Jump to content
Do Not Sell My Personal Information


Difference Between Ct20 And Ct26 Turbo


urotsukidoji_badassdemon
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi guys, I know some of you have upgraded your turbos, but from which to which? Which one gives what power or spins quicker and what not? Are they water cooled? My turbo is a Garret T25, which is water cooled, so am looking for a water cooled replacement. I'm running 1.1 BAR at the mo. Not sure how much BHP I got, but it !Removed! spins wheels at rolling starts!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The turbocharger fitted to the MR2 from 1990 to 1994 is a twin entry ceramic Garrett CT26 operating at 10psi, similar to the Celica GT4 configuration of the same period. Turbo Technics in the UK report the CT-26 turbo as generally reliable if appropriately maintained, and reconditioned replacements are available for £450 based on exchanging the existing unit.

For the 1994 cars onwards a slightly smaller Garrett CT20 turbo is run at 13psi.

The workshop manuals give the standard boost pressure of the 90-93 turbos as between 8.5 and 11.5psi, with 10psi being normal. For 94-on  cars the standard pressure was increased to13psi. Its is useful to have this checked when serviced or on a rolling road, to indicate any problems with leaking dump valves, which would reduce the power output of the engine.

A guide to the Celica GT4 turbo's working is available - the engine is the same as in the MR2, so much of the information is nearly identical, and it provides an excellent explanation of the basics of turbocharging.

There is a useful guide to checking the condition of your turbo here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Garrett has nothing to do with the Toyota turbo's. The CT26 is OK.....even modified they will struggle to get you up to and past the 300 RWHP mark.

The CT20B is the Gen III OEM turbo (none of this silly Toysport crap) and is BETTER than the CT26. Will handle more boost and flow more. In standard trim should see you closer to the 300hp mark than a standard CT26 (Im making 263 & am HOPING for close to if not 300) but AFAIA there is only ONE place (Fensport) that will upgrade the CT20B, haven't really seen any results from one though.

Cheers

KiwiMR2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CT26 spools up quicker therefore you get less lag, but it maxes out at about 6,000 rpm. The CT20b on the other hand takes longer to spool up, but keeps pulling all the way to the red line.

If you're not going to be going for the 300 bhp mark, than you may as well keep your CT26. I prefer the quicker spool up myself, even tho you have to change gear at 6k (saves the engine a bit too)!

It boils down to personal choice at the end of the day. The CT26 will run 15 psi whereas the CT20b can run near on 18-19 psi!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Specs say the CT26 spools quicker (by BUGGER all) but having owned both I'd say it ISN'T noticable what so ever, there both ceramic so are very streetable.

To be honest if you had both side by side in the same condition you'd be a fool to select the 26.

Cheers

KiwiMR2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the turbo shaft is ceramic

sounds fancy but its crap as it can snap, uprated ones have steel shafts :rolleyes:

Pretty sure mine's already got a steel shaft... hmmm... have to check again.

I knew the impellers weren't ceramic, which is what I thought Kiwi was implying...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the ct20b only exists on the tinternet!  :P

Kev, you've got a clip of stock rev 2 v's a stock rev 3 haven't you?  Rev 3 is considerably quicker.

Joe

yeah and that's a really fair race. what did they think? 'i know lets get the heavy gt version of the rev 2 turbo and race it against the lightweight gts version of the rev 3, that'll be really fair.'

no doubting the rev 3 is quicker (and before anything is said about me being bias i actually own both a rev 1 turbo and rev 3 turbo) but that race was done to make the gap appear bigger than it actually is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...also, an interesting link...

.: Clicky :.

Nooooooooo......I said:

The CT20B is the Gen III OEM turbo (none of this silly Toysport crap)

:P

the turbo shaft is ceramic

sounds fancy but its crap as it can snap, uprated ones have steel shafts

Steel one's spool slower than ceramic. ALL MR2 turbo's were ceramic, the ST205 WRC one got Steel wheel units.

yeah and that's a really fair race. what did they think? 'i know lets get the heavy gt version of the rev 2 turbo and race it against the lightweight gts version of the rev 3, that'll be really fair.'

