Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

On 22/07/2022 at 8:35 AM, r32-25t said:

You don’t need a brace on a billet block, in fact you can’t even fit one because they are designed differently 

Yeah it's an awesome concept they've done at Bullet. The chunky 4 bolt main cap design is very impressive as it effectively braces against the outer edges of the already much more rigid block.

If you are buying a New N1 block, I would go billet provided you don't live in Darwin.

main Caveat with billet is the pump must be external, and the car should be fully warmed up before driving it due to Bearing clearances being very tight cold and quite loose hot (hence a lot of oil flow needed to achieve pressure)

Edited by burn4005

Thanks a lot for your reply ! And especially to @burn4005 for your feedback on your setup which is basically the power I'm chasing

(Yes I will have a crank trigger )

OK then I will put a surge tank and a coolant swirl pot

I will stay with JUN as they are rated to 65 compared to kelford beehive which are 105 (too high for VCAM)

120+ even with the 25 row setrab in additiion for just a few laps that's huge ! so I guess I will not drive longer than that...

 

Interesting to know that the car needs to be fully warmed with a billet block which is quite annoying for the street aspect...

So I will stay with a new standard block + prp main cap

 

@Piggaz 2.7 piston speed is slowest than 2.8 so more "reliable" that's why

 

My last remaining question is :

nitto stroker kit 2.8 with wide bearing V2 or nitto stoker kit 2.7 V1 ? I prefer to have a 2.7 stroker but I like the idea of wider bearing...  or other ? why ?

If you’re worried about piston speed between a 2.7 and a 2.8 then why are you stroking at all? Keep the 2.6. How many 2.8’s are being used? 
 

You’ll end up revving the 2.7 slightly harder than the 2.8 so piston speed will end up the same same just at a slightly higher RPM with the 2.7.

  • Like 1
On 7/26/2022 at 12:11 AM, Piggaz said:

If you’re worried about piston speed between a 2.7 and a 2.8 then why are you stroking at all? Keep the 2.6. How many 2.8’s are being used? 
 

You’ll end up revving the 2.7 slightly harder than the 2.8 so piston speed will end up the same same just at a slightly higher RPM with the 2.7.

Is it a retoric question regaring the number of 2.8s ? To be honest, I did not fully paid attention to this detail so I have no clue...

I just noticed that Nitto is doing a 2.6 crankshaft too

So now it's either 2.6 crankshaft std or 2.8 crankshaft with wider bearing or ?

I don't even think piston speed is a concern compared to rod ratio on the RB26 strokers. But even a 119.5 mm conrod length 77.7mm stroker still has a 1.54 rod ratio which is pretty close to what Honda was doing for a while, the B18C has a 1.58 rod ratio. EJ25s have a rod ratio of 1.65 but their block integrity is so poor already that any stroke increase is not recommended on those engines. The reason why everyone goes RB30 these days is the bump in the height of the block allows for a much longer connecting rod, even an RB34 has a 1.62 rod ratio which isn't far off from the 1.65 the RB26 is running stock. The problem with an RB30 build is of course packaging that extra height. Everything is subtly off and requires work to make everything fit properly again.

If you want power you're going to want a 2.8L stroker at the very least to have halfway decent low-end response. From there pick a turbo that isn't going to take forever to spool. Personally I would probably get whatever is the single equivalent to the 2530/-5 category that'll get you into the 10 second quart mile range. RBs suck to build for big power anyways. You can do it, plenty of people at Cootamundra do but it's just a lot more effort than I think it's worth.

On 26/07/2022 at 8:12 AM, joshuaho96 said:

I don't even think piston speed is a concern compared to rod ratio on the RB26 strokers. But even a 119.5 mm conrod length 77.7mm stroker still has a 1.54 rod ratio

Nittos 2.8 like mine runs the standard 121.5mm rb26 conrod length with custom piston pin height with the 77.7mm crankshaft.

On 7/25/2022 at 4:22 PM, BK said:

Nittos 2.8 like mine runs the standard 121.5mm rb26 conrod length with custom piston pin height with the 77.7mm crankshaft.

Right, it pushes the pin up higher in the piston which has its own compromises. Personally after thinking about it I just ended up deciding against a stroker and instead picked a turbo that is barely even big enough to use on a 2.57L engine.

 

On 26/07/2022 at 8:59 AM, joshuaho96 said:

Right, it pushes the pin up higher in the piston which has its own compromises. Personally after thinking about it I just ended up deciding against a stroker and instead picked a turbo that is barely even big enough to use on a 2.57L engine.

Why do you seem to think you know much more than the people like Jim at Nitto doing their very in depth engineering and development outcomes ? 

These strokers have been run for decades. Too much theory text book dribble. A GTR needs a stroker to push its dumb head, short stroke, lack of low end grunt, lard ass around.

Do you think you’ll be able to notice the “downside” of a slightly short RS ratio? A shorter RS ratio has its own advantages too. How many kms of years of driving are you going to do before it becomes an issue? You probably would have sold the car.

