Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I picked up my RB30 block from an R31 recently and I'm swinging in between either putting a 25 or 26 head on it. Given that it's a 3 litre block and the prices of fuel, it's come into a factor as it will be in my daily.

For those who have went down this path, could you please share some ideas on the fuel economy per full tank and what fuel? I'm looking at building two RB30 motors, one being NA and other being turbo.

RB25/30 Neo Head - NA

RB25/30 Neo Head - Turbo

RB26/30 Neo Head - NA

RB26/30 Neo Head - Turbo

Also some idea on the rwkw and ups and downs for 25 or 26 would be great

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/429750-rb30-25-or-26-fuel-economy/
Share on other sites

Read the RB30 hybrid upgrade thread for KW

If you are building an RB30 to be economical I would say a Neo head would be best but the biggest determinant will be your right foot. I find I can get just as good economy (or just as bad) out of my RB30/25 as when I had the RB25DET if I don't boot it everywhere.

yre gona be spending an awful lot lof money to be even concerned about fuel economy, it doesn't sound right

I've got the parts lying around so why not. Not going to go all the way to forged pistons and Nitto oil pump etc.

either.

I think the differences between the 2 will be negligible.

so, which ever works easier, which would be your factory head.

one thing to keep in mind, the cr.

get the right pistons at least to bump the cr up and make it driveable, or youre going to use more throttle to compensate, and in turn, more fuel.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Neo turbo head have chamber volumes about the same as the RB30 NA SOHC head ? And wouldn't that make the static CR about 9.5 to 1 . IMO having an adequate CR is where part throttle torque and economy is because it has a big say in the dynamic or throttled CR .

The GTRs six throttle inlet manifold was all about sharp throttle response because you could open the ports up to a big inlet tract . Trouble is that when you let lots of air in you have to hose the fuel in to maintain acceptable AFRs so the transients tend to be bad consumption wise .

Yes and the variable inlet cam timing makes for better low end torque and consumption - better overall compromise .

I think what you seek is a torquey engine that doesn't need a lot of throttle to get around in style , everything about a GTR is open it's lungs and go for ratshit fuel economy - it's not something Nissan gave any real consideration to . I can't think of any homologation specials from the 80s and 90s that had good fuel economy-especially turbo ones , things like RS500 Sierras Evos GTRs etc .

On paper a Neo turbo engine makes 206 Kw where I think a std R32 RB26 made 209 , the Neo would have been a simpler cheaper engine to make with one throttle and one turbo and in theory its power output wasn't far short . It's power delivery would be more user friendly for a road car and it should have got better normal use consumption .

If it were me I'd use turbo Neo heads on a fresh std RB30 NA or turbo because it's the best compromise for a road car . CR will be better and if the car was a single throttle one you get to use more of what it came with .

Freshening up a standard late RB30 NA - std pistons rods water pump - shouldn't be to exy though a turbo oil pump like maybe a 25T one is probably a good idea . IMO you only need the collar etc if you are going to rev to 7 and beyond or bounce off the limiter much .

Your call cheers A .

Edited by discopotato03

Thanks for the input guys.

Does anyone have a rough idea of the RWKW for a NA rb25/30 and approx K's on a full tank? Don't want to end up having to fork out $100+ each time i fill up. already doing $80 per tank and thats just 95

Well that doesn't make any sense because the rebuild cost for these 2 motors negates any possible fuel savings, u should be able to get atleast 350-500kms to a tank(street, not track) Any less and its the tuning that'a out of wack.

If u want a fuel saving, get a Prius

Edited by discoPumpkin

Thanks for the input guys.

Does anyone have a rough idea of the RWKW for a NA rb25/30 and approx K's on a full tank? Don't want to end up having to fork out $100+ each time i fill up. already doing $80 per tank and thats just 95

you are going to keep forking out the same for filking up

it comes down to how OFTEN you now fill up.

as previous post, my run in tune, I got 500ks to tbe 70l tank doing the putty rd and back.

around town, about 350.

you are going to keep forking out the same for filking up

it comes down to how OFTEN you now fill up.

as previous post, my run in tune, I got 500ks to tbe 70l tank doing the putty rd and back.

around town, about 350.

Yeah thats where I was getting at. I'd like to maintain my 480KM/80L or colse to it.

I don't think you'll get that in the burbs with the 26 inlet system , I'm not sure if you'd see much advantage of that if mostly driving around at smallish throttle openings . On the open road at fairly consistent engine loads and throttle openings it may not make much difference .

I tend to think that since Nissan made the last revision of the RB cylinder heads in R34s the changes they made would have been to do with running leaner mixtures and not detonating on the sameish available pump fuels . At that ultra low emission vehicle (ULEV) point many manufacturers had to revise heads so that their engines could perform acceptably using lean mixtures . They had to have better cooling around exhaust valve seats and ports and having less chamber surface area (more compact chambers) means less area to absorb combustion heat . What I think they were trying to do was remove more of the heat via the exhaust gasses than the engines cooling systems - also helps keep heat in cat converters .

I don't remember there being any changes in the R34 RB26 chambers and ports though someone here would know . GTRs were not really designed with economy in mind (IMO) and as long as Nissan got them past the emissions standards they probably didn't care that much about economy . Having all round reasonable performance and better consumption would have been the realm of the GT and GTt and the latter was a step up from the R33 GTS25T .

I think it's safe to assume that had Nissan produced an R34 GTt with an RB30 it would have used the Neo turbo 25 head and inlet system and only minor rejigging . It would have had more part throttle torque everywhere and probably longer diff gears to take advantage of the extra soft pedalling torque . I think if you want the best of both performance and economy you should consider the last revisions of what the factory did because they were after these same things , but limited themselves to 2.5L .

A .

