new pt 88 turbo vs Y2K turbonetics 88
- Thread starter odell4o8
- Start date
Welcome!
By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
If I had to make a guess it would be for the PT version.Here is a link with some info:http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135485
turbos,
I really dont need to guess, i have enought parts laying around that someone guessed would work better than what i was using at the time, Joe if you have done any research on the Y2K=88, im going to buy a 4788pt if it is better for my engine than the old pt 88 that i have three of, and i really dont care how much power it makes on some light weight foreign car, my concern is a 270 inch engine and 3550lbs regal body, thanks oc,
I really dont need to guess, i have enought parts laying around that someone guessed would work better than what i was using at the time, Joe if you have done any research on the Y2K=88, im going to buy a 4788pt if it is better for my engine than the old pt 88 that i have three of, and i really dont care how much power it makes on some light weight foreign car, my concern is a 270 inch engine and 3550lbs regal body, thanks oc,
Joe Lubrant
" The Right Stuff "
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
- Messages
- 587
Re: turbos,
Hi OC
I have not done any research on the Y2K 88, only what is printed in the Turbonetics catalog. The Turbo's physical dimensions are larger than the current PT88 that you, Cal, Dave, myself etc. are running.
The Y2K 80 & 88mm are indicated as being available in Ball Bearing Only (Page 17 2004 Catalog) and claim to support up to 1200hp. This would be in the range of the claimed hp of the current PT88.
It uses a larger turbine housing flange T5 vs PT88 T4, the turbine housing appears to be somewhat larger also. It also incorporates a 5"+ASME Bell mouthed style inlet vs the 4"+ type the PT88 uses.
Is the Y2K 88mm Underated? Not sure? I guess we will find out.
As you know, I stated on the GSCA board, that I would concede to allowing the Turbonetics Y2K type (Mid-Frame) style turbo's.
I still feel the TSO rules should still disallow THUMPER Large Frame turbo's for this class, not sure but I think even Jack C. might also agree? Remember most of the turbo issue's surrounded turbo's like what Jack was running. He of course was using an 80mm version, but an 88 could also be used per current rule proposed.
So in essence a Y2K 80 or 88 would be proposed as Legal. Since Turbonetics in an earlier catalog referenced them as a mid frame style, not full Thumper.
Large frame turbo's by Turbonetics, PTE, and others are normally configured in 91mm on up to 106mm, but they also can incorporate 88mm wheel configurations as an option. This is where the conflict lies. The 88mm configuration in the large frame packages will far exceed the power produced by Mid-frame T4, and STANDARD Y2K packages.
OC Both Cal & Dave I believe have run 8.6-8.7's at legal weight when then had to. I don't think you can fault the PT88 for your times, since your car is somewhat heavy for the class minimum.
As far as power, the PT88 3-bolt with a restrictive 3" DP on my 3700#car in 2000 TSE trim went 9.13 @ 153.55mph. If you use the mph as a basis it made approx. 1040hp to the wheels.
Cal's 8.57@159mph at 3340/3360# was in the 1050hp range, so the power potential of the PT88 is there and proven.
The 47/88 turbo will provide additional HP potential, but the Engine efficency and total combination has to be there in order to utilize it. This goes for any engine/turbo combination.
I am not saying that you have to buy a larger turbo to go faster.
Its like I can't get any traction should I get bigger tires, or should I get my suspension straightened out?
I would hold off to see what the final rules shake out to be.
Cal posted he will not change his combo, and I will stay with my current PT88 configuration also.
BTW no weight breaks 8.5" rears....they use less power to drive then them big Ford 9" rears
Hi OC
I have not done any research on the Y2K 88, only what is printed in the Turbonetics catalog. The Turbo's physical dimensions are larger than the current PT88 that you, Cal, Dave, myself etc. are running.
The Y2K 80 & 88mm are indicated as being available in Ball Bearing Only (Page 17 2004 Catalog) and claim to support up to 1200hp. This would be in the range of the claimed hp of the current PT88.
It uses a larger turbine housing flange T5 vs PT88 T4, the turbine housing appears to be somewhat larger also. It also incorporates a 5"+ASME Bell mouthed style inlet vs the 4"+ type the PT88 uses.
