RB times?

[DETurbine]

I just wanted to know some other peoples times in the 1/8th or 1/4th. Let us know your setup and times.

[DETurbine]

Here goes mine.

S13RB25DET SIIGTspec exhuast3inch dp and tpACT 2100Nitto 225/50/16 drag radials (no tread pattern left...fried!)R200 LSDSportline springs on blown stock struts (and I mean blown!)10psiStock SMIC

I went up the the 1/8th track:8.5@82mph. 1.9 60ft.

Had allot better run then that, probably would have ran a 8.3, but the clock board was down....I was pissed!

[Imissmyturbo]

92 240sxSeries II RB25DET10 PSIR32 LSD (4:11 gear)2.1 60ft13.8 @ 104.79

[HybridOne]

S14RB20DETFMIC3" downpipe + exhaust100 degrees outside8.919 in the 1/8th78mph1.9 60ft

i left as soon as i broke into the 8s. It's the first time i ran the car at a track. I suppose i could have run better once it cooled off a little.

[wga240]

Best run so far:60': 2.1011/8: 8.750 @ 82.941/4: 13.483 @ 104.27

Setup:S13 w/ RB20DET3" cat-backgutted S13 catstock RB downpipeHybrid FMICpod filtercustom cold-air box insulating pod filterno P/Sno A/CR32 LSDstock clutchstock flywheelstock boost

I had a full tank of gas and some crappy Continental street tires when I ran that

[Imissmyturbo]

wga240 is proof that the RB20 is a better performance/$$ compaired to the RB25.

[DSMs_Suck]

wga240 is proof that the RB20 is a better performance/$$ compaired to the RB25.

and is grossly better than the sr20 (assuming yout not going balls to the wall)

[DETurbine]

I got my R33 RB25DET clip sent to my door for $1800. It had 17k miles on it and everything came with it. Oh It was an SII also, so to me the RB25 is the best buy. The RB20 is not a bad motor, but it starts to get limited once you surpass the 400HP mark.

I ran a 8.5, but as I said, I had allot stronger run in that would have probably would have been a 8.3 if not better. That would put me at a high 12 in the 1/4th.

[gprodigy85]

saying that the rb20 is far better in performance/$$$ is a very large assumtion based on what a few people's times?

Dont get me wrong, the rb20 is a great motor just like any other rb, but there are clear advantages to the rb25 that are worth the extra money... .5 more displacement, much more torque across the power band, much beefier transmission, pretty good stock turbo, newer, etc etc... i dont know why everything always has to turn into a motor debate lol

[Imissmyturbo]

Well I payed 3250 + 350 (LSD) for my RB25 clip from Cameron. Plus shipping which was another $500. An RB20 at that time would have been half the price and with that money I could have payed for an Apex PFC, FMIC, Larger injectors, and better turbo. Keep in mind you don't need to spend the extra 300 on buying a driveshaft. Also the RB20 uses cheaper/easier to find top feed injectors.

[gprodigy85]

as far as i know rx7 550cc side feed ones will work on the rb25 and they aren't expensive

[NISMO_RB25]

Well I payed 3250 + 350 (LSD) for my RB25 clip from Cameron.

So because you got robbed, you think the 20 is the better value?

[Imissmyturbo]

Yes. 3250 was the price for an RB25 clip one year ago. Now they arn't as exspensive.

[DSMs_Suck]

I guess since it is a motor debate I will chime in... I think in part ALL of us have had to make this decision... Hell most of us have RBs in our cars anyways. This is my opinion on it:

Bang for the buck (unless you are plannin on exceeding 400-450 whp) I think the RB20 is the best bet. The lower initial cost REALLY plays big into this. My reasons for this: - Much lower inital cost: - Cheaper motorset/clip - NO driveshaft needed - This allows you to right away run a combo of mods that will EASILY keep up with with the 25s.

