Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

He would be better off rebuilding the RB30E Bottom end then buying a 1000 RB25DE Head and slap that on it.. Then Buy the turbo.. ECU etc.. exhaust.. :(

Would work out cheaper that way compared to buying a RB25DET as they are still quite expensive.

Use the RB25 Manifold and buy a RB20 Exhaust manifold.. Exhaust manifolds are bugger all well factory ones are. :(

You could build a 500-600hp RB30E bottom end for around 3-3.5k. Then buy the turbo then ecu injectors.. etc really depends on how much power you are looking at.

Have seen guys sell them for :( But seriously, a 3L bottom end is dirt cheap, new rings and bearings, RB25DE head plenum and fuel rail, injectors, 2nd hand turbo, afm, ecu, harness, new timing belt.

May have to do gearbox too, which would be a good thing. Then there is the brakes (r33 ones would fit nicely I think)

All up, if he buys a front cut, sell what he doesnt need, including the holden bits - would reduce the overall cost.

Come to think of it there was a guy selling an R33 front cut on here in the business section - think he was from aulbury - wait I'll do a search:)

maybe he should just go out and buy an LS1 engine from the states.... wouldn't be much more than $3000, as they as common as sh!t in the states.... hey, could prolly get one here too....there must be a lot of wrecked GTS's around wih all the HSV Boy Racers around

all this nissan talk, and the most logical answer hasn't been brought up...

HEY, even better - get a 427ci donk from the states....

Son of Sydneykid

So the LS1 engine will just bolt straigth up, nothing else required, wouldnt have to upgrade suspension or brakes? Plus there is the staggering economy from a LS1, and in stock form, they have huge output.

This is a nissan forum, why would you go and put in a dinosaur engine that burns huge amounts of oil, has crappy fuel economy, and doesnt generate huge hp (althought torque is a different matter). Then you still have all the added expense of just about every thing else needing to be changed, new exhaust, suspension and brakes gearbox blah blah.

I really dont think its all that logical.

Yeah, sure you have to upgrade a few things, in fact, you have a lot of things to upgrade. My personal belief is to keep Nissans in Nissans, and GMs in GMs. Sure, there's no technology in a chevy engine, they aren't the most economical or reliable, but thats the decision someone made when they bought a V6 Commondore.

I have seen a VS Commondore with a 427ci dropped in, and there was a extreme amount of work put into it. It was driven daily, as an auto (ford toploader 3 speed from memory) was was reasonably reliable, not economical or technological, but thats the nature of the beast.... the standard V6 is neither of those things anyways. Except with the 427, it shook the neighbourhood at idle, and inside the car was an extremely rattley experience at 3000rpm. It was well looked after, and sold about 6 months after he did the coversion and all the work... But cost a bit, and was built with a few mates over the space of a week. Engine management and tuning taking up the last 3 days... try holding the thing on a dyno.... hade head splitting torque, and never really got a total HP output, but damn it was a beast. It drove from Oyster Bay to Bankstown trouble free for 6 months before it was sold.

All in all, if you are afraid of technology (which is prolly why you bought a holden anyways), a perfect replacement for a pushrod dinosaur is a BIGGER pushrod dinosaur... Its not my thing, but someone's onto the retro engines... And I don't believe a Nissan engine belongs in a VT Commondore....

But outside an engine swap, i'd be going CAPA supercharger.

S of S

And here comes old Xeron.

To all of you that said the buick 3800 has no potential and is an old tech pushrod heap of shit, get your ****ing heads out of your asses you arogent pricks.

Now that ive got that outa my system, turbo chargin the 3800 is nothing new, like i said it was a factory item in the US in the 80's, running better times than most nissans do now days. While the crank etc used in the turbo engine was vastly different to the n/a variant, if you got a long block of a s/c v6 u have a pretty much ideal setup, and importing a turbo kit from the US could be quite economical really, unfortunatly i dont have the price off the top of my head sorry. Other than that you could just s/c the engine, if you use an aftermarket s/c over the vs+ stock sc you will be able to achieve much higher power levels. It all depends on your budget really.

To stick a nissan engine into a commodore, lets see uve got to redo all the computer and eletricals, custom fabrication of engine mounts, and transmission mounts, no doubt need to cut another hole in the floor for the shifter, if u go manual ull have a nice time hooking up the clutch, then uve got to have a drive shaft cut, the nissan end welded on after its been shortened. And thats assuming the nissan gearbox isn't drasticly longer than the holden unit or something stupid which would require body bashing to make it fit. Plus the registration, oh that'd be fun.

xeron, I dont think anybody doubts that pushrod engines can make huge horsepower - but, be realistic, they are dinosaurs - very old technology, thats all I was getting at anyways.

As for rego, holden borrowed a 3L from Nissan a few years back (just before they decided to go back to dinosaour pushrods..hehehe), so I cant see how it would be a problem if you are putting a 'holden' engine in a holden?

Well im not too sure on NSW law, but here in the west you are not allowed to put an engine into a car that is older than the car itself. Now say you use a holden s/c block, they arent gonna give a rats ass aslong as u keep VT levels of emmisions equipment, especially being as vt's came sc'd stock. But u go throwing a nissan engine in there, and if they check what year it was made, which they could well do, u better hope that front cut u got was pretty damn new.

That and many other stupid little things they can do, its just alot more hassle to go through.

As for pushrod engines being dinosaurs, well i think it horses for courses.

GM/Chevrolet built in conjunction with Lotus a quad cam 32 valve 350 Chev. It had 405hp and was a sweet engine. Limited run option called ZR-1 from 89-95 (may have been '94)

Whilst building these engines, they were using under 5L quad cam V8s in luxury cars etc, so know how to build a quad cam multi valve engine.

So do yourself a favour and read up on the history of the GenIII engine and see why they stuck with pushrods for their premier performance engine. Dont assume GM engineers are idiots.

You will be surprised how pushrods, whilst not being ideal from some design perspectives, are perfectly sound for a fistful of revs, allow more compact packaging (see how wide quad cam V6/8s are), cost of manufacture, reliability ... the list goes on.

And before you all assinate the reliability side of things, US GenIIIs dont have the piston slap problem, and i dont hink you can relate this Aus problem to the fact the engine uses pushrods.

Go back to the mid 90s and the Indycar series. Mercedes Ilmor actually built a pushrod engine for the class, as by the rules it allowed them to run more boost. If i recall correctly the rules were soon changed.

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...