Built VQ35 or RB26DETT Swap?
02-27-2013, 11:57 AM
#22
Fixed 
Buts seriously if you want a japanese turbo engine swap go 2j. It won't be cheap, but it would be a good engine to swap for many reasons. If you have a running vq setup, and a manual you can part out the VQ and then re-use the transmission with an adapter. Definitely a smarter choice than an rb26.
Buts seriously if you want a japanese turbo engine swap go 2j. It won't be cheap, but it would be a good engine to swap for many reasons. If you have a running vq setup, and a manual you can part out the VQ and then re-use the transmission with an adapter. Definitely a smarter choice than an rb26.
Last edited by Resmarted; 02-27-2013 at 12:01 PM.
04-22-2013, 05:17 PM
#26
this thread should have been locked already. no the 350z shouldnt have had the rb26 in it, it is a overhyped engine with a host of problems. it has been immortalized by a few people making crazy power number from built engines. are the rods and pistons stock stronger? yes however the rb engines have some of the exact same issues as the vq engines such as exploding oil pumps and spun bearings. the heads flow crap stock(140 cfm intake on the intake side rb25 and 200 cfm intake side rb26, full race port nets 300 cfm on rb26 heads, what stock hr heads do and not even close to the same velocity). to hit 550 awhp requires massive boost levels or extensive head work, it has **** for torque and the blocks consistency is questionable causing people switch to gt and n1 blocks after busting the actual stock block...........something that outside of mazworx busting the motor mount off, no one has done on the vq35 in fact we still arnt sure what the max power of stock sleeves are. thats not even touching the weight difference.
the rb series engines where good at the time, but times change and better technology and port designs are available now, the vq35 could have for sure used better rods from the factory but overall was a step forward.
the rb series engines where good at the time, but times change and better technology and port designs are available now, the vq35 could have for sure used better rods from the factory but overall was a step forward.
04-22-2013, 05:40 PM
#27
this thread should have been locked already. no the 350z shouldnt have had the rb26 in it, it is a overhyped engine with a host of problems. it has been immortalized by a few people making crazy power number from built engines. are the rods and pistons stock stronger? yes however the rb engines have some of the exact same issues as the vq engines such as exploding oil pumps and spun bearings. the heads flow crap stock(140 cfm intake on the intake side rb25 and 200 cfm intake side rb26, full race port nets 300 cfm on rb26 heads, what stock hr heads do and not even close to the same velocity). to hit 550 awhp requires massive boost levels or extensive head work, it has **** for torque and the blocks consistency is questionable causing people switch to gt and n1 blocks after busting the actual stock block...........something that outside of mazworx busting the motor mount off, no one has done on the vq35 in fact we still arnt sure what the max power of stock sleeves are. thats not even touching the weight difference.
the rb series engines where good at the time, but times change and better technology and port designs are available now, the vq35 could have for sure used better rods from the factory but overall was a step forward.
the rb series engines where good at the time, but times change and better technology and port designs are available now, the vq35 could have for sure used better rods from the factory but overall was a step forward.
Although I disagree with the idea that RB26's are crap (friend had 260,000 miles on his putting down 500hp daily before he broke a rod), the VQ35 is sooo much better in sooo many ways it's absolutely silly to compare. The only flaw IMHO of the vq35 (as you said) is it's rods. But it was never made to be put in a flagship super car as the rb26 was. The vq35 evolved into the vr38 which has been proven to be a monster of an engine. All the improvements over the years to reach the vr38 are relatively simple. Semi closed deck, better sleeves, main caps with integrated girdle and better cams/heads. None of that is mind boggling innovation, and depending on how much hp a person seeks, is something people change themselves.
04-22-2013, 06:00 PM
#28
well i wasnt saying they are crap(other then they make **** for torque) what i was trying to make a point of is that they are over hyped and have some of the same issues as the vq and its simply a step backwards lol.
Although I disagree with the idea that RB26's are crap (friend had 260,000 miles on his putting down 500hp daily before he broke a rod), the VQ35 is sooo much better in sooo many ways it's absolutely silly to compare. The only flaw IMHO of the vq35 (as you said) is it's rods. But it was never made to be put in a flagship super car as the rb26 was. The vq35 evolved into the vr38 which has been proven to be a monster of an engine. All the improvements over the years to reach the vr38 are relatively simple. Semi closed deck, better sleeves, main caps with integrated girdle and better cams/heads. None of that is mind boggling innovation, and depending on how much hp a person seeks, is something people change themselves.
