# RB26 larger capacity engines.



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

I'm a noob to this subject, so can anyone briefly run me through the options of increased cubic capacity RB26 engines?

I've heard of a 2.8, assume that's just block work producing mainly more torque and spooling equivalent turbos a little quicker?

Heard of a 3.0 but no clue on that...

Any others?



Thanks in advance for any assistance.


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

CT17 said:


> I'm a noob to this subject, so can anyone briefly run me through the options of increased cubic capacity RB26 engines?
> 
> I've heard of a 2.8, assume that's just block work producing mainly more torque and spooling equivalent turbos a little quicker?
> 
> ...


I'd delete the bit about 3 litre RB's if I were you as there have been so many Holden RB30 vs OS RB30 threads, and arguments, it's unbelievable.

Fed up with 2.6 litres already?:chuckle:


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

TAZZMAXX said:


> I'd delete the bit about 3 litre RB's if I were you as there have been so many Holden RB30 vs OS RB30 threads, and arguments, it's unbelievable.
> 
> Fed up with 2.6 litres already?:chuckle:


No, happy with my 2.6 thanks.

Was considering something a little more track focused.
Got to be an R32 though.


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

Off the top of my head, MGT and RB Motorsports both do 2.8 builds. If you speak to Goghat (got a mint R33) he'll tell you about his 2.8 that RB built. I think it makes about 690bhp.


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

2.8s are nice, power wise, you can get a bit more, but really the extra bit of torque you get is worth it vs the top end. The extra displacement means you can spin up slightly larger turbos a bit better.

Worth the upgrade personally. That with a solid built head and either a good responsive single turbo or stay with twins, and you have a nice track setup.


----------



## Jags (May 20, 2007)

Most common is a stroker kit to give you 2.8

You can go 3.0 too, you can go either Nissan RB30 route or the OS Giken route (uses a spacer plate on an N1 block)

I think there's also 3.1 and 3.2 stroker kits available for the RB30 but not many about as far as I know


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

Unless you are planning to start from the beginning, and will be tackling a lot of work, fitting a RB30 is not going to be the quickest way go nor the most track friendly, if you plan on seeing track a lot, make sure all your choices are easy to re-source, because things will fail, and the last thing you want is having to wait for weeks or months for replacements.

Just something else to keep in mind.


----------



## JTJUDGE (Nov 21, 2011)

Goghots car is basically the same spec as mine but with smaller turbos, he has -5s while I have 10s. I reckon his set up is perfect for maximum response and power which would be great on a track. 
Calibrat has a 3.2 almost finished 
Lots of companies offer the kits like tomei, hks, nitto

Plus tuners and engine builders like rb motorsports who built mine, RIPZ in Australia


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

JTJUDGE said:


> RIPZ in Australia


It is, in fact, New Zealand if we're going for geographical accuracy.


----------



## JTJUDGE (Nov 21, 2011)

TAZZMAXX said:


> It is, in fact, New Zealand if we're going for geographical accuracy.


Ah that will really piss then off


----------



## JTJUDGE (Nov 21, 2011)

Having had a 2.6 and now a 2.8, I can thoroughly recommend a friggin strong gearbox


----------



## gtr mart (Mar 29, 2004)

Rain is on the money here. The holden RB30 has a great reputation but is generally supplied by RIPS in NZ. I know rockabilly on here had one too so might be worth having a few comms with.

I seem to recall the alternative is the OS giken 3.0 kit which the purists always pushed but is/was serious Wonga.

The stroker kits will give you 2.8 litre. Never heard anything bad about them. Not sure of costs nowadays.

What turbos are you running on your motor at the moment? And what are you thinking you might like to do (that is making you think about a little more capacity?)

Edit: just noticed a few new posts above, one about the gearbox. Pushing over 600/700hp is likely to give you gearbox woes so potentially additional expense to consider. I always remember as I was getting into GT-R's people saying that 500hp was a great point as the car came really alive. The ones running major power seemed to run into one problem or another. Not sure if the tuning scene or choice of tuners / knowledge of the RD26 has changed in recent years but certainly something to consider as if you start facing reliability issues, you will start to think significantly less of your R32.


----------



## Kango_V (Jun 24, 2005)

I've now got rockabilly's RB30 machine and it's stunning. But, do remember that the RB30 block lacks some of the bracing from RB26. This does stop it from revving as high. Makes the RB30 a great street engine with the extra torque, but maybe not a track one if high revs are required.

I know RIPS can do an RB30 with all the extra bracing which allows serious revs, but requires serious money too.

Definitely have a word with rockabilly as the engine he built has not put a foot wrong and pulls very hard. Also, revs/spools quickly too.


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

JTJUDGE said:


> Having had a 2.6 and now a 2.8, I can thoroughly recommend a friggin strong gearbox


:bowdown1:

I dont know about the other people here but, depending on your budget id say sell your 5 speed for whatever you can get, and get a 34 6 speed kitted to fit the 32, its not the cheapest, but its by far going to be the most reliable and cost effective. Id personally shy away from putting OSG gears in the 5 speed. 

You could go all out and look at going sequential too... but then, you are falling in to a deep hole lol

Just my 2¢


----------



## gtr mart (Mar 29, 2004)

Yes deep hole indeed. Why would you shy away from the OS Giken gears Rain? I always liked the idea of the shorter gear sets, in place of the increased ratio rear diff.


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

Ive had mixed reviews of their boxes, and know of 2 or maybe 3 boxes that are in constant states of repair. I dont know if its just lack of QC or what, but thats my take on it, for the money, id go for something thats going to have the least chance of pissing me off lol.

Also had one that was going to go in to my 34, but a few people i trust told me to avoid it if i had the choice, was offered a Quaife box so sold the OSG and have my hopes the Quaife isnt a giant queef.

I know PPG and some other people make sets too. My only exposure to them is on STIs which seem to always do very well. However, this is a whole other debate haha


----------



## gtr mart (Mar 29, 2004)

ah understand. Thanks. And it makes sense as the gearbox is an area that once put back together you don't want to be taking apart again.

Anyway , I thought you were meant to be asleep....? And on that note, off I go.


----------



## RSVFOUR (May 1, 2006)

The difference of the 2.8 is not so much power as torque because you can get power from tuning the 26
I would say the 2.8 is ideal for travk as whatever power level you have the bigger engines extra torque makes the car much more driveable . Any turbos will spool quicker as well.
I have a 2.8 in the stagea now and would never go back


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

Love my RB30, would never go back to a RB26.
For me in NZ (or do I live in Austraila? ) the RB30 blocks and cranks are quite easy to get and are very cheap, and it's no more expensive to build than a RB28 (cheaper here as you are not having to buy a Crank/Piston/Rod kit, just the Rods and Pistons) 
The torque difference is night and day over my RB26.....you can pull out of corners in the wrong gear and not get passed by a guy on a push bike!
All the talk about them not reving is a fallacy.....mine revs easily to 8000rpm, and would go further if I needed it, but due to the huge torque you don't need it, the rod angle ratio is better than a RB26 or RB28 so by rights it should look after the big end bearings better as well.
It does have a couple of downsides, 1: you will need a sump adaptor plate, this will lower the sump by 10mm and means slotting a couple of holes in the gearbox, but pretty easy.
2: you will need a custom manifold or down pipe as the block is 38mm taller.
3: I spose there is a little weight up higher in the engine bay.....can't say I've ever noticed it though.


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

If your going to go for a stroker engine do it right and go for a os 3.0, if I was going to do it that would be my only route


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

You might be able to get Ron to build you one of his 3.0 but you will have to ask nicely


----------



## R32 Combat (Jan 29, 2004)

Sub Boy said:


> Love my RB30, would never go back to a RB26.
> For me in NZ (or do I live in Austraila? ) the RB30 blocks and cranks are quite easy to get and are very cheap, and it's no more expensive to build than a RB28 (cheaper here as you are not having to buy a Crank/Piston/Rod kit, just the Rods and Pistons)
> The torque difference is night and day over my RB26.....you can pull out of corners in the wrong gear and not get passed by a guy on a push bike!
> All the talk about them not reving is a fallacy.....mine revs easily to 8000rpm, and would go further if I needed it, but due to the huge torque you don't need it, the rod angle ratio is better than a RB26 or RB28 so by rights it should look after the big end bearings better as well.
> ...


Couldn't agree more. 
There really is no replacement for displacement.

If you have any RB30 questions Rich, PM me. I've done a few conversions.


----------



## Saifskyline (May 19, 2013)

If you want a 3.0 or bigger speak with Rob at RIPS.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

CT17 said:


> No, happy with my 2.6 thanks.
> 
> Was considering something a little more track focused.
> Got to be an R32 though.


RB's were made to rev don't be afraid of using all available revs. Assuming the engine is built correctly you should have no issues going up to 78-7900.

I keep saying this but why the need for more power anyone realise how much the various forms of FIA GT spec cars put out?? 480-560 at most. Try an move away from this drag mentality that more and more power will equal faster track times. Of course if you want to change the characteristic and want more torque for everyday use then plan it carefully. A Tomei or a Nitto stroke night be a better option. RB30 conversion is not straightforward some extra work is needed and might not be the best way to go.

Maximise and improve the suspension braking setup, driver skill to get the last bit out of your current setup. I am sure there is potential to another 5 seconds out of your car with the current engine.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

Rain said:


> Ive had mixed reviews of their boxes, and know of 2 or maybe 3 boxes that are in constant states of repair. I dont know if its just lack of QC or what, but thats my take on it, for the money, id go for something thats going to have the least chance of pissing me off lol.
> 
> Also had one that was going to go in to my 34, but a few people i trust told me to avoid it if i had the choice, was offered a Quaife box so sold the OSG and have my hopes the Quaife isnt a giant queef.
> 
> I know PPG and some other people make sets too. My only exposure to them is on STIs which seem to always do very well. However, this is a whole other debate haha


PPG do a kit for the Getrag box.


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

As you can see Rich, the answer is clear as ever


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

FRRACER said:


> RB's were made to rev don't be afraid of using all available revs. Assuming the engine is built correctly you should have no issues going up to 78-7900.
> 
> I keep saying this but why the need for more power anyone realise how much the various forms of FIA GT spec cars put out?? 480-560 at most. Try an move away from this drag mentality that more and more power will equal faster track times. Of course if you want to change the characteristic and want more torque for everyday use then plan it carefully. A Tomei or a Nitto stroke night be a better option. RB30 conversion is not straightforward some extra work is needed and might not be the best way to go.
> 
> Maximise and improve the suspension braking setup, driver skill to get the last bit out of your current setup. I am sure there is potential to another 5 seconds out of your car with the current engine.


Wanting more torque doesn't instantly mean you are building a drag car.
There isn't a lot of FIA GT Cars that weigh as much as a GT-R and only have a 2.6ltr engine, they mostly run 4.5ltr V8's in cars that came out with smaller capacity engines.

Pretty small amount of work required to make the 3.0ltr fit.....even less if you were going for a mid sized single turbo.

Totally agree on the braking, suspension and driver skill, that's where most of the improvement is going to come from.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

First off, thanks all for the valuable input. 

I'm not building a drag car, I'm asking due to more torque in the midrange and to be able to spool turbos up quicker.

My car drives very nicely at 520bhp when you are on it.
I just feel it would be an advantage if you were tracking an R32 regularly to have more "oomph" in the mid range and less lag.


----------



## Calibrat (Jan 22, 2013)

V-cam would help with that, no need to rebuild then.


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

Sub Boy said:


> Wanting more torque doesn't instantly mean you are building a drag car.
> There isn't a lot of FIA GT Cars that weigh as much as a GT-R and only have a 2.6ltr engine, they mostly run 4.5ltr V8's in cars that came out with smaller capacity engines.
> 
> Pretty small amount of work required to make the 3.0ltr fit.....even less if you were going for a mid sized single turbo.
> ...


This would depend on who builds it and if all parts are easily available and ready to go.

Obviously, we don't know about his time scale and budget, but if you have the time, and the will to do an RB30, do it, just make sure you keep things you need available for the future, its not as popular here as it is over there remember. As it is the wait times for some basic RB26 parts can be painful, its always the little things, like gaskets lol


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

Calibrat said:


> V-cam would help with that, no need to rebuild then.


No but you are adding complexity, its a good system, but depending if this is going to be his track toy only, Id say coupling the right cams, to a well done head, and calculating your turbo needs will give you a better solution than throwing on a vcam and having to go through the process of retuning the car to use it properly.

I dont know, to me as someone with a limited budget and who has limited time to track my car, I always try to make sure my choices revolve around keeping it simple and fast to replace should i have to, less downtime, more going round time. 

