Just bought a used FP 3052...opinions?

[boostednavyac]

Seemed to me to be in very good condition, though i'm no expert. just wanted to get some opinions from people who have ran this turbo and what they thought of it

 

[PickleRick]

If you're asking for an opnion on how the turbo looks and it's condition; pictures are difficult to give you a opnion. However, it does look awesome.

I run an FP Green, and love it. If I were to upgrade; you have the turbo i'd do so with.

 

[boostednavyac]

If you're asking for an opnion on how the turbo looks and it's condition; pictures are difficult to give you a opnion. However, it does look awesome.

I run an FP Green, and love it. If I were to upgrade; you have the turbo i'd do so with.

yea it is difficult to tell just from pictures, i just wanted to know what kind of experiences people have had with it and how they liked it

 

[JusMX141]

I always urge members to buy ball bearing turbos from a trusted source. There's literally no way to know if they're good or bad until they're bolted to the car. The shaft can have no play and spin freely, but there can be bearing damage from oil contamination that won't show up until you find out it won't make over 8psi. If you personally know the car it was bolted to or know the owner always ran an oil filter on the turbo then you're pretty safe.

Pictures are beautiful, yes- but it's like staring at a picture of a car and trying to determine if a wheel bearing is bad.

 

[C_Keagy]

That Turbo is bad ass in my book. I had it on my car before the big kid setup. Ran a 6.9@119 1/8 mile with it. Put down near 500whp with a hole in the fmic.

 

[boostednavyac]

I always urge members to buy ball bearing turbos from a trusted source. There's literally no way to know if they're good or bad until they're bolted to the car. The shaft can have no play and spin freely, but there can be bearing damage from oil contamination that won't show up until you find out it won't make over 8psi. If you personally know the car it was bolted to or know the owner always ran an oil filter on the turbo then you're pretty safe.

Pictures are beautiful, yes- but it's like staring at a picture of a car and trying to determine if a wheel bearing is bad.

Thankfully he was running an oil filter or at least claimed he was and he had it plugged in for his current setup. Me being a new guy i guess i didnt get the memo about used BB turbos, hopefully i can survive the bullet this time around. Lesson noted and fingers crossed

That Turbo is bad ass in my book. I had it on my car before the big kid setup. Ran a 6.9@119 1/8 mile with it. Put down near 500whp with a hole in the fmic.

thanks for the input thats pretty awesome to hear

 

[JusMX141]

That Turbo is bad ass in my book. I had it on my car before the big kid setup. Ran a 6.9@119 1/8 mile with it. Put down near 500whp with a hole in the fmic.

500hp on a 52 lb/min turbo proves some very good tuning was at work.


It's basically an off-the-shelf GT3076R with a FP turbine housing. That's good in a way- without the HTA compressor wheel you're able to get the turbo serviced under Garrett's ball bearing service in the event of a problem for under $500 instead of purchasing a new CHRA at $900.

 

[boostednavyac]

500hp on a 52 lb/min turbo proves some very good tuning was at work.


It's basically an off-the-shelf GT3076R with a FP turbine housing. That's good in a way- without the HTA compressor wheel you're able to get the turbo serviced under Garrett's ball bearing service in the event of a problem for under $500 instead of purchasing a new CHRA at $900.

Thanks for the input jusmx141, i appreciate it. That is definitely a sign of relief if something were to go wrong. The guy seems very straigtforward and hopefully if i were to encounter a problem i would ask for a partial refund in order to pay for a rebuild and i believe he would honor that. Also my goal is to shoot for about 400whp so hopefully ill be there soon enough

 

[PickleRick]

That Turbo is bad ass in my book. I had it on my car before the big kid setup. Ran a 6.9@119 1/8 mile with it. Put down near 500whp with a hole in the fmic.

I remember that setup, watched the dyno videos last night. Badass turbo.

 

[daren_p]

500hp on a 52 lb/min turbo proves some very good tuning was at work.

Seems Garrett likes to be on the "safe" side when rating their turbo's. While this turbo is rated at 52lb/min it can defently flow more. Currently I see a correct 52lb/min @ 28-29psi. I'm defently not running the best flowing setup either with Kelford "264's" & an evoIII intake mani. Add in a better flowing intake mani & top end cam & you'll see more. Plus there should be room to add abit more boost as well.

 

[JusMX141]

Seems Garrett likes to be on the "safe" side when rating their turbo's.

I believe you're right. Those who are old enough to remember the FP3055...it was basically the same cartridge but did not have a ported compressor cover with the MWE groove. The groove tends to hurt peak efficiency a little by allowing a small amount of airflow to bypass the compressor in order to protect against surge, so that may be the reason behind the slight reduction in the airflow rating. They probably feel it's better to rate a turbo short of it's capabilities rather than inflate them.

 

[boostednavyac]

Seems Garrett likes to be on the "safe" side when rating their turbo's. While this turbo is rated at 52lb/min it can defently flow more. Currently I see a correct 52lb/min @ 28-29psi. I'm defently not running the best flowing setup either with Kelford "264's" & an evoIII intake mani. Add in a better flowing intake mani & top end cam & you'll see more. Plus there should be room to add abit more boost as well.

good info to know. I'll decide on cams and IM later on when I have conducted a bit more research

 

[daren_p]

They probably feel it's better to rate a turbo short of it's capabilities rather than inflate them.

Defently nice when a company actually does it this way, too many times its the other way around

At 52lb/min & up, you are defently getting out of the peak effiency areas on the compressor map but with the large FMIC's & meth injector (or E85), this doesn't seem to be so much of an issue anymore, & guys are able to max the turbo's full potential.

On a nicely matched, properly supported setup, 52lb/min should be a fairly typical number (or ~500awhp). Guys have pushed this a good amount higher though, I've seen guys laying down mid 500's & slightly higher as well. So its a great street turbo that can still put down some nice power for the track.

