Hakai

I was just out getting subway and I had a thought on this problem. As I mentioned in my first post, I've heard about an electronic clutch built into some superchargers, a friend of mine has a S/C on his VR Ute, he can turn it on or off with a switch, I'm guessing that this is an electronic clutch that is doing this. What if I were to use a supercharger that had an electronic clutch, and rigged it up to my gearbox sensor so that whenever the 'box was put into neutral it disengaged the clutch in the supercharger? This would fix the problem of boosting the engine on a missed gear. I also expect it would work the clutch in the supercharger hard, but it'd be better to be replacing that clutch than replacing an engine wouldn't it? Whatcha think?

Would a well built cold air induction box around the POD do anything to alleviate this? Or are you talking about something different?

I've read that before, in fact I believe you said it somewhere in a different thread I do understand the fact that it would be boosting an engine with no load, what I don't understand is how that is worse for the engine, than boosting it when under load? Is it because the fuel map is 3D and by boosting it with no load the ECU won't be fuelling the engine properly which would lead to leaning out and doing good damage to stuff? That's about the only thing I can think of, but I don't know much about supercharging. Ben.

Hey all, Yesterday I was unlucky enough to fall victim to some retarded driving that landed me up the ass of a van. Not the van drivers' fault, he got cut off by some dumb b~tch and had to slam on the brakes, just happened to do it while I was checking the oncoming traffic to my right to see if I was clear to follow him, sigh. So now the car is off the road, not a huge deal of damage but it's forced me to find alternate transport temporarily which has got me thinking. I can use alternate transport and save money and pour it into the 32, hmmm. I want to do something different with my skyline, I have read and very much understand the advantages of using tried and true methods, such as swapping my RB20DET for an RB25DET, or using proven bolt on upgrades for my RB20, however; That's not what I'm after. I want to do something different, something that will stand out, not be expected, but still make reasonable power for money. I would love to build a serious all-motor RB30/26 but I just can't afford to Anyway on to my idea/questions. I used to frequent calaisturbo.com when I owned a VL, back then people were starting to supercharge the RB30s with some decent results, but everything was custom as there were no bolt on kits. What I'm looking to find out is any information on supercharging an RB20 that anyone has to offer. Questions like; What kind of supercharger would I be using and what is the clutch in them I've read a bit about? Does this mean with a switch I can engage or disengage the supercharger? The RB30 boys are commonly using 4A-GZE superchargers or 1A-GGEs I think. Boost is boost is it not? If the standard RB20DET internals in good condition can run 18psi from a hi-flowed turbo, would that mean they could handle the same or close to from a supercharger? How would a supercharger perform on a 2ltr I6 engine? If I had to guess, I'd say that having a supercharger on the 2ltr engine would eliminate the low end sluggishness and give it some serious kick down low? Does the RB20DET crank have enough grunt to drive a supercharger of that size? (4A-GZE, which is a 1.6ltr 4cyl for those who don't know them) What about top end power? I am not up on superchargers at all if you can't tell, but I have heard things attesting to how superchargers stop making boost at higher RPM or some such. That doesn't make sense to me. A supercharger is just another for of air compressor, like a turbo, except driven by belt from the crank. The crank doesn't stop driving the supercharger at any RPM, so the only reason I could see for the supercharger to stop making boost would be compressor efficiency? If you were running a supercharger with proper compressor efficiency, what reason would there be for it to not keep giving you gains all the way to say, a 6.5k redline? Anyway, I won't ask anymore questions, I'll just leave this open to discussion. I am very interested in doing something different and this is one of the more different things I can think of. Any knowledge/experience/information would be helpful, even if it's just general supercharger related stuff that would help me make decisions etc and not necessarily related specifically to the RB20. Thanks Ben.

Going to have to withdraw. Crashed the car today, won't be fixed for a while yet Hope you guys have a blast! If someone wants to pick me up on the Gold Coast i'll play passenger quite happily lol Ben.

