Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey guys i just got the latest HPI magazine and i found a good article on the hks t04z, and they tried the t04z on 1.4 bar on a stock internal engine.

the housing is the 0.81, and the car has hks 264/272 cams as well, plus the pfc djetro

they managed a solid 425.1kw at wheels on the 1.4 bar and climbing fast they said.

heres the dyno graph with a comparision to a few other sets of turbos on a gtr

the article was done at Willall racing as well.

they mentioned the to4z needed more rpm and more boost to show its true potential, and over 500kw is acheivable for sure.

IMG_1424.jpg

i noticed the gtrs's are no were near as laggy as the t04z but i suppose it doesnt show the true results until both setups are pumping more boost and pushing the setups to the max.

any thoughts?

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Is it just me or does the t04z graph seem to be a little later than the normal?

People have run off 450rwkw on i think 1.6 or there abouts, so they will make good numbers.

Would have been good to see the meaty 2530 line on there to compare aswell.

I take it the graphs of the other turbos are from other motors, of unlisted spec?

Is it just me or does the t04z graph seem to be a little later than the normal?

People have run off 450rwkw on i think 1.6 or there abouts, so they will make good numbers.

Would have been good to see the meaty 2530 line on there to compare aswell.

I take it the graphs of the other turbos are from other motors, of unlisted spec?

hey ash, im not sure on the specs of the other setups, but i'd say they are all on stock engines except maybe some bigger cams.

its in the latest issue of HPI (no. 68)

i reckon the trust turbos (t518z's) are probably the best lookin setup on that graph for overall power. though it say the other turbos (besides the t04z) will all run out of puff soon and the t04z is only just starting to get going.

do u think if they ran more boost on the t04z it would make more power earlier and not look as laggy as suggested on that dyno graph? surely the midrange will pick up and catch up to the others alot quicker?

at 152kmh the trust ones are making 325kw and the T04Z is only making ~240kw. big difference. especially considering on that particular set-up/test they are making the same peak power.

the graph says t5187z x 2

does anyone know how to work out the rpm instead of kmh on that graph with the gtr 4.11 ratios?

also whats the true max power potential of each turbo setup? (at the wheels, not engine)

Edited by CruiseLiner

I'm pretty sure I know who's GTR that T517z graph was based on. I've been in the car and yes... it pulls hard but it seemed to die off past 7300rpm but the graph doesnt reflect that. Also it took a while for the turbos to spool up again after a gearchange, well it seemed like that to me anyway.

Needless to say when the owner did a 8000rpm launch with RE55s it was like literally being punched in the guts!!

The T517z also have more to go because its not flatlining away in similar fashiion to the T04Z.

for 517's to be into the 400rwkw range they must be using some hoofing boost

still, if its compared to "other" cars graphs thats not the best of idea.

Who knows what parts the other cars have listed on em

wats the next step up from the gtrs's for a responsive power curve. this also being on a fully built rb26/30. i want 700awhp but dont want massive lag, and also dont necessarily want to keep the turbo's in the stock 'position', so to say

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...