PTUNING S2000 turbo system re-release
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,757
Likes: 120
From: Waukesha, WI
Every kit is different, yes. But that has nothing to do with the turbo. The issue with the SOS TMax kit is the poor flow of the exhaust manifold as it forced the exhaust flow to make a very tight turn to get into the turbine housing. It doesn't matter what car it is, if you put a banana in the tailpipe, it's not going to run well (sorry, just watched Beverly Hills Cop again recently).
The science of the performance difference between the 3076 and 3576 is simple. The 3576 has a significantly better blade speed ratio compared to the 3076 which therefore results in significantly better turbine efficiency. The increased turbine efficiency allows the 3576 to generate the same shaft power/speed as the 3076 despite having significantly more turbine mass flow (compare the turbine maps for the GT30 and GT35 in the same A/R turbine housing). Remember, turbine power is a function of: mass flow, pressure ratio, efficiency, turbine inlet temperature. Assuming the same turbine inlet temp, let's look at the other variables. For a given shaft speed which is dictated by the flow requirements of the engine, the GT35 turbine will have higher mass flow but lower pressure ratio. Shaft power has high sensitivity to pressure ratio because the PR is to an exponential. So, IF the 3076 and 3576 had the same turbine efficiency, the 3576 would spool slower because it would have lower turbine pressure ratio. However, as the 3576 has much higher turbine efficiency, it spools up nearly the same despite the lower turbine pressure ratio. Of course, the lower pressure ratio is good for power which is why the 3576 makes 50whp more. I've done some analysis where I chose an operating point near the choke side of the compressor map, the GT30 turbine is at a pressure ratio of 4.0 whereas the 3576 is at a pressure ratio of 3.0. That's a huge reduction in back pressure on the engine. There's no voodoo here, pure science.
This is the closest thing to a back-to-back test I'm aware of:
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...-gtx3576r.html
I have seen data from an Evo X back in 2011 which was a direct back-to-back, same A/R turbine housing, and it also showed identical spool with a 50whp gain on the top end. I can't share that data though. Regardless, the science is simple. It's the same reason the 3067 makes 25whp more than the 2867 and spools the same. Evo X guys have largely sworn off the 3076 as have WRX/STI guys.
If you want s2k specific data, granted there's only a 1 sentence statement and not a dyno chart provided. But the poster has absolutely no reason to lie about it:
https://www.s2ki.com/forums/s2000-fo...ifold-1028207/
As you state you don't more power than the 3076 makes, you could simply run the 3576 at lower boost and reduce the stress on everything while making the same power.
The science of the performance difference between the 3076 and 3576 is simple. The 3576 has a significantly better blade speed ratio compared to the 3076 which therefore results in significantly better turbine efficiency. The increased turbine efficiency allows the 3576 to generate the same shaft power/speed as the 3076 despite having significantly more turbine mass flow (compare the turbine maps for the GT30 and GT35 in the same A/R turbine housing). Remember, turbine power is a function of: mass flow, pressure ratio, efficiency, turbine inlet temperature. Assuming the same turbine inlet temp, let's look at the other variables. For a given shaft speed which is dictated by the flow requirements of the engine, the GT35 turbine will have higher mass flow but lower pressure ratio. Shaft power has high sensitivity to pressure ratio because the PR is to an exponential. So, IF the 3076 and 3576 had the same turbine efficiency, the 3576 would spool slower because it would have lower turbine pressure ratio. However, as the 3576 has much higher turbine efficiency, it spools up nearly the same despite the lower turbine pressure ratio. Of course, the lower pressure ratio is good for power which is why the 3576 makes 50whp more. I've done some analysis where I chose an operating point near the choke side of the compressor map, the GT30 turbine is at a pressure ratio of 4.0 whereas the 3576 is at a pressure ratio of 3.0. That's a huge reduction in back pressure on the engine. There's no voodoo here, pure science.
This is the closest thing to a back-to-back test I'm aware of:
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...-gtx3576r.html
I have seen data from an Evo X back in 2011 which was a direct back-to-back, same A/R turbine housing, and it also showed identical spool with a 50whp gain on the top end. I can't share that data though. Regardless, the science is simple. It's the same reason the 3067 makes 25whp more than the 2867 and spools the same. Evo X guys have largely sworn off the 3076 as have WRX/STI guys.
