Rb30, Realistic Na Power Figures

[scathing]

I cant see how you wont get 300kw out of a Rb25de. You will need to spend some money on it. But it is possable.

On an all-motor streetable engine (which is what Russ_T was asking for)? Good luck. 120kW / L from a NA engine that has to be flexible enough to drive around town, at least passable on noise and emissions, and reliable on pump fuel is not an easy ask. OEMs (even the guys who make exotica) have hard enough time getting to 100kW / L with their R&D budgets, even on modern engines.

That you managed to pull so much power with bolt-ons just goes to show how badly designed and power robbing those ancillaries were on the OEM setup (especially without an ECU tune to suit), not how much power he'll gain if he gets everything running efficiently.

FYI: Nitrous is a form of forced induction

Edited June 12, 2006 by scathing

[ebola]

FYI: Nitrous is a form of forced induction

I'm learning new stuff all the time.

Just how is N2O 'forced induction'? Please explain (cos I dont think it is, at any rate)

now, since I posted:

on the topic of kW/L, shouldn't the old s2k get wheeled out - you can make (almost) 100 kW/L, all you need is 11:1 and a 9k redline. Ow. But $$$ can achieve anything - just look at F1.

There are a few performance tricks you can use (which I have only read about - mostly from here).

Are you interested in power at the wheels, or at the flywheel?. In my book, its whats turning the wheels that counts. And of course, the weight of the car counts in different ways.

As an aside, although its NOT NA, you could consider a fixed displacement supercharger. Should be cheper than a big power NA, feel good, its just not purist.

[scathing]

I'm learning new stuff all the time.

Just how is N2O 'forced induction'? Please explain (cos I dont think it is, at any rate)

You're artificially increasing the amount of oxygen inside a given volume of air. I realise you're not using a compressor, but "forced" doesn't only mean "compressor supplied". And once you inject that gas into the intake, its pressure logically increases above that of atmospheric anyway (more gas in a given volume).

Even if you choose not to call it "forced induction", at the same time I don't think you can call the injection of a nitrogen / oxygen molecule from a tank inside the car "normally aspirated", which is what Russ_T was asking for anywya.

[Russ_T]

I don't want to make the power from N20, I might as well keep my L6 otherwise.

Links to high performance NA RB26s would be appreciated please

Thanks for debate so far.

[Hakai]

How do you figure?

By the stats you posted, the TVR's I6 fails to meet the 100hp/L benchmark that BMW's M division has met since the E36 M3's Series 1 engine.

And lets not get into discussing the reliability of that engine. Nor its fuel economy. TVR boasts that every last nut and bolt in their cars is British made, which anyone ever following the trail of bits leading to an overheated / broken down TVR will definitely attest to.

I wouldn't mind seeing figures on their respective torque curves either. The M3's engines have apparently been remarkably tractable in the low end despite their high redlines and high peak power but I've heard differing stories from people who've driven them.

Aside from having more displacement, what exactly does the Sagaris I6 beat the M3's I6 in? All the "wow" bits you've listed are still no-where near the M3's list of tech. Double VANOS. One of the world's most powerful ECU's. Lightweight internals. Carbon coated pistons for self lubrication and lower friction. Dual length intakes. Individual throttle bodies. Tuned length extractors. And they're all I can remember off the top of my head.

Do you drive a Commodore or a Falcon? Because the last time I heard someone saying that an engine was "superior" based on its extra displacement, they got their arses handed to them at Bathurst.

Generalisng it as "every regard" was probably a bit much. By "every regard" I meant that the TVR Sagaris engine puts out more power/torque than the M3 engine. As a complete car, the TVR also does 0-100 in 3.7 compared to the M3's 5.2. I wasn't comparing "wow bits", I was comparing final results. I was pointing out that the TVR engine makes 285kw under 7,500rpm, that's quite impressive imo. The TVR makes 38hp more than the M3 with 900 less revs, it also makes 103nm more torque at 100 more revs. If the TVR made more power at the SAME rpm or a higher rpm with its larger displacement, I'd conceed that it wasn't impressive at all.

I read somewhere that a lower displacement engine can usually put out the same power as a higher displacement engine, the power will just occur at a higher RPM, so in my book the figures on the TVR are quite impressive compared to the M3's.

Also, while I love M3s I find them to sound a bit tinny when they get a stomp on the loud pedal, but that's my personal opinion. I've never heard a TVR sitting next to me, but I've seen some high quality video and they sounded like magic, I can only guess they'd sound better again In person Again just my personal opinion.

