Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Just wondering whether this is possible cause if you go to: http://www.area-51.co.nz/mod3.htm

They claim they did one but i thought the bonnet cannot close with the RB26 inside. Also if it does work would it be possible for it to be street legal.

Cheers

(If it works it looks like a cheaper alternative to my wishlist of a GTR R34 :P)

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/28073-rb26dett-in-a-180sx-possible/
Share on other sites

Originally posted by quik180sx

and with the lighter chassis you would burn all these gtr's!!!!

very hard, not on the street at least, VERY HEAVY wheel spinning with be a big issue, the tyre size, then 2wd vs 4wd...:uh-huh:

never been a big fans of doing such conversion, as they make the car more unbalance. why don't just work on yr sr20det? as the latest speed magazine show a s13 pulling 310rwkw at stock internal. it work out cheaper to mod the engine internal even with those 2.2L kit then do a Rb26 coversion.

Still u could do internal work and get 300+hp easy for the price of shoehorning an rb26 in there. Rb26 are not cheap :P

Plus whenever u put something where its not suposed to be u end up with problems. Well thats what my proctologist told me.

HPI had a silvia from japan with the same very conversion, it was a very tidy article. I would stick with the sr and doing the internals as sujested above, simple because yeah the Initial engine cost is massive, you could buy all the aftermarket parts for the price of the engine then use the money you would spend on the install on the sr rebuild. Once done you get a fresh 0km engine (the rb26dett wont be that), and you dont mess up the the realy good weight balance of the sr20 equiped car.

Originally posted by rbs13

but how easy is it to get 300rwkw and still have something good to drive on the street... WITH OUT doin internals... i would imagine a rb26 would last a hell of a lot longer at these power levels.

well it's all about give up the balance and make it a straigt line ONLY car. As the front is too heavy the car will lost the RWD oversteer natural and understeer a lot more.

btw, what's wrong with doing the internal? look at aust magzine, everyone seems to be proud to have STOCK internal/ bottom end.

u hardly found the engine internal is stock for even lower power car in japan. They usually OVER mod the engine like what the factory does to keep daily reliable.

well it's all about give up the balance and make it a straigt line ONLY car. As the front is too heavy the car will lost the RWD oversteer natural and understeer a lot more.

***Have you driven a car with a RB engine in a sil? If not i wouldnt make such a comment.

as the latest speed magazine show a s13 pulling 310rwkw at stock internal.

*** I doubt it would last very long or be very streetable.

i have OWN a silvia with ca18 and now skyline R33. i am a person who want to put smallest engine on the front to make the car close to 50/50. like meggala's sr20 R32.

well i recommend him to do the bottom end with those 2.2 kit.

i guess after that they should be even stronger than stock RB26.

with tough 2.2 botton end and some head job, it should be alright to push a tubro support 300rwkw and streetable.

btw, will u run 300rwkw everyday on a RWD car??

I have a 180sx with an rb20 and another with an sr... The guy who owned the sr spent alot of money on it (read 15-18,000) and it makes 435rwhp.... To be honest i could never justify spending that much money on a 4cyl, i worked out a RB26 conversion would cost around 11-13000 fitted, plus you can sell your sr/gearbox. From a standard 26 if you really pushed it with the standard turbos you should get 270-280rwkw which is around 370rwhp..... bolt on a turbo and ecu, with a fuel pump an d injectors and your laughing. The weight difference in the rb is noticable, but not what i would call un-balanced!

"Would i run 300rwkw on a rwd on the street??" F*** yes! Its a blast, drive it off boost and you get 420km to a tank, open it up at 80-90kmh with not clutch and the back end just breaks traction and squirms under power, pushes you so hard into the back of the seat! Makes me laugh every time i do it.. Plus you suprise more than a lot of people on the street

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

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...