If you want s2k specific data, granted there's only a 1 sentence statement and not a dyno chart provided. But the poster has absolutely no reason to lie about it:
https://www.s2ki.com/forums/s2000-fo...ifold-1028207/
As you state you don't more power than the 3076 makes, you could simply run the 3576 at lower boost and reduce the stress on everything while making the same power.
I have seen that thread before, Riceball currently has a Ptuning hot side with a gen 1 3076, and his build threads are typically validated with graphs. The fact that he ditched the sidewinder for the PTuning setup is saying something.
If you really want to prove the point, buy a kit and try it out. Or, donate money to me so I can upgrade my turbo to the 3576. I just do not want to waste money anymore like I did a few years back.
Note: I do not mean any disrespect by my responses.
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,757
Likes: 120
From: Waukesha, WI
On a lighter note, I am very happy to see that we now have 11 confirmed deposits paid forward. Thank you to everyone who has joined the PTuning party!
Freddy and I have worked together for quite a few months to make this happen, and I am glad to see it be so successful.
Freddy and I have worked together for quite a few months to make this happen, and I am glad to see it be so successful.
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Every kit is different, yes. But that has nothing to do with the turbo. The issue with the SOS TMax kit is the poor flow of the exhaust manifold as it forced the exhaust flow to make a very tight turn to get into the turbine housing. It doesn't matter what car it is, if you put a banana in the tailpipe, it's not going to run well (sorry, just watched Beverly Hills Cop again recently).
The science of the performance difference between the 3076 and 3576 is simple. The 3576 has a significantly better blade speed ratio compared to the 3076 which therefore results in significantly better turbine efficiency. The increased turbine efficiency allows the 3576 to generate the same shaft power/speed as the 3076 despite having significantly more turbine mass flow (compare the turbine maps for the GT30 and GT35 in the same A/R turbine housing). Remember, turbine power is a function of: mass flow, pressure ratio, efficiency, turbine inlet temperature. Assuming the same turbine inlet temp, let's look at the other variables. For a given shaft speed which is dictated by the flow requirements of the engine, the GT35 turbine will have higher mass flow but lower pressure ratio. Shaft power has high sensitivity to pressure ratio because the PR is to an exponential. So, IF the 3076 and 3576 had the same turbine efficiency, the 3576 would spool slower because it would have lower turbine pressure ratio. However, as the 3576 has much higher turbine efficiency, it spools up nearly the same despite the lower turbine pressure ratio. Of course, the lower pressure ratio is good for power which is why the 3576 makes 50whp more. I've done some analysis where I chose an operating point near the choke side of the compressor map, the GT30 turbine is at a pressure ratio of 4.0 whereas the 3576 is at a pressure ratio of 3.0. That's a huge reduction in back pressure on the engine. There's no voodoo here, pure science.
This is the closest thing to a back-to-back test I'm aware of:
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...-gtx3576r.html
I have seen data from an Evo X back in 2011 which was a direct back-to-back, same A/R turbine housing, and it also showed identical spool with a 50whp gain on the top end. I can't share that data though. Regardless, the science is simple. It's the same reason the 3067 makes 25whp more than the 2867 and spools the same. Evo X guys have largely sworn off the 3076 as have WRX/STI guys.
If you want s2k specific data, granted there's only a 1 sentence statement and not a dyno chart provided. But the poster has absolutely no reason to lie about it:
https://www.s2ki.com/forums/s2000-fo...ifold-1028207/
As you state you don't more power than the 3076 makes, you could simply run the 3576 at lower boost and reduce the stress on everything while making the same power.
The science of the performance difference between the 3076 and 3576 is simple. The 3576 has a significantly better blade speed ratio compared to the 3076 which therefore results in significantly better turbine efficiency. The increased turbine efficiency allows the 3576 to generate the same shaft power/speed as the 3076 despite having significantly more turbine mass flow (compare the turbine maps for the GT30 and GT35 in the same A/R turbine housing). Remember, turbine power is a function of: mass flow, pressure ratio, efficiency, turbine inlet temperature. Assuming the same turbine inlet temp, let's look at the other variables. For a given shaft speed which is dictated by the flow requirements of the engine, the GT35 turbine will have higher mass flow but lower pressure ratio. Shaft power has high sensitivity to pressure ratio because the PR is to an exponential. So, IF the 3076 and 3576 had the same turbine efficiency, the 3576 would spool slower because it would have lower turbine pressure ratio. However, as the 3576 has much higher turbine efficiency, it spools up nearly the same despite the lower turbine pressure ratio. Of course, the lower pressure ratio is good for power which is why the 3576 makes 50whp more. I've done some analysis where I chose an operating point near the choke side of the compressor map, the GT30 turbine is at a pressure ratio of 4.0 whereas the 3576 is at a pressure ratio of 3.0. That's a huge reduction in back pressure on the engine. There's no voodoo here, pure science.
