Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

ok...

lets say i have a RB30E motor

which is SOHC and i wanted to change turn this motor into a DOHC

can i do this? how? and with RB25/26 DOHC's?

also, the rocker cover... do you use the RB25/26 covers?

go ask member cubes

he has done this himself and has a very handy pdf guide on what to do and what not to do

search is ur best friend - look under forced induction section for a whole shit load of stuff about it

nissan sold the 3lt design to holden and that meant not using it in their own cars hence all the lower variants...

Secondly dont bother cubes with q's as it gets boring answering the 50 pm's a week about the 3lt. DO research. It will cost u just under 10k if u skimp on all parts, more if u go nuts. building motors for cars that lose value aint fun

thats what i thought, i thought it would be rb30de

but apparently the rb30de is something completely different....

the picture below is a rb30de i believe

that pic of the motor with the redtop, iv read up on these they are a racing engine

hence the triple webbers hanging off the side, were used in sprint cars, track cars etc..

there is a web site about it, the one i seen was producing 300hp natually asperated.

nissan sold the 3lt design to holden and that meant not using it in their own cars hence all the lower variants...

Secondly dont bother cubes with q's as it gets boring answering the 50 pm's a week about the 3lt. DO research. It will cost u just under 10k if u skimp on all parts, more if u go nuts. building motors for cars that lose value aint fun

im sure no one is purposely trying to annoy cubes by asking questions,

and i mean there is only some much information you can find by researching and if there is any other questions to ask, who better to ask than someone who actually has an idea on what they are talking about?

that pic of the motor with the redtop, iv read up on these they are a racing engine

hence the triple webbers hanging off the side, were used in sprint cars, track cars etc..

there is a web site about it, the one i seen was producing 300hp natually asperated.

that might be a very rare rb24s which indeed is a race engine (have a look at wikipedia - they have something about it, maybe?)

its a rb20 that had a gtr crank etc etc in it

the carbs meant that it could rev harder or something - and yeah it made like 300hp at some crazy rpm

taken from wikipedia:

This is a relatively unknown engine, as it was not produced for the Japanese domestic market. These were fitted to some left hand drive Nissan Cefiros exported from Japan new. Mechanically it is made from an RB30E head, RB25DE/DET block and RB20DE/DET crank with 34 mm height pistons. This engine used carburretors instead of the Nissan ECCS fuel injection system. This has the outcome of it being able to rev harder than the RB25DE/DET (as it has the same stroke as the RB20DE/DET) as well as being almost the same displacment as the RB25DE/DET. A common modification is to fit a twin cam head from other RB series motors while retaining the carburreted set-up. The standard single cam form produced 141 PS @ 5000 rpm and 20.1 kgf·m of torque @ 4,400 rpm.

Edited by usherly

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...