Ad: VTT N54 GC -Full ReBrand!

[Subwoofer]

Definitely going to consider a set, once I see people with them in hand. I have no opinion on the ongoingness between RB and VTT.

Looks great though, well impressed to see people trying to take N54 to the next level instead of constant bickering.

 

[Tony@VargasTurboTech]

I'd love to see how efficient 850hp is on TD03 compressor housing, have you guys got some logs ?

Well since we made 850WHP on the GC with the smaller turbine housings, and the same compressor housings 3 years ago, and broke all the records at the time, all while having no issues, things were running very efficiently for max effort testing. Here we have another person that is putting compressor housing size at the top of the list of variables to turbo efficiency when in reality it's at the very bottom. As Garrett says a turbo is relatively insensitive to Compressor housing AR changes. The biggest factor for turbocharger efficiency is turbine wheel flow and turbine housing flow/AR size. If you want to go back and find the logs they were posted back then, as we always posted logs.

As for the people saying are these tested, yes of course. It's a GC with a better flowing turbine housing and better flowing compressor wheels. It's not a new product it's a redesign of an already well-proven product that has been tested for years. With that said, we have a flex-fuel stock motor car in for F-RB install now, we will be doing that on 91, and E85 shortly. Then of course we will test them on the shop car at max effort, which means removing the stage 3 kit to do so. We are just waiting on a motor to arrive to begin that process.

Honestly, the N54 outside of small parts and stock turbo sales gets 1-2% of our time/attention these days. High-performance N54 turbos make up a TINY section of our sales, and we put the money into making these simply because its fun to bring better parts to the table, these are not expected to be money makers, or have an impact on our overall sales. I have stayed far away from this platform for quite some time now as far as engaging anyone, honestly because I just don't care to do so, it was a major time waster. In that time, VTT has grown by more than 1000% and will continue as we keep doing the same we always have. Innovating new products across multiple platforms, providing as much data as we can, and going fast, I will engage a bit here, and there, but Chris will continue to speak for us for the most part. If these turbo's don't interest you, lots of options on eBay, have at it...

 

[Chris@VargasTurboTech]

We went through several iterations of compressor choices with the GC's back in the day when we first started toying with the idea of the GC+'s years ago. The limiting factor at the time -talking GC1.0 days, and talking flow wise- was the turbine side of things, which is why we canceled the idea of a GC+ way back when. Since then we've been able to overcome the next few flow limitations in design -these will move a ton of air and keep great spool/low lag on the table.

 

[Tony@VargasTurboTech]

Chris, the main reason we didn't do it back then is correct as you say, we tried a wheel size that was too big, with old school aero. They were causing surging issues, and were very laggy. With the new wheel tech, we can add more to the exducer, and still have great surge lines on both sides of the map. Things really have gone through a lot of great progress in turbocharger design in just a few short years due to the popularity of turbochargers.

 

[colo_evo]

As for the people saying are these tested, yes of course. It's a GC with a better flowing turbine housing and better flowing compressor wheels. It's not a new product it's a redesign of an already well-proven product that has been tested for years. With that said, we have a flex-fuel stock motor car in for F-RB install now, we will be doing that on 91, and E85 shortly. Then of course we will test them on the shop car at max effort, which means removing the stage 3 kit to do so. We are just waiting on a motor to arrive to begin that process.

So the answer is no, these turbos have not been run on an engine and have not produced the numbers you claimed.

 

[Cmiggz]

In for results, if these can spool faster then my single and make the same power up top. I might be interested in switching.

 

[RNM]

In for results, if these can spool faster then my single and make the same power up top. I might be interested in switching.

They won't.

 

[MoreBoost]

I too have to see what happens with these...

 

[Cmiggz]

They won't.

You never know, also would love to see a 60-130 with them given nico did a high 4’s with laggy single

 

[Asbjorn]

Any reasons for GC lites 2.0 owners to swap to the new lites CRHAs?

 

[JohnDaviz]

Any reasons for GC lites 2.0 owners to swap to the new lites CRHAs?

I read the description for you I think one reason could be "It's a GC with a better flowing turbine housing and better flowing compressor wheels."

So.. same same but different.

 

[aus335iguy]

Much as I dislike VTT they keep making new stuff for the platform and I’m sure that we’ll find out how these perform in due course.
I suppose it’s your move now RB

 

[JohnDaviz]

Well... That bickering that you experience is just the inability of people able to have a proper conversation and the inability to take criticism. We all experience these issues nowadays in every level. Not saying i'm a star in this myself but the new standard seems to be calling insulting people or release bogus products when they don't agree with what someone thinks Very sad.

