turbocharger (certainly not the TO4)?
It’s been what 10 years since Turbonetics was supplying APS with their turbochargers and much has changed over this period of time.
Brad I'm sure that your turbochargers are excellent quality units compared to a sleeve bearing type conventional TO4 turbocharger though let's be honest they should not be compared to the GT series dual ball bearing Garrett turbocharger, as clearly ther Garrett technology is much newer and more advanced.
David sends his best regards to both you and Bob.
Regards
Peter
Last edited by APS; 03-14-2005 at 09:33 PM.
03-14-2005, 10:32 PM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter
Originally Posted by APS
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.
Hi Brad, Good to hear from you and sorry that this thread has dragged you away from your work. As you know we we at APS have a vey high respect for Turbonetics, and in particular Bob Keller, please give him our best regards when you see him.
Peter, good to hear from you as well. I will pass your regards to Bob, we still see him 3 days a week...after 40+ years in the turbo business he can't stay away...thank goodness...
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.
Brad this Depends on your definition of ''relatively low boost pressure''. The OE applications that the CHRA was designed for operate at approx 1 bar of pressure, (approximately 14.5 PSI turbo pressure) I would not call this low boost pressure and certainly not low for 91 octane fuel.
relatively low boost is where many street cars will be running and will work for most. The only point I was trying to make is our design parameters are to much higher standards were many of our customers run upwards of 65psi boost in a single and over 150psi in compound applications.
Since their OEM release in the mid 90's the Garrett Dual ball bearing CHRA has been commonly used in international motorsport at extremely high boost pressure (up to 30 PSI) and in real motorsport applications not just 7 second drag race cars.
In addition this dual ball bearing turbo charger (GT series turbocharger) is the identical turbo/CHRA utilised in all HKS race cars.
there may be a few application that run Garrett's racing version of these turbo's but they generally are not the same units purchased by yourselves or the normal guy on the street. All the ceramic ball bearing units we provide are all built to the same exacting standards...Oh by the way even HKS recognises the boost pressure limits on the GT series ball bearing turbochargers never to boost over 20psi as the ***** overrun the cage and they self distruct...and guess what you can not service a Garrett ball bearing turbocharger...you throw it away and buy a new one...and if it happens soon after the purchase good luck getting a warranty claim accepted.
Will someone please explain what a TRUE ball bearing means…
Happy to Brad. What you have done very successfully is to substantially improve the thrust bearing of a 40 year old turbocharger design (the Garrett TO4 design).
A true dual ball bearing turbine wheel shaft is supported by ball bearings only, both radially and axially.
There is no seperate thrust bearing in a true dual ball bearing CHRA design, (turbo). Brad that's the explanation as to what's a true dual ball bearing design is (according to Garett) and I do not intend any disrespect to Turbonetics with this answer.
[Peter, you and David understand turbocharger design as well as anybody...you also know that a majority of rotational frictional losses are created in the compressor side journal and thrust bearing region, you are probably aware that the rotating group (turbine & compressor) goes through multiple peaks of un-balance as it accelerates through the total RPM range this is what the VSR is used to identify...what you may not realize is our original design was a dual ball bearing design however we experienced no advantage with the second ball bearing but did experience a less than satisfactory balance characteristics for performance application especially where larger compressor or turbines were being used. what we found is a hydrodynamic bearing on the turbine end with oil film clearances of .0015" ID and .003" on the OD acted as a "shock absorber" cushining the rotor dynamics to a point we felt was required and based on our track record and low failure rates it is a successful design.
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.
Had the true ball bearing CHRA been available in the early 90's when Bob commissioned the Turbonectics thrust bearing improvement I feel sure that Bob would not have bothered to invest in his own solution to thrust bearing failure.
After all the true ball bearing design not only addresses the thrust bearing failure issue it significantly improves turbocharger response and shaft bearing durability at the identical time, all good.
Hard to say for sure but knowing what we do about the Garrett design and the abuse our customers put our products through we still would have had the failures had we not gone down this path.
All our turbochargers are hand build one at a time, VSR tested one at a time,
Brad as I'm sure you know the Garrett dual ball bearing CHRA are only built at one Garrett plant (Garrett Japan) in very low volume by Garrett's standards and they are VSR tested one at a time just like your own turbocharger.
The only difference being the VSR balancer they use at Garrett cost 1.5 million US to build and it the most accurate VSR balancer on the planet!
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…
Are you quoting mechanical efficiency or areo dynamic efficiency and compared to what model turbocharger (certainly not the TO4)?
It’s been what 10 years since Turbonetics was supplying APS with their turbochargers and much has changed over this period of time.
Brad I'm sure that your turbochargers are excellent quality units compared to a sleeve bearing type conventional TO4 turbocharger though let's be honest they should not be compared to the GT series dual ball bearing Garrett turbocharger, as clearly ther Garrett technology is much newer and more advanced.
Just because the Nissan Z name is 35 years old it does not mean it has retained the original technology...would you agree? just because we name a turbocharger a T3/T4 you should not assume the technology has not been updated.
David sends his best regards to both you and Bob.
as always Peter you certanly stimluate an interesting conversation.
