GT2876 Test result
- Thread starter utah_sledder
- Start date
update..... utah took off the big 2876 and is going to put on a 2871. should work alot better for him. .86 housing. JMO
Thanks for the update Bryce. Keep us posted how this one compares to the 2860 and the 2876. I would have already upgraded mine if it wasn't for needing a crank, pistons, etc...... Oh well, Maybe when I get a little more $$$ saved up...
After talking to several different turbo builders, they basically told me the same thing. If you ride 4 - 5000ft or lower the 2876 is the ticket. If you ride 8 -10000 ft the 2871 is the ticket. At elevation the 71 spooled faster and has similar top end. I had a 3076 with a .64 hot side and it wouldn't get out of its own way. Super slow to spool but had really good top end when it finally spooled. Then I went way smaller now im looking to go somewhere in the middle... Hopefully it will be the best of both worlds...
Last edited:
N
nuttyn01
Well-known member
turbo selection
I run the 2871 with a 2.5" charge tube and this is a totally different beast than say a 2860...especially at 10k plus. you can definately tell the difference on the mid and top as it pulls much harder than the 2860. Be prepared to change the jetting as it is not just simply swap the turbos and roll. a little higher engagement helps the 2871 at higher elevations.
I run the 2871 with a 2.5" charge tube and this is a totally different beast than say a 2860...especially at 10k plus. you can definately tell the difference on the mid and top as it pulls much harder than the 2860. Be prepared to change the jetting as it is not just simply swap the turbos and roll. a little higher engagement helps the 2871 at higher elevations.
my findings exactly. you will not have to change your jetting to much if you do not increase the carge tube size. power jet adjustment should take care of it.
S
swrev
Well-known member
So realistically, if a person is not looking for more power is it worth changing the turbo? I've swapped pistons and it does not look like I am getting to much heat from a small turbo, no reed issues, and response is extremely fast. Spools up much faster than the OVS tial setup I've ridden w/ on a Cat. My sled has a 2860.
Utah Sledder, do you plan on changing the 2876 to the .86 housing at some point so you can compare to how the 2871 is going to perform?
Utah Sledder, do you plan on changing the 2876 to the .86 housing at some point so you can compare to how the 2871 is going to perform?
N
nuttyn01
Well-known member
I actually rode your sled before it was your sled. If you arent looking for more power leave it the way it is.
Rick has the charge box/tube sized for the 2860. If you change the turbo you would want a larger charge tube at the very least and then your into clutching and jetting changes.
Rick has the charge box/tube sized for the 2860. If you change the turbo you would want a larger charge tube at the very least and then your into clutching and jetting changes.
Spent the weekend in Wyoming testing the big 2876. Like Bryce said a few posts back...I went back to the 2871. Hate to tell ya boys but my personal test did not prove the 2876 to be a better turbo than the 2871. I only ride 7-10k feet of elevation. The 2876 was WAY slower to respond and slow to build boost than the smaller 2860 that I ran all last year. I think it is extremely important to remember that a guy that rides at 1000-3000 feet is going to have a completely different set-up than a guy running from 8-10. It's pretty obvious that sea level stock sleds can run with a bunch of weight in the clutch but an elevation guy has to run zero weight in the clutch. This just proves that the elevation sled has less power, less flow, less pretty much everything. Gearing is different etc. etc. etc.
I personally tested this turbo for my own knowledge and fun. I don't see how/where Bryce is bashing anyone???
I'm a lover not a hater thus defintatley not bashing anyone, but bring your big dang turbos and low engagement sleds out here to my elevation and I am pretty sure your going to hate your set-up.
My conclusions...I know lots of guys are going to disagree with me here but for low boost 6-8 lbs above 8000 feet a 2860 (.86 ar) works awesome! If your a tree rider, 2860 kicks butt! I ran this all last year with 2300 happy boosted, pretty much trouble free miles. I would gladdly run this turbo any day of the week!
The new 2871 (.86 ar) has a little longer legs than the 2860 for bigger pulls and provides slightly lower charge tube temps (but I couldn't tell a difference). It builds boost much quicker than the 2876 and has almost the identical response as the 2860. My testing didn't show a huge improvement over the 2860...mabey just a slight drop in EGT's on a really long pull.