04-22-2013, 06:13 PM
#30
to say the truth, the only reason a person would do an rb26 swap on a 350z, is to do something unique "it's done before so no more unique". the vq35 is plenty of power up to ~900whp then the sleeves give up "not sure about the sleeves". If you wanna go unique then go with an RB30/TD48DE/LQ9 with 383 stroker. that's creativity. About cost. it cost waaaaaaaaay less to rebuild an engine and retune it, then swapping engines. it might cost 4k or 5k $ for the engine, harness, and tranny. Although, you have to conceder the fabrication, custom parts, and the parts you need to invest in to reach the whp you have right now. Bottom line, it's not cost worthy, nor unique.
04-22-2013, 06:29 PM
#31
this thread should have been locked already. no the 350z shouldnt have had the rb26 in it, it is a overhyped engine with a host of problems. it has been immortalized by a few people making crazy power number from built engines. are the rods and pistons stock stronger? yes however the rb engines have some of the exact same issues as the vq engines such as exploding oil pumps and spun bearings. the heads flow crap stock(140 cfm intake on the intake side rb25 and 200 cfm intake side rb26, full race port nets 300 cfm on rb26 heads, what stock hr heads do and not even close to the same velocity). to hit 550 awhp requires massive boost levels or extensive head work, it has **** for torque and the blocks consistency is questionable causing people switch to gt and n1 blocks after busting the actual stock block...........something that outside of mazworx busting the motor mount off, no one has done on the vq35 in fact we still arnt sure what the max power of stock sleeves are. thats not even touching the weight difference.
the rb series engines where good at the time, but times change and better technology and port designs are available now, the vq35 could have for sure used better rods from the factory but overall was a step forward.
the rb series engines where good at the time, but times change and better technology and port designs are available now, the vq35 could have for sure used better rods from the factory but overall was a step forward.
The RB oil pump problems in early motors was solved. The problem stemmed from the drive shaft being machined too narrow. This is easily avoidable. Also, being around tons of stock-blocked RB's... I've only heard of two incidents of the stock oil pump failing.
From my personal experience, torque is NOT an issue... with seeing many BPU GTR's making a steady 400awhp, 350+ awtq. Achieving 550awhp does not take head work, nor does it take "massive" amounts of boost. Turbo efficiency comes into play here. No one is going to intelligently stick with a pair of N1 turbos and boost the hell out of them. The heads flow fine for medium-tuned engines.
The biggest downside to the RB in my opinion, is motor weight, part availability, and tuner availability in the US.
04-22-2013, 06:33 PM
#32
Registered User
swaps are cool because people know how extensive they can be. different trans, driveshaft, cutting of firewall and floors, different clutch pedals, the list go's on.
I strongly believe cars should stay loyal to the brand. if you want a 2jz sell the Z and buy a supra. if you want LS engine, get a camaro/corvette.
If it were my build i would either build the vq35 or do some research and get the best newer, bigger/v8 nissan engines.
I strongly believe cars should stay loyal to the brand. if you want a 2jz sell the Z and buy a supra. if you want LS engine, get a camaro/corvette.
If it were my build i would either build the vq35 or do some research and get the best newer, bigger/v8 nissan engines.
04-22-2013, 08:09 PM
#33
you are vastly mistaken sir might wanna check with people who actually build them and own them, stock pumps STILL explode the "fix" is rebuilding them with n1/aftermarket pumps. it isnt something done from the factory, you dont read about them as much because it is simply a given to replace them similar to how its a given to replace a de pump with a revup pump. neither option in either platform solves the issue of aeration however. 400 whp, 350ft lbs of torque means you should simply put a simple turbo or super charger on the car, if your swapping to a rb for that low of power you deserved to be *** raped by whatever shop is going it thats just ignorant. the higher power level cars are matching vq hp levels at 100 ft lbs of torque or more less then the vq. the lowest gtr ive seen making 550 legit whp is 19 psi with the front diff disabled, awd commonly requires around 20-23 psi thats a boatload compared to what our platform puts out at the same power level even with stock cams and heads(i did 600 hp and 600 ft lbs of torque on shitty hawaii 92 octane through a slipping clutch, even if torque dropped to 500 at my 7500 redline thats still over 700 to the wheels at the same 20 psi) . the engine has a much smaller displacement so you could up the size of the turbos but its only going to help minimally because the heads on the rb26 are still a huge restriction, and you have a much smaller rpm band because the engine is smaller and takes longer to spool.
there are significant disadvantages to the rb26 it isnt the mythical engine people make it out to be and your going to have a hard time finding people to argue that here, especially with people like resmarted who love the rb series engines. swapping in a rb is a step backwards, denying that is denying facts.
there are significant disadvantages to the rb26 it isnt the mythical engine people make it out to be and your going to have a hard time finding people to argue that here, especially with people like resmarted who love the rb series engines. swapping in a rb is a step backwards, denying that is denying facts.
