72bb vs. PT70gtq dyno test!

[EightSecV6]

Originally posted by Ted A.
The root of the issue here is there are so many people that think they can just bolt up a big turbo and it is the principle reason they are making power. It is all about combination and all of that has to be right to get the rated power out of any turbo and make E.T. Your 88 vs. a 70 is a perfect example of that and we all know that there are many other examples of over turbo'ed cars that give all the claim to fame to the turbo itself, when in all reality it really isn't making squat in comparision to the turbos rated power.

I'd like to see that 88 turbo run on that 231" stock block car.

I agree Ted , it has always been about the combination.That is why you see people struggle terribly when they bounce from vendor to vendor for pricing or whatever reason, everyone has their own theory on what works.

I'd like to see that stock block car even spool the 88! talk about combination!!!!

 

[re-evaluating]

Just looking for a retirement check

I agree with you Bill and Ted it is all about the combination. It seems to me some have missed the point of this comparison all together. I saw this as a comparison of old technology vs. new not vendor to vendor but that's just me. I feel I have hit pretty close on my combination as I am very happy with the results at the Nat's for the first time out with it.

I run a John Craig (Limit Engineering) LT-70 GTQ [now waiting for my retirement check] non ported shroud turbo. It went 137.82 MPH at 3570 lbs at 25lbs of boost what do you suppose the HP is on my combination? Yes it was in the 90 degree 100% humidity good conditions we had in BG. I hope to sort out a few bugs and turn it up and see what it will do in the 30 lb range in good air.
The point to me is that the new Garret wheels (and maybe others I don't have experience with) are awesome compared to the old technology ones.

This Limit Engineering [John send check] turbo spools so well with my combination I could leave on the pro tree at 24 lbs of boost, and that really impressed me. This is one bad piece with the right combination.

I don't think anyone needs to question Bills integrity as to the cirumnstances of the test either. Bill I haven't dynoed it yet what do you think it will make considering MPH and weight??

Well that is my take on the whole thing for what it is worth. Oh and I might be interested in seeing if I could spool that 88 just for fun.

 

[ijames]

Dave, calculator says 738 average rwhp.

 

[ttypewhite]

I thought I would through something in the ring. True story. On my T-type, I had a T72 BB turbo with a P trim wheel and a 4 bolt .82 exh housing on it. Never really got a clean pass due to my tranny, but I managed to squeeze out 128.96mph with that turbo having to lift off the gas pedal to let the tranny shift itself into 2nd gear. So I figure it would have been 130+ if all went good. I then sold my 72 and called Billy Anderson for a 71GTQ turbo. I have nothing to gain by talking smack, but. This turbo is a night and day difference from my T72 BB turbo. I have yet to track it to see how much of a difference it has made. But it is very noticable mid range top end. I need to fine tune my car with this new turbo on a dyno then head out to the track and see what the difference really is. Just because you guys doubt the data Billy posted, doesn't mean its not true. I believe him 110% because I am living proof that there is a noticable difference. And no I am not getting any perks by talking s h i t. Some turbos just complement your setup better than others. Just my 2 cents.

Mike R

 

[420]

Originally posted by EightSecV6
I agree Ted , it has always been about the combination.That is why you see people struggle terribly when they bounce from vendor to vendor for pricing or whatever reason, everyone has their own theory on what works.

With that being said, Bill, what do you think is causing the low numbers out of the 72BB? I certainly believe that the GTQ made more power, but I, like many others, just keep looking at the 516rwhp and going "damn, thats low for that turbo".

- Matt

 

[John Wilde]

Maybe we could do an Independent Test.

We have a car with the following combination.

-109 Block, 20 Over JE Pistons, Stock Crank and Rods
-Ported Champion Aluminum Heads
-Fast Seq,Ind, Wide 0/2
-72lbs injectors
-Customer Duttweiler Roller Cam
-ATR Headers, 3inch DP and Single Shot Exhaust

@ 5000plus FT it made 605RWHP uncorrected.
We would have to dyno it again with the new cam
and the Innovative 72BB that is on the car.
Then a friend has a 71GTQ we could throw on it.

If we can pull it off I will make sure to post the results.

 

[420]

That would be very cool John

BTW, did you ever get my reply to your reply via e-mail?

 

[John Wilde]

Matt,

Let me check on my email tonight.
Work laid off 165 people in the last two weeks, I have been a little preocupied, please feel free to send again.

Your project sounds cool!