On 7/25/2022 at 4:37 PM, BK said:

 

Why do you seem to think you know much more than the people like Jim at Nitto doing their very in depth engineering and development outcomes ? 

 

On 7/25/2022 at 4:39 PM, Piggaz said:

These strokers have been run for decades. Too much theory text book dribble. A GTR needs a stroker to push its dumb head, short stroke, lack of low end grunt, lard ass around.

Do you think you’ll be able to notice the “downside” of a slightly short RS ratio? A shorter RS ratio has its own advantages too. How many kms of years of driving are you going to do before it becomes an issue? You probably would have sold the car.

I don't doubt that Nitto has made a kit that works and is fit for purpose. For me it's just about keeping things simple and my intended purpose generally being a weird one. Why change variables unless I know that it's actually necessary to? A shorter rod ratio does have some advantages but these are all short rod motors. The only question is the degree. The RB26 is already a factory stroker, there's some documentation out there that it was meant to be a 2.4L until a late change to 2.6L. The RB30 is what I'd consider long rod. I don't ever intend on selling my car. For OP I think it's clear they want a lot of power so getting to what I think is a fairly low rod ratio is acceptable. If they're ok with a lot of rejiggering to get an RB30 block to fit then I think that's probably a better approach though.

On 26/7/2022 at 10:13 AM, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

Nek minnit @joshuaho96 installs GT-RS twins for response.

They probably be better then the dyno sheet I saw of the latest hks offerings 

  • Haha 1

THanks guys for your inputs !

Keep in mind that I will use the VCAM so I will get some low-mid range there so the 2.8 is not that really justify there ?

I just like the idea of having bigger bearings on the crankshaft which is only available for the 2.8 stroker...

Maybe both choices are good enough for my purpose and I just need to pick one ?

On 7/26/2022 at 5:40 AM, bigboss59400 said:

THanks guys for your inputs !

Keep in mind that I will use the VCAM so I will get some low-mid range there so the 2.8 is not that really justify there ?

I just like the idea of having bigger bearings on the crankshaft which is only available for the 2.8 stroker...

Maybe both choices are good enough for my purpose and I just need to pick one ?

If you want huge power and you don't want to deal with the engine being taller and all the pain that entails: 

 

Then the answer is 2.8 + VCAM. You need every bit of VE you can to spool the turbos.

On 7/26/2022 at 2:11 PM, Murray_Calavera said:

This might be the way you can keep your .6 motor

https://bulletraceengineering.com.au/shop/rb30sx/

Now it's 3.6 litre xD

thats just a destroked barra isnt it? 😆

  • Haha 3

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

    • Hi, SteveL Thank you very much for your reply, you seem to be the only person on the net who has come up with a definitive answer for which I am grateful. The "Leak" was more by way of wet bubbles when the pedal was depressed hard by a buddy while trying to gey a decent pedal when bleeding the system having fitted the rebuilt BM50 back in the car, which now makes perfect sense. A bit of a shame having just rebuilt my BM50, I did not touch the proportioning valve side of things, the BM50 was leaking from the primary piston seal and fluid was running down the the Brake booster hence the need to rebuild, I had never noticed any fluid leaking from that hole previously it only started when I refitted it to the car. The brake lines in the photo are "Kunifer" which is a Copper/Nickel alloy brake pipe, but are only the ones I use to bench bleed Master cylinders, they are perfectly legal to use on vehicles here in the UK, however the lines on the car are PVF coated steel. Thanks again for clearing this up for me, a purchase of a new BMC appears to be on the cards, I have been looking at various options in case my BM50 was not repairable and have looked at the HFM BM57 which I understand is manufactured in Australia.  
    • Well the install is officially done. Filled with fluid and bled it today, but didn't get a chance to take it on a test drive. I'll throw some final pics of the lines and whatnot but you can definitely install a DMAX rack in an R33 with pretty minor mods. I think the only other thing I had to do that isn't documented here is grind a bit of the larger banjo fitting to get it to clear since the banjos are grouped much tighter on the DMAX rack. Also the dust boots from a R33 do not fit either fyi, so if you end up doing this install for whatever reason you'll need to grab those too. One caveat with buying the S15 dust boots however is that the clamps are too small to fit on the R33 inner tie rod since they're much thicker so keep the old clamps around. The boots also twist a bit when adjusting toe but it's not a big deal. No issues or leaks so far, steering feels good and it looks like there's a bit more lock now than I had before. Getting an alignment on Saturday so I'll see how it feels then but seems like it'll be good to go       
    • I don't get in here much anymore but I can help you with this.   The hole is a vent (air relief) for the brake proportioning valve, which is built into the master cylinder.    The bad news is that if brake fluid is leaking from that hole then it's getting past the proportioning valve seals.   The really bad news is that no spare parts are available for the proportioning valve either from Nissan or after market.     It's a bit of a PITA getting the proportioning valve out of the master cylinder body anyway but, fortunately, leaks from that area are rare in my experience. BTW, if those are copper (as such) brake lines you should get rid of them.    Bundy (steel) tube is a far better choice (and legal  in Australia - if that's where you are).
×
×
  • Create New...