- Also as someone stated before injectors for the 20 are more attianable and cheaper. - Although the 20 lacks a bit of displacement it makes up for much of that with being a much more rev happy motor. Do the math, keeping high rpm torque equates to alot of horsepower (horsepower = torque * (rpm/5252)) I think the 25 is missing out a little bit here. (BTW if this turns into a torque versus horse battle... I still contend horsepower wins out, and also none of us drive KA-Turbos ) - The RB20 has a 8.5:1 compression ratio versus 9.0:1. I will tell you something I have DEFINATELY seen first hand. The low compression high boost combination will always win out over the high compression lower boost combo.... I personally plan on running around 18-20 psi on pump with the RB20.

So basically what I am saying is I think the 20 is more a little better to tune FOR WHAT IT IS. This in combination with the fact that the inital cost is much lower than the 25, I personally believe anyone looking for 400whp or less should kinda stick with the rb20.I would also tend to agree with whoever it was that said after this the 20 does become a little limiting. At that point the strong points of the 25 will come alive... Mainly the extra displacement and the beefier trans.

Murray

[Yellow4g63]

Haha me 2. I'm shooting for 17psi on Cali pee water 91. Whats the RB25's go for now? I thought they were still in the 3k's?

[JimmyJames1]

Yes. 3250 was the price for an RB25 clip one year ago. Now they arn't as exspensive.

Hmmm, the cheapest I can find them from a reputably dealer is $3200 for a clip. Where are they so much cheaper?

[DETurbine]

I will agree with you that the RB20 is far more cheaper, but there are reasons for that. One it is an old motor, badly built turbo, and only has 2.0l of displacement....to low for an 6cyl.

If you want to go past 400HP go with the RB25 or 26. Those that don't plan on taking it past that, why not just keep it SR? same displacement, lighter engine, way cheaper parts, and is just as touchy as the RB20 when putting aftermarket parts on or tunning it.

That is just my thoughts.....I got the RB25 becuase I know I am wanting over 400HP and that is exactly what the RB25 can do. Beefy transmission which has been taken up to 740HP. The higher the compression with forced induction makes more power faster then that of a lower compression motor. Just that the higher compression motor is automatically going to having allot more stress put on it, but the RB25 has proven that it is a strong motor and can easily handle that.

[Project240]

[quote=" DETurbine I got my R33 RB25DET clip sent to my door for $1800. It had 17k miles on it and everything came with it. Oh It was an SII also, so to me the RB25 is the best buy. [/quote]

HOW THE HELL.

[DSMs_Suck]

Who cares about what turbo comes on the RB20 vs. what turbo comes on the RB25. If we are talkin about making power, we are all gonna upgrade the thing anyways...

I agree with the SR20 comment, I honestly REALLY LIKE the sr20 platform, just that it ALSO is alot more pricey than a RB20. Especially once you consider you need a GOOD motorset, that INCLUDES the maf, ignitor, uncut harness, etc. To find all that you will have to pay. The rb also has a few strong points over the sr such as top feed injectors (again), a higher rev limit, a STOCK t3 setup as opposed to the t25 dealy. Plus, I'm sure this applies to many people, I don't want to be like everyone else. Just because noone (especially stateside) has really pushed the Rb20 doesn't mean it can't be done.

Small note on compression:Again, higher compression turbo motors only really help with making boost faster and when I mean faster I mean ever so slightly.... maybe a hundred rpm or 2. HOWEVER the fact that the static compression of the motor is so high means that there is a lot more heat generated in the combustion chamber and you must in general run much richer and run less boost to keep from detonating. Again the lower compression higher boost combo will make more power... This whole high compression turbo setup in general is a U.S. thing, in many countries (european especially) people will actually drop compression ratios when building motors... Ever notice how guys with a first gen 4g63 will run 20+ psi on pump gas.. no alchy. injection, water injection or any of that.... 7.8:1

BTW, and this is definately not saying that the rb20 trans is that great (rb25 is far superior).... BUT has anyone actually broken their manual rb20 trans? What kind of power were they pushing?

