Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey guys,

looking at a car which has had an rb25de swapped into it... reason im going for this is i want something thats going to hold me back from wasting 10's of thousands of dollars on it (non turbo seems to be the goer for now)

this thing was just dyno'd and made 105rwkw with catback and pod and a tune...

now will rb25det cams fit into it? if so would they be ok to use? (like hks step 1 or something)

also... what other mods without touching internals could be done to gain power?

im assuming with some sort of cams and extractors i could see 130rwkw maybe? with a very decent amount of torque...

also are rb25det ecu's interchangeable? ie. would an rb25det power fc run on it?

thanks heaps

- adz

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/78818-rb25de-powermodsinterchangeability/
Share on other sites

you can quite easily spend as much money on a turbo as a NA vehicle. If your chasing extreme power from NA then its gonna cost way more then a turbo. If your just after lil mods here and there then you'll be fine, especialli if ur able to do most of the work yourself. About the limit of mods with NA cars, then most guys here have done pods, CAI, cold air boxes, exhausts, hi flow cats, extractors, maybe ecu's and other lil bits and pieces.

Good luck with your venture mate

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 all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...