This is how i personally like to think about it.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

A fully ported head and inlet port matching would be a good start if not already done to help turbos spool up better and you will gain good torque across the Rev range.


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

Rain said:


> Ive had mixed reviews of their boxes, and know of 2 or maybe 3 boxes that are in constant states of repair. I dont know if its just lack of QC or what,


Are you referring to a standard box with the OS gearset or a full OSG sequential? I've only heard complaints about the sequential but I suspect that most problems have been brought on by people using them in road cars where they aren't always able to shift at full power (causing dog ring wear) and also running them for longer than the rebuild intervals.

Not much relevance to the OP really but it ought to be clarified.


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

FRRACER said:


> A fully ported head and inlet port matching would be a good start if not already done to help turbos spool up better and you will gain good torque across the Rev range.



I'd agree with that my 2.6 made 680bhp 610 ftlb


----------



## git-r (Nov 15, 2005)

CT17 said:


> First off, thanks all for the valuable input.
> 
> I'm not building a drag car, I'm asking due to more torque in the midrange and to be able to spool turbos up quicker.
> 
> ...


Interested to see where you go with this. Not sure if you saw my post on your thread but is the front higher than the back? If so sorting that would make it far quicker than giving it more power/grunt in the middle.


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

TAZZMAXX said:


> Are you referring to a standard box with the OS gearset or a full OSG sequential? I've only heard complaints about the sequential but I suspect that most problems have been brought on by people using them in road cars where they aren't always able to shift at full power (causing dog ring wear) and also running them for longer than the rebuild intervals.
> 
> Not much relevance to the OP really but it ought to be clarified.


Both systems. No ive spoken to a few people about them (as I had one to go in) and I only ever got told to sell it, 3 month wait times for parts wasnt fun either, but I think thats fairly standard with non-shelf manufacturing.

That said, i know they changed some of their parts later on to deal with some issues, so who knows. I dont know anyone who has a brand new box to ask really.


----------



## Paul.GTR34 (Jul 6, 2001)

*How about a 2.7?*

Had the same issues as you many moons ago ,so went for the Jun 2.7 stroker kit in the end, as I wanted more torque but still have the 'revability ' of the 2.6l. Not sure if 2.7 kits are still made :/.


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

Nitto makes one.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

git-r said:


> Interested to see where you go with this. Not sure if you saw my post on your thread but is the front higher than the back? If so sorting that would make it far quicker than giving it more power/grunt in the middle.


Sorry Sam, meant to answer that but forgot.
It's the way it looks in the photo, but you've seen the car and it hasn't been changed.
It might be very sightly higher on the front, but that's how it's always been set up.
I'll ask Ron next time I see him.

Possibly camera angle from higher up and how the rear tyes tuck into the rear arches a little.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

FRRACER said:


> A fully ported head and inlet port matching would be a good start if not already done to help turbos spool up better and you will gain good torque across the Rev range.


I was looking at doing another R32 for track, but I think that's going a bit OTT probably.

Seems like the best balance is to do a 2.8 on my R32 and a slightly altered gear kit for better circuit ratios to close the gaps between the gears a little but still keep it nice for the road.

The RB30 is interesting, but I don't have the skill and the costs of paying to get one built looks a bit expensive.
Changing my RB26 to the 28 seems quite quick, cheap and easy.

That should give slightly closer gear ratios, less lag and a bit more torque.
All things that will come together to improve drivability on track and still make it a nice road car.

Fancy some lightweight doors too, as that'll save around 50kg from the car I expect.


----------



## K66 SKY (Jan 25, 2005)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> *I'd agree with that my 2.6 made 680bhp 610 ftlb*


Those are really impressive numbers there Dan!

My GT-R's RB26 only produces 520bhp with 430lbsft of Torque which I still find impressive in a 1655kgs vehicle that's almost two decades old, So why would anyone want a 2.8L or bigger with power figures like those quoted by Dan above??

Surely there is a limit to how drivable a Skyline can be when the Power output passes 400bhp/tonne?!


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

K66 SKY said:


> My GT-R's RB26 only produces 520bhp with 430lbsft of Torque which I still find impressive in a 1655kgs vehicle that's almost two decades old, So why would anyone want a 2.8L or bigger with power figures like those quoted by Dan above??
> 
> Surely there is a limit to how drivable a Skyline can be when the Power output passes 400bhp/tonne?!


Sounds like yours is making similar figures to mine.

Thing is, I don't want more power really. I might get 550ish, but that's all as I'll keep the current turbos.
I want improved drivability so a greater spread of torque and power over the rev range.
Which will make it a better road car and a better track car.


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

2.8 and fiddle your head, if thats your goal.

PS:

Are you a do it once and hope im happy? type person?

Only asking as you could always stage your engines evolution, work the head first, see how you like it or go 2.8 1st keeping the rest?

If all you are after is better drivability and a wider spread, id say before anything, have you looked at perhaps even keeping it even more simple and playing with your cam setup?


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Rain said:


> 2.8 and fiddle your head, if thats your goal.


That's the plan.


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

The RB26 has a short stroke which is beneficial to actual engine acceleration for a given amount of fuel and air. 

RPM/C

By increasing the stroke you get more displacement and can give you more HP and torque which is impressive on the dyno rolling road, but you lose out on engine acceleration rate so things end up equal overall on the real road.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

CT17 said:


> I was looking at doing another R32 for track, but I think that's going a bit OTT probably.
> 
> Seems like the best balance is to do a 2.8 on my R32 and a slightly altered gear kit for better circuit ratios to close the gaps between the gears a little but still keep it nice for the road.
> 
> ...


Richard consider a getrag gearbox, add diff, gearbox and transfer box coolers, Nismo 1.5 way front diff, 1.5 way Nismo carbon pro rear diff, maybe some 3 way adjustable Nitron dampers, uprated roll barsand chassis bracing to stiffen the car up while your at it would make the car much better and with a 2.8 engine you should be fine.


----------



## David (Apr 25, 2003)

Sidious said:


> The RB26 has a short stroke which is beneficial to actual engine acceleration for a given amount of fuel and air.
> 
> RPM/C
> 
> By increasing the stroke you get more displacement and can give you more HP and torque which is impressive on the dyno rolling road, but you lose out on engine acceleration rate so things end up equal overall on the real road.


That is complete crap, torque is what accelerates a car/ engine, if an engine makes more torque it will out accelerate an engine of lesser torque no matter what the rod angle.


----------



## Cris (Sep 17, 2007)

I'm not sure if it's viable but there was a guy in Aus doing something like the osg3.0 with a spacer plate, I think he used an rb30 crank and had a capacity arpund 2.9. i have a vague feeling that he was also looking at a destroked rd28 crank without the spacer.

I liked the rd28 idea as the diesel cranks are cheap and apparently as tough as old boots.

As an alternative given budgets are limited I wonder if money would be better spent on breathing. I've seen amazing work on N/A heads where power is increased across the rev range. Rumour has it that rb26 heads are poor on the exhaust side. I sometimes wonder if £1-2000 there would be better than £3000+ on a stroker and balancing etc. Obviously this assumes that the bottom end is already good.


----------



## RSVFOUR (May 1, 2006)

David said:


> That is complete crap, torque is what accelerates a car/ engine, if an engine makes more torque it will out accelerate an engine of lesser torque no matter what the rod angle.


SPOT ON

The idea that a 26 will out accelerate a 28 (or30) of the same spec is ..well fantasy

That is why absolutely nobody "upgrades" back to a 26 from the 2.8 or 30 and why the reverse happens all the time.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

Short Stroke vs Long Stroke:

Longstroke vs. shortstroke - CARmag.co.za


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

CT17 said:


> I'm a noob to this subject, so can anyone briefly run me through the options of increased cubic capacity RB26 engines?
> 
> I've heard of a 2.8, assume that's just block work producing mainly more torque and spooling equivalent turbos a little quicker?
> 
> ...


Should have spoken to me or Andy at Silverstone Richard as I am running a Tommi 2.8 stroker in BEUT !! :bowdown1:

More torque and Turbo's spool up at around 3200 rpm - a hell of a lot better out of the corners :wavey:


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

You guys need to be less afraid of using revs on a 2.6


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

Revs kill engines !!!

Hence with a 2.8 I don't need to rev over 6k rpm as I have all the torque delivered !


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

lol revs kill badly built engines


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

Rain said:


> lol revs kill badly built engines


+1

Nicolas Kiesa, I believe he is/was using a Jun 2.7 setup.






The famous Mines R34 revving close to 9k!


----------



## JTJUDGE (Nov 21, 2011)

David said:


> That is complete crap, torque is what accelerates a car/ engine, if an engine makes more torque it will out accelerate an engine of lesser torque no matter what the rod angle.


All time attack newage Subaru have de stroked engines for higher revs ! The 2.1 and De stroked 2.3 is much better than the 2.5


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

Steve said:


> Revs kill engines !!!
> 
> Hence with a 2.8 I don't need to rev over 6k rpm as I have all the torque delivered !


lol, as if you've never been past 6k! :chuckle:

Step 3 RB28 will rev way past 10k rpm without issues if built properly.


----------



## RSVFOUR (May 1, 2006)

The actual ops topic


Originally Posted by CT17 ..........
:wavey:
First off, thanks all for the valuable input. 

I'm not building a drag car, I'm asking due to more torque in the midrange and to be able to spool turbos up quicker.

My car drives very nicely at 520bhp when you are on it.
I just feel it would be an advantage if you were tracking an R32 regularly to have more "oomph" in the mid range and less lag.

That is an exact definition of what the 28 and 30 give you it is about torque

When was the last time you saw a dyno print out of a 26 with 500 ft lbs at 4000 rpm


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

/thread, he already made his choices a few posts ago guys


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

510 ft/lb Not 4000 but not far off and it's a 2.6. Always try and keep to a gear mid corner where your revs do not drop below a point where you have no torque. In otherwords keep with in the power and of the engine. Watch the mines video and you will see what I mean.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

FRRACER said:


> 510 ft/lb Not 4000 but not far off and it's a 2.6. Always try and keep to a gear mid corner where your revs do not drop below a point where you have no torque. In otherwords keep with in the power and of the engine. Watch the mines video and you will see what I mean.


Good figures/spool for a 2.6, what's the spec?


----------



## GTR-RICHARD-89 (Feb 13, 2014)

FRRACER said:


> 510 ft/lb Not 4000 but not far off and it's a 2.6. Always try and keep to a gear mid corner where your revs do not drop below a point where you have no torque. In otherwords keep with in the power and of the engine. Watch the mines video and you will see what I mean.


Throw in a 2.8 stroker kit & your sorter FRRACER  

Tbh it would be good to see the difference the kit actually makes before & after with a set up like yours.

I agree sometimes less is more, money can be spent elsewhere and for efficiently to improve track times and enjoy-ability on track.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

CT17 said:


> Good figures/spool for a 2.6, what's the spec?


It's Amervyns R33 with very good torque. He made 578 BHP and 510ftlb. Could have made more but he was scared to let Greg push beyond 7k on the dyno.

Tomei rods, pistons, n1 pump, 700cc injectors, power FC, tomei type B cams.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

That's the basic engine build bits, so not sure on the rest but still seems good.

My car makes 520 at the top end and certainly spools later.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

GTR-RICHARD-89 said:


> Throw in a 2.8 stroker kit & your sorter FRRACER
> 
> Tbh it would be good to see the difference the kit actually makes before & after with a set up like yours.
> 
> I agree sometimes less is more, money can be spent elsewhere and for efficiently to improve track times and enjoy-ability on track.


Mine will remain 2.6 my engine will produce enough torque hopefully to remain very good on track. Hoping for over 500ft/lb and 620-650 BHP but we will see hard to predict when the engine is still partially built lol. 

I have no issues of making the most of a 2.6 short stroke engine. Infact I am looking forward to it out on track more so as it is coupled with a Getrag box


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

FRRACER said:


> 510 ft/lb Not 4000 but not far off and it's a 2.6. Always try and keep to a gear mid corner where your revs do not drop below a point where you have no torque. In otherwords keep with in the power and of the engine. Watch the mines video and you will see what I mean.


OK, bit confused. :nervous:

Mine makes less at the top end and still spools later.
This is why I want more in the midrange.


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

wow that is late...you say you were on N1 turbos ?!


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Rain said:


> wow that is late...you say you were on N1 turbos ?!


-5s I think.
My car has struggled to make the expected power on these turbos and the previous smaller ones.
What I didn't realise until I saw the graph FRRACER posted was that it's spooling late too, about 750-1,000rpm late by the looks of it.

But it shows you why I am trying to get more torque in the midrange as it starts to liven up as it approaches 5,000rpm.


