• Welcome to The Truck Stop! We see you haven't REGISTERED yet.

    Your truck knowledge is missing!
    • Registration is FREE , all we need is your birthday and email. (We don't share ANY data with ANYONE)
    • We have tons of knowledge here for your diesel truck!
    • Post your own topics and reply to existing threads to help others out!
    • NO ADS! The site is fully functional and ad free!
    CLICK HERE TO REGISTER!

    Problems registering? Click here to contact us!

    Already registered, but need a PASSWORD RESET? CLICK HERE TO RESET YOUR PASSWORD!

Bring it on! Att vs. Hx35

If we were to believe the CKO specs mine is HX40W "not HX40W ii" and is billed to replace the Holset HX40W on 8.2 Cummins and the later model HX40W Super 40 18 cm2. What we call CKO these days is actually product built for the industry before it was sold so cheap to the general consumer.
 
CKO ii specs are all over the map and aren't close to an HX40. We started a database on DP and its seems they are comparable to HX35's but with a 14 cm housing. The compressor wheels are a weird size and the turbine wheels are also weird sizes.

I'd like to see a true 60mm HX40 with a 16cm housing tested.
 
Well at least the ATT is consistent and the ones that weren't (larger housings) were recalled. This was the concern we had with the HX40II I tested being an odd blade count that the fleabay seller swore they didn't sell. Unless there is a dedicated supplier the fleabay and other sourced turbos appear to be slightly different for better or worse. When installed the downpipe to turbo connection on the HX40II I was testing leaked and sooted up a lot of things. We tried some copper washers to seal it up and no joy.

So even after a test to get the same advertized results you are going to have to find a supplier that can maintain the same specs on the CKO supplied turbo's.
 
robzombie4551 said:
How is telling the truth about something so irritating to you guys??

I did the tests and showed the results and yet you still defend the indefensible.

You're right about one thing, some things never change and it happens to be the people who ignore the truth for whatever reasons they so choose.

I'm not inconsiderate by telling the facts. Let's see all the vids of the ATT in action posting zero to sixty and 100 times, as well as towing up hills.

I've posted them and still haven't seen the att vids besting a Chinese knock off HX40.

Show me the results of the ATT beating my turbo and I'll shut up and leave this site forever.

There's a challenge you should be all excited about. Beat my times and the zombie disappears from TTS forever. LOL

P.S. good luck and no cheating!!!
Click to expand...

There is a much easier way to make this happen...especially when they act like a douche nozzle like you do...
 
WarWagon said:
Ok so my linky with cold hard FACTS must not have been very clear.

http://www.thetruckstop.us/forum/threads/att-run-vs-hx40ii.38950/

in summery it looks like the HX40II has 7-16 HP more but 20 FT LBS less than the ATT. I would call this the ATT giving a genuine ass kicking to the HX40II. :eek: You see I was running 23 LBS of boost (Bout as much as you would want to run without an intercooler.) with HX40II and only 14 LBS of boost with the ATT! We know the ATT can get 17 PSI on this engine, but, these rollers have trouble winding it up. Regardless the ATT is not working the engine as hard with lower backpressure and boost numbers to get near the same power. So less boost by 50% and nearly the same power.

Any turbo is better than the GM turbo except for those who wish to lug the high speed diesel. Neither turbo I tested lit before 2000 RPM from a dig with a slight nod to the HX40II for lighting slightly sooner and also running out of turbo near redline. It took a lot of spring to hold the HX40II backpressure on the engine. And on that note a looser converter and ATT is fun even with a small .29 plunger 6.2 IP:

http://www.thetruckstop.us/forum/threads/let-the-insanity-begin-time-to-yank-it.43647/


My 2 ATT turbo's have paid for themselves in fuel savings vs old closed minded advice to just use a turbomaster on the GM craptastic turbo when everyone had a hard on for turbo upgrades of any kind. In fact the 1993 has earned and paid for the complete overhaul it's had. Even the IRS can't argue that point and they tried.

You have gone a different route with your truck and that's fine. It doesn't mean the rest of want to be limited to a mid size turbo and when push comes to shove towing the ATT's lower boost and less backpressure for the same power is easier on the engine oil.


View attachment 44424
View attachment 44425
View attachment 44426

Here are some ATT videos including a sports car, Nissan Z, having trouble getting away from a certain ATT equipped 3/4 ton Suburban: Now that thing WAS evil! Specifically Hell trying to escape the exhaust sound...
http://www.thetruckstop.us/forum/threads/att-videos.39789/
Click to expand...


Zero to 60 in 15 seconds?? What a slug!!
I best that by 3 seconds on my stock tune and almost 8 seconds on my high performance tune.

I also have 3.42 gears, what do you have in that truck? 411's.

I love how the truth is put out there for me and proving my point from the very people saying that the ATT is better. NOT!!!!

Look at these vids and watch a 6.5 speedo really move my friend.