Is the Y2K 88mm Underated? Not sure? I guess we will find out.
As you know, I stated on the GSCA board, that I would concede to allowing the Turbonetics Y2K type (Mid-Frame) style turbo's.
I still feel the TSO rules should still disallow THUMPER Large Frame turbo's for this class, not sure but I think even Jack C. might also agree? Remember most of the turbo issue's surrounded turbo's like what Jack was running. He of course was using an 80mm version, but an 88 could also be used per current rule proposed.
So in essence a Y2K 80 or 88 would be proposed as Legal. Since Turbonetics in an earlier catalog referenced them as a mid frame style, not full Thumper.
Large frame turbo's by Turbonetics, PTE, and others are normally configured in 91mm on up to 106mm, but they also can incorporate 88mm wheel configurations as an option. This is where the conflict lies. The 88mm configuration in the large frame packages will far exceed the power produced by Mid-frame T4, and STANDARD Y2K packages.
OC Both Cal & Dave I believe have run 8.6-8.7's at legal weight when then had to. I don't think you can fault the PT88 for your times, since your car is somewhat heavy for the class minimum.
As far as power, the PT88 3-bolt with a restrictive 3" DP on my 3700#car in 2000 TSE trim went 9.13 @ 153.55mph. If you use the mph as a basis it made approx. 1040hp to the wheels.
Cal's 8.57@159mph at 3340/3360# was in the 1050hp range, so the power potential of the PT88 is there and proven.
The 47/88 turbo will provide additional HP potential, but the Engine efficency and total combination has to be there in order to utilize it. This goes for any engine/turbo combination.
I am not saying that you have to buy a larger turbo to go faster.
Its like I can't get any traction should I get bigger tires, or should I get my suspension straightened out?
I would hold off to see what the final rules shake out to be.
Cal posted he will not change his combo, and I will stay with my current PT88 configuration also.
BTW no weight breaks 8.5" rears....they use less power to drive then them big Ford 9" rears
- Joined
- May 27, 2001
- Messages
- 10,866
Turbonetics Y2K is rated at 1400HP and comes with the ball bearing for a retail of $2550.
Rick Head @ Innovative Turbo has the following, please keep in mind that Rick is realistic in his HP Ratings.
-Mid Frame GTB88 1300HP @ $2000
-Large Frame GTB 1450HP @ $2400
Rick Head @ Innovative Turbo has the following, please keep in mind that Rick is realistic in his HP Ratings.
-Mid Frame GTB88 1300HP @ $2000
-Large Frame GTB 1450HP @ $2400
turbos
Thanks joe, i have read all about the turbonetics turbos, a local speed shop[mustang racer] runs a 101mm turbonetics and it is a monster compaired to my pte 88, my pt 88 turbos are not updated like the one i broke, and they dont spool as good as the broke one did, i know how fast that i have run, and i think i know how much faster that i can go, i dont run my car on full boost when there is no need for it, ill wait untill the rules are made before i buy a updated turbo thanks oc,
Thanks joe, i have read all about the turbonetics turbos, a local speed shop[mustang racer] runs a 101mm turbonetics and it is a monster compaired to my pte 88, my pt 88 turbos are not updated like the one i broke, and they dont spool as good as the broke one did, i know how fast that i have run, and i think i know how much faster that i can go, i dont run my car on full boost when there is no need for it, ill wait untill the rules are made before i buy a updated turbo thanks oc,
In looking to next year......got a quick question will either of these turbos just "bolt on" with ATR 4 bolt headers or does anything need to be moved or re-arranged?
I am sure I'd need a new downpipe too...........dang this hobby is expensive.........lol.
Thanks
I am sure I'd need a new downpipe too...........dang this hobby is expensive.........lol.
Thanks
J
JCotton
Guest
Rich, what turbos are you talking about? The Y2K has a T5 flange and will require a different flange on your ATR headers. I modified mine, moved the flange forward and down a bit, made up a solid support brackett and lovin it. Clearance and easy assess to everything is a plus. IC pipes fit like they were made for it. As a side note, I am selling an almost new PT88 for a customer if anyone is interested, he updated to something else..... 
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Sticky