What?
The RB oil pump problems in early motors was solved. The problem stemmed from the drive shaft being machined too narrow. This is easily avoidable. Also, being around tons of stock-blocked RB's... I've only heard of two incidents of the stock oil pump failing.
From my personal experience, torque is NOT an issue... with seeing many BPU GTR's making a steady 400awhp, 350+ awtq. Achieving 550awhp does not take head work, nor does it take "massive" amounts of boost. Turbo efficiency comes into play here. No one is going to intelligently stick with a pair of N1 turbos and boost the hell out of them. The heads flow fine for medium-tuned engines.
The biggest downside to the RB in my opinion, is motor weight, part availability, and tuner availability in the US.
The RB oil pump problems in early motors was solved. The problem stemmed from the drive shaft being machined too narrow. This is easily avoidable. Also, being around tons of stock-blocked RB's... I've only heard of two incidents of the stock oil pump failing.
From my personal experience, torque is NOT an issue... with seeing many BPU GTR's making a steady 400awhp, 350+ awtq. Achieving 550awhp does not take head work, nor does it take "massive" amounts of boost. Turbo efficiency comes into play here. No one is going to intelligently stick with a pair of N1 turbos and boost the hell out of them. The heads flow fine for medium-tuned engines.
The biggest downside to the RB in my opinion, is motor weight, part availability, and tuner availability in the US.
04-22-2013, 10:39 PM
#34
Buddy of mine did an RB swap on his G37 coupe. Started on November. It was completed last month but still working on a number of issues. These "small" issues also cost money. A lot of "unexpected" extra stuff added, interior was changed, etc etc.
He keeps us updated on the progerss and it is clearly a huge project. Some parts are a pain to get. I bet he spent almost as much money as he would have with just built VQ + TT kit and tranny upgrade but with less down time.
For exclusivity, extra street credits (lol) you can go ahead and give it a try. But IMO it is not even worth it.
He keeps us updated on the progerss and it is clearly a huge project. Some parts are a pain to get. I bet he spent almost as much money as he would have with just built VQ + TT kit and tranny upgrade but with less down time.
For exclusivity, extra street credits (lol) you can go ahead and give it a try. But IMO it is not even worth it.
Last edited by 350Zdj; 04-22-2013 at 10:40 PM.
04-22-2013, 10:57 PM
#35
What?
The RB oil pump problems in early motors was solved. The problem stemmed from the drive shaft being machined too narrow. This is easily avoidable. Also, being around tons of stock-blocked RB's... I've only heard of two incidents of the stock oil pump failing.
From my personal experience, torque is NOT an issue... with seeing many BPU GTR's making a steady 400awhp, 350+ awtq. Achieving 550awhp does not take head work, nor does it take "massive" amounts of boost. Turbo efficiency comes into play here. No one is going to intelligently stick with a pair of N1 turbos and boost the hell out of them. The heads flow fine for medium-tuned engines.
The biggest downside to the RB in my opinion, is motor weight, part availability, and tuner availability in the US.
The RB oil pump problems in early motors was solved. The problem stemmed from the drive shaft being machined too narrow. This is easily avoidable. Also, being around tons of stock-blocked RB's... I've only heard of two incidents of the stock oil pump failing.
From my personal experience, torque is NOT an issue... with seeing many BPU GTR's making a steady 400awhp, 350+ awtq. Achieving 550awhp does not take head work, nor does it take "massive" amounts of boost. Turbo efficiency comes into play here. No one is going to intelligently stick with a pair of N1 turbos and boost the hell out of them. The heads flow fine for medium-tuned engines.
The biggest downside to the RB in my opinion, is motor weight, part availability, and tuner availability in the US.