Please quote me on where I said the TVR was superior to the M3 based on its extra displacement? I would really love to see where I wrote that absolute drivvel? Displacement is one factor in a thousand when it comes to the final output of any engine, it helps yes, but it's nowhere near the be all and end all. So please show me where I said or even loosely implied "The TVR beats the M3 in every regard because of its higher displacement"?

One final thing. You are bagging the TVR based on what you've been "told", so; nothing but heresay and rumour. From the sounds of your post you haven't driven an M3 or a TVR, so really you're in no position to make the judgements that you're making and I'm in no position to make such claims either.

Since I have no knowledge of the reliability of either the M3 or the TVR, I never made any comment attesting to either in my original statement, and I will still not do so now. I stand by my statement that the TVR boasts more impressive numbers than the M3.

Lastly, if you'd read my little notes off under my name, you'd see I drive an R32 GTS-T. I have a high degree of personal dislike for commodores and falcons, or just holden and ford in general, for many reasons, mainly their lack of engine technology (until VERY recently) and their absolutely disgusting build quality.

Ben.

[Hakai]

There you go, it's a 4ltr RB26 has a destinct disadvantage. Although I was going to go the route of ITBs, MFI and any trick bits I can get, I am still 1.4ltrs down.

That's what I wanted to hear Where is this wealth of information though on NA tuning the RB please? I have various books on general four stroke performance tuning, but I'd really like to find a website (be it a shop or whatever) where I can start looking into parts, different pistons to get the compression ratio I want etc etc. I'm finding it difficult to plan it at the moment.

The RB26 also has the advantage of having been around since 1990, so that's 16 years worth of tuning experience and aftermarket parts development that you have to draw on.

You know as well as I do that, as I said in my post above, displacement is only one factor in a thousand when it comes to engine output. The RB26 has other advantages over the TVR engine as well, such as rev limits. I've heard of people building RB26's that can rev to 10,000. I've also heard of ones even being built to rev past 11,000 but I found nothing but talk about that so who knows. I think that a 10,000rpm compared to 7,800rpm could well bring you very close to, if not right on, making up the difference of 2.6ltr to 4ltr, and that's providing you chose not to stroke it to a 2.8ltr, that is if the stroker can be built to handle that kind of rpm.

As for showing you where the wealth of information is, I can't because I've never had reason to save any information I came across regarding anything like that because to me it was just a good read, I had no reason to keep it for any later use, sorry. The information is out there though, as I said, 16 years of the engine being modified doesn't yeild no results.

Either way, I wish you the best of luck with the build, if you decide to go ahead with it N/A power is my main love as well, but I'm going with a 1UZ-FE V8 when I finally get the cash saved to do so, I wish I had the money to pour into a monster N/A RB26 but I just don't

Ben.

[scathing]

If the TVR made more power at the SAME rpm or a higher rpm with its larger displacement, I'd conceed that it wasn't impressive at all.

So you don't measure an engine's superiority by power / displacement then? You're just after outright power and torque figures? I guess that means a Gen IV Chev is a better engine than the M3's and the TVR's, since it makes more power at a lower RPM. A Gen III makes more power than the F20C out of a Honda S2000 at a far lower RPM, so another win for Holden.

It looks like we're measuring superiority by different things. I measure an engine's superiority by how much power it makes per unit of air that goes into it (to compare FI and NA engines), and how it delivers power. I don't particularly like the Gen III even though it makes a fair amount of power, because it doesn't deliver it in a linear manner like a large displacement engine should and it doesn't make that much power for a 5.7L engine.

Please quote me on where I said the TVR was superior to the M3 based on its extra displacement? I would really love to see where I wrote that absolute drivvel? Displacement is one factor in a thousand when it comes to the final output of any engine

You said the TVR engine was superior, and then rattled off a whole bunch of specs. I pointed out all the ways in which its not, and the only place that I couldn't find an advantage for the M3 was in displacement. Its called a process of elimination and drawing conclusions based on evidence, a higher brain function that you seem unable to perform.

While displacement may only be "one factor in a thousand", but unfortunately for you not all factors are weighted equally. And displacement, like it or not, is the factor with the biggest effect in a modern production NA engine (which is what we're comparing). You could start doing stuff like running exotic material internals, direct injection and the rest...but those cost a lot more and require a lot more engineering noise than just building a bigger engine (can anyone say American V8s?) and it still won't give you as much grunt.

