Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey, ive done some researching and can only really find people putting neo and s1-s2 heads on rb30- 25det bottom ends etc but havent found any info on puttin an s1 -s2 rb25 turbo head on a r34 neo natro asp bottom end, now people have said that cross matching the turbo blocks with the neo heads will create low compression ratios but if my rb25de neo has a CR of 10:1 it shouldnt drop the comp that much and thus having a nice CR and the strength of the neo bottom ends? also wanna know if the different piston design in the neo will interfere with the head/valves at all?

any info much appreciated

cheers dave

the neo has approx 10cc smaller chamber. find an online comp calculator and figure it out. At a wild gyes I would say you would get around 9:1 but it definitely seems pointless , can you explain what you plan to achieve with the engine?

sorry i didnt mention that i was turboing it, all my manifolds etc wont fit the neo na head(having smaller ports etc), i have the greddy style inlet and everything on an 25/30 in another car but have a gtr head for that now and wanna use the whole 25setup on this r34 gt4, cant just slip the 25/30 in cause of 4wd and would need adapter plates etc. im just tryin to use wat i have in the shed and wanted to make sure it was going to be all good before i rip both cars apart,

yeah i saw a stag neo det and manual box for like 1800 or something like that on ebay was cheap but i dont have that money to spend at the moment and have all this shit to use anyway, i'm not to concerned about the n/a bottom end it should be up to the task, they getting 500hp on stock bottom end neo det and de's use same gtr rods and pistons are a little thicker on top and made of same shit as turbo pistons, just hoping the CR is round 9:1 that way it should in theory be very close to det spec

yeah i dont think the squirters are gunna be an issue as im not going for all out power but having a thicker crown on the n/a piston would be more prone the heat soak but again shouldnt be a real issue on mild power figures i'll have a crack at it!

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...