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

mmm well the -5 is a bigger turbo, personally things they are good for the 2.8 but if you are staying 2.6 i would have done N1 

Why did you want to got for -5s on a 2.6 if your focus was midrange vs topend?

edit: If you are staying with the -5s, then your idea to work out the head and up the CC makes sense.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Rain said:


> mmm well the -5 is a bigger turbo, personally things they are good for the 2.8 but if you are staying 2.6 i would have done N1
> 
> Why did you want to got for -5s on a 2.6 if your focus was midrange vs topend?


Because on the smaller turbos I wasn't even making 500bhp, I was at 480bhp which didn't feel that fast.
Rightly or wrongly 500bhp was one of my targets when buying the thing in the first place.

The car I had before this was a 600bhp R35 so a normal "fast car" doesn't feel that fast.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Yes, I plan to keep the same turbos.


----------



## JTJUDGE (Nov 21, 2011)

CT17 said:


> Because on the smaller turbos I wasn't even making 500bhp, I was at 480bhp which didn't feel that fast.
> Rightly or wrongly 500bhp was one of my targets when buying the thing in the first place.
> 
> The car I had before this was a 600bhp R35 so a normal "fast car" doesn't feel that fast.


Did your mapper give any hints as to what was containing the extra performance ?


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

JTJUDGE said:


> Did your mapper give any hints as to what was containing the extra performance ?


RK have tried several things, even going so far as to change the exhaust to see if that helps, but didn't get any joy.
The car just seems to underperform a little for any given turbo combination.

I have always insisted the car isn't too loud though as I want to be able to visit any track.


----------



## JTJUDGE (Nov 21, 2011)

CT17 said:


> RK have tried several things, even going so far as to change the exhaust to see if that helps, but didn't get any joy.
> The car just seems to underperform a little for any given turbo combination.
> 
> I have always insisted the car isn't too loud though as I want to be able to visit any track.


Fair enough, I've seen that a few times but mostly in n/a cars. 
Can you turbo's be converted to allow an equal length manifold ? Maybe that would help response a bit


----------



## markM3 (Jan 7, 2008)

HI Richard,

I have -7s on mine.

First thing, what was the power at the wheels?

On a dyno dynamics (Surrey Rolling Road) at 1.35 bar I made 480bhp (boost drops to about 1.1 bar estimated at the wheels.

My cams have been timed for torque and whilst I have 40 bhp less than you, my low end & mid range from memory is in a different league, with peak torque a little down at around 405lb ft and peak power around 6800rpm, maybe less.

I have lower compression pistons too.

I will try to remember to scan my dyno sheet tomorrow, but I can kinda see why you want more low & mid range based on your dyno print.

I may come to watch you & the guys at Snetteron, and you are welcome to have a go in mine if I do.

Sam's (GitR) at 1.2 bar had very similar power & torque curves to mine too. 

I thought -5s would make nearer 600 bhp at 1.6 bar, so may be worth checking for leaks or restrictions.

Cheers,

Mark


----------



## Simonh (May 24, 2002)

Richard - what cams do you have?


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

I don't have the wheel figures Mark, that's the only print out I have.
I'd love to see your graph if you can remember to scan it.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Simonh said:


> Richard - what cams do you have?


Tomei PonCams.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Car spec prior to turbo swap is here:

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/204698-richards-r32-gt-r-18.html#post2488186


----------



## RSVFOUR (May 1, 2006)

a nice power curve (for a 26) 400 ft lbs @ 4000rpm but a 2.8 can produce much better t

recent 2.8 dyno print out


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

doh!

Didnt see the 6th page.


----------



## David (Apr 25, 2003)

JTJUDGE said:


> All time attack newage Subaru have de stroked engines for higher revs ! The 2.1 and De stroked 2.3 is much better than the 2.5


You have miss-quoted me, I was talking about engines producing more torque at specific engine speed points.

I.e If an rb35 makes more torque at 3 to 8k than an rb26 it will be quicker, fact as torque is what accelerates a car.

Now you are talking about a 2.3 reving to 10k? and a 2.5 reving to 7.5k. Completely different subject.

But....

Who on here actually uses the rev capability of an rb26, it should be easily possible to run one to 9.5k. But no one does, infact 7.5k is quite common.

This is why the rb30's look so good in comparison as they still easily rev to 8k with forged bits.

Plus more revs accentuates the rb oiling problem


----------



## JTJUDGE (Nov 21, 2011)

David said:


> You have miss-quoted me, I was talking about engines producing more torque at specific engine speed points.
> 
> I.e If an rb35 makes more torque at 3 to 8k than an rb26 it will be quicker, fact as torque is what accelerates a car.
> 
> ...


That's true

I can't go past 7000rpm and since I've owned it, I've not went past 6000rpm but that's just a force of habit


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

Fun thread, makes me want to try and build a happy 9000 RPM RB, with a dry sump....hmm...maybe the next engine for the 34


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

RSVFOUR said:


> a nice power curve (for a 26) 400 ft lbs @ 4000rpm but a 2.8 can produce much better torque


I dream of 400ft/lb at 4,000rpm.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Sidious said:


> The RB26 has a short stroke which is beneficial to actual engine acceleration for a given amount of fuel and air.
> 
> RPM/C
> 
> By increasing the stroke you get more displacement and can give you more HP and torque which is impressive on the dyno rolling road, but you lose out on engine acceleration rate so things end up equal overall on the real road.


There seems to be quite a bit of misinterpretation or misinformation in this thread, but this one wins the prize! Well done. Don't tell people this anymore until you have actually tried a 2.6, 2.8 and 3.0 litre with the same turbo setups, boost levels etc side by side to confirm - it's clear you haven't by the way, because otherwise you wouldn't have said that.

The only time the engine MAY chance rpm quicker is when it's not in drive and have the weight of the car to push, that stupid Best Motoring clip with the Mine's GTR is so full of crap and responsible for misinforming so many people on this topic, the main key to response on that car was a good head, cam, turbo and gearing combination along with the driver being confident to rev the crap out of it. If they kept it in the same rev range as the Supra it'd have been no way as impressive, and on the flipside if they built the Supra to the same level it may have also been a different story.

People saying "go the OSGiken" when suggesting that is the better way to go if you want a 3litre, OSGiken 3litres have got quite short rods for a 3litre engine which while isn't a huge problem as such - it is definitely moving in the direction of poor TDC dwell and angular load, which given how much people here seem concerned with rpm etc is not ideal in comparison to the PROPER RB30 which has a good length rod... guessing compromises were made with the OSGiken to try and fit everything into the smallest space.

In terms of the speel earlier about "long stroke" - the RB30 is square, the RB26 etc are quite short stroke so give away more than they gain imho. I consider the Nissan RB30 the "sweet spot", so long as you can get over the slightly taller block. Only tangible downside, imho.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

Rain said:


> Fun thread, makes me want to try and build a happy 9000 RPM RB, with a dry sump....hmm...maybe the next engine for the 34


I've been running over 9k for over 4 years without issue on my RB.
Dry sump and oil control mods on a good build will last if it's well looked after.


----------



## markM3 (Jan 7, 2008)

CT17 said:


> I dream of 400ft/lb at 4,000rpm.


Mine has around that!

Will get graph up soon


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

Aren't your turbos fitted with billet wheels Richard?


----------



## Simonh (May 24, 2002)

I found that the pon cams on my RB25 moved the power band up by about 1000-1500 rpm, could be a "simple" cam swap might help you acheive what you are looking for.

It is probably the mod I wish I had not done most of all, that and the 90mm TB which made throttle response far to binary.


----------



## gtr mart (Mar 29, 2004)

interesting on the TB. I always wanted to simplyfy my R32 as part of the modifying process, so single Turbo, ABS delete, HICAS delete and then conversion to a large single TB (and removal of all the crap and complexities under the inlet manifold). This for a 600hp car. 

I did wonder if the TB enlargement would be innapropriate and it sounds like it would have been (for a road going car)


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

My 32 has a single TB and I dont find it bad at all.


----------



## Simonh (May 24, 2002)

I forget the exact figures but on the rb25 the standard tb is I think 65mm or 70mm, the additional surface area of the 90mm tb means that with a much smaller throttle pedal movement you have the ability to flow the same amount of air as WOT on the 70mm tb. This means that partial throttle is more difficult to control and you power feeds in much more brutally, which for a RWD isn't always ideal (for a street/track car) and this affects driveability. Couple that with a higher rpm power band and it does not make for a smooth driver experience.

on the rb26 with the multiple thottle plates I am sure the difference in surface area isn't as great to the single tb so perhaps not as noticeable.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

CT17 said:


> OK, bit confused. :nervous:
> 
> Mine makes less at the top end and still spools later.
> This is why I want more in the midrange.


Looks like it's been very badly setup or mapped  no wonder you feel the need for more torque.


----------



## RBnutz (May 7, 2012)

Simonh said:


> I forget the exact figures but on the rb25 the standard tb is I think 65mm or 70mm, the additional surface area of the 90mm tb means that with a much smaller throttle pedal movement you have the ability to flow the same amount of air as WOT on the 70mm tb. This means that partial throttle is more difficult to control and you power feeds in much more brutally, which for a RWD isn't always ideal (for a street/track car) and this affects driveability. Couple that with a higher rpm power band and it does not make for a smooth driver experience.
> 
> on the rb26 with the multiple thottle plates I am sure the difference in surface area isn't as great to the single tb so perhaps not as noticeable.


Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't one of the reasons to go single TB on the RB26 to simplify the TB/plenum setup?

Like you say, the jump from the 70mm TB of the Rb25 the 90mm is maybe too great.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

Rain said:


> mmm well the -5 is a bigger turbo, personally things they are good for the 2.8 but if you are staying 2.6 i would have done N1
> 
> Why did you want to got for -5s on a 2.6 if your focus was midrange vs topend?
> 
> edit: If you are staying with the -5s, then your idea to work out the head and up the CC makes sense.


-5 on a 2.6 as demonstrated by Amervyns car works just fine spool up is very good. I guess a pair of GTSS or -9 would be a tad better if you want to sacrifice overall power and top end.


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

I still think its the cam selection but i dont know anything about engines


----------



## Saifskyline (May 19, 2013)

Just go for the RB30 package from RIPS job done the 3.0 will give you all the torque you need. Or have some proper head work along with some cams set in to your rb26 and you'll be away!


----------



## Simonh (May 24, 2002)

@RBnutz - yes and theoretically it is easier to map a single TB as opposed to multiple.

@Rain - I think you are right, cam selection here could make a big difference, though I think head work and cam change could make a bigger difference.


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

What about the exhaust system? If it's not completely free flowing it will hinder the turbos from spooling early.


----------



## markM3 (Jan 7, 2008)

I have a mine VX exhaust with an additional silencer fitted in place of the Cat to make it quiet for trackday and type b poncams.

Richard, have you got the original catlytic converter fitted? These can collapse restricting flow.

Try fitting a cat replacement pipe and see what happens. Maybe try on a dyno to prevent any engines damage if that is the problem.

If you still want a cat fitted, get a free flowing sports cat in there.

Cheers,

Mark


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

No, I'm not running a cat.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

Richard do you know what version of the poncams you had fitted? Coincidence but yours and Dans turbos had GTX wheels fitted and spool up is very late.. Are you not running -5 turbos then?


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Not off the top of my head FRR, no.


----------



## amervyn123 (Aug 11, 2012)

FRRACER said:


> It's Amervyns R33 with very good torque. He made 578 BHP and 510ftlb. Could have made more but he was scared to let Greg push beyond 7k on the dyno.
> 
> Tomei rods, pistons, n1 pump, 700cc injectors, power FC, tomei type B cams.


Interesting thread. 

BTW, that's my car FR is talking about and it was mapped about 2 weeks ago.
To be honest, I was quite surprised by the outcome also...i honestly didn't know what to expect.
Car has HPI elbows, HKS downpipe, stock intercooler, inlet/exhaust manifolds and stock gearbox. osg twin plate clutch. Made 578 at 1.4bar.

I am also quite curious about a 2.8 setup..maybe a plan for the future...


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

FRRACER said:


> Richard do you know what version of the poncams you had fitted? Coincidence but yours and Dans turbos had GTX wheels fitted and spool up is very late.. Are you not running -5 turbos then?