I've ran this turbo for 5 summers, that should say something as the evoIII only lasted me two before the need to upgrade. If I go up, it will be the DSM82HTA, basically the same spool as the 3052, more midrange torque & greater power potential, while being abit more friendly on pump with the 35R wheel.

Edit: For cams, Kelford 272's would be a great match, I went with the 264's for emissions purposes only.

 

[boostednavyac]

Defently nice when a company actually does it this way, too many times its the other way around

At 52lb/min & up, you are defently getting out of the peak effiency areas on the compressor map but with the large FMIC's & meth injector (or E85), this doesn't seem to be so much of an issue anymore, & guys are able to max the turbo's full potential.

On a nicely matched, properly supported setup, 52lb/min should be a fairly typical number (or ~500awhp). Guys have pushed this a good amount higher though, I've seen guys laying down mid 500's & slightly higher as well. So its a great street turbo that can still put down some nice power for the track.

I've ran this turbo for 5 summers, that should say something as the evoIII only lasted me two before the need to upgrade. If I go up, it will be the DSM82HTA, basically the same spool as the 3052, more midrange torque & greater power potential, while being abit more friendly on pump with the 35R wheel.

Edit: For cams, Kelford 272's would be a great match, I went with the 264's for emissions purposes only.

Any opinion on a set of HKS264's? there is a local used set with about 4k miles on them for around $300

 

[XiKeiyaZI]

That Turbo is bad ass in my book. I had it on my car before the big kid setup. Ran a 6.9@119 1/8 mile with it. Put down near 500whp with a hole in the fmic.

Wow, hell of a setup if we can produce that much power with a boost leak sourced as being a hole in the fmic.

Applause.

 

[ed1380]

Any opinion on a set of HKS264's? there is a local used set with about 4k miles on them for around $300

get some regrinds and don't pay for the HK$ name. I would get a set of 272's.

 

[boostednavyac]

get some regrinds and don't pay for the HK$ name. I would get a set of 272's.

Thanks for the input. I was just curious since there is a local set for sale, but from the reading i have been doing it seems like you said that 272's will be more beneficial

 

[daren_p]

Any opinion on a set of HKS264's? there is a local used set with about 4k miles on them for around $300

There's all kinds of cam reading on this site & you should be able to figure out what route to take based on your personal goals, but personally I wouldn't go HKS 264's unless your trying to keep it emissions friendly or plan to auto x the car.

If you do some searching, you'll find that "264" or "272" doesn't mean much as far as comparing one cam to another. These lift durations are at very small valve lifts, so don't really mean much in the real world. If you want to compare specs you need to look at .04-.05 or 1mm lift numbers. Doing this will help you to understand why the Kelford "272" cams will make more power then HKS "272" cams. You also have to factor in lift, duration & ramp rate.

HKS cams, unless they've been updated, that I'm not aware of, are an old profile & there are much better cams available today, with more lift & quicker ramp rates (ie make more power & have less lag).

For the 3052 most would go with a "272" style cam, unless you have other specific goals.

 

[ed1380]

The kelfords are great but just don't forget that they require upgraded springs.

 

[bastarddsm]

HKS cams, unless they've been updated, that I'm not aware of, are an old profile & there are much better cams available today, with more lift & quicker ramp rates (ie make more power & have less lag).

I'd also like to say that there is no shortage of people that have gone very very fast on the old HKS272's. Not to mention that if your planning on running the turbo to the max, the cam choice has an almost zero effect on the power.

 

[JonJames_dsm]

Seeing that you bought that turbo used, you should rebuild it. Rebuild kits can be found on Turbochargers.com and are fairly inexpensive. I just bought an EVOIII 16G and it looked pristine when I got it but I decided to take it apart just to be safe. Upon doing so, I found that there was a mild bearing leak and everything was covered in filthy oil and in some places it was burnt and starting to cake pretty badly. Save yourself the trouble and rebuild it. Don't bolt that up to your car! Do it right or do it twice.

 

[JusMX141]

Bad advice- you can't rebuild ball bearing turbos. Refer to post #4 & #7.

 

[JonJames_dsm]

Bad advice. Newbie mistake.

 

[daren_p]

I'd also like to say that there is no shortage of people that have gone very very fast on the old HKS272's. Not to mention that if your planning on running the turbo to the max, the cam choice has an almost zero effect on the power.

I never said HKS cams were bad (thats very true many have gone very fast with them & still continue to do so), I simply said there are better profiles out there now, which is true.

While these new profiles can help with peak power, I like the fact that they also reduce lag & create more mid range power. So peak power isn't the only thing to consider when choosing a cam.

If HKS cams were a cheeper product, then sure, their not a bad buy. But new they cost more then Kelford or GSC, so I don't think their the best option.

 

[DynastyLCD]

That's good in a way- without the HTA compressor wheel you're able to get the turbo serviced under Garrett's ball bearing service in the event of a problem for under $500 instead of purchasing a new CHRA at $900.

Justin, could you please elaborate about this BB service through Garrett? I thought the only option, period, was a new CHRA? Curious to this as I've got a good amount of mileage on my 3052 (30-35k)

All this makes me re-think about the coming future, as this turbo just isn't going to last forever... Not to mention, though a wonderful turbo, is it really worth the $900 price tag for a new CHRA?



Back to topic: I <3 my 3052... absolute street monster. 28 psi by 3900 on a stock 6 bolt with ARP's/Mitsu MLS, and HKS 272's. Can't wait to try it with my stroker!

Going back to back vs. an FPgreen (older style) it had way more hit and spooled considerably faster. Not to say the FPgreen is a slouch, but the 3052 just blows it away, IMHO.