You can get a fully loaded GT-S weighing thesame as a GT, there "options" on the GT-S, and besides, even if it's the LIGHTEST GT-S vs the fully loaded GT the side intrusion beams the Type III's got should even up the weight ;)

Cheers

KiwiMR2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kiwi hit it on the spot. i honestly find my ct20 to spool faster than my ct26. the ct26 had a kind of kick then fell flat around 5500. the ct20 however, is a constant pull all the way to wherever i shift at. anyways, a ct20b alone won't get you close to 300. unless u already have a gen3 motor. but if ur stuck with a gen 2 like me, id definitely need some 264s and a stand alone. ohh, i also believe the exhaust turbine is also ceramic. there have been many tales of them disintegrating on people, but if u take good care of yours (turbo time, keeping your car lubricated, proper boost controlling) then there shouldnt be any problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
You can get a fully loaded GT-S weighing thesame as a GT, there "options" on the GT-S, and besides, even if it's the LIGHTEST GT-S vs the fully loaded GT the side intrusion beams the Type III's got should even up the weight

your argument doesn't make sense, the race to be fair should be the gt against the gt with the same spec such as electrics and air con.

the video is meant to be a revision 1/2 against a revision 3, you seem to be getting confused as you mentioned the side intrusion beams - what difference does that make? they're standard on a rev 3 that's a revision difference so would help show the difference between revisions not model trims which is what the vid shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your argument doesn't make sense, the race to be fair should be the gt against the gt with the same spec such as electrics and air con.

But you said:

yeah and that's a really fair race. what did they think? 'i know lets get the heavy gt version of the rev 2 turbo and race it against the lightweight gts version of the rev 3, that'll be really fair.'

I took that as meaning you thought comparing the "heavy" GT against the "lighter" GT-S was un-fair??

How do you know that the GT is heavier?? My arguement is that as everything in the GT is an OPTION on the GT-S.....so if the GT-S in that video actually had all the options (which is certianly a possibility) then they would weigh the same, then take into account the extra weight side intrusion beams add and the GT-S and it may be even heavier than the GT......meaning the fact it win's is even more of a feat as it may well have been heavier ;)

Cheers

KiwiMR2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Kiwi but if a GT-S had all the options on it would it not be a GT? Surely it would make more sense to just buy a GT? I'm talking about when they were brand new and when the Japanese bought them out the showroom! ;)

:P I guess.......mind you the whole GT/GT-S thing is flawed anyway. The MR2 doesn't fit into the traditional "GT" type car anyway......seems Toyota decided to use it as a trim level. I guess it's about mixing and matching....my GT-S doesn't have power mirrors or leather, but has air con :D

Cheers

KiwiMR2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turbos....hhuummm, everyone slates the ct26? and raves on the ct20 :P

ok, but lets face it, they are different turbos! :D

Its like getting a HKS turbo next to it...ofcorse its better ! the ct26 technology is like 15 years old now !. :rolleyes:

Ceramic...Japanese gimic in my opinion, I have had two ct26 ceramic turbos, running 1.0, bar blew the wheel off both of them (exhaust side !).....rubbish !

yeah it spools up faster than a heavy steel turbine shaft, but what...it breaks ! :help:

ct20....even on the fensport web site they say, and i quote "CT20B series turbo have 1 common problem - the turbine shaft is prone to breaking "

HOW can that mean its a good / better turbo :wacko:

Most, i say most, uprated turbos either ct26 / ct20 have a replacement steel shaft, as fensport say "therefore all our uprated CT20 turbos are fitted with a larger steel turbine shaft."

so thats just made the spool up time longer straigh away, by making the impelers steel (and thicker!)

I rang fensport when I blew my turbo, and turbo technics, and others.

from Turbo Technics, an uprated (stg1) ct26 is the same as a ct20b (performace wise !!) although the ct20b will have a cermaic shaft still.

