Let's talk EVO III GT. No bashing please.

TSiWarrior · Mar 10, 2006

I've been reading and doing searches over the past week about this turbo. I've found very conflicting results. Im still completely undecided on what way to go. I have seen MHI evo III's performing well, and I know poeple who say the've seen actual EVI III GT's performing well. I found this article on turbochargers.com

http://www.turbochargers.com/evo316g.htm

After reading that I've been wondering why people are calling their turbo out as junk. It's made in the same area as most every other turbo so im not understanding where the hatred is comming from.

Can you guys provide me with some actual facts and your best knowlege of the two? All the other threads about these turbos went to shit with people basing and making noobie/idiotic remarks.

Let's try to have a civilized discussion about these turbos.

Thanks.

Stapl3 · Mar 10, 2006

The horse is dead, please stop kicking it.

There's tons of shit on the turbo on this forum.

TSiWarrior · Mar 10, 2006

I know, I've read. Im asking for poeple who actully know what they are talking about to respond.

fastezz · Mar 10, 2006

I would have bought it but i actually wussed out for testing for once i just bought the evo3 from turbochargers.com (484 shipped) and bought a 34mm flapper (27 shipped) from sbr and spent 2 hours porting it out. I payed a little less and its a little more proven which i feel better about.

I will not jump on the bandwagon and say the gt is a crappy turbo, I think it all looks like a good design. I heard one bad thing about it froma local dsm`er that says it blew after he went arounf the block but who knows shit happens. I think the sbr test of the bearings was good but pointless, depending on the clearances and the design and hardness of the shaft the softer bearings are probably perfect for it. I think its awsome it comes with the 34mm flapper, ported out more, stronger turbine housing and thicker compressor wheel. The only small flaw i see visually is the housing could be ported out a little more judging by the pictures but thats about it.

Ryan

Steve93Talon · Mar 10, 2006

1. The 34mm wastegate is a downgrade, NOT an upgrade. Unless you're trying to run under 20psi, you don't need a bigger flapper on this turbo. All it's going to do is blow open and not hold boost to redline. And if you're not planning on running over 20psi, you're better off with a 14b anyway. Even at low boost, if it is creeping, all it takes is some porting of the wastegate passage and an o2 dump to fix it.

2. The real EVO 16g has thinner blades than the regular big 16g. This is why it's more efficient at high boost. Remember, the volume of air that can pass through the wheel is determined not only by the size of the wheel, but also by the amount of volume between each blade. The knock-off's blades are at least as thick as a regular B16g.

3. Regardless of how well they hold up (which is still a subject of debate and won't be settled for years), we already know the track record of the MHI product. It's been used as an OEM turbo on the EVO 3 reliably and by DSMers at high boost for years with a very low failure rate.

4. It's been deceptively marketed. They call it an EVO 3 16g, when it is neither from an EVO 3 nor a 16g. If they'd called it the TC400 or something, and priced it $50-100 LESS than a real MHI, I think none of this controversy would exist, more people would have tried them, and the DSM community would benefit.

Tom N · Mar 10, 2006

Steve93Talon said:
1. The 34mm wastegate is a downgrade, NOT an upgrade. Unless you're trying to run under 20psi, you don't need a bigger flapper on this turbo. All it's going to do is blow open and not hold boost to redline. And if you're not planning on running over 20psi, you're better off with a 14b anyway. Even at low boost, if it is creeping, all it takes is some porting of the wastegate passage and an o2 dump to fix it.

2. The real EVO 16g has thinner blades than the regular big 16g. This is why it's more efficient at high boost. Remember, the volume of air that can pass through the wheel is determined not only by the size of the wheel, but also by the amount of volume between each blade. The knock-off's blades are at least as thick as a regular B16g.

3. Regardless of how well they hold up (which is still a subject of debate and won't be settled for years), we already know the track record of the MHI product. It's been used as an OEM turbo on the EVO 3 reliably and by DSMers at high boost for years with a very low failure rate.

4. It's been deceptively marketed. They call it an EVO 3 16g, when it is neither from an EVO 3 nor a 16g. If they'd called it the TC400 or something, and priced it $50-100 LESS than a real MHI, I think none of this controversy would exist, more people would have tried them, and the DSM community would benefit.

1. Definitely agree.

2.Take this how you will but i did a back to back test between a mhi and gt evo316g.
With the use of dsm link and a aem 3.5 bar map sensor i logged slightly more airflow at the same boost levels with the GT turbo. I also managed faster times at the track with the GT.

3. I do in a sense agree with this. I have heard of people having no issues with the GT and some that have had issues. Of coarse we never really know the full story as to why a turbo goes bad. Its always the turbo`s fault.

4. Definitely agree.

dsm-onster · Mar 10, 2006

I've held my tongue read every thread I can and this is my take: I think this is a clear case of poor marketing strategy. Like everyone is saying, if it had been simply named differently, I believe it would have changed everyones point of view. Of course I am being stereotypical, but us DSMers are inherently anal retentive and closed minded when it comes to a new/different product/procedure to go dow the 1320 a little quicker. MAn, I remember when there were countless threads on water injection being a band-aid and propane injection a "diesel thing". . .

