Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

i am doing a rebuild of an RB25det NEO engine. I have the chance to get an RB26 long nose crank for a good price. My idea now is to put the crank into my rb25 block an buy forget rb26 rods and pistons to get a cheap stroker and solve the short nose problem of the rb25. The crank should fit into the block but what about the combination of the pistons and the neo head? Will there be an issue with colliding pistons and valves when using the vct of the neo block? Will the compression rate be ok? Any experiences with that combination?

Neo rods are 26 rods anyway. So any aftermarket 26 rod is same same also.

The trouble with the Neo is that because they used the 26 rods, they had to have a piston with a 2mm (or maybe it's only 1.5mm) pin height difference so they don't poke out of the block. Those Neo pistons have a different dome (to vanilla 25s and 26s) to work with the ~10cc smaller combustion chamber, to yield approx the same compression ratio as all the previous engines. But you can't use the Neo pistons with the 26 crank.....because then the 2mm stroke difference brings back the deck height problem. So you end up needing to use 26 pistons. But....the 26 pistons are suited to a 10cc larger combustion chamber, resulting in sky high compression. This would commit you to E85, large cams and careful tuning. I haven't done the calculation to work out what the compression would be (well, not in the last 15 years anyway) so can't really tell you how high it would be. I just remember it was "quite high", something north of 11:1 I reckon. The last time I thought about it was pre-E85 in the world, so maybe it's more realistic now. It's not very realistic on 98 though.

But, this seems like a complete waste of time. 100cc is an undetectable increase in capacity (4% !!). You would do better to spend money on turbo or headwork. The oil pump drive can be dealt with the on the 25 crank as easily as on any other RB.

I was hoping it was a common mod because it is a cheap (but small) stroker for the 25.  I've already found a few threads on this subject on UK Skyline forums. They say it works, but don't mention what pistons they used. In the end, as you said, the main problem would be the pin height of the pistons (if using 25 pistons) or the compression ratio (if using 26 pistons).

The compression ratio could be lowered if I use a thicker head gasket. The thickest one I found is 1.8 mm thick. Wiseco offers pistons that lower the compression ratio to 8.25 compression for the rb26.
If I have the head and block machined, I may lose 0.1 to 0.2 mm that would also slightly increase the cr.


So maybe the cr problem could be solved. I just wonder if the pistons and valves do not collide. Especially if I use the VTC of the neo head. I don't get the problem solved if I enlarge the combustion chambers in the head a little. Does anyone have experiences with this?

You are right, the increase in capacity would be low but with the right pistons it would be an easy modification because i am rebuilding my engine anyway with new rods and pistons.

My current setup is a gtx3076 gen2 on the stock neo with with 1.2 mm metal head gasket and i want to keep the turbo because I installed that setup just 1,5 years ago. I am just aiming for a bit more low end torque.

I’ve seen it done and it works, the rb26 has a lower compression ratio then the rb25 and may not be as high as you think.
 

After measuring everything up, if the compression ends up to high you can machine the dome on the piston down to bring the compression down to what you require 

I think I would feel a little bit bad about machining down a shiny new set of forged pistons :(  I would also worry about the stability without the dome... maybe that's a too high price for the little increase.

Do you know which pistons they used in the engines you saw running?

People have been machining pistons since the beginning of engines, that’s how they lower compression or make room for the valves when using cams with huge lift, it’s even how they’re made in the first place 

  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/30/2022 at 3:53 AM, GTSBoy said:

The trouble with the Neo is that because they used the 26 rods, they had to have a piston with a 2mm (or maybe it's only 1.5mm) pin height difference so they don't poke out of the block.

I've just had another silly idea :) 

Maybe I could use conrods from the tomei rb28 stroker kit. These are 3 mm shorter than the std rods. Does anyone know the exact pin heigth difference between the rb25 and rb26 pistons?

Ok, i've found the right search term for this info.

If my information is correct, the compression high between the two differs by 1.5 mm.

RB26: 30.0 mm

RB25: 31.5 mm

That would be too much difference using the stroker rods.

On 2/14/2022 at 6:57 PM, Finn_GT-T said:

Ok, i've found the right search term for this info.

