Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

i think you might have to take it over the pits dale, as the neo has a higher HP rating. (direct engine swaps are fine, like when i swapped my 'stock' r33 s1 rb25 for a 'stock' r33 s1 rb25. :) so both were 'apparently' 187kw)

however a s1 stagea is 176ish kw, with a s2 stagea being 206kw, so you need to have it inspected, as your brakes, etc might not be adequate for the massive 30kw increase you will gain. :)

the pits dont know that, u say the engine no. and its starts with RB25XXXX same as the old one then they dont care, they think its the same (which it is anyway pretty much)

pits pick up stuff like suspension bushes and steering bushes worn, etc, and it wont take much to cost u $400 in parts if they pick on it. ive paid rego and insurance on my last 2 cars and they havent been on the road for more than 2500km in 5 years+.

how is your 33 gts-t going anyway? :D

i guess you could just fill out the engine number swap form, and say its rated at 250hp, or whatever it is a stock stagea rb25 is.

did your old engine die in the crash dale? save your money on a neo, and buy a nice s1/2 r33 rb25 with some fruit on it. :D

skyline front cut isn't an option due to needing all the panels and radiator support. I need a wagon due to the 2 dogs etc so I don't have the option of moving down to a 2 door stagea :rofl: the only reason I am going to the neo is because the S2 front cut is pretty much the same price as a S1 front cut once its landed (?) and it seems a bit silly to have a Neo and triptronic sitting there doing nothing, especially since the engine and box is going to come out for the welding part anyway. When I drop it back in it is just a case of slotting in the new 'puter and then I will have the spare RB25DET to start building up a RB30DET :thumbsup:

which is really what the old lard a$$ wagon needs.

mmmmm.....torque.....*drools*

ok .. the pits use a CRAAAAZZZY system for determining horsepower of a motor ( but it works in our benifit !! )

its called the RAC ( no connectiion with RAC insurace as far as I know ! ) Horsepower rating and it does NOT take into effect

turbo / superchargers etc. So essentially .. when I changed from an sr20DE to an sr20DET , as far as the RAC horsepower rating calculation goes the DET had NO MORE power than the DE .

so that will be a good benifit to dale..

[edit] RAC horsepower (taxable horsepower)

See Tax "horsepower" This measure was instituted by the Royal Automobile Club in Britain and was used to denote the power of early 20th century British cars. Many cars took their names from this figure (hence the Austin Seven and Riley Nine), while others had names such as "40/50 hp", which indicated the RAC figure followed by the true measured power.

Taxable horsepower does not reflect developed horsepower; rather, it is a calculated figure based on the engine's bore size, number of cylinders, and a (now archaic) presumption of engine efficiency. As new engines were designed with ever-increasing efficiency, it was no longer a useful measure, but was kept in use by UK regulations which used the rating for tax purposes.

ed52e0dd9d4af62d4b20f230c743d943.png where D is the diameter (or bore) of the cylinder in inches n is the number of cylinders This is equal to the displacement in cubic inches divided by 10π then divided again by the stroke in inches.[3]

Since taxable horsepower was computed based on bore and number of cylinders, not based on actual displacement, it gave rise to engines with 'undersquare' dimensions, i.e. relatively narrow bore, but long stroke; this tended to impose an artificially low limit on rotational speed (rpm), hampering the potential power output and efficiency of the engine.

The situation persisted for several generations of four- and six-cylinder British engines: for example, Jaguar's 3.8-litre XK engine had six cylinders with a bore of 87 mm (3.43 inches) and a stroke of 106 mm (4.17 inches), where most American automakers had long since moved to oversquare (wide bore, short stroke) V-8s.

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


  • Latest Posts

    • How complicated is PID boost control? To me it really doesn't seem that difficult. I'm not disputing the core assertion (specialization can be better than general purpose solutions), I'm just saying we're 30+ years removed from the days when transistor budgets were in the thousands and we had to hem and haw about whether there's enough ECC DRAM or enough clock cycles or the interrupt handler can respond fast enough to handle another task. I really struggle to see how a Greddy Profec or an HKS EVC7 or whatever else is somehow a far superior solution to what you get in a Haltech Nexus/Elite ECU. I don't see OEMs spending time on dedicated boost control modules in any car I've ever touched. Is there value to separating out a motor controller or engine controller vs an infotainment module? Of course, those are two completely different tasks with highly divergent requirements. The reason why I cite data sheets, service manuals, etc is because as you have clearly suggested I don't know what I'm doing, can't learn how to do anything correctly, and have never actually done anything myself. So when I do offer advice to people I like to use sources that are not just based off of taking my word for it and can be independently verified by others so it's not just my misinterpretation of a primary source.
    • That's awesome, well done! Love all these older Datsun / Nissans so rare now
    • As I said, there's trade offs to jamming EVERYTHING in. Timing, resources etc, being the huge ones. Calling out the factory ECU has nothing to do with it, as it doesn't do any form of fancy boost control. It's all open loop boost control. You mention the Haltech Nexus, that's effectively two separate devices jammed into one box. What you quote about it, is proof for that. So now you've lost flexibility as a product too...   A product designed to do one thing really well, will always beat other products doing multiple things. Also, I wouldn't knock COTS stuff, you'd be surprised how many things are using it, that you're probably totally in love with As for the SpaceX comment that we're working directly with them, it's about the type of stuff we're doing. We're doing design work, and breaking world firsts. If you can't understand that I have real world hands on experience, including in very modern tech, and actually understand this stuff, then to avoid useless debates where you just won't accept fact and experience, from here on, it seems you'd be be happy I (and possibly anyone with knowledge really) not reply to your questions, or input, no matter how much help you could be given to help you, or let you learn. It seems you're happy reading your data sheets, factory service manuals, and only want people to reinforce your thoughts and points of view. 
    • I don't really understand because clearly it's possible. The factory ECU is running on like a 4 MHz 16-bit processor. Modern GDI ECUs have like 200 MHz superscalar cores with floating point units too. The Haltech Nexus has two 240 MHz CPU cores. The Elite 2500 is a single 80 MHz core. Surely 20x the compute means adding some PID boost control logic isn't that complicated. I'm not saying clock speed is everything, but the requirements to add boost control to a port injection 6 cylinder ECU are really not that difficult. More I/O, more interrupt handlers, more working memory, etc isn't that crazy to figure out. SpaceX if anything shows just how far you can get arguably doing things the "wrong" way, ie x86 COTS running C++ on Linux. That is about as far away from the "correct" architecture as it gets for a real time system, but it works anyways. 
    • Holy hell! That is absolutely stunning! Great work!!!
×
×
  • Create New...