<![CDATA[turbo size chart (borrowed from nasioc)]]>during the FS downtime I started looking at the other forums on the net and came across this little piece of info curtousy of nasioc. Thought it might have some interesting info for those who'd like to have a general idea of what turbo can flow how much at 14.7 psi (granted, some of these are very capable of much higher psi, but this should be a decent reference point)

**[b]Stock Turbo 360 CFM at 14.7 PSI
T3 60 trim 400 CFM at 14.7 PSI
IHI VF 24 423 CFM at 14.7 PSI
STOCK HYBRID 430 CFM at 14.7 PSI
IHI VF-22 435 CFM at 14.7 PSI
SR 30 435 CFM at 14.7 PSI
T04E 40 trim 460 CFM at 14.7 PSI
Small 16G 505 CFM at 14.7 PSI
PE 1820 510 CFM at 14.7 PSI
Large 16G 550 CFM at 14.7 PSI
SR 40 595 CFM at 14.7 PSI
18G 600 CFM at 14.7 PSI
20G 650 CFM at 14.7 PSI
SR 50 710 CFM at 14.7 PSI
GT-30 725 CFM at 14.7 PSI
60-1 725 CFM at 14.7 PSI
GT-35R 820 CFM at 14.7 PSI
T72 920 CFM at 14.7 PSI <-- Note you would have to spin a 2.0 L
engine at about 14,000 rpm to flow this much air.

IHI VF 24 388 CFM at 18 PSI
T3 60 trim 410 CFM at 20 PSI
IHI VF-22 460 CFM at 18.0 PSI
AVO 320HP 465 CFM at 17.5 PSI
T04E 40 trim 465 CFM at 22 PSI
Large 16G 470 CFM at 22 PSI
SR 30 490 CFM at 22 PSI
Small 16G 490 CFM at 22 PSI
AVO 400HP 580 CFM at 17.5 PSI
PE 1820 580 CFM at 22 PSI
AVO 450HP 650 CFM at 20.0 PSI
AVO 500HP 725 CFM at 23.0 PSI
SR 50 770 CFM at 22 PSI
GT-30 790 CFM at 22 PSI
60-1 800 CFM at 22 PSI
GT-35R 880 CFM at 22 PSI
T72 1000 CFM at 22 PSI <-- note you would have to run a 2.0 L engine
at >40 PSI boost to flow this much **[/b]

Sorry to have an on topic post for a change, i'll try and not let that happen again for a while

]]>https://fargostreet.com/topic/3641/turbo-size-chart-borrowed-from-nasiocRSS for NodeWed, 27 May 2026 21:36:27 GMTThu, 11 Aug 2005 01:03:13 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to turbo size chart (borrowed from nasioc) on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:46:56 GMT]]>So a small 16g flows better than a large 16g at 22 psi? It really doesn't matter as it will be out by the end of the year anyways.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/61981https://fargostreet.com/post/61981Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:46:56 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to turbo size chart (borrowed from nasioc) on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:57:34 GMT]]>Ok wow, that's a huge difference. Thx Dave. Now I know, and knowing is half the battle...... yo joe bitches!

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/61978https://fargostreet.com/post/61978Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:57:34 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to turbo size chart (borrowed from nasioc) on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:52:44 GMT]]>It helps a lot, depending on the size of the shot of course. Without nitrous it takes me about 5 seconds to spool at the line. With nitrous it takes less than a half of a second.

Sweet-WRX-Lovin wrote:
How much of a difference though does it make using NOS to spool up the big turbas? Just curious.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/61976https://fargostreet.com/post/61976Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:52:44 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to turbo size chart (borrowed from nasioc) on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:50:57 GMT]]>How much of a difference though does it make using NOS to spool up the big turbas? Just curious.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/61975https://fargostreet.com/post/61975Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:50:57 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to turbo size chart (borrowed from nasioc) on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:09:41 GMT]]>I'd be willing to disprove those T72 numbers as well. If I decide to change anything this winter, I think a PT71GTQ might be in order. Seems to be the sweet spot turbo for all of the street car Hondas.

I know of one Honda running Dave's turbo too, and from what I read he seems to be happy.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/61966https://fargostreet.com/post/61966Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:09:41 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to turbo size chart (borrowed from nasioc) on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:00:20 GMT]]>according to the poster on Nasioc, they were compiled using information gathered from the manufacturers tech sheets.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/61958https://fargostreet.com/post/61958Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:00:20 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to turbo size chart (borrowed from nasioc) on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:00:21 GMT]]>im pretty sure its just an estimate

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/61945https://fargostreet.com/post/61945Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:00:21 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to turbo size chart (borrowed from nasioc) on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 05:20:57 GMT]]>Where did they come up w/ these figures? They seem pretty a little off if you ask me. There are so many variances in each turbo. You pick up about 40cfm alone going from a E cover to a S cover.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/61936https://fargostreet.com/post/61936Thu, 11 Aug 2005 05:20:57 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to turbo size chart (borrowed from nasioc) on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 03:39:19 GMT]]>ok so what im understanding is that these turbos work ideally at these certain cubic feet per minute? Cubic feet per minute thats what a CFM is right?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/61888https://fargostreet.com/post/61888Thu, 11 Aug 2005 03:39:19 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to turbo size chart (borrowed from nasioc) on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 02:55:33 GMT]]>nah, just build it to F1 standards and you'll be fine

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/61882https://fargostreet.com/post/61882Thu, 11 Aug 2005 02:55:33 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to turbo size chart (borrowed from nasioc) on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 02:53:35 GMT]]>

tjamz wrote:
T72 920 CFM at 14.7 PSI <-- Note you would have to spin a 2.0 L engine at about 14,000 rpm to flow this much air.

shit.. there goes that idea...

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/61881https://fargostreet.com/post/61881Thu, 11 Aug 2005 02:53:35 GMT