I'm sorry dude, didn't mean to give improper credit My bad. On another note, with what I said before, about adapting the guide to work for a N/A motor, is there other things that would need changing, different valve train components, rods, rings, bearings, anything else other than raising the compression, using more N/A suited cams and changing the timing? Say for example, the RB30 crank and RB26 pistons in an RB26/25 block @ 2.9ltrs, if you put in higher comp pistons, N/A oriented cams and changed the timing (possibly ECU?) would the OP be able to do the same engine setup, or are other factors involved? Ben.

Cubes RB2x/30 guide *Edited to change credit!* This is a link to the RB2x/30 conversion guide by Cubes. Loads of great info in this PDF. It is all geared towards a turbo application but I don't see why it would be hard to adapt it for an N/A application. Raise the compression and use suitable N/A cams and timing and I don't see why it wouldn't work. All the other things would be the same, a high power N/A motor is going to need strengthening in the same ways as a high power turbo motor right? If I'm missing anything that would be fundamentally different between the two applications, someone please correct me, don't wanna lead him in the wrong direction. I don't have any idea about the power figure but I'd imagine if you built an N/A RB25/30 with a high compression (11:1 or even 12:1, is this possible, anyone know?), using all the necessary good bits, I think you could get some really respectable power and still have it daily drivable on 98RON fuel. I also did a search on these forums for any info on fitting an RB26 crank to the RB30 block but I couldn't turn up any great results, the search function hates me. I do remember reading something about it though so I don't know lol, don't give up Ben.

I understand I knew that lower capacity engines could reach like power figures to higher displacement engines at higher RPM, I just didn't know how to work out exactly what's what So from what you're saying an RB26 would need a 12k rev limit to match the output of a 4ltr I6 with a 7900 rev limit, or thereabouts? Also what you're saying is that revs to make power aren't as smooth/reliable (usable?) as using outright displacement?

Firstly I was comparing an I6 engine to an I6 engine, not to a V8. Secondly, owner experiences are a great sources of information but they don't give you the overview of knowledge to say "TVR build unreliable cars" just because the ones you have heard about are unreliable. I hope you can understand my meaning here. TVR have produced alot more cars than the ones you've experienced or the ones people you've spoken to have experienced, so saying they make cars that just break all the time, based on the limited experience you've had, isn't really fair. That's what I was saying. I didn't make any statements toward the reliability of either car, you did and I said as a whole, you don't have the experience with them to justify such a claim. If you'd said something more honed, like "Everyone I know who's owned a TVR has had it break down" that'd be fair, but saying "TVRs all just break down" or anything of that kind, is not. I would think RPM and valve train tech (such as VVL, VTEC, VVT-i) would have an equal affect on modern production NA engines. Lastly, I said the TVR engine "beats" the M3 engine in every regard, which when you pointed out to me, I realised every regard was not really a fitting description as all that I meant was that it beats the power and torque figues of the M3 engine while still using the I6 engine configuration. I never said it was a superior engine, and again I'll clarify that what I meant was that it produces more hp/torque than the M3 engine. I listed the specs, because it was a direct copy/paste from the TVR website as I was too lazy to type out just the HP/torque figures. I am able to perform process of elimination, however; what I think is more-so what you've done is read way too much into what I said and taken it out of context, or assumed I meant something which I didn't. In the end, I think you've misunderstood or taken offense to the purpose of my original post. Someone said "Good luck getting close to the 252kw the M3 I6 is putting out", I was merely trying to display that there is in fact another I6 N/A engine that is putting out more power/torque. In a nutshell, Russ_T wanted to know if X power figure was achievable from an N/A RB engine. Someone posted basically saying forget it because the M3 I6 is making 252kw and good luck beating that. I posted saying there is in fact an engine that beats that. That is all. I wasn't trying to promote the TVR over the M3 due to, as I said before, having no hands on, or indirect experience with either cars I'm not qualified to say which has the better technology. I was simply pointing out that there IS an engine out there with a higher output than the M3s while still being an I6. That's it. Lastly, I never had a crisis of confidence in my own qualification. I never made any statements beyond what I'm qualified to say. I may have grossly missworded some things which led to you justifiably misunderstanding my meaning, but I have attempted to correct that. I said you weren't qualified to blanket TVR as a whole, making cars that always break down or overheat or w/e it was that you said they do. I also am not qualified to comment on such, and I have not done so. I never said the TVR engine was superior to the M3 engine, I said it beats it, and by that statement I meant it beats the power/torque figures using the same I6 configuration. I can't attest to the torque curves of either, so you may be correct in thinking the M3's is superior to the TVR's, I don't know. I -only- meant what I have clarified here. I hope this clears a few things up for you. I didn't come here to start an argument over which engine is superior, I was just quoting some power figures to contradict a statement someone made that I thought was a tad disheartening for the OP. Ben.

