Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi B-man, we used a GCG 450 bhp ball bearing hi flowed RB25DET turbo on a RB30DET (RB25DE head). It made 290 rwkw on the RB30DET at 6,250 rpm compared with 220 rwkw on the RB25DET at 7,000 rpm. Amazingly both were at 1.3 bar.

There are a few issues with this comparison;

The RB30DET had a ported cylinder head, the RB25DET was standard

The RB30DET had adjustable camshaft pulleys, the RB25DET didn't

The RB30DET had a split dump pipe, the RB25DET didn't

The RB30DET had a 3.5" exhaust and no cat, the RB25DET was 3" with a cat of unknown quality

The RB30DET had standard RB25DE camshafts, the RB25DET had standard RB25DET camshafts

My summation, the RB30DET breathed a lot easier (porting, inlet, cams exhaust) and therefore the turbo was able to spin a few more RPM and produce more airflow at the same boost.

We are just about to do the same thing on an RB31DET (RB30E block and crank + RB26 top end) with a GCG 500 BHP ball bearing hi flowed RB25DET turbo. I want to break through 300 rwkw with a hi flowed turbo and a standard GTR intercooler. Then we will stick the GT3040BB on it as the target is a responsive 600 bhp.

Bottom line, I'd give it a go B-man.

Thanks sydneykid, Its good to see a direct comparrison with what you've done to what we do over here.

The motor on the above plot has no headwork at all, standard cams and pulleys, was through a standard R32 GTR intercooler, 3 inch exhaust and was at 1.4 bar (NOS brings it up a bit.) without NOS we got 270rwkw at 1.3 bar and I remember you said somehwere that the roller dyno uses about 20kw more than a hub dyno so we must be close!!! That same engine in a totally complete GTS4 with me in it (all up 1800+kg) on stuffed 18in road tyres with no drag wheel alignment, just straight off the street runs 1.7 60ft and mid 11's @ 200kph. Thats all with a totally stock internal motor.........Regards Rob.

Hi B-man, No VVT that's why I chose an RB25DE top end over a RB25DET. At the time I thought all RB25DE's didn't have VVT and only RB25DET's did. But since then I have updated my knowledge and found there are RB25DE's with VVT. We were using the standard R32 ECU (chipped) and it didn't have VVT drivers, so that's the main reason I went for the RB25DE top end. The other is the more aggressive camshaft timing and lift.

I have never tried RB25DE camshafts in an RB25DET head. The only problem I can see is if it's an RB25DE without VVT it will not have the drive pegs on the inlet camshaft. If they are from an RB25DE with VVT then it will and they should fit straight in. I don't know if the RB25DE VVT camshafts are as aggressive in timing as the non VVT ones. I suspect not, as the VVT is mainly used to comply with tighter polution regulations which may also require less aggressive camshaft timing and lift.

Hope that helps

PS for RIPS; we use a Dyno Dynamics roller dyno and all numbers I quote are "real" on the day, not ambient compensated using Shootout mode.

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...