 

[Bmason]

Whoa...Billy, I wasn't "slinging any mud" at you or felt I came at you or into this thread wrong. But like you said if that is "where this whole thread is going", then so be it. I'm not going to trash this thread, in fact I'm going to be cordial and leave you some "wiggle room" because you might need it. Not once did I question your integrity nor implied that you said anything wrong. My point was, it was not mentioned that there was a head swap. The owner told me directly (which is what I'm going by) that the 516 was with the regular GN1 and the 558 was with the new turbo and heads. In your post you said "if I remember correctly, the heads picked it up about 20hp or so". Then if I'm reading that correctly, you're saying that you tuned the car on your dyno with GN1, roller cam and rockers, C116 and a 72BB initially. Then..."We swapped the heads on the car in question and dyno'd it with the better heads and the 72 at 516rwhp (if I remember correctly, the heads picked it up about 20 hp or so). So...that's 516rwhp - 20 (for the head swap) = 496rwhp! To the rear wheel, 496 horses with 30psi and regular GN1 heads!? I still say that's low, but unfortunately I can beleive that because the car only ran low 11's then. Seems like there's an issue with either the turbo, tune, motor, or something from the beginning. Then you added "R" heads and dynoed again using 30psi and got the 516rwhp!? And that's your starting point for the comparison...okay, I got it now.

Maybe some of you guys should go back and re-read what I posted, since I've been quoted and had a finger pointed at me like I've been a bad boy. I said "I heard...", "I think I know the car...", and "If this is the car..". If the heads were changed, then I think it is important to people that have read or are reading it for the first time to know that (at some point) they were changed from GN1's to the "R" version along with the GTQ turbo. I know for a fact that he bought the FAST system and had APC install/tune it in late February and he was trying to get the car ready to go with us to Bradenton. For sure (again, according to the owner), it was dynoed with the old heads and that's when I was told 516. He later ordered the better heads and turbo for the trip to BG...check the dates, it's on the receipts! You said it didn't happen that way, so it didn't...end of story, okay?

But...since we're on a fact finding mission and getting the timeline straight, let me quickly mention something else about that Turbonetic 72BB turbo! Here's something that's not posted and what the tb.com readers don't know...guess what? That 72BB is not (yes, I said not) a true Turbonetic turbo. It's a modified Turbonetic 70BB, that was upgraded with a 72mm wheel by Innovative, and that's a FACT Jack! So, to be really factual about the comparison, it's a "modified 72BB by Innovative vs PT70GTQ dyno test" thread . Maybe you didn't know it had been modified or maybe you forgot! Maybe there's something just plain wrong with the 72 period. Hey, remember that wiggle room I mentioned I'd leave you earlier? There it is.

Again, I'm not trying to trash the thread, call anyone names nor annoy anyone. I've spent a ton (to me) of money on turbos from Limit and PTE, so the results matters not to me. All I was trying to say was, the numbers seemed initially low for a 72mm @ 30psi and GN1 or even "R" heads. It could have been a mismatched combo, bad tune, or even a wounded turbo. I know that a 70GTQ rocks (heck, I've got a GTQ turbo) but I as well as a bunch of others on here also know that an "old school technology 72Q" will haul the freight too. But like you alluded to, facts and/or corrections to this thread aside, the customer is happy with his 70GTQ and at the COB (close of business) that's all that matters.

Like Nextel...I'm DONE!

-Bobby

 

[NEARING]

OUCH!

 

[EightSecV6]

Really dont know why I am even responding BUT....I am so passed this internet bashing thing,I have absolutely nothing to gain from being dishonest!!!!.Talk to the owner, bring the car over on a Sunday with the 72 back on it and make 3 pulls on the dyno, I'll let you tune it, tweak it, bend it , break it or whatever you have to do, you'll have my program in the FAST so it wont be lopsided,you should be close, we'll put the GTQ 70 back on it and pull it 3 more times at a lower boost level and I guarantee the results will back my "BS CLAIMS". I will offer the dyno time FREE, but we will have to make a little wager so it is interesting. I know I can get the owner to agree to this, NO PROBLEM! If you get the 72 to make more HP than the GTQ , you get a little $$$$$$ and bragging rights! If I get the GTQ to make more than the 72, I get a little $$$$ and blow ANOTHER day off! I am again not pointing fingers or slinging mud, I do have a problem when my integrity is questioned but that is just me. Would that make it fair? I dont need ANY WIGGLE ROOM (except in my waistline, its been gettin a little tight but thanks for the offer!)I was pretty sure .5 would speak for itself instead of just dyno #'s (closer to .8 with your et #'s) but I guess not. The offer is open, lets make it fun! Sorry if I offended anyone, I'll be sure to keep quiet from now on!

