Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Sounds like heresay to me. Plenty of people with RB26DETTs running more that 300kw (at the wheels) without issue: you just *must* make sure that all the ancillary systems are in place to support that kind of power and all necessary modification have been made.

If your really concerned, source an N1 block which has thicker walls and different oil galleries designed to protect the block from cracking.

LW.

Get Zoom, 08/04 mag, has a Phat 350Z 334kW twin-turbo on the cover blue 350Z.

It has an article about RB26 tuning, and they are saying 400kw@rw is what you can get on stock internals, then you'll have to start uping the internals and start looking at some other things as well.

RB26's are very strong engines, it wouldn't be so well known if it wasn't.

Up get take the RB26 over 1,000hp and over 700kw@rw, companies can sell 1,000hp RB26's wouldn't be cheap at best though.

Ha biggest crap i have ever heard.

Teh GTR Block can NEVA crack :)

All serious now, mate there are guys making well over 900 HP and the block hasn't cracked.

Oh and if you go to supra forums dont type the word GTR.

The Supra Boys seem to get a a bit of bullshititis and upset.

Must be because they worked out they bought the wrong car.:)

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi guys,

I've seen plenty of supras making more power than gtrs with stock internals, they are doing 9s (street tyre) in the US the record is 950rwhp on stock internals, there are countless making 700 to 800hp, I've never heard of a GTR doing this on stock internals or not even near so come back down to earth NISMO 400 R N1, In my point of view the supra has the upper hand as you can do much more to it with less money. Its not hard to see that the market has a wider range for the Skyline/ GTR within Australia as.

my friend has cracked his block...i'm pretty sure he told me he was running 500+whp though.

i have been told to be wary of the engine twisting when making in access of 450hp? i think getting stiffer engine mounts would help. there's also something that looks kinda like a shock absorber which kills or minimises the twisting.

my friend has cracked his block...i'm pretty sure he told me he was running 500+whp though.

i have been told to be wary of the engine twisting when making in access of 450hp? i think getting stiffer engine mounts would help. there's also something that looks kinda like a shock absorber which kills or minimises the twisting.

Yes, Nismo makes a series of mounts for the RBs, and there are "anti-twist" bars. Of course the best option would be to get an N1 block...

LW.

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

    • So, if the headlights' cutoff behaviour (angles, heights, etc) are not as per 6.2.6.1.1 without automatic levelling, then you have to have to have automatic** levelling. Also, if the headlight does not have the required markings, then neither automatic nor manual adjusters are going to be acceptable. That's because the base headlight itself does not meet the minimum requirement (which is the marking). ** with the option of manual levelling, if the headlight otherwise meets the same requirements as for the automatic case AND can be set to the "base" alignment at the headlight itself. So that's an additional requirement for the manual case. So, provided that the marking is on the headlight and there is a local manual adjustment back to "base" on the headlight, then yes, you could argue that they are code compliant. But if you are missing any single one of these things, then they are not. And unlike certain other standards that I work with, there does not seem to be scope to prepare a "fitness for purpose" report. Well, I guess there actually is. You might engage an automotive engineer to write a report stating that the lights meet the performance requirements of the standard even if they are missing, for example, the markings.  
    • Vertical orientation   6.2.6.1.1. The initial downward inclination of the cut off of the dipped-beam to be set in the unladen vehicle state with one person in the driver's seat shall be specified within an accuracy of 0.1 per cent by the manufacturer and indicated in a clearly legible and indelible manner on each vehicle close to either headlamp or the manufacturer's plate by the symbol shown in Annex 7.   The value of this indicated downward inclination shall be defined in accordance with paragraph 6.2.6.1.2.   6.2.6.1.2. Depending on the mounting height in metres (h) of the lower edge of the apparent surface in the direction of the reference axis of the dipped beam headlamp, measured on the unladen vehicles, the vertical inclination of the cut off of the dipped- beam shall, under all the static conditions of Annex 5, remain between the following limits and the initial aiming shall have the following values:   h < 0.8   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   0.8 < h < 1.0   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   Or, at the discretion of the manufacturer,   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The application for the vehicle type approval shall, in this case, contain information as to which of the two alternatives is to be used.   h > 1.0   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The above limits and the initial aiming values are summarized in the diagram below.   For category N3G (off-road) vehicles where the headlamps exceed a height of 1,200 mm, the limits for the vertical inclination of the cut-off shall be between: -1.5 per cent and -3.5 per cent.   The initial aim shall be set between: -2 per cent and -2.5 per cent.
×
×
  • Create New...