Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

thanks Craved, is the other whole the VCT return and if so do i have to block it aswell and plumb a return in?

I will not be usibf VCT now and never will so i am looking for the simplest solution.

thanks Craved, is the other whole the VCT return and if so do i have to block it aswell and plumb a return in?

I will not be usibf VCT now and never will so i am looking for the simplest solution.

I think you have to put a grub screw or weld the oil return as it doesn't line up with rb30 block and then you have the external oil return plumbing back to the turbo oil return line.

I haven't found a suitable head yet but you can check this with a head gasket if you've got one. If the oil return on the head and the block lines up with the hole in gasket just leave it unplugged, if hole in the gasket doesn't line up with with block assuming you're using an rb25 gasket you'll have to block it.

Thanks BAMR33.

I have pretty much got it worked out. that photo shows turbo oil and water return and also another return from the front of the head that is tee'd into the turbo oil drain. but from what I can see no VCT :)

I have drilled and tapped the VCT feed to M8. and will be putting a grub screw in there. I have also drilled and tapped a new supply point in the VCT gallery on the front of the head about 50mm higher that it has been blocked off. I just need to get a few fittings and it will all be sorted.

I havent got my gaskets yet. but will take a lot of photos of the build for others.

I think an Apology is in order for Gary (Sydneykid). :thumbsup:

I doubted his suggestion that a 1.5mm restrictor up front and rear blocked off was perfecty fine for the R32 RB25DE head with no VCT.

So I went and did it anyway :) and it is 11ty billion percent fine.

Plenty of oil up top; top ends nice and quiet; no tapping when it comes off a rev; its all good. :D

So my apologies Buddy! :)

----

I do know of a RB30DET that ran with 2 x 1.1mm restrictors and that had the lifters tapping a tad after a high rev pull.

Not sure the flow dynamics of it all BUT is it possible the 2 x 1.1mm restrictors results in less oil pressure up top than a single 1.5mm?

Im running 2 x 0.75mm restrictors, but do have solid lifters in the NEO head.

I think an Apology is in order for Gary (Sydneykid).

I doubted his suggestion that a 1.5mm restrictor up front and rear blocked off was perfecty fine for the R32 RB25DE head with no VCT.

So I went and did it anyway and it is 11ty billion percent fine.

Plenty of oil up top; top ends nice and quiet; no tapping when it comes off a rev; its all good.

So my apologies Buddy!

----

I do know of a RB30DET that ran with 2 x 1.1mm restrictors and that had the lifters tapping a tad after a high rev pull.

Not sure the flow dynamics of it all BUT is it possible the 2 x 1.1mm restrictors results in less oil pressure up top than a single 1.5mm?

Here are a few pics of the dummy assembly of my 26/30, have the follwing mods.

post-20864-1186309640_thumb.jpgpost-20864-1186309749_thumb.jpgpost-20864-1186309762_thumb.jpgpost-20864-1186309790_thumb.jpg

Arias 40 thou forgies (ceramic coated)

8.8-9:1 comp

25thou squish

eagle forged rods

knife edged, cryogeniced and balanced crank

N1 oil pump

crank collar(proengines)

8l sump

main studs

head studs

Cometic or HKS head gasket

Ported head with 1mm o/s valves

HKS valve springs

Toda 10.2mm 272deg cams

Adjustable camgears

720cc sards

HKS FPR

Nistune ecu(coming)

Modified "Sub-zero" inlet manifold

90mm throttle body

modified AFM

HKS low mount T45S turbo kit(ceramic coated)

50mm wastegate(ceramic coated)

probably WM injection

MSD dis-4

M&W coils

Home made Sump adapter

Hopin to make close to 450rwkw

PS does anyone know what valve clearances to run?

Not sure the flow dynamics of it all BUT is it possible the 2 x 1.1mm restrictors results in less oil pressure up top than a single 1.5mm?

Pressure is a measure of restriction, not flow. It is a function of flow though.

Maybe it was just a bit loose up top....

And SK does now his stuff :thumbsup:

Pressure is a measure of restriction, not flow. It is a function of flow though.

Maybe it was just a bit loose up top....