I didn't have gtx wheels and Richards were done by a different company to mine


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

It seems everyone thinks by adding a 2.8 your going to gain a lot but you won't.the best mods you can do is the cylinder head so your wasting your time if your thinking off a 2.8 and the same spec head


----------



## Saifskyline (May 19, 2013)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> It seems everyone thinks by adding a 2.8 your going to gain a lot but you won't.the best mods you can do is the cylinder head so your wasting your time if your thinking off a 2.8 and the same spec head


Exactly, if you're going for a 2.8, why not just stretch to the 3.0 and have an engine that will make a lot of torque at the same time have it built to take up some revs! although you won't have to rev that high with it :chuckle:


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

No mate an RB30 from rips is not the holy grail that you say it's a fix for everyone's problems. There is something not right in the setup of Richards engine be it cam timing turbos, boost leak or the mapping. As you can see from Amervyns car a well mapped car with the right level of mods can yield good results.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

If the 3.0 is the ultimate engine, why didn't Nismo use them in the 400R or Z-Tune or any limited edition cars for that matter? It's not like they didn't have access to ANY parts from the Nissan range.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> It seems everyone thinks by adding a 2.8 your going to gain a lot but you won't.the best mods you can do is the cylinder head so your wasting your time if your thinking off a 2.8 and the same spec head


I agree with Dan on this one. Amazing how everyone's answer for more torque is just to say go for an RB30 lol as a forum we seem to be so behind all the others car tuning communities people need to start thinking outside of the box and not what is being fed to them by people who have more to gain than customers.

I have first hand experience with a properly ported engine with inlet matching. Just this gained 43bhp and 52ft/lb more or less across the whole rev range. Ok it was not an RB but a C20LET but in the end the engine was making some 360ft/lb and 350bhp running a relativly mild setup by today's standards but the point I am trying to make look are other areas of an engine that can deliver torque gains and not think like everyone else and jump to buy and RB30!


----------



## David (Apr 25, 2003)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> It seems everyone thinks by adding a 2.8 your going to gain a lot but you won't.the best mods you can do is the cylinder head so your wasting your time if your thinking off a 2.8 and the same spec head


Not quite true, if you get full boost at 4k on a rb26, just due to the increased cylinder capacity 8% on a 2.8. Your boost threshold will also drop 8% so 3680rpm on a 2.8.

For a 3.0 3400rpm. It makes a few assumptions but it is common knowledge boost threshold is directly related to capacity


----------



## Calibrat (Jan 22, 2013)

Alot of it comes to funds

if you have funds to do a proper job the 30 is great, and to which most people do.
else there is not much point, i would guess.


----------



## David (Apr 25, 2003)

FRRACER said:


> I agree with Dan on this one. Amazing how everyone's answer for more torque is just to say go for an RB30 lol as a forum we seem to be so behind all the others car tuning communities people need to start thinking outside of the box and not what is being fed to them by people who have more to gain than customers.
> 
> I have first hand experience with a properly ported engine with inlet matching. Just this gained 43bhp and 52ft/lb more or less across the whole rev range. Ok it was not an RB but a C20LET but in the end the engine was making some 360ft/lb and 350bhp running a relativly mild setup by today's standards but the point I am trying to make look are other areas of an engine that can deliver torque gains and not think like everyone else and jump to buy and RB30!


I completely agree well ported heads offer good gains, but they are fricking expensive for a rb26 and I will probably finish my rb30 for less than the cost of a +1mm valved and ported head.

If these stock valve size heads are really that good I don't understand why amt ect don't publish some flow data showing how good their heads are in comparison to stock.


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

David said:


> Not quite true, if you get full boost at 4k on a rb26, just due to the increased cylinder capacity 8% on a 2.8. Your boost threshold will also drop 8% so 3680rpm on a 2.8.
> 
> For a 3.0 3400rpm. It makes a few assumptions but it is common knowledge boost threshold is directly related to capacity



I don't think it quite works like that, show me proof and il believe it untill then I don't.


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

David said:


> I completely agree well ported heads offer good gains, but they are fricking expensive for a rb26 and I will probably finish my rb30 for less than the cost of a +1mm valved and ported head.
> 
> If these stock valve size heads are really that good I don't understand why amt ect don't publish some flow data showing how good their heads are in comparison to stock.



They have to me! How is a ported head expensive? You obv don't use the right people amt do a brilliant job for a good price. You will finish your rb30 on a head what's to restrictive for a 2.6


----------



## Saifskyline (May 19, 2013)

FRRACER said:


> I agree with Dan on this one. Amazing how everyone's answer for more torque is just to say go for an RB30 lol as a forum we seem to be so behind all the others car tuning communities people need to start thinking outside of the box and not what is being fed to them by people who have more to gain than customers.
> 
> I have first hand experience with a properly ported engine with inlet matching. Just this gained 43bhp and 52ft/lb more or less across the whole rev range. Ok it was not an RB but a C20LET but in the end the engine was making some 360ft/lb and 350bhp running a relativly mild setup by today's standards but the point I am trying to make look are other areas of an engine that can deliver torque gains and not think like everyone else and jump to buy and RB30!


Im going to up the game a bit and say..































Go for the RB34.:chuckle:


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

David said:


> I completely agree well ported heads offer good gains, but they are fricking expensive for a rb26 and I will probably finish my rb30 for less than the cost of a +1mm valved and ported head.
> 
> If these stock valve size heads are really that good I don't understand why amt ect don't publish some flow data showing how good their heads are in comparison to stock.


Very odd statement Dave. Why would you not port your head and improve flow? The RB26 head while not bad has a lot of potential to flow very well.

I have no experience of AMT so cannot comment but Dan seems to be using their heads. How good a job varies on the person doing the porting and how skilful they are but also understanding flow dynamics


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

The thing is most people port heads they have no flow bench or experience with the rb heads, amt have ported rb heads time and time again and this joined with the dyno's and the years experience means they no exactly were they need it and were the gains are. To think a bad head and a rb30 is going to out perform a brilliant head and a 2.6 is just stupid end off.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> I don't think it quite works like that, show me proof and il believe it untill then I don't.


You make a whole pile of sweeping comments without giving any evidence, methinks this is a rich comment - though at the same time at least this time I agree with you, there is a lot of funny logic going on in regards to displacement comparisons here.... the whole picture is a LOT more complicated with way more variables in here, but the more I've got into it, the more I've liked the RB30 as a base.

One thing people seem to be missing here is the bigger the motor (while maintaining equivalent volumetric efficiency), the more the inherent torque for a given manifold pressure. 

A 3litre engine with 95% VE at 1atmosphere will be able to make around 15% more torque than a 2.6 at 1atmosphere. Go and shove 2.5atmospheres into each and the relative difference stays the same, but the absolute torque difference gets bigger which means a LOT in the real world. Now when it's universally agreed that the bigger motor will spool a fair bit better (just HOW MUCH which is debated) you have a situation where you are also getting more atmospheres into the bigger motor with all other things being equal, the power delivery difference becomes entertaining.

Trust me, it works this way - it doesn't take much thinking to realise it will. You can put a bigger laggier turbo onto a 3litre and not have to pay for it at all in comparison to a 2.6, its win win.


----------



## git-r (Nov 15, 2005)

CT17 said:


> OK, bit confused. :nervous:
> 
> Mine makes less at the top end and still spools later.
> This is why I want more in the midrange.


As requested here are my graphs. 1.1 bar, stock RB26, thicker head gasket and different cams. Apexi AXB5360 Turbos.

Over 350lb/ft before 4000 rpm and strong torque from there to about 6500rpm.



HP at the hubs. To estimate flywheel hp add 70bhp. So approx. 510 at flywheel but much stronger in the lower revs and at much less boost.




Without a proper launch as the clutch wouldn't take it and with the wind behind it, it did a 11.9 @125mph at santa pod. It's good on track too, certainly better than I am at driving it!


----------



## David (Apr 25, 2003)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> I don't think it quite works like that, show me proof and il believe it untill then I don't.


Physics says it must work like that, a turbo takes a certain amount of exhaust flow to produce boost, that exhaust flow is directly proportional to engine capacity.

So are you saying if I double the engine capacity you would not believe me the boost threshold would half?

If not why not it is simple maths and physics ?


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

^ I could be wrong, but this might be one of those examples where I try and point out that dyno plots can be a bit misleading.... I've seen a bunch of "amazing spool" plots from Abbey, and I (again could be wrong) seem to recall someone saying they do really slow, as in well over 10 second dyno pulls for tuning.

That's not a criticism of them, my memory also recalls the reason being for making sure the tune is safe for long heavy loading which sounds pretty kosher as a method if it works for them - but it does mean that the turbos get much more heat into the housings and more time for momentum of the rotating assemblies to build up (turbos spool is from exhaust energy versus time, not a direct ratio to engine rpm) so a slower run can exaggerate spool, and two identical performing cars can give quite different dyno plots when run differently. 

There could be a bit of both happening, of course - but again dynos can make the pictures hard to compare


----------



## David (Apr 25, 2003)

FRRACER said:


> Very odd statement Dave. Why would you not port your head and improve flow? The RB26 head while not bad has a lot of potential to flow very well.
> 
> I have no experience of AMT so cannot comment but Dan seems to be using their heads. How good a job varies on the person doing the porting and how skilful they are but also understanding flow dynamics


It is not odd, if a cylinder head company can really get say 20% more flow at a given lift why would you not show the evidence.

For me the fact these companies don't show any flow figures means they can't back up their claims.

It is very easy to put a flapper wheel down a port and make it look nice


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

David said:


> So are you saying if I double the engine capacity you would not believe me the boost threshold would half?
> 
> If not why not it is simple maths and physics ?


Because you don't have twice the capacity spooling the turbo but the smaller capacity ingesting the air moved by the turbo  

If it's the same size turbo, then the compressor will have to work harder to fill the same size engine - so while it has twice the displacement spooling it, the turbo also needs to move twice the air to fill the engine, and boost is effectively measuring how much restriction the engine is providing to the turbo's effort to move whatever air it is moving - since there is less restriction, there will be less boost for a given equivalent amount of effort from the turbo. More work has to be done by the turbo to reach the same boost level, but that also means that more will be got out of the turbo (ie, more air, more torque, more power...). This comes back to a previous point I made that you can put a larger turbo onto a bigger motor which gives the same boost response as a smaller engine/turbo setup, but stillresults in more power everywhere thanks to the extra displacement. This will basically give the feel of better response as there is always more available under foot 

Does that make sense? Apologies, I am really fricken tired so probably mincing my words a bit.... but this is another one of the most obvious variables being missed here.


----------



## David (Apr 25, 2003)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> They have to me! How is a ported head expensive? You obv don't use the right people amt do a brilliant job for a good price. You will finish your rb30 on a head what's to restrictive for a 2.6


Quite right I have been stung to many times with other engines which don't make any more power with a ported head, I will only now buy if the head is demonstrated to make the power or back to back flow data.

I am not worried about making the power, I'll make up for any deficit in head flow with extra duration and boost for 700 bhp I don't think a ported head is needed.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

David said:


> It is not odd, if a cylinder head company can really get say 20% more flow at a given lift why would you not show the evidence.
> 
> For me the fact these companies don't show any flow figures means they can't back up their claims.
> 
> It is very easy to put a flapper wheel down a port and make it look nice


I agree to an extent David, I would also ask to see figures as you know I seldom trust anyone on face value I like to vet their credentials and see if I can detect any bullshit. I have been caught out a couple of times by slippery types who talk the talk. Lots I have spoken to I realised they were talking out of their arse and didn't bother to entertain them.

It has been know for some tuners to put a flapper wheel in and make it all nice and shiny but the end results have been depressing. As said choose your engine builder wisely someone who knows his craft and not a pizza delivery man turned into an over night tuner.

That said Dan had had some impressive torque gains on a 2.6.


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

David said:


> Quite right I have been stung to many times with other engines which don't make any more power with a ported head, I will only now buy if the head is demonstrated to make the power or back to back flow data.
> 
> I am not worried about making the power, I'll make up for any deficit in head flow with extra duration and boost for 700 bhp I don't think a ported head is needed.



Your going to all the hassle of going 3.0 with a crap head what prob won't perform as good a 2.6 with a good head. Put a gt42 and compare it to rich amt engine? Conrad's rips rb30 didn't perform or spool a similar size turbo as well as rich's and why would that be? They were both mapped by the same person same dyno?


Sounds like you need to give Andy amt a call about cylinder heads and perhaps you will learn a thing or two he will show you flow figures before and after he does your head so there's no b/s there. Good luck trying to make a true 700bhp on a stock head on a dyno dynamics cause it won't happen


----------



## nailsgtr600 (Aug 2, 2007)

David said:


> I completely agree well ported heads offer good gains, but they are fricking expensive for a rb26 and I will probably finish my rb30 for less than the cost of a +1mm valved and ported head.
> 
> If these stock valve size heads are really that good I don't understand why amt ect don't publish some flow data showing how good their heads are in comparison to stock.


I'm using a stock valved head David with springs, retainers, biggish cams and a very mild port job compared to what we do now... 

