Has anyone used the new fp 68HTA turbo? It basically looks like a revamped 18g. But it flows 47lbs/min....pretty impressive. The only downside is the price...ouch. Any feedback would be appreciated.
Advertisement
To browse the forums without the advertisements above, Login/Register
I have definitely been looking. 47 lbs/min out of a stock looking compressor housing and a TD05 wheel seem unlikely, but FP are the magicians of bolt on turbos. It is really not that bad of a deal if you think about it. The numbers say it should put down power close to that of a bolt on PTE 50 trims (the hta 68 is down what 3 lb/min) and a bolt on 50 trim setup generally costs at least 1k if you buy it new, with the proper oil feed, restrictors (if necessary) and oil drain. its really what you want. If you want to have a super sleeper, I would say the hta68 would be all you, if you want someone to look under the hood and say HOLY CRAP look at that thing, go to something bigger.
The WRX guys are raving about it on NASIOC. By my rough estimate, its got about +1 lb/min over an 18g, about +3.3 lb/min over an EVO316g, but about -2 lb/min shy of a 20g. I think the guys that would normally buy an 18g would probably buy the FP 68hta, but the guys who would normally buy an EVO3 16g or 20g would buy those respective turbos anyways due to the price/performance tradeoffs.
The WRX guys are raving about it on NASIOC. By my rough estimate, its got about +1 lb/min over an 18g, about +3.3 lb/min over an EVO316g, but about -2 lb/min shy of a 20g. I think the guys that would normally buy an 18g would probably buy the FP 68hta, but the guys who would normally buy an EVO3 16g or 20g would buy those respective turbos anyways due to the price/performance tradeoffs.
I don't know where you are getting your info from, but you are way off. We'll just use MAPerformance as a reference here. These are BRAND NEW prices and flow #s from MAP. As most know, MAP has some of the most competitive prices around, so I think they are fair to use.
From the looks of things, the price really isn't all that bad for what you get. It is $400 more than your average E316G but you get 10lb/min more. $100 more than the 18G and get 7lb/min more. $200 cheaper than the 20G and still getting 3lb/min more. We're talking a turbo that will make 50-trim power and most likely outspool it, for just $100 more? Sounds like a great deal to me!
I think you're both right, just depends on how you're looking at it.
It's not like we haven't logged evoIII 16g's at 44lbs/min+. Pretty sure that's more than 39.
pboglio is looking at the "real world" results that can be had and often are, whereas you're referencing MAP's own rating system, with merits of it's own.
I think you're both right, just depends on how you're looking at it.
It's not like we haven't logged evoIII 16g's at 44lbs/min+. Pretty sure that's more than 39.
pboglio is looking at the "real world" results that can be had and often are, whereas you're referencing MAP's own rating system, with merits of it's own.
I agree with you 100%. I was making a reference to the rated airflow numbers from an industry professional of the particular turbos in question to show the price vs. airflow differences. By no means am I saying that MAP are the hear-all, say-all experts, but they are proven members of the DSM community, so I hold their opinion highly.
Of course we all know that these turbos have all seen higher-than-rated airflow numbers. Myself, included. I didn't mean to come off harsh, I was just trying to use more true facts than "I've seen this on this car..." etc...
I don't know where you are getting your info from, but you are way off. We'll just use MAPerformance as a reference here. These are BRAND NEW prices and flow #s from MAP. As most know, MAP has some of the most competitive prices around, so I think they are fair to use.
From the looks of things, the price really isn't all that bad for what you get. It is $400 more than your average E316G but you get 10lb/min more. $100 more than the 18G and get 7lb/min more. $200 cheaper than the 20G and still getting 3lb/min more. We're talking a turbo that will make 50-trim power and most likely outspool it, for just $100 more? Sounds like a great deal to me!
I got my info from reading the MHI & Garrett maps directly, and talking with Robert from FP specifically on how they rated their FP 68 HTA. Before you start correcting me you better proof read your own airflow ratings, cause you've posted some incorrect data. Real quick here:
Does forcedperformance use Choke flow for all of their turbo's? Im thinking about getting this turbo. What do you think it would spool like? Just slightly faster than the 18g?
