Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Well I started on my rebuild today...with my heart in my mouth...

Unplugged the ecu, took out tail shaft, unbolted it all from the intercooler etc etc,

Tomorrow hopefully it will be out. Then comes the tedious hard part, The rebuild etc...

Anyway, will keep you informed as to how it is all going.

From all the options I have looked at I have decided to build an RB2.2det. Hopefully will take 6 months or so.

Cheers,

Russ

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/14973-started-on-the-rebuild-today/
Share on other sites

brackets that need to be made...small things that dont fit cause youre using diffent engine bits...larger injectors, bigger turbo, upgrade gearbox to handle the power, Its always going to be more expensive to build because it is not a standard engine so things will have to be machined more and modified more than if you built a standard engine.

Russ

Have you done it before? Big task to attempt if you haven't but thumbs up for giving it a good go!

But i guess i've started on a reasonable amount of pulling my engine apart, and probably could work out how, just have no reason to. .. its all mostly just bolts after all.

building a 3ltr really isnt that much more,if u use the rb25head u can use things like exaust manifold,maybe the turbo if yourve got like a t04 already, and the bottom end stuff for the rb30 it actually pretty cheap,i prices brand new pistons and chromeoly rings for the rb30et and they came to $400 for the set, (thats through work)

how much power are u looking for out of this rebuild?

cause im looking at doing the exact same thing

yeah, so russ, expanding on what narky said, is the extra .2 mainly done for torque? or power? Any other advantages of increasing the litres?

cheers, and good luck with the rebuild!! I really want to find out how everything all works, etc, so when i get my skyline hopefully i'll be able to do most of the things on the car. Service etc.

extra .2 will give more torque and more power thru more capacity...nothing startling there, also might as well because it is just as easy to do 82mm bore and still undecided as to whether I will use rb20 crank or rb25 crank...they give 2.2 or 2.3 litres respectivly(roughly).

just about to actually remove the engine from the car right now....crosses fingers.

going to try and get the engine and gbox out in one go.

Russ

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...