Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Just trying to work out the crank....

from what i gatther its a rb30 crank.. offset ground.

standard 30 stroke is 85mm with a bigend bearing size of 50mm~

this mated with sr20 rods, same bigend as rb25-26 of 48mm~

so.. .5mm offset ground off will reduse the stroke to 84mm with a 49mm size, then ground down to 48mm to suit the sr/rb bearing..

then using the 26 block with 20mm taller liners...

rb26rods are 121mm sr20 rods are 136mm long, rb30 is 151 so the rods are half way in between. (sr20)

that leaves the pistons. asuming they go all the way to the top of the block, with a flat top to give a decent comp ratio. (not to high)

rb30 are A 32mm pin height where 26 are 30mm.

so using 30 pistons would be about right i think.. anyone?

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just trying to work out the crank....

from what i gatther its a rb30 crank.. offset ground.

standard 30 stroke is 85mm with a bigend bearing size of 50mm~

this mated with sr20 rods, same bigend as rb25-26 of 48mm~

so.. .5mm offset ground off will reduse the stroke to 84mm with a 49mm size, then ground down to 48mm to suit the sr/rb bearing..

then using the 26 block with 20mm taller liners...

rb26rods are 121mm sr20 rods are 136mm long, rb30 is 151 so the rods are half way in between. (sr20)

that leaves the pistons. asuming they go all the way to the top of the block, with a flat top to give a decent comp ratio. (not to high)

rb30 are A 32mm pin height where 26 are 30mm.

so using 30 pistons would be about right i think.. anyone?

well done Dave...everything else is nearly right...have another think about the crankshaft though.

oh, ps. it is a great power graph, but it doesnt seem to come on to boost very urgantly. not muck in a fast rize in torque. looks alot like a good v8 curve

Exactly....it makes 10+psi @ 2500, hence the big torque early.

Some more details:

Crank is a custom billet 12 counterbalance job. Don't try to rev those RB30 cranks too high!

Rods are SR20. Don't sweat the R/S ratio. 1.5-1.65 has proven to be ideal/desirable for a 4 valver in the 1-9000rpm range.

Modern materials and rod/piston designs mean longevity is not an issue, and shorter rod is a stronger,lighter rod.

Pistons are custom.

Camshafts are Nissan OEM.

Turbos are currently Garrett -5's, (about to make way for a very slightly bigger set).

We have now have it tuned at 24lb and it makes 468kw with plenty more through the mid-range.

I'll post a new dynograph when I get a chance.

Lots of sneaky tricks in this one. I probably shouldn't have sold it after all..... :D

cheers,

Exactly....it makes 10+psi @ 2500, hence the big torque early.

Some more details:

Crank is a custom billet 12 counterbalance job. Don't try to rev those RB30 cranks too high!

Rods are SR20. Don't sweat the R/S ratio. 1.5-1.65 has proven to be ideal/desirable for a 4 valver in the 1-9000rpm range.

Modern materials and rod/piston designs mean longevity is not an issue, and shorter rod is a stronger,lighter rod.

Pistons are custom.

Camshafts are Nissan OEM.

Turbos are currently Garrett -5's, (about to make way for a very slightly bigger set).

We have now have it tuned at 24lb and it makes 468kw with plenty more through the mid-range.

I'll post a new dynograph when I get a chance.

Lots of sneaky tricks in this one. I probably shouldn't have sold it after all..... :O

cheers,

An SR20 conrod is, what, 136 mm and say the stroke is 85 mm that's 1.60 to 1, which is not so bad, only slightly worse than an RB26 standard. It's the 1.4 of the OS Giken RB30 that would worry me.

Cheers

Gary

An SR20 conrod is, what, 136 mm and say the stroke is 85 mm that's 1.60 to 1, which is not so bad, only slightly worse than an RB26 standard. It's the 1.4 of the OS Giken RB30 that would worry me.

Cheers

Gary

The OS Giken RB30 rod must be a similiar 135ish length to need a spacer plate of around 30mm.

cheers

The OS Giken RB30 rod must be a similiar 135ish length to need a spacer plate of around 30mm.

cheers

The one I dissassembled had nowhere near a 30 mm spacer, it was what OS Giken call a series 1, with the machined spacer plate. The rods were standard RB26 length. The later design has a cast plate, I haven't seen one of them in the flesh, but the plate looks thicker in the photos I have seen.

This is the early kit;

OS_Giken_3L_Kit_Old_Style_Save.jpg

Cheers

Gary

The Trust 2.7L, HKS/Tomei 2.8L and OS Giken 3.0L all get their share of press. However i have only ever seen a demo carrunning the Apexi 2.9L.

I cant read Japanese, but looking at the numbers under pics etc i think the pistons are 87.3mm and use a 22mm gudgeon pin. So what does that make the stroke, about 81mm. Now it uses the std block and some of the text refers to 121.5mm to 118.95mm which i assume refers to the rod length. There is a pic of pistons but i cant make any sense of the numbers.

The demo engine is only using small 250/9.8 cams with an AX70P21 turbo running 1.6bar. The graph is impressive but still very small cc big turbo in shape

The Trust 2.7L, HKS/Tomei 2.8L and OS Giken 3.0L all get their share of press. However i have only ever seen a demo carrunning the Apexi 2.9L.

