Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hi guys,

just got a few queries about engine codes.

the engine codes for the rb20 should read rb20xxxxxxx etc correct? and the similary the rb25's should read rb25xxxxxxx etc correct?

because interestingly, my r32 has the engine code rb25xxxxxxx but im dead certain that it is an rb20, due to the orientation of the crossover pipe/bov and the fact that ive driven several rb25's and there is a noticeable difference in torque/power etc...

i also have a little plaquard on the underside of my bonnet that states:

engine: rb25

displacement: 2498 or close to 2500

i noticed this plaquard a while ago but ignored it thinking it a mistake on compliance. but now that i've realised the engine codes begins with rb25 im beginning to wonder whats going on....

any ideas?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/53858-engine-number-diddley-doos/
Share on other sites

possibly an N/a that has an engine swap for turbo? remember that the r32 came out with RB25de late in their life.

Have you put your VIN number into the FAST software and got a feedback of what it came with from the factory?

gords, u got a link to that VIN number software>?

well i'm dead certain it wasn't a conversion, coz i've got full service history from day one, and its an hcr32 with all the type-m options blah blah and the factory plate states rb20 with 1998cc.

but as fatgts-r said, its the engine that has the rb25 cast onto it. and like shan said, i figured that plaquard was compliance BS, but now that i noticed the two match up, im just wondering whats goin on.

i noticed that several rb20's have an rb20 stamped onto the cam belt cover but i noticed that several were also blank, mine is blank.

im confused :(

I'm pretty sure than new blocks from Nissan are sold without an engine number, the builder is meant to stamp on the number of whichever block it is replacing. Maybe they just stamped a wrong number on it?

Ermm theres a chance the numbers on the block could have been fudged...

I do know its possible to do so but i cant think of a good reason why they would do it on your car.

( In some countries they fudge numbers on the engines in the event of an engine swap where modifications on your car is illegal.)

What're they??
Plasma RB20s came out with the R31/32 Skyline, C32 Laurel etc... the red top ones aswell. There are also Plasma VG30s, Plasma RB20Es... even a Plasma CA18S.

... and...

You're not going to BELIEVE what "PLASMA" means...

"Powerful & economic Lightweight Accurate Silent Mighty Advanced" engine.

I kid you not.

Do you know what (if anything) is better/different about them than "normal" rb20s??
PLASMA was the name given to the entire series of engines Nissan made from about 1985... from 1000cc (MA10s) up to 3000cc (VG30DET). I think they dropped it after the R32? Not sure about when, but there wasn't a "plain" RB20 and a "PLASMA" RB20, the whole series of engines were dubbed "PLASMA".

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 came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...