Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, BK said:

Dunno what you're on about as there are upgraded H pattern gearsets for the stock case which will handle 600hp all day and have been for years.

The stock gearset will only take so much, so if you break it, you upgrade it. No decent driveline solution is ever cheap mate.

Sorry, I meant budget wise. There are good options from PPG, but your looking at $10k+ And generally dogbox's like in this case don't last a long time on the street. 

You can get an OS Giken gearset at a fair price these days, sure you might have to wait.

You can also get syncro box's from others. 

Built without the frills you are well under 10k for any of the above.

I agree dog is not street due to service life, you can drive it on street but you can't do LOTS of driving.

I almost went PAR due to the ratio's on OS/PPG but ended finding an R34 getrag.

 

Big power = Big driveline and $$

22 hours ago, Unzipped Composites said:

Yeh I dunno, keep in mind that what Nismo were doing with the cars and what Gibson were doing with the cars was quite different.

It's well known the Australian GTR's were making more power than the Nismo GTR's, Australia had the strongest Group A series in the world and they needed the power to compete. Nismo were making bank selling 500hp engines to private racers, and they owned the Japan Group A series. So for them developing the car further just meant spending more money, and they were already winning so why do it.

Here the Nismo-spec cars wouldn't have won, Gibson had to push them further and develop the cars more, and Nismo were too expensive so they were only a small part of that. Gibson were developing a lot of parts themselves as well as getting stuff locally and from America etc. But Nismo and Nissan still supported that development, and they developed the stronger blocks for them etc. The motors weren't getting completely rebuilt after every race, reliability was an important consideration for them and they had an obscene budget to do it.

You also have to wonder if they were capping power at 650 because that was the limit of the engine or because of other factors, ie. Old school turbo tech, old school ECU's, old school dyno tech, tyre restrictions meaning the old school tyre tech couldn't get it to the ground, terrible aero also making it difficult to drive any faster, etc. Is it a case of they pushed the engine as hard as it could go, or is it they pushed the entire package to the limit of what would make a fast Group A car? We know Skaife said they were horrific cars to drive, would having 800hp with bigger, laggier turbos have made them faster or slower?

So it's sort of difficult to say what power they were 'engineered' to handle vs what power they were developed to handle for Group A racing vs what power they can handle after 30 years of aftermarket development, etc. 

In this video at 1:45 Skaife mentions that the engines ran 1.8 or 1.9 bar and roughly 650-700 hp for max attack, probably qualifying. For the actual race 1.2 or 1.3 bar, roughly 600 hp: 

Modern technology helps but at the end of the day people have mentioned that the RB26 starts flexing in ways that are not conducive for longevity around the 700-800 crank hp mark even with a dry sump to 100% fix any oiling concerns. You can use block braces and all that fun stuff to keep pushing the limits but strictly speaking about what Nissan engineers designed the RB26 block to do it sounds a lot like 600 hp for group A with a 1.2x safety factor to me, with additional derate depending upon how long you want to go between rebuilds. To me 600 hp is a lot, especially from a dinky little 2.6-2.8L engine but you might not agree. Even with 2.8L that would be on par with stuff like the A45S AMG which has the highest specific output engine in a production car today.

 

  • Like 1

dumb question how did the old Group A get 600hp out of 1.2-1.3 bar and a 2.6?
17psi to 18psi and 440kw at the crank at 7600 rpm?

Did they do it with the race gas, porting and cams, or? 

Eg the A45S with 2.0 gets 415bhp (so about same specific power per litre) but needs 30psi.

  • 8 months later...

Realistically if you can't do anything yourself ?

$5k + for the geaset to obtain, plus the $1500+ for centre plate, plus the $2k at least for labour to assemble gearset, plus the shipping up to $500 either way to whoever builds it. Additional $1000 if you have an older pre 97 box to upgrade the Nissan synchro parts.

Plus the $1000 for whoever pulls the gearbox out and puts it back in the car. Plus 4 litres of oil depending on what you use at $50 - $300.

Plus spigot and release bearings if required and plus any other random stuff that needs doing - bleed clutch, master rebuild or replace etc.

In reality it's a $10k + box installed for the average joe.

  • Like 3

"If you cannot afford to buy 2 GTR's, you cannot afford to modify 1 GTR"

...I think #Pigazz threw those wise words out 15 odd years ago, when GTR's were worth $15-20k

On 25/2/2022 at 12:42 PM, mlr said:

"If you cannot afford to buy 2 GTR's, you cannot afford to modify 1 GTR"

...I think #Pigazz threw those wise words out 15 odd years ago, when GTR's were worth $15-20k

Whatever you think you’ll spend, triple it… for a start. 🤣

  • Haha 1
On 25/02/2022 at 12:46 PM, Piggaz said:

Whatever you think you’ll spend, triple it… for a start. 🤣

Come on, 2.75 is a good multiplier, there's no need for 3x.