90tsiawd said:
Take this how you will but i did a back to back test between a mhi and gt evo316g. With the use of dsm link and a aem 3.5 bar map sensor i logged slightly more airflow at the same boost levels with the GT turbo. I also managed faster times at the track with the GT.

Obviously, the evo3 gt wheel has then been tested to be more efficient, as this is a report of a lb/min number at the same boost with the same setup on back to back runs.

People whine about failures. And they will until the end of automobiles. . .

BlackbirdOfPrey · Mar 10, 2006

I see this as a dice roll at best. With the MHI you don't have to, but with the GT, you always have that small chance of rolling snakeyes.

95redtransam · Mar 10, 2006

My GT has ran great ever since I put it on over 10k miles ago. Great quality turbo holds boost all the way to redline.

boostedinaz · Mar 10, 2006

BlackbirdOfPrey said:
I see this as a dice roll at best. With the MHI you don't have to, but with the GT, you always have that small chance of rolling snakeyes.

Exaclty this is ALL there is to it NOTHING more.

The MHI unit is a proven unit.

The GT is not proven yet and ONLY time can do that.

NO matter what people say and what "proof" they bring it all comes down to what YOU want to do with YOUR car. Do you want to spend a bit more for a proven turbo or do you want to roll the dice on the GT? Some have had problems with the GT some have had great sucess it can and will go either way.

No matter how many threads are opened no matter how many different ways we can spin the question there is NO correct answer.

fwdeclipse · Mar 10, 2006

95redtransam said:
My GT has ran great ever since I put it on over 10k miles ago. Great quality turbo holds boost all the way to redline.

Out of curiousity how many psi of boost have you ran on this turbo.Im ready to upgrade my 14b and will prob buy the MHI but still not 100% sure.I want to know how many lbs of boost you can run with the bigger flapper.

TSiWarrior · Mar 10, 2006

Thank's for the responses. Very good information in this thread already. Although I guess the real question now is... Is the benfit of the evo III GT really worth takeing the chance on a less proven turbo? If running 2 more psi on the MHI will outperform the EVI III GT then I'd rather go with the MHI. I'd rather run 2psi extra to get the same mark then run the GT 2psi lower and run the risk.

boostedinaz · Mar 10, 2006

TSiWarrior said:
Thank's for the responses. Very good information in this thread already. Although I guess the real question now is... Is the benfit of the evo III GT really worth takeing the chance on a less proven turbo? If running 2 more psi on the MHI will outperform the EVI III GT then I'd rather go with the MHI. I'd rather run 2psi extra to get the same mark then run the GT 2psi lower and run the risk.

It is not a matter of 2psi.

Both turbos, giving that they work correctly, will make power. Don't base your decision off of a 1/2 hp differene you will never feel.

prostreetdsmx1 · Mar 10, 2006

man i am so glad to see there is finally civil discussion about this. :thumb:

BlackbirdOfPrey · Mar 10, 2006

prostreetdsmx1 said:
man i am so glad to see there is finally civil discussion about this.

SHHHHHH! be quiet! or all the flamethrowers will find out about this thread and ruin it!

dsm-onster · Mar 10, 2006

This thread will probably stop here for a few months... as we really, truely do not have enough history with this newer turbo.

DSM90AWD · Mar 11, 2006

I agree. This turbo has been out now for what, a little over a year-and a half. Most turbo failures are the result of installation/operator error and happen very quickly. So for reliability testing, a year (hell they're warrantied for a year) is minimum to make any real conclusions.

I would think with the negativity surrounding this turbo, if one did fail prematurely/not perform as well as the EVOIII, that person would not be so inclined to come forward to report, nor post results on the 1/4 Mile Times/DSMTimes.

I think it would be a great idea for TC.com to step up in support and have a contest (much like what BEP did last year), and reward the quickest and/or most documented whp "GT" turbo, and maybe do such at a major event (Buschur Shootout).

For now, lets all keep an open mind and not buy into the "hype" either way since there are postitives/negatives to both

Tom N · Mar 11, 2006

DSM90AWD said:
I agree. This turbo has been out now for what, a little over a year-and a half. Most turbo failures are the result of installation/operator error and happen very quickly. So for reliability testing, a year (hell they're warrantied for a year) is minimum to make any real conclusions.

I would think with the negativity surrounding this turbo, if one did fail prematurely/not perform as well as the EVOIII, that person would not be so inclined to come forward to report, nor post results on the 1/4 Mile Times/DSMTimes.

I think it would be a great idea for TC.com to step up in support and have a contest (much like what BEP did last year), and reward the quickest and/or most documented whp "GT" turbo, and maybe do such at a major event (Buschur Shootout).