Regards
Peter
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.
Hi Brad, Good to hear from you and sorry that this thread has dragged you away from your work. As you know we we at APS have a vey high respect for Turbonetics, and in particular Bob Keller, please give him our best regards when you see him.
Peter, good to hear from you as well. I will pass your regards to Bob, we still see him 3 days a week...after 40+ years in the turbo business he can't stay away...thank goodness...
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.
Brad this Depends on your definition of ''relatively low boost pressure''. The OE applications that the CHRA was designed for operate at approx 1 bar of pressure, (approximately 14.5 PSI turbo pressure) I would not call this low boost pressure and certainly not low for 91 octane fuel.
relatively low boost is where many street cars will be running and will work for most. The only point I was trying to make is our design parameters are to much higher standards were many of our customers run upwards of 65psi boost in a single and over 150psi in compound applications.
Since their OEM release in the mid 90's the Garrett Dual ball bearing CHRA has been commonly used in international motorsport at extremely high boost pressure (up to 30 PSI) and in real motorsport applications not just 7 second drag race cars.
In addition this dual ball bearing turbo charger (GT series turbocharger) is the identical turbo/CHRA utilised in all HKS race cars.
there may be a few application that run Garrett's racing version of these turbo's but they generally are not the same units purchased by yourselves or the normal guy on the street. All the ceramic ball bearing units we provide are all built to the same exacting standards...Oh by the way even HKS recognises the boost pressure limits on the GT series ball bearing turbochargers never to boost over 20psi as the ***** overrun the cage and they self distruct...and guess what you can not service a Garrett ball bearing turbocharger...you throw it away and buy a new one...and if it happens soon after the purchase good luck getting a warranty claim accepted.
Will someone please explain what a TRUE ball bearing means…
Happy to Brad. What you have done very successfully is to substantially improve the thrust bearing of a 40 year old turbocharger design (the Garrett TO4 design).
A true dual ball bearing turbine wheel shaft is supported by ball bearings only, both radially and axially.
There is no seperate thrust bearing in a true dual ball bearing CHRA design, (turbo). Brad that's the explanation as to what's a true dual ball bearing design is (according to Garett) and I do not intend any disrespect to Turbonetics with this answer.
[Peter, you and David understand turbocharger design as well as anybody...you also know that a majority of rotational frictional losses are created in the compressor side journal and thrust bearing region, you are probably aware that the rotating group (turbine & compressor) goes through multiple peaks of un-balance as it accelerates through the total RPM range this is what the VSR is used to identify...what you may not realize is our original design was a dual ball bearing design however we experienced no advantage with the second ball bearing but did experience a less than satisfactory balance characteristics for performance application especially where larger compressor or turbines were being used. what we found is a hydrodynamic bearing on the turbine end with oil film clearances of .0015" ID and .003" on the OD acted as a "shock absorber" cushining the rotor dynamics to a point we felt was required and based on our track record and low failure rates it is a successful design.
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.
Had the true ball bearing CHRA been available in the early 90's when Bob commissioned the Turbonectics thrust bearing improvement I feel sure that Bob would not have bothered to invest in his own solution to thrust bearing failure.
After all the true ball bearing design not only addresses the thrust bearing failure issue it significantly improves turbocharger response and shaft bearing durability at the identical time, all good.
Hard to say for sure but knowing what we do about the Garrett design and the abuse our customers put our products through we still would have had the failures had we not gone down this path.
All our turbochargers are hand build one at a time, VSR tested one at a time,
Brad as I'm sure you know the Garrett dual ball bearing CHRA are only built at one Garrett plant (Garrett Japan) in very low volume by Garrett's standards and they are VSR tested one at a time just like your own turbocharger.
The only difference being the VSR balancer they use at Garrett cost 1.5 million US to build and it the most accurate VSR balancer on the planet!
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…
Are you quoting mechanical efficiency or areo dynamic efficiency and compared to what model turbocharger (certainly not the TO4)?
It’s been what 10 years since Turbonetics was supplying APS with their turbochargers and much has changed over this period of time.
Brad I'm sure that your turbochargers are excellent quality units compared to a sleeve bearing type conventional TO4 turbocharger though let's be honest they should not be compared to the GT series dual ball bearing Garrett turbocharger, as clearly ther Garrett technology is much newer and more advanced.
Just because the Nissan Z name is 35 years old it does not mean it has retained the original technology...would you agree? just because we name a turbocharger a T3/T4 you should not assume the technology has not been updated.
David sends his best regards to both you and Bob.
as always Peter you certanly stimluate an interesting conversation.
Regards
Peter
Last edited by Turbonetics; 03-14-2005 at 10:39 PM.
03-15-2005, 07:19 AM
#43
Registered User
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
okay ive read in your other post that the automatic bounces off the rev limiter and that there have been failures.... what do you mean by failures? blown engines? also would a torque converter be enough to rectify the automatic not shifting? since this is how most others with FI and auto have been correcting the shifting problem. another thing, with the reflash the rev limiter is increased to 7200? thx for any info.
