Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

dunno but you've got the big ass 4 door, so plenty of room in that boat to drive around the kids in the holidays

Nah during school time is better cause they all congregate in one place. nd 14 yeah old grlz luv the sutututu

Sorry OP you can have your thread back now.

Yep, I'm convinced. Obviously its a combination of a few things that make the neo head far superior, so going away from that head would be retarded!

Looking at piston choices, and comparing chamber volume of a RB30e/t to NEO it seems if I gett the RB30ET pistons with a 4.5cc dish i will end up slighlty higer than the claimed 8.5:1 , which would be spot on.

http://www.aclperformance.com.au/NissanRB30ETForgedPistons.htm

and from webbers guide

As listed in a previous section The head combustion CC's are as follow:

RB30E/T 55CC

R32 RB25DE 62CC

R33 RB25DE/T 63-64CC

R34 RB25DE/T 50-53CC
R32/R33/R34 Rb26DETT 64CC

Deck height to be machined to set compression ratio.

So my question is, have people used them? I have searched like mad and havent found concrete evidence of success, just some people that were planning on using them.

My concern is piston to valve clearance.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Mahle Pistons Nissan RB30DET(Skyline) 86.5mm Bore NIS264405I05

available on ebay for around 800 delivered, will check local prices.
These seem to be the go. Its so good when a piston manufacturer gives the head cc's when stating comp ratio!

**edit, bit concerned by tiny skirt for daily use, don't really want loud pistons.

Edited by superben

If someone can show me a NEO head out perform a non NEO head for power and response on the same motor ill eat my shirt.

The only advantage I see with a NEO head is the ability to use bigger cams while retaining VCT, all other differences would be hard pressed to see a change on a dyno.

Use what you have and save your $$$.

have to agree, while the neo head is better, far superior is a bit steep, both motors in good condition with same mods produce a very similar result

any proof otherwise?

did hear of a neo flicking a shim out recently but didn't hear back why

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...