Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Looks like HKS is floating the idea of retrofitting TJI and reverse flow turbos to the RB26 to improve the packaging with twin turbos. Dual chamber plenum too, to try and improve airflow distribution between the cylinders. Dual injectors to be able to use single cone injectors while reducing fuel impingement on the cylinder head walls. Not mentioned in the video but seemingly also present on the engine are their R35 coil retrofit, cam/crank trigger kit, and exhaust VCAM. I'm sure that engine is probably going to cost as much as the entire car itself if they ever sell it as a complete package.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/481838-hks-advanced-heritage-rb26-concept/
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, hattori hanzo said:

the americans will lap it all up for the jdm fanboi points

 

Is anyone else planning on trying to get TJI working on an RB26? I think that piece alone would allow for quite substantial gains in knock margin. Mahle has a marketing summary here: https://www.mahle-powertrain.com/media/mahle-powertrain/experience/mahle-jet-ignition/mahle-jet-ignition-product-information.pdf

"Stoichiometric operation (λ≈1.0) (conventional after-treatment utilised) • Rapid, stable combustion enables high dilution tolerance allowing high EGR rates • Enhanced efficiency and λ≈1.0 operation at high loads • Compatible with Miller-cycle operation • Knock reduction (enables high CR operation)"

Edited by joshuaho96
  • Like 1
5 hours ago, joshuaho96 said:

Is anyone else planning on trying to get TJI working on an RB26? I think that piece alone would allow for quite substantial gains in knock margin. Mahle has a marketing summary here: https://www.mahle-powertrain.com/media/mahle-powertrain/experience/mahle-jet-ignition/mahle-jet-ignition-product-information.pdf

"Stoichiometric operation (λ≈1.0) (conventional after-treatment utilised) • Rapid, stable combustion enables high dilution tolerance allowing high EGR rates • Enhanced efficiency and λ≈1.0 operation at high loads • Compatible with Miller-cycle operation • Knock reduction (enables high CR operation)"

With guys on E85 I seriously doubt this is on anyone's radar.

So when you getting one Joshua ?

22 hours ago, BK said:

With guys on E85 I seriously doubt this is on anyone's radar.

So when you getting one Joshua ?

Even with E85 if you've tuned to the knock limit TJI should allow for even more margin if it works and it should, emphasis on should, just be a set of plugs and a retune. I would pass on being the first to buy this engine, just the tubular manifolds suggests to me that either this is a prototype or they don't expect to sell many of these "vertical turbos". Maserati seems to have decided that a pre-chamber plugs alone are not good enough for idle/low load which makes me wonder how HKS plans to make a single pre-chamber plug work for all load/RPM/coolant temperatures.

I currently have my hands full just trying to get my car registered properly and through CA emissions right now, maybe a few years down the road we'll see what actually endures and ships instead of being a cool model and marketing slide deck. A lot of bits and pieces on my car to focus on before fixing what isn't broken.

2 hours ago, joshuaho96 said:

Even with E85 if you've tuned to the knock limit

No. No one will be tuning to the E85 knock limit as the knock threshold is so high on E85 power and torque gains drop off well before this point.

Apart from the power gains, this is the whole crux of using E85 - the knock limit basically not being able to be practically reached.

  • Like 2
8 hours ago, BK said:

No. No one will be tuning to the E85 knock limit as the knock threshold is so high on E85 power and torque gains drop off well before this point.

Apart from the power gains, this is the whole crux of using E85 - the knock limit basically not being able to be practically reached.

While I'd be inclined to agree on a pretty standard setup like stock CR and relatively small turbos, I'm not as confident considering if you actually take advantage of the octane by bumping static CR up to something "modern" like 10:1 and more than 20 psi boost. Especially if you want to run closer to stoichiometric AFRs. With most current setups I assume you'd have to run E85 basically full time or do a pretty severe boost cut if you had to run pump gas with that kind of setup as well.

This is a load of crap.

1. Vertical turbos. Sorry, they ain't vertical. They are no more of an angle than RB26 turbos have been aftermarket mounted for 20 years.

2. TJI as a retrofit? In your dreams bitch.

3. The plenum is very similar to several sketches that I did and can possibly be found posted on peformanceforums about 15 years ago. Granted, I was sketching for a VG30, but it's the same idea had by me and probably 20000 other people.

And the rest of it is nothing that hasn't been done by the rest of the aftermarket industry for years. The ignition mods for example.

The only place where HKS has ever led in this area is the VCAM stuff.

  • Like 1
7 hours ago, GTSBoy said:

This is a load of crap.

1. Vertical turbos. Sorry, they ain't vertical. They are no more of an angle than RB26 turbos have been aftermarket mounted for 20 years.

2. TJI as a retrofit? In your dreams bitch.

3. The plenum is very similar to several sketches that I did and can possibly be found posted on peformanceforums about 15 years ago. Granted, I was sketching for a VG30, but it's the same idea had by me and probably 20000 other people.