This is the closest thing to a back-to-back test I'm aware of:
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...-gtx3576r.html
I have seen data from an Evo X back in 2011 which was a direct back-to-back, same A/R turbine housing, and it also showed identical spool with a 50whp gain on the top end. I can't share that data though. Regardless, the science is simple. It's the same reason the 3067 makes 25whp more than the 2867 and spools the same. Evo X guys have largely sworn off the 3076 as have WRX/STI guys.
If you want s2k specific data, granted there's only a 1 sentence statement and not a dyno chart provided. But the poster has absolutely no reason to lie about it:
https://www.s2ki.com/forums/s2000-fo...ifold-1028207/
As you state you don't more power than the 3076 makes, you could simply run the 3576 at lower boost and reduce the stress on everything while making the same power.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,593
Likes: 75
0.82 A/R. I recommend that A/R for the GTX3071 too. The 0.63 is just going to choke off flow. I would only recommend the baby 0.63 with the small GTX3067 on a small engine, 1.6L, like a B16 or something. I only like the big 1.06 on something over 3.5L. Like a Ford Falcon with the 4.0L inline-6, or as one of a pair on a LS engine. The loss of spool with the 1.06 A/R isn't worth the minimal power gains.
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 604
Likes: 15
Every kit is different, yes. But that has nothing to do with the turbo. The issue with the SOS TMax kit is the poor flow of the exhaust manifold as it forced the exhaust flow to make a very tight turn to get into the turbine housing. It doesn't matter what car it is, if you put a banana in the tailpipe, it's not going to run well (sorry, just watched Beverly Hills Cop again recently).
The science of the performance difference between the 3076 and 3576 is simple. The 3576 has a significantly better blade speed ratio compared to the 3076 which therefore results in significantly better turbine efficiency. The increased turbine efficiency allows the 3576 to generate the same shaft power/speed as the 3076 despite having significantly more turbine mass flow (compare the turbine maps for the GT30 and GT35 in the same A/R turbine housing). Remember, turbine power is a function of: mass flow, pressure ratio, efficiency, turbine inlet temperature. Assuming the same turbine inlet temp, let's look at the other variables. For a given shaft speed which is dictated by the flow requirements of the engine, the GT35 turbine will have higher mass flow but lower pressure ratio. Shaft power has high sensitivity to pressure ratio because the PR is to an exponential. So, IF the 3076 and 3576 had the same turbine efficiency, the 3576 would spool slower because it would have lower turbine pressure ratio. However, as the 3576 has much higher turbine efficiency, it spools up nearly the same despite the lower turbine pressure ratio. Of course, the lower pressure ratio is good for power which is why the 3576 makes 50whp more. I've done some analysis where I chose an operating point near the choke side of the compressor map, the GT30 turbine is at a pressure ratio of 4.0 whereas the 3576 is at a pressure ratio of 3.0. That's a huge reduction in back pressure on the engine. There's no voodoo here, pure science.
This is the closest thing to a back-to-back test I'm aware of:
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...-gtx3576r.html
I have seen data from an Evo X back in 2011 which was a direct back-to-back, same A/R turbine housing, and it also showed identical spool with a 50whp gain on the top end. I can't share that data though. Regardless, the science is simple. It's the same reason the 3067 makes 25whp more than the 2867 and spools the same. Evo X guys have largely sworn off the 3076 as have WRX/STI guys.
If you want s2k specific data, granted there's only a 1 sentence statement and not a dyno chart provided. But the poster has absolutely no reason to lie about it:
https://www.s2ki.com/forums/s2000-fo...ifold-1028207/
As you state you don't more power than the 3076 makes, you could simply run the 3576 at lower boost and reduce the stress on everything while making the same power.