Edited by discopotato03
  • Like 1

city or hwy?

city/suburbs. I get on average 420 when the fuel light comes on but can stretch it to 480.

I don't think you'll get that in the burbs with the 26 inlet system , I'm not sure if you'd see much advantage of that if mostly driving around at smallish throttle openings . On the open road at fairly consistent engine loads and throttle openings it may not make much difference .

I tend to think that since Nissan made the last revision of the RB cylinder heads in R34s the changes they made would have been to do with running leaner mixtures and not detonating on the sameish available pump fuels . At that ultra low emission vehicle (ULEV) point many manufacturers had to revise heads so that their engines could perform acceptably using lean mixtures . They had to have better cooling around exhaust valve seats and ports and having less chamber surface area (more compact chambers) means less area to absorb combustion heat . What I think they were trying to do was remove more of the heat via the exhaust gasses than the engines cooling systems - also helps keep heat in cat converters .

I don't remember there being any changes in the R34 RB26 chambers and ports though someone here would know . GTRs were not really designed with economy in mind (IMO) and as long as Nissan got them past the emissions standards they probably didn't care that much about economy . Having all round reasonable performance and better consumption would have been the realm of the GT and GTt and the latter was a step up from the R33 GTS25T .

I think it's safe to assume that had Nissan produced an R34 GTt with an RB30 it would have used the Neo turbo 25 head and inlet system and only minor rejigging . It would have had more part throttle torque everywhere and probably longer diff gears to take advantage of the extra soft pedalling torque . I think if you want the best of both performance and economy you should consider the last revisions of what the factory did because they were after these same things , but limited themselves to 2.5L .

A .

so you're saying a 25det neo head would be more economical?

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

    • This. As for your options - I suggest remote mounting the Nissan sensor further away on a length of steel tube. That tube to have a loop in it to handle vibration, etc etc. You will need to either put a tee and a bleed fitting near the sensor, or crack the fitting at the sensor to bleed it full of oil when you first set it up, otherwise you won't get the line filled. But this is a small problem. Just needs enough access to get it done.
    • The time is always correct. Only the date is wrong. It currently thinks it is January 19. Tomorrow it will say it is January 20. The date and time are ( should be ! ) retrieved from the GPS navigation system.
    • Buy yourself a set of easy outs. See if they will get a good bite in and unthread it.   Very very lucky the whole sender didn't let go while on the track and cost you a motor!
    • Well GTSBoy, prepare yourself further. I did a track day with 1/2 a day prep on Friday, inpromptu. The good news is that I got home, and didn't drive the car into a wall. Everything seemed mostly okay. The car was even a little faster than it was last time. I also got to get some good datalog data too. I also noticed a tiny bit of knock which was (luckily?) recorded. All I know is the knock sensors got recalibrated.... and are notorious for false knock. So I don't know if they are too sensitive, not sensitive enough... or some other third option. But I reduced timing anyway. It wasn't every pull through the session either. Think along the lines of -1 degree of timing for say, three instances while at the top of 4th in a 20 minute all-hot-lap session. Unfortunately at the end of session 2... I noticed a little oil. I borrowed some jack stands and a jack and took a look under there, but as is often the case, messing around with it kinda half cleaned it up, it was not conclusive where it was coming from. I decided to give it another go and see how it was. The amount of oil was maybe one/two small drops. I did another 20 minute session and car went well, and I was just starting to get into it and not be terrified of driving on track. I pulled over and checked in the pits and saw this: This is where I called it, packed up and went home as I live ~20 min from the track with a VERY VERY CLOSE EYE on Oil Pressure on the way home. The volume wasn't much but you never know. I checked it today when I had my own space/tools/time to find out what was going on, wanted to clean it up, run the car and see if any of the fittings from around the oil filter were causing it. I have like.. 5 fittings there, so I suspected one was (hopefully?) the culprit. It became immediately apparent as soon as I looked around more closely. 795d266d-a034-4b8c-89c9-d83860f5d00a.mp4       This is the R34 GTT oil sender connected via an adapter to an oil cooler block I have installed which runs AN lines to my cooler (and back). There's also an oil temp sensor on top.  Just after that video, I attempted to unthread the sensor to see if it's loose/worn and it disintegrated in my hand. So yes. I am glad I noticed that oil because it would appear that complete and utter catastrophic engine failure was about 1 second of engine runtime away. I did try to drill the fitting out, and only succeeded in drilling the middle hole much larger and now there's a... smooth hole in there with what looks like a damn sleeve still incredibly tight in there. Not really sure how to proceed from here. My options: 1) Find someone who can remove the stuck fitting, and use a steel adapter so it won't fatigue? (Female BSPT for the R34 sender to 1/8NPT male - HARD to find). IF it isn't possible to remove - Buy a new block ($320) and have someone tap a new 1/8NPT in the top of it ($????) and hope the steel adapter works better. 2) Buy a new block and give up on the OEM pressure sender for the dash entirely, and use the supplied 1/8 NPT for the oil temp sender. Having the oil pressure read 0 in the dash with the warning lamp will give me a lot of anxiety driving around. I do have the actual GM sensor/sender working, but it needs OBD2 as a gauge. If I'm datalogging I don't actually have a readout of what the gauge is currently displaying. 3) Other? Find a new location for the OEM sender? Though I don't know of anywhere that will work. I also don't know if a steel adapter is actually functionally smart here. It's clearly leveraged itself through vibration of the motor and snapped in half. This doesn't seem like a setup a smart person would replicate given the weight of the OEM sender. Still pretty happy being lucky for once and seeing this at the absolute last moment before bye bye motor in a big way, even if an adapter is apparently 6 weeks+ delivery and I have no way to free the current stuck/potentially destroyed threads in the current oil block.
×
×
  • Create New...