Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I have an r33 rb25de head on my rb30 ( na of course ). cams and head stock , xf falcon t/b , 10.5 compression , extractors . 3.7 diff non lsd . kw unknown . best 1/4 mile 14.7 @ 92 mph . weight i think is about 1360 kg ( 1987 r31 skyline wagon )

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

S13 Silvia

ENGINE   WEIGHT  POWER  TORQUE  (0-100km/h) (0-400m)

CA18DE   1090kg  97kW      162Nm       9s               16.9s

SR20DE   1110kg  105kW    188Nm       8.6s            16.6s

CA18DET 1120kg  130kW    225Nm       7s                15s

SR20DET 1170kg  153kW    274Nm       6.2s            14.5s

R33 Skyline

RB25DE     ??        140kW    230Nm       8.1s            16.21s

RB25DET 1370kg  184kW    294Nm       6.21s          14.4s

R32 Skyline

RB20DE     ??        116kW    184Nm       7.63s          15.76s

RB25DE     ??        142kW    231Nm       7.1s            15.0s

RB20DET 1290kg  160kW    263Nm       6.9s            14.8s

Does anyone know if those are correct?

According to that an RB20DE (Non-turbo) R32 is quicker than an RB25DE (Non-turbo) R33??

I know the 33's are a bit heavier than the 32's but I thought the extra power in the RB25DE would still make the R33 quicker?

Does anyone have accurate times and power figures for these cars?

not accurate the rb25de is 147kw @ 6000 rpm and the 1/4 mile time is quicker than 16.21 im pretty sure it was around 16 and high 15s but theres no way a r32 rb20de is faster than a r33 rb25de , the r32 rb20de doesnt even make 90kw at the wheels...

All this is makeing my 15.9 R31 sound pretty quick in terms of NA skylines.  Who would have thought the least sportiest of the skylines could be one of the fastest.

Thats because in my opinion, the RB is nissans best line up of engines ever. anyone care to disagree??? :) :wassup: :cheers:

R33 GTS25 - 147kw (200hp)/1470kg (stock) - what's the VL RB30E engine rated at stock?

IMHO the GTS25 is not a bad buy if you want a simple cruiser without the hassles of a turbo. Just avoid the 2L GTS model, though I don't think there are many of those in Aussie.

i got this off rbforums.com

RB30E

Capacity - 2.960L

Induction - EFI NA

Valve Train - Single Overhead Cam

Bore x Stroke - 86.0 x 85.0 mm

Compression Ratio - 9.0:1

Maximum Power - 114kW @ 5600rpm

Maximum Torque - 247Nm @ 4000rpm

RB25DE

Capacity - 2.498L

Induction - EFI NA

Valve Train - Double Overhead Cam

Bore x Stroke - 86 x 71.7mm

Compression Ratio - 10.0:1

Maximum Power - 140kW @ 5600rpm

Maximum Torque - 230Nm @ 4800rpm

The VL has more torque (obiously, bigger displacement). I reckon it would be a close run but i guess it would all come down to driver ability......

Thats because in my opinion, the RB is nissans best line up of engines ever. anyone care to disagree??? :( :wassup:  :P

VH-VK series is hands down the best... many other engines capable of making up to and over 1000hp NA... oh they just love boost too :headspin:

edit: on pump gas, daily driven :)

nah i own heaps of things with my Little 2 L its a lot faster then i thought it wood b  

I can't see a Rb20de Beating me But the r32 Rb25 wood go Hard i think  

Man your cars auto, i've absolutly spanked an auto sr20de silvia in my non turbo R33 manual RB20E!!!!!!

Thats a 2L single overhead cam Rb

So i'd hate to see how your auto sr20de would go against an rb25de, or even an rb20de.. they'd rape u

A good rb25de will be able to run a stockish silivia ca18det..

What's the differnec between a type S and type M r33?

Type M applies to turbo models - R32 type M's had better brakes and few extra goodies. In the R33 series all turbo's are Type M.

Type S applies to non-turbo's, not sure about the difference in the R32 series but for R33's (GTS25 only) you get 10 extra HP, standard HICAS (I think) and a few other extras.

Have a look here for more info:

http://english.auto.vl.ru/catalog/nissan/skyline/

Timmays old R31 5speed GTS stocker ran a 15.1 sec 1/4. :rofl:

Not a bad effort, watching the run was quite funny, really hard chirps in to 2nd and 3rd.

Almost as if he was going to rip the shifter out.

Don't let peak power fool you ppls.