GM 6.5 Turbo diesel HX40 hybrid High Performance tune,

Stock

I also have done back pressure tests on both turbos and the reason the ATT is so low is that the 6.5 can't generate enough drive pressure through the ATT's BIG un-gated housing to make it a feasible option below 2,500/3,000 rpm.

What some fail to understand is that you need some B/P to drive the turbine which in turn will create boost.
To much B/P creates heat and chokes the motor [stock turbo] and not enough D/P and you get sluggish performance compared to a turbo that has both the compressor and turbine sized right for your application.

The Att compressor is small and the turbine/housing is big which isn't ideal but is the reason it even makes a decent amount of boost at all even though the D/P is so low it doesn't turn at the desired design specifications.


The ATT doesn't make boost because it doesn't have the needed D/P to spin it to the level it will make sufficient boost on the 6.5 especially in the lower RPM range.

My HX is about 1.2.1 up to about 18/20 lbs.. When I'm at 28lbs. of boost I'm at around 37 lbs. of B/P.

Let's see some numbers from the ATT guy's as well as some vids that show how great it is not just pics of a truck hooked up to your PARKED truck LOL!!!!

Instead of attacking me let's have a real debate about why the ATT isn't the best turbo out there.

Just because it's a bolt on setup shouldn't be a reason to defend it. There are people out there who will make whatever elbows/adapters one might need to run a better turbo/setup.

RZ.
 
Pepperidge said:
There is a much easier way to make this happen...especially when they act like a douche nozzle like you do...
Click to expand...


Really???

You people are obtuse and live in a bubble.

You wonder why I have an attitude? It's because of people like you that try to make others try to see the world as YOU want them to and not how it is or can be while trying to hide the facts/truth about something that just isn't so.

While the ATT might have been a decent option when the dinosaurs roamed the earth and there wasn't much of an option or way of R/D of people trying different things to see what might work or not, you stubbornly cling to the idea that the ATT is the best thing to come out of heaven even though the shortcomings are obvious, people on this board like you are oblivious.

And you wonder why people leave this site and go to DIESELPLACE.com.

At least over there you can have an honest discussion and not get a beat down when you post the TRUTH.

RZ.
 
this is with a one ton and a generic tune, not one made for the ATT
The engine is also high mile
 
turbovanman said:
Exactly, buying a CKO is like playing russian roulette.
Click to expand...

That's a line of crap and you know it!!!

The ATT is a Chinese knock off and being sold for twice/three times what the original cost of it is.

More disinformation at it's best!!!

BTW my Russian roulette CKO has over 100,000 miles on it and counting.

You are so two faced Simon, you speak one way on this forum and totally opposite on diesel place.

I love my $250.00 turbo and I would line it up against any ATT equipped truck PERIOD!!!!
 
LOL, they are similar in times, my engine is worn and I'm heavy. I also didn't have a tune designed for it.

It's now apart and I found it also has square precups.
 
robzombie4551 said:
I love this site!!!

It's the only forum where all the staff members feel a need to shut down someone for speaking the truth!!

I love how you insult me LOL. If it were me being a DICK like the staff members are being right now I'd be getting a threatening PM by now telling me I would be getting an unpaid vacation from the forum for a few days.

You make me laugh, go get some thicker skin you cry babies and come back with some facts not attacks if you want to be credible.

Peace out!!!
Click to expand...

jfk 2.jpg
 
Last edited:
robzombie4551 said:
Zero to 60 in 15 seconds?? What a slug!!
I best that by 3 seconds on my stock tune and almost 8 seconds on my high performance tune.

I also have 3.42 gears, what do you have in that truck? 411's.

I love how the truth is put out there for me and proving my point from the very people saying that the ATT is better. NOT!!!!

Look at these vids and watch a 6.5 speedo really move my friend.

GM 6.5 Turbo diesel HX40 hybrid High Performance tune,

Stock

I also have done back pressure tests on both turbos and the reason the ATT is so low is that the 6.5 can't generate enough drive pressure through the ATT's BIG un-gated housing to make it a feasible option below 2,500/3,000 rpm.

What some fail to understand is that you need some B/P to drive the turbine which in turn will create boost.
To much B/P creates heat and chokes the motor [stock turbo] and not enough D/P and you get sluggish performance compared to a turbo that has both the compressor and turbine sized right for your application.

The Att compressor is small and the turbine/housing is big which isn't ideal but is the reason it even makes a decent amount of boost at all even though the D/P is so low it doesn't turn at the desired design specifications.


The ATT doesn't make boost because it doesn't have the needed D/P to spin it to the level it will make sufficient boost on the 6.5 especially in the lower RPM range.

My HX is about 1.2.1 up to about 18/20 lbs.. When I'm at 28lbs. of boost I'm at around 37 lbs. of B/P.

Let's see some numbers from the ATT guy's as well as some vids that show how great it is not just pics of a truck hooked up to your PARKED truck LOL!!!!