[DETurbine]

I am not talking about the actual price of the motor, because the RB20 and SR20 are neck and neck almost. I am talking about parts.....you are working with 6 cyl. rather then 4 cyl. so when you are trying to say that an advantage is that the RB20 is top feed, well that is not really an advantage over the SR, since you will be spending allot more on those two extra injectors then you would be with just getting a custom top feed fuel rail ($80) and 4 injectors. With the manifold I will agree with you the RB20 does have an advantage with the T3 flange, but most people like to upgrade turbo manifolds any way. If the wanted to keep it stock on the SR a simple T3 adapter plate would work. The advantage that the SR has is that it has been taken to 545hp, so is known to be reliable. Also it weighs about 250-275lbs. lighter then the RB20. You guys are talking about cost efficiency .....well then the SR is the way to go, makes the same power goals if not higher then the RB20 and remember SR has way more parts which means that they are cheaper then RB parts and you only have to buy 4 of everything not 6!

[DSMs_Suck]

Ok ready... again I have done the research (aside from the being original aspect):Injectors: - 6 Delphi 550cc high imp. BRAND NEW about $420 lets do the math on that... 550ccx6 = 3300 total CCs now for an sr20 to run 550cc injectors they would have to run a top feed rail at the least so $80 (you say) + for equality sake lets say the same delphi injectors ($280) so 80 + 280 = $360... I.e. it is 60 dollars cheaper for the SR setup. (you are saying). HOWEVER, 550cc x 4 = 2200cc. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.... Now lets do the math to find out what size injectors you would need to keep up with the RB. 3300cc / 4 = 825cc! How much do those cost a piece?

Now, again I can't stress this point enough... Have you looked for a nice sr20 clip at all? I mean EVERYTHING you need to get an sr20 to go into your car? In general I would say most people on here probably pay around 1800 or so for everything needed to swap in an rb20.. AND I MEAN EVERYTHING.The sr20 is so hard to find a nice one now that will include everything you need. Sure you can find one for around 1800 but that is stripped down. You need a full uncut harness, ignitor, and maf. Making sure you have all that gets pricey very quickly. It is simply untrue to say that the RB20 swap and the SR20 swap cost the same. I would say most people pay around 2300 for an sr20 swap (about $500 more).

I also really dunno about the 250-275 pounds lighter, although I don't have any hard factsI would think that may be true of the sr20 in comparison to the rb25... However I doubt that is true of the sr20 in comparison to the rb20. I know the trans on both of them weigh about the same, so you are talking 250+ lbs on just the motor?!

Getting individual parts for the SR and them being cheaper... I totally agree, and IMO the single biggest downfall to the RB series motors. Again, I believe if you stay below 400-450whp I think the RB is more cost effective! More than that I would love a nicely built sr20 or an rb25.

[Project240]

When SCC did their SR20 swap into their project 240SX, the SR20 engine and trans weighed in at 493 pounds.

When they did the RB25 swap into their project S14, the engine and trans weighed 720 pounds. That's about an extra 220 pounds over the SR20. Considering the fact that we're talking about a 2.5L engine, versus the 2.0L of the RB20, and the fact that the RB25 has a MUCH beefier transmission, the RB20 definitely does not weigh 250-275 pounds more than the SR.

Between the .5 liters of missing displacement and the weaker trans, I would guess the RB20+trans to be around 650 pounds, maybe less. That's at most 150 extra pounds to tote around; get a battery relocation kit and you've already evened out most of that extra weight.

[Yellow4g63]

RB20 for only 400hp? Is that the written rule? I remember a time when they said "SR can only go 400hp" :shocked

I got my RB for around 1500-1700 with everything I needed. SR was 2600. Yup hard to belive that this "Old" motor can rev so nicely 8k is the highest I have gone and will go till I get crazy with the head and drop some GTR lifters/valve springs and ect in it.

[goofynick6]

wdracing already got his stock internal rb20 to 490+whp I believe...

[Chingon]

check the australians...they are breaking the 400hp rule on rb20's as much as ppl saying it can't be done over here...

[BoostFab]

With the manifold I will agree with you the RB20 does have an advantage with the T3 flange, but most people like to upgrade turbo manifolds any way.

we're mainly aiming for more power, so who would really keep the stock turbo for long?

you guys fussing about the rb20 being old, do you realize the sr20, aren't any newer; unless you're out to get the s14 and newer sr20's...

IMO the rb20 is a better budget swap.

[eh?]