In terms of upgrades I'm glad I've spent double the $$ of what I originally paid for my car in 2012 as opposed to having paid double of what it's worth now.    🤣🤣

And that's me doing everything bar machining myself.....  Hate to see a full build price for a fully external workshop built car these days....

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
On 2/24/2022 at 1:26 PM, katherinerossir said:

Uf, so much money! I don't think that everyone can afford this.

Modifying cars the right way has never been cheap or easy. Really, just the operating costs of a normal car are pretty shocking if you actually keep track. There's a reason why car dependent nations like the US/Canada/Australia lead the world in spending on transportation in the household budget. And that's not even including the costs of all the externalities like traffic deaths, the massive environmental impact of building massively sprawling car dependent infrastructure, and the collective time everyone loses sitting in traffic.

  • 2 weeks later...
On 15/06/2021 at 5:46 AM, joshuaho96 said:

In this video at 1:45 Skaife mentions that the engines ran 1.8 or 1.9 bar and roughly 650-700 hp for max attack, probably qualifying. For the actual race 1.2 or 1.3 bar, roughly 600 hp: 

 

Modern technology helps but at the end of the day people have mentioned that the RB26 starts flexing in ways that are not conducive for longevity around the 700-800 crank hp mark even with a dry sump to 100% fix any oiling concerns. You can use block braces and all that fun stuff to keep pushing the limits but strictly speaking about what Nissan engineers designed the RB26 block to do it sounds a lot like 600 hp for group A with a 1.2x safety factor to me, with additional derate depending upon how long you want to go between rebuilds. To me 600 hp is a lot, especially from a dinky little 2.6-2.8L engine but you might not agree. Even with 2.8L that would be on par with stuff like the A45S AMG which has the highest specific output engine in a production car today.

I am happy that I have made the decision some years ago to work a lot in order to be able to buy everything I need to live a good life ( and I don't have a lot of requirements, so it wasn't very difficult to accomplish).

Edited by Duncan
removed sneaky casino link in quote
  • 1 year later...
On 15/06/2021 at 5:46 AM, joshuaho96 said:

In this video at 1:45 Skaife mentions that the engines ran 1.8 or 1.9 bar and roughly 650-700 hp for max attack, probably qualifying. For the actual race 1.2 or 1.3 bar, roughly 600 hp: 

Modern technology helps but at the end of the day people have mentioned that the RB26 starts flexing in ways that are not conducive for longevity around the 700-800 crank hp mark even with a dry sump to 100% fix any oiling concerns. You can use block braces and all that fun stuff to keep pushing the limits but strictly speaking about what Nissan engineers designed the RB26 block to do it sounds a lot like 600 hp for group A with a 1.2x safety factor to me, with additional derate depending upon how long you want to go between rebuilds. To me 600 hp is a lot, especially from a dinky little 2.6-2.8L engine but you might not agree. Even with 2.8L that would be on par with stuff like the A45S AMG which has the highest specific output engine in a production car today.

I wanted to start a discussion about the RB26 engine and its performance capabilities in modern technology. While advancements in technology have undoubtedly enhanced the potential of this iconic engine, some users have mentioned concerns about its longevity when pushing it to higher horsepower levels, typically around the 700-800 crank horsepower mark.

Even with the implementation of a dry sump system to address potential oiling concerns, it seems that the RB26 starts to exhibit certain flexing behaviors that may not be conducive for long-term reliability at these power levels. Despite the application of block braces and other modifications aimed at pushing the limits, it appears that Nissan engineers originally designed the RB26 block with a targeted power output of around 600 horsepower for group A racing, with a 1.2x safety factor.

Of course, the specific power output required for individual applications may vary, and some enthusiasts may have different opinions on what they consider "a lot" of horsepower. However, it's worth noting that even reaching 600 horsepower from a relatively small 2.6-2.8L engine is quite impressive. To put it into perspective, this level of performance is comparable to vehicles such as the A45S AMG, which currently holds the record for the highest specific output engine in a production car.

It's essential to acknowledge that achieving higher power levels beyond the design limitations may require additional measures and considerations. If you're looking to maximize performance while maintaining long-term reliability, it may be necessary to incorporate regular rebuilds or derate the engine to prolong its lifespan.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this matter. Do you agree that the RB26 engine's design suggests a power output limit of around 600 horsepower, with additional factors impacting longevity? Or do you have a different perspective on the subject? Let's discuss and share our experiences and insights.

