How tolerant are GTK cores to Anti Lag/Launch Control?

Big Will · Tweet this Post! #1 (**permalink**) 09-17-2007, 09:38 AM

Hi guys,

I'm still weighing up my turbo choice - although it looks like i'll be going for a GTK450/500 - i'm just curious to know how tolerant the cores and exhaust wheels are to Anti Lag and Launch Control.

I know here in the UK, the 'tried and tested' solution on Garretts' was to run Mar-M247 Shafts on a journal bearing, but that's seriously old news!

Anybody tried it? Anyone killed one?

Robert · Tweet this Post! #2 (**permalink**) 09-17-2007, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Will

Hi guys,

I'm still weighing up my turbo choice - although it looks like i'll be going for a GTK450/500 - i'm just curious to know how tolerant the cores and exhaust wheels are to Anti Lag and Launch Control.

I know here in the UK, the 'tried and tested' solution on Garretts' was to run Mar-M247 Shafts on a journal bearing, but that's seriously old news!

Anybody tried it? Anyone killed one?

I don't know if that has been tried. I'll forward this question to one of the engineers though and see what they think.

EXD · Tweet this Post! #3 (**permalink**) 09-17-2007, 10:26 AM

I'm also interested in that question, I need to better up my spool on my 4wd Saab concept, think I'll be running GTK550 on that one

Robert · Tweet this Post! #4 (**permalink**) 09-17-2007, 10:31 AM

From one of the engineers:

Quote:

MAR-M247 is a nickel based super alloy that is extremely heat resistant compared to other forms of steel used in gas turbine applications. The whole key to success with MAR-M as it is commonly known is that the grain structure needs to be fine when casted. Even though MAR-M is great at elevated temps and performs well over repeated cycles without signs of metal fatigue it is very expensive to pour and machine. Sooo.. that is why we choose to use 713C Inconel. 713C inconel is also a nickel based super alloy but its temperature resistance under sustained load is not as high as MAR-M. Now here is the thing, if you were to be running over 1550 degrees F then you would have problems with 713C. MAR-M would probably give you another 50-75 degrees and regular GMR steel that is commonly used in turbine wheels is only good for maybe 1400 degrees. So for price and production 713C is the very best choice for us to go with. Not all turbine wheels are even poured in inconel, most were GMR. MAR-M was used in a "FEW" motorsport applications mostly in England. The main problem with anti-lag is the heat build up in the exhasut housing and on teh turbine wheel blade tips and the thrust loading on the turbocharger itself. Now, as long as the tuneup is good and the user does not stay on the anti-lag too long, then our ball bearing design is good for this type of purpose. The ceramic ball bearing design's reason for creation was for high thrust loads.

Big Will · Tweet this Post! #5 (**permalink**) 09-17-2007, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert

From one of the engineers:

Quote:

MAR-M247 is a nickel based super alloy that is extremely heat resistant compared to other forms of steel used in gas turbine applications. The whole key to success with MAR-M as it is commonly known is that the grain structure needs to be fine when casted. Even though MAR-M is great at elevated temps and performs well over repeated cycles without signs of metal fatigue it is very expensive to pour and machine. Sooo.. that is why we choose to use 713C Inconel. 713C inconel is also a nickel based super alloy but its temperature resistance under sustained load is not as high as MAR-M. Now here is the thing, if you were to be running over 1550 degrees F then you would have problems with 713C. MAR-M would probably give you another 50-75 degrees and regular GMR steel that is commonly used in turbine wheels is only good for maybe 1400 degrees. So for price and production 713C is the very best choice for us to go with. Not all turbine wheels are even poured in inconel, most were GMR. MAR-M was used in a "FEW" motorsport applications mostly in England. The main problem with anti-lag is the heat build up in the exhasut housing and on teh turbine wheel blade tips and the thrust loading on the turbocharger itself. Now, as long as the tuneup is good and the user does not stay on the anti-lag too long, then our ball bearing design is good for this type of purpose. The ceramic ball bearing design's reason for creation was for high thrust loads.