I cant read Japanese, but looking at the numbers under pics etc i think the pistons are 87.3mm and use a 22mm gudgeon pin. So what does that make the stroke, about 81mm. Now it uses the std block and some of the text refers to 121.5mm to 118.95mm which i assume refers to the rod length. There is a pic of pistons but i cant make any sense of the numbers.

The demo engine is only using small 250/9.8 cams with an AX70P21 turbo running 1.6bar. The graph is impressive but still very small cc big turbo in shape

From memory 121.5 mm is standard RB26 rod length. So the 118.95 may be some (2.55 mm) of the necessary shortening to fit the extra stroke (81 - 73.5 / 2 = 3.65 mm) in the standard block. The remainder 3.65 - 2.55 = 1.1 mm) must come from raising the gudgeon pin height in the piston.

87.3 x 81 = 2910 cc's

118.95 / 81 = 1.47 rod stroke ratio, which I personally think is a fair bit low for reliability and power.

Cheers

Gary

Ben, even though it goes against what you are trying to achieve, what kind of results would you expect by running a big single, say a T88H-38GK on this 2.9 set up. Would there be boost by 4000rpm and would 550-600rwkw be achievable on Shell 100 octane fuel.

  • 7 months later...
i would have loved a drive. :P

I went for a drive up Mt Dandenong....its mental!

not as scary as mine as the power delivery is so linear and smooth but all you have to do is look at the speedo every now and then to frighten the life out of you.

Lots of little sneaky tricks on this one that most die hard modifiers would not have even thought of or considered. A mega buck effort thats been done for the sheer love of it and the enjoyment the car has created. In traffic the Vic. HWP didn't even look twice at the car...even when pulled up next to them at the lights as its ultra quiet and idles like a stocker.

Edited by DiRTgarage
Dont tell me you're going stroker now?!?! What happened to "2.6L till i die" or whatever it was

lol...where did you hear that you Wally?...im sure that was only in your mind.

Im talking about non-obtrusive, quiet, unasuming, but very powerful stock looking and sounding cars. I hate driving my car...even the small distance from the shed to home (and you know how close that is). This car i could have easily driven around in all bloody day.

i didn't throw that RB30 bottom end in the tip to regret it...it was exactly that...rubbish. :(

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 have no hard data to report, but I have to say, having driven it to work and back all week, mostly on wet roads (and therefore mostly not able to contemplate anything too outrageous anywhere)..... it is real good. I turned the boost controller on, with duty cycle set to 10% (which may not be enough to actually increase the boost), and the start boost set to 15 psi. That should keep the gate unpressurised until at least 15 psi. And rolling at 80 in 5th, which is <2k rpm, going to WOT sees the MAP go +ve even before it crosses 2k and it has >5 psi by the time it hits 90 km/h. That's still <<2.5k rpm, so I think it's actually doing really well. Because of all the not-quite-ideal things that have been in place since the turbo first went on, it felt laggy. It's actually not. The response appears to be as good as you could hope for with a highflow.
    • Or just put in a 1JZ, and sell me the NEO head 😎
    • Oh, it's been done. You just run a wire out there and back. But they have been known to do coolant temp sensors, MAP sensors, etc. They're not silly (at Regency Park) and know what's what with all the different cars.
    • Please ignore I found the right way of installing it thanks
    • There are advantages, and disadvantages to remapping the factory.   The factory runs billions of different maps, to account for sooooo many variables, especially when you bring in things like constantly variable cams etc. By remapping all those maps appropriately, you can get the car to drive so damn nicely, and very much so like it does from the factory. This means it can utilise a LOT of weird things in the maps, to alter how it drives in situations like cruise on a freeway, and how that will get your fuel economy right down.   I haven't seen an aftermarket ECU that truly has THAT MANY adjustable parameters. EG, the VAG ECUs are somewhere around 2,000 different tables for it to work out what to do at any one point in time. So for a vehicle being daily driven etc, I see this as a great advantage, but it does mean spending a bit more time, and with a tuner who really knows that ECU.   On the flip side, an aftermarket ECU, in something like a weekender, or a proper race car, torque based tuning IMO doesn't make that much sense. In those scenarios you're not out there hunting down stuff like "the best way to minimise fuel usage at minor power so that we can go from 8L/100km to 7.3L/100km. You're more worried about it being ready to make as much freaking power as possible when you step back on the loud pedal as you come out of turn 2, not waiting the extra 100ms for all the cams to adjust etc. So in this scenario, realistically you tune the motor to make power, based on the load. People will then play with things like throttle response, and drive by wire mapping to get it more "driveable".   Funnily enough, I was watching something Finnegans Garage, and he has a huge blown Hemi in a 9 second 1955 Chev that is road registered. To make it more driveable on the road recently, they started testing blocking up the intake with kids footballs, to effectively reduce air flow when they're on the road, and make the throttle less touchy and more driveable. Plus some other weird shit the yankee aftermarket ECUs do. Made me think of Kinks R34...
×
×
  • Create New...