I for one know the power it made on abbeys hub dyno and the timing it took it's flowing very well, we can still stick race fuel through it.. More boost and it will make over a 1000hp, it's not about power figures I know, but I'm confident if you drove my car you would be shocked at how friendly and nice to drive it actually is! It will out perform many 2.8's at a fraction of the cost... The port works around £900! With regards to flow figures we've posted some before.. We are happy to show any1 in person the benifits! 
When my cars back from the body shop I will post a video... 
9k rev limit... Limiter at least 6times in every gear! It really does come alive! 

Regards rich


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

A small update...

As I need the car a few times in October it's going into RK tuning in November so Ron can go through it.
Also the quote for a 2.8 kit shows it to be quite sensibly priced, as is a ported head.
Doing both appears significantly cheaper than an RB30 anyway.

To be honest I'd rather keep my Skyline's engine in a nice stock looking car than put an engine in from something else anyway.

So this works for me.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

I have to say Richard, it sounds a little like you're falling into the tuner trap. 

Without understanding why you're having the issues, it seems like you're willing to part with £1000s more to get what you wanted in the first place.


----------



## purleskyline (Feb 11, 2008)

Hi Richard,

I'm still running 2.6,standard head with a bit of porting,standard valves etc,not sure what cams,but high lift I believe.

Full boost etc quite late on,but I do rev to 9000 ish and together with getrac box,you will never be out of range on track.

Paul


----------



## purleskyline (Feb 11, 2008)

Hi Richard,

I'm still running 2.6,standard head with a bit of porting,standard valves etc,not sure what cams,but high lift I believe.

Full boost etc quite late on,but I do rev to 9000 ish and together with getrac box,you will never be out of range on track.

500ftlb from a 2.6

Paul


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

What turbo you on Paul? When do you see full boost?


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

matt j said:


> I have to say Richard, it sounds a little like you're falling into the tuner trap.
> 
> Without understanding why you're having the issues, it seems like you're willing to part with £1000s more to get what you wanted in the first place.


Personally I think I've overspecced the turbos because I wanted over 500bhp.
That was my only goal, probably a bit of an error there.
It's only now I've driven it that I've decided I want certain power/torque at certain places in the rev range.

Also if the engine ends up coming out to be checked it's going to be relatively cheap to make changes.

Anyone who knows RK will know how hard it is to get Ron to let you spend money.

So I don't agree.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

CT17 said:


> A small update...
> 
> As I need the car a few times in October it's going into RK tuning in November so Ron can go through it.
> Also the quote for a 2.8 kit shows it to be quite sensibly priced, as is a ported head.
> ...


Good choice Richard if you get them to sort your issues out so you make what is expected also a Nitto 2.7 kit is worth considering however the bad part of their kit is the use of JE Pistons not sure if the pistons are specifically specced for the 75.7mm stroke??

Sorry must have missed it but what turbos do you have -5 or n1?


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

FRRACER said:


> Good choice Richard if you get them to sort your issues out so you make what is expected also a Nitto 2.7 kit is worth considering however the bad part of their kit is the use of JE Pistons not sure if the pistons are specifically specced for the 75.7mm stroke??
> 
> Sorry must have missed it but what turbos do you have -5 or n1?


-5.


----------



## markM3 (Jan 7, 2008)

Hi Richard,

Can't upload dyno graph for some reason. PM me your email and I will email it over.

At 4000rpm it looks like I have about 100lb ft more torque than you.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

That is even more worrying why your graph looks the way it does more so as you already have a set of poncams so on paper it should be making boost a lot earlier than what it is making it at. Further more where did you get your billet wheel for the turbos from? Was it an exact size replacement or where they the bigger type? I know from experience there are many variants that can be used on the -5.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

markM3 said:


> Hi Richard,
> 
> Can't upload dyno graph for some reason. PM me your email and I will email it over.
> 
> At 4000rpm it looks like I have about 100lb ft more torque than you.


Mark ping across to me and I will upload it for you.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

FRRACER said:


> Further more where did you get your billet wheel for the turbos from? Was it an exact size replacement or where they the bigger type? I know from experience there are many variants that can be used on the -5.


Sitting here at work I have absolutely no idea...


----------



## AlexJ (Apr 3, 2003)

CT17 said:


> A small update...
> 
> As I need the car a few times in October it's going into RK tuning in November so Ron can go through it.
> Also the quote for a 2.8 kit shows it to be quite sensibly priced, as is a ported head.
> ...


So are you going to wait for Ron to look at any possible problems with your current setup before going for the 2.8? Like you say Ron usually says "nah you don't need it" so you will have twisted his arm just to quote for a 2.8. 

Does seem a shame to take apart a well built brand new 2.6 for the sake of what may well just be a booboo in the spec of the turbos. I'd want to see the dyno chart after swapping in a standard set of -5s and re-timing the poncams. There's no reason -5s shouldn't give you a decent mid range, only fractionally down on the -7 or -9s (which won't quite give you the top end you want).


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

CT17 said:


> Personally I think I've overspecced the turbos because I wanted over 500bhp.


But looking at what others are telling you, that is not your issue is it?
From what you've said, you don't actually know what your issue is but you now feel the solution is to go 2.8 with headwork. Also, why would you disregard what a tuner advised you and spec bigger turbos? Sorry, just seems a little odd to me from how you're explaining it. 



CT17 said:


> So I don't agree.


No worries, it's your car and your choice.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

AlexJ said:


> Does seem a shame to take apart a well built brand new 2.6 for the sake of what may well just be a booboo in the spec of the turbos. I'd want to see the dyno chart after swapping in a standard set of -5s and re-timing the poncams.


Valid point Alex, maybe that's an option.



matt j said:


> But looking at what others are telling you, that is not your issue is it?
> From what you've said, you don't actually know what your issue is but you now feel the solution is to go 2.8 with headwork. Also, why would you disregard what a tuner advised you and spec bigger turbos? Sorry, just seems a little odd to me from how you're explaining it.


I did say "personally I think" but until it's looked at I just won't know.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

Richard I would say go and speak to Ron and get to the bottom of your current issue before slashing out on 2.8 stroker kit. If the current build was not done right to begin with why waste money then only to find out your 2.8 setup will also be a poor one. 

You can buy all the best parts as you like but if the work is not done well or the map is poor you will not get the desired results. Plan things properly take on board advice from people here and question you tuner if he tries to take you down a path you don't understand. This tuning business is very complicated and if you don't they will eat you alive!


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

I think your taking this a bit far frracer. A well built bottom end is shown in reliability the power is made in the head. For what ever reason the head isn't working and as it's stock apart from cams it must be cam selection or timing. 

Have you tried playing with cam timing on rollers Richard? It might be worth trying as when I done it on my engine it brought torque in 700rpm earlier aswell as bringing turbo in sooner. It might be worth a try, falling that a 2.8 and ported head will make a lot better of a engine


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> Have you tried playing with cam timing on rollers Richard? It might be worth trying as when I done it on my engine it brought torque in 700rpm earlier aswell as bringing turbo in sooner. It might be worth a try, falling that a 2.8 and ported head will make a lot better of a engine


Hi Dan,

What you have to understand is that I am lacking in RB26 experience.
My last few quick cars were R35's where it's pretty much chequebook tuning as you can't do much yourself.

I am still learning.


----------



## David (Apr 25, 2003)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> Your going to all the hassle of going 3.0 with a crap head what prob won't perform as good a 2.6 with a good head. Put a gt42 and compare it to rich amt engine? Conrad's rips rb30 didn't perform or spool a similar size turbo as well as rich's and why would that be? They were both mapped by the same person same dyno?
> 
> 
> Sounds like you need to give Andy amt a call about cylinder heads and perhaps you will learn a thing or two he will show you flow figures before and after he does your head so there's no b/s there. Good luck trying to make a true 700bhp on a stock head on a dyno dynamics cause it won't happen


Yes I will use a stock head, just modified for high lift cams, as I explained I will use longer duration and higher lift. You don't seem to understand what this means.

A head will flow a given amount at a given lift, lift the valve further and it will flow more, hold the valve open with longer duration and it will also flow more.

A ported head will just give an additional % flow at a given lift. 

I'll reply to Lith later
(@rich very interested if you could post how much % flow improvement you can see, can you also explain why you don't openly publish flow figures)

To me the spec of your engine seems strange, if your head is that good you shouldn't need to use 280 degree cams and then you could get some further boost threshold improvements. I also cant understand why you would port the head and then not add an inlet manifold to sort out the airflow distribution problems of the rb26, then you could get more ignition in to take advantage of your revised combustion chambers.

There are many stock (just modded for lift) heads producing high 600's and into the low 700 bhps I am sure a few of them on a Dyno Dynamics RR search on SAU.

I'll post up result when I eventually get it built


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

Marks dyno graph


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

CT17 said:


> Hi Dan,
> 
> What you have to understand is that I am lacking in RB26 experience.
> My last few quick cars were R35's where it's pretty much chequebook tuning as you can't do much yourself.
> ...



Yes I'm the same I've only owned a rb26 for 10 months but have learned a lot. You should be able to get what you want out of your set up, failing that the 2.8 kit and ported head will make a huge difference will be mainly down to head but the 2.8 will help. 

Ron has been there and done it mate he knows what the gains will be


----------



## JTJUDGE (Nov 21, 2011)

purleskyline said:


> Hi Richard,
> 
> I'm still running 2.6,standard head with a bit of porting,standard valves etc,not sure what cams,but high lift I believe.
> 
> ...


Jees, almost nothing until 5000rpm, you need more capacity


----------



## AlexJ (Apr 3, 2003)

FRRACER said:


> Marks dyno graph


Slightly easier to read version of Marks from last year showing the effect of poncams I think - this one at the hubs so add 70ish for flywheel


----------



## JTJUDGE (Nov 21, 2011)

AlexJ said:


> Slightly easier to read version of Marks from last year showing the effect of poncams I think - this one at the hubs so add 70ish for flywheel


Am I reading that torque wrong


----------



## AlexJ (Apr 3, 2003)

JTJUDGE said:


> Am I reading that torque wrong


lol no replacement for displacement, its an RB70 

That's how Abbey tend to show iirc divide by the diff ratio 4.111 to get the "normal" torque.


----------



## markM3 (Jan 7, 2008)

Yep, one graph is dynodynamics which is estimated atf 480bhp & 405lb ft torque, whereas the Abbey plot (with poncams) is at the hubs and 440bhp.

Torque figure was 387 lb ft, so just shows different dynos, different day blah blah, but the curves are the same and that is the point. Something not right with the OPs.

Cheers,

Mark


----------



## purleskyline (Feb 11, 2008)

JTJUDGE said:


> Jees, almost nothing until 5000rpm, you need more capacity


Just goes to show,you can't read too much into dyno graphs.

Actual on road I'm at 1 bar at around 3600 and full boost 1.8 at around 4600 then singing all the way to around 8600


----------



## purleskyline (Feb 11, 2008)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> What turbo you on Paul? When do you see full boost?


Hi dan,running gt4094 with larger end? 1.05 I believe.

Actual on road full boost around 4600.

After that dyno run,next time I used car in anger it was boosting over 2.0 bar,we had to go out on road to fine tune map.

It was a lot different on road to dyno.


----------



## git-r (Nov 15, 2005)

Mark, yeah almost identical to mine but mine's about 1k revs higher up the rev range for peak power. Reckon mine would benefit a lot from some more boost, impressed the turbos seem to make around the same torque at same revs as yours. Impressive seeing as they're a bit bigger..  

Would be interested to see how our cars compare in a straight line, wonder if there'd be much difference? 

Saw yours on tue, looking nice and clean  what was it in for?


----------



## git-r (Nov 15, 2005)

purleskyline said:


> Hi dan,running gt4094 with larger end? 1.05 I believe.
> 
> Actual on road full boost around 4600.
> 
> ...


Show off 

Will you still be coming in the 33 on Sunday Paul? We're all placing our trust in you showing the 35's a thing or two


----------



## markM3 (Jan 7, 2008)

Hi Sam,

Some Bilstein coilovers being fitted to make me faster round the track than you!!! Joke!!!


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

CT17 said:


> -5.


heres my old r32 on -5s, stage 1 cams, 2.6 motor, a little head work nothing much, and just 1.2 bar of boost







I would be looking at cam timing and boost control, it does seem strange though because you have late spool low mid range power and low power in high rpm, normally with cam timing one is traded for the other. 


a 2.8 will not be a miracle cure its just another 7% displacement, at 1.6 bar of boost id expect a pair of -7s to be making about 500 hp as ive made 450 hp at 1.2 bar on them on a completely stock motor.


