Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey everyone

i have a Nissan Skyline R31 with the RB30E engine and im lookin 2 get more power out of it but not 2 spend 2 much money.

i dont mind puttin a turbo on it but it has got 175,000kms

should i rebuild it first or wat do u recomend 2 get more power the cheapest way.

post-25139-1133570357.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/97067-r31-rb30e-help/
Share on other sites

visit this website:

http://wiki.r31skylineclub.com/index.php?t...ded_mods_to_RB3

or:

http://wiki.r31skylineclub.com/index.php?title=Turbocharging

hint search first then ask questions

you would have found heaps of stuff under the classic skyline section

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/97067-r31-rb30e-help/#findComment-1761758
Share on other sites

i have heard that you can also fit rb20de heads.. i saw one on the NZ trademe auction site. you could put a lumpy cam in if you want to keep it single cam. but going twin cam will give you a good increase in power and it will pull higher up in the rpms

i suggest you get the bores checkd out when you take the head off. you could spend the $$ and get it rebuilt then you would know its reliable

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/97067-r31-rb30e-help/#findComment-1762734
Share on other sites

i have heard that you can also fit rb20de heads.. i saw one on the NZ trademe auction site. you could put a lumpy cam in if you want to keep it single cam. but going twin cam will give you a good increase in power and it will pull higher up in the rpms

i suggest you get the bores checkd out when you take the head off.  you could spend the $$ and get it rebuilt then you would know its reliable

rb20 head also fits, but its a mission apparently - alot of work required and not worth it. (there's a few threads in the forced induction section having arguements about the pros/cons of an RB20 head)

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/97067-r31-rb30e-help/#findComment-1762864
Share on other sites

don't fit a rb20det, whatever u do.

if your poor just basic mods to the rb30, exahust, extractors, twin tb/xf throttle body, intake, should see a couple more kw's.

if u got money, bolt on a vl-t conversion, or drop in a rb25det, don't waste your money on a rb20det.

175,000k's is NOTHING on rb30e, it will be hardly even run in yet

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/97067-r31-rb30e-help/#findComment-1771670
Share on other sites

pod filter??

haha, have a look on R31 skyline club. from what ive been told by a few people, is that when you put on the stock VLT kit, its nothing special at all compared to the NA Rb30 with some basic work done to it. id say make it a na monster or put in a 20/25.

there are so many possibilities and the potential is enormus, depends on what you want from the car!

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/97067-r31-rb30e-help/#findComment-1772014
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


  • 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...