Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

The 4WD blocks have both the hole for the 4wd and 2wd sumps, but the 2wd blocks only have the holes for the 2wd sumps. Well that is the case with the 25s at least. i have a C34 engine sitting in the shed as the moment.

EDIT!!

Just read your first post again, this isn't what you were asking.

Edited by D_Stirls

But it helps, thanks! Was hoping i could get the alloy sump off a 4wd RB20 and use a GTR larger sump welded onto it and modded to suit RWD.

Not a big deal if i have to find an AWD RB@) block as well, although i was hoping to use my current block and engine number :thumbsup:

Custom M.S. RB20 sump? It wouldnt be that hard to make up. Than you could design it around your swaybars. Would be more work converting a AWD sump and still having to enlarge that too.

High Energy Sump? They make em for RB20s?

I got an ASR (they make the sumps for High Energy) sump for my 30. The only difference that I know of between an RB20/25 sump and a 30 sump are some bits that stick up in the shallow section of the pan need to be removed for use on a 30..

All the ASR/High Energy RB sumps now have the leading edge chamfer to clear the swaybar in skylines.

Mine isn't in the car yet but I can take some photos if you want :)

Edited by bubba
Please, at the moment i am thinking to jut mod a AWD RB sump as the person doing the build has a proven custom alloy sump that has served many a track RB, both RWD/AWD

Forget it Roy, they don't fit. The 4WD sump bolts up to the wider parts of the 4WD blocks that simply isn't there in on 2WD blocks. I have been using High Energy sumps for ~20 years, never had an oil surge problem at any track, anytime, anywhere in Australia. Don't fool yourself into thinking that a winged 4WD alloy sump is lighter than the steel High Energy one, because it isn't. On the 4WD the sump adds a little (not much) rigidity to the bottom of the block, but that is mostly due to the wide bolt up spacing, which is not an option on a 2WD block. If you really just must have a shiny alloy 4WD sump and desire a miniscule amount of block strengthening then a 4WD sump adaptor would do what you want. But you will loose the block lowering advantage, which IMHO is much more worthwhile.

Cheers

Gary

Well it looks like i will be buying a new block so the build can take place whilst my car is on the street so can just as easily buy a RB20 froma GTS4 as a GTSt.

The High Energy jobbies are uber dollars and have heard/read people with mixed results, so since i know of an RB28 in an R32 GTSt running a 4wd block and modified AWD sump with similar internals to all the sumps off RB26s...it seemed the best place to start.

I think i will rather stick with a std sump then go for High Energy as I am not convinced that i need one...but will have to see what dollars are left over at the end. Plus just got new swybars and know of people having troubles with aftermarket sumps and swaybars, i know that wont be the case with the modded alloy jobbie because of said RB28 powered GTSt

Mate, get the sump from ASR instead of High Energy.

ASR make the High Enery sumps and mine cost $400 less than HE wanted for the same thing.

What bad things have you heard about them? and were they just the extended capacity sumps? or the fully baffled/gated pro-circuit sumps?

As I said above, they now make them to clear the swaybars in our cars.

If its cheap then could be. In SA? It looks as though i have already sourced an engine, (its a runner) If it falls through then a blown motor suits my needs better provided the head isnt warped from overheating or anything silly.

Will look into the ASR Sumps, though can nly find links to their products, not their website

If its cheap then could be. In SA? It looks as though i have already sourced an engine, (its a runner) If it falls through then a blown motor suits my needs better provided the head isnt warped from overheating or anything silly.

Will look into the ASR Sumps, though can nly find links to their products, not their website

its in melb and would be dirt cheap, just pm me if you need his details.

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

    • So, if the headlights' cutoff behaviour (angles, heights, etc) are not as per 6.2.6.1.1 without automatic levelling, then you have to have to have automatic** levelling. Also, if the headlight does not have the required markings, then neither automatic nor manual adjusters are going to be acceptable. That's because the base headlight itself does not meet the minimum requirement (which is the marking). ** with the option of manual levelling, if the headlight otherwise meets the same requirements as for the automatic case AND can be set to the "base" alignment at the headlight itself. So that's an additional requirement for the manual case. So, provided that the marking is on the headlight and there is a local manual adjustment back to "base" on the headlight, then yes, you could argue that they are code compliant. But if you are missing any single one of these things, then they are not. And unlike certain other standards that I work with, there does not seem to be scope to prepare a "fitness for purpose" report. Well, I guess there actually is. You might engage an automotive engineer to write a report stating that the lights meet the performance requirements of the standard even if they are missing, for example, the markings.  
    • Vertical orientation   6.2.6.1.1. The initial downward inclination of the cut off of the dipped-beam to be set in the unladen vehicle state with one person in the driver's seat shall be specified within an accuracy of 0.1 per cent by the manufacturer and indicated in a clearly legible and indelible manner on each vehicle close to either headlamp or the manufacturer's plate by the symbol shown in Annex 7.   The value of this indicated downward inclination shall be defined in accordance with paragraph 6.2.6.1.2.   6.2.6.1.2. Depending on the mounting height in metres (h) of the lower edge of the apparent surface in the direction of the reference axis of the dipped beam headlamp, measured on the unladen vehicles, the vertical inclination of the cut off of the dipped- beam shall, under all the static conditions of Annex 5, remain between the following limits and the initial aiming shall have the following values:   h < 0.8   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   0.8 < h < 1.0   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   Or, at the discretion of the manufacturer,   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The application for the vehicle type approval shall, in this case, contain information as to which of the two alternatives is to be used.   h > 1.0   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The above limits and the initial aiming values are summarized in the diagram below.   For category N3G (off-road) vehicles where the headlamps exceed a height of 1,200 mm, the limits for the vertical inclination of the cut-off shall be between: -1.5 per cent and -3.5 per cent.   The initial aim shall be set between: -2 per cent and -2.5 per cent.
×
×
  • Create New...