Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey there,

Im looking for some advice. I have a VS Commodore which i no longer drive anymore and im looking seriously at putting an RB26DETT into it. For the time being i would want it to be pretty close to stock with a manual gearbox. My main questions are:

1. What will i need other than a front cut?

2. I have seen an RB25 in VS, is there much difference?

3. Who would be a reputable workshop to do this type of work?

Thanks for your help.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/329212-rb26-into-a-vs-commodore/
Share on other sites

1. custom engine mounts, crossmember, gearbox mount, tailshaft, upgraded diff, suspension, brakes, wiring IE Everything on a commodore.

2. yes. alot of difference. Not in the way they go in, internally.

3. I wouldnt undertake this sort of project unless I could do most work myself. (welding, etc) Why? because its simply not economical to pay someone to do the work. That and its not rocket science.

Edited by Flipmo

Given a LS1 weights about the same, has more torque and will easily make good power...

Why not just go down that route especially considering you are paying a workshop.

If it was a DIY on weekends then fair enough, but paying workshop rates you should go the cheaper labour option...

School holidays thread?? hmmm :)

Anyways if your chasing power and your currently driving the V6 do a V8 conversion, you can buy entire donor cars for as little as $1500 a couple of weekends later you have yourself a V8 commodore and you might even be able to break even if you part out the donor car on ebay. Getting that approved is a piece of piss compared with engineering a LS1 or a RB26. And if you really want massive amounts of power for an extra 5-7.5k you can get an ADR approved supercharger kit and be cranking out 230kw+ at the wheels. All legal no worries for less than 10k if you do the work yourself. Compared with an RB26 conversion its a bargain.

mate, if you go through with the conversion, let it be for only one reason:

to piss off all the one eyed skyline nut swingers :)

*pleasedontbanmekthnxbye*

+1

i've seen a 33 front bar on a commodore. brought a smile to my face. also the ease of fitting meant that a hsv front bar could be fitted to a 33. makes me wish i still had my 33 so i could put a commodore front bar on it to piss off all the people who think that skylines are the best car ever made, LOL.

lol @ all the Commodore hate on here. Sometimes you lot are worse than the bogans who scream out riceboy everytime they see an import...

Anyway, these projects are usually undertaken by A.) people with too much money and not enough possessions, B.) people who know how to do most of the work themselves, or C.) idiots. If you're not one of these then don't do it...

Bolt on supercharger/turbocharger kit for the win, LS conversion for the win, smaller displacement high revving engine for the loss (of money).

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...