One final thing. You are bagging the TVR based on what you've been "told", so; nothing but heresay and rumour. From the sounds of your post you haven't driven an M3 or a TVR, so really you're in no position to make the judgements that you're making and I'm in no position to make such claims either.

Then if you acknowledge your own lack of qualifications to make such statements, why did you?

I bagged the TVR based on owner experiences. There's a guy who works at the end of my road who owns a TVR Cerbera (and that V8 is one of the most awesome sounds I've ever heard), and I work for an investment bank where I talk to the British car-nuts who can afford all kinds of cool toys.

Yes it is hearsay, but this isn't a court of law. Its a forum for discussion. And so that's what I'm doing, and you were doing until you had a crisis of confidence in your own qualification.

I'm wondering. As an R32 GTS-t owner, have you ever pulled your engine apart to measure its bore and stroke? If you haven't, then how do you know its actually 2.0L? Its on a spec sheet, brochure or you read it on a web site, which means someone told you. So if someone asks you how big your engine is and you say 2L, should they not believe you because its hearsay?

Just pointing out how ridiculous saying "just because you have no direct personal experience you shouldn't comment" actually is.

As for the engine note, I'd agree with you there. Aside from the E46 CSL, which I have personally heard a few times in a fly-by and on the skidpan (both standing on the skidpan watching and in-cabin) and sounds unbelievable at full noise, the regular M3 sounds like the exhaust has something wrong with it.

[Hakai]

So you don't measure an engine's superiority by power / displacement then? You're just after outright power and torque figures? I guess that means a Gen IV Chev is a better engine than the M3's and the TVR's, since it makes more power at a lower RPM. A Gen III makes more power than the F20C out of a Honda S2000 at a far lower RPM, so another win for Holden.

It looks like we're measuring superiority by different things. I measure an engine's superiority by how much power it makes per unit of air that goes into it (to compare FI and NA engines), and how it delivers power. I don't particularly like the Gen III even though it makes a fair amount of power, because it doesn't deliver it in a linear manner like a large displacement engine should and it doesn't make that much power for a 5.7L engine.

You said the TVR engine was superior, and then rattled off a whole bunch of specs. I pointed out all the ways in which its not, and the only place that I couldn't find an advantage for the M3 was in displacement. Its called a process of elimination and drawing conclusions based on evidence, a higher brain function that you seem unable to perform.

While displacement may only be "one factor in a thousand", but unfortunately for you not all factors are weighted equally. And displacement, like it or not, is the factor with the biggest effect in a modern production NA engine (which is what we're comparing). You could start doing stuff like running exotic material internals, direct injection and the rest...but those cost a lot more and require a lot more engineering noise than just building a bigger engine (can anyone say American V8s?) and it still won't give you as much grunt.

Then if you acknowledge your own lack of qualifications to make such statements, why did you?

I bagged the TVR based on owner experiences. There's a guy who works at the end of my road who owns a TVR Cerbera (and that V8 is one of the most awesome sounds I've ever heard), and I work for an investment bank where I talk to the British car-nuts who can afford all kinds of cool toys.

Yes it is hearsay, but this isn't a court of law. Its a forum for discussion. And so that's what I'm doing, and you were doing until you had a crisis of confidence in your own qualification.

I'm wondering. As an R32 GTS-t owner, have you ever pulled your engine apart to measure its bore and stroke? If you haven't, then how do you know its actually 2.0L? Its on a spec sheet, brochure or you read it on a web site, which means someone told you. So if someone asks you how big your engine is and you say 2L, should they not believe you because its hearsay?

Just pointing out how ridiculous saying "just because you have no direct personal experience you shouldn't comment" actually is.

As for the engine note, I'd agree with you there. Aside from the E46 CSL, which I have personally heard a few times in a fly-by and on the skidpan (both standing on the skidpan watching and in-cabin) and sounds unbelievable at full noise, the regular M3 sounds like the exhaust has something wrong with it.

Firstly I was comparing an I6 engine to an I6 engine, not to a V8.

Secondly, owner experiences are a great sources of information but they don't give you the overview of knowledge to say "TVR build unreliable cars" just because the ones you have heard about are unreliable. I hope you can understand my meaning here. TVR have produced alot more cars than the ones you've experienced or the ones people you've spoken to have experienced, so saying they make cars that just break all the time, based on the limited experience you've had, isn't really fair. That's what I was saying. I didn't make any statements toward the reliability of either car, you did and I said as a whole, you don't have the experience with them to justify such a claim. If you'd said something more honed, like "Everyone I know who's owned a TVR has had it break down" that'd be fair, but saying "TVRs all just break down" or anything of that kind, is not.