And SK does now his stuff :)

So saying that would it be possible for the larger 1.5mm to flow more of that 'thick' oil than 2 smaller 1.1's?

Imagine a thick gel pushing through 2 1.1mm holes, it may not flow through at all; then a single 2mm hole it may. If that makes sense. :S

In a way similiar as to selecting the correct viscosity oil for a given bearing clearance.

Gut feeling says no. Maybe its bottom end was on its way out as 6months later it did spin a bearing.

------

I should also say its getting NO blowby. Absolutely nothing and there's noticably more oil sitting in the sump with the motor running.

Prior with it idling around the oil level would suck to the Low mark. Now it sits 3/4 up. :thumbsup:

It should flow more through the 1.5 even though the 1.1s have a slightly larger cross sectional area, due to the surface roughness equations and the interaction of the sharp edge orifice/turbulent layer effect, but then there are journal clearances to consider. It's never exact.

If the bottom end was on its way out then likely the head rattling was an indication of lack of flow. It is a closely balanced equation for the distribution of flow and so tolerances need to be carefully guaged and the correct bearings ordered. The one area though that can end up with too much flow is the head so we restrict flow with the smaller restrictor.

That's why I would never recommend running in an RB30 on a standard ECU, the richness will stop the rings bedding in properly and in extreme cases lead to glazed bores. The retarded ignition results in incomplete combustion which fouls up everything from plugs to cats.

:P cheers :D

And indeed the cat light did come on once for about 3 seconds at the top of a long hill last time I drove it - and before seeing Sydneykid's posts. Haven't dropped the pipe yet to have a look at the cat, does anyone know for sure if I should expect dead / highly degraded / clogged cat? Of course if it's obviously shagged I'll get a new one but I've never shagged a cat before (go on laugh) so not sure if the temporary overheat would be catastrophic, would prefer to avoid the cost of a new one.

And I've loaned a PFC, dyno on Wed morning to sort this out.

Cheers

can i get some opinion of people's 2nd choice of pistons (apart from CP 9:1) for an rb25/30??

car will only run about 1bar of boost

im undecided but thinking about these Arias

p/n= AP332104

10.6cc dome top

21mm pin

1.280" compression height

Only stocked in 0.20 thou oversize (86.5mm).

COMPRESSION RATIO 9.2-9.4

I had no issues with Arias. Nice and quiet, did what they had to do.

Decent CR so you don't have to substitute with boost so great off boost response and can stick to a smaller turbo. Works for me.

And indeed the cat light did come on once for about 3 seconds at the top of a long hill last time I drove it - and before seeing Sydneykid's posts. Haven't dropped the pipe yet to have a look at the cat, does anyone know for sure if I should expect dead / highly degraded / clogged cat? Of course if it's obviously shagged I'll get a new one but I've never shagged a cat before (go on laugh) so not sure if the temporary overheat would be catastrophic, would prefer to avoid the cost of a new one.

And I've loaned a PFC, dyno on Wed morning to sort this out.

Cheers

so...

checked plugs, no signs of over being rich

PFC tune yielded

264 rwkw @ 7000 (up from peak 220 @ 6500)

10psi

AFRs below 12 on boost

Inj Duty 71

much nicer to drive - as crisp and responsive as normal. :)

now for the run in...

Edited by Scooby

Hi guys.. My car is auto and i'm wanting to see 500rwhp...

1. After talking to my turbo guy he has me in two minds as to which turbo to use. I was happy to use the Garrett GT35R with the 0.86 rear but after talking to him today he has said he would reccommend the 1.06 rear as it will suit my 5000rpm stall converter. What would you use ??

2. I have the RB30e series 2 block (with the turbo fittings) and a R34 GTR head (20,000km). I havent seen mentioned weather this head is different to the R32/33 GTR heads. I have no experience with the specs of these cars and all i can find is they run different cams/valves. Do i just treat the R34 head as if it was an earlier model when building the motor ???

3. Please forgive me as the last cam I replaced was a Holden 308. I would like the "lumpy" "angry" idle as heard on some GTR's, what cams would you suggest for the R34 head or would you just get adj camgears ?? Not really willing to rev past 7500rpm if i don't have to.

Thanks for your feedback :huh:

Cheers

Steve

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

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...