Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

u all say that porting an rb20 head doesnt flow much but im flowing not much more then a rb26. i did think of this before i started and me and the engine builder talked it all out and made sure it could flow easily enough for what i wanted. and i still got my rev happy rb20 that i had reving to 9500 rpm and didnt skip a beat that what i had it built for with the turbo my power band doesnt start till about 5500 rpm but it worked great till the belt snapped. but the head is getting fixxed and isnt cosing much its just the block which im still unsure about. and legal bullshit that i prob about to go threw with the belt company which i dont know who to speak to about it

: dave here:

umm. 5k on head? pics of said 5k worth of work?

dude put it in the bin and start over...... and a snapped belt after 100kms? sure you wernt getting coil bind on the valve springs? what cams were they? and lift?

what springs were used?

that head is rooted, just get another one and start again. or, get a stock 25 with nothing done to the head and get the same power.... :P

what is coil bind. lift i dont know but they r reground gtr v spec cams and 100kms it was a manufacture fault in the belt and now the whole fix is under warranty but the fix is for standard rebuild but im puttin 26 crank and stuff thou it

so the "new" belt snapped.... was it over tensioned?? because if it wasnt, id be callin the company up and gettin warranty on the shit.

faulty worksmanship :thumbsup:

edit: im a lil late i think lol

Edited by Bumblebee

:Dave here:

its where the spring is stacked solid.. ie to much lift for the standard springs.. you are using uprated valve springs arnt you? 5k on a head id assume you had some nice oversize valves and solid lifters?

what were the STOCK RB26 cams reground to?

i dont know the exact specs but i will find out tuesday orr wednesday but from memory about stage 2 for a gtr and all the springs and lifters were to suit it he reckons that i could rev over 10g rpm which i would never try even if it can

the poor ole rb20det is still underated but a damn good engine ,with the right work done to them they can make good power mine made just a tad over 300rwkw with a smaller turbo than the one you have and ran an high 11 quater mile so if you spend the dollars the power is there

Peter

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...