----------



## RSVFOUR (May 1, 2006)

For comparison a dyno of my car when it was 2.6 with the same the 2860-5s and tomei a cams . Figures are from Abbey so at the hubs. The gearing on the stagea is quite different so the torque figure is not as high as it looks compared to the other abbey dyno print outs .



admitidly the 2.8 has a flowed head and a link ecu but Ive driven both and the extra torque is like night and day


----------



## purleskyline (Feb 11, 2008)

git-r said:


> Show off
> 
> Will you still be coming in the 33 on Sunday Paul? We're all placing our trust in you showing the 35's a thing or two


Yeh Sam,I'll be in the trusty old r33,

Hope it's dry:runaway:


----------



## git-r (Nov 15, 2005)

Awesome 

Can I join the que for a passenger ride on a practice run?


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

Lol Sam,


Ive seen you twice at Silverstone both times you came, did a few laps and jetted off before I got the chance to say hello.


----------



## git-r (Nov 15, 2005)

Rain said:


> Lol Sam,
> 
> 
> Ive seen you twice at Silverstone both times you came, did a few laps and jetted off before I got the chance to say hello.


Lol are you sure? I've been twice and both times just for the afternoon and stayed till the very end! Not like me to just do a few laps 

In a grey 32... (Not the white one in my profile)


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> Your going to all the hassle of going 3.0 with a crap head what prob won't perform as good a 2.6 with a good head. Put a gt42 and compare it to rich amt engine? Conrad's rips rb30 didn't perform or spool a similar size turbo as well as rich's and why would that be? They were both mapped by the same person same dyno?


Been searching around for Rich's and couldn't find any dyno plots for it, you'd have to go quite wrong with one head and very right with another to make those results happen - where is Rich's results? I'm assuming it's the same turbo (like equivalent tech, at least), fuel etc? I also noticed that Conrad's tune was bailed due to a triggering issue, not sure if they got back onto sorting that or not - but until it has reliable triggering not too much can be read into it.

Anything you can do to a 26, you can do to a 30


----------



## Max Boost (Apr 9, 2010)

Lith, it wasn't the head that Rob supplied with the RB30. So ignore his post because he doesn't know wtf he's talking about and doesn't understand the concept of comparing apples with apples.


----------



## Max Boost (Apr 9, 2010)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> I've only owned a rb26 for 10 months but have learned a lot



No!!.......You've learnt sweet f.a.!!


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

Lith said:


> Anything you can do to a 26, you can do to a 30


How many 30s Rev past 10k RPM?


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

git-r said:


> Lol are you sure? I've been twice and both times just for the afternoon and stayed till the very end! Not like me to just do a few laps
> 
> In a grey 32... (Not the white one in my profile)


not recently, maybe early in the year im pretty sure it was you, only 32 in a group on misc. cars, i was in a black big wing gtr puttering around :chuckle:


----------



## git-r (Nov 15, 2005)

I remember aww shame I didn't meet you... Are you going to snetterton on Sunday?


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

Sadly no, life is in the way, i most likely will be sticking to SS days and even then most likely only during future business trips to the area.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Max Boost said:


> Lith, it wasn't the head that Rob supplied with the RB30. So ignore his post because he doesn't know wtf he's talking about and doesn't understand the concept of comparing apples with apples.


Argh. I've seen too many "fact" posts from him where things have been skewed because of bad data, enthusiasm is there though - hopefully the advice and "fact" sharing becomes less counter-productive over time, I don't think it's deliberate. 



matt j said:


> How many 30s Rev past 10k RPM?


I meant in terms of development and results. Revving past 10,000rpm I tend to think of as something one would resort to as opposed to aspiring to when speccing an engine setup to extracting a given performance target.

In saying that, I don't know that many RBs which have done it, but a solid percentage are actually RB30s so it's hardly that it can't be done - but the times the RB30s have done it has been to do with squeezing every last mph out of a given gear.

Import drag racing is getting ultra serious now, it's a really good way of seeing how much people are squeezing out of given engine platforms - I'm not holding my breathe for a swathe of <85mm stroke engines with r/s ratios <1.65 to suddenly start getting anywhere near the front runners. The only 6s RBs in the world are RB30+, as with the only RBs to have done over 200mph, and in the not too distant future the quickest GTR outright will also be 3+litres. 

The reason the 2.6-2.8 have done as well as they have is purists (and btw I have no issue with this) who just "want" to have them have spent shittonnes of money on squeezing every last ounce out of them, which is understandable. "Wanting" something based on the stock block or close to stock stroke is a completely valid reason, and I'd never debate that - it's when people get confused that all the good results mean that they're somehow actually better with less kindof confounds me.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

Why should an engine be specced for drag? Why should everyone be recommended to move away from the 2.6 or even a 2.8 and mess around with an OZ RB30? It is not a straight swap and involves messing around with various things cutting bonnet support, adapter place amongst other things to make it compatible. Anyway this whole OZ RB30 thing has be discussed hundreds of times here.

If I wanted more torque I would go for a full port job on the head, if I want more torque I would go for a 2.7, if I still want more I would give up with a Skyline and buy a Supra TT


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

FRRACER said:


> Why should an engine be specced for drag? Why should everyone be recommended to move away from the 2.6 or even a 2.8 and mess around with an OZ RB30?
> 
> If I wanted more torque I would go for a full port job on the head, if I want more torque I would go for a 2.7, if I still want more I would give up with a Skyline and buy a Supra TT


Good response, I ultimately agree with everything you have said - if you pay attention to my post and who I was responding to (ie: someone who mentioned 10,000rpm) you'll see I wasn't telling everyone to go RB30, nor was I saying that kind of thing is what I think should be aimed for... but if you are going balls to the wall then.... if that makes sense?

It all comes down to what you want, I was just saying what is the outright pinnacle of what you CAN do with RBs if you want the best of everything. There is a bunch of stuff to weigh up if you are building a GTR, and I said in that previous post if you don't want to deviate too much from what you started with then there is no way I'd debate with that. No matter what you do, if you choose the right combination you're hardly going to end up with a lemon - but I just like the idea of the right choices being made for the right reasons.

I'd personally far sooner an RB30 GTR than a Supra, or a RB27 GTR, doesn't mean I'd enjoy it any more or less than you - but I at least know how and why it's going to perform and what it's potential is, and by the sound of it you will too. I just pipe up when I think there is misinformation being spread and I'm in a debatey kind of mood


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

Lith said:


> Good response, I ultimately agree with everything you have said - if you pay attention to my post and who I was responding to (ie: someone who mentioned 10,000rpm) you'll see I wasn't telling everyone to go RB30, nor was I saying that kind of thing is what I think should be aimed for... but if you are going balls to the wall then.... if that makes sense?
> 
> It all comes down to what you want, I was just saying what is the outright pinnacle of what you CAN do with RBs if you want the best of everything. There is a bunch of stuff to weigh up if you are building a GTR, and I said in that previous post if you don't want to deviate too much from what you started with then there is no way I'd debate with that. No matter what you do, if you choose the right combination you're hardly going to end up with a lemon - but I just like the idea of the right choices being made for the right reasons.
> 
> I'd personally far sooner an RB30 GTR than a Supra, or a RB27 GTR, doesn't mean I'd enjoy it any more or less than you - but I at least know how and why it's going to perform and what it's potential is, and by the sound of it you will too. I just pipe up when I think there is misinformation being spread and I'm in a debatey kind of mood


Yes good points there and I can see the other side too. 

This tuning is a crazy game, I find it sad that people spend their hard earned or easy earned and they are disappointed with the results. 

I would absolutely agree that you need to have a clear plan of your objectives and then go out and realise them, but same time choose your builder/mapper carefully because I do not know about the OZ/NZ - you guys do have a lot of very skilled people there, even though I do not agree with RIPS bashing out RB30s and all the hype and hysteria around it, Robbie is a very skilled genius!

Here in the UK one minute a guy is a pizza delivery guy or working as a barman serving beer and next minute he becomes an "expert" tuner - that is a joke lol but you know what I am getting at, the blind leading the blind - wowed by huge bhp figures, but the car drive like shit - no one achieves anything and ultimately the customer loses out.


----------



## Silver R (Apr 23, 2013)

FRRACER said:


> Yes good points there and I can see the other side too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This sadly happens all over the tuning game not just the skyline scene. So sad but so very true and so many have made a lot of money by deceiving people


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

Lith said:


> Been searching around for Rich's and couldn't find any dyno plots for it, you'd have to go quite wrong with one head and very right with another to make those results happen - where is Rich's results? I'm assuming it's the same turbo (like equivalent tech, at least), fuel etc? I also noticed that Conrad's tune was bailed due to a triggering issue, not sure if they got back onto sorting that or not - but until it has reliable triggering not too much can be read into it.
> 
> Anything you can do to a 26, you can do to a 30



Conrad's had a big valve head tomei 290 11.5 cams on syvecs and amt trigger kit t51 spl, Rich is 2.6 standard valves 280 10.8 cams syvecs and trigger kit gt4202. So apples to apples Conrad's had 5 times the amount spent on the engine. Rich drove both cars ask him what he thought of the 2.

If his opinion was the other way round I would build a nitto 3.2 but I can't justify the money.


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

My RB26 with -5s and Poncams










And my RB30 with an BW 8374 EFR turbo (too small, hence the weird curves) and 280deg cams (the wrong cams for the turbo, would be better with some 260s)
The drivability and response is night and day different.....and there is heaps of room for improvement


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

Lith said:


> In saying that, I don't know that many RBs which have done it, but a solid percentage are actually RB30s so it's hardly that it can't be done - but the times the RB30s have done it has been to do with squeezing every last mph out of a given gear.


I used 10,000 rpm specifically for a reason Lith.

That reason is piston speed, take an RB26/28 to 10,000 rpm and you are still below the 'considered' safe piston speed, the RB30 is 3.3 m/s beyond the safe limit, so all things are not equal.

10,250 rpm would be the maximum safe rpm for piston speed on a 26/28 where it's only 8,850 on an RB30.


----------



## RSVFOUR (May 1, 2006)

deleted post


----------



## Saifskyline (May 19, 2013)

Anyone used or using a BW S366 or similar on a Rb26? If you do then it would be nice if you posted up your engine spec, the tuner and a dyno graph.


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

Saifskyline said:


> Anyone used or using a BW S366 or similar on a Rb26? If you do then it would be nice if you posted up your engine spec, the tuner and a dyno graph.


Gts-Tom is running the boost lab s366 on his r32 mate


----------



## Saifskyline (May 19, 2013)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> Gts-Tom is running the boost lab s366 on his r32 mate


Cheers Dan, Mine arrived in the post this morning


----------



## R32 Combat (Jan 29, 2004)

matt j said:


> I used 10,000 rpm specifically for a reason Lith.
> 
> That reason is piston speed, take an RB26/28 to 10,000 rpm and you are still below the 'considered' safe piston speed, the RB30 is 3.3 m/s beyond the safe limit, so all things are not equal.
> 
> 10,250 rpm would be the maximum safe rpm for piston speed on a 26/28 where it's only 8,850 on an RB30.


Where is the 'safe limit' documented?

Piston weight is more of a limiting factor.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

25m/s is 'considered' the safe limit on any internal combustion engine in general (even F1 stay below this threshold). Only 2 manufactures have exceeded this in production cars according to google; only just exceeded as well. It's not hard and fast but a rule of thumb hence saying 'considered'.

Agreed, piston weight is one factor but by no means the only factor or the limiting factor, especially considering 28+m/s.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

matt j said:


> I used 10,000 rpm specifically for a reason Lith.
> 
> That reason is piston speed, take an RB26/28 to 10,000 rpm and you are still below the 'considered' safe piston speed, the RB30 is 3.3 m/s beyond the safe limit, so all things are not equal.
> 
> 10,250 rpm would be the maximum safe rpm for piston speed on a 26/28 where it's only 8,850 on an RB30.


This is ridiculous, you aren't reading what I am saying - and then acting like I need to have it explained to me... when you have completely missed the point of what I've said, and what the benefits are. Who gives a crap about average piston speed? And when is the official documentation saying what you have mentioned is correct? Do you realise that a constant velocity means there is no force acting on something, but at the same time a reciprocating mass is NEVER at a steady velocity - so your magic number means next to nothing when you have all kinds of different forces acting on an engine depending on the tune, the rods, pistons, crank etc design? 

I'm not going to bother with anything else in here after this because it seems most of you have made up your mind and can't be reasoned with - but I can't feel like I haven't tried to add something to counter the ridiculous misinformation people feed each other on this topic either, so here's a graph to explain it. Surprisingly enough, pistons actually are continually accelerating and decelerating up and down a bore - not just hooning along at a given velocity. An engine revving higher needs to accelerate and decelerate more, f=ma, W=Fd means that the more rpm an engine is required to do to maintain an equivalent "piston speed" the more work that engine has to do, meaning more stress on everything.