I only run 7-8 lbs of boost. I only ride at 7000-10,000 feet. So mabey the other bigger turbos work better for huge boost and lower elevation but my test proved it to not be a better set-up.
I personally tested this turbo for my own knowledge and fun. I don't see how/where Bryce is bashing anyone???
I'm a lover not a hater thus defintatley not bashing anyone, but bring your big dang turbos and low engagement sleds out here to my elevation and I am pretty sure your going to hate your set-up.
My conclusions...I know lots of guys are going to disagree with me here but for low boost 6-8 lbs above 8000 feet a 2860 (.86 ar) works awesome! If your a tree rider, 2860 kicks butt! I ran this all last year with 2300 happy boosted, pretty much trouble free miles. I would gladdly run this turbo any day of the week!
The new 2871 (.86 ar) has a little longer legs than the 2860 for bigger pulls and provides slightly lower charge tube temps (but I couldn't tell a difference). It builds boost much quicker than the 2876 and has almost the identical response as the 2860. My testing didn't show a huge improvement over the 2860...mabey just a slight drop in EGT's on a really long pull.
I only run 7-8 lbs of boost. I only ride at 7000-10,000 feet. So mabey the other bigger turbos work better for huge boost and lower elevation but my test proved it to not be a better set-up.
T
twsandrew
Well-known member
I know I am probably going to get flamed and I don't ride a doo but for 6-8lbs a 2860 probably cannot be beat. You won't see the benefit of the 71 or the 76 until much higher boost. I have seen a 76 with the larger housing spool much faster than a 71 at typical Utah elevation on a cat 800 even though I was not a believer until I rode it
I agree with you 100%. I'm still a huge fan of the 2860. I'm not saying a 76 can't work, it just didn't work for me on my stock doo 800 at elevation. I'm sure there are a bunch of different variables that could be done, but for me and my stock sled the 2860 ripped and I loved it, the 2871 also rips and I love it.
N
nuttyn01
Well-known member
turbo selection
You hit the nail on the head Utah. You will see the difference between the 2860 and the 2871 when you start to creep the boost up and/or go up in elevation. Have fun with the 71.
You hit the nail on the head Utah. You will see the difference between the 2860 and the 2871 when you start to creep the boost up and/or go up in elevation. Have fun with the 71.
Spent the weekend in Wyoming testing the big 2876. Like Bryce said a few posts back...I went back to the 2871. Hate to tell ya boys but my personal test did not prove the 2876 to be a better turbo than the 2871. I only ride 7-10k feet of elevation. The 2876 was WAY slower to respond and slow to build boost than the smaller 2860 that I ran all last year. I think it is extremely important to remember that a guy that rides at 1000-3000 feet is going to have a completely different set-up than a guy running from 8-10. It's pretty obvious that sea level stock sleds can run with a bunch of weight in the clutch but an elevation guy has to run zero weight in the clutch. This just proves that the elevation sled has less power, less flow, less pretty much everything. Gearing is different etc. etc. etc.
I personally tested this turbo for my own knowledge and fun. I don't see how/where Bryce is bashing anyone???
I'm a lover not a hater thus defintatley not bashing anyone, but bring your big dang turbos and low engagement sleds out here to my elevation and I am pretty sure your going to hate your set-up.
My conclusions...I know lots of guys are going to disagree with me here but for low boost 6-8 lbs above 8000 feet a 2860 (.86 ar) works awesome! If your a tree rider, 2860 kicks butt! I ran this all last year with 2300 happy boosted, pretty much trouble free miles. I would gladdly run this turbo any day of the week!
The new 2871 (.86 ar) has a little longer legs than the 2860 for bigger pulls and provides slightly lower charge tube temps (but I couldn't tell a difference). It builds boost much quicker than the 2876 and has almost the identical response as the 2860. My testing didn't show a huge improvement over the 2860...mabey just a slight drop in EGT's on a really long pull.
I only run 7-8 lbs of boost. I only ride at 7000-10,000 feet. So mabey the other bigger turbos work better for huge boost and lower elevation but my test proved it to not be a better set-up.
Because he used the WRONG ar turbine !!
the ar on the new super 71 should be swapped to the wrong one used on the 76 to compare apples to apples.. let us know if you want to sell the 76 Utah. got a long line of folks looking for used ones .
Gus
Hope I get different results. My 3076 should be here tues.
