Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

The RED one is a NICS engine. It is the earlier of the 2. And has less power.

The NICS has 2 inlet runners per cylinder, 1 of which has a butterfly that opens and closes depending on the requirements. These tend to jam, so that the engine is either terrific down low and crap up high, or crap down low and terrific up high.

The heads are different, but interchangeable (I know the inlet manifolds are not interchangeable).

That's my limit. Anyone else add or correct.

The RED one is a NICS engine.

Greg you are correct in your description of the early NICS engines, but there was also a red-top ECCS version of the RB20DET which was used in HR31's from about mid 1987. The red ECCS uses a very similar manifold setup to the R32 silver type - in fact it looks largely identical, but there might be detail differences. The (rough) power output of the three types is:

NICS - 140kW

red ECCS - 150kW

silver ECCS - 160kW

Probably the main differences between the R32 ECCS and the R31 ECCS is that the R32 used a ball-bearing turbo (R31 used plain bearing) plus the R32 had a more refined engine management system. That said there are probably internal detail differences, but I haven't compared them.

To complicate matters somewhat, the silver ECCS engine was also used in some late model Cefiro's, but for some reason the Cefiro version used a plain bearing turbo (like R31's) - well that's what I'm lead to believe, anyway.

Nics and red eccs are both 12 port heads and silver is 6. The red eccs actually also has the same inlet butterflies as the nics but has a 6 runner manifold like the silver.

There are many minor differences between the silver and red eccs like injector sizing, impedance, fuel rails, throttle body sizing, sensors, ecu etc. Do a search as it was covered very recently.

In what way? I have a red eccs in the GTS-R and its 100% a 12 porter and it 100% had the butterflies as I removed them.

Its not uncommon for people with red top eccs engines to ditch the butterflies and manifold and use the silver top gear instead. If the head was never removed they would never assume it was a 12 porter.

I myself never knew it had 12 ports untill the manifold was removed.

The below pics are butterflies and a head from a GTS-R which has a red eccs as standard.

post-7700-1127542397.jpg

post-7700-1127542438.jpg

In what way? I have a red eccs in the GTS-R and its 100% a 12 porter and it 100% had the butterflies as I removed them.

Its not uncommon for people with red top eccs engines to ditch the butterflies and manifold and use the silver top gear instead. If the head was never removed they would never assume it was a 12 porter.

I myself never knew it had 12 ports untill the manifold was removed.

The below pics are butterflies and a head from a GTS-R which has a red eccs as standard.

You are exactly right Jayson.I too had the head removed from my old red top eccs Rb20det-r and it looks exactly the same as your picture(12 ports),even though it had the 6 runners on the plenum.Cheapest power upgrade for top end power has to be to remove the butterflies.Shit job though.

Does someone have a picture of a silver top Rb20 head,i would like to see the difference.

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...