Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Everyone wants something different...thats why we get body kits and big ass turbos and fmics and sht like that...

im interested in something different aswell....

i was thinking of putting the rb26 head on my rb25....

i have been told that it can be done but you just have to change some water jackets or something....

i pose a new question.....can a R34 Neo head be put on our block and get the more advanced VVT system? :cheers:

im not a mechanic and im learning as im going

thanks for any input... :O

ps. i presume i would need an r34 eco too...

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/29546-bang-for-buck-something-different/
Share on other sites

Hey Fane , talk to Steve @ SST , he and Grant (Per4manz) have flow tested heads b4. I have heard that a flowed 25 head can outflow stock 26! Also , saw an RB26 head on JMS website for $2000!!! After all that , a stock turbo isn,t goin to get the most out of a flowed head IMO.

Cheers :cheers:

The Neo head has nothing to offer. The RB26 head would perhaps offer a better starting block for a big power setup, mild it's a serious waste of money for $2k.

A bang for buck mod looks like the 264 deg exhaust camshaft with a stock intake cam based on some computer sims. Upto 50hp over the standard and up everywhere over the rev range without any sacrifice to off boost.

My car is a few days from completion.Engine should be fully assembled and in engine bay by today. We will see how the computer sim works in real life.

thanks alot rev210

i was hoping you were going to reply...

this is a very future mod...and the 26 head is looking a bit more appitising....but i'll be doing the whole lightened flywheel and crap like that first....

just dont want to do stuff that cant be used if i do a future mod...if you know what i mean... :)

ps. GL with your car dood, pics?

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

    • My understanding is that UV tends to accelerate the aging process. If the car has been garaged, then you could probably get away with extending beyond 10 years. FWIW, in 2015, I had tyres on my 180B SSS that had a 3-digit code (2 for week, 1 for decade), ending in 0, so could have been more than 30 years old, but still worked fine. I did replaced them very quickly, though, once I discovered what the code meant!
    • But we haven't even gotten to the point of talking about stateless controllers or any of the good stuff yet!
    • You guys need to take this discussion to another thread if you want to continue it, most of the last 2 pages has nothing to do with OP's questions and situation
    • And this, is just ONE major issue for closed loop control, particularly using PID. One such issue that is created right here, is integrator wind up. But you know GTSBoy, "it's just a simple PID controller"...  
    • Nah. For something like boost control I wouldn't start my design with PID. I'd go with something that originates in the fuzzy logic world and use an emergency function or similar concept. PID can and does work, but at its fundamental level it is not suited to quick action. I'd be reasonably sure that the Profecs et al all transitioned to a fuzzy algorithm back in the 90s. Keep in mind also that where and when I have previously talked about using a Profec, I'm usually talking about only doing an open loop system anyway. All this talk of PID and other algorithms only comes into play when you're talking closed loop boost control, and in the context of what the OP needs and wants, we're probably actually in the realm of open loop anyway. Closed loop boost control has always bothered me, because if you sense the process value (ie the boost measurement that you want to control) in the plenum (after the throttle), then boost control to achieve a target is only desirable at WOT. When you are not WOT, you do not want the the boost to be as high as it can be (ie 100% of target). That's why you do not have the throttle at WO. You're attempting to not go as fast as you can. If the process variable is measured upstream of the throttle (ie in an RB26 plenum, or the cold side pipework in others) then yeah, sure, run the boost controller closed loop to hit a target boost there, and then the throttle does what it is supposed to do. Just for utter clarity.... an old Profec B Spec II (or whatever it is called, and I've got one, and I never look at it, so I can't remember!) and similar might have a MAP sensor, and it might show you the actual boost in the plenum (when the MAP sensor is connected to the plenum) but it does not use that value to decide what it is doing to control the boost, except to control the gating effect (where it stops holding the gate closed on the boost ramp). It's not closed loop at all. Once the gate is released, it's just the solenoid flailing away at whatever duty cycle was configured when it was set up. I'm sure that there are many people who do not understand the above points and wonder wtf is going on.  
×
×
  • Create New...