B
badass1000
Well-known member
I usually ride 6-8000'. highest I get is 9000 or so. I have a 2871 with tial .84 stainless exhaust houseing and tial external gate. my sled made a pretty big difference in power switching from 7lbs of boost to 10lbs of boost. alot biger then I thought it would be.
A .64 housing compared to an .86 housing on a carbed sled. Not sure this is a good comparison. I found earlier and faster boost with the 2876 compared to the 2860....even faster boost than either with the 3071!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not so fast uncle Gus...I forgot to mention in my earlier post that I switched to an .86 ar housing before Wyoming. The funny thing is that it made ZERO difference in response felt. The only thing I saw was lower egt's on a long climb.
You guys can disagree and get upset all you want with me. I did this test for me and me only. I have posted my test results for fun.
I took the 2876 off and put the 2871 on and BAM! instantaneous boost, good egt's, and fast response.
Sorry the turbo is already sold...went to a car guy.
I stick by all my previous posts. The 2860 has almost instantaneous boost and is awesome to ride. For my elevation 7-10k and boost 7-8 lbs. If you have one on your sled and ride at elevation and lower boost, I would leave it on. I'm not a turbo builder or trying to sell anything so save your money.
The 2871 is nearly as perfect at the 2860 with slightly lower egt's and charge tube temps. This is my pick for the perfect turbo for my elevation and boost.
The 2876 was a doggy off the bottom, slow to build boost, but was great above 6800 rpms. In my opinion this turbo had the lag and slow response that everyone fears when getting a turbo sled.
Everyone can dismiss my test results as some idiot from Utah that can't tune a turbo sled and knows nothing about turbos and motors and flows and all that fancy stuff. But I do know that my throttle-o-meter and seat-of-the-pants meter work really well. And there are probably a bunch of 2876's out there that rip. Remember I am one guy with a handful of tests, so please don't base your entire decision making process on me!
Please don't understand me, I believe wholeheartedly that the 2876 could work awesome. If I was a hill killer that didn't ride trees and knarly tight stuff this turbo would probably be great. But at my elevation/boost/riding style it just didn't fit. No matter what...having ANY turbo on your sled is WAY funner than stock!
You guys can disagree and get upset all you want with me. I did this test for me and me only. I have posted my test results for fun.
I took the 2876 off and put the 2871 on and BAM! instantaneous boost, good egt's, and fast response.
Sorry the turbo is already sold...went to a car guy.
I stick by all my previous posts. The 2860 has almost instantaneous boost and is awesome to ride. For my elevation 7-10k and boost 7-8 lbs. If you have one on your sled and ride at elevation and lower boost, I would leave it on. I'm not a turbo builder or trying to sell anything so save your money.
The 2871 is nearly as perfect at the 2860 with slightly lower egt's and charge tube temps. This is my pick for the perfect turbo for my elevation and boost.
The 2876 was a doggy off the bottom, slow to build boost, but was great above 6800 rpms. In my opinion this turbo had the lag and slow response that everyone fears when getting a turbo sled.
Everyone can dismiss my test results as some idiot from Utah that can't tune a turbo sled and knows nothing about turbos and motors and flows and all that fancy stuff. But I do know that my throttle-o-meter and seat-of-the-pants meter work really well. And there are probably a bunch of 2876's out there that rip. Remember I am one guy with a handful of tests, so please don't base your entire decision making process on me!
Please don't understand me, I believe wholeheartedly that the 2876 could work awesome. If I was a hill killer that didn't ride trees and knarly tight stuff this turbo would probably be great. But at my elevation/boost/riding style it just didn't fit. No matter what...having ANY turbo on your sled is WAY funner than stock!
B
Boyko
Well-known member
In 2006-07 I built a kit for a 700 dragon and started with a 2871 .86, at altitude it just did not seem to snap like it should, so I swapped it out for 2860. It did not make a huge differance but it did help. What I liked is you could hear the 2860 wine, the 2871 you did not here a peep out of it.
P
peakpowersports
Member
with the release of the new Garrett 2863 gtx turbos this will soon be the best setup for hi altitude performance. on the 800s. We have used modified 2860s in the past with good results. the gtx turbine wheel. should be the best of both worlds. we are testing one next week and i will let everyone know how it compares at altitudes above 8000ft. Thanks Rick
Ya those look really sweet, darn near the same compressor map as a 2871.