 

[WFO]

Originally posted by Ted A.

I'd like to see that 88 turbo run on that 231" stock block car.

I saw it,it was Ryan Guy last year at Turbo Thunder.

He used nitrous to spool the turbo and went 9.96 @ 136 with iron heads.

 

[John Wilde]

Originally posted by EightSecV6
Really I'll be sure to keep quiet from now on!

Bill,

I like to read your posts and appreciate when you share your information.

Thanks

 

[Bmason]

I guess I wasn't DONE (Nextel reference) after all.

Billy, I'm not implying that you were dishonest and that's where the whole thing gets messed up. What I will say is that you're too busy trying to defend the merits of the PT70GTQ and what you're taking as a personal attack on your integrity, that you're missing what's being asked and stated! Not one person that I can remember said why did the GTQ make "X" amount or question the numbers you reported on the GTQ. What was questioned was, why did the 72BB only make "X". Even with that, it was suggested that maybe the combo changed or was mismatched , or perhaps the tune was off or even the turbo was hurt. I personally didn't attack your integrity, but I guess questioning the results of one turbo and not praising the other is doing just that. I guess I should follow your lead and "keep quiet from now own" too. I think if you, me and everyone else would just quit being defensive about nothing, then maybe we'd all learn something about this new GTQ technology, especially at what boost it really comes to life.

As for me testing and tuning on someone else's car and betting my money on which turbo is better, I'll leave that to you and whomever, especially since I didn't question which is better. I too am beyond the internet bashing and really don't need anyone's internet bragging rights! You can have it..."way to go, you're the man! Remember, I said I know (personally) that the 70GTQ rocks.

What I initially didn't like about not being able to edit posts on this site, I take back. In this scenario it's good to be able and go back and really see how things developed and who said what, when, and where. The sharing of information is what this is supposed to be about, right? I like reading certain individual's posts more than others simply because I expect a certain degree of substance. But let's not take the mindset of "we should not ask questions because it can be taken as if we're questioning someone's integrity" .

People, if you can't see the forest for the trees...then none of the above will make sense at all.

Since I closed with Nextel the last time I'll use Verizon this time...Can you hear me now? Good!

-Bobby

 

[REDS HOT AIR]

What you talkin bout Willis

BMason : hope to see you at a dyno soon ...hopefully Nearings car will be ok after we see what that 70 p-trim bb turbonetics can put out

I didnt dought the numbers the gtq put down.. I just dont and wont believe a 72 q-trim cant put down over 516 on a gn1 headed motor

maybe I could sell him my stock valved heads (186 cfm) they made more than that with a p-trim 70 garrett exaust housing / turbonetics intake side housings

still not fine tuned with 133 mph trap at 3450 # race weight still sucking thru a factory maf and a turbo tweak chip and a $50 camshaft.. thats what makes it hard to believe the #'s made with that 72...

aint this bad were arguing that a car only made 516 at the wheels and it should have been more ...what other kind of car sites can complain about 516 rwhp gotta love turbo buicks

 

[HighPSI]

Wow! As much of a beating that Billy is taking, I'm afraid to see what will be said when The GM High-Tech article comes out next month.

 

[Louie L.]

 

[n20junkie]

where do i sign up for the free dyno time on someone elses car, i'll be there tomarrow morning and i will bring doughnuts
Grant

 

[steveX]

Man this what i like. A bounch of member speaking FACTS. I enjoy reading this post and the only thing i can say is. I am VERY glad i bought a T 71 GTQ 3 bolt turbo. I have push the 4.1 stage II motor project for next year summer.

Looking to go 9`s with a .030 109 motor. with a 38 under the seat.

 

[420]

Originally posted by Bmason
What was questioned was, why did the 72BB only make "X". Even with that, it was suggested that maybe the combo changed or was mismatched , or perhaps the tune was off or even the turbo was hurt.

I didnt dought the numbers the gtq put down.. I just dont and wont believe a 72 q-trim cant put down over 516 on a gn1 headed motor

Thats the heart of the matter right there. You will get no arguement from me about the GTQ technology being superior. My concern is simply about the concept of the 72BB being unable to make more power to the wheels than it did. I'm certainly not saying you are lying or trying to mislead about ANYTHING, Bill. I just for the life of me don't understand why that turbo is unable to make more power... I'm hoping you can help myself and the others understand this, so that we can all have a better grasp of how some of this voodoo works