Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

160kw / 2litres = 80kw Per Litre.

187kw / 2.5litres = 74.8kw Per Litre.

208kw / 2.6litres = 80kw Per Litre.

Why is it that the ol' RB20DET makes more power per litre?

I always thought that the RB20DET had a lesser flowing head etc.

Any one have a logical explaniation?

This probably isn't true in practise but..

If you were to up the capacity and the turbo was able to flow the amount of air with no problems then....

3ltr bottom end with RB20DET head = ~240kw

3ltr bottom end with RB25DET head = ~224kw

3ltr bottom end with RB26DETT head = ~240kw.

Obviously the RB20DET head won't make more power than the RB26DETT head on the same bottom end but why is this?!?!?!

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Power depends on airflow through the engine only, engine capacity is irrelevant.

So if you take a given induction system, cylinder head, and exhaust system, it virtually fixes the maximum airflow capacity and hence the power.

If you then place a larger bore and stroked block under the same head it will still be limited to the same maximum airflow. So an RB30DE will make no more power than an RB25DE if everything else remains exactly the same. Think about it.

It will however produce a lot more torque, and the same power at a lower RPM. It will be more grunty and less revy. This might be an advantage, and it might not.

So increasing engine capacity by 20% (30/25) is going to increase acceleration and reduce top speed. You can do the exact same thing by lowering the diff ratio by 20% a lot more easily.

Just to make it even more interesting, your RB30 with tall diff, will have the same piston speed as an RB25 with the shorter diff at the same road-speed in any gear. They will probably also have very similar fuel economy, acceleration, and top speed capability.

Interesting eh !

I agree with SteveL. The RB25 isn't being pushed as hard as the RB20 - not that the 20 is on a knife edge or anything, it's just working harder.

I suppose they couldn't make the RB25 too close to the 26 in terms of power; if it had the same kW/L output it'd be a 200kW motor, probably too similar to the GTR engine. Probably the same reason you couldn't get an R33 GTS4 with the RB25DET in it.

Of course this argument doesn't apply to the 34's Neo, which makes a claimed 206kW iirc, so I dunno :)

Warpspeed.

You mentioned DE motors not DET's....

So.. its sounds correct that on Forced Induction motors, increase the capacity and the peak power will also increase.

From dyno runs I've seen all the RB30DET's still make their peak power at around the mid 6000 rpm.

A RB30DE motor was built and featured in a ZOOM magazine quite some time ago. It was running a low compression ratio of around 8.3:1 and made a final power output of around 110rwkw. This is 160kw at the flywheel territority.

If the Compression ratio was the same as that of the RB25DE it would have surely made another 15kw or so.

In theory what you said sounds correct but for some reason in practise it doesn't work out. Could this be possibly due to the fact that the head isn't actually a restriction when even on a 3000cc bottom end??!?!

hope that made sense i've just finished a night shift... :)

H Joel.

I deliberately stayed with n/a motors for the illustration because it is easier to understand. The same holds true with turbo motors as well, BHP per pound of boost will stay the same.

It not just sounds true in theory it is true ! But no one does it.

When they fit the RB30 bottom end they also change a lot of other things at the same time, I certainly would.

Sydneykid is the RB30 turbo king, and It certainly makes a very potent package. The main thing the RB30 bottom end gives you is a lot more off boost torque, and better response from that big bad turbo. All things considered an RB30DET is a very good street package.

But it is also true that there is nothing wrong with an RB26DETT modified to the same level. It all just happens further up the RPM range. Personally I would rather have the RB26 and some shorter rear end gears, but others will disagree.

Warpspeed, does this mean that if you take a RB25, shorten the diff by 20% and you would have a similar package to a RB30 with the original diff? Or does this only apply to NA engines? To regain the the top end would it be as straight forward as increasing the revs by 20%?

Cheers

Steve

It probably would decrease economy and increase wear, but I dont think it would be overly dramatic, because there is less load on the engine.

Enrico, you would have to get a new diff center. I was thinking of going to a auto center, only 4.3 vs 4.1 in the manual, I believe the R32 manual uses a 4.3 diff too? but it might be worth going a bit higher still and get a decent aftermarket one - think I'll be doing a bit more research:)

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

    • So where is this message group so we can organise another meet? Keen to come along and catchup. Might eventually be in a skyline again next year, but the Mustang will have to do for now. Also need to get the WRX back on the road. Stupid f**king money pit that thing is.
    • Stock equivalent turbo replacement is a bit of a nightmare. The old Hitachi ceramic things were pretty good for their time, but they have primitive, vintage aerodynamics. The only thing they have going for them is a light turbine**, and there are plenty of other light turbine options these days, in both materials and CNC manufacturing methods. So, the old stocker makes absolutely no power at all compared to its physical size and its (not very low) boost threshold and response. ** and the ONLY thing that was good about the ceramic turbine was that it was light. In all other respects it is a nightmare. To get a turbo that is anywhere near equivalent in terms of power capacity (ie, to avoid it being "bigger" and needing tuning/fuelling/etc) you have to physically downsize. And that is not a "stockish" replacement. Doesn't just fit where the old one did. At least a frame size down, probably need a new dump, probably need new inlet and outlet piping made on the compressor side, new hose connections as D said above. I say, if you have to suffer that much work, you might as well do the same work to fit an even bigger (than stock) turbo, have more power (and hence have to do injectors, ECU, etc), and love life, instead of suffering with stock power levels. Or, you get a light highflow from someone like Hypergear. A highflow that has not been pushed too far from stock. There are still modification consequences here though. HG's cores are smaller than the massive Hitachi core, so it is shorter, moves the compressor housing backwards and requires mods to the air side piping. Plus new hoses. Looks stock, mostly fits where the stock one did (with the previous caveats mentioned), makes a bit more power but can be run at stock boost levels and not cause too many ECU problems. But, seriously. It's 2024. Like - 25 years since the R33 came out. It's time to put an ECU in it. I Nistuned my car (on RB20 ECU then later again on the Neo ECU) and it was the single best thing possible for minimal money. Dial out the R&R bullshit, fix up the fuelling and timing to make it more efficient for normal driving (cut fuel consumption by >10%). Nistune is not an option for you unless you change the ECU, so you might as well just do a standalone. it will be worth it. And then you can tune it up to the limits of the injectors and AFM, which is pushing 200rwkW and enjoy some actual squirt, instead of the lazy barge-like motion you get from a stock engine, turbo and management.
    • He can't post pics until he's at 10 post count.
    • Welcome James.....will be interesting to see how much fun there is in the project. .....where's the pics?
×
×
  • Create New...