Jump to content
SAU Community

What should I do with my car down the track?


Recommended Posts

GT Four! either stagea swap or RB30. if you RB30'd it would you use the NA gbox from it or would a stagea one fit?

sell your car NA n then we can stick the turbo on my car! haha jk, rory wants a turbo for his AW11 though...

Depends what you want to do ,Drag it, Drift it, Circut Race.:confused:

The 2 wheel Gt+t is good for the RB26 swap less weight without the 4wd system and damn cheaper than the GTR.

If you've seen in Japan there's a few GTT's running GTR engines even better if you can land the VVT version of the RB26.:jump:

CYA

Hey Dan Go with the RB30 build & be a little different & go with the RB26 top end with a large single turbo on it

I was looking into it & had got an idea of price of around 6K with out turbo & computer just for the motor build & head/manifolds with no turbos.

I have a lot of info on it if ur keen let me know, mind you that build was with head port work & a 30 thou over on the block with pistons & rods with a fully balanced bottem end I got told it should be good for around 350 at the wheels with the right set up injectors & cooler, only prob with the big single & head port work is it will be very lagie but once it on hold on ;) I don't have the money to do what I wanted to do now but looking into KAPA with super charger kits ;)

there was a rb25 complete for $2000 on here in QLD.. still available last i checked.. loom, ecu, afm, everything..

would be a non-neo r33 engine.. but at that price worth considering

otherwise you get Rb30 blocks for a couple of hundie, and rb25 heads for around $1000.. throw in some cams .. the rebuild costs you a few thousand but that is with the serious bits. Near $10k you can have 350-400rwkw engine if you like.. add a nice turbo and start blowing up drivetrains.

rb26 head is a little too expensive.. flows better and tougher but $1000-$2000 more.

Hey Dan

Originaly myself and a mate built it but had a few problems so I took it to Power Break and Enginering (near Harrys Diner)

They pulled out my original build - rebuilt/ balanced the whole botom end - rebuilt mild port of the head - put it all back together - put it in the car and got it working for $2500

the engine is completly balanced - bored 10 though and runs awsome!

Just waiting to put on my fmic and power fc now and Ill be almost all done with the 33

rb30 with a rb26 head and single turbo is hardly "a little different"......

Go the 4.5 or 4.1 nissan V8 and put twin turbs on.... even with a stock engine this combo would haul some serious A55! the 4.1 will obviously be a little more rev happy, but the 4.5 will have more off-boost torque....

V8 skylines r.o.c.k! (but im biased)

Thanks riceline, may have a yarn to the guys down there then....something *cheaper* like the RB30DET may keep me happy for a bit before I move onto another car :)

Also what turbo are you using on that...is it still the stock one?

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

    • 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.  
    • This has clearly gone off on quite a tangent but the suggestion was "go standalone because you probably aren't going to stop at just exhaust + a mild tune and manual boost controller", not "buy a standalone purely for a boost controller". If the scope does in fact stop creeping at an EBC then sure, buy an EVC7 or Profec or whatever else people like to run and stop there. And I have yet to see any kind of aftermarket boost control that is more complicated than a PID controller with some accounting for edge cases. Control system theory is an incredibly vast field yet somehow we always end up back at some variant of a PID controller, maybe with some work done to linearize things. I have done quite a lot, but I don't care to indulge in those pissing matches, hence posting primary sources. I deal with people quite frequently that scream and shout about how their opinion matters more because they've shipped more x or y, it doesn't change the reality of the data they're trying to disagree with. Arguing that the source material is wrong is an entirely separate point and while my experience obviously doesn't matter here I've rarely seen factory service manuals be incorrect about something. It's not some random poorly documented internal software tool that is constantly being patched to barely work. It's also not that hard to just read the Japanese and double check translations either. Especially in automotive parts most of it is loanwords anyways.
    • If you are keeping the current calipers you need to keep the current disc as the spacing of the caliper determines the disc diameter. Have you trial fitted the GTS brakes fit on a GTSt hub or is this forward planning? There could be differences in caliper mount spacing, backing plate and even hub shape that could cause an issue.
    • Hi there I have a r33 gts with 4 stud small brakes, I'm going to convert to 5 stud but keep the small brakes, what size rotor would I need?
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...