And the rest of it is nothing that hasn't been done by the rest of the aftermarket industry for years. The ignition mods for example.

The only place where HKS has ever led in this area is the VCAM stuff.

Are any of these plenums productized? It seems a little ridiculous to claim that because an idea has been thought of/drawn before that it's nothing interesting. Most intake plenum designs I've seen have been basically all iterations of the same general idea. I wouldn't buy that one as-is anyways, not interested in carbon fiber in an engine bay and changing it to a single TB seems like a step back, even if ITBs are of dubious utility.

Mahle themselves claim it's that they're at the point where their passive TJI can be retrofitted to engines with M12 spark plugs as long as operation won't occur below -8C, at which point SI switchover must occur for idle/cold start stability. I think it's a little premature to say it's never happening. For most people living in temperate areas I doubt temperatures will ever get low enough for it to matter. I'm sure the road to actually realizing that retrofit is a bumpy one but it's not impossible.

9 hours ago, BK said:

Tell that to the Sydney guys running high c/r and shoving 40psi+ on big Precision turbos down their RBs throats. E85 anti knock threshold really is that high.

Right, but what lambda are they running to get there? The entire concept of the engine is to deliver modern levels of response, emissions, and fuel efficiency with a healthy amount of power. E85 can get there but requires compromise in injector characteristics and fairly dramatic range reduction on an engine that is already not very fuel efficient.

I'm not some HKS fanboy despite seemingly buying way too much HKS crap, it just seems premature to just write off everything they're claiming as never happening. The Americans buying 150k+ USD R34 GT-Rs are very likely not going to flinch at some laughable price for this engine like 80k USD.

4 minutes ago, GTSBoy said:

Audi rally engine plenum from the 80s is a good example of how long ago the idea has been around.

I meant for the RB26 in particular. Technically if we want to pick nits TJI is nothing new either, it's basically CVCC.

1 minute ago, GTSBoy said:

Why? What makes the RB26 special? It's just a plenum.

Presumably the goal is to have a plenum that can be used in an RB26 that has these benefits, as opposed to an Audi plenum that won't fit? I have no allegiance here, if Hypertune came out with an ITB plenum that replicates the same benefits and is direct fit for all the factory plumbings I'd take it, even without the weird dual injector thing.

5 minutes ago, r32-25t said:

Lets just get something straight 

AUSSIES DO IT BETTER end thread 

Amen brother ! Why turn the RB26 into something it's not ? It is what it is.

21 minutes ago, r32-25t said:

Lets just get something straight 

AUSSIES DO IT BETTER end thread 

I don't doubt it, but shouldn't we look at what people are doing everywhere and take the best of everything? NIH syndrome is a dangerous thing IMO.

19 minutes ago, BK said:

Amen brother ! Why turn the RB26 into something it's not ? It is what it is.

I don't think a spark plug in a chamber with some holes drilled is fundamentally changing what an RB26 is and isn't. Neither is VCAM. There is a ship of Theseus thing going on here but I would say unless you do something radical like GDI retrofit which requires new head castings/CNC heads and a bunch of other crazy stuff it's still an RB engine at the end of the day.

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 hadn't thought about the variable power steering assist. Presumably, it will always be the same level of assist as you get in an S14. The R32/3/4 are either helliishly heavy (at low speeds) if the solenoid is not powered at all, or hellishly too light (at high speed) if it is powered all the time. I presume that it is PWM controlled on those cars. I hadn't thought about the S cars not having variable assist. ugh. What crappy plebby cars they must be!  
    • Hmm yeah that is a good point. It looks like it'll just bolt in with no real issue besides maybe the bushings being different. My other concern was that 2 pin plug that I assume is used in some way to control the rack solenoid depending on the speed signal from the ecu. The DMAX rack doesn't even have that plug though so, don't think it'll matter. Might just order the rack and see how it goes. Will update this when I figure something out
    • I'd say it's a fair bet that the feed and return fluid lines will be in different enough spots that you would need to come up with a way to cut the originals short and adapt with new hard line adaption or braided teflon hoses or somesuch. But really, you have the car, you have the photos of the DMAX rack - you should be able to go out there and see for yourself whether they're in the same or different spots.
    • I've been doing some looking around and honestly was just considering throwing a new rack at it. I saw that the dmax silvia rack bolts up into the 33 with the silvia bushings but not sure if the high pressure lines will sit in the correct spot. I believe other version of the 33 rack are the same/similar to the racks that can be opened up without as much fuss so I assume the dmax rack would fit but any ideas?
    • I've never played with one, but I would expect that you are correct. That slot looks like it is intended to be used to unscrew the end, and the flats on the body would be better than grabbing it around the round bit with a pipe wrench. So, yeah, probably unscrews. You'll probably have to make a tool to drive in that slot.
×
×
  • Create New...