I would think RPM and valve train tech (such as VVL, VTEC, VVT-i) would have an equal affect on modern production NA engines.

Lastly, I said the TVR engine "beats" the M3 engine in every regard, which when you pointed out to me, I realised every regard was not really a fitting description as all that I meant was that it beats the power and torque figues of the M3 engine while still using the I6 engine configuration. I never said it was a superior engine, and again I'll clarify that what I meant was that it produces more hp/torque than the M3 engine. I listed the specs, because it was a direct copy/paste from the TVR website as I was too lazy to type out just the HP/torque figures.

I am able to perform process of elimination, however; what I think is more-so what you've done is read way too much into what I said and taken it out of context, or assumed I meant something which I didn't.

In the end, I think you've misunderstood or taken offense to the purpose of my original post. Someone said "Good luck getting close to the 252kw the M3 I6 is putting out", I was merely trying to display that there is in fact another I6 N/A engine that is putting out more power/torque.

In a nutshell, Russ_T wanted to know if X power figure was achievable from an N/A RB engine. Someone posted basically saying forget it because the M3 I6 is making 252kw and good luck beating that. I posted saying there is in fact an engine that beats that. That is all. I wasn't trying to promote the TVR over the M3 due to, as I said before, having no hands on, or indirect experience with either cars I'm not qualified to say which has the better technology. I was simply pointing out that there IS an engine out there with a higher output than the M3s while still being an I6. That's it.

Lastly, I never had a crisis of confidence in my own qualification. I never made any statements beyond what I'm qualified to say. I may have grossly missworded some things which led to you justifiably misunderstanding my meaning, but I have attempted to correct that. I said you weren't qualified to blanket TVR as a whole, making cars that always break down or overheat or w/e it was that you said they do. I also am not qualified to comment on such, and I have not done so.

I never said the TVR engine was superior to the M3 engine, I said it beats it, and by that statement I meant it beats the power/torque figures using the same I6 configuration. I can't attest to the torque curves of either, so you may be correct in thinking the M3's is superior to the TVR's, I don't know. I -only- meant what I have clarified here. I hope this clears a few things up for you. I didn't come here to start an argument over which engine is superior, I was just quoting some power figures to contradict a statement someone made that I thought was a tad disheartening for the OP.

Ben.

[Cubes]

The RB26 has other advantages over the TVR engine as well, such as rev limits. I've heard of people building RB26's that can rev to 10,000. I've also heard of ones even being built to rev past 11,000 but I found nothing but talk about that so who knows. I think that a 10,000rpm compared to 7,800rpm could well bring you very close to, if not right on, making up the difference of 2.6ltr to 4ltr, and that's providing you chose not to stroke it to a 2.8ltr, that is if the stroker can be built to handle that kind of rpm.

I would tend to disagree. The 2.6ltr due to its displacement is well and truly behind when it comes to N/A tuning. The larger capacity motor will always make the power more reliably and much easier.

An engine is nothing more than an airpump.

A 2.6ltr at 10,000rpm is pumping the same amount of air as a 4ltr at 6500rpm.

A 4ltr at 7150rpm pumps the same amount of air as a 2.6ltr at 11,000rpm.

So as you can see its going to be much harder to get the 2.6ltr going as hard as something like a 4ltr.

Now consider this..

A 2.6ltr at 9000rpm which may be reasonable will pump the same amount of air as an 3ltr (rb30) at 7800rpm.

7800rpm out of an rb30 with a ati balancer and oil pump drive colar is possible, all it needs is a nice plenum, exhaust, big big cams and it should be possible.

[Hakai]

I would tend to disagree. The 2.6ltr due to its displacement is well and truly behind when it comes to N/A tuning. The larger capacity motor will always make the power more reliably and much easier.

An engine is nothing more than an airpump.

A 2.6ltr at 10,000rpm is pumping the same amount of air as a 4ltr at 6500rpm.

A 4ltr at 7150rpm pumps the same amount of air as a 2.6ltr at 11,000rpm.

So as you can see its going to be much harder to get the 2.6ltr going as hard as something like a 4ltr.

Now consider this..