Instead of attacking me let's have a real debate about why the ATT isn't the best turbo out there.

Just because it's a bolt on setup shouldn't be a reason to defend it. There are people out there who will make whatever elbows/adapters one might need to run a better turbo/setup.

RZ.
Click to expand...

Lets have a debate about turbo's rather than your biased anti ATT agenda.

0-60 in 15 seconds is NOT with *YOUR IP* or *YOUR* tune. It's with a 6.2 .29 plunger mechanical NA pump where the 6.5 IP's have .31 plunger pumps. The pump passes snap emissions with the fuel screw bottomed out - Now that is embarrassing. The pump is also in line for replacement in the future as it is wonky. So I need to blame the turbo for a 6.2 NA IP's lack of fuel delivery?

Got It.

Psst... The converter is keeping the engine in the ATT powerband and that is the point of the video. Getting the most out of the current pump.

Comparing two turbo's on the same engine and getting near the same power is proof that boost numbers alone is "hot air". 28 PSI without an intercooler, with plain 6.2 pistons, and no piston oil squirts would be asking for failure on my engine. Running higher boost required me to use synthetic oil. So lower boost via a bigger turbo and getting the same power while running conventional oil is saving me money.

But my goal isn't 0-100 or a race truck. It's cool that this is what you want to build and in that case Heath Diesel has us all licked on the salt flats with twin turbo's. I have been to therapy over that and now I am ok with faster 6.5 trucks out there. Besides that power level is rough on bending rods.

I have other goal in mind of extended towing of extreme grades somewhere near the speed limit with fuel economy above a gas engine. I haven't found trailer tires that are rated over 65 MPH so 100+ MPH isn't useful for me and is suicide on the mountain grades.
 
Last edited:
Still predict a repeat of history as it is playing out again . . .

Simply put, there is an unbalanced assertion which results in passionate responses; neither are productive.

As mentioned, there are pros and cons to each turbo.

Going on an agenda to simply bash an inanimate object, or each other, gets the opposite of what the poster intends and merely lowers credibility.
 
My diesel guy bought two of the CKO HX40w I bought from the same vendor and they are identical to what I have. For you turbo experts, can any of you determine what spec my CKO HX40W 18 cm2 really is with the wheel measurements I posted in my install string. or? Real HOLSET or CKO I can't find many failures posted on the web except for those who surge their units or snap the throttle shut on some applications snapping the shaft.

My CKO turbo when it lights makes my 6.5 haul as_ and it's way more drivable than w/GM-8 at lower boost/egt's at all rpm's.

I can't knock the MITSU TDO7 22 or the CKO of it there are many different variations of it too and hard to come by in this market except for the ATT version.
 
robzombie4551 said:
That's a line of crap and you know it!!!

The ATT is a Chinese knock off and being sold for twice/three times what the original cost of it is.

More disinformation at it's best!!!

BTW my Russian roulette CKO has over 100,000 miles on it and counting.

You are so two faced Simon, you speak one way on this forum and totally opposite on diesel place.

I love my $250.00 turbo and I would line it up against any ATT equipped truck PERIOD!!!!
!
Click to expand...

Wow Rob, way to NOT READ what I wrote. Nothing was brought up about life or quality, and if you had cared to read what we were talking about, it was about wheel sizes. For someone who says he's open, that just bitch slapped you. I have no problems with a CKO, never have, never will but when you buy one, you have NO IDEA WHAT WHEELS YOU ARE BUYING, HELL, THE VENDORS DON'T EVEN KNOW.
 
robzombie4551 said:
That's a line of crap and you know it!!!

The ATT is a Chinese knock off and being sold for twice/three times what the original cost of it is.

More disinformation at it's best!!!

BTW my Russian roulette CKO has over 100,000 miles on it and counting.

You are so two faced Simon, you speak one way on this forum and totally opposite on diesel place.

I love my $250.00 turbo and I would line it up against any ATT equipped truck PERIOD!!!!
Click to expand...

Rob, there is alot of truth in the CKO's being a crap shot, and I don't mean reliability wise. The measurements don't ever seem to be what the sellers say they are. If you scroll down this page of my build thread, you'll see what I'm talking about. http://www.thetruckstop.us/forum/threads/just-ordered-an-hx40wii.43343/
I'm running the smaller HX40WII, but the numbers not being the same as advertised seems to hold true with the HX40's as well. Don't get me wrong, I love my turbo, and am very satisfied with its performance. Here is my latest run.

I ran my build here at TTS, and no one ever bad mouthed, or trash talked my build, but I wasn't trying to bad mouth the ATT either, as there are many very satisfied owners. I think the problems you have here are your own fault, as you certainly appear to have an agenda. Also when in a group of people, most people don't want to talk to the loud, obnoxious, overbearing, trash talker. Why would it be any different online? Just saying.

Matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top