But comparing the torque char of a 2.6 to a 3.5 especially of a vq35
Two completely different animals. I'll try to get the dyno sheet of my buddies rb26 twin gt28 s14 and we can compare it to a dyno sheet of a vq35 with gt28s... Well we don't even need to actually do that to know the vq will **** on it.
That has quite a bit more to do with engine design than just the displacement to boot...
04-23-2013, 02:17 AM
#36
you are vastly mistaken sir might wanna check with people who actually build them and own them, stock pumps STILL explode the "fix" is rebuilding them with n1/aftermarket pumps. it isnt something done from the factory, you dont read about them as much because it is simply a given to replace them similar to how its a given to replace a de pump with a revup pump. neither option in either platform solves the issue of aeration however. 400 whp, 350ft lbs of torque means you should simply put a simple turbo or super charger on the car, if your swapping to a rb for that low of power you deserved to be *** raped by whatever shop is going it thats just ignorant. the higher power level cars are matching vq hp levels at 100 ft lbs of torque or more less then the vq. the lowest gtr ive seen making 550 legit whp is 19 psi with the front diff disabled, awd commonly requires around 20-23 psi thats a boatload compared to what our platform puts out at the same power level even with stock cams and heads(i did 600 hp and 600 ft lbs of torque on shitty hawaii 92 octane through a slipping clutch, even if torque dropped to 500 at my 7500 redline thats still over 700 to the wheels at the same 20 psi) . the engine has a much smaller displacement so you could up the size of the turbos but its only going to help minimally because the heads on the rb26 are still a huge restriction, and you have a much smaller rpm band because the engine is smaller and takes longer to spool.
there are significant disadvantages to the rb26 it isnt the mythical engine people make it out to be and your going to have a hard time finding people to argue that here, especially with people like resmarted who love the rb series engines. swapping in a rb is a step backwards, denying that is denying facts.
there are significant disadvantages to the rb26 it isnt the mythical engine people make it out to be and your going to have a hard time finding people to argue that here, especially with people like resmarted who love the rb series engines. swapping in a rb is a step backwards, denying that is denying facts.
People who actually build and own them? No shortage of owner/builders or shop builds in Honshu...
Conversation is hard, but friending locals overcomes this.A local friend just got his 900hp Top Secret built R34 back. Daily drives it along with brutal tracking. Runs off 100RON.
You missed the point of what I said. Simply put, the disadvantages are not significant enough to steer everyone clear. It's a great motor, and has endless possibilities given the correct methods. To simply shrug it off as an "obsolete" motor is an ignorant move. Shrugging the 2JZ off as well, due to the lower displacement?
Perhaps you and I have differing thoughts of what "massive amounts of boost" equates to? 40 psi is massive to me.
N1 turbos were created so that you could boost them up beyond what the stockers could pump. They're just made of different material... so what are you trying to say?
But comparing the torque char of a 2.6 to a 3.5 especially of a vq35
Two completely different animals. I'll try to get the dyno sheet of my buddies rb26 twin gt28 s14 and we can compare it to a dyno sheet of a vq35 with gt28s... Well we don't even need to actually do that to know the vq will **** on it.
That has quite a bit more to do with engine design than just the displacement to boot...
But comparing the torque char of a 2.6 to a 3.5 especially of a vq35
Two completely different animals. I'll try to get the dyno sheet of my buddies rb26 twin gt28 s14 and we can compare it to a dyno sheet of a vq35 with gt28s... Well we don't even need to actually do that to know the vq will **** on it.
That has quite a bit more to do with engine design than just the displacement to boot...
Also... I haven't seen this, so if you did the work for me and posted it, I'd appreciate it. Find dyno sheets to compare a T51R-KAI equipped RB vs similarly equipped VQ. No track-only cars, though, I'm not interested in those. I'm legitimately interested in seeing this.
Stock ceramics maxed @ 1 bar. N1 and Nismo's were steel and could be pushed to 1.5 bar. This is an awesome starting point for those not looking to spend over $1000-2000 for up to 400-450hp.
There are too many variables to legitimately compare the RB26 and VQ35, including the capabilities of iron vs. aluminum.
If torque is the only single factor in a motor swap, go for some V8. However, don't blindly bash the RB.
Last edited by Spork; 04-23-2013 at 02:30 AM.
