Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

lets get this striahgt EVERYTHING i have spoken about in this thread has been turbo. the only thing im talking about thats non turbo is the motor im planing on putting in my car. now relax your pussy flaps everyonethis has become ridiculous

Edited by obsesv

what i meant by my mates motor is non turbo is.. its a factory non turbo motor, with a turbo setup on it. im terribly sorry for wording that very wrong!

i was trying to get the point across at the strength of an internally standard rb30

ahh so you meant to say, non turbo bottom end?

having a non turbo bottom end really makes little difference to the equation but now we have that cleared up, we can continue, fully enlightened

lets get this striahgt EVERYTHING i have spoken about in this thread has been turbo. the only thing im talking about thats non turbo is the motor im planing on putting in my car. now relax your pussy flaps everyonethis has become ridiculous

The size of my pussy flaps is rediculous, this topic has nothing on that

ahh so you meant to say, non turbo bottom end?

having a non turbo bottom end really makes little difference to the equation but now we have that cleared up, we can continue, fully enlightened

yes i meant its a non turbo bottom end, and head. wich doesnt really matter anyway cause the only difference is the cam which has been replaced anyway, but thats the extent of the headwork done to it.

i worded it badly :/

yes i meant its a non turbo bottom end, and head. wich doesnt really matter anyway cause the only difference is the cam which has been replaced anyway, but thats the extent of the headwork done to it.

i worded it badly :/

The pistons (comp ratio) is different also.

What Nismoid {edited for accuracy} said before was correct, though, you won't be able to make the chassis backwards compatible. You can put engines of equal vintage in but I'm pretty sure putting a less efficient engine into a newer car breaks all their rules

look im sick of arguing with everyone in here, i hope ive corrected all my mistakes by saying everything ive previously talked about has been turbo. big power n/a rb's just doesnt happen.

now, if we want to talk about my car. the idea of putting an rb30 in came to me because as ive said i can get one for basically nothing and i can do all the work myself. being an apprentice i dont earn lots of money so i want to do it on the cheap, and n/a rb25 is hard to find in its self, and expensive when you do find one. im not looking for performance out of this car at ALL while it is n/a, i just want a nice cruiser. due to previously having a turbo car and being on my p's i have a daily driver so i have plenty of time to do all this. SO in summary, an rb30 is the cheapest and quickest way to make my skyline n/a, then when i want to step it up all ive gotta do is chuck a twin cam head on and away i go

if anyone else wants anything cleared up feel free to ask!

The pistons (comp ratio) is different also.

What Nismoid {edited for accuracy} said before was correct, though, you won't be able to make the chassis backwards compatible. You can put engines of equal vintage in but I'm pretty sure putting a less efficient engine into a newer car breaks all their rules

yeah the head gasket in it is thicker thus making it the same as a factory turbo rb30

look im sick of arguing with everyone in here, i hope ive corrected all my mistakes by saying everything ive previously talked about has been turbo. big power n/a rb's just doesnt happen.

now, if we want to talk about my car. the idea of putting an rb30 in came to me because as ive said i can get one for basically nothing and i can do all the work myself. being an apprentice i dont earn lots of money so i want to do it on the cheap, and n/a rb25 is hard to find in its self, and expensive when you do find one. im not looking for performance out of this car at ALL while it is n/a, i just want a nice cruiser. due to previously having a turbo car and being on my p's i have a daily driver so i have plenty of time to do all this. SO in summary, an rb30 is the cheapest and quickest way to make my skyline n/a, then when i want to step it up all ive gotta do is chuck a twin cam head on and away i go

if anyone else wants anything cleared up feel free to ask!

If you want to do it and your budget allows, then ring DOT/RTA and see if they will allow it. As far as being ABLE to be done....sure it can. Go for it.

You can always rip the head off and go twin cam later if the peer pressure gets too much.

The pistons (comp ratio) is different also.

What Nismoid {edited for accuracy} said before was correct, though, you won't be able to make the chassis backwards compatible. You can put engines of equal vintage in but I'm pretty sure putting a less efficient engine into a newer car breaks all their rules

yeah im aware of that, its not my biggest worry

Go and read my post.

Then read it again.

Then continue reading

The car is BUILD PLATED as TURBO.

- You cannot put a RB30E into a R32 and be legal if my recollection of laws is correct (I'm usually pretty on the money), meaning RB20E and RB25DE are your choices etc. You cannot put an older motor, into a newer chassis.

- You need to RE-ENGINEER it, that is not free to begin with. They might also emissions test you, again not free.

It's not a simple case of "motor out, motor in - I've beaten the system".

It might pay you to investigate the laws before getting wild ideas.

If you want to do it and your budget allows, then ring DOT/RTA and see if they will allow it. As far as being ABLE to be done....sure it can. Go for it.

You can always rip the head off and go twin cam later if the peer pressure gets too much.

yeah ill look into it. ill see if its able to be engineered or something.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah i found that alot of parts can be wrong or "very" hard to get the real right one. I already bought some brakes years ago on me "old" GT calipers and they were wrong too 😄  I told them too. Even send them pictures...but they said "EBC catalogue has them on my car... So i dont know what their answer will be. I call monday them and let them know that they are really not on my car. If they were they would be already on a car...
    • Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.
    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
×
×
  • Create New...