Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

RB30DET.

Where the engine rebuilder is getting the pistons, they open up apparently this week, so its soon. ;)

If you don't go forged pistons in the RB30E short motor and use the standard NA pistons you will have a 8-8.3:1 CR, which is good for turbo. Without forged pistons you will be stuck reliably at 250rwkw with a good tune. If you start heading towards 300rwkw the cast pistons wont handle the heat and break.

I used a R32 GTS RB25DE head (Like yours) had it rebuilt, ported/polished & inlet valves deshrouded. The cam specs for the head are 240dur 7.8mm lift on the inlet and 232dur 7.3mm lift on the exhaust. I'm going to use the 240dur 7.8mm exhaust cam from my RB20DET to help open up the top end a bit more. If it makes power to 6000-6500rpm then starts to drop off I'll leave the cams standard. If it drops off before 6000rpm then I'll throw a set of 256dur 9mm lift cams in it.

Do your figures. Work out how much its going to cost to get an RB25DET & RB20DET in the car with a working ecu (RB25DET = wiring mods, RB20DET will work easily with a T ECU), then work out what it will cost to give a RB30E short motor a freshen up (~1-1.2k) buy a head gasket, bolt on your RB25DE head, pop down to a jap importer & grab your self a cheap highflowed turbo, buy an second hand exhaust (~$700) then get your ecu remaped and have a solid easy 200rwkw with no lag and quick acceleration as you idle off from a set of lights. :P

It stresses me having to play with the clutch then waiting for the turbo in first to try and take off a little quicker than normal.

..Do your figures. Work out how much its going to cost to get an RB25DET & RB20DET in the car with a working ecu (RB25DET = wiring mods, RB20DET will work easily with a T ECU), then work out what it will cost to give a RB30E short motor a freshen up (~1-1.2k) buy a head gasket, bolt on your RB25DE head, pop down to a jap importer & grab your self a cheap highflowed turbo, buy an second hand exhaust (~$700) then get your ecu remaped and have a solid easy 200rwkw with no lag and quick acceleration as you idle off from a set of lights. :P

 

It stresses me having to play with the clutch then waiting for the turbo in first to try and take off a little quicker than normal.

I should proibably point out that i only have an RB20DE atm, meaning to go to RB30-type stuff, i would need another head (RB25DE) as well as block, turbo, ecu, wiring, Dump pipes, Intercooler etc, etc. as you've already suggested. some things i was wondering about though are the RB25DET you said would require a wiring change - aren't the sensors and stuff the same? it would definitely need another ECU to handle the increased airflow, different capacity etc, but shouldn't it just plug straight into the existing harness? As for the RB20DE, would that even make a worthwhile difference ? or would it be bettter to just hold off and go all out with the RB30 idea? <- this last ones open for comment, btw.

phil

Joel,

You forgot to mention new injectors and fuel pump also, as the GTS Gear won't cope.

Trust me I added up the cost both ways for my conversion, and the RB25DET works out a lot cheaper, every time!

It's costing me:

$2100 for a 1995 RB25DET (64,000 km) engine, ecu, intercooler, wiring loom and fuel pump

$600 for a CES twin dump/front pipe (though you could get a cheaper single dump for $250)

$315 GReddy Turbo timer and Apexi pod filter

$800 labour to swap it all over

And after it's complete I can sell my RB25DE engine, ECU, and wiring - to recoupe some of the costs.

Sure a RB30DET would be nice, but when I added it all up (doing it properly and not dodgy) it was going to cost in the region of $8000 - (RB30 bottom end with forged pistons and balanced internals, turbo + manifold, dump/front pipe, intercooler + piping, blowoff valve, fuel pump, aftermarket computer to run the larger injectors). And with the RB30DET putting out so much torque, it would surely destroy my clutch and gearbox.

I am envious though Joel, if I could justify throwing the money at a RB30 conversion, I would have. But at the end of the day the RB25DET made far more sense.

Ryno

It is a bit of a bummer if you don't have turbo to start off with.

 

I'd just bolt up the turbo bits to the NA with its decent compression ratio it should go well, better than a similiar modded T.

I think go to pieces might be more accurate... :P the high compression ratio would put way to much strain on the internals, or so im told. I think there were some posts earlier on in this thread about the addition of a turbo to a N/A engine... ill have to check though...

All comes down to how much power do you want to make. Be it now or later down the track.

Its a bit of a waste of money to buy a RB25DET if you are only going to rebuild it with stronger internals, different turbo,injectors, I think this is where the RB30DET begins to become better value for money.

It can also depends how much your willing to pay extra to have a freshly rebuilt engine.

Work out the $$, the pros & cons then make a decision.

I've always liked cubes. :D

Comparing the RB25 to the RB20, 500cc's makes a hell of a difference.

While your spooling i'll be short shifting down the road. :)

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...