For now, lets all keep an open mind and not buy into the "hype" either way since there are postitives/negatives to both

The GT is going to win then.
I have already documented what I did with the GT and the turbo is now going on the Good will car. It is going to run 9`s on it.

Ooops did i just say that out loud.

dsm-onster · Mar 11, 2006

90tsiawd said:
The GT is going to win then.
I have already documented what I did with the GT and the turbo is now going on the Good will car. It is going to run 9`s on it.
Ooops did i just say that out loud.

Yes you did TYPE that. . . out loud? yea.

Awesome! No matter what the results I appreciate your out of the box thinking and even attempting to take a turbo with a negative cloud around it down the track for a record...

ShapeGSX · Mar 11, 2006

90tsiawd said:
The GT is going to win then.
I have already documented what I did with the GT and the turbo is now going on the Good will car. It is going to run 9`s on it.
Ooops did i just say that out loud.

Your turbo has an MHI Evo III 16G exhaust housing, though, right? If anything, the GT's ported exhaust housing is its achilles heel. Throw the original housing back on the thing first.

dsm-onster · Mar 11, 2006

ShapeGSX said:
Your turbo has an MHI Evo III 16G exhaust housing, though, right? If anything, the GT's ported exhaust housing is its achilles heel. Throw the original housing back on the thing first.

Hey Shape. So the EVO GT turbine housing has a smaller a/r or what? I really know nothing about the specs of the EVO GT (compressor flow rating, a/r's, trim, diameters). . .

ShapeGSX · Mar 12, 2006

dsm-onster said:
Hey Shape. So the EVO GT turbine housing has a smaller a/r or what? I really know nothing about the specs of the EVO GT (compressor flow rating, a/r's, trim, diameters). . .

I have no idea about the A/R of the GT, either. I would assume that they want it to be the same as the 7cm housing, but I'm sure it is easy to make a mistake when you are making a copy.

All I know is that it has a ported wastegate and a larger flapper valve, and that causes boost to fall off.

DSM90AWD · Mar 12, 2006

ShapeGSX said:
All I know is that it has a ported wastegate and a larger flapper valve, and that causes boost to fall off.

I think if Joe was clever enough to get 25psi out of an internally WG 14B and anemic 6cm housing, he'll do fine

I'd ASSume now that the budget's been loosened as of late, would entertain the idea of an external.

Regardless, that car with any TD05-based turbo would be a record. Would bet without a turbo would be an NT record

94awdcoupe · Mar 12, 2006

I have a mitsu 16 on my evo 1. I ported the flapper hole without taking the flapper out. Holds 14.5 psi to redline. The large flapper is NOT the way to go. They do blow open at high boost.

I would not buy the evo GT turbo just to save 50 bucks. Vender makes 50 on the evo16. and 150 on the GT. Yes they are cheap. And yes the failure rate is likely high. But for what they cost they can offer that no questions asked warranty.

There is no way the GT turbo outperforms the MHI version. I call mistest on Toms above observation. He scratches his head as to why it flowed more. Obviously he missed some other small change that was made betwen the two. There could be 100 reasons why.

In short I say support mitsubishi. They designed a kick azz turbo, NOT Tiawan.

dsm-onster · Mar 12, 2006

4G63-GST said:
I have a mitsu 16 on my evo 1. I ported the flapper hole without taking the flapper out. Holds 14.5 psi to redline. The large flapper is NOT the way to go. They do blow open at high boost.

I would not buy the evo GT turbo just to save 50 bucks. Vender makes 50 on the evo16. and 150 on the GT. Yes they are cheap. And yes the failure rate is likely high. But for what they cost they can offer that no questions asked warranty.

There is no way the GT turbo outperforms the MHI version. I call mistest on Toms above observation. He scratches his head as to why it flowed more. Obviously he missed some other small change that was made betwen the two. There could be 100 reasons why.

In short I say support mitsubishi. They designed a kick azz turbo, NOT Tiawan.

You call "mistest"? You have a counter-test? Or where you there when the testing was done by 90tsiawd? You know any of this first hand? Anything less is hearsay and strictly opinion. Remember we wanted this thread to be a delivery of actual facts...

Besides, there cannot be 100 reasons why the GT turbo out performed the MHI. only a handful. And all can be controlled to me a nonfactor rather easily.

The Central Hub for DSM Community and Information

Let's talk EVO III GT. No bashing please.

TSiWarrior

Stapl3

TSiWarrior

fastezz

Steve93Talon

Tom N

dsm-onster

BlackbirdOfPrey

95redtransam

boostedinaz

fwdeclipse

TSiWarrior

boostedinaz

prostreetdsmx1

BlackbirdOfPrey

dsm-onster

DSM90AWD

Tom N

dsm-onster

ShapeGSX

dsm-onster

ShapeGSX

DSM90AWD

94awdcoupe

dsm-onster

Similar threads

Latest posts

Build Thread Updates

Vendor Updates

Latest Classifieds