Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi guys, whilst GTR- Ben is almost right, it is actually the sensors you use on the engine that determine which ECU and loom you use. As an example we have an RB31DET (RB30 at 3.1 litres with an RB26DETT head) that uses an RB20DET Power FC and the original R32 GST loom . What I have done is use all of the sensors off the old RB20DET on the RB31DET. I swapped over the water temp sensors, knock sensors, throttle position sensor, CAS, boost sensor, oil pressure sensor, AFM (we used a Q45 AFM) etc. Plus I used the 565 cc injectors that were in the RB20DET, which were top feed and high impedance to match the Power FC.

I did it this way, rather than use an RB26DETT ECU and loom, because I already had an RB20DET loom and Power FC in the car. So it seemed simpler to swap the sensors and injectors over while both engines were out of the car. Plus I am not very good with looms, I never seem to be able to get them to fit back in the way they should.

If I had an R33GTST I would have done what GTR-BEN suggested and used all the original stuff with the RB30 bottom end.

Hope all that makes sense.

Jeeze... that sounds like a mission to me, I prefer to rip looms out, dosn't take much. :mad:

Sydney Kid, do you know the actual compression ratio with the GTR head dropped straight onto the stock Rb30E? I was told the CC of the GTR head but forgot and can't work it out.

Your post also reminded me.. I don't think I have the loom for that part of the engine, the knock sensors etc.. Im sure I can sort something out though.

If you are after GT35R, it may be worth checking what Per4manz turbocharging in WA have on offer, I got quoted around $2400 for one. They have done some RandD and appear to have a very good combo. I think their website is www.per4manz.com or something like that

Ok this info is from GCG: note the 1.06 AR exh hsg

Garrett GT35R Ball Bearing Turbo:-  

$2960.00  

Aftermarket Applications  

P/No #GSB8007  

Rated 700hp  

Spec's:-  

1.06a/r Turbine Housing (4 bolt outlet)  

0.70a/r Compressor Housing  

Watercooler Centre  

52 Trim Compressor Wheel (T04S)  

50 lbs/min Comp Flow Max.  

84 Trim Turbine Wheel  

Now Ray Hall website:

Turbo|  Part#    |  CHRA #    |AR   |Trim |model  | wheel diam|lb flow|AR  |Trim |Wheel diam

GT35 |714568-0001| 706451-0005| 0.70| 56  |GT40   | 2.41/3.22  |60    |1.06| 84  | 2.45/2.68

Ray hall seems to use a "GT40" comp wheel with the 56 trim, where as the GCG one uses a T04s wheel with the 52 trim.  

After looking at the Garrett catalogue the GCG specs are GT35, the Ray hall specs are GT35R

this is all i have found so far.. still researching suitable turbos

I've sorted out my oil pump.

I rang nissan to find out the differences between the turbo & non-turbo pumps (RB20,RB25,RB30)

Apparently the RB20/25 turbo pumps have the same flow/pressure as the non-turbo pumps. This was according to Nissan. I'll ring again and ask them to compare the valve kit between the pumps. I suspect the turbo pumps will be a higher pressure pump. If this is correct surely one could uprate their RB20t pump to a R32 GTR or even R32 GTR N1 pump by using the valve kit and slapping it in the RB20t pump.. maybe I will find out as it will save peoples many $$. :D

I gave holden a buzz & they said the part numbers for the RB20 export motor, RB30 & RB30 turbo are all the same however the only difference is the pressure. To up the RB20 (export SOHC motor) NA & RB30 NA motor to turbo flow rates you have to lay out a whopping $21.42 to get the valve kit or somthing that comes with a new spring and a few other bits.

I've gone with the stock RB30 oil pump as i've had it checked out and its 100%. I'm just waiting for holdens to get the part in now. Saved me lots of $$ as a new pump is up over $550.

myline,

grab your self a VL commodore manual and have a read. It will help you understand the workings of a RB motor, or even better if you can track down a R32 Engine manual that is floating around on the net.

To answer your question about the timing being out.. which timing?

The ignition timing or the cam timing?

If you are talking about the ignition timing then well yes 15degree's could be considered to be out as with a 8.2:1 CR it requires more timing to be optimal as the cr is less than that of the RB25DET of 9:1. Thats the tuning side of things.

If you are talking about the cam timing, well that comes down to making sure the cam timing has been setup by who ever assembles the motor. Its no different to replacing your own cam belt then having to make sure the cam timing is correct.

Just because its a larger motor it doesn't mean that anything will be out, tune it to suit.

Anything over ~240rwkw if you are rebuilding a motor that you want to last you would be silly not to spend another $1000-$1300 on a set of Forged pistons. When the bug bites you will be wishing you did so that you could stretch its legs to the 300rwkw mark.