The science of the performance difference between the 3076 and 3576 is simple. The 3576 has a significantly better blade speed ratio compared to the 3076 which therefore results in significantly better turbine efficiency. The increased turbine efficiency allows the 3576 to generate the same shaft power/speed as the 3076 despite having significantly more turbine mass flow (compare the turbine maps for the GT30 and GT35 in the same A/R turbine housing). Remember, turbine power is a function of: mass flow, pressure ratio, efficiency, turbine inlet temperature. Assuming the same turbine inlet temp, let's look at the other variables. For a given shaft speed which is dictated by the flow requirements of the engine, the GT35 turbine will have higher mass flow but lower pressure ratio. Shaft power has high sensitivity to pressure ratio because the PR is to an exponential. So, IF the 3076 and 3576 had the same turbine efficiency, the 3576 would spool slower because it would have lower turbine pressure ratio. However, as the 3576 has much higher turbine efficiency, it spools up nearly the same despite the lower turbine pressure ratio. Of course, the lower pressure ratio is good for power which is why the 3576 makes 50whp more. I've done some analysis where I chose an operating point near the choke side of the compressor map, the GT30 turbine is at a pressure ratio of 4.0 whereas the 3576 is at a pressure ratio of 3.0. That's a huge reduction in back pressure on the engine. There's no voodoo here, pure science.
This is the closest thing to a back-to-back test I'm aware of:
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...-gtx3576r.html
I have seen data from an Evo X back in 2011 which was a direct back-to-back, same A/R turbine housing, and it also showed identical spool with a 50whp gain on the top end. I can't share that data though. Regardless, the science is simple. It's the same reason the 3067 makes 25whp more than the 2867 and spools the same. Evo X guys have largely sworn off the 3076 as have WRX/STI guys.
If you want s2k specific data, granted there's only a 1 sentence statement and not a dyno chart provided. But the poster has absolutely no reason to lie about it:
https://www.s2ki.com/forums/s2000-fo...ifold-1028207/
As you state you don't more power than the 3076 makes, you could simply run the 3576 at lower boost and reduce the stress on everything while making the same power.
"There is always a trade of, whenever stepping up the turbine wheel..
I really liked 240Z TwinTurbo's conclusion, basically, it wraps up what you should consider with the turbo.
Two things when we overlay compressor wheels vs turbine, is that the GTX3076R is still going to be the best turbo before surpassing 500 WHP on a stock Evo motor.
What this means, is that UNLESS you are going past 500 WHP, the smaller GTX3076R turbine will spool sooner, respond faster, better transient response and quicker torque upon throttle movement. The GTX3076R will be much more "peppier" to drive around. There is no turbo that can replace the GTX3076R, because to reach 500 WHP and stay within 75% efficiency range, only the larger GTX3076Rcompressor wheel can do it. The smaller GTX3071R has a better comp/turbine ratio, but the wheel runs at < 68% at 500 WHP levels. Big difference.
In a drag race scenario, then the GTX3576R will reach 500+ WHP sooner or identical to the GTX3076R; so if you intend to run this turbo at 500+ WHP, it will spool and reach 500WHP the same or a bit sooner than the choked out GTX3076R turbine. This reflects on the dyno results, when the pull was done starting at lower RPM's and the turbo had lead time to build speed. The results will look very similar on a steady dyno pull between the two turbos. This can confuse some people regarding "spool". What we see on the dyno to what we feel when we mash the throttle are completely different things though
On the street, the GTX3076R will no doubt "reach" 450WHP quicker than the GTX3576R. So if the folks are concerned about stop light rolling races, the GTX3076R is still a faster spooling turbo off the line. The GTX3576R can maintain 500+ WHP easier, so it will be more responsive in a drag race condition between shifts, and off the 2-step out of the hole.
You can alter the engine too (for those doing a motor build) to manipulate exhaust flow vs WHP. Increasing compression ratio lowers BSFC, lower EGT's and less exhaust energy so it uses up less turbine flow. Longer runner exhaust manifold and nice merge collector will also make the engine see less backpressure. You can witness huge reduction of exhaust pressures just by building up your motor differently and changing certain things on your setup, so you don't have to dwell into finding which turbo works best. Rather, build the engine to match the turbo too get the best of everything.
I have had many occasions, on all sorts of cars and engines, between the GTX/GT30R vs GTX/GT35R... Regardless of what the dyno says, the moment you drive the car you'll notice the GT35 turbine is a much bigger turbo if everything else was identical on the motor."
