Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

I'm looking to upgrade my turbo

Currently running a t04r but want to upgrade to the equavilant in the gtx range.

Would that be the gtx4294r?

Ive heard rumors such as more response than a t04z yet almost as powerful as a t51r.

Any1 used or heard of anything about these turbos?

Very interested but scared of the size they are.

T04r can on full boost a 5k so looking to either keep or improve that.

Also looking for 500ish kw at 4 wheels atleast as was makin 460kw with the t04r.

My car currently has 280in an 272ex that I was thinking of changing to both 280s.also 2.8 litre stroker.

All other turbo sugeations are greatly appreciated.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/391344-gtx4294r-on-a-rb28/
Share on other sites

A quick google found me this. Its a much, much bigger turbo than a t04. Most people quote them as a 900hp turbo, which is way more than what your aiming for, so in my non expert opinion, its way to big. I really don't know what is the best turbo for ~500kw though, but probably something a fair bit smaller.

Yeah your right

It sucks as need to run something t4 flanged and been hearing how t04r and z are old technology and wanted to make some more power without too much extra boost as I'm running 22psi already.and seeing as the gtx4294r has better response than t04 series turbos was considering it.How about gtx4202r? Or will the gtx3582r make the power with response I'm after?

Dude, use some common sense.

The GTX4294 is a BIGGER turbo than your T04Z and will be laggier.

What are you after? More response? Or 500rwkw? You cant have both.

GTX35R will be more responsive than you T04Z (350-400rwkw)

GTX4294 will make 500rwkw (5500rpm>)

OR

Run 30psi through the T04Z.

A lot of 2jz are now running gtx4294r or it's smaller brother gtx4202r and claiming to have same and better response than a t04z and can achieve t51r like kw and they have tried t04z before hand.i wouldnt mind more power but than again same power with more response would also be good.im really looking at the gtx4202r now,just read that a 2jz starts seeing bOost at 2500rpm and on song by 3800 rpm.im also running pump but I don't know if I an be bothered changing my fuel system to suit e85 and order it by the drum.i do t trust servos either

Try again mate. The GT4202 is a 1000hp turbo, BIGGER than a GT4294 (850hp)

The GT4202 is also the same size as a T51 so its no brainer that they would be making similar power.

A 42 size turbo at target boost by 3800rpm??

Show me these results and ill buy 10 of them.

And if are serious about more response and more power the turbos I would pick:

TS GT4088

TS FP3794

I'll try find the thread again in the supra forums,also im talking all wheel power not rear.the 4088 looks really good.i might still run the gtx4294r but I'll do a little more research.i don't mind lag too much as my t04r for some reason comes on at 5grand.

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...