- The RB20 has a 8.5:1 compression ratio versus 9.0:1. I will tell you something I have DEFINATELY seen first hand. The low compression high boost combination will always win out over the high compression lower boost combo..

There's a man named Sydney kid on skylines australia and Skylines downunder. He builds and Races RB powered cars. I would like to see you take that arguement to him on those boards:http://forums.skylinesdownunder.co.nzht ... .c...hp?s=

[Phalse]

I've been following the boards for a while now, as I've been debating a 240 with an rb for a swap. Been a dsm'er for about 10 years, and have had, and still do have several.

Not to bash on the guys whove got the swap done, but WTF are with these gimptacular times?

An s13 allegedly weighing in at 2700, more or less, than the 200+ from the rb25 swap bringing it up to 2900, is about 200-300 less than a 1g AWD.

T28 for the rb25 vs the 1g AWDs 14b is about comparable, similiarly sized turbos, fuel however, the rb's got it beat hands down with 6*370 vs 4*450, not to mention the extra .5 displacement, jesus wtf are they so slow for. A 1g AWD with similiar mods to those listed above, is usually doing 106-108 traps, and thats in a heavier car, with more power loss to the awd trans.

I dunno wtf is up with the guys rides with the rb25det swaps but this is just lame.. really makes me see no point in the swap for another project car thats just going to be underpowered from a roll much less dead stop against a 1g awd with just a few bolt ons.

If someone could enlighten me as to why a few bolt ons on an rb25det swapped s13 isnt trapping 110-112, please do so, id love to know, as my current plan was to get one and make an adapter plate to toss a nice cheap 16g on it.

[Yellow4g63]

I've been following the boards for a while now, as I've been debating a 240 with an rb for a swap. Been a dsm'er for about 10 years, and have had, and still do have several.

Not to bash on the guys whove got the swap done, but WTF are with these gimptacular times?

An s13 allegedly weighing in at 2700, more or less, than the 200+ from the rb25 swap bringing it up to 2900, is about 200-300 less than a 1g AWD.

T28 for the rb25 vs the 1g AWDs 14b is about comparable, similiarly sized turbos, fuel however, the rb's got it beat hands down with 6*370 vs 4*450, not to mention the extra .5 displacement, jesus wtf are they so slow for. A 1g AWD with similiar mods to those listed above, is usually doing 106-108 traps, and thats in a heavier car, with more power loss to the awd trans.

I dunno wtf is up with the guys rides with the rb25det swaps but this is just lame.. really makes me see no point in the swap for another project car thats just going to be underpowered from a roll much less dead stop against a 1g awd with just a few bolt ons.

If someone could enlighten me as to why a few bolt ons on an rb25det swapped s13 isnt trapping 110-112, please do so, id love to know, as my current plan was to get one and make an adapter plate to toss a nice cheap 16g on it.

From what I have heard is that the Stock Turbo's blow donkey balls. They won't live at boost levels higher than 12psi someone told me. I think maybe after 14psi. The 14B ownes the Stock RB turbos big time.

[DSMs_Suck]

There's a man named Sydney kid on skylines australia and Skylines downunder. He builds and Races RB powered cars. I would like to see you take that arguement to him on those boards:http://forums.skylinesdownunder.co.nzht ... .c...hp?s=

Ok again about compression... Unless it simply becomes hindering upon the cars ability to run under vacumm or having serious trouble spooling a turbo, again I prefer lower compression... it is all thermodynamics. The ideal gas law will relate temperature, pressure and volume. Simply put this is why a high boost/low compression setup is good. When you boost EFFECIENTLY (read: this means the turbo must be in the effective portion of the compressor map, and a good intercooler setup is on the car), you heat the air up with a turbo a lot less than cramming it in a cylinder and having a piston come up and compress it. Heat is quite simply the main reason that a car will begin to detonate, and essentially will be the limiting factor in the amount of boost you can run... If high compression is so good, why are all turbo cars created with lower compression? Why doesn't the s2000 kick all our asses it runs 11:1, compression.

Your friend on the board may make some good power out of a high compression motor, but I say try switching to lower compression and running more boost on an effective setup.