Here is a graph to show how much acceleration pistons on different RB cranks will sustain to match the same distance covered by a Nissan RB30 in a single engine cycle. 

edit: This forum is a fail, it made the full size image tiny. 

Blue = RB26
Red = RB28
Green = OSGiken RB30
Purple = Nissan RB30

At exactly the same "piston speed" an RB26 is doing roughly 15% more work than an RB30, needs more aggressive head work to do that (so even at the same rpm the head is getting more punishment), basically everything is less usable and more punishing. Each to their own in what they prefer, but it's worth getting a clearer picture of whats going on imho.

I hope putting that together wasn't a waste of time, but either way - with that I'm out as I don't mean to turn it into a battle.


----------



## Conrad (Jul 29, 2004)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> Conrad's had a big valve head tomei 290 11.5 cams on syvecs and amt trigger kit t51 spl, Rich is 2.6 standard valves 280 10.8 cams syvecs and trigger kit gt4202. So apples to apples Conrad's had 5 times the amount spent on the engine. Rich drove both cars ask him what he thought of the 2.
> 
> If his opinion was the other way round I would build a nitto 3.2 but I can't justify the money.


To be fair I never got my RB30 setup how I wanted it, I had a mismatch of products somewhere which was affecting performance. Max boost is correct in that it wasn't the RIPS head on there either.

The HKS turbo was old technology and laggy compared to Rich's GT4202.


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

Conrad said:


> To be fair I never got my RB30 setup how I wanted it, I had a mismatch of products somewhere which was affecting performance. Max boost is correct in that it wasn't the RIPS head on there either.
> 
> The HKS turbo was old technology and laggy compared to Rich's GT4202.



Why was it a mismatch of parts Conrad? You had exactly the same head work done as the original head,by pet Whitfield with big valves 290 11.5 cams ? 

A hks t51 spl is a garrett gt4202 look at the specs of the turbos they are exactly the same size. Yours and rich's cars made the same power on the dyno dynamics so why isn't rich raving about rb30s then?


----------



## David (Apr 25, 2003)

There are plent of rb26's producing crap results, just because conrads didn't produce the numbers does not mean all rb30's are crap.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

Lith said:


> This is ridiculous, you aren't reading what I am saying - and then acting like I need to have it explained to me... when you have completely missed the point of what I've said, and what the benefits are. Who gives a crap about average piston speed?


Engine designers give a crap, I used F1 as an example, why do they care, they have all the technology at their finger tips.



Lith said:


> And when is the official documentation saying what you have mentioned is correct?


I said rule of thumb but obviously that translates to you as 'official document'. 



Lith said:


> Do you realise that a constant velocity means there is no force acting on something, but at the same time a reciprocating mass is NEVER at a steady velocity - so your magic number means next to nothing when you have all kinds of different forces acting on an engine depending on the tune, the rods, pistons, crank etc design?


I'm well aware of what mean piston speed is and the affects it has on the engine.
So tell me, why don't engine manufacturers develop engines with over 25m/s mean piston speed if it's so easy to do on an RB30, the holy grail of engines you're making it out to be?



Lith said:


> I'm not going to bother with anything else in here after this because it seems most of you have made up your mind and can't be reasoned with - but I can't feel like I haven't tried to add something to counter the ridiculous misinformation people feed each other on this topic either, so here's a graph to explain it. Surprisingly enough, pistons actually are continually accelerating and decelerating up and down a bore - not just hooning along at a given velocity. An engine revving higher needs to accelerate and decelerate more, f=ma, W=Fd means that the more rpm an engine is required to do to maintain an equivalent "piston speed" the more work that engine has to do, meaning more stress on everything.


You missed the point entirely.



Lith said:


> At exactly the same "piston speed" an RB26 is doing roughly 15% more work than an RB30, needs more aggressive head work to do that (so even at the same rpm the head is getting more punishment), basically everything is less usable and more punishing. Each to their own in what they prefer, but it's worth getting a clearer picture of whats going on imho.
> 
> I hope putting that together wasn't a waste of time, but either way - with that I'm out as I don't mean to turn it into a battle.


So build a deck plate and make it an RB35, that would be a better solution then wouldn't it, I mean after all, you're only talking about a %age of work being done so just make that %age less and it'll solve everything right?


----------



## RSVFOUR (May 1, 2006)

using that argument along with your thoughts that the 26 are better because they rev easier why dont you cut the cc down to 2.3 and it will rev its nuts off ?

Clearly thats silly but no more than your rb35 thoughts.

In reality unless you are taking the engine tune to the edge (which hardly anyone does) RBs work well enough (enough is the key ) within a reasonable range of bore/stroke ratios

You can talk about piston speed ,mass , conrod lengths etc etc but again as long the engine isnt being pushed to the edge those parameters are not going to make the engine go bang or change the fact that a larger engine will spool up any turbo quicker than a smaller one at the same revs with the same spec.
That means more power lower down .


which was what CT was looking for.


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

Richard, sell the car and buy a corvette.


----------



## Simonh (May 24, 2002)

Rain said:


> Richard, sell the car and buy a corvette.


finally some sense in this thread!


----------



## JTJUDGE (Nov 21, 2011)

Better yet, a dodge viper, then stroke the stupid 8ltr to 8.6 and everything will be sorted


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

lol and full circle back to rb26 vs rb30 again. 

it takes no thinking about, with a correctly specced 3.0 it will make more power and spool quicker than a 2.6, that is just physics its not a discussion. 


but a well specced 2.6 will still be a decent motor. 

Richard honestly if your engine is healthy personally I would make 100% sure your boost control is all operating correctly and your cam timing is set up for midrange power, and have your turbos rerworked with the latest lightest most efficient wheels. 


for 500hp you don't need a 2.8 or a 3.0 you just need to get your set up properly, if you just stuff a 2.8 or a 3.0 bottom end on your motor it wont be a miracle cure it will still be laggy, there is an issue that needs finding. 


I rebuild/maintain lots of big diesel engines but the exact same principles apply faults MUST be found before anything can be rectified otherwise you end up throwing money at a problem and not actually fixing the issue instead trying to improve things around the issue. 


with a good setup and aiming for 500 hp with a 2.6 you should see full boost by 4000 rpm, I had a gt40 on a 2.6 running 710 hp and even that made full boost before 5000 rpm on the road, something is wrong mate 100% and it needs to be rectified before you do anything else.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

RSVFOUR said:


> using that argument along with your thoughts that the 26 are better because they rev easier why dont you cut the cc down to 2.3 and it will rev its nuts off ?


Why not have both, higher cc and the ability to rev safely though?

As most have said, in his position, all being considered, I think the RB28 route is best suited to his needs.



RSVFOUR said:


> You can talk about piston speed ,mass , conrod lengths etc etc but again as long the engine isnt being pushed to the edge those parameters are not going to make the engine go bang or change the fact that a larger engine will spool up any turbo quicker than a smaller one at the same revs with the same spec.
> That means more power lower down.


Richard is taking his car to the track, he'll be using it on track days, surely that means by definition he'll be pushing the engine hard? Horses for courses as they say but don't try and constantly ram the RB30 down everyone's throat when it is only 1 route, there are other options which are better suited to his plans in my opinion (but that's all it is, my opinion nothing else).


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

David said:


> That is complete crap, torque is what accelerates a car/ engine, if an engine makes more torque it will out accelerate an engine of lesser torque no matter what the rod angle.


Torque is not measured against time so you cannot correlate acceleration with torque numbers.

Cylinder output (or BMEP) is the real force that you take into account, and it is the engine's ability to climb in RPM that determines acceleration (RPM/C). 

The shorter stroke means quicker cycle-to-cycle times, it is more inclined to rise in RPM faster.

There is a limit to how short a stroke you can get away with due to how flame propagation behaves and gas flow/gas intake vs time, but generally the RB26 and 1JZ-GTE have shorter strokes and can out punch many so called torquey engines when it comes to actual on-the-road acceleration.


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

JTJUDGE said:


> All time attack newage Subaru have de stroked engines for higher revs ! The 2.1 and De stroked 2.3 is much better than the 2.5


Fantastic, along with the Mines R34-GTR, yet another example of a team who actually understands the benefits of a shorter piston stroke!


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Lith said:


> There seems to be quite a bit of misinterpretation or misinformation in this thread, but this one wins the prize! Well done. Don't tell people this anymore until you have actually tried a 2.6, 2.8 and 3.0 litre with the same turbo setups, boost levels etc side by side to confirm - it's clear you haven't by the way, because otherwise you wouldn't have said that.


I played against a few healthy cars of similar size/weight that made more factory stock torque and HP than my old R33, and my 1JZ Soarer did - yet they couldn't out accelerate me and in some cases I got ahead of them!

I owned, driven and modified some cars that made big torque and HP numbers yet never quite match the acceleration of a good RB26 or 1JZ car unless it was grossly more powerful. 

It is the RPM increase over time that counts..... torque and HP belongs on the dyno where the RPM 'sweep-rate' can be tailored to suit the engine to give you the flattering numbers your monies have paid for ...


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

RSVFOUR said:


> using that argument along with your thoughts that the 26 are better because they rev easier why dont you cut the cc down to 2.3 and it will rev its nuts off ?


Because you are decreasing displacement and this requires more boost pressure (or even larger turbo) to compensate. 

Secondly the stroke is bang on perfect between the 70-73 mm range, you need sufficient stroke to allow flame propagation to develop and for efficient breathing over the RPMs the engine will operate, yet short enough for it to process into the next cycle.

McLaren mp4-12c V8 twin turbo has a stroke of 69mm, and based on its tall gearing, torque, HP and weight figures, it mysteriously shits on some of its big torque/HP rivals in a simple rolling drag race.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

Matt is right with his thoughts 25m/s is at the maximum of the optimum operating window. F1 could exceed that they have all technology behind them and use of better materials bit they did not go beyond 25 on their previous 2.4 V8 engines revving to 19000. Then to say that an RB30 is the best engine out there you need to carefully define why it is the best? Yes it will give better torque but what else? I see no other advantage and a 2.8 stroker with a ported head would be a more cleaner setup to get that extra torque. What would be interesting is to have a 2.8 stroker with a ported head tested against a RB30 non ported but rest of a similar tune and same turbos and see how much difference is in the final torque figures. I am confident it would not be a huge amount.


----------



## git-r (Nov 15, 2005)

Rain said:


> Richard, sell the car and buy a corvette.


:chuckle::chuckle::bowdown1:

Can't believe how serious people get about this.

Pistols at dawn chaps to see who's right


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

scoooby slayer said:


> lol and full circle back to rb26 vs rb30 again.
> 
> it takes no thinking about, with a correctly specced 3.0 it will make more power and spool quicker than a 2.6, that is just physics its not a discussion.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## RSVFOUR (May 1, 2006)

Matt if you read my posts I have said fit a 28. (we agree) In fact Ive never really mentioned the 30

Also what I said in the post youve quoted was if the 26 motor is being tuned to the limit - thats is worlds apart from someone taking a 500 bhp 26 and driving it hard




Ps great entertainment


----------



## Conrad (Jul 29, 2004)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> Why was it a mismatch of parts Conrad? You had exactly the same head work done as the original head,by pet Whitfield with big valves 290 11.5 cams ?
> 
> A hks t51 spl is a garrett gt4202 look at the specs of the turbos they are exactly the same size. Yours and rich's cars made the same power on the dyno dynamics so why isn't rich raving about rb30s then?


Unfortunately it isn't that simple, who can say the headwork that Pete did is as good as the original head that RIPS did? There is so much involved in head work, port shape, port size, valve seat angles, combustion chamber size and shape, squish profile etc etc There is no way Pete could of replicated everything or anything for that matter that was on my original RIPS head as he didn't have access to it.

As for the turbos, comparing the T51R SPL against a 4202 is like comparing an apple with a pear, they are not the same. I have spoken with Owen Developments about it and the Cores are different as is the aero of the compressor and turbine wheels, you cannot just say they are the same based on wheel sizes being be same.

As for mine, we pushed it as far as we dare on Vpower, (2 bar), the turbo was only just getting going at this boost. Had we tried race fuel and upped the boost then it would of been a different story I suspect.


----------



## markM3 (Jan 7, 2008)

Chaps, we are losing sight of what the op wants, more torque.

It appears that his RB26 is not producing as much torque & power as similarly specced ones. So first let's see if there is a relatively cheap to rectify issue with the engine. If there is and the curves improve, Richard may be happy with that before tearing it apart to increase capacity.