A 2.6ltr at 9000rpm which may be reasonable will pump the same amount of air as an 3ltr (rb30) at 7800rpm.

7800rpm out of an rb30 with a ati balancer and oil pump drive colar is possible, all it needs is a nice plenum, exhaust, big big cams and it should be possible.

I understand I knew that lower capacity engines could reach like power figures to higher displacement engines at higher RPM, I just didn't know how to work out exactly what's what

So from what you're saying an RB26 would need a 12k rev limit to match the output of a 4ltr I6 with a 7900 rev limit, or thereabouts?

Also what you're saying is that revs to make power aren't as smooth/reliable (usable?) as using outright displacement?

[Cubes]

I understand I knew that lower capacity engines could reach like power figures to higher displacement engines at higher RPM, I just didn't know how to work out exactly what's what

So from what you're saying an RB26 would need a 12k rev limit to match the output of a 4ltr I6 with a 7900 rev limit, or thereabouts?

Also what you're saying is that revs to make power aren't as smooth/reliable (usable?) as using outright displacement?

Thats providing VE is the same, yes.

[Russ_T]

Thats providing VE is the same, yes.

Yep, and that the ignition is equal, and the mixture. So much to it.

Anyway back on topic ladies, Thor racing in my country do RB30 engines, ok they are turbod and silly money, but they have a container full of them

http://www.thor-racing.co.uk/RB30_2WD_Stag...RB30_2WD_S2.asp

I think the RB30 despite being old might be the way to go, bore it over by 1mm (would have thought that was possible, depending on pistons) to 87mm so that's 3067cc or 88mm would be 3138cc.

Would an RB26 crank fit an RB30? Can anyone recommend any books where I can get this info please?

The blocks look really old like my L6, so I cannot see they are much better, unless they allow me access to trick cranks and I suppose I can then use the RB25DE head with twin cams, VVT if I can get it.

Hmm

[Hakai]

Yep, and that the ignition is equal, and the mixture. So much to it.

Anyway back on topic ladies, Thor racing in my country do RB30 engines, ok they are turbod and silly money, but they have a container full of them

http://www.thor-racing.co.uk/RB30_2WD_Stag...RB30_2WD_S2.asp

I think the RB30 despite being old might be the way to go, bore it over by 1mm (would have thought that was possible, depending on pistons) to 87mm so that's 3067cc or 88mm would be 3138cc.

Would an RB26 crank fit an RB30? Can anyone recommend any books where I can get this info please?

The blocks look really old like my L6, so I cannot see they are much better, unless they allow me access to trick cranks and I suppose I can then use the RB25DE head with twin cams, VVT if I can get it.

Hmm

Cubes RB2x/30 guide *Edited to change credit!*

This is a link to the RB2x/30 conversion guide by Cubes. Loads of great info in this PDF. It is all geared towards a turbo application but I don't see why it would be hard to adapt it for an N/A application. Raise the compression and use suitable N/A cams and timing and I don't see why it wouldn't work. All the other things would be the same, a high power N/A motor is going to need strengthening in the same ways as a high power turbo motor right?

If I'm missing anything that would be fundamentally different between the two applications, someone please correct me, don't wanna lead him in the wrong direction.

I don't have any idea about the power figure but I'd imagine if you built an N/A RB25/30 with a high compression (11:1 or even 12:1, is this possible, anyone know?), using all the necessary good bits, I think you could get some really respectable power and still have it daily drivable on 98RON fuel.

I also did a search on these forums for any info on fitting an RB26 crank to the RB30 block but I couldn't turn up any great results, the search function hates me. I do remember reading something about it though so I don't know lol, don't give up

Ben.

Edited June 28, 2006 by Hakai

[Cubes]

Thats the guide I put together. TwincamVL has simply linked to it.

Some one has destroked an rb30 crank with rb26 rods and custom pistons to make it all fit inside an rb26 block, rb25 block could also be used. It came out to 2.9ltrs and has been reving hard to 8000rpm and making if I remember correctly 400rwkw.. I think, either way a shiet load of power... but yer without any isues.. yet.

So thats another option.

With regards to the rb30 block looking old, It actually looks the same as an rb20/25 block but with added vertical ribbing on the outside of the block between the bores.

[Hakai]

Thats the guide I put together. TwincamVL has simply linked to it.

Some one has destroked an rb30 crank with rb26 rods and custom pistons to make it all fit inside an rb26 block, rb25 block could also be used. It came out to 2.9ltrs and has been reving hard to 8000rpm and making if I remember correctly 400rwkw.. I think, either way a shiet load of power... but yer without any isues.. yet.

