Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

I know there is plenty of info on the outputs of specific turbos and combos of all sorts on here, and about every upgrade imaginable, but I have a slightly different question, I have a garrett t04z on my 25 thats been going well for many years, im making 360rwkw on 98 vortex with about 450cc/min of water meth, all this on stock cams too.

I know the t04z is a very old designed and somewhat laggy turbo, and on my setup its making 22psi at 5000 revs, with a 1.05 exhaust housing.

My questions are, should I look at a new turbo? Something like a gtx3076r for my power levels?

Im quite happy with 360kw and not very interested in much more. I can still almost double the meth im running for more power, plus cams would get more again, I see the 3076 making mid 300's easily but I want the room for 400kw, mainly for if I ever go e85.

Or is my most economical option putting a .83 rear on and keeping my current turbo?

Is it going to make it come on at 4k?

Is there an option that will make 400kw and come on by under 4?

I really dont mind the lag that much, but feel I could be doing better easier.

And finally fitment, will any of my options fit straight on where the t04z sits, in regards to the manifold, v-band 3 inch dump, and 4 inch inlet? I realise things will need modifying, just need to know what im in for.

Just looking for options, as I may do something in the near future if I see it being worth it, and what others recommend.

Hoping iv given all the info required. Thanks

Better can definitely be had for your particular setup.

A Precision 6262 CEA should be available in a housing config similar to your T04Z which will improve spool and add power. That is a first suggestion without major outlay which will improve power and spool.

If you want to stay sub 400kw but want the best of the best for a reasonable 'swap over' an FP 3582 HTA will probably be for you. A 3586 HTA is likely to be an awesome compromise if you want way more power, it will probably stretch out to mid 400s rather than the mid 3s mentioned though lol as will a 6262 CEA.

That should tell you what you want to know.

Thanks for the input, how are the hta for reliability? Im not going to head for mid 400's, maybe 400 absolute tops. Im pretty sure its just a t4 discopotato03

And whats more preferable in regards to HTA and precision?

And is the difference going to be where I notice a huge difference?

The HTA is just a modified Garrett so reliability is on your side... The only downside to these turbos is the cost, other than that they are a damn good choice for RBs

Precision are cheaper and will also get the job done well, have read a couple of reliability things BUT never seen any first hand so it could just be haters online :P

On E85 there is usually a 40kws of gain, if the tuner knows what he's doing.

On E85. Unless you put some cams in it. Or using factory cams:

A GT30 based turbocharger can not make over 400rwkws

A GT35 based turbocharger make get over 400rwkws, but can not make 24psi (minimum requirement to reach 400rwkws) any where near 4000rpms.

You will need our Alpha turbo systems to do this. And trailing result of 407rwkws with 24psi by 3700rpms using factory cams and E85.

On E85 there is usually a 40kws of gain, if the tuner knows what he's doing.

On E85. Unless you put some cams in it. Or using factory cams:

A GT30 based turbocharger can not make over 400rwkws

A GT35 based turbocharger make get over 400rwkws, but can not make 24psi (minimum requirement to reach 400rwkws) any where near 4000rpms.

You will need our Alpha turbo systems to do this. And trailing result of 407rwkws with 24psi by 3700rpms using factory cams and E85.

You could go close enough!

I found Pump 98 is tinny bit more responsive, probably due to the extra heat:

Boost response. 98 (Purple) V E85

http://www.hypergearturbos.com/images/dynosheets/atr43/atr43ss2/290612/e85boost.jpg

I found the same thing Stao, perhaps the extra carbon content in the exhaust stream?

A GTX3076 would almost get you 400kw, (with a large AR rear) but not with the response of the Hypergear, or the HTA from the few results I have seen. e85 would be a must at that boost though.

I found the same thing Stao, perhaps the extra carbon content in the exhaust stream?

A GTX3076 would almost get you 400kw, (with a large AR rear) but not with the response of the Hypergear, or the HTA from the few results I have seen. e85 would be a must at that boost though.