That also has some great points and brings to light real world feel. The GEN2 according to Garrett makes the same power as the 3576 now. It's a hard pill to decide to take looking at all the data provided. I'd like to know the transient response difference between the two. It'd be interesting if the 3576 felt better because of a reduction in back pressure and actually spooled sooner.
Last edited by rmerchant3; Apr 28, 2017 at 09:11 PM.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,593
Likes: 75
I agree with the science 100% and I like the idea of more power at a lower boost level. For me, the bottom line is that it has not been tested on a Ptuning kit, and I am not going down that path again. I could always upgrade the turbo down the line if I wanted.
I have seen that thread before, Riceball currently has a Ptuning hot side with a gen 1 3076, and his build threads are typically validated with graphs. The fact that he ditched the sidewinder for the PTuning setup is saying something.
If you really want to prove the point, buy a kit and try it out. Or, donate money to me so I can upgrade my turbo to the 3576. I just do not want to waste money anymore like I did a few years back.
Note: I do not mean any disrespect by my responses.
I have seen that thread before, Riceball currently has a Ptuning hot side with a gen 1 3076, and his build threads are typically validated with graphs. The fact that he ditched the sidewinder for the PTuning setup is saying something.
If you really want to prove the point, buy a kit and try it out. Or, donate money to me so I can upgrade my turbo to the 3576. I just do not want to waste money anymore like I did a few years back.
Note: I do not mean any disrespect by my responses.
Personally, I'm going to be working on my own custom setup with a GTX3071R. Primarily weekend fun car, strictly pisswater Cali 91oct, going for a fat powerband and sacrificing the topend. Probably a year away from getting that done... so going to be a while.
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,757
Likes: 120
From: Waukesha, WI
-Please provide information on your car build. (Engine, support mods fir the ptuning kit, ecu, etc)
-Do you have any relevant dyno testing history?
-who is your designated tuner?
-what are your power goals with this ptuning kit
-what is the time frame you have in mind to complete your kit installation including tuning?
Some VERY good points here. I was and still am slightly on the fence between the two turbos. Science is nice, but there are other factors to consider as well. I took this from the thread you linked to on the EVO forum
"There is always a trade of, whenever stepping up the turbine wheel..
I really liked 240Z TwinTurbo's conclusion, basically, it wraps up what you should consider with the turbo.
Two things when we overlay compressor wheels vs turbine, is that the GTX3076R is still going to be the best turbo before surpassing 500 WHP on a stock Evo motor.
What this means, is that UNLESS you are going past 500 WHP, the smaller GTX3076R turbine will spool sooner, respond faster, better transient response and quicker torque upon throttle movement. The GTX3076R will be much more "peppier" to drive around. There is no turbo that can replace the GTX3076R, because to reach 500 WHP and stay within 75% efficiency range, only the larger GTX3076Rcompressor wheel can do it. The smaller GTX3071R has a better comp/turbine ratio, but the wheel runs at < 68% at 500 WHP levels. Big difference.
In a drag race scenario, then the GTX3576R will reach 500+ WHP sooner or identical to the GTX3076R; so if you intend to run this turbo at 500+ WHP, it will spool and reach 500WHP the same or a bit sooner than the choked out GTX3076R turbine. This reflects on the dyno results, when the pull was done starting at lower RPM's and the turbo had lead time to build speed. The results will look very similar on a steady dyno pull between the two turbos. This can confuse some people regarding "spool". What we see on the dyno to what we feel when we mash the throttle are completely different things though
On the street, the GTX3076R will no doubt "reach" 450WHP quicker than the GTX3576R. So if the folks are concerned about stop light rolling races, the GTX3076R is still a faster spooling turbo off the line. The GTX3576R can maintain 500+ WHP easier, so it will be more responsive in a drag race condition between shifts, and off the 2-step out of the hole.
You can alter the engine too (for those doing a motor build) to manipulate exhaust flow vs WHP. Increasing compression ratio lowers BSFC, lower EGT's and less exhaust energy so it uses up less turbine flow. Longer runner exhaust manifold and nice merge collector will also make the engine see less backpressure. You can witness huge reduction of exhaust pressures just by building up your motor differently and changing certain things on your setup, so you don't have to dwell into finding which turbo works best. Rather, build the engine to match the turbo too get the best of everything.
I have had many occasions, on all sorts of cars and engines, between the GTX/GT30R vs GTX/GT35R... Regardless of what the dyno says, the moment you drive the car you'll notice the GT35 turbine is a much bigger turbo if everything else was identical on the motor."