Everyone takes thier own stance, or method of dealing with this. VTT decided to put thier effort in releasing the same TD03 limited turbo's what seems to be just a reason to bash a competitor. As hilarious as this is for us, from the business side of things it's not very professional.
Slapping together a turbo with a mix of fancy colored parts and write some great promises on paper is something I could do too to be honest. What would have been professional is delivering better turbo's with the actual improvements, (flow)data, long term testing and dyno results. That is something no vendor has done before so doing that would actually be "next-level"

But ofcourse another way of dealing with it is waving away all critisisms and tell yourself that cramming a 17T/19T wheel in a TD03 compressorhousing with a 2" intake and 1" outlet is a good idea for long term reliability. So many times untill you actually start believing it

Seems just like your inability to behave like an educated grown up. Your childish negative bashing without data is really annoying. At least VTT does something (imho a lot) for the community. Fails are natural. N54 engines and accessories fail all the time and you are also still driving one. But let us bash on somebody who at least learned from his failures to improve things. But i guess you prefer conspiracies also.
What is coming from you that is helping the community? From my perspective infantile behavior. Oh sorry. That ain´t helping anyone. Just like in the other Thread about the ZF Adapters. Can you stay away until you are grown up and able to interact with others with respect?

If you at least would write your "opinion" in a neutral way one might be interested in talking with you.

 

[martymil]

All turbos fail if you run them out of their efficiency range and that's what most on this platform are doing.

I'm getting a set of gc+ soon and we will be running it in the race/street car we are starting in the new year.

Can't wait as I'll finally be able to run the RHD v-band outlet pipe on these and ditch the silly silicone outlets which can be a bitch.

Some exciting times coming for the n54, we aren't done with you yet.

 

[TheFixer]

Looks good and I would like to give these a try. I've been looking at Vargas turbos for almost two years now.

I like that they develop their own products. They have a long reliable track record. They also have good involvement and support for the customer. Most of all they have credibility. I see it on the dozen or so forums I've been on regarding the N54 platform. They do have some complaints, but it's marginal. I can't say the same for some other names I've looked at.

So, once the stock turbos on my e60 535i bite the dust I'll be trying one of their turbo solutions.

 

[Chris@VargasTurboTech]

In for results, if these can spool faster then my single and make the same power up top. I might be interested in switching.

Spool faster -not a problem. Making the same power up top really depends on config and how much power you're making. Vague answer, I know, I just have no idea what you're running and want to be fair. The spool usually goes to twins with the short manifolds. Ziiing! Gone.

Any reasons for GC lites 2.0 owners to swap to the new lites CRHAs?

If you're happy with your current GC's, not really. If, after we post results, you see something you want these will bolt up to the GC manifolds. We're talking about making that an option that will pull $4-500 off the cost and reward our long-time customers.

 

[Chris@VargasTurboTech]

Looks good and I would like to give these a try. I've been looking at Vargas turbos for almost two years now.

I like that they develop their own products. They have a long reliable track record. They also have good involvement and support for the customer. Most of all they have credibility. I see it on the dozen or so forums I've been on regarding the N54 platform. They do have some complaints, but it's marginal. I can't say the same for some other names I've looked at.

So, once the stock turbos on my e60 535i bite the dust I'll be trying one of their turbo solutions.

Thanks, happy to work with you! Shoot me an email when you're ready and I'm happy to help sort out a good package based on your needs.

Chris

 

[Chris@VargasTurboTech]

All turbos fail if you run them out of their efficiency range and that's what most on this platform are doing.

I'm getting a set of gc+ soon and we will be running it in the race/street car we are starting in the new year.

Can't wait as I'll finally be able to run the RHD v-band outlet pipe on these and ditch the silly silicone outlets which can be a bitch.

Some exciting times coming for the n54, we aren't done with you yet.

This is really, really basic stuff and is missed by many. If you want OEM-type reliability, then generally shoot for OEM-type duty cycle. Most people are content trading a little lifespan for some performance and quite frankly, we encourage it. We're in this for fun through tinkering with our own vehicles and the extra performance right?

These are going to be a hoot, I'm looking forward to putting some on my car (which is still stock motor at the moment). I'm unsure if I'll do the lites or the middle of the road -I appreciate the top end of the GC+ but my personal preference is to have as much responsiveness as I can while still having that 600+ through redline. I don't really want to make more than that, and on my own vehicles I tend to run things more conservatively as I'm an aggressive driver (parts wise, not on the street). I am in Arizona, very hot climate that is harder on everything. Hence my tune, my parts, and especially my fueling need to be a couple notches down from kill mode. Know thyself.

Chris

 

[Cmiggz]

Spool faster -not a problem. Making the same power up top really depends on config and how much power you're making. Vague answer, I know, I just have no idea what you're running and want to be fair. The spool usually goes to twins with the short manifolds. Ziiing! Gone.

To be fair, I made 700whp on dyno with stock engine, not includeing the nitrous on top. But ran into fueling issues.
now car has built motor etc. so if these can make 800-900whp up top with nitrous, id be more then happy to switch.

 

[Chris@VargasTurboTech]

That's sporty! Of course depends on how much nitrous you jam through the engine. We made 850 on a 100% kill tune and everything optimized on original GC's. Terry at BMS made 765 whp on his white 135 on GC's and 100% E85 on a stock head/cams, so the F-RB+'s should fairly easily bump you across the 800 mark, particularly with nitrous.