When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Balor_Gr's Garrett/BW Compressor map overlay study
Hallo there i was trying to see the compressor differences on the BW s257sx-e vs gtx30(35)76 gen 2. Ill do more maps later(EFR vs garrett vs BW sxe etx).This for now:
On a high VE (Big cams big TB etc) honda id say the EDITgtx3076 GTX3676(misstype i allready mentioned why im taking the gtx3076 out below) gen 2 looks better since it looks to like more hp on lower boost.
The s257 sxe thrives on a low compression medium cams with good octane gas and or W/M injection. After 30 psi BW will kill the GTX3076/3576
power wise. Below that id say gtx3576 is better.Im taking the gtx3076 out because it will require some 1.0 a/r housing to get enough lbs/min fot the compressor IMO.
Last edited by Balor_Gr; Jan 31, 2018 at 01:58 AM.
re: Balor_Gr's Garrett/BW Compressor map overlay study
Would be helpful is the compressor maps were different colors... like red and black for instance. With both being the same color you can't really tell which is which.
re: Balor_Gr's Garrett/BW Compressor map overlay study
Originally Posted by Balor_Gr
Hallo there i was trying to see the compressor differences on the BW s257sx-e vs gtx30(35)76 gen 2. Ill do more maps later(EFR vs garrett vs BW sxe etx).This for now:
On a high VE (Big cams big TB etc) honda id say the gtx3076 gen 2 looks better since it looks to like more hp on lower boost.
Which equates to lack of responsiveness, and it still doesn't look into the turbine gas flow map of the 60mm exhaust wheel, which is vastly different, and is considered a missmatch to the GTX3076R. Both in Gen I and Gen II forms.
The s257 sxe thrives on a low compression medium cams with good octane gas and or W/M injection. After 30 psi BW will kill the GTX3076/3576 power wise
And I'll bet you real bitcoins you're wrong on the GTX3576R summation there. The GTX3576R uses the same 68mm turbine wheel as the GT35R with a turbine gas flow efficiency of over 27lbs/min. Those are capable of over 740whp, with a better profile than the S257 by far at that efficiency range.
The BorgWarner S257SXE series is impressive for their size, I've always given that credit. But like anything else, it has its efficiency ranges and limits based upon the use of the turbo. Nothing more nothing less.
Below that id say gtx3576 is better .Im taking the gtx3076 out because it will require some 1.0 a/r housing to get enough lbs/min fot the compressor IMO.
Even with a 1.0A/R housing, it lacks turbine wheel for over 600whp. That's been known for a number of years. Using a Bigger A/R Turbine housing is a band-aid over using the right turbine housing A/R & turbine wheel combination. If you're looking at over 600whp, taking out the GTX3076R is a no-brainer.
That's already been shown to be a problem, and you're still not listing what the purpose is for the turbo you're trying to select. You just went into 3 turbochargers from 3 different turbine families. This is Apples to Grapes to Pears comparison here.
You're more experienced in your work with that, and you know it. You're just kicking it out there, to show-off those automotive brain-cells of yours. We all know you're smarter than the average bear. Tell us your focus and quit playing with the pretty pictures.
re: Balor_Gr's Garrett/BW Compressor map overlay study
The GTX3076 was a mistake. I made the mistake because the overlay took more time than i thought and the comp map was originaly from GTX3076.
Are you sure the 35r 62/68 turbine wheel is better from the 62/70 the s200 uses ? The gtx3576 and the s257sxe look dam similar. Like real apples to apples. 57/76 compressor vs 58/76 compressor and 62/70 vs 62/68 turbine. Off course the design is different but the turbos are very close to size.
You're more experienced in your work with that, and you know it. You're just kicking it out there, to show-off those automotive brain-cells of yours. We all know you're smarter than the average bear. Tell us your focus and quit playing with the pretty pictures.
Ok i did the overlay because the X,Y axes scaling of the BW and the garrett compressor maps are so different.The Garrett maps are taller and not that wide.
You can take 3-4-5 points on each maps altabing to make a comparison point by point or overlay the maps for easier comparison.
I searched and didnt find overlayed maps do i did it my self.
Would be helpful is the compressor maps were different colors... like red and black for instance. With both being the same color you can't really tell which is which.
I know but its beyond my skills to do that. Red number islands are garrett
Before rescaling the garrett map looks very different and its almost impossible to make a good comparissor without writing down on paper.
After: Before:
Last edited by Balor_Gr; Jan 31, 2018 at 02:32 AM.
re: Balor_Gr's Garrett/BW Compressor map overlay study
You should know more than anyone that there is much more to turbine wheel comparisons than simply size. You have to look at it from a fluid dynamic profile of the turbine wheel itself. That alone is one of the reasons why these particular behaviors and characteristics between the two companies are so vastly different.
in addition, you have to understand that adiabatic maps from both companies (any company, really) are simply extrapolations from hundreds of particular data points, put together in a precise manner (which is different from just being accurate )
(I know I'm going to hell for saying this, as I'm just in a House M.D. mood today, unfortunately) but asking me if I'm sure about these particular turbine wheels is like asking me if I put on clothing for the last two weeks.. Of course I'm sure, because I've owned and utilized both lines and I have had these wheels in my possession. As I've said, it's the difference between maps and an actual application.
I get why you did the overlays. It normally makes sense. But what makes better sense is to get the raw data and create a spreadsheet with the corrected airflow rates in comparison to your rpm, air temperature, with other data, and compare your own points and create your own extrapolation.
But even when you do that, you still must account for the turbine wheel gas flow. That's not easy to do, especially if you're just going off of the data, and not seen how these behave in real life. But some of us have, which is why I'm stating these discrepencies in your analysis. It's not bad, it just doesn't paint a whole picture that can be relied upon consistently, that's all.
Re: Balor_Gr's Garrett/BW Compressor map overlay study
Another one a really interesting one in my opinion. Its data i never managed to find but now everyone does because of the GTW.
The T3 stage 3 turbine wheel flow rate. Its only at T3 .82 a/r but at least we know it flows more than the GT30 wheel. Max efficiency 69% vs 72%. 3% better for the 3076 newer wheel.
It now really makes sense why t3 stage 3 at .63 was SO good at those t3/t04e turbos.
The bad part is it raises so many questions in my mind. Was t3 stage 3 60-1 really a miss match? It probably was but according to flow rates it was still better from the GTX3076 combination.
The blue line is GT30 55/60 wheel
The black line is T3 stage 3 57/65 wheel
On the other side the .63 flow curve is not here but id say its close to 25 lbs/min. Edit probably around 24 lbs. So i dare to say if it was a T3 .70 or .75 a/r gt3076 housing that would flow the same as T3 stg3 .63 combo. Again with 2-3% less efficiency.
Last edited by Balor_Gr; Feb 13, 2018 at 02:29 AM.
Balor_Gr's Garrett/BW Compressor map overlay study