I'm defiantly interested in this too. I posted this turbo on here earlier this week in a different thread. Since my E3 took a dump and I have a built motor, I was thinking of going bigger than the E3 but also something with a internal gate.. Someone buy this and give flow rates and WHP.. we need a guinea pig.
Does forcedperformance use Choke flow for all of their turbo's? Im thinking about getting this turbo. What do you think it would spool like? Just slightly faster than the 18g?
Alot of reports on this compressor over at evolutionm.net have it spooling identical to a stock EVO turbo. How it performs spoolwise against an EVO3 16g remains to be seen.
It's not about good enough it's about making things better. . .
Anyway, Sonyslave, your application of the numbers you have on those turbos are just wrong. Choke flow is not what youre quoting. You're mixing flow at psi and choke flow. The choke flow of the 20g based on the map is about 48-49lb/min. Who doesn't run their turbo to 61% efficiency these days? This turbo looks to flow on the compressor side almost as much as the 20g, but with hta tech spools faster than other turbos with the same hotside. Yet the 20g still goes quite a bit beyond that. . . Hurray for finding ANOTHER nich between the evo3 16g and the 20g compressor other than the 18g. Still doesn't tackle the real problem of the td05h hotside at this level. . .and thus. . .
. . .Still baffling to me is why one would encourage using a compressor that flows more than an evo3 16g compressor with a td05h turbine wheel (same as 14b) AND the poor flowing 7cm^2 turbine housing that doesn't even have a centered volute or radiused entry . Sounds more as the "big wheel for bragging rights, small turbine to make sik spooo" like honda trend than anythign else. The td05h 7cm^2 hotside flows too poorly for the evo3 16g compressor IMHO.
BTW the twinscroll evo turbo spools a little faster than the evo3 16g turbo. It's been bouncing out consistantly higher HP numbers than the evo3 16g too.
This compressor with the td06sl2 turbine wheel would be the perfect turbo to kill an evo3 16g and should be just as streetable. IF the hta hype is real (I think it is). But that would be a little more expensive and marketability is dominated by price. . . No one really actually WANTS any turbo in the range of the 16g just to be better all around. Look at other turbos out there that could sweep the masses . Thus, Roots over tech, like with all older platforms.
____________________________
Matt
dd '90 GST, Holset H1C
I agree. It is no coincidence FP dropped their 18g, and replaced it with the FP 68HTA. Supposedly the 18g was discontinued. The 18g was never an easy sell. I can't say having an extra +33 h.p. over an EVO3 16g with minimal spool loss is a bad thing, but dropping nearly 1K for +33 h.p. is a bit much. The main problem is the EVO3 16g undercuts the price by almost half, and the 20g is nearly the same price with superior topend. It is slotted in an awkward position.
I don't know how restrictive the TD05H turbine section is, but this compressor has to be pushing what is reasonable.
The 18g flows 4lb/min over the evo3 16g at the same ambient conditions. Thats quite a bit more than 33whp. the 18g compressor is muc more close to the 20g in flow than the evo3 16g. FVcking idiots of old, they should have got it right: 16g spool with 20g topend.
The fp td06sl2 18g was only $150 over the cost of the evo3 16g.
The problem is no one really want s 430-490whp. The either want upt 400whp or over 500whp. The evo3 16g bearly eaks out 400whp and the 20g bearly eaks out 500whp. This is with experience in setup and great tuning. But in reality the market doesn't know what it wants. They would have been really happy if there was a turbo that could really spool almost as fast as a 16g yet flow almost as much as a 20g. In a stock looking package to boot. What a loss to the dsm community.