The RB26 also has the advantage of having been around since 1990, so that's 16 years worth of tuning experience and aftermarket parts development that you have to draw on. You know as well as I do that, as I said in my post above, displacement is only one factor in a thousand when it comes to engine output. The RB26 has other advantages over the TVR engine as well, such as rev limits. I've heard of people building RB26's that can rev to 10,000. I've also heard of ones even being built to rev past 11,000 but I found nothing but talk about that so who knows. I think that a 10,000rpm compared to 7,800rpm could well bring you very close to, if not right on, making up the difference of 2.6ltr to 4ltr, and that's providing you chose not to stroke it to a 2.8ltr, that is if the stroker can be built to handle that kind of rpm. As for showing you where the wealth of information is, I can't because I've never had reason to save any information I came across regarding anything like that because to me it was just a good read, I had no reason to keep it for any later use, sorry. The information is out there though, as I said, 16 years of the engine being modified doesn't yeild no results. Either way, I wish you the best of luck with the build, if you decide to go ahead with it N/A power is my main love as well, but I'm going with a 1UZ-FE V8 when I finally get the cash saved to do so, I wish I had the money to pour into a monster N/A RB26 but I just don't Ben.

Generalisng it as "every regard" was probably a bit much. By "every regard" I meant that the TVR Sagaris engine puts out more power/torque than the M3 engine. As a complete car, the TVR also does 0-100 in 3.7 compared to the M3's 5.2. I wasn't comparing "wow bits", I was comparing final results. I was pointing out that the TVR engine makes 285kw under 7,500rpm, that's quite impressive imo. The TVR makes 38hp more than the M3 with 900 less revs, it also makes 103nm more torque at 100 more revs. If the TVR made more power at the SAME rpm or a higher rpm with its larger displacement, I'd conceed that it wasn't impressive at all. I read somewhere that a lower displacement engine can usually put out the same power as a higher displacement engine, the power will just occur at a higher RPM, so in my book the figures on the TVR are quite impressive compared to the M3's. Also, while I love M3s I find them to sound a bit tinny when they get a stomp on the loud pedal, but that's my personal opinion. I've never heard a TVR sitting next to me, but I've seen some high quality video and they sounded like magic, I can only guess they'd sound better again In person Again just my personal opinion. Please quote me on where I said the TVR was superior to the M3 based on its extra displacement? I would really love to see where I wrote that absolute drivvel? Displacement is one factor in a thousand when it comes to the final output of any engine, it helps yes, but it's nowhere near the be all and end all. So please show me where I said or even loosely implied "The TVR beats the M3 in every regard because of its higher displacement"? One final thing. You are bagging the TVR based on what you've been "told", so; nothing but heresay and rumour. From the sounds of your post you haven't driven an M3 or a TVR, so really you're in no position to make the judgements that you're making and I'm in no position to make such claims either. Since I have no knowledge of the reliability of either the M3 or the TVR, I never made any comment attesting to either in my original statement, and I will still not do so now. I stand by my statement that the TVR boasts more impressive numbers than the M3. Lastly, if you'd read my little notes off under my name, you'd see I drive an R32 GTS-T. I have a high degree of personal dislike for commodores and falcons, or just holden and ford in general, for many reasons, mainly their lack of engine technology (until VERY recently) and their absolutely disgusting build quality. Ben.

Considering the only comment Nismoid made was in regards to the fact that 280wkw on stock turbos and stock boost is an unreasonable figure, I think boost level is quite relevant. Or is it just that in your 15 years in motorsport you never learnt to read? And isn't the statement "rwk is all that matters, nobody races dynos" a bit of a contradiction, since every dyno reads differently. I would have thought it was rwk(w?) that meant nothing, and that it was all about Lap Times and ETs? Or am I missing sometihng somewhere that says if you run a 11s pass with 400rwkw you're obviously faster than the guy who ran a 10s pass with 380rwkw?

