Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

The block might be the same but the rods pistons and heads are definitely different. It has proved difficult for people to get the correct forged pistons for the neo - they are usually not available off the shelf and have to be made hence a long lead time.You may find that your cr is in excess of 10:1 and the shape of the piston crown is not suitable. Did you compare the pistons you put in with the ones you pulled out?

Did you buy neo pistons? From what I've seen while looking for pistons for my neo is the pistons are nowhere near the same shape to an rb25 non neo.

You can get cp neo pistons on eBay for $800ish delivered.

it is for non neo, but my mechanic bought the r34 block which he believed it to be the same.

What i bought was for non neo cp pistion with 9.0:1CP and Manley Rod. the rod lenght of rb25 and 26 are the same? because on the box it says rb26.

it is for non neo, but my mechanic bought the r34 block which he believed it to be the same.

What i bought was for non neo cp pistion with 9.0:1CP and Manley Rod. the rod lenght of rb25 and 26 are the same? because on the box it says rb26.

From what I read, NEOs run RB26 rods but not pistons.

OK, just to clear it, i've got r33 gtst, my rod (number 1 let go about 2 months ago and i have bought all the part for rebuild. My mechanic has r34 gtt block, i use his bottom block with my non neo head. I was told that the block is both the same. Is the crank for the neo and non neo (rb25det not neo) the same?

when putting one of the piston and rod in the top edge of the piston is about 1mm above the surface of the block (head gasket is not installed yet). is sthis normal? should the top edge of the piston sitting flush with the block surface?

look like i will need to buy the r33 block. can anyone else comfirm?

thanks all

I'm not too sure about that. Find an experienced RB engine builder and ask. You may be able to get away with thicker gaskets but find someone who has done it.

The rb25 blocks should all be the same. The rb26 block was a bit higher from memory.

The main diff between the r33 and 34 engines is the head, pistons and rods.

Rods were same length all round from 26 to 25 but the pistons were totally different. The rb25 and 26 had same pistons with a taller deck while the rb25 neo had special valve cutouts and was shorter. If you used r33 pistons in a r34 the valves will hit the pistons.

The rb25 blocks should all be the same. The rb26 block was a bit higher from memory.

The main diff between the r33 and 34 engines is the head, pistons and rods.

Rods were same length all round from 26 to 25 but the pistons were totally different. The rb25 and 26 had same pistons with a taller deck while the rb25 neo had special valve cutouts and was shorter. If you used r33 pistons in a r34 the valves will hit the pistons.

Yep but he's apparently using the R33 head.

Yep but he's apparently using the R33 head.

Wrong pistons??

Measure pin heights etc and compare to catoglue data. ignore what the box says.

R33 and R34 blocks are the same height/stroke

Rods are the same length in R33 rb25 and R34 rb25 and rb26

The difference is the CC of the heads, R33 are about 62 and Neo is 51-52CC's

Hence the difference in piston crowns (and maybe pin height)

without the head fitted the piston is sitting about 1mm above deck. If r34 block and crank are the same as r33 then the piston is wrong. But looking at the CP spec and having consult with CP people they confirm that they have the same compression height. this is what they said

"CP Pistons said that the valve reliefs are the same for both the 8.5:1CR and 9.0:1CR pistons. They say they design the pistons to accept high lift and +1.0mm oversized valves. Neo piston is different to non neo, the main different being compression height."

I have also post this in the Force Induction Performance section. seem like i still have no answer, I'm totally confused. :unsure:

Yeah but have you got the right pistons? As Darrin says never mind what it says on the box actually measure the distance from the pin to the crown (compression height) . Ask CP what it should be for the R33 piston and what it should be for the Neo piston and establish for sure that you have the right pistons.

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...