The 18g comrpessor is the right balance inbetween the evo3 16g and the 20g. The problem is in the hotside choice not the compressor. i'd like to see an htwuxisit turbine wheel that is inbetwee a td05 and td06 . . . But that is already the td06sl2 turbine wheel. It should be used with this compressor combination. It's easy to push a compressor when you have a a good flowing turbine wheel. You just might see the limit of the compressor without an exhaust manifold upgrade if you have a more balanced turbo
I'm all for hta tech. Proof is in the pudding. But this just looks like big compressor small turbine bull to me. Sorry but a td05h turbine wheel IN THE 7CM^@ TURBINE HOUSING isn't a gt30 .63 a/r hotside here. There's no underrating done. We all know what the hotside can do. You need LOTS of improvement to get it to do what even the evo3 16g compressor potential has to offer.
Still comes down to bigger turbine or a sh!t load of other upgrades to get what you want out of the compressor.
____________________________
Matt
dd '90 GST, Holset H1C
Hmm, last I heard the EVO 16g compressor was rated at 575 cfm, the 18g at 600 cfm, that isn't much.
No, I'm talking about the FP 68HTA at $925 vs. the EVO3 16g which is on sale off and on for $499. The peak choke flow difference is 3.3 lb/min, about 47 lb/min vs. 43.7 lb/min respectively. Thats what I'm refering to. The 18g difference with an EVO3 16g is even less than that.
Take a look at the maps. And not at the rpms. The e3 16g compressor map has another rpm curve that the same major diameter 18g and 20g compressor maps do not. There is a WHOLE lot more there than the 20g or 18g compressor maps lead on themselves. But if you really look at the map then you see. . .
The choke flow of the evo3 16g at the same ambient conditions as all the turbos discussed is 42-42.5 lb/min at most. . . Based on the map. . . You're giving that compressor 2lb/min credit, when were talking theory. The theory benefits the other compressors of the same design and manufacturer like the 18g and 20g.
Ratings are based on a static PR not peak flow at whatever PR that may require. Same issue that Sonyslave had.
____________________________
Matt
dd '90 GST, Holset H1C
Hmm....I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you on the EVO3 16g peak airflow. I have no doubt its as high and "possibly" higher than what I stated, I pulled 44.6 lb/min out of it at 46*F and that is thru a restrictive 2g MAF and not exactly an optimized intake system. If I temperature correct it back to 68*F I am already at what your stating as the choke flow, and that is breathing thru a 2g MAF, 2.25" compressor inlet pipe, and all the restriction of my FMIC intercooler.
I understand the 20g map has the entire top speed lines removed completely from the map. Your right, there is a ton left that isn't showing, which makes my point.
No. all I'm saying is that the 20g and 18g with the same compressor tip speeds have one less rpm line on the map than the evo3 16g. Whatever the 16g can do percentage over the map, the 18g and 20g can do two fold over that beyond their map. That is all I'm saying about that. The point is that the compressors, all of them are too much for the td05h turbine wheel and rediculously designed 7cm^2 turbine housing.
You just can't say the evo3 16g flows 20% past the map unless you say the same thing about the 18g and 20g then after that consider the fact that the 18g and 20g map dont even show the rpm speed that the same tip speed evo3 16g map has. There's no way the difference between the 16g and 18g is as close as you have stated.
With that said, the HTA turbo here needs a larger turbine. That's it. Else it's just a compressor with big flow potential and no reasonable way to get to it. Why build a compressor wheel IN BETWEEN an 18g and a 20g, without giving it some muscle on the other end to see that flow? So many already think the 4+ lb/min difference bwtween the evo3 16g and the 18g isn't enough of a difference and they'd rather go to the 20g compressor. . .
BTW, you're lb/min readings are based on some COLD ass inlet temps. It makes a BIG difference. Do the math with ambient temps you see and the typical 85 degrees using cfm or m^3/sec; and you'll see the same difference in my 42lb/min number (based on the map) and your number. An 18g on your setup with enough turbine to see the potential would be so very much better and would have looked no differnt that a 16g which looks very stock and easy to swap, but you can't buy a new one any more. . . The market didn't care, so it's not made.
