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.
In for results as I currently has a CXRacing 76/65 and have been looking at possibly dealing for an on3 76/75 or vs billet 78/75 so any world data would be cool...when I bought my turbo I was a turbo newb and didn't realize t76 had a baby turbine although it spoils damn quick (positive at 2800 all in by 4000) on a stock L33
my previous on3 76mm lasted a 10k+ of my driving. 17-20psi daily use. was running strong all the way till sold(only sold the whole car for a project change)
I have no doubt it would have been fine till 15k and who knows maybe even 20k?
Any reason you limited the original setup to only 7psi on a "forged 376". Would seem like there would still have been a lot left on the table in that setup? A 68mm turbine on a 376 must be spooled up just off idle I'd think? opening up that choke point. Why did you need a new turbo? Is the Benita kaput, or you just needed a bigger one? Did you consider rebuilding your Benita if it was kaput?
I'd drill and tap the On3 compressor housing, just like your tubronetics is, f the warranty, that's the best setup IMO. That's just me though. I'd take it off the turbo to do it. They probably void the warranty because someone did it one the turbo and left it full of metal or something? It would be interesting to see if the Turbonetics compressor housing would fit on the On3? It looks better, is already tapped, and has a smoother intake? If the On3 is a knock off of the Turbonetics, and they are the same size compressor, it may fit.
At about 4 bills, they are almost disposable turbos. Even if you get a couple years out of it with comparable performance to a domestic one it is a better deal. I'm running the T-7875 with the BB's and the F1-75 turbine. It cost me over 3 times that much. Kind of feel stupid for paying that much, when I could have spent less.
If my turbo were to need replacing, my thoughts would be to stand up the radiator and go S480 type or something like that. The BW's seem affordable, reliable, and put up good power, only down side is the space they take up, which is at a premium in our Fbodies.
I'm in for results.
"That's a really small turbine compared the engine displacement, so you should see a really nice jump on the top end, "
This is exactly why this "Test" is pointless. The only thing it's going to prove is when you don't choke down your exhaust your engine makes more power.
"That's a really small turbine compared the engine displacement, so you should see a really nice jump on the top end, "
This is exactly why this "Test" is pointless. The only thing it's going to prove is when you don't choke down your exhaust your engine makes more power.
I bet it proves on3 turbo is superior in every way. Cost, reliability, power customer service.....
I bet it proves on3 turbo is superior in every way. Cost, reliability, power customer service.....
Lol yeah ok. I'm not saying one brand is better than the other but this "Test" will prove none of what you just said besides price. I mean what do you all expect to happen with a massive jump in turbine size on an engine that size lol! This is just another bandwagon for all the China turbo guys to jump on. And FYI Turbonetics has excellent customer service. They replaced and upgraded two of my turbos after a year of use because the wrong turbine wheel was installed initially. No questions asked free of charge.
My next build will likely get a China turbo because my HP goal will be Sub 1000whp and I'm cheap. With that said I just don't like that this turbo swap is being structured in a "Test" format. Because it's apples to oranges and should be treated as such. Then again it seems like everyone besides the OP is unaware of that.
I bet it proves on3 turbo is superior in every way. Cost, reliability, power customer service.....
Woah...woah!! Hold on there Youngblood. I'm with you on the cost effectiveness with the on3 products, but as far as power....no. Now, I'm not exactly sure in comparison with Turbonetics....but I have hard data and a true comparison with a PT7675. And it's a fact that you will typically lose power with the on3 stuff over the "bigger names". I for one lost 45whp jumping ship from precision to the bigger on3. So while the value is definitely there, we need to scale it back on the power claims.
Woah...woah!! Hold on there Youngblood. I'm with you on the cost effectiveness with the on3 products, but as far as power....no. Now, I'm not exactly sure in comparison with Turbonetics....but I have hard data and a true comparison with a PT7675. And it's a fact that you will typically lose power with the on3 stuff over the "bigger names". I for one lost 45whp jumping ship from precision to the bigger on3. So while the value is definitely there, we need to scale it back on the power claims.
its really more like more power PER dollar. i mean if we all had the extra funds and no money limit what would everyone buy?
but for the sake of a good discussion. can you post these "hard data and true comparison" you speak off thats actually an APPLE to APPLE comparison.
if i remember correctly a pt7675 has a turbine wheel of 75 with a.84 trim. meaning a 75/82 turbine vs an on3 65/?? turbine.... hardly a fair comparison just as this thread.
unless your comparing some other turbo with same specs
I know. I'm simply making a comparison. 1 year vs. 1 month is a big deal IMO. Says a lot about things such as customer service etc.
absolutely agree(except for customer service- more like expected life).
unfortunately considering that MOST seems to fail after those warranty. i hardly consider it.
