Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi,

The names Jaws, for people who dont know me I drive heavily modified VB with late model VS running gear.

www.ecotecvb.tk

Now your probably asking urself what's this guy doing on this forum?.

Well the thrill of the v6 has worn off and I need an engine upgrade that has plenty of potential.

The RB motor is by far the best without having to go for a V8.

I recently purchased a R33 GTST 2.5L top end which is to be put on a RB30 bottom end.

The 2.5 head has had a full machine, mild porting and new valves and gtr springs fitted.

I reckon 600 horses should be plenty for the street in a car that weighs 1270kgs.

I have had plenty of experience with the likes of SR20's in race cars, track and rally so nissans are nothing new to me.

Before I registered I had a good look around this site, since so many people are doing the 3.0l conversions this would be the perfect oportunity for me.

I need some feedback on a few areas.

What is better suited to my combo?, apexi fc comp or autronic?.

Did the standard r33 fuel pump have to be upgraded and also injectors?.

What manual gearbox is best suited for this setup?.

What turbo is best suited?, mind you it has to be responsive down low.

That's all i can think of atm.

apexi power fc represents better value for money. autronic is alot more expensive. comes down to preference

fuel pump def needs upgrading, to big bosch item, ie 044

r33 gtst is perfect box for ur needs

search forums for a turbo

Autronic.

No, the standard fuel pump and injectors won't support 600hp.

None, the torque from the 3L will smash the manual gearboxes for breakfast unless you drive it like a pansy. Get a trimatic, or drive it very carefully and don't slam home the gears.

What turbo? That's upto you mate. For 600hp, look to a GT3240/T04R or Trust TD07/T78

Autronic.

No, the standard fuel pump and injectors won't support 600hp.

None, the torque from the 3L will smash the manual gearboxes for breakfast unless you drive it like a pansy. Get a trimatic, or drive it very carefully and don't slam home the gears.

What turbo? That's upto you mate. For 600hp, look to a GT3240/T04R or Trust TD07/T78

I agree with Merli's comment wholeheartedly...

JAWS!

I remember you for the Commodore Forums. I used to drive one, but I saw the light and now drive a skyline.

Good luck with your comvert, the one in your VB is awesome!

BASS OUT

Autronic.

No, the standard fuel pump and injectors won't support 600hp.

None, the torque from the 3L will smash the manual gearboxes for breakfast unless you drive it like a pansy. Get a trimatic, or drive it very carefully and don't slam home the gears.

What turbo? That's upto you mate. For 600hp, look to a GT3240/T04R or Trust TD07/T78

i think a rb25 box can handle it if not driven like a idiot.

i think a rb25 box can handle it if not driven like a idiot.

Sure, it can handle 2000hp if driven carefully enough.

But why would you build a motor like that and not drive it hard? Would you never drag race it? What's the point? And he's a commodore driver, of course he's going to give it a good thrashing every traffic light. :D :D

OH WOW with exactly what Jaws is proposing (RB30 bottom end, RB25 head, T78 turbo) smashed 2 RB25 gearboxes in 2 weeks.

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...