What this comes down to is this, why would MHI underrate the evo3 16g compressor map and not the other MHI maps? Why use real world results of the evo3 16g compressor againt a map of the 18g or 20g compressor? Why not use real world results from both? There's infinismally less results for the latter so you will have a hard time. Yet this is still the right way to compare. The theory applies across the board. You can't just assume ONLY the evo3 16g is underrated on the map. AND you have to add another compressor rpm line to the underrating for the 18g and 20g. They simply are big compressors. . .
In the end, people don't know what wheels to match with what. And the td05h turbine wheel neds alot of support to get this new wheel's potential out to the tailpipe. It's bearly a good choice for the the evo3 16g compressor. It's a 14b turbine wheel for heavens sake!
____________________________
Matt
dd '90 GST, Holset H1C
Last edited by dsm-onster; 11-06-2009 at 04:15 PM.
Reason: "between the 16g and 18g", not "between the 20g and 18g" :)
Fact, the EVO 16g pulls 572 cfm at its rating and 636 cfm choked in 68*F temps. Right off the maps with a simple volume conversion.
Temperature correcting to 68*F from my 46*F run my 44.6 lb/min turns into 42.7 lb/min. How could it choke at 42.7 lb/min, when I ran it at 42.7 lb/min thru all the intake restrictions I mentioned. It would have to choke higher than that.
I don't know how FP tested their FP 68HTA and they may have tested thru an entire restrictive intake system already, I don't know cause they don't share this data. I do know how they tested their FP BLACK and it does look like it was thru an EVO MAF and intake system because they posted the whole thing on evolutionm.net.
At BEST, the 68HTA pulls +4.3 lb/min more than the EVO3 16g from ACTUAL test data I've just described. I think my car isn't the best example of an EVO3 16g equipped car and I think the difference is more like 3.3 lb/min. They couldn't have tested an intake system much worse than mine, and I guarantee their exhaust system was freer flowing.
The map shows 42lb/min at corrected ambient which you calculated. Your at the edge. You can float off the map if you want. But if you do, then you have to agree that the 18g and 20g can do the same. We all do it. No unexplored relm there.
Fact. Tip speed is the same between all these turbos. So however fast you spin the evo3 compressor you can spin the 18g compressor and 20g compressor.
Fact. all compressor flow the same cfm no matter the ambient temperature or pressure.
Whatever your evo3 16g can do, the 18g can do better at a percentage based on the maps. Your 16g goes x amount off the map, and the 18g can do the same. Then add the extra rpm line not considered on the map.
. . . What are you argueing? that the 18g compressor doesn't flow 4+ lb/min over the evo3 16g compressor at the same ambient conditions? Because you are using your real world data against just an 18g compressor map? Why would MHI underrate the evo3 16g compressor map and not the 18g or 20g or 14b or small 16g or any other map ????????
Map vs. map or real world vs. real world. Why would you use real world results from one turbo to compare with the compressor map of another when it is known the manufacturer underrates the maps???
____________________________
Matt
dd '90 GST, Holset H1C
Not sure what your arguing about but I'm talking about the flow rating of the EVO3 16g and comparing it to the stated choke flow of the FP 68HTA. I'm stating there isn't much more than +30 h.p. difference between'em and that it is a judgement call that spending almost double the price for +30 h.p. over the EVO3 16g is worth it. Hope that clears up what I'm talking about.
I don't know that MHI underrates their maps. When I do the conversion from m^3/s to lb/min I get some pretty high airflow numbers from the EVO 16g map. Looks like at 29.9 in Hg and 68*F it could choke as high as 47.7 lb/min actually if I use a volume flow of 636 cfm. You can play with the numbers and get any answer you want, but the EVO3 16g isn't choking at 42.7 lb/min unless your driving it at Pike's Peak or something.
From what I recall, the 68HTA was initially designed for the FP WHITE EVO turbo, then I saw it come out for the Subies, then recently the DSM's. The Subie version may go into my STi as it is a pretty big upgrade compared to a stock VF39.