If my information is correct, the compression high between the two differs by 1.5 mm.

RB26: 30.0 mm

RB25: 31.5 mm

That would be too much difference using the stroker rods.

RB26 crank, rods and pistons with machined down domes modeled after RB25DET NEO lower smaller piston domes to lower compression about 9.0:1 = RB26DET NEO.

  • Like 1
On 14/02/2022 at 9:27 PM, Finn_GT-T said:

Ok, i've found the right search term for this info.

If my information is correct, the compression high between the two differs by 1.5 mm.

RB26: 30.0 mm

RB25: 31.5 mm

That would be too much difference using the stroker rods.

Actually, RB26 standard rod length is 121.5mm. HKS or Tomei RB26 2.8 stroker rods are 119mm as their strokers use stock pin height RB26 pistons.

Conversely, the RB26 Nitto 2.8 setup uses 121.5mm rods with lower pin height pistons.

Thank you for the infos. I would need 120 mm rods if I wanted to use the rb25 pistons with the rb26 crank.

Machining rb26 pistons to suit the rb25 neo head is not that easy. the rb25 neo pistons do not have a flat surface but a little dome and the pockets for in and ex valves. To find someone with the right cnc skills would be too much effort for a 61 ccm higher displacement.

These are the cp pistons for the neo, that I are already have here:

image.thumb.png.d24762743c51cfbad56790d0c0c9bb29.png

Edited by Finn_GT-T

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

    • https://www.facebook.com/share/19kSVAc4tc/?mibextid=wwXIfr
    • It would be well worth deciding where you want to go and what you care about. Reliability of everything in a 34 drops MASSIVELY above the 300kw mark. Keeping everything going great at beyond that value will cost ten times the $. Clutches become shit, gearboxes (and engines/bottom ends) become consumable, traction becomes crap. The good news is looking legalish/actually being legal is slighly under the 300kw mark. I would make the assumption you want to ditch the stock plenum too and want to go a front facing unit of some description due to the cross flow. Do the bends on a return flow hurt? Not really. A couple of bends do make a difference but not nearly as much in a forced induction situation. Add 1psi of boost to overcome it. Nobody has ever gone and done a track session monitoring IAT then done a different session on a different intercooler and monitored IAT to see the difference here. All of the benefits here are likely in the "My engine is a forged consumable that I drive once a year because it needs a rebuild every year which takes 9 months of the year to complete" territory. It would be well worth deciding where you want to go and what you care about with this car.
    • By "reverse flow", do you mean "return flow"? Being the IC having a return pipe back behind the bumper reo, or similar? If so... I am currently making ~250 rwkW on a Neo at ~17-18 psi. With a return flow. There's nothing to indicate that it is costing me a lot of power at this level, and I would be surprised if I could not push it harder. True, I have not measured pressure drop across it or IAT changes, but the car does not seem upset about it in any way. I won't be bothering to look into it unless it starts giving trouble or doesn't respond to boost increases when I next put it on the dyno. FWIW, it was tuned with the boost controller off, so achieving ~15-16 psi on the wastegate spring alone, and it is noticeably quicker with the boost controller on and yielding a couple of extra pounds. Hence why I think it is doing OK. So, no, I would not arbitrarily say that return flows are restrictive. Yes, they are certainly restrictive if you're aiming for higher power levels. But I also think that the happy place for a street car is <300 rwkW anyway, so I'm not going to be aiming for power levels that would require me to change the inlet pipework. My car looks very stock, even though everything is different. The turbo and inlet pipes all look stock and run in the stock locations, The airbox looks stock (apart from the inlet being opened up). The turbo looks stock, because it's in the stock location, is the stock housings and can't really be seen anyway. It makes enough power to be good to drive, but won't raise eyebrows if I ever f**k up enough for the cops to lift the bonnet.
    • There is a guy who said he can weld me piping without having to cut chassis, maybe I do that ? Or do I just go reverse flow but isn’t reverse flow very limited once again? 
    • I haven’t yet cut the chassis, maybe I switch to a reverse flow. I’ve got the Intercooler mounted as I already had it but not cut yet. Might have to speak to an engineer 
×
×
  • Create New...