Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

So, I had this stupid idea seeing as how I scored two 350 holleys for nothing, that i could get an RB30 that costs about as much as last nights dinner at the pub, an RB25DE head which can be sourced somewhere, put them all together, and make an RB30DS.

First of all - I don't care if it's a good idea or not.

Second of all - how f**king awesome would it be? would it rev harder than an injected RB30DE?

would it run alright pending tuning or would it simply keel over and die?

My plan would be to set up an RB30 in a car, but rip off the top half of the manifold and all things to do with injectors, then fit the two carbys, utilizing the throttle cable or, just having one made up, then having a linkage between the two carbys.

what exactly would i supposedly need to rip off for it to run? could i rip out ALL of the computer and wiring harness? or would that f**k with sensors and such?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/298759-rb30d-minus-injection/
Share on other sites

what has the world come to...

lol might be a pretty ok idea for a f**k around.

but what about ignition control?

dunno how the stock computer would react to just ripping out the injector harness...

my guess is that you would lose power compared to the DE version for various reasons.

first of all, carby's don't give the same sort of fuel input as injectors. they don't vapourise it as well is about the best way i can describe it at the moment (brain isn't working today). i know that on the EA falcon they did 2 versions of the 3.9L engine. 1 was a single injection (basically a carby) and the other was multi-point injection (6 injectors). there was a 17kw difference in power.

secondly, you would need to do a lot of work to get the intake manifold right to suit the flow of the carbies. you can't just simply bolt on a carby and have it work.

thirdly, i think twin 350's would probably be way too big for a 3L engine.

and i highly doubt it would rev harder.

i don't think it would be a good idea. and the way it sounds like you plan on going about doing it sounds like it isn't going to end well. sounds like it will end with a poorly performing engine

yeah my GQ RB30S dosen't rev harder, it revs LESS than a RB30E, but I am speculating that it's the jetting on the carby that might be the culprit there. Good engine, but heavy on fuel (15L/100).

Dunno how you'd go trying to adapt a twin cam head without a custom manifold lol.

Marc I think you are saying about carbies being less efficient at atomising the fuel?

Pretty sure the R31House RB30S is a triple (Hitachi?) carburettor. There's a video on youtube of it, ironically the test driver reckons that while it is a 'man's car, it had a flat spot in higher RPM and was difficult to tune.

Injection will always be superior to a carburettor, it wouldn't rev anywhere near as hard as a RB30DE as it has inferior fuel and air delivery. In fact I would imagine a plain RB30E would be superior.

If you want something mean and cheap get a stock rb30e and put the biggest wildest cam you can in there and just bump the fuel pressure up. It will guzzle fuel and probably be an absolute dog to drive unless you are revving it, but at least it will sound mean and rev.

Wouldn’t put dirty holleys on it... SU's would be a bit of fun though, once you figure out how, they aren’t very difficult to tune, possibly the easy way to almost have ITB type induction. You could remove all the fuel setup and just run with the stock ignition maps OR remove everything and just run an aftermarket ignition controller.

I've done this at home, but for turbo application, there is nothing stopping you from getting an RB30e bottom end and sticking an R32 RB25DE on top of it. It cost me under $1k to do it, found a ported and polished reco rb25de head (without cams) for $500, bought GTR cams and valve springs for $100, and the rest to belts, and gaskets.

For N/A, shave 60 thou off the head, add adj cam gears, and you have a winner that will run on 91ron :P.

Or if you want it for a laugh, fit RB25DE pistons, deck the block 40thou, still shave the head, and run it on methanol. om nom nom (its cheaper than pump fuel anyways :D).

While i am just joking, you can happily do that, you don’t have to spend big bickies to make a car go spastic hard, you just have to be a mad man (and happy to sacrifice street drivability)... You only have to spend big money, if you still want to be able to drive mum to the shops, comfortably and legally... :down:

See dude, flamed...told you it was a silly idea only a country egg head like yourself would think of :P

If you want different + power, build an engine similar to the RB24S that we were talking about :D

20 Bottom end w/ slightly bigger pistons

25 Block

30 Heads

RB24S revs pretty hard, a built DE would belt it even harder.

theres a reason everyone builds the same motors, that's because from trial and error they have been found to be the best. If you want to be different just tell everyone its an rb24 or something lol, hardly anyone will be able to tell the difference.

Hahahaha, for those who are flaming. GTFO. Input not required.

For those saying it's not a good idea - its still an idea.

I get myself through work every day by thinking about shit like this, and, fundamentally, its flawed. by rights though, the RB24S DID rev harder than an RB20. thats kinda where it came from. and i thought that given how good the L28 sounds with triple SU's, i could replicate that with an RB.

Now i'm just thinking i ITB an RB30DE and fang the f*ck out of it while I build the RB25det. cheaper. easier. probs more fun and more reliable.

NA Drift is uncommon to say the least. unfortunate really.

For those saying it's not a good idea - its still an idea.

A red 202 is also an idea, personally I would give it the same merits as building an rb30d, its got .3 of a litre more capacity than the RB30 and it is pushrod so it will have that f**king mean sound to it as well.

That's fair. 202 would probably get the same power output as one anyway. I've seen some bloody quick 202s before.

Not the point however.

RB30DE with custom (bunky) ITBs will be on the cards in a few months time.

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

    • First up, I wouldn't use PID straight up for boost control. There's also other control techniques that can be implemented. And as I said, and you keep missing the point. It's not the ONE thing, it's the wrapping it up together with everything else in the one system that starts to unravel the problem. It's why there are people who can work in a certain field as a generalist, IE a IT person, and then there are specialists. IE, an SQL database specialist. Sure the IT person can build and run a database, and it'll work, however theyll likely never be as good as a specialist.   So, as said, it's not as simple as you're thinking. And yes, there's a limit to the number of everything's in MCUs, and they run out far to freaking fast when you're designing a complex system, which means you have to make compromises. Add to that, you'll have a limited team working on it, so fixing / tweaking some features means some features are a higher priority than others. Add to that, someone might fix a problem around a certain unrelated feature, and that change due to other complexities in the system design, can now cause a new, unforseen bug in something else.   The whole thing is, as said, sometimes split systems can work as good, and if not better. Plus when there's no need to spend $4k on an all in one solution, to meet the needs of a $200 system, maybe don't just spout off things others have said / you've read. There's a lot of misinformation on the internet, including in translated service manuals, and data sheets. Going and doing, so that you know, is better than stating something you read. Stating something that has been read, is about as useful as an engineering graduate, as all they know is what they've read. And trust me, nearly every engineering graduate is useless in the real world. And add to that, if you don't know this stuff, and just have an opinion, maybe accept what people with experience are telling you as information, and don't keep reciting the exact same thing over and over in response.
    • 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. 
×
×
  • Create New...