Garrett 38R 1.0 vs 1.15 dyno test

CSIPSD · May 8, 2012

Powerstroked162 said:
Lol, they did not change anything spec wise.... Sooooo unless the tech guy at Honeywell lied to me, you are confused and mislead.

I did turn over a new leaf, thank you for noticing. That new leaf however still carries no tolerance for people making other people dumber because they don't know what they are talking about. Now, if you have some before and after CAD or solid worxs drawings of the changes, or some diemensional differences that you collected, please, post up. If you are gonna continue to base your theory off facts like "so and so said its louder and it smells different" well then please stop.

Thanks joe

Of course your right Steve...

Honeywell spent thousands of dollars to retool the turbo, just because they thought it would pay off for the 30 units a month they might sell...

Tom S · May 8, 2012

I also would be more inclined to think they made a change then not given information I have. I was reading endlessly about the 38r right around the time they were out of production. The change could have been something small like getting tolerances back dialed in or something.

CSIPSD · May 8, 2012

Tom S said:
I also would be more inclined to think they made a change then not given information I have. I was reading endlessly about the 38r right around the time they were out of production. The change could have been something small like getting tolerances back dialed in or something.

Nope Tom... Steve said they didnt change a thing, they just spent thousands of dollars because they like to spend money... And Honeywell is known for just laying it all out there.

Powerstroked162 · May 8, 2012

CSIPSD said:
Nope Tom... Steve said they didnt change a thing, they just spent thousands of dollars because they like to spend money... And Honeywell is known for just laying it all out there.

Please reference post #52.... then when finished, please see post #56.

Post up what you know, not what you think. Thanks Joe

average · May 8, 2012

Big Bore · May 8, 2012

So am I reading correctly that the "retooling" was not a "redesign" or change of spec for the turbo, but a bringing of tooling back into original spec? Could this maybe be a point of misunderstanding?

CSIPSD · May 8, 2012

Big Bore said:
So am I reading correctly that the "retooling" was not a "redesign" or change of spec for the turbo, but a bringing of tooling back into original spec? Could this maybe be a point of misunderstanding?

Nope... Steve said nothing was changed, that means nothing was changed...

Steve's always right and knows everything.

Big Bore · May 8, 2012

CSIPSD said:
Nope... Steve said nothing was changed, that means nothing was changed...

Steve's always right and knows everything.

You two need to get a room.

Diezel Dawg · May 8, 2012

How about a retooling of the machine that makes the housing castings, rather than a retooling of the turbo itself

Sent from my EVO 3D on the East Side

Power Hungry · May 9, 2012

sniper_101 said:
I read you said no significant difference, but how noticeable was the difference in lag/spool with the different housings (curious for possible future use with my manual trans)? How well does the 38R hold up at these levels? What's the elevation at your dyno PHP?

These to-the-point, extremely informative threads with actual numbers and documentation are awesome, thanks!

Our elevation is about 800 Ft. I didn't notice any difference in lag/spool between the housings while running loaded on the dyno. Truck feels very responsive with both housings and the dyno didn't show a significant loss with the 1.15 housing, so I'd say you could go either way.

My biggest thing between the housing was that the cost factor seemed to outweigh any perceived EGT/Backpressure benefits of the looser housing. The 1.0 housing runs fine at this point with no surging as of yet. Now, I have not put a trailer on the back or anything like that so I can't say 100% that there isn't any surge with the 1.0 housing, but I'll wait until we get the new tranny installed before I proceed any further since the tranny and converter is going change the loading on the engine. We'll fine tune after that and if it is deemed necessary we'll change back to the 1.15 housing. At this point, I don't see the need to.

Lowdown89 · May 10, 2012

Power Hungry said:
Our elevation is about 800 Ft. I didn't notice any difference in lag/spool between the housings while running loaded on the dyno. Truck feels very responsive with both housings and the dyno didn't show a significant loss with the 1.15 housing, so I'd say you could go either way.

My biggest thing between the housing was that the cost factor seemed to outweigh any perceived EGT/Backpressure benefits of the looser housing. The 1.0 housing runs fine at this point with no surging as of yet. Now, I have not put a trailer on the back or anything like that so I can't say 100% that there isn't any surge with the 1.0 housing, but I'll wait until we get the new tranny installed before I proceed any further since the tranny and converter is going change the loading on the engine. We'll fine tune after that and if it is deemed necessary we'll change back to the 1.15 housing. At this point, I don't see the need to.

Twisted said they were shipping the trans this past friday so hopefully it will be in your hands ASAP! Im bringing it as soon as is in my possession

TARM · May 10, 2012

Bill.

With that dyno how much can you load it? Couldn't you simulate weight of pulling a trailer?

Power Hungry · May 10, 2012

I can put as much load on it as I'd like. I just have to watch as the heavier I load the dyno, the hotter the brake gets and the less time I can run it. Not a big deal though. I've put a 25000 Lb load on the dyno before and damn near stalled the truck. LOL

Hotrodtractor · May 10, 2012

Power Hungry said:
I can put as much load on it as I'd like. I just have to watch as the heavier I load the dyno, the hotter the brake gets and the less time I can run it. Not a big deal though. I've put a 25000 Lb load on the dyno before and damn near stalled the truck. LOL

I was on a Mustang load cell back in 2007 - we put 30K (I think?) on the load - and I held it something like 450hp for a full minute.... that load cell was HOT... and you couldn't see across the shop for about 10 minutes after that..... with overhead doors on both sides of the shop open... LOL I so wish I had a picture/video of that.

Power Hungry · May 10, 2012

What size Mustang was it? MD-250? MD-500? We have an MD-250 and I've done 420 HP full throttle loaded tests on my 6.0L for a minute or two and it gets pretty warm. Have to keep fans on the brake to help avoid any temp concerns.

Hotrodtractor · May 10, 2012

Power Hungry said:
What size Mustang was it? MD-250? MD-500? We have an MD-250 and I've done 420 HP full throttle loaded tests on my 6.0L for a minute or two and it gets pretty warm. Have to keep fans on the brake to help avoid any temp concerns.

I'm not sure what model it was - but it was a single load cell in a pit and in the middle of the afternoon at a dyno day so it was getting worked pretty good. That was back in 2007 and my first time running a "big" turbo on a dyno - learned an awful lot since then. LOL

lincolnlocker · May 10, 2012

won't the tighter stronger holding trans help put more power to the rollers?

TARM · May 10, 2012

If you had slipping clutches or converter, yes.

sniper_101 · May 10, 2012

Power Hungry said:
Our elevation is about 800 Ft. I didn't notice any difference in lag/spool between the housings while running loaded on the dyno. Truck feels very responsive with both housings and the dyno didn't show a significant loss with the 1.15 housing, so I'd say you could go either way.

My biggest thing between the housing was that the cost factor seemed to outweigh any perceived EGT/Backpressure benefits of the looser housing. The 1.0 housing runs fine at this point with no surging as of yet. Now, I have not put a trailer on the back or anything like that so I can't say 100% that there isn't any surge with the 1.0 housing, but I'll wait until we get the new tranny installed before I proceed any further since the tranny and converter is going change the loading on the engine. We'll fine tune after that and if it is deemed necessary we'll change back to the 1.15 housing. At this point, I don't see the need to.

Thanks for the detailed insight, greatly appreciated! Keep us updated!

PS - Nice truck, and numbers Lowdown89 :drool: