Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

So i have come accross a cheap RB20 NEO from an R34. I understand its a whole 140hp of 2L goodness and was the most economical engine in the R34 range. But thats all i can find out on them? Does anyone else know much about them?

Looking at the timing belt cover there is a pronounsed bulge, so i am thinking it has variable inlet cam like the RB25s. I want to see if anyone knows anything of them before i buy it...but i am hoping it has a better head and possibly uses solid lifters and may accept RB25 Neo cams etc.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/268302-rb20-neo/
Share on other sites

Might be worth contacting Brad from spool imports. I believe he had a rb20 neo head for sale a while back and from what I could tell I think they have solid lifters and also run an inlet butterfly setup similar to the redtop rb20's.

Spool Imports

Edited by HR31_RB20DET
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/268302-rb20-neo/#findComment-4572516
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

The 20Neo is obviously a far better engine than the old 20. It has everything that is good about the 25Neo......but it is missing 500cc. Same as the old RB20s. Makes one wonder why one would bother buying one and doing the work to install it in something when there is a 2.5L version available.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/268302-rb20-neo/#findComment-6646533
Share on other sites

I can't think of a reason to keep any car's engine capacity to 2L where it would make more sense to use an RB20 than a 4 cylinder like an SR20. Any Skyline can be legally embiggened to 2.5L without pain. Anything smaller car that can't go above 2L capacity would not be a good thing with a heavy lump of cast iron 6 cylinder in the front.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/268302-rb20-neo/#findComment-6646857
Share on other sites

I can't think of a reason to keep any car's engine capacity to 2L where it would make more sense to use an RB20 than a 4 cylinder like an SR20. Any Skyline can be legally embiggened to 2.5L without pain. Anything smaller car that can't go above 2L capacity would not be a good thing with a heavy lump of cast iron 6 cylinder in the front.

Yeah, agreed here...kinda makes more sense in any situation to go SR20 over RB20

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/268302-rb20-neo/#findComment-6647766
Share on other sites

Yeah, agreed here...kinda makes more sense in any situation to go SR20 over RB20

It definitely makes more sense to use the SR20... as long as you dont mind driving around with ear muffs on to hide how crappy they sound :P

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/268302-rb20-neo/#findComment-6648391
Share on other sites

Someone somewhere must know the exact differences with late RB20's . Variable cam timing and a shim type valve train would be worth having .

I'd also be looking at chamber shape and size because they changed on the Neo 25 - possibly be cause of emissions and detonation reasons .

How do the CR and power output compare R32 to R34 RB20s ?

Is there an engine manual available that covers all the R34 era RBs ?

A .

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/268302-rb20-neo/#findComment-6650104
Share on other sites

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...