Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hi, i hope someone can shed some light for me.

1. if i took my 25 head to be ported what would be done?

2.if i were to die grind the inlet bigger to the valves would i be increasing flow for better or worse. (like using to big intercooler pipes)

3.for each cyclinder there are two valves (as you know), the inlet splits into two, if if I were to grind the split down so it was one would that increase flow or would it create turbulance?

Cheers Tim

Depending on what sort of power you decide upon leave most of that 'porting' alone.

If the head requires a reco' then just get the combustion chamber bowl area cleaned up a little. The radius on the stock head aren't too bad. The intake and exhaust ports might like a bit of smoothing to remove cast imperfections although the ports themselves even with 'the bumps' will still flow a large amount of power.

With power of the order of 450hp or less the rule 'ain't broke don't fix it applies' and you even save time and money yay!. With the die grinder you can smooth things off but, without experience in matching the ports evenly don't try to increase the size of anything.

Hi guys, I keep hearing the "RB ports aren't too bad standard" line. Well I reckon they are pretty average really, lots of dags, casting marks, misaligned manifolds, thick and protrusive valve guides etc etc.

The turbo engine story goes "don't worry about the porting, just turn the boost up some more". Well I don't subscribe to that, I'd much rather make my power target at the lowest boost possible. So by porting, polishing and matching I might be only able to save say 0.1 bar, but even that is worth it. I can run higher static compression, more ignition advance and the engine will build boost faster because it flows better.

I have a rule, if I take a head of one of our engines, I ALWAYS get it ported, the manifolds matched and internally polished and equalised combustion chambers .

As the Rev said RBVS, if you are doing it yourself, remember less is better. It is so easy to take too much out, and remember you can't ever put it back.

Hope that helps.

I totally agree with Sydneykid. The SR/RB heads still have alot of potential with them. After all, they were designed with stock power levels in mind.

Even just a quick polish/degag/match port, there is definitely some gains to be had with a small amount of effort!

ok cool , i was thinking just a clean up and a polish. i can see were the gasket sits and there are marks (black) , ring around the the openings which i was thinking of cuting back as in let air and exhast gasses must be hitting.

mite be important to match inlet but exhast and turbo manifold bigger you can get em the beter or what?

i will be doing my self, but will take great care, not going to go nuts

what was the result with the head mambastu? (power wise?) ;)

I haven't actually fitted the engine to my RS13 yet. Should be going in the car in a couple of weeks time with various other goodies on it so I'm not going to be able to give a 'before and after' result I'm afraid.

When I've run it in I'll post up the dyno results and we can speculate how much power I've gained (or lost :) ) from it :)

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...