04-23-2013, 09:37 AM
#37
its being shrugged off because the engine that comes in the car is a superior engine, it has weak rods and thats it, mayby hang out on some of the gtr forums a little plenty of carnage from rb oil pumps mayby you just dont encounter them as much with so many around who knows but its a evident fact and nothing was done production wise to fix it. trying to change direction by involving another completely different engine is called the red herring fallacy so nice try there but the 2jz has its own well documented crank walk issues as well.
your "friend" with a 900 hp rb engine provides nothing to the conversation either since he is going to at a minimum have massive changes in the head and turbo system. which actually helps my arguement since he is going to need massive porting done to it along with cams. meanwhile the vq still dosnt need porting done to achieve the same and is going to have a MUCH broader power band. its being dismissed because the disadvantages are EXTENSIVE, that 900 hp rb motor placed in a z33 chassis will be left behind by a z33 with a 900 hp vq. plain and simple the vq motor will have more torque to get it off the line and then once they are going its likely going to pick up some more distance from a wider power band. as resmarted said trying to compare a 20 year old 2.6L to a 3.5L that was designed to outperform it WITHOUT turbos from the factory is ignorant, 2jz guys dont even compare the rb to it and thats only .4 displacement difference.
your the only one who is arguing for that engine and it seems your doing so without any information of building anything yourself just what others tell you.
head flow isnt insignificant thats major, the rb cant even compete
iron block with significant weight increase isnt major, weight wins races all else being the same
the vq can easily make the same power in the hands someone who can actually build the engine
both of them have oil pump problems, deny it all you want the oil pump design is flawed and has shown to be a issue on any platform with a similar design, vq, rb or heck even ford mod motors they all use the same design and have a issue exploding pumps as well as major oil cavitation issues at higher rpms(which you actually ignored before)
the rb has a horrible power band for making big power, it can do it but it isnt impressive, 900 hp and needing a stroker kit to run 9's is stupid the vq does it with less.
massive is a relative term go talk to a diesel guy and they will say 40 psi is weak. on this platform 20 is a pretty massive amount for some, and needing that to hit what stock block turbo kits are capable of at significantly less is a perfect example of how the engine simply flows less.
40 psi is considered massive to you? thats what the rb 26 takes to make 1k to the wheels well i guess very few z's will be running massive boost to you then since the vq depending on turbo and setup has done it as low as 26 psi.
no one is going to be posting comparable dynos to hks dynos though, this crowd isnt gullible enough to buy into the hks bs, they are really just rebranded garretts hate to break it to you.
who needs to spend 1-2k to ONLY go up to 450 to the wheels? 1200 will buy you a 900 capable turbo with journal bearing, 1k will buy you a 700 hp turbo and is actually the standard turbo to one of the kits here.
no one is blindly bashing anything your simply in a group of people who actually builds there own **** not rehashing what some shop told them and the fact of the matter is that the ONLY advantage the rb26 has over the vq is the rods, plain and simple every other category goes to the vq. theres also no "iron vs aluminum" comparison since even with a open deck the vq block has shown to handle everything the rb can handle. for what 90% of people consider a "street" car the stock sleeves on the vq will even handle the same as what the rb can. no comparision, bigger displacement, broader power band in hp, more torque everywhere, less boost, better flowing heads, better heat dissipation from aluminum if you really want to go there, better designed combustion chambers, better designed ports so not only do they flow more but they manage to keep up the velocity so they dont loose anything down low or midrange like a rb would in order to achieve the same flow.
you are simply another of the people who are attempting to immortalize the engine and make it out to be more then it actually is, it isnt that great of a engine its ok at best for what is available currently. the vq and tb engines are both light years ahead of it. im still waiting for you to provide a single point as to why its such a good option because so far the only thing you have said is that we are wrong in different ways.
your "friend" with a 900 hp rb engine provides nothing to the conversation either since he is going to at a minimum have massive changes in the head and turbo system. which actually helps my arguement since he is going to need massive porting done to it along with cams. meanwhile the vq still dosnt need porting done to achieve the same and is going to have a MUCH broader power band. its being dismissed because the disadvantages are EXTENSIVE, that 900 hp rb motor placed in a z33 chassis will be left behind by a z33 with a 900 hp vq. plain and simple the vq motor will have more torque to get it off the line and then once they are going its likely going to pick up some more distance from a wider power band. as resmarted said trying to compare a 20 year old 2.6L to a 3.5L that was designed to outperform it WITHOUT turbos from the factory is ignorant, 2jz guys dont even compare the rb to it and thats only .4 displacement difference.
