Jump to content
SAU Community

Rb25/30 Engine Package, Exhaust Haltech Ecu + More

walky01
 Share

Recommended Posts

walky01 Enthusiast

walky01

Posted
Posted

Trying to gauge some interest in my motor, not sure what its worth so im trying to sell it for less than half of what ive put into it.

Engine is Non turbo, Has RB30block with JUN oil pump and crank collar, just installed, havent done more than 200kms on it. RB25de Pistons with stock rods, Fully balanced bottom end. The head is a RB25 turbo VCT head with reground cams and oversize valves and some minor headwork done before i bought it. the engine has been rebuild and is no more than 1000-2000 km old. Has a twin throttle body intake with progressive style throttles. this has cost me over $10k

Haltech PS 1000 will be included as will be all wiring, so essentially you bolt in and go.

Will come with the custom made extractors and race pipe, these extractors were made to suit the motor, completley custom cost around $4000 if i recall correctly. they were made in the VL commodore so they will clear the skyline as the VL is more tighter. will come with the 3" side pipe which was another $500

Ill throw in the gearbox, just a standard MX5 manual with an excedy heavy duty clutch put in with new engine, so again 1000-2000kms done on it too.

There may be more ive forgotten to add. if any questions feel free to PM me.

Price $8000 neg. Car makes around 210kw at the engine so the same as a new commodore to compare and around 350nm. Located in sydney.

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
Ben C34 Grand Master

Ben C34

Posted
Posted

You mentioned you are trying to sell for less than half of what you put into it.

I'm really curious why you would sink so much money into the engine, when it really makes hardly any power?

I understand that some people want to be different, but was there any other goal? Eg particular race class that the engine would fit into?

walky01 Enthusiast

walky01

Posted
  • Author
Posted

My mate had his SV6 dynoed at the same place, he has a exhaust and CAI - and just over 30% loss was calculated. and im pretty sure i remember them saying is a 30% loss roughly depending on car. its a HUB dyno. I was hoping it would be a good allrounder on the track but you really need to rev its tits off to get it to go.... in a street car it would be mad fun, take it to the drags it pulls 14 seconds flat. i havent done better....just not trackable how it is. if it doesnt sell soon ill probably turbo it. ill see what happens first

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      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. 
    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      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.
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      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.
    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      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.
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...