Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

so i was talking to a guy at a recent SAU cruise and he said he was using rb20 AFMs on his 32 GTR with they were coping with 380kw atw...

I was really surprised that it's possible to do that... considering the standard ones on my GTR maxed out at 270kw... he said his worked just fine :(

You can pick up rb20 AFMs for $60 each compared to z32 costing $300 each... big diff in price...

Anyone care to shed some light? If this is the case, why dont I see more rb20 AFMs being used

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/341391-rb20-afms-an-alternative-for-z32/
Share on other sites

hold up... ignore my lack of knowledge on this area but how bout this

Rb20 AFM limit = 200kw

2 x Rb20 AFMs = 400kw limit???

I have no idea how AFMs work

Yep 2 so double it - they work in parallel. When you say $60 that's second hand right? I'd say most ppl would want second hand AFMs on a big power build.

hold up... ignore my lack of knowledge on this area but how bout this

Rb20 AFM limit = 200kw

2 x Rb20 AFMs = 400kw limit???

I have no idea how AFMs work

argh i forgot about the two AFM's! Someone is on the ball haha

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...