Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey guys im currently doing a new turbo setup on my gtr changing from the 685awhp twin td06 setup to either a single to4z or 4088r i would still like to make a tad over 600 at the wheels but need to speak to anyone running a 4088r i have a few people over in perth running the to4z but would like to see if the 4088r is more responsive and makes more power and what rpm the power falls of as we will rev it to 9200. i will list the spec and any info would be great the new setup will be with a 6 boost mani with large dump pipe

jun 2.7

280 cams

full jun built head

currently running twin td06 to 9900rpm

will run 9200 on the new setup just need to no if the 4088r like rpm as it seams the t04z might fall off

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/251021-4088r-vs-t04z/
Share on other sites

There is a chap on some Skyline forums (might be on this one) called Rockabilly who runs a GT4094R and is running ~700hp on a GT4094R - the GT40xxR turbos on RBs is something I have been trying for ages to get good info on. There are plenty of EVOs out there running >600whp on them though, with impressively good response - the T04Z/T67BB/whatever people call them are "So pre-2005" these days haha.

Vid of FullRace showing off one of their GT40R setups.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/251021-4088r-vs-t04z/#findComment-4346943
Share on other sites

Of the three you mention I'd give the GT4094R a big miss , basically a GT4088R with the GT4294R's compressor wheel and not surprisingly a poor combination with the 78T GT40 turbine .

Personally I think the GT4088R is a better unit mainly because it has more current wheel designs which is a bonus .

The T04Z's turbine (T04 P trim) probably dates back to the 1960's so a lot of engineering water has passed under the bridge since then .

There is a lot of variation in what gets called "T04Z" mainly with the turbine housing . A/R sizes all over the place and single or twin entry turbine housings in big T4 or smaller T3/twin T4 Euro flange sizes . I wouldn't even bother contemplating a T04Z with a single scroll turbine housing unless it was one of the three HKS ones .

You should really E mail Geoff Raicer at FullRace Motorsports in the US because he really likes and has had great success from GT4088R's and always says that if the engine/manifolds/turbo are properly set up they are not especially laggy .

Aside from just the wheel designs in this turbo both are significantly different trim size wise and that seems to make all the difference .

Garrett usually use the 84 trim size with their GT UHP turbines ie GT30/GT35 and the proyptype GT4088R did as well , at some stage they settled on a 78 trim size for the GT4088R and it also is available on the diesel GT37xxR turbos .

The compressor wheel design I believe was a first for Garrett and to me looks like typical GT blade form but with 7/14 blades instead of 6/12 and in a 52 trim size rather than the usual 56 trim size .

The T04R compressor wheel in the "T04Z" turbo is an older T series design and being 63 trim is dated thinking IMO compared to later petrol engine designs and even diesel engine designs .

Recently people have been looking at Holset and BW diesel turbos , often they use big wheels in smaller trims sizes than Garrett usually does with GT BB turbos but the downside at times is their massive housings .

Anyway speak to Geoff because he's played with RB26's and GT4088R's so he should be able to give you an idea of what to expect .

Cheers A .

Edited by discopotato03
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/251021-4088r-vs-t04z/#findComment-4347583
Share on other sites

Of the three you mention I'd give the GT4094R a big miss , basically a GT4088R with the GT4294R's compressor wheel and not surprisingly a poor combination with the 78T GT40 turbine .

Isn't the 94mm compressor used in the GT4094R a lesser trim to the GT4294R, possibly making it a bit less of a "bad combination"? Something I find interesting is that the compressor maps I have seen for the GT4088R imply that it falls over quite a bit when you start going over PR ~2.5 or so yet there are cars making really good power on 30-40psi with them. Am I missing something?

I've trawelled through and for dyno plots of Supras (our closest equivalent that DO have plots for them) running GT40R and so far haven't seen any which stand over equivalent setups running GT3582Rs, whether its because no one has pushed them to their capabilities or if they just can't flow sufficiently to suit a big motor. Maybe someone has and needs to share their results still :D

Edited by Lithium
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/251021-4088r-vs-t04z/#findComment-4347701
Share on other sites

Yes that is true , the trim sizes are 52 and 56 .

Geoff had a post in Supraforums I think and he was doing comparisons of power outputs and turbine housing size on GT4088R's , I believe his findings were that using larger turbine housings was the way to male the power without high (40 psi) boost pressure .