Hey Joel,

Thanks for sharing that. I have an RB25DET and an RB30 in pieces...I might pull the pumps apart and confirm what your saying, physically, not that I doubt what your saying, I'm just being pedantic :D I'll let you know. I had to pay a more exorbidant amount that that when I had my RB30 short motor built...I wont be doing that again!!!

Well I pulled apart my spare '94 RB25DET and SI RB30E oil pumps to compare. There are significant internal differences. Most significant is the gear construction. The RB30 has many very fine teeth, whilst the RB25DET has fewer much coarser teeth. Also the engagement of the gear to the crank on the '25 covers a full 16mm vs the measly 5 mm of the RB30. The effective width of the teeth is near enough the same however. Secondly the pressure regulator springs: the RB25 has two springs, one smaller diameter within the other larger diameter. The length appears different however the nut that locks everything into place is also deeper on the '25, so the overall effective length is the same. Overall, there appears to have been some concern to change the gear design, as seen by the engagement length. As for the tooth count who knows, perhaps it was easier and'or cheaper to mass produce this way. Without extensive and difficult measuring it is difficult to calculate the effective flow rate differences. The stiffer pressure regulator is to be expected considering the '25 has piston squirters, which aren't adopted in the '30.

See attached photos.

The R33 series two onwards had the thicker section where it engages the crank. On the R32 (all models) and s1 r33's they had the same as the rb30. Could u compare a r32 oil pump phantom?

See this :http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/sh...hlight=oil+pump

Hi,

Bl4cK32: The R33 pump I dissasembled above was from a series 1 1994 GTS25t, and has the significantly wider crank gear compared to the RB30...so its NOT the same. So is mine out of the ordinary? The engine details were definitely series 1, ie seperate ignitor module and older series TPS. So does that mean series 1's came out with both styles? Unfortunately I dont have an R32 series engine oil pump so I cant check for you...sorry. Regarding Sydneykids post in the link, he seems to be referring to DIAMETERS rather than the width of the lugs that I concentrated on measuring, and again, the pump above was a series 1 which seems to contradict what was mentioned. I'll measure the actual diameters of the '25 and '30 cranks to see if I can align with what SK suggests.

SteveL: Thanks! Thats what I was wondering. The engine builder who built the current RB30 short motor I'm runnning, had made a big song and dance about the differences in the RB30E and ET pumps, particularly the significant additional cost of the ET. I just went with his advice at the time, so from what your saying he appears to have been correct in his insistance.

RB30 NA oil pump gear width is 10mm

RB30ET oil pump gear width is 12.5mm

IOW turbo oil pump gives higher flow for the same rpm.

Had both apart and measured them for myself.

I'm running an RB30ET oil pump on my RB30DET.

If that is the case then why when you call holden they tell you the pump for the NA and T is the same part number. The only difference is the pressure valve?!?

Nissan said the same thing about the RB20 turbo and non turbo pump.

I guess I'll have to wait until Bl4ck32 isn't looking and get the spanners out on his RB20DET oil pump.

Maybe you could ask him nicely...its not that hard to take one apart, and wont cost anything...

Isn't there a Holden forum somewhere we could post the query on...

SteveL: where did you get your pump from. Perhaps your dealer has different info to Joel's???

If that is the case then why when you call holden they tell you the pump for the NA and T is the same part number. The only difference is the pressure valve?!?

Well as I said, I've actually had both RB30 NA and turbo oil pumps apart and measured them for myself....I'm not sure what else I can say, other than dimensions I've listed confirm what I've read about the differences between RB30E and RB30ET motors (ie upgraded rod bolts, pistons etc....and an upgraded oil pump).

Phantom, Both of the motors are being done at the same place at the same time. Andrew is going to pull Bl4ck32s RB20t pump apart and check clearances etc.. I'll get a few pics then.

If it is different I dont want to risk the RB30E's small tooth pump locking or not being able to handle high rev's, especially now that I have the RB30T's pressure spring.

Steve, I'm in denile. :D

I'll measure the gears of the SII RB30E pump tomorrow.

Phantom,

Thats the difference between the early and later pumps.

I've heard problems with the earlier style pumps cracking when over rev'd (miss-gear change 9000-10000rpm)

I had the engine builder measure the gears in my NA RB30E pump.

They are exactly 11mm wide.

He said he should have a turbo RB30 pump out the back and will measure that.

This is a direct quote from an article on VL Commodes on the difference between the RB30E and RB30ET oil pumps:

'A larger oil pump (increased over the 10.8mm standard width by 2.6mm) was fitted to cater for the required turbo supply.....'

So 10.8mm for the NA pump and 12.4mm for the ET version. My measuring equipment is obviously not very accurate, but it's not that inaccurate that it would be out by around 2.5mm. Visually the gears were wider and that confirms the greater flow capabilities of the turbo pump (this would be expected given the greater demand of the turbo).

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 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.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...