The stg2 ct26 is the same (same shaft, impeler wheels, bearings etc etc) as the stg 1 ct20b, and the stg3 ct26 is the same as stg 2 ct20b !! :thumbsup:

looking at that a stock ct20b, is the same as a ct26 stg1 (but the stg 1 has a steel shaft etc so is stronger for higher boost levels !)

so which so you go for, obviosly the steel shafted one is better ?!?! :huh:

a ct20b on a rev 1/2 will push everything over about an inch to the left, where as a ct26 will go striaght on ! (apparantly ?!?)

basically what im getting at is, there is this big argument as to whcih is better, when both turbos are from differnet years, and have differnet technology, the ct20b fitted to rev3+ is just like a ceramice stg1 ct26 !

and i think my stg 1ct26 rocks ! :thumbsup:

check out fensport, mr2, sw20, parts, engine tuning for specs on turbos !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, but lets face it, they are different turbos! biggrin.gif

Its like getting a HKS turbo next to it...ofcorse its better ! the ct26 technology is like 15 years old now !.

CT20B's are 12 year's old too :P

Ceramic...Japanese gimic in my opinion, I have had two ct26 ceramic turbos, running 1.0, bar blew the wheel off both of them (exhaust side !).....rubbish !

yeah it spools up faster than a heavy steel turbine shaft, but what...it breaks !

Gotta remeber though...for every horror story there are good one's.....I ran 14 psi on my old 90 GT for about 100,000 km's....totaling over 210,000 km's today and STILL going on the ceramic CT26. Been running 16-18 psi on my ceramic CT20B for about almost two years now, no issues there.

ct20....even on the fensport web site they say, and i quote "CT20B series turbo have 1 common problem - the turbine shaft is prone to breaking "

Fensport are a great tuning company BUT.....that statement falls to every and any ceramic shaft turbo. Remeber Fensport were the one's who started the "early revsion weak blocks" myth......that has spread like wild fire & eveyone who has a issue blames it however they never did any real consistant proper testing, just went off what they saw comming & going.....they also say that the Gen II blocks are prone as well.

from Turbo Technics, an uprated (stg1) ct26 is the same as a ct20b (performace wise !!) although the ct20b will have a cermaic shaft still.

The stg2 ct26 is the same (same shaft, impeler wheels, bearings etc etc) as the stg 1 ct20b, and the stg3 ct26 is the same as stg 2 ct20b !! thumbsup.gif

looking at that a stock ct20b, is the same as a ct26 stg1 (but the stg 1 has a steel shaft etc so is stronger for higher boost levels !)

The thing is despite all the advertising etc. about hybrid CT26's there just aren't enough in real life putting out the claimed numbers power wise. There may be 2 or 3 putting out 300 rwhp or near abouts but there usually pushing around 1.5 bar boost :huh: not the making of an efficient turbo IMO. There are just to many CT20B's putting out the same figures in standard trim that the hybrids are putting out to convince me :)

Cheers

KiwiMR2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your argument doesn't make sense, the race to be fair should be the gt against the gt with the same spec such as electrics and air con.

But you said:

yeah and that's a really fair race. what did they think? 'i know lets get the heavy gt version of the rev 2 turbo and race it against the lightweight gts version of the rev 3, that'll be really fair.'

I took that as meaning you thought comparing the "heavy" GT against the "lighter" GT-S was un-fair??

How do you know that the GT is heavier?? My arguement is that as everything in the GT is an OPTION on the GT-S.....so if the GT-S in that video actually had all the options (which is certianly a possibility) then they would weigh the same, then take into account the extra weight side intrusion beams add and the GT-S and it may be even heavier than the GT......meaning the fact it win's is even more of a feat as it may well have been heavier ;)

Cheers

KiwiMR2

it's all 'may be', maybe the gts has a full tank of fuel, maybe the gts has a cd case full of cds in the glovebox ;) . the fact is it's a gt against a gts, it's not the same model, so it's inherently flawed, no if's or buts, simple as that ;) . if it was a gts with all the options why didn't they just use the gt? that's all i'm saying, it's a pretty pointless and useless test as an accurate comparison, sure it shows the rev 3 is quicker but doesn't show by how much compared to the same model in rev 1/2 trim. i'm not trying to argue the fact about which is quicker, i'm just pointing out the test is like a top gear test, and that's weighted to the one they want to win. :!Removed!:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...




Forums


News


Membership