Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

RB26 D20423A

I ordered a motor and it is supposed to be R33 RB26DETT. Above is the engine number that i requested from them. Was wondering if anyone can tell me if it really is a 33. Specifically someone who has the FAST software and maybe they could run the number through it and let me know. Any help would be great. Thanks guys.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/120933-need-to-know-generation/
Share on other sites

RB26 D20423A

I ordered a motor and it is supposed to be R33 RB26DETT. Above is the engine number that i requested from them. Was wondering if anyone can tell me if it really is a 33. Specifically someone who has the FAST software and maybe they could run the number through it and let me know. Any help would be great. Thanks guys.

My engine no is RB26 038604A from a late 93 R32.. Hope this also helps.

wrxhoon - any idea how to decode the numbers without NISSAN FAST software? Do these numbers mean anything?

My engine no is RB26 038604A from a late 93 R32.. Hope this also helps.

wrxhoon - any idea how to decode the numbers without NISSAN FAST software? Do these numbers mean anything?

I don't think you can tell with Nissan fast how old the engine is by the number.

I have a list of engine numbers and the aproximate built date . You are correct in saying your engine was built in the second half of 93.

How sure are you that it is out of a 32? Just wondering cause the company knows i am going to be checking to make sure it is a 33 and they assure me it is from an r33. Also the reason i want a 33 is so that I dont have to deal with the small crank collar on the early 32s but i also heard that later 32s might not have this problem. Is there any truth in any of this? thanks

The updated / larger crank collar was fitted to late model R32's. My engine was recently stripped down (late 93 model) and its obviously got the larger crank collar. Ask the company to take off oil pump and check the collar..

OLD R32 crank (90 model)

post-26500-1149557228.jpg

NEW R32 crank (my late 93 model)

post-26500-1149557304.jpg

How sure are you that it is out of a 32? Just wondering cause the company knows i am going to be checking to make sure it is a 33 and they assure me it is from an r33. Also the reason i want a 33 is so that I dont have to deal with the small crank collar on the early 32s but i also heard that later 32s might not have this problem. Is there any truth in any of this? thanks

I'm fairly sure but i can't be 100% sure ( according to my records its a 32, second half of 91 actualy).

Have you got a pic of the engine? The engine may be out of a 33 but originaly was in a 32, someone may have fitted it in a 33. Later 32's do have the 33 crank.

I am doing the swap myself so when i get the motor I will be taking off the oil pan anyway since I need to use the rb25 unit. Is it possible to tell visually by just removing the oil pan? either way I will take pictures and post them up on here of the crank collar. Also I was wondering if the engine number I listed is exactly correct. Should the D be a 0? I had some trouble reading the hand writing of the guy who gave it to me.

Edited by BlackRBS13

how do you find out when the engine was made?

is there a function in fast that allows you to input the engine number get out details?

im sure my engine didnt orignally come from my gtr, and was just wondering......

my number is 057289A

steve

Edited by PHATR32

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...