Its the area under the curve and torque that accelerates a car.

Guest jimmyd17
15.1     That is amazing.   Poeple on other forums are laughing at anyone who say thier R31 can beat a stock auto VN commodore.

i do believe he said it was a GTS skyline.. so depending on if its a SI/II or SIII from memory i think they have 130kw and 140kw compared with the 118kw of the normal R31.. so yes, a GTS R31 should beat a VN commodore u would hope. having said that, i have a VN berlina auto wagon and it leaves my mum's GXE R31 5 speed for dead.. both are stock. VN wagon: 0-100 best: 7.94 (timed with stopwatch accurately) on a cold night (makes almost a second difference compared to a warm day).. 3/4 tank normal unleaded and able to get consistent mid 8's.. with the 7.94 i got heaps of traction with the auto stalled up (good road surface)

both the R31 and the VN seem to have quite similar power in high revs despite being totally different engines.. they both pull about the same up top.. but the low down torque of the VN gets it moving up to the top revs a hell of a lot faster. but the RB30 is so much smoother compared with the old buick rattler lol. :wassup:

i do believe he said it was a GTS skyline.. so depending on if its a SI/II or SIII from memory i think they have 130kw and 140kw compared with the 118kw of the normal R31.. so yes, a GTS R31 should beat a VN commodore u would hope. having said that, i have a VN berlina auto wagon and it leaves my mum's GXE R31 5 speed for dead.. both are stock. VN wagon: 0-100 best: 7.94 (timed with stopwatch accurately) on a cold night (makes almost a second difference compared to a warm day).. 3/4 tank normal unleaded and able to get consistent mid 8's.. with the 7.94 i got heaps of traction with the auto stalled up (good road surface)

both the R31 and the VN seem to have quite similar power in high revs despite being totally different engines.. they both pull about the same up top.. but the low down torque of the VN gets it moving up to the top revs a hell of a lot faster. but the RB30 is so much smoother compared with the old buick rattler lol.  :wassup:

I use to have a VN manual V6 these are probably the fastest of the the V6 commodore range the VS's-VT's couldnt get near it. I had Extractors, twin cats into a 2 1/2 exhaust, pod and a powerchip gold 98 chip. It used to fly for what it was I miss the rattly old beast.

We timed it at 7 flat from 0-100 traction being the main problem no LSD so 8s and 8.5s wearnt uncommon.

Guest jimmyd17

yes i agree.. i think the VN's would be right up there in terms of the fastest V6 commodores. i would be interested to see how the VN lined up against a new VZ alloytec 175kw in a 0-100 test. i reckon it would definately give one a run.

here is a quote from AutoWeb doing a review on a VZ acclaim wagon:

"The 0-100 km/h time we gained (car unladen, one person, low fuel) was about 9.3 seconds 0-100 – certainly nothing to write home about. But more important than the bare number is that on the road, the car never feels particularly punchy. The new engine has a very flat torque curve (ie there’s higher than usual power available at all revs), but the absolute torque output isn’t very great."

source: http://autoweb.drive.com.au/cms/A_2391/article.html

i worked out that the VN wagon has 8nm of torque more PER TONNE, than the VZ alloytec wagon.

so one would have to guess the good old VN wouldnt have too many problems leaving behind a VZ auto wagon considering the approximate tested figures are over a second in favour of the VN. but what would come out on top if it were a VZ SV6, 6 speed manual 190kw?

here is a quote Drive doing a review on a VZ SV6, 6 speed sedan:

"The SV6 can't match the Falcon's off-idle grunt but it pulls well from about 2000rpm, cruises easily and with great economy on the highway limit at only 1800rpm in sixth. The zero-100kmh trip takes 8.3 seconds - slower than the Falcon, but fast enough."

source: http://www.drive.com.au/editorial/article....px?id=8916&vf=1

i guess all the newer commodores have progressively gotten heavier and i reckon slower lol.

hrmm I'm pretty sure it was, the Timmay in Adelaide, Red R31 that he has now sold? :rofl:

My other half just said it wasn't.

I'll have to check the vid.

With regards to the VN's I've found it to be like this.... :(

VN Auto - Slower than a VS II Auto

VN Manual - Faster than a VS II Manual.

The VS's manual gearing sucks. :D

I had a VL Commodore with a 2.5" & extractors. It was quite a bit quicker than a friends VN that had a 2.25" and also quicker but only slightly than a friends VS II.

The VS series 2 ecotec's really got up and moved, well for what they are. :)

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...