Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

so i'm considering making a sleeper was thinking the old square 83 bluebird with an rb25det

question is has anyone down this before and how simply is it to put in or are we looking at modifiying the firewall just to get the engine in, am i being an idiot and should stick in a sr20det, i was a r33 man so i do prefer the 25's.

yes i did a search can't find anything on this so any help would be good

even if ya wanna say i'm an idiot and should just get a r32 instead and put the 25 in that

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/269326-bluebird-rb25det/
Share on other sites

not a stupid idea. awesome idea. i love the old blue's i used to have a series 3 for years.

the issue with blue birds is that the rear ends rip out of them very easily whenever you increase the power, i ripped the diff arms out of my body with a CA20 with a 32/36 webber however i did do lots of burnouts and figure 8's etc with a lock dif.

the motor should fit in with a thermo fan setup i would say, might have to massage the firewall a little but it would be too much of a drama. just watch that rear end, better to make it very strong before you attempt the conversion because it will rip out. S3 rear end 10 bolt diff's are pretty strong and will handle the power for a little. You could also work on a R30 IRS conversion which has been done many times before in those cars as well.

Good luck with it. please keep me up to date with the conversion if it goes ahead!

This thought had crossed my mind as well. I just inherited a series 2 TRX from my sister and was thinking initially of putting in the RB20 that came out of my sisters R32 when I completed the RB25 conversion recently but thought I'd probably prefer the RB25. My intention was to purchase a front cut and use the complete dash (dash surround, instrument cluster, trim pieces etc). This would also allow you to use alot of the wiring from the front cut.

Great idea. If you need someone to wire up the loom to suit I would be only too happy to assist.

There are a number of suspension and brake upgrades you can use which will be sufficient for the increased weight. I am sure you are aware of the bluebird site but just in case www.910bluebird.com. It has alot of the technical articles you will need re brake and suspension upgrades.

I think legally you should be able to do this but I suspect it will the largest capacity turbo motor you can use - you should probably check.

Also note that the Pintara or skyline wagon fuel tank will bolt in place. But must be a wagon. As they have a surge tank and high pressure fuel pump built in, it will save on the external surge tank option if you wish to keep a factory look.

Cheers

In my country there are a few RB25 910's, it's a beautiful combination considering the chassis is fairly light.

Have a look at the below link for a solution to the rear sub-frame issue.

http://forums.trinituner.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=176395

Bluebirds are an abomination , been there with a DR30RS in the form of a Bluebird .

Cheap R32 much better thing , all the goodies bolt on plug in without major feats of re engineering .

To do the things mentioned above are not economically feasible when you can buy a car that bolts to the RB25 - and it will handle and stop when its complete .

My advise is don't go there , over to you .

thanks guys been thinkin bout it and i think i'll prob go down the r32 with 25 in it avenue

getting married soon so i'll hold it for now but after i will be lookin for 32 to transfer it to around the 300rwkw mark

if you know anyone with 32 thats has a 25 in it refer them to me think i'll start with someone elses project and finish it off into a monster 32 i think the skyline bug has got me to good to leave it for a different nissan

Group C Bluebird 910's were fragile things , they spat turbo after turbo and often ended up on the side of the track DNFing .

They may have looked wild in their day with the flares and big (for then wheels) but look at what they went up against - carburetted bat mobiles .

As for the Z18ET , horrible Naps Z cross flow cylinder heads with real low ports and tight small radius bends in the ports .

Emissions rubbish and probably would have been better off with the designed for the engine family L series head .

Purely from a mechanical perspective the CA18DET engines are the easiest turbo conversions into Bluebirds because the series 3 had a carburetted CA20 in it so the gearbox bell housings are dimensionally the same . Also you'd use an S3 crossmember because from memory the inlet side engine mounting bracket etc goes bolt . Need a bit of fab on the turbo side I think . Twin cam CA18 much more modern unit than a Z18 .

Nah I couldn't even contemplate another ADM Bluebird , reasonable R32 GTST's can't be that dear to buy .

A .

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 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.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...