Jump to content
SAU Community

RB25 drilling block - oil returns off centre?


Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

I'm currently in the process of building my RB25 Neo. I've read the entire oil control thread and have been implementing all the recommendations. I'm wanting to enlarge the 5 oil return holes in the head and block from 8 mm to ~9-10 mm.

I found when aligning the headgasket using the dowels to the underside of the head, that the 5 oil return holes line up perfectly. It's just a matter of opening up the existing holes. Not too difficult.

However, when sitting the headgasket (again aligned with the dowels) on to the block the 5 oil returns are all completely off centre (see picture below). If I were to enlarge the exisiting holes much more, they would protrude under the gasket. I have a spare R33 RB25 block, and it's the same thing. I also check using the original headgasket and it's the same.

I thought the idea was to align the drill with the existing hole (on a mill or I've even read people doing it by hand) and enlarge it to 10mm to match the headgasket. Am I missing something?

Any help or info would be super appreciated! 🙂

 

20230518_225556.thumb.jpg.8968bae4c613704db760714128d13163.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This can be milled out regardless with a long enough cutter but finding an end mill, etc. long enough is the issue. I've heard of 12" end mill cutters, and I'm presuming someone somewhere makes them longer but you may still need to hit it from both sides which makes it more of a pain for alignment. 

For the reason above, I only ended up enlarging my head to 10mm. My S1 RB25 passages look identical to yours. I'm presuming it was slightly off in certain castings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you have to re-centre a hole you can start with a mill and then change to a drill.

I wouldn't bother. The real conclusions in the oil control thread are that drilling the returns achieves 3/10ths of f**k all. You are better off providing large external vent lines from sump to breather system to avoid the need for the oil and blowby gases to have to travel countercurrent to each other in the same (oil return) holes.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Appreciate the info. I was wondering because all the photos I've seen show the holes in the centre, glad to hear mines not unique.

I was thinking similar ideas, end mill the whole way thru, end mill to start and follow with drill, or make a thick steel guide plate to bolt to the deck with the holes in the right spot to guide the drill. All of which have their pros and cons but seem like much more effort than they're worth.

Glad to get both your input, think I'll leave the block (and maybe just drill out the head while I do some other work to it). I've got an enlarged sump with an outlet on the intake side above the windage tray. I'm going to run this to the catch can as a crankcase breather as you've suggested GTSBoy.

Link to comment
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
 Share



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all, I need to get this HKS SLD attached to my stock ECU because I've now got the German autobahn and faster European circuits to contend with.  The car is a manual 2dr ER34 with an AT ECU and I've realised the AT ECU has two pins for speed sensor signals: Pin 29: Vehicle speed sensor signal (Vehicle speed sensor 2) Pin *58: Output shaft rotation sensor signal (Vehicle speed sensor 1) - *RB25DET A/T model only Before I go butchering this harness, is anyone sure of which pin is the correct one for signal adjustment? The attached document from HKS indicates pin 29 but I found this situation mentioned in the following thread on a different forum (R34 GTT Auto Trans Speed Cut Problem | Zerotohundred) mentioning pin 58 needing to be altered by member zephuros, albeit it seems to be for an RSM-GP and the info appears to be old.  R34_All_Workshop_Manual-pages-2.pdf R34_All_Workshop_Manual-pages-3.pdf R34_All_Workshop_Manual-pages-1.pdf HKS SLD Vehicle Pin out P59-P70 ER34-pages.pdf
    • Embrace the freedom of casual encounters on the best dating app in town! Verified Maidens Superlative Сasual Dating
    • Slimline sub on the rear parcel shelf is doable. Pioneer TS-WX140DA is only 70mm high.   
    • People like Johnny Dose Bro might be laughing at my post because I accidentally added 100mm to my numbers. 350-355 is indeed the lower limit. 450 is off-road Skyline spec.
    • What is the "compromise" that you think will happen? Are you thinking that something will get damaged? The only things you have to be concerned about with spherical jointed suspension arms are; Arguments with the constabulary wrt their legality (they are likely to be illegal for road use without an engineering certificatation, and that may not be possible to obtain). A lot more NVH transmitted through to the passengers (which is hardly a concern for those with a preference for good handling, anyway). Greatly increased inspection and maintenance requirements (see above points, both).   It is extremely necessary to ask what car you are talking about. Your discussion on strut tops, for example, would be completely wrong for an R chassis, but be correct for an S chassis. R32s have specific problems that R33/4 do not have. Etc. I have hardened rubber bushes on upper rear control arms and traction rods. Adjustable length so as to be able to set both camber and bump steer. You cannot contemplate doing just the control arms and not the traction arms. And whatever bushing you have in one you should have in the other so that they have similar characteristics. Otherwise you can get increased oddness of behaviour as one bushing flexes and the other doesn't, changing the alignment between them. I have stock lower rear arms with urethane bushes. I may make changes here, these are are driven by the R32's geometry problems, so I won't discuss them here unless it proves necessary. I have spherical joints in the front caster rods. I have experienced absolutely no negatives and only positives from doing so. They are massively better than any other option. I have sphericals in the FUCAs, but this is driven largely by the (again) R32 specific problems with the motion of those arms. I just have to deal with the increased maintenance required. Given how much better the front end behaves with the sphericals in there.....I'd probably be tempted to go away from my preference (which is not to have sphericals on a road car, for 2 of the 3 reasons in the bulleted list above), just to gain those improvements. And so my preference for not using sphericals (in general) on a road car should be obvious. I use them judiciously, though, as required to solve particular problems.
×
×
  • Create New...