Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

700rwhp is 520rwkw.

People running on race fuel (so not PULP here) with 2530's make around 440rwkw with 25-30psi.

I dont understand this comment at all.

Just because its a 3ltr does not mean its going to mash out whats nearly 100rwkw ontop of already maxed turbos.

The fact is thats the limit of the turbos, they just dont flow anymore air.

You need GT-RS's for 700rwhp. Im not sure what level of gain Meth injection is going to give...

But just talking race fuel levels which is a level above PULP already, its out of the 2530's reach well and truely

Exactly.. The head and given cam select always determines the amount of approx power a motor will make regardless of its capacity. A smaller motor will simply require more rev's.

Dropping an rb30 under the rb26 or 25 head without touching anything else. All we simply do is shift peak power to a lower rpm.

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

the meth will allow more airflow and timing without the associated knock you would normally get.

Only problem with it is you need injectors twice as big as normal and a pretty good fuel system that wont perish, and can supply the required amount.

Edited by r33_racer

I get at least 1 PM per week asking this sort of stuff.

“I want to go RB30, but I also want to use 9,500 rpm.”

OR

“I like to rev my engines, so an RB30 isn’t suitable for me.

The problem is, if you use the 9,500 rpm efficiently on an RB30, it’s going to make 1,000 bhp or so. So what are you choosing to do, rev it inefficiently to 9,500 rpm? That makes a lot of sense, not. Much smarter (and a whole lot cheaper) to work out how much power you want/need and then rev the RB30 to that rpm.

Hence why the above are nonsense comments, stop looking at the tacho all the time and feel the horsepower. After all that’s what it’s all about.

:P cheers :D

Thx for the info guys. Most of my questions were for the future however, not right now. Of course there is no need to rev 2530's to 9500RPM on an RB30. Also they will be no where near the power that I am building the RB30 to be able to handle.

However I will be upgrading the turbos later and wanted to get some info for when that time comes.

Thanks.

-Sayajin

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

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...