Cheers,

Mark


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

Conrad said:


> Unfortunately it isn't that simple, who can say the headwork that Pete did is as good as the original head that RIPS did? There is so much involved in head work, port shape, port size, valve seat angles, combustion chamber size and shape, squish profile etc etc There is no way Pete could of replicated everything or anything for that matter that was on my original RIPS head as he didn't have access to it.
> 
> As for the turbos, comparing the T51R SPL against a 4202 is like comparing an apple with a pear, they are not the same. I have spoken with Owen Developments about it and the Cores are different as is the aero of the compressor and turbine wheels, you cannot just say they are the same based on wheel sizes being be same.
> 
> As for mine, we pushed it as far as we dare on Vpower, (2 bar), the turbo was only just getting going at this boost. Had we tried race fuel and upped the boost then it would of been a different story I suspect.




Conrad a t51 spl is a 1000hp turbo so to make 780bhp at 2bar isn't great is it, the rb30 just run out off puff. If pete Whitfield wasn't good at what he does why did you give him your brand new head casting to port? How much did you spend on that engine 20k how much was spent on rich's? Lol. Rich's and your car made the same power so why wasn't rich blown away with the massive torque from the rb30?? 

The 2 specialist people I no what have experienced the nz rb30 havnt been blown away so that's a big enough reason for me to advise people not to bother and just get amt to port there head on the 2.6


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> Conrad a t51 spl is a 1000hp turbo so to make 780bhp at 2bar isn't great is it


It's perfectly fine if that's all the supporting mods will allow. Just because something has a maximum duty rating doesn't mean it should run at that.


----------



## JTJUDGE (Nov 21, 2011)

TAZZMAXX said:


> It's perfectly fine if that's all the supporting mods will allow. Just because something has a maximum duty rating doesn't mean it should run at that.


I agree to a certain point. My turbos are rated to around 800is hp but my injectors are only 750cc hence to respective power. Having a car produce 100hp less than it can is better in my opinion anyway. No point in pushing everything to its limits

that said, why buy a 1000hp turbo to only run 700 :wavey: future plans maybe or more money than sense


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

First of all the RB26 in its 2.6 litre guise can be made to produce a good level of torque if the engine is specced and built correctly. Having seen some producing over 500 ft/lb, that is not a weak figure by any means for an RB26 which produces around the 600bhp mark. No point over doing it, and using parts that will degrade performance.

There is clearly some inherent issue with either the build (unlikely) boost leak issue, cam timing not right, or the billet wheel used is too big a size and has affected spool up.


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

markM3 said:


> Chaps, we are losing sight of what the op wants, more torque.
> 
> It appears that his RB26 is not producing as much torque & power as similarly specced ones. So first let's see if there is a relatively cheap to rectify issue with the engine. If there is and the curves improve, Richard may be happy with that before tearing it apart to increase capacity.
> 
> ...


Mark, If you read back i think CT17 has made he choice, and the rest of the people here are just beating a dead horse lol.

Just sit back and let this keep going, maybe everyone will finally agree that a 20+ year old engine design isnt that great anyway...opcorn:


----------



## markM3 (Jan 7, 2008)

Good point Ryan, well made!

Just to add, your silver 32 is one of my favourites, a beautifully specced car.


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

Rain said:


> Just sit back and let this keep going, maybe everyone will finally agree that a 20+ year old engine design isnt that great anyway...opcorn:


Yup, as much as people bang on on what is best, the RB is a big old heavy slug of a motor, and in comparison to a lot of modern cylinder heads they are not the best.....in a car that the weight balance isn't great.

There is no replacement for displacement, the new GT-R has 1.2ltrs over the old one.....pretty much every manufacturer that makes performance cars has put bigger engines or added turbos in their latest versions of their given cars (bar the hybrid Hypercars of course)

......but for the money, what could I buy that has 700hp that offers such an entertaining drive? I love my old slug of an R32 GT-R


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

Hey never said there is no love, I have multiple cars currently in a state of build that i love love love!

But arguing about which old motor is better than which other old motor, when the OP has already made the choice that suites him, is what i mean lol.

I have giant love for the even older and probably worse (by todays standards) S20, so there is no hate on the RB from me. people just need to chillax!


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Rain said:


> Mark, If you read back i think CT17 has made he choice, and the rest of the people here are just beating a dead horse lol.


I have to say, it has been a most interesting thread though.

When my head comes off, it's going to AMT.


opcorn:


----------



## kociek (Jul 18, 2011)

CT17 said:


> I have to say, it has been a most interesting thread though.
> 
> When my head comes off, it's going to AMT.
> 
> ...



Great choice AMT did a really amazing job on mine at reasonable price to


----------



## BOB GTR34 (Apr 29, 2013)

CT17 said:


> I have to say, it has been a most interesting thread though.
> 
> When my head comes off, it's going to AMT.
> 
> ...



Andy & Rich are top guys my 34's currently with them having work done on the head and forging the bottom end, They're always on the other end of the phone if i need any advice. 

You'll be in good hands.

If you want when my cars back your more than welcome to have a look & i'll take you for a drive.

Regards
Bob


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

CT17 said:


> I have to say, it has been a most interesting thread though.
> 
> When my head comes off, it's going to AMT.
> 
> ...



Good choice Richard you won't be disappointed


----------



## airseating (Mar 19, 2014)

I have been reading posts all over and waiting too hear what blokes think about their builds and I have not read one post where a bloke that has gone from a 26 to a 27,28,29,30 or 3.2 has ever gone back to a 26 and the blokes that have done this do all sorts of driving, road,track and drag and 100% have stayed with the build or gone higher.
I am going with a RB30 / Nitto 3.2 stroker kit and cannot wait to get it back and feel the response


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

I have driven a 2.6 2.7 and a 2.8 for track use I would use a well sorted 2.6 everytime however a Nitto 2.7 crank is tempting and would easily consider this option with out going over the ideal mps.

Road use a 2.8 would be good for everyday road use and Tomei are doing great prices on their stroker kits that said you can get a 2.6 with over 500ft/lb of torque with correct mods so there is no need to go to 3.0 RB30 and make compromises in many areas.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

airseating said:


> I am going with a RB30 / Nitto 3.2 stroker kit and cannot wait to get it back and feel the response


Can't say I've heard of a 3.2 before.


----------



## K66 SKY (Jan 25, 2005)

FRRACER said:


> *so there is no need to go to 3.0 RB30 and make compromises in many areas.*


The RB30 option is something that has always made me think to myself _"Why didn't Nissan/Nismo use it"_ because it would have been easy and cheaper for them to do so but instead for the BCNR33 they used a 2.8L Reinik RB-XGT2 in their 400R's and another 2.8L unit in their last of the line BNR34 Nismo Z-tune 2's....

Not wishing to add fuel to the fire but someone must know the answer??


----------



## airseating (Mar 19, 2014)

Thats interesting and when I come to think of t I probably was looking for the positives for strokers.
Probably many think the same way as you and whatever works for you is great but from what I have been able to find out and blokes I have spoken to, they would never go back to a 2.6.
I guess like you and others that love your 2.6, these stroker blokes are like minded, all good 
I am sure the same thing applies with the stroker builds, they also have to be well balanced to get the best out of them.One bloke spent heaps on his head to get what he wanted from his 3.0 stroker.

If you have a car with more torque/response in every gear and can still rev, well using less revs , it has to be a win win for driver and motor.


BUT for me I will take a 3.2 stroker build for a DD as I love that extra grunt without revving the crap out of your car, not a good look on the road (great sound)and blokes with stoker builds from 2.8 up to 3.2 say they are not only better as a DD but for track as wel.

What makes the 2.6 better than, say, half way to a 2.9 , say both being well balanced with mods to get the best out of them?


----------



## airseating (Mar 19, 2014)

I will qualify my knowledge about cars, basically "Zero compared to most blokes on your site" BUT I think when they did the first Rs with the 2.6 they had something they wanted to do in the industry and they had plenty of success and Godzilla was born.

The factory Nismo Z 2.8 Z was about 370 awkw and pretty quick out of the factory

It is now 2014 and motors and cars are going quick from the showroom floor, unmodified at lower prices.

The R32 was not just a motor, it was a great package, I have an R34GTR but I still think the 32/33 look better ??


----------



## Calibrat (Jan 22, 2013)

The big debate

My engine is bigger then yours
My penis is bigger then yours


----------



## airseating (Mar 19, 2014)

Hi CT17
It is a NItto 3.2Lt and some blokes are enjoying the ride. They can still rev but you do not have to take them over 8k as they have a lot of torque to get you spooled earlier with a more linear acceleration .

Not everyones choice but have a look at some on the web. Nitto,Nitto 2 or MGWOT. There are a few around and an interesting read


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

CT17 said:


> Can't say I've heard of a 3.2 before.


Think that may a bit too much for an RB 26


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

Calibrat said:


> The big debate
> 
> My engine is bigger then yours
> My penis is bigger then yours


How do you know ?

I may have seen your engine BUT you aint seen my Penis !!!!


----------



## airseating (Mar 19, 2014)

haha, not a matter of a bigger penis , though I would like one  Shit even one that works would be great 

For me it is how it drives as a DD. I like the feeling of a grunty car and the quicker it gets going the more I like it, small dick or not


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

Stroke your penis if you want it to match your stroker :chuckle:


----------



## K66 SKY (Jan 25, 2005)

Steve said:


> *How do you know ?
> 
> I may have seen your engine BUT you aint seen my Penis !!!!*


PMSL!!!!:chuckle:

All joking aside...No one is answering the question as to why Nissan/Nismo only went to 2771cc's for their ultra rare performance special Skyline GT-R's....:runaway:


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

K66 SKY said:


> PMSL!!!!:chuckle:
> 
> All joking aside...No one is answering the question as to why Nissan/Nismo only went to 2771cc's for their ultra rare performance special Skyline GT-R's....:runaway:


Nope and I went for 2.8 Tomi Stroker (and love it) :chuckle:


----------



## Calibrat (Jan 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> Nope and I went for 2.8 Tomi Stroker (and love it) :chuckle:


Ahh only 2.8 ? Means your penis is small 
Haha


----------



## airseating (Mar 19, 2014)

haha, not a matter of a bigger penis , though I would like one  Shit even one that works would be great 

For me it is how it drives as a DD. I like the feeling of a grunty car and the quicker it gets going the more I like it, small dick or not


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2001)

Calibrat said:


> Ahh only 2.8 ? Means your penis is small
> Haha


Oh sh*t better not tell my mate Gary with his 2.7 Nito then :chuckle:


----------



## airseating (Mar 19, 2014)

K66 SKY said:


> PMSL!!!!:chuckle:
> 
> All joking aside...No one is answering the question as to why Nissan/Nismo only went to 2771cc's for their ultra rare performance special Skyline GT-R's....:runaway:


I think they needed some more capacity and got it up to around 370awkw to compete , BUT ??

It was time for the new motors, 350 V 6 that would be the build to the 380V 6 GT-R and that is a pretty handy car.

I could have bought one of those but I wanted to stay with the R3s as I like them and just want some more torque for a DD , all good


----------



## Zenki33 (Apr 6, 2014)

Steve said:


> Nope and I went for 2.8 Tomi Stroker (and love it) :chuckle:


Hi Steve, that's the 2.8 stroker kit I really want to purchase and run in my R33 GTR. What Tomei cams are you running and as well what turbos if you don't mind me ask?

Also, what's the theory or thruth about the RB28 stroker can rev up more over the RB26? I mean, from the little I have read or found info, many claim that the stroke*bore of the new 2.8L combo will be more suited for higher rev capacity or just will be "more friendly" for the engine? Not that I'm looking to spin my engine 10k or the like, but just wondering. Did you feel and great difference in response, mostly from the low end when you had done the 2.8L conversion?

Thanks


----------



## airseating (Mar 19, 2014)

Know a bloke with some custom 260 10.8s in his 2.8 with a sharp ramp rate, head needs relieving with better springs/retainers. He took poncams B 260 9.15s out and said the new ones r so much better.


I am going with these with my stroker build with OS valves and some head work. I also have Poncams B in the car now and runs pretty good and tuned for [email protected] 345awkw


----------



## airseating (Mar 19, 2014)

*getting it done*

Well been a while but it is being done and a couple of pics.

Mine is a very basic 3.2 build, nothing special but for me it is a little special 

Just looking for a DD that can run along side of newer cars but with the R look, combined with the history, all good :chuckle:


----------



## airseating (Mar 19, 2014)

Also going some drive-train work
Only have a couple of pics of Quaife front diff and Transfer case, Mmmm

Now it is the only time I want to see the motor upside down


----------