What does it sound like? Is it coming from one coil or from multiple/all coils? Are you noticing any difference in performance since it started happening? I don't know if that's gonna be easy advice to give without more info, as per my questions Someone may know though Ben.

I am all for body modifications, they make and break the look of a car. If you like a GT-R kit, wing, panels, whatever, by all means do it. These are just austhetic things in my eyes, ways to improve the look of a car. However; A badge is an item of identification. I firmly believe that a badge only belongs on the item it represents, never on a lookalike or wannabe representation, no matter how close or accurate such a representation is. Doing so detracts from the authenticity of the genuine article. If you buy a GTS-T, be happy with what you bought or don't buy it. If you want a GT-R so badly, save your money and buy one. Don't buy something you're not happy with then try to badge it what you WOULD be happy with, imo you're just ripping off the people who put in the hard yards and sacrafice to own the car they really love. Just to clarify, I own an R32 GTS-T, not a GT-R. I also think that alot of GT-R owners think they are better than GTS-T owners, which is not the case. I do believe that owning a GT-R has a special something to it, and badging a GTS-T as a GT-R steals from that. That special something doesn't make the person any better, but the car should be allowed to be recognised for what it is without being cheapened by bad knockoffs. Just my 2c. Ben.

Hey guys, just a quick and possibly stupid question Do the RB20s have a FPR as standard? If so, is it that little object that sits in front of the inlet manifold that plumbs into the fuel rail? And if it is, why the hell does it have a little rubber hose that connects the side of it to the inlet manifold? I don't understand why an FPR would need to read or use inlet pressure??? But that's because I'm an idiot I see that one SK posted also has a little nipple that looks like the same position as the one on what I think is my standard FPR. Please help me out of this confusion Ben.

I can't really see what your pic is highlighting so I'll try to answer as best I can flying blind (And drunk as I am right now WOOT!?) Connected to your turbo exhaust housing there will be a thin steel arm. This arm will run back to a bell shaped type metal object, this is the wasteguate actuator. Off that actuator will be a rubber tube. This rubber tube runs to the boost measuring source, on the R32 this source is the compressor housing, on the R33 it is before the throttle body I believe. The MBC (Manual boost controller) plumbs into that line. If you are holding the controller with the screw upwards, the horizontal nipple plumbs into the actuator and the verticle nipple plumbs into the boost measuring source. I hope this was coherent as I cannot see well enough to correct any mistakes I have made. If I remember that I even posted this, I'll look over it in the morning. Lastly, the diagram mark sent with the controller is absolutely spot on, refer to it if you have any issues. His drawing of the wastegate actuator is actually pretty damn good lol Peace, Ben.

I must admit I didn't put a reference to your name and any other posts, I guess that's my fault for not looking before I post. I apologise. I just don't like it when people without involvement, cause or experience throw mud at someone just to get in on the act, when that someone has proven themselves to be honest and trustworthy. I made the immature mistake of assuming you were doing just that. Sorry Ben.

Obvious that I haven't read the thread huh? Well just fyi, I have actually read the entire thing, long before I bought my own controller 2 weeks ago. I don't recall any posts complaining about a turnaround time of more than 5-7 days, which is perfectly acceptable to me. Perhaps I missed a post or two? Even if you're right and Mark could pick up his act a bit, he's only human and he has a solid track record so maybe he deserves a bit of respect/trust? Instead of just throwing around useless slander, you could perhaps put a positive turn on it and suggest ways he might better improve his service, WITHOUT the snide, smug and bitter digs in between. There's nothing I despise more than customers who's attitude is all about "Your life only exists to serve me". Oh really? Please quote me so that I can see where I said that just because my service was top notch that there was no feasible way anyone else could have experienced bad service? What I said was that my service has been exemplary, and every other reply on this thread that I've read personally has said the same to a maximum of 5-7 days turnaround. THE ONLY thing I said to you was that I hope you're speaking from experience not just throwing around keyboard warrior slander trying to sound like the e-rights guardian hero for everyone else. Since you are speaking from experience, your opinion is as valid as my own. Please take the time to read what I say instead of just reading what you want into it and trying to make me look bad. Ben.

