Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey,

Just looking at some options for an R32 GTS4 (turbo). Friend has a stocker and looking for a fairly significant performance boost. He's interested an engine swap mainly.

What options are there for a GTS4 to still retain the running gear?

Obviously there's the RB25DET from a Stagea, RB26DETT, but are there any other possibilities?

Thanks!

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/86095-r32-gts4-upgrade-options/
Share on other sites

I think those are the only real options. Although you could build a RB24 from the RB20.

I've gone the Stagea RB25DET path. The engine is otherwise stock, and I'm running a Wolf 3D 4+ ECU. Power tops out at 180 kW at all four wheels. (RB20DET had 115!). Main problem I'm encountering is that the RB25 has too much torque to need the 4.375 GTS4 diff ratios (I'm currently trying to fit a Stagea 4.08 diff set).

If you go this path, leave all the loom in place, and get a plug'n'play GTR ECU. This will allow you to retain the 4WD workings, and the A/C. If the engine comes with VVT, you can add the necessary wiring to make it work.

Did you have many problems dropping that in Elk?

My friend is looking going down the GTR path. He's been quoted over $20k for a HKS T04Z, Giken cross gear set, GTR box, all the ancillaries, etc but without engine!

He was told that this package would give him 400awkw+ and spool at around 4000rpm. Personally I can think of plenty of other things I could do with $20k..

Did you have many problems dropping that in Elk?

My friend is looking going down the GTR path. He's been quoted over $20k for a HKS T04Z, Giken cross gear set, GTR box, all the ancillaries, etc but without engine!

He was told that this package would give him 400awkw+ and spool at around 4000rpm. Personally I can think of plenty of other things I could do with $20k..

The main problem I encountered was using the wire-in loom, rather than the plug'n'play. Engine simply drops in. And the GTS4's box is more than up to the task of moving motive power to the wheels.

All up, I reckon it cost me close to $8k, including a flywheel / clutch set up (Stageas are generally autos).

RB30 its the only way!!!!!!

you either own a VL or are from the USA right?

If you want to save yourself the hassles of not converting an auto engine to manual, you should look into getting a RB25DET out of a laurel (or was it leopard?) or one of the other sedans.

RB30 bottom end needs to be converted to have a front diff etc, which is not really a small budget solution.

If he's ultimately gonna crave power and doesn't have a deep pocket, tell him to sell the car and buy a GTR once he's saved enough. If he's happy with a slow build up that may cost a lil extra in the long run, go for an RB25DET swap.

Which adapts the RB30 block to the GTR or GTS4 sump/diff

surely that's not all you you need to put an RB30 into a GTS4? what about the labour charges for fitting it all up and the custom work needed to match the block to the head?

Guys I was thinking about some of this stuff but what is the real world cost of GTS4 with the GTR diffs/gearbox .

While you might want the engine, you just keep the gts4 diffs, they are the same except the ratio is 10% shorter for better accelleration (and worse fuel economy lol)

30K NZ that farkin ridiculous. I dont know how some of these guys are justyfying what they are selling against the real cost, ah well good for him if people are doing it. With my plate if you droped it off to a shop and threw them my instrusction guide, which is 16 pages with diagrams and very detailed, theres no way they could charge you anymore than $1200 to fit it all. Simply put theres a little drilling, some cutting, and welding and about $50 in materials. I am not a salesman and I am not in selling my designed plates for making money I make around $50-$100 a plate and it covers my running around, fuel and trys to recoupe some r and d time. Its up to you but there are 2 gts4s running my plate and although I have never been in the car according to the owner its a totally different car, and couldnt want anymore from a street car that he has only spent around 10g on all the mods!!!

Funky

Not American nor do I own a VL, you need to go in a r33 with a rb25 then go in the same speced r33 (ie, same sized turbo, exhaust etc...) with a rb30, and you will understand why its the best possible solution. You can eve take a ride in a gtr with a t88 then hop in a supra with the same turbo, the supra is heavier but based on average power will be a much more user friendly car and the torque will more than disguise the extra weight. Theres not alot more work in putting in a r30 over a rb25 they are both pretty big jobs!!!!

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...