So a...

6255
6262
and a
6862


Supporting that power... Hmm sounds good on paper but that's a lot to ask for such a small turbine exducer and limited a/r options... Especially at increased engine displacement.

Hard pass until proven otherwise.

Even XONA's 68mm is running a 69mm turbine.

Originally Posted by q_dubz

Supporting that power... Hmm sounds good on paper but that's a lot to ask for such a small turbine exducer and limited a/r options... Especially at increased engine displacement.

Hard pass until proven otherwise.

People seem to think the turbine exducer is too small but I mean isn't the idea here that the turbo can support 900 hp in a small package with good spool?

I'm not so sure you would say it crushes a 6466. It flows 10lbs/min less. At the end of the day you are spinning up mass you can't get around that.

At 35psi is flows 80lb/min on the 60% efficiency island and basically on the choke line. You generally dont want to be below 68% or so they say. Not exactly amazing. I would call it a 800 hp turbo as it flows 80/lb min max and you give 10hp per 1 lb of flow/min. So you are comparing a 90lb vs 80 lb turbos.

All of these new garrets are pretty bad ass. You pay for it but they are sweet. The new g25 series would be perfect for a twin turbo n54: https://www.garrettmotion.com/racing...eries-g25-550/

I think their size it what is most impressive and right sized for sooo many applications.


What efficiency island is the 1050 on at 100 lb/min? I'd take a BW 9280 over it any day of the week.

Originally Posted by Torgus

I'm not so sure you would say it crushes a 6466.

In spool and packaging for the output...

Originally Posted by Sticky

In spool in packaging for the output...

I will give you that. Their whole new line is 'right sized' in both packaging and output etc. Very efficient.

I think garret is a bit aggressive with their hp ratings as they are above their lb/min max on the compressor maps.

The G series literature assumes the engine will net 11hp per pound mass flow, vs all other literature at 10hp per lb. If your comparing "Hp" as your units, the garrets are artificially 10% inflated.. "dynojet" of turbo maps.

Reverse rotation, that will make for some nice packaging.
I want that.

Originally Posted by 3DMetal

The G series literature assumes the engine will net 11hp per pound mass flow, vs all other literature at 10hp per lb. If your comparing "Hp" as your units, the garrets are artificially 10% inflated.. "dynojet" of turbo maps.

They are probably assuming the increased efficiencies of modern engine technology, but they should stick with the standard calculations for a more realistic comparison.

Originally Posted by CobraMarty

Reverse rotation, that will make for some nice packaging.
I want that.

Yes, that is an awesome option! Not only will it allow more fitment possibilities, but a left & right Twix turbo looks great on a TT setup.

The compressor wheel on the G35-1050 is blowing my mind on how they make it. Is it 3D printed? It has to be a huge cost increase. I can't imagine them 5axis cutting that 2 tiered blade geometry.

Regardless, it looks awesome.

Originally Posted by wgknestrick

The compressor wheel on the G35-1050 is blowing my mind on how they make it. Is it 3D printed? It has to be a huge cost increase. I can't imagine them 5axis cutting that 2 tiered blade geometry.

Regardless, it looks awesome.

Pictures?

in OP

Edited:

After looking at additional pictures on the internet, it seems it is just an optical illusion caused by the low res image, the machining marks, and the odd camera angle.

Here is the image that is "funny" on the right of the wheel. It looks as if the leading edges are split then rejoin towards the housing inducer

Attachment 59804

Here is another picture from Sema (looking like a standard wheel design)
Attachment 59805

These could be nice on Audi 4.0T to fit in the Vee. Nice and efficient at 62lb/min each and PR > 3.0.

Originally Posted by John@Dyno Spectrum

These could be nice on Audi 4.0T to fit in the Vee. Nice and efficient at 62lb/min each and PR > 3.0.

I've seen some people mention that. What would they make on that motor in theory? 1800+ can't be realistic?

It seems they are tremendously strong except the PCV, stupid turbo oil screen and rear diff/driveshafts. I think they are remarkably unexplored for crazy power, but given their weight that was perhaps inevitable. Are they as good cylinder for cylinder as the 2.5T? Not sure, probably comes down to the cylinder heads. I think it is a really good bottom end that feels unburstable. For a Brit, we don't have a great choice of turbo V8 with traction in a wet climate in something affordable a 45 year old can feel half sensible in.

Yeah, I don't now why Garrett changed the 'hp' rating method for turbos. It's all marketing I guess. But honestly, the only thing that really matters is the compressor map. Different types of engines will have different max power limits for a given turbo depending on their volumetric efficiencies. A diesel won't make the same power as a gas engine with the same turbo. Two gas engines, one with high VE and one with low VE and/or different displacements will have different max power levels too.

Originally Posted by Sticky

I've seen some people mention that. What would they make on that motor in theory? 1800+ can't be realistic?

No. 124 lb/min is not going to net 1800 whp.

I just picked 62lb/min as a nice efficient point, but the 4.0T would need a fair bit higher rev limit and to breathe well up there as the compressor would not do the PR needed to go much higher.