Thanks mate, that's what I was looking for. Higher ratio = faster accelleration and lower top speed. Lower ratio = slower accelleration and higher top speed Ben.

Thanks for the reassurance So you're saying the auto diff has a different final ratio than the manual??? Is it higher or lower, meaning more geared towards accelleration or top end speed? Sorry for the shoddy question, I'm just not sure which way diff gearings work If someone could explain that too, I'd appreciate (Like, is 4.11 a more top speed or better accellerating ratio than 3.08?) Ben.

Once again I find myself at a loss with the damn search button. Perhaps I'm using it wrong, I don't know but I can never turn up anything even remotely related to what I need to know with it So here goes. Just pulled my ECU out and ran the diag. Only error code that came up was 54, which is "Auto signal to ECU" I believe. My car was previously an auto, as is quite obvious due to the original auto dash still being there, with the auto gear position lights and power light and all!! I would have assumed the auto ECU would have been changed for a manual ECU when the conversion was done (Which was, as far as I can tell, in 1998, well before import in 2005). This is however, obviously not the case. My question is, is this a problem? Should I worry about having an auto ECU in a manual? Should I go out immediately and get a manual ECU and change it over? If I do, will anything else cease to function? Thanks in advance. Ben.

Had the identical thing happen to me in my old VL (RB30E engine) while I was driving along the Gold Coast Hway on the Gold Coast (Duh!). It was my CAS (Crank Angle Sensor). The car would turn over fine, everything worked, it just wouldn't start. Check your CAS, it might just be that Hope that helps mate. Good luck. Ben.

I really hope you're speaking from experience and not just slinging mindless stupid shit around the forums trying to slander someone because you got burned with an un-secured ebay sale one time? Mark's service has been nothing but exemplary, I said Mark took a few days to reply to my request, but once he did I had the thing within 3 days of payment, that to me is great service. I don't believe anyone else in the past has had problems with his service, so I really hope you're not just trying to slander him with no experience with his service for yourself. Ben.

Heh, while 253kw out of an aspirated inline 6 is damn impressive, there are others making more, in production cars. British manufacturer TVR has an engine in their new Sagaris that beats the M3's engine in every regard: Displacement: 3996cc All-aluminium TVR Speed Six straight six engine with 4 valves per cylinder and double overhead camshafts Direct overhead cams actuating valves via finger followers Forged aluminium pistons and forged steel con rods Individual port throttles on tuned inlet tracts with multipoint fuel injection Fully mapped ignition and injection system with adaptive Lambda control Dry sump lubrication system with oil cooler. Double close-coupled 3-way catalytic converters Tuned length stainless steel exhaust system Max power: 380 bhp @ 7,000–7,500rpm Max torque: 349ft.lbs @ 5,000 rpm Max rpm: 7,800rpm The RB series engines are next to bulletproof, there is an absolute wealth of parts and knowledge availabe for both NA and forced induction purposes. I really don't think it's impossible to set a goal of 300 or even 400hp from an NA RB engine providing you're willing to put in the time, money and patients to get it done. Just my 2c.

No problem at all I have no idea where the fuel filter is, never changed one in a skyline so it'll be a first for me too. I'll do a bit of looking around tonight and see what I can find if I get time. Good luck with the coils/plugs. Just a note about taping the coils though, on my coils I noticed that the brace that bolts them to the coil rail is solid and runs around the entire pack, not like in that guide to taping them, those are R33 coils which I believe are a bit different, they only have screw holes at each corner or maybe that's just his? Mine have the band running all the way around which makes it a bit tedious to tape the top and bottom, I haven't inspected the bottom of my packs since I taped them because I am too lazy to take them out, but literally one drive after taping them the heat seems to have melted the glue on the tape and the top part has just shrunk and pulled itself off the coilpacks. Not sure if this will happen on the underside, I'll find out when I get unlazy for a few minutes lol. Good luck mate Ben.