Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

It has been posted quite a lot around the traps that the SR20DET is alot more responsive in the lower/mid rev range than the RB20DET (which is said to feel gutless off boost)... fair enough... but when i look at the tech specs, the torque figures are only 9Nm different and the the RB20 has max torque 800 rpm lower than the SR20.

i.e.

SR20DET 274Nm @ 4000 rpm

RB20DET 265Nm @ 3200 rpm

Wouldnt this suggest that (in stock form at least) the RB20 is better for daily driving as peak torque is earlier??

Call me crazy if you want, and there might be things i've overlooked or haven't taken into consideration or have just got plain wrong, but surely so many people haven't noticed this before??

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/204028-torque-of-sr20-vs-rb20confusion/
Share on other sites

It has been posted quite a lot around the traps that the SR20DET is alot more responsive in the lower/mid rev range than the RB20DET (which is said to feel gutless off boost)... fair enough... but when i look at the tech specs, the torque figures are only 9Nm different and the the RB20 has max torque 800 rpm lower than the SR20.

The consensus of most long time owners (myself included) of SR20DET's is that the engines biggest point is its monster mid-range torque between 3500 and 7000rpm, under that, its a mild mannered grandma and after that its a wheezy grandpa :D

Wouldnt this suggest that (in stock form at least) the RB20 is better for daily driving as peak torque is earlier??

I found it fairly easy to live with a mildly tuned up SR20DET for over 7 years and no real complaints for that purpose around town as it functions perfectly well in a light car of 1150kg and running between 2000-4000rpm.

I don't have a lot of experience with the RB20's, but like most 6's they're usually much happier on highways where they can just roll around on low rpm at legal speeds with much less effort than a 4cylinder. Things like the weight of the car, mostly your R32's (while they're certainly not heavy, but still around 200kg more than a Silvia of the same era from memory) isn't that much of a factor in your fuel consumption as it is in stop-start traffic.

Having owned both...i find that its partly due to the power delivery characteristics of the engine too...the RB is so smooth and creamy and pretty linear in stockish form whereas the SR feels rough as sh!t and alot more urgent...the SR seemed happer from 2500-5500rpm and the rb seemed happier from 4000-7500rpm...the characteristics of the SR makes it nicer to drive on the road...trackwise i prefer the RB...

SR has a more sudden surge of power. As said, the RB is much smoother. I think a lot of people mistake the feeling of torque in the SR's with how light the Silvia's are. Try putting the SR into a Skyline. It makes a world of difference.

Having owned both...i find that its partly due to the power delivery characteristics of the engine too...the RB is so smooth and creamy and pretty linear in stockish form whereas the SR feels rough as sh!t and alot more urgent...the SR seemed happer from 2500-5500rpm and the rb seemed happier from 4000-7500rpm...the characteristics of the SR makes it nicer to drive on the road...trackwise i prefer the RB...

most obvious of the above is what a friend and I did back a few years ago.

he had just modified his S15 (had about 190rwkw) and my R32 gtst was with the usual mods making 150rwkw or something.

we had a one way street at the back of our work where the left side is a wall and the right side if the building we work in.

long story short, we went in each car one at a time.

roll start, plant foot in 1st and second etc.

the S15 gets to about 3000rpm, spins wheels to about 5000 rpm, then traction, then shift at 6500rpm.

in the skyline, gets to about 4000rpm, spins wheels till I shift at 7000rpm.

skyilne was definitely slower less power etc, but the power delivery was very different between the 2.

the rb just wanted to keep climbing.

the SR wanted to be shifted to next gear.

The specs on paper don't make much sense when you've driven both.

you think that they have to be wrong.

i think a lot of it has to do with the feel of the 2 engines, the 4cyl engines tend to feel more responsive (for obvious reasons), this gives the feel of whats sometimes mixed up with torque. ive driven a few CA's and SR's, and with less power, more power, or bigger turbo, stock turbo, they always tend to feel more "torquey" than my RB20 until u realise the revs arnt really climbing that quickly.

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...