From what I recall, the 68HTA was initially designed for the FP WHITE EVO turbo
The first application it was released for was the EVO White. But from what I've read, FP developed the wheel as a potential replacement to their original EVO Green. The Green has a 5 bladed wheel with a 69.5mm exducer that is a bit laggier than a stock IX turbo. This was their attempt at improving spool while maintaining the same choke flow. It failed to perform close enough to the original Green so they instead released it as the White and kept the stock turbine side to keep the cost down and make is a more appealing entry level option.
Then came the EVO Red, which is a reverse rotation version of the HTA76 wheel. Now they've finally updated the Green to HTA spec with their HTA73 wheel. It spools like the original Green but flows a bit more up top (54 lb/min I think). From what I've heard, they're coming out with a new line-up of HTA turbos for the WRX that will include a clockwise rotation version of this wheel. If they do, a DSM HTA73 can't be far behind. Picture a street/strip 20g on crack. This would effectively replace the standard 20g and the original DSM Green.
I understand the arguments that the TD05H wheel is a restriction, along with the 7cm hotside, but remember that plenty of people have pushed these parts very far, combining them with these improved HTA wheels can only help.
____________________________
Help Wendy Run 10s! See thread in the Hangout.
Not sure what your arguing about but I'm talking about the flow rating of the EVO3 16g and comparing it to the stated choke flow of the FP 68HTA. I'm stating there isn't much more than +30 h.p. difference between'em and that it is a judgement call that spending almost double the price for +30 h.p. over the EVO3 16g is worth it. Hope that clears up what I'm talking about.
I don't know that MHI underrates their maps. When I do the conversion from m^3/s to lb/min I get some pretty high airflow numbers from the EVO 16g map. Looks like at 29.9 in Hg and 68*F it could choke as high as 47.7 lb/min actually if I use a volume flow of 636 cfm. You can play with the numbers and get any answer you want, but the EVO3 16g isn't choking at 42.7 lb/min unless your driving it at Pike's Peak or something.
We're kind of saying the same thing. I'm saying that the 18g and 20g already flow more than the 16g. about 50whp difference between the three. To me, this new wheel dosn't make much sense for a dsm guy when you can get an evo3 16g for so much less. It DOES make sense to a scooby guy.
I was trying to reinforce that the 18g flows 4lb/min over the evo3 16g and 3-4 lb/min under the 20g. To show that I'm confused about the point of this wheel for the dsm.
And cfm = 33.5 ft^3 X 60sec X m^3/sec. evo compressor map = .29 m^3/sec edge of map at the 145K rpm curve. Of which the 18g and 20g maps do not have.
Cfm = 614.22
ballpark lb/min at 80F intake temp at 100ft above sea level = cfm X .69 = about 42lb/min.
"HTA73" with an appropriate turbine wheel would be wild!
____________________________
Matt
dd '90 GST, Holset H1C
Garrett states they consider choke to occur below 58% compressor efficiency. The EVO 16g has the 145,000 rpm line stopping dead on .3 m^3/s (636 cfm) at what looks alot like 60% efficiency to me. Looks like MHI uses 750mm HG or 14.505 psi on the Small 16g map for barometric test pressure, see bottom of map on the correction formula. Using 750 mm Hg (14.505 psi) off the small 16g map which is clearly marked and 20*C off the EVO 16g map along with .3 m^3/s of volume flow (636 cfm), I calculate an air density of almost exactly .074 lb/ft^3 and a choked mass airflow of about 47.06 lb/min on the EVO3 16g. It is what it is, I'm not making this stuff up.
I'm going to always tell those that run a turbo not to run it under 65% efficiency. Good point about where choke occurs.
I'm techically agreeing with you that this new compressor isn't really for the dsm guys.
BTW a more realistic expression of airfow is using a higher inlet temp than 68*F. Typically companies use 85*F which is more commonly seen during season even witha CAI. I'm basing my math of the more common 85*F and 14.3psia.
____________________________
Matt
dd '90 GST, Holset H1C
we need a guinea pig. 
. Sounds more as the "big wheel for bragging rights, small turbine to make sik spooo" like honda trend than anythign else. The td05h 7cm^2 hotside flows too poorly for the evo3 16g compressor IMHO.