The 2 HTA3076 results are 391kw with restrictive exhaust and 396kw with small inadequate intercooler! Still both were pushed and both seemed to make similar power! Mine was done on E70 pump fuel and stock motor + Headgasket, the other with proper E85 and built engine i believe. 20psi @ 3700rpm.... Still i reckon you would need to push pretty hard to make the magic 400kw mark but tbh in the 34 it just wouldnt matter, it bursts into wheelspin if you mash the throttle and down low it feels SO good....

I STILL dont have my flex fuel dyno sheets :dry: but i believe pump 98 was in the 330kw region as it wasnt pushed to higher boost levels.

I found the same thing Stao, perhaps the extra carbon content in the exhaust stream?

It would have to be because of temperature. Extra "carbon" in the exhaust is not a useful factor. Simplistically, E85 exhaust would have the larger volume. There are more molecules of exhaust gas per unit of power made (or per unit of air consumed) because there are two O atoms in each CO2 and only one O atom in each H2O. So fuels that produce more water produce more volume. But that's the volume when expressed simply in terms of number of molecules. If you jam another 100°C exhaust temperature then that would add up to a larger change in actual volume in the exhaust. Once you've done all the maths and worked out that with basically the same mass rate of exhaust flow (there would actually be slightly more mass rate with E85, but ignore that for the moment) travelling at a higher velocity (simply because it is hotter and takes up more room) the 98 exhaust has more momentum. And that's just looking at it simplistically. If you go fully thermodynamic in your consideration, then now you're looking at the ex manifold pressure as well, and so looking at the total energy available in the exhaust (and what fraction of it is available to extract across the turbine). The simplistic view is sufficient to explain what we see here though.

Edited by GTSBoy

The 2 HTA3076 results are 391kw with restrictive exhaust and 396kw with small inadequate intercooler! Still both were pushed and both seemed to make similar power! Mine was done on E70 pump fuel and stock motor + Headgasket, the other with proper E85 and built engine i believe. 20psi @ 3700rpm.... Still i reckon you would need to push pretty hard to make the magic 400kw mark but tbh in the 34 it just wouldnt matter, it bursts into wheelspin if you mash the throttle and down low it feels SO good....

I STILL dont have my flex fuel dyno sheets :dry: but i believe pump 98 was in the 330kw region as it wasnt pushed to higher boost levels.

True, he will need cams to get this sort of result. The 407rwkws that I've archived is on stock cams with lesser boost.

I don't know the exact wheel profile of the HTA item, how ever SS3's turbine wheel is larger then whats in the GT30s. It should pump more power on your setup.

On E85 there is usually a 40kws of gain, if the tuner knows what he's doing.

On E85. Unless you put some cams in it. Or using factory cams:

A GT30 based turbocharger can not make over 400rwkws

A GT35 based turbocharger make get over 400rwkws, but can not make 24psi (minimum requirement to reach 400rwkws) any where near 4000rpms.

You will need our Alpha turbo systems to do this. And trailing result of 407rwkws with 24psi by 3700rpms using factory cams and E85.

A GT3582R HTA will get 24psi near 4000rpm - as with a Borg Warner EFR8374, and they have proven reliability.

True, he will need cams to get this sort of result. The 407rwkws that I've archived is on stock cams with lesser boost.

I don't know the exact wheel profile of the HTA item, how ever SS3's turbine wheel is larger then whats in the GT30s. It should pump more power on your setup.

You didn't make 407rwkw, you made 407kw @ hubs - it'd be interesting to see it if would crack 400kw on that boost with stock cams, as I don't think I have seen anyone else do that with an RB25 despite some using similar or larger turbos. Unless proven otherwise I am far from convinced that the reason you have make that extra power versus cars run on other dynos on that boost on stock cams should be attributed to the turbo itself.

Comparing turbine wheel sizes between different turbine designs to determine flow is folly as well - a Borg Warner 8375 has a ~75mm turbine wheel compared to a 68mm Garrett one yet they are very comparable in terms of flow. Doesn't mean it won't, but certainly doesn't guarantee it will.

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

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...