Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

RB25 Neo NA head

Hey all,

I am having a surprisingly difficult time finding an answer to this question, essentially I have an R34 GT which I'd like to get a bit more power out of and I'm wondering whether its NA Neo head is of any use in building an RB30DET? I wouldn't be chasing mad figures, just something with a bit of high comp for that early boost sitting around the 300hp kinda range, something that runs fine on the streets but can have a bit of fun. Unfortunately that PDF everybody loves to link to every time an RB30 build is brought up has next to no info on the Neo heads, and I'm assuming there's a good reason for this, and that's that the intake ports are too small for them to be useful. But I thought I'd check in before I scrap the idea and buy a GTT or, if money allows, start looking into an LS1.

Cheers fellas

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/470835-rb25-neo-na-head/
Share on other sites

Its do-able. Depending on the pistons etc you are using you need to check that the CR will not be TOO high. Cam duration is the same as DET and inlet lift is the same but exhaust lift is smaller. Should be OK with the right turbo.

Spool sells a piston kit they're saying will net an 8.7 comp ratio with a Neo head. I shot them an email and they seem to think the ratio'll be about the same regardless of whether it's a DE or DET head which I'm not so sure about, but they'd hopefully know a f**k ton more than I do on the subject.

When you say the right turbo, could I get some more elaboration on what you mean by that?

For anyone still interested, I've been told the NA Neo combustion chamber is around 51.5cc in comparison to the DET's 55-56, meaning the comp ratio with Spool's pistons'll be closer to 9.2. Not sure on the accuracy of the chamber numbers though as Spool thinks the DE and DET share the same size, just with smaller valves and ports on the NA head. How will these smaller sizes impact on the feasability of a small turbo 30DET?

Haven't done too much research into the turbo side of things, wanted to make sure it could even be done before getting too invested. Would be aiming for a nice 275-300rwhp if possible, anything more'd be a bonus. Was thinking smallish turbo to avoid the mad lag of a big unit, just want something nippier than the DE. In my mind quick spool small turbo > max power big turbo

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

    • Let's be honest, most of the people designing parts like the above, aren't engineers. Sometimes they come from disciplines that gives them more qualitative feel for design than quantitive, however, plenty of them have just picked up a license to Fusion and started making things. And that's the honest part about the majority of these guys making parts like that, they don't have huge R&D teams and heaps of time or experience working out the numbers on it. Shit, most smaller teams that do have real engineers still roll with "yeah, it should be okay, and does the job, let's make them and just see"...   The smaller guys like KiwiCNC, aren't the likes of Bosch etc with proper engineering procedures, and oversights, and sign off. As such, it's why they can produce a product to market a lot quicker, but it always comes back to, question it all.   I'm still not a fan of that bolt on piece. Why not just machine it all in one go? With the right design it's possible. The only reason I can see is if they want different heights/length for the tie rod to bolt to. And if they have the cncs themselves,they can easily offer that exact feature, and just machine it all in one go. 
    • The roof is wrapped
    • This is how I last did this when I had a master cylinder fail and introduce air. Bleed before first stage, go oh shit through first stage, bleed at end of first stage, go oh shit through second stage, bleed at end of second stage, go oh shit through third stage, bleed at end of third stage, go oh shit through fourth stage, bleed at lunch, go oh shit through fifth stage, bleed at end of fifth stage, go oh shit through sixth stage....you get the idea. It did come good in the end. My Topdon scan tool can bleed the HY51 and V37, but it doesn't have a consult connector and I don't have an R34 to check that on. I think finding a tool in an Australian workshop other than Nissan that can bleed an R34 will be like rocking horse poo. No way will a generic ODB tool do it.
    • Hmm. Perhaps not the same engineers. The OE Nissan engineers did not forsee a future with spacers pushing the tie rod force application further away from the steering arm and creating that torque. The failures are happening since the advent of those things, and some 30 years after they designed the uprights. So latent casting deficiencies, 30+ yrs of wear and tear, + unexpected usage could quite easily = unforeseen failure. Meanwhile, the engineers who are designing the billet CNC or fabricated uprights are also designing, for the same parts makers, the correction tie rod ends. And they are designing and building these with motorsport (or, at the very least, the meth addled antics of drifters) in mind. So I would hope (in fact, I would expect) that their design work included the offset of that steering force. Doesn't mean that it is not totally valid to ask the question of them, before committing $$.
    • The downside of this is when you try to track the car, as soon as you hit ABS you get introduced to a unbled system. I want to avoid this. I do not want to bleed/flush/jack up the car twice just to bleed the f**kin car.
×
×
  • Create New...