Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I ask because I currently have a 9.0:1 3L VL, with max power at 5200rpm and am looking forward to 7000rpm when I install the rb25 head, etc. I'm just concerned about how much boost I will eventually want to run, and the lag I'll experience with the low CR. The extra revs will mean I could stroke the engine and still increase the redline. I was originally looking at building a high CR N/A engine but the expense has led me to aim at forced induction from the start :)

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/48074-rb30-stroker/#findComment-968772
Share on other sites

Sorry, I realise this, but I have always planned on throwing the twin cam head on my engine, therefore installing new cams into my current engine would be a waste of money. When I build the engine I will rebuild the block as well as the head, which means when the head goes on, the higher possible revs will be acheved at the same time. I am talking more about piston speed when I ask about stroking the engine. I'm not so much worried about the cams or engine rpm at this stage.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/48074-rb30-stroker/#findComment-968919
Share on other sites

Sorry Roy, I didn't put that very clearly. The redline of my engine after it's built will be much higher than it currently is, by roughly 2000rpm. This means that when I build the engine, if it was stroked at the same time, it is possible that I could still increase the rev limit over the current 5000 odd. If the engine was stroked, it is possible that it won't rev to 7000ish very happily, but it will still rev higher than it does now. Does that clear it up?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/48074-rb30-stroker/#findComment-969599
Share on other sites

A bit of RB30 data to start with...

Bore = 86 mm

Stroke = 85 mm

Rod length = 152.5 mm

Rod stroke ratio = 1.793

In order to get to 3,208 cc's you would need 92 mm stroke with 86 mm bore. That's 3mm shorter rods so the rod stroke ratio would be 1.625. Because of the increased angles, the shorter conrods have to be stronger to handle the side loadings. This means extra weight and more stress on the piston skirts and bores.

You have to buy a custom crank (~$4K) and a set of custom conrods (~$3K), plus a set of forged pistons ($2K).

My suggestion (and what we do) is to go for a larger bore, 87.5 mm with the standard stroke. This gives you 3,068 cc's for around half the cost. We rev them to 8,500 rpm with 900 bhp capability. That's good horsepower per dollar. :D

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/48074-rb30-stroker/#findComment-969691
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info SK. The piston speeds must be huge in RB30s doing 8.5 grand?? I couldn't be bothered working it out.

Basically, what I want to achieve is a really strong, flexible street setup, with the option of drag racing and maybe some track work.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/48074-rb30-stroker/#findComment-971163
Share on other sites

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

    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
    • Yes they do. For some maybe. But for those used the most by abusers, ie Skylines, the numbers are known. The stock eyebrow height for R32/3 Skylines is about 365/375mm or thereabouts. The minimum such heights are recorded in adjacent columns in the database.
    • Hmmm, interesting. Makes me wonder whether there is bias as well. It's the cheapest fuel, so it is used for all kinds of ill-maintained shitboxes which are bound to have issues regardless. Nicer cars tend to require higher octane rated fuel and can't use it anyway. FWIW, the official NSW E10 facts page is decent. 
×
×
  • Create New...