Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

So, I had this stupid idea seeing as how I scored two 350 holleys for nothing, that i could get an RB30 that costs about as much as last nights dinner at the pub, an RB25DE head which can be sourced somewhere, put them all together, and make an RB30DS.

First of all - I don't care if it's a good idea or not.

Second of all - how f**king awesome would it be? would it rev harder than an injected RB30DE?

would it run alright pending tuning or would it simply keel over and die?

My plan would be to set up an RB30 in a car, but rip off the top half of the manifold and all things to do with injectors, then fit the two carbys, utilizing the throttle cable or, just having one made up, then having a linkage between the two carbys.

what exactly would i supposedly need to rip off for it to run? could i rip out ALL of the computer and wiring harness? or would that f**k with sensors and such?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/298759-rb30d-minus-injection/
Share on other sites

what has the world come to...

lol might be a pretty ok idea for a f**k around.

but what about ignition control?

dunno how the stock computer would react to just ripping out the injector harness...

my guess is that you would lose power compared to the DE version for various reasons.

first of all, carby's don't give the same sort of fuel input as injectors. they don't vapourise it as well is about the best way i can describe it at the moment (brain isn't working today). i know that on the EA falcon they did 2 versions of the 3.9L engine. 1 was a single injection (basically a carby) and the other was multi-point injection (6 injectors). there was a 17kw difference in power.

secondly, you would need to do a lot of work to get the intake manifold right to suit the flow of the carbies. you can't just simply bolt on a carby and have it work.

thirdly, i think twin 350's would probably be way too big for a 3L engine.

and i highly doubt it would rev harder.

i don't think it would be a good idea. and the way it sounds like you plan on going about doing it sounds like it isn't going to end well. sounds like it will end with a poorly performing engine

yeah my GQ RB30S dosen't rev harder, it revs LESS than a RB30E, but I am speculating that it's the jetting on the carby that might be the culprit there. Good engine, but heavy on fuel (15L/100).

Dunno how you'd go trying to adapt a twin cam head without a custom manifold lol.

Marc I think you are saying about carbies being less efficient at atomising the fuel?

Pretty sure the R31House RB30S is a triple (Hitachi?) carburettor. There's a video on youtube of it, ironically the test driver reckons that while it is a 'man's car, it had a flat spot in higher RPM and was difficult to tune.

Injection will always be superior to a carburettor, it wouldn't rev anywhere near as hard as a RB30DE as it has inferior fuel and air delivery. In fact I would imagine a plain RB30E would be superior.

If you want something mean and cheap get a stock rb30e and put the biggest wildest cam you can in there and just bump the fuel pressure up. It will guzzle fuel and probably be an absolute dog to drive unless you are revving it, but at least it will sound mean and rev.

Wouldn’t put dirty holleys on it... SU's would be a bit of fun though, once you figure out how, they aren’t very difficult to tune, possibly the easy way to almost have ITB type induction. You could remove all the fuel setup and just run with the stock ignition maps OR remove everything and just run an aftermarket ignition controller.

I've done this at home, but for turbo application, there is nothing stopping you from getting an RB30e bottom end and sticking an R32 RB25DE on top of it. It cost me under $1k to do it, found a ported and polished reco rb25de head (without cams) for $500, bought GTR cams and valve springs for $100, and the rest to belts, and gaskets.

For N/A, shave 60 thou off the head, add adj cam gears, and you have a winner that will run on 91ron :P.

Or if you want it for a laugh, fit RB25DE pistons, deck the block 40thou, still shave the head, and run it on methanol. om nom nom (its cheaper than pump fuel anyways :D).

While i am just joking, you can happily do that, you don’t have to spend big bickies to make a car go spastic hard, you just have to be a mad man (and happy to sacrifice street drivability)... You only have to spend big money, if you still want to be able to drive mum to the shops, comfortably and legally... :down:

See dude, flamed...told you it was a silly idea only a country egg head like yourself would think of :P

If you want different + power, build an engine similar to the RB24S that we were talking about :D

20 Bottom end w/ slightly bigger pistons

25 Block

30 Heads

RB24S revs pretty hard, a built DE would belt it even harder.

theres a reason everyone builds the same motors, that's because from trial and error they have been found to be the best. If you want to be different just tell everyone its an rb24 or something lol, hardly anyone will be able to tell the difference.

Hahahaha, for those who are flaming. GTFO. Input not required.

For those saying it's not a good idea - its still an idea.

I get myself through work every day by thinking about shit like this, and, fundamentally, its flawed. by rights though, the RB24S DID rev harder than an RB20. thats kinda where it came from. and i thought that given how good the L28 sounds with triple SU's, i could replicate that with an RB.

Now i'm just thinking i ITB an RB30DE and fang the f*ck out of it while I build the RB25det. cheaper. easier. probs more fun and more reliable.

NA Drift is uncommon to say the least. unfortunate really.

For those saying it's not a good idea - its still an idea.

A red 202 is also an idea, personally I would give it the same merits as building an rb30d, its got .3 of a litre more capacity than the RB30 and it is pushrod so it will have that f**king mean sound to it as well.

That's fair. 202 would probably get the same power output as one anyway. I've seen some bloody quick 202s before.

Not the point however.

RB30DE with custom (bunky) ITBs will be on the cards in a few months time.

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...