Edited by Duncan
Removed sneaky casino link in quote
On 08/03/2022 at 10:14 PM, davidsharpd said:

I am happy that I have made the decision some years ago to work a lot in order to be able to buy everything I need to live a good life ( and I don't have a lot of requirements, so it wasn't very difficult to accomplish).

Oh you tricky bot, got away with it for 12 months! Fixed now, goodbye.

  • Thanks 1
14 minutes ago, Alvis37 said:

I wanted to start a discussion about the RB26 engine and its performance capabilities in modern technology. While advancements in technology have undoubtedly enhanced the potential of this iconic engine, some users have mentioned concerns about its longevity when pushing it to higher horsepower levels, typically around the 700-800 crank horsepower mark.

Even with the implementation of a dry sump system to address potential oiling concerns, it seems that the RB26 starts to exhibit certain flexing behaviors that may not be conducive for long-term reliability at these power levels. Despite the application of block braces and other modifications aimed at pushing the limits, it appears that Nissan engineers originally designed the RB26 block with a targeted power output of around 600 horsepower for group A racing, with a 1.2x safety factor.

Of course, the specific power output required for individual applications may vary, and some enthusiasts may have different opinions on what they consider "a lot" of horsepower. However, it's worth noting that even reaching 600 horsepower from a relatively small 2.6-2.8L engine is quite impressive. To put it into perspective, this level of performance is comparable to vehicles such as the A45S AMG, which currently holds the record for the highest specific output engine in a production car.

It's essential to acknowledge that achieving higher power levels beyond the design limitations may require additional measures and considerations. If you're looking to maximize performance while maintaining long-term reliability, it may be necessary to incorporate regular rebuilds or derate the engine to prolong its lifespan.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this matter. Do you agree that the RB26 engine's design suggests a power output limit of around 600 horsepower, with additional factors impacting longevity? Or do you have a different perspective on the subject? Let's discuss and share our experiences and insights.

You I'm not certain about yet, so I've removed the link in the quote you quoted

  • Haha 1

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

    • Very nice - I also have a 92 GTST and hardly see any others around these days
    • When I need something else to edit, I use Movavi. A friend who does video editing on a daily basis recommended me) it's an easy video cutter to use for beginners
    • I need to edit some videos for work but I'm not good at all this. Which video editor can you recommend?
    • I think you're really missing the point. The spec is just the minimum spec that the fuel has to meet. The additive packages can, and do, go above that minimum if the fuel brand feels they need/want to. And so you get BP Ultimate or Shell Ultra (or whatever they call it) making promises to clean your engine better than the standard stuff....simply because they do actually put better additive packages in there. They do not waste special sauce on the plebian fuel if they can avoid it. I didn't say "energy density". I just said "density". That's right, the specific gravity (if you want to use a really shit old imperial description for mass per unit volume). The density being higher indicates a number of things, from reduces oxygen content, to increased numbers of double bonds or cyclic components. That then just happens to flow on to the calorific value on a volume basis being correspondingly higher. The calorific value on a mass basis barely changes, because almost all hydrocarbon materials have a very similar CV per kg. But whatever - the end result is that you do get a bit more energy per litre, which helps to offset some of the sting of the massive price bump over 91. I can go you one better than "I used to work at a fuel station". I had uni lecturers who worked at the Pt Stanvac refinery (at the time they were lecturing, as industry specialist lecturers) who were quite candid about the business. And granted, that was 30+ years ago, and you might note that I have stated above that I think the industry has since collected together near the bottom (quite like ISPs, when you think about it). Oh, did I mention that I am quite literally a combustion engineer? I'm designing (well, actually, trying to avoid designing and trying to make the junior engineer do it) a heavy fuel oil firing system for a cement plant in fricking Iraq, this week. Last week it was natural gas fired this-that. The week before it was LPG fired anode furnaces for a copper smelter (well, the burners for them, not the actual furnaces, which are just big dumb steel). I'm kinda all over fuels.
    • Well my freshly rebuilt RB25DET Neo went bang 1000kms in, completely fried big end bearing in cylinder 1 so bad my engine seized. No knocking or oil pressure issue prior to this happening, all happened within less than a second. Had Nitto oil pump, 8L baffled sump, head drain, oil restrictors, the lot put in to prevent me spinning a bearing like i did to need the rebuild. Mechanic that looked after the works has no idea what caused it. Reckoned it may have been bearing clearance wrong in cylinder 1 we have no idea. Machinist who did the work reckoned it was something on the mechanic. Anyway thats between them, i had no part in it, just paid the money Curiosity question, does the oil system on RB’s go sump > oil pump > filter > around engine? If so, if you had a leak on an oil filter relocation plate, say sump > oil pump > filter > LEAK > around engine would this cause a low oil pressure reading if the sensors was before the filter?   TIA
×
×
  • Create New...