your the only one who is arguing for that engine and it seems your doing so without any information of building anything yourself just what others tell you.
head flow isnt insignificant thats major, the rb cant even compete
iron block with significant weight increase isnt major, weight wins races all else being the same
the vq can easily make the same power in the hands someone who can actually build the engine
both of them have oil pump problems, deny it all you want the oil pump design is flawed and has shown to be a issue on any platform with a similar design, vq, rb or heck even ford mod motors they all use the same design and have a issue exploding pumps as well as major oil cavitation issues at higher rpms(which you actually ignored before)
the rb has a horrible power band for making big power, it can do it but it isnt impressive, 900 hp and needing a stroker kit to run 9's is stupid the vq does it with less.
massive is a relative term go talk to a diesel guy and they will say 40 psi is weak. on this platform 20 is a pretty massive amount for some, and needing that to hit what stock block turbo kits are capable of at significantly less is a perfect example of how the engine simply flows less.
40 psi is considered massive to you? thats what the rb 26 takes to make 1k to the wheels well i guess very few z's will be running massive boost to you then since the vq depending on turbo and setup has done it as low as 26 psi.
no one is going to be posting comparable dynos to hks dynos though, this crowd isnt gullible enough to buy into the hks bs, they are really just rebranded garretts hate to break it to you.
who needs to spend 1-2k to ONLY go up to 450 to the wheels? 1200 will buy you a 900 capable turbo with journal bearing, 1k will buy you a 700 hp turbo and is actually the standard turbo to one of the kits here.
no one is blindly bashing anything your simply in a group of people who actually builds there own **** not rehashing what some shop told them and the fact of the matter is that the ONLY advantage the rb26 has over the vq is the rods, plain and simple every other category goes to the vq. theres also no "iron vs aluminum" comparison since even with a open deck the vq block has shown to handle everything the rb can handle. for what 90% of people consider a "street" car the stock sleeves on the vq will even handle the same as what the rb can. no comparision, bigger displacement, broader power band in hp, more torque everywhere, less boost, better flowing heads, better heat dissipation from aluminum if you really want to go there, better designed combustion chambers, better designed ports so not only do they flow more but they manage to keep up the velocity so they dont loose anything down low or midrange like a rb would in order to achieve the same flow.
you are simply another of the people who are attempting to immortalize the engine and make it out to be more then it actually is, it isnt that great of a engine its ok at best for what is available currently. the vq and tb engines are both light years ahead of it. im still waiting for you to provide a single point as to why its such a good option because so far the only thing you have said is that we are wrong in different ways.
For as many RB's as I see, it's surprising that I've heard of so few with blown 20+ year old oil pumps. Sad thing is, usually when I ask, they say it's still the stock unit.
People who actually build and own them? No shortage of owner/builders or shop builds in Honshu... Conversation is hard, but friending locals overcomes this.
A local friend just got his 900hp Top Secret built R34 back. Daily drives it along with brutal tracking. Runs off 100RON.
You missed the point of what I said. Simply put, the disadvantages are not significant enough to steer everyone clear. It's a great motor, and has endless possibilities given the correct methods. To simply shrug it off as an "obsolete" motor is an ignorant move. Shrugging the 2JZ off as well, due to the lower displacement?
Perhaps you and I have differing thoughts of what "massive amounts of boost" equates to? 40 psi is massive to me.
Was I directly comparing the two, or did I say torque is not a problem with RB's? Please, do post the dyno sheets, though.
Also... I haven't seen this, so if you did the work for me and posted it, I'd appreciate it. Find dyno sheets to compare a T51R-KAI equipped RB vs similarly equipped VQ. No track-only cars, though, I'm not interested in those. I'm legitimately interested in seeing this.
Stock ceramics maxed @ 1 bar. N1 and Nismo's were steel and could be pushed to 1.5 bar. This is an awesome starting point for those not looking to spend over $1000-2000 for up to 400-450hp.
There are too many variables to legitimately compare the RB26 and VQ35, including the capabilities of iron vs. aluminum.
If torque is the only single factor in a motor swap, go for some V8. However, don't blindly bash the RB.
People who actually build and own them? No shortage of owner/builders or shop builds in Honshu...
Conversation is hard, but friending locals overcomes this.A local friend just got his 900hp Top Secret built R34 back. Daily drives it along with brutal tracking. Runs off 100RON.