That also has some great points and brings to light real world feel. The GEN2 according to Garrett makes the same power as the 3576 now. It's a hard pill to decide to take looking at all the data provided. I'd like to know the transient response difference between the two. It'd be interesting if the 3576 felt better because of a reduction in back pressure and actually spooled sooner.
"There is always a trade of, whenever stepping up the turbine wheel..
I really liked 240Z TwinTurbo's conclusion, basically, it wraps up what you should consider with the turbo.
Two things when we overlay compressor wheels vs turbine, is that the GTX3076R is still going to be the best turbo before surpassing 500 WHP on a stock Evo motor.
What this means, is that UNLESS you are going past 500 WHP, the smaller GTX3076R turbine will spool sooner, respond faster, better transient response and quicker torque upon throttle movement. The GTX3076R will be much more "peppier" to drive around. There is no turbo that can replace the GTX3076R, because to reach 500 WHP and stay within 75% efficiency range, only the larger GTX3076Rcompressor wheel can do it. The smaller GTX3071R has a better comp/turbine ratio, but the wheel runs at < 68% at 500 WHP levels. Big difference.
In a drag race scenario, then the GTX3576R will reach 500+ WHP sooner or identical to the GTX3076R; so if you intend to run this turbo at 500+ WHP, it will spool and reach 500WHP the same or a bit sooner than the choked out GTX3076R turbine. This reflects on the dyno results, when the pull was done starting at lower RPM's and the turbo had lead time to build speed. The results will look very similar on a steady dyno pull between the two turbos. This can confuse some people regarding "spool". What we see on the dyno to what we feel when we mash the throttle are completely different things though
On the street, the GTX3076R will no doubt "reach" 450WHP quicker than the GTX3576R. So if the folks are concerned about stop light rolling races, the GTX3076R is still a faster spooling turbo off the line. The GTX3576R can maintain 500+ WHP easier, so it will be more responsive in a drag race condition between shifts, and off the 2-step out of the hole.
You can alter the engine too (for those doing a motor build) to manipulate exhaust flow vs WHP. Increasing compression ratio lowers BSFC, lower EGT's and less exhaust energy so it uses up less turbine flow. Longer runner exhaust manifold and nice merge collector will also make the engine see less backpressure. You can witness huge reduction of exhaust pressures just by building up your motor differently and changing certain things on your setup, so you don't have to dwell into finding which turbo works best. Rather, build the engine to match the turbo too get the best of everything.
I have had many occasions, on all sorts of cars and engines, between the GTX/GT30R vs GTX/GT35R... Regardless of what the dyno says, the moment you drive the car you'll notice the GT35 turbine is a much bigger turbo if everything else was identical on the motor."
That also has some great points and brings to light real world feel. The GEN2 according to Garrett makes the same power as the 3576 now. It's a hard pill to decide to take looking at all the data provided. I'd like to know the transient response difference between the two. It'd be interesting if the 3576 felt better because of a reduction in back pressure and actually spooled sooner.
No worries, I get it. There is a risk involved in being the first to try something. The willingness to accept the risk is based on how much information is available and one's risk aversion level.
Personally, I'm going to be working on my own custom setup with a GTX3071R. Primarily weekend fun car, strictly pisswater Cali 91oct, going for a fat powerband and sacrificing the topend. Probably a year away from getting that done... so going to be a while.
Personally, I'm going to be working on my own custom setup with a GTX3071R. Primarily weekend fun car, strictly pisswater Cali 91oct, going for a fat powerband and sacrificing the topend. Probably a year away from getting that done... so going to be a while.
I am regurgitating information at this point, but any data found comparing turbo sizes is only relative to the tested car. Every aspect of a turbo kit dictates the overall efficiency. This includes runner length, wastegate placement, charge piping diameter and radius of bends, intercooler efficiency, and etc. You cannot always take information from another brand of car and what worked and apply it to another brand of car especially S2000s. The .2 litres of difference played a big roll in my sos turbo kit issue.
The ptuning kit is great, but with a short to medium length runner design, the benefits of the 3576 might not be obtainable. However, I am very optimistic that it will be.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,593
Likes: 75
That said, I think the PTuning kit is the best on the market from an overall package and performance perspective. I'm going to be doing a few things differently which will compromise power, but hopefully be better in some other aspects.