Brilliant. Confirmed my thoughts!!!

Now i just need some help deciding which to go for

On a 2.0 with 8.0:1 CR, big valve high flow head, lairy cams and 45mm throttle bodies - do you think there'd be a huge difference in boost threshold?

Robert · Tweet this Post! #6 (**permalink**) 09-17-2007, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Will

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert

From one of the engineers:

Quote:

MAR-M247 is a nickel based super alloy that is extremely heat resistant compared to other forms of steel used in gas turbine applications. The whole key to success with MAR-M as it is commonly known is that the grain structure needs to be fine when casted. Even though MAR-M is great at elevated temps and performs well over repeated cycles without signs of metal fatigue it is very expensive to pour and machine. Sooo.. that is why we choose to use 713C Inconel. 713C inconel is also a nickel based super alloy but its temperature resistance under sustained load is not as high as MAR-M. Now here is the thing, if you were to be running over 1550 degrees F then you would have problems with 713C. MAR-M would probably give you another 50-75 degrees and regular GMR steel that is commonly used in turbine wheels is only good for maybe 1400 degrees. So for price and production 713C is the very best choice for us to go with. Not all turbine wheels are even poured in inconel, most were GMR. MAR-M was used in a "FEW" motorsport applications mostly in England. The main problem with anti-lag is the heat build up in the exhasut housing and on teh turbine wheel blade tips and the thrust loading on the turbocharger itself. Now, as long as the tuneup is good and the user does not stay on the anti-lag too long, then our ball bearing design is good for this type of purpose. The ceramic ball bearing design's reason for creation was for high thrust loads.

Brilliant. Confirmed my thoughts!!!

Now i just need some help deciding which to go for

On a 2.0 with 8.0:1 CR, big valve high flow head, lairy cams and 45mm throttle bodies - do you think there'd be a huge difference in boost threshold?

I don't think you'll see much difference in threshold between the 500 and 450. They use the exact same turbine section. The GT-K 500 uses a 61mm compressor which is a bit larger than the T04E 60 trim compressor the GT-K 450 uses but not large enough to create a large change in threshold. Maybe 500-1000 RPM difference max.

Big Will · Tweet this Post! #7 (**permalink**) 09-17-2007, 04:04 PM

Robert - do you know what boost the power figures are quoted at?

i.e - would it be possible to get 500bhp out the 450 unit with big boost?

Robert · Tweet this Post! #8 (**permalink**) 09-18-2007, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Will

Robert - do you know what boost the power figures are quoted at?

i.e - would it be possible to get 500bhp out the 450 unit with big boost?

It might be a stretch but I think so. EXD on this forum has a Saab with a rather conservative tune making 486 BHP at the wheels at 2 bar.

EXD · Tweet this Post! #9 (**permalink**) 09-26-2007, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Will

Robert - do you know what boost the power figures are quoted at?

i.e - would it be possible to get 500bhp out the 450 unit with big boost?

It might be a stretch but I think so. EXD on this forum has a Saab with a rather conservative tune making 486 BHP at the wheels at 2 bar.

We peaked 445whp with the GTK450, then rolled back to have some margins. 445whp~498bhp on the flywheel (Agressive tuned). Because of some oil leaks and cooling problems (water point boiled in the cylinder head) we stopped there and rolled back. There will be no problem breaking 500bhp (Safe, and about 520bhp Agressive). I'm running at 1.9 bar acctually, my gauge shows wrong

I will do some more mechanical tuning, changing cylinder head gasket to a stronger and ARP bolts, combustion chambers and larger intercooler and Water cooler, forged rods etc. and take even more on technical knock-out

Maptun have stretched a GT3071R, quite similiar to the GTK450 as far as I'm concerned, to 513bhp (flywheel), the difference is that the GTK450 is ROCK stable and the GT3071R tends to play around a little more.

Talonboost · Tweet this Post! #10 (**permalink**) 10-09-2007, 09:58 PM

EXD wrote:

Quote:

the difference is that the GTK450 is ROCK stable and the GT3071R tends to play around a little more.

What does this mean?