only upside i see from name brand is being able to send your turbo for a rebuild. But considering a price of a rebuild is much more than a price of a new ebay turbo... lol
its really more like more power PER dollar. i mean if we all had the extra funds and no money limit what would everyone buy?
but for the sake of a good discussion. can you post these "hard data and true comparison" you speak off thats actually an APPLE to APPLE comparison.
if i remember correctly a pt7675 has a turbine wheel of 75 with a.84 trim. meaning a 75/82 turbine vs an on3 65/?? turbine.... hardly a fair comparison just as this thread.
unless your comparing some other turbo with same specs
No sir. Pt7675 is .96 ar. And I did a comparison of the pt7675 against the on3 7876 .96 ar a few months ago. Not sure where you got the 82mm turbine from. But the value turbo did indeed cost me 45whp. It was as "apples to apples" as could be. Same dyno and all.
No sir. Pt7675 is .96 ar. And I did a comparison of the pt7675 against the on3 7876 .96 ar a few months ago. Not sure where you got the 82mm turbine from. But the value turbo did indeed cost me 45whp. It was as "apples to apples" as could be. Same dyno and all.
it list it as 84 trim. i just used .84 since it saves the *100.
with the 84 trim the turbine wheel on a pt7675 should be around 75/82 ish
vs on3 76mm turbine is 65/74
and I wouldnt consider that an apple to apple comparison. fairly close but a change in compressor size could easily put you in a different area of efficiency in the compressor map. meaning bigger isnt always better.
it list it as 84 trim. i just used .84 since it saves the *100.
with the 84 trim the turbine wheel on a pt7675 should be around 75/82 ish
vs on3 76mm turbine is 65/74
and I wouldnt consider that an apple to apple comparison. fairly close but a change in compressor size could easily put you in a different area of efficiency in the compressor map. meaning bigger isnt always better.
not to mention other differences adds up.
Didn't pay close enough attention, thought you were talking ar. Either way, the on3 is comparably sized to the precision. And while it is indeed a good value per dollar, it does come up a bit short in the power dept. Won't carry as far either.....at least on my 6.0. And I say comparable as in wheel sizes. Compressor outlet ar is not a good look with the on3.
it list it as 84 trim. i just used .84 since it saves the *100.
with the 84 trim the turbine wheel on a pt7675 should be around 75/82 ish
vs on3 76mm turbine is 65/74
and I wouldnt consider that an apple to apple comparison. fairly close but a change in compressor size could easily put you in a different area of efficiency in the compressor map. meaning bigger isnt always better.
not to mention other differences adds up.
He isn't talking about the on3 76, look up the On3 78!
He isn't talking about the on3 76, look up the On3 78!
Dammit....I'm slipping bad today. Didn't even notice he was talking about the 76 lol. I guess this killing this black velvet isn't doing me any favors today! The 7665 belongs on something like a stock displacement GN.
He isn't talking about the on3 76, look up the On3 78!
I did address the 78 comparison.
Originally Posted by LS325ci
and I wouldnt consider that an apple to apple comparison. fairly close but a change in compressor size could easily put you in a different area of efficiency in the compressor map. meaning bigger isnt always better.
not to mention other differences adds up.
as i said 78 isnt an apple to apple comparison. his hard data isnt really a valid comparison. thats a different compressor all together.
the 76 would have been more apply to apple if the turbine was the same.
unless someone can reason out compressor map efficiency between 78 vs 76
and other difference?
the point im trying to make is that ebay stuff is hard to compare as far as performance mainly because specs always differ between the two. even if you found one the same thats comparing one name brand vs ebay. but how does the other name brand compare to that name brand.
too many factors for a statement that claim an ebay turbo was the reason he lost net 45whp
im not on either side just saying i havent really seen actual controlled comparison if someone has feel free to post link.
as i said 78 isnt an apple to apple comparison. his hard data isnt really a valid comparison. thats a different compressor all together.
the 76 would have been more apply to apple if the turbine was the same.
unless someone can reason out compressor map efficiency between 78 vs 76
and other difference?
lol a Precision 76 vs a ching chang 78 seems reasonable to me since the precision 76 still makes more power. I've had both and Game ova has had both much with the same results. He showed it on the dyno and mine showed it on the track.
absolutely agree(except for customer service- more like expected life).
unfortunately considering that MOST seems to fail after those warranty. i hardly consider it.
only upside i see from name brand is being able to send your turbo for a rebuild. But considering a price of a rebuild is much more than a price of a new ebay turbo... lol
Fair argument but an assumption none the less. Personally I've had great luck with Turbonetics so I'm kind of biased. However I wouldn't really consider them to be a "name brand" manufacturer. The types of turbos that the LS guys buy really aren't all that much better than the competition. So I can see why guys are trying to compare china turbos to them.
IMO I still think Borg Warner is the answer to all questions if you can fit one.
11-13-2016, 11:59 PM