03-15-2005, 07:21 AM
#44
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Escondido
Posts: 11,373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bhk1004
okay ive read in your other post that the automatic bounces off the rev limiter and that there have been failures.... what do you mean by failures? blown engines? also would a torque converter be enough to rectify the automatic not shifting? since this is how most others with FI and auto have been correcting the shifting problem. another thing, with the reflash the rev limiter is increased to 7200? thx for any info.
03-15-2005, 07:31 AM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: mississippi
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since when did piggybacks work worth a damn on the new nissan ecu's ? And im an APS fan , hell im on the waiting list for a kit when 05 anniversity ecu's become supprted. But in no way is a piggyback the way to go . I am sincerely hoping that it is not used on the APS kit.
Jonathan
Jonathan
Originally Posted by nis350ztt
IMO, APS is going to be the better choice for those wanting over 500rwhp since it's using a piggyback instead of a reflash that the Turbonetics is using.
The Turbonetics will probably be cheaper.
I think it will turn out the way IMO other kits turned out when compared to the APS kit. The APS kit is good for those that don't want to choose the seperate components. The Turbonetics will be good for those who do want to choose certain components (diff. fuel, engine management).
Power - 380rwhp for Turbonetics
Price - $4750 for the catless version, ~$4000 for the tuner version, not sure on the high-flow cat version, probably around $4800. (Turbonetics)
The Turbonetics will probably be cheaper.
I think it will turn out the way IMO other kits turned out when compared to the APS kit. The APS kit is good for those that don't want to choose the seperate components. The Turbonetics will be good for those who do want to choose certain components (diff. fuel, engine management).
Power - 380rwhp for Turbonetics
Price - $4750 for the catless version, ~$4000 for the tuner version, not sure on the high-flow cat version, probably around $4800. (Turbonetics)
03-15-2005, 07:33 AM
#46
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Escondido
Posts: 11,373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by zmydust
Since when did piggybacks work worth a damn on the new nissan ecu's ? And im an APS fan , hell im on the waiting list for a kit when 05 anniversity ecu's become supprted. But in no way is a piggyback the way to go . I am sincerely hoping that it is not used on the APS kit.
Jonathan
Jonathan
03-15-2005, 11:32 AM
#48
Registered User
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miaplaya... could you ask turbonetics to test the automatics with the rev limiter increased to 7200 rpms? I have heard from other members that they were bouncing off the limiter yet, when the rev limiter were increased that it stopped doing it. it mite just be the solution so that us automatics can happily just jump into a turbonetics s/t
03-15-2005, 11:33 AM
#49
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Escondido
Posts: 11,373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bhk1004
Miaplaya... could you ask turbonetics to test the automatics with the rev limiter increased to 7200 rpms? I have heard from other members that they were bouncing off the limiter yet, when the rev limiter were increased that it stopped doing it. it mite just be the solution so that us automatics can happily just jump into a turbonetics s/t
03-15-2005, 11:42 AM
#50
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Escondido
Posts: 11,373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bhk1004
Miaplaya... could you ask turbonetics to test the automatics with the rev limiter increased to 7200 rpms? I have heard from other members that they were bouncing off the limiter yet, when the rev limiter were increased that it stopped doing it. it mite just be the solution so that us automatics can happily just jump into a turbonetics s/t
03-15-2005, 11:46 AM
#52
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Escondido
Posts: 11,373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Phatmitzu
Do they both eliminate the cat? Or cats can still be kept?
03-15-2005, 11:58 AM
#53
Sponsor
Forged Internals.com
Forged Internals.com
Originally Posted by zmydust
Since when did piggybacks work worth a damn on the new nissan ecu's ? And im an APS fan , hell im on the waiting list for a kit when 05 anniversity ecu's become supprted. But in no way is a piggyback the way to go . I am sincerely hoping that it is not used on the APS kit.
Jonathan
Jonathan
03-15-2005, 11:59 AM
#54
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: CA, Riverside
Posts: 1,715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MIAPLAYA
Not sure what APS is doing but Turbonetics replaces the stock cats...You can get the Turbonetics kit with a cat on the stock downpipe. If you live outside of Cali but have emissions this should make it legal.
Thanks
03-15-2005, 12:05 PM
#55
Sponsor
Forged Internals.com
Forged Internals.com
Originally Posted by G2FAST
Turbonetics will not be legal in Cali right? Any idea when this kit will be released for the G35 coupe? Would you say that both kits are e-z to tune?
Thanks
Thanks
03-15-2005, 12:06 PM
#56
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Escondido
Posts: 11,373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by G2FAST
Turbonetics will not be legal in Cali right? Any idea when this kit will be released for the G35 coupe? Would you say that both kits are e-z to tune?
Thanks
Thanks
03-15-2005, 12:11 PM
#59
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Escondido
Posts: 11,373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nis350ztt
That was the shops fault...
03-15-2005, 12:14 PM
#60
Sponsor
Forged Internals.com
Forged Internals.com
Originally Posted by MIAPLAYA
Right but I guess my point is that with the Turbonetics kit there is no "Shops fault" worrying. Theres nothing to tune. It is done by Turbonetics so it takes the guess work out of equation during install.