I'm curious to know what sort of response is being asked for from this stretched RB27 .

Cheers A .

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/251021-4088r-vs-t04z/#findComment-4347789
Share on other sites

ive never had a 4088 so i cant compare but my garrett t04z 1.00 twin scroll 20psi from 3500 its great all the way to redline to make 450rwkw.. i dont see the big problem with it. this is on a 26/30 272 degree cams

Edited by 2BNVS
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/251021-4088r-vs-t04z/#findComment-4348106
Share on other sites

When i was chatting to creatd ms, they showed me a single setup using the 4088 on an rb26 which was built for a good street car so its not very laggy at all and makes a nice 400kw atw.

Was considering this setup but for police hassle reasons im sticking to twins.

If you watch that HKS r34 gtr on youtube that runs a 2.8litre stroker, it seems to need alot of revs to get going....but top end made tsuchya scream.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/251021-4088r-vs-t04z/#findComment-4348128
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

i run a 4094r, rb26/30 jun stage one cams thats 264-in/272-ex with 9.7mm lift.spool rods and cp flat top pistons. acl bearings ,n1 oil/water pumps, car made 710bhp @ the fly with wastegate leak, put a second spring on and that sorted it, not dynoed it yet but will be doing in feb. car runs a .96 rear and makes 1bar by 3200rpm, makes full boost by 4000,wether it be 1.9 bar, or we have been as high as 2.7bar now. i think this turbo is awesome, and to compare it, i have have a rb26 with hks 25/30,s and an rb30 with a gt35r 1.06 rear, the 4094 spools faster for its size than the 35r and comes in only about 300rpm later. its an awesome turbo..you need to drive a 26/30 with one b4 its condenmed its awesome. bernie uk

p.s 710 @ the fly was @ 6800rpm.

Edited by rockabilly
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/251021-4088r-vs-t04z/#findComment-4375965
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
hey guys im currently doing a new turbo setup on my gtr changing from the 685awhp twin td06 setup to either a single to4z or 4088r i would still like to make a tad over 600 at the wheels but need to speak to anyone running a 4088r i have a few people over in perth running the to4z but would like to see if the 4088r is more responsive and makes more power and what rpm the power falls of as we will rev it to 9200. i will list the spec and any info would be great the new setup will be with a 6 boost mani with large dump pipe

jun 2.7

280 cams

full jun built head

currently running twin td06 to 9900rpm

will run 9200 on the new setup just need to no if the 4088r like rpm as it seams the t04z might fall off

ahhh dannny, finally seeing the light and ditching the old td06's :)

when ur car went on the dyno at motorvation both me and nattalotto looked at each other and said "we will keep our z's"

his made 627rwhp on dd and mine 575rwhp on dd... both had full boost in 4th gear by 4000rpm and mine was still making well over 550rwhp at 8500 and not dropping fast at all

id expect ur car to make easily over 650awhubber love power with awsome response with a z, no idea about the 4088r, everyone says they should be better but noone has a result

ps. blowing ur diff right infront of us was classic, i pissed myself laughing :) sorry

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/251021-4088r-vs-t04z/#findComment-4409485
Share on other sites

ahhh dannny, finally seeing the light and ditching the old td06's :D

when ur car went on the dyno at motorvation both me and nattalotto looked at each other and said "we will keep our z's"

his made 627rwhp on dd and mine 575rwhp on dd... both had full boost in 4th gear by 4000rpm and mine was still making well over 550rwhp at 8500 and not dropping fast at all

id expect ur car to make easily over 650awhubber love power with awsome response with a z, no idea about the 4088r, everyone says they should be better but noone has a result

ps. blowing ur diff right infront of us was classic, i pissed myself laughing :) sorry

yer sean pulled 3 degree of timing out of it the week b4 motorvation so it was down in power. yer im hoping for 650 at the hub with the setup thinking 2.7 280cams and asplit pulse setup should come on a little earlier and a tad more power the simons i hope but if i can get 650 at 1.8bar full boost 4500 i will be happy and only have to rev it to 9k instead of choking the shit out of it like i am atm.

blowing which car both ended blowing haha s15 twisted the tail shaft and gtr snapped halfshafts

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/251021-4088r-vs-t04z/#findComment-4422533
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

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

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...