You missed the point of what I said. Simply put, the disadvantages are not significant enough to steer everyone clear. It's a great motor, and has endless possibilities given the correct methods. To simply shrug it off as an "obsolete" motor is an ignorant move. Shrugging the 2JZ off as well, due to the lower displacement?
Perhaps you and I have differing thoughts of what "massive amounts of boost" equates to? 40 psi is massive to me.
Was I directly comparing the two, or did I say torque is not a problem with RB's? Please, do post the dyno sheets, though.
Also... I haven't seen this, so if you did the work for me and posted it, I'd appreciate it. Find dyno sheets to compare a T51R-KAI equipped RB vs similarly equipped VQ. No track-only cars, though, I'm not interested in those. I'm legitimately interested in seeing this.
Stock ceramics maxed @ 1 bar. N1 and Nismo's were steel and could be pushed to 1.5 bar. This is an awesome starting point for those not looking to spend over $1000-2000 for up to 400-450hp.
There are too many variables to legitimately compare the RB26 and VQ35, including the capabilities of iron vs. aluminum.
If torque is the only single factor in a motor swap, go for some V8. However, don't blindly bash the RB.
04-23-2013, 09:52 AM
#38
oh and since you asked i cant find any dynos of a rb26 with that turbo but from comments online of shops who build rb engines that turbo on a 2.8L stroker spools at 5k
hals dyno can be found here, with a bigger turbo he isnt maxxing it but hey when your running 9's in a full interior street car at less then 800 to the wheels i would say you dont need to max the turbo. 5k the turbo already has significant spool.
http://www.turbo6.net/350z/img/5.jpg
heres my dyno, its alot worse to judge, this was with meth but taking meth off actually netted me a couple hp more before clutch slipped. probably because the clutch was cooler back then. precision 6765 is smaller but with .96 t4 argives you a general idea, the 6766 with 1.32 hasnt been dynoed yet.
tires where 285/30/18 and boost was 20 psi with stock 6mt rear if you wanna calculate it. one of these days ill get around to redynoing but your not going to find a rb26 or 28 making 600 ft lbs of torque at 4800 rpms.
several comments available about how a rb26 with that turbo(the hks) performs abysmally as well for anything outside drag racing due to spool(gtr forums actually comment about how they get left behind on togue runs) even without a quick spool valve my setup has no issue performing well on twistys
http://s34.photobucket.com/user/ilik...ml?sort=3&o=27
hals dyno can be found here, with a bigger turbo he isnt maxxing it but hey when your running 9's in a full interior street car at less then 800 to the wheels i would say you dont need to max the turbo. 5k the turbo already has significant spool.
http://www.turbo6.net/350z/img/5.jpg
heres my dyno, its alot worse to judge, this was with meth but taking meth off actually netted me a couple hp more before clutch slipped. probably because the clutch was cooler back then. precision 6765 is smaller but with .96 t4 argives you a general idea, the 6766 with 1.32 hasnt been dynoed yet.
tires where 285/30/18 and boost was 20 psi with stock 6mt rear if you wanna calculate it. one of these days ill get around to redynoing but your not going to find a rb26 or 28 making 600 ft lbs of torque at 4800 rpms.
several comments available about how a rb26 with that turbo(the hks) performs abysmally as well for anything outside drag racing due to spool(gtr forums actually comment about how they get left behind on togue runs) even without a quick spool valve my setup has no issue performing well on twistys
http://s34.photobucket.com/user/ilik...ml?sort=3&o=27
04-23-2013, 12:37 PM
#40
Thank you.
Maybe we can agree to disagree. I've been out of the VQ loop since 2009, when engines blew at 450hp and sleeves were failing all over, and have no room to talk about the VQ. Apparently, things have changed for the better, and the VQ is turning into a more sturdy platform. However, I still don't see the disadvantages of the RB26 you point out to be all "that bad." Maybe I'm just stubborn.
I believe we also fell way off track, losing sight of the OP's interest. I doubt he'll be looking to go as far as a 800+hp daily driver.
Maybe we can agree to disagree. I've been out of the VQ loop since 2009, when engines blew at 450hp and sleeves were failing all over, and have no room to talk about the VQ. Apparently, things have changed for the better, and the VQ is turning into a more sturdy platform. However, I still don't see the disadvantages of the RB26 you point out to be all "that bad." Maybe I'm just stubborn.
I believe we also fell way off track, losing sight of the OP's interest. I doubt he'll be looking to go as far as a 800+hp daily driver.