Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

i think i have found a potential restriction to airflow in a series 2 stagea (manual). here are some pics of the gaskets from a series 2 Stagea and an R34 GT-t. this seems to indicate that the runners for the Stagea are smaller and i am guessing but possibly the cams are different (not verified yet) contrary to most information i had found previously. the plenum visually appears smaller. i am guessing this has been done to improve down low performance on the heavier car sacrificing some top-end!?!?

thoughts anyone?

post-5777-1154786389.jpgpost-5777-1154786408.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/128983-series-2-stagea-plenum/
Share on other sites

I thought that the general idea was that the Skyline/Stagea motors were the same in all these major aspects, whereas what you've seen here indicates what I'd call a pretty big difference. Shows you shouldn't make assumptions on these things, Nissan seem to be willing to customise their engines for various cars in quite major ways looking at that manifold difference! And obviously consider the Skyline somewhat more performance orientated, not that its a surprise I guess..

On power figures alone, the stagea s2 doesn't appear to be detuned compared to the r34GT-T.

But the findings above show that there are clearly differences between them and I'd agree with the point about more low-down power in the stagea, sacrificing some top-end. My S2 stagea (completely stock) is good off the line but runs out of puff at about 3000-3500rpm after which its a slow climb up through the revs.

Great discovery wolverine!

i think the part numbers are different. some one with FAST will be handy here (hint anyone).

i just got the car back and it has been a huge head scratcher why we were running out of puff. everything was checked or changed unfortunately that left the factory parts like cams and plenum (which we thought would be the same as an R34). we struggled to get much over 210-215 rwkw without screwing in a whole lot of boost so there was clearly a restriction.

the car finally made 237rwkw with a GT-RS turbo (with all the appropriate fruit attached to the car).

anyway i hope the next person to modify can add/confirm some of the details above.

Ah, I wondered whose car it was that John was calling me about, now I know it was yours. Big head scratch that one, my guess was cams, which I hope to confirm shortly. I didn't think of inlet differences.

post-5777-1154786389_thumb.jpg

The top gasket in that picture looks like an RB25DET NON NEO one.

If so, it still wouldn't explain the low power, R33GTST's easily exceed that. So my guess is still with the cams.

:thumbsup: cheers :P

Edited by Sydneykid

SK the top one is the neo stagea gasket as it was explained to me. the other one was from an R34 GT-t (unless i have my wires crossed).

we compared prank's plenum (S1) and it is substantially larger (visually).

UAS spoke to nissan and confirmed the cams are the same but i still have my doubts.

Edited by wolverine

Any updates?

Anyone know what the R34 GTT cams are compared to the Neo Stagea?

Whether the cams are the issue or not, which Tomie Poncams would suit the best

Type A 252 duration 9.15mm lift

Type B 252 duration 9.15mm lift

Turbo rated at 450hp

Street use

SK?

What you have there is; top, a neo gasket, bottom a non neo, r33, series one stagea, whatever gasket.

It's the neos that have the smaller runners. Previous models had bigger ones. Doesn't seem to restrict at all. I think it would help having smaller ones to keep air velocity. Ie; I think the air would expand a little in the plenum and inlet manifold then compress again going into the ports with the bigger one but with the smaller one (neo) it would keep the air more compressed all the to the ports thus requiring less effort to recompress and being ultimately less restrictive.

I've been travelling, or I would have already commented..:(

Given I have both a R34 GTX turbo and a Stagea RS4S I can say that -

a) they appear to be absolutely identical (NEO) engines - at least from the outside.

b) I don't run out of puff in the stagea at 3000-3500 revs! (as someone suggested above)

c) taking into account the 200kg difference, the engines seem to have the same power. Though the stagea is of course more grippy because of the weight, and the four wheel drive, so I think it makes up for the weight difference quite a bit by getting more power to the ground some times... They both move well when you want them to..

d) the only slight difference I had been finding was that the R34 was going on boost faster. But that has recently been tracked down to a leaky hose, so I'll see what it is like in the next few weeks…

If the engines are different in any major way I'll be a bit surprised..

Hope that helps someone.. :D

Ian

Stagea neo Rb25DET cam spec's

Inlet 236 deg 8.4 mm lift

Exhaust 232 deg 7.0mm lift

What are R34 neo spec's?

Just found the R34 spec's

Inlet 236 deg 8.4 mm lift

Exhaust 232 deg 8.7mm lift

So would the difference in the R34 exhaust cam lift be reason for the different power levels?

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

    • 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
    • If they can dyno them, get them dyno'd, make sure they're not leaking, and if they look okay on the dyno and are performing relatively well, put them in the car.   If they're leaking oil etc, and you feel so inclined, open them up yourself and see what you can do to fix it. The main thing you're trying to do is replace the parts that perish, like seals. You're not attempting to change the valving. You might even be able to find somewhere that has the Tein parts/rebuild kit if you dig hard.
    • Can you also make sure the invoices on the box (And none exist in the boxes) are below our import duty limits... I jest, there's nothing I need to actually purchase and order in. (Unless you can find me a rear diff carrier, brand new, for stupidly cheap, that is for a Toyota Landcruiser, HZJ105R GXL, 2000 year model...)  
×
×
  • Create New...