So thats another option.

With regards to the rb30 block looking old, It actually looks the same as an rb20/25 block but with added vertical ribbing on the outside of the block between the bores.

I'm sorry dude, didn't mean to give improper credit My bad.

On another note, with what I said before, about adapting the guide to work for a N/A motor, is there other things that would need changing, different valve train components, rods, rings, bearings, anything else other than raising the compression, using more N/A suited cams and changing the timing?

Say for example, the RB30 crank and RB26 pistons in an RB26/25 block @ 2.9ltrs, if you put in higher comp pistons, N/A oriented cams and changed the timing (possibly ECU?) would the OP be able to do the same engine setup, or are other factors involved?

Ben.

[Cubes]

Thats fine, the credit I pass on to all of those that shared usefull info in the rb30 thread in forced induction.

With regards to the guide geared towards N/A.

Really there's not much to it, build it to handle high rpm (crank collar & ATI balancer), a nice set of 272duration cams minimum, if possible a solid lifter kit so you can run some decent lift, machine the head around the buckets as to allow greater than 9mm lift, adjustable cam gears, 10-10.5:1 comp ratio, nice port job, port match all manifolds/plenums, larger throttle body, valve deshroud, combustion chamber polish, , powerfc djetro (run it on map to remove the afm restriction as inlet restrictions are bad for NA)

Thats all I can think of off the top of my head..

But as you can see to do it the way I would like to do an NA RB30DET it will cost $$.

[BADR33]

i cant rember if i already said in this thread. but i have a RB30DE NA with 10.43 compression. same with dondenotso as well. he has a few more mods then me.

there is also a guy in NZ who has a RB31de. he put out 139rwkw apparnatly before he had it tuned down to 130. all he had was 3"exhaust, greedy pleninum, 80mm throttle body, fuel pressure reguator, rb20det injectors and running nonvvt so he had a flat torque curve from what i was told.

they are very drivable. i run mine on 95ron and she gos plenty well. ie on the race track i am hitting similar speeds on the straight as rb25det r33

if you want to increase compression you can add rb25de pistons and that will give you 10.4ish compression depnending on what head your using. you can then shave the head and that will give you a little more.

but if i had the choice of building my motor all over again i would have gone with the RB26 head as you get hex throttles, solid lifters, biger cams all stock..

if you ballance the internals it will happyily rev to 7500 if your ecu will allow that. mine will get to 7200 (stock rev limiter) very quick with out even trying.

also another thing to rember. get oil restrictors to the head!! im getting the maddest blow by oil because i didnt put any in..

another choice of ecu is LINK PLUS. thats the one i will get for my car if and when i decide to spend the extra $$ on a ECU.

[Cubes]

also another thing to rember. get oil restrictors to the head!! im getting the maddest blow by oil because i didnt put any in..

What oil pump are you running, I've been advised this is not recommend if one sticks with the std rb30e oil pump.

And unfortunately harmonics are not balanced out, 7500rpm is the limit on the stock balancer, they have been known to let go from 6500rpm using the rb30e balancer and some where around 7500rpm with the rb20/25/26 balancer.

[Russ_T]

Hi all,

The thing with the performance RB parts is they are very strong to cope with big boost. This isn't something I'll be running so I could probably do with something not quite as strong, but lighter for the high revs. More like Honda parts if you know what I mean.

I don't think I could run 98RON on 12:1, I could be wrong. I am looking at running bio-ethanol though, 109RON

The RB block looking old is good, it looks more like my L6 and will suit the car better

The TwinCam pdf doesn't work for me, Yahoo says the file is missing

Thanks

[Russ_T]

Is the variable valve timing something I can use? BTW this is the one and only engine I intend to build for a 240z, so if it takes years I don't mind. With that in mind I'm intending to really go town, and I'm an electronics fan, so was thinking MoTec make the best ECUs? Probably get one of those, if I could get one with a switchable map that'd be great, that way I could map it for 99RON fuel and for 109RON fuel, I guess?

Are the RB cranks interchangeable? Does anyone know for a book that lists the component specs please? I have an L series tuning book that tells me all the crank dimensions, strokes, different piston dimensions and chamber ccs so I can figure out the right combination of parts. I need something for the RB.

The only way to make high power with a NA engine is high RPM with high compression, get the air in so you can make it.