what engine is the best?????? RB26DETT or 2JZGTE engine?????


6g72tt
06-24-2006, 10:15 PM
ok i had an argument today with my bro about which engine would be better? well i chose the RB26DETT but then my bro started saying that the 2JZGTE engine is better... in your opinion in general which engine is better? in every aspect (like ... max power, etc, etc):grinyes:

Jimster
06-24-2006, 10:51 PM
The 2JZ will handle more power on stock internals, though that's all I know about them mechanically.

However, the RB26 at least is far too heavy and makes the GTR very front heavy, basically the new VQ based engine in the new GTR is going to more or less send the RB to the grave that it should have been in years ago, it'll be lighter (Alloy construction) and not mounted so far forward (Being a Vee engine). I don't know how heavy a 2JZ is, however.

kman10587
06-24-2006, 11:15 PM
I don't know. Why must people constantly compare the R32-R34 Skyline and the MKIV Supra?

Jimster
06-24-2006, 11:33 PM
Pretty much the same reason that people constantly compare the Camaro and the Mustang, or the STi and the Evo. The two cars are basically born rivals.

drunken monkey
06-24-2006, 11:34 PM
because they play GT 1-4 a lot and have their favourites and want their favouritism validated by others.
my opinion and get ready to be surprised.... is that both engines are spanked by the C32B.

on a slightly different and more serious note though, i'm pretty sure that the Nissan engine is under-rated on paper compared to the Supra which makes and surface comparisons pretty much pointless. As Jimster started to point out, if you want a good answer you have to start getting techical and talk about things such as engine balance, weight, inertia, potential, ease of modifications, limits caused by design etc etc and if we are going that far, then it is again pretty much pointless because during the process of modifiying the stock engine, you can do pretty much whatever you want to both to get what you want.

on one front, I do know that a stock R33 GT-R engine is one very small step to being an N1 class engine and only requires very minimal work to get it to that racing class spec. that step is also made that little bit smaller by the different parts needed were more or less "off the shelf" and in fact, the R33 in 400R form has them fitted as standard anyway.

TatII
06-25-2006, 01:29 AM
stock bottom end for both engine is similar in strenght with the 2JZ being alittle more robust.

but the stock redline for the 2JZ is only 6800 while the GTR's is 8000. the GTR's twin turbo system runs in parallel rather then in series like the supra. so this means that the GTR's turbos both spools at the same time so it has better response. better response plus 1200 rpm more revs makes for a broader powerband and that is better for road racing.

when both internals are re enforced they both see 1000 hp regularly, the RB26DETT has 6 throttle bodies stock like a E46 M3 engine and has variable valve timing to help low end response before boost comes on.

the only 2JZ GTE that has the VVTI is the 99+ models, and on those models the internals aren't as strong as the pre VVTI ones. both engines are very very heavy, but i would think the 2JZ is the heavier of the two engines since it phyiscally the bigger engine of the two.

my pick would be the RB26 since its a more tractable engine with a broader power band. but if i was going for a dyno queen on a stock bottom end, it would be the 2JZ.

blakscorpion21
06-26-2006, 11:21 AM
id have to go with the 2jz mainly because of its increased displacement. it is capable of a little more power.

TRD2000
07-02-2006, 04:11 PM
didn't mention the lube system on the RB is better... 2jz has squirters but RB has extensive oils supply through journals and holes and crap lol. (I donn't know too much about it)

Series turbo's are designed to give boost for longer than parrallel... which may explain why the 2jz has a better low -mid and the RB has better and higher top end...(really the engines would be better swapping drive trains)

both great engines.

TatII
07-03-2006, 12:37 AM
i dont' agree with the RB's turbo being better for top end while the 2JZ's turbos are better at low to mid end.

my friends supra TT's stock twins were useless. yes its true that the first turbo always spools first almost constantly, but just one turbo isn't gonna make any real boost to make any real power down low. also the transistion from goin to one turbo to two turbos causes a noticble lag and dip into the powerband.

even though the 2JZ's turbo's are CT16's which is smaller then the CT26's found in the 7MGTE and 3SGTE, they're prettyt laggy. thats why i did the true twin conversion on his supra ( where both turbos spools at the same time ) and we hardly even notice any real loss in low end power and the powerband is much more smoother now esp running 18 psi.

the RB's twin's even though i've never experienced them first hand yet ( my co worker is in the process of buyin a R32 GTR ) every mag i've read including sport compact car stats that the RB's parallel setup was designed for boost response for the compromise in the top end power. thats why they're compressor wheels are made from special lightweight materials and they're turbos specs are very very mysterious. alot of people say its smaller then a T25 while others says they're T25's with a lighter compressor wheel.

HondaChili
07-18-2006, 12:51 AM
I agree with tat, I own a 97 Supra TT and although my loyalty stays with my car , however I would go with the RB motor due to the "true" twin setup. The paralell turbos can make all the difference during the powerband. The ttc (true twin) conversion that tat was talking about eliminates the first turbo from spooling pre- 4k range. however the turbos are still flowing in succession... in the parallel setup , (correct me if im wrong) the amount of exhaust flow is divided evenly amongst the two turbos which IMO is more efficient. Sequentail turbos sounds cool and great as a first experience, but for road racing or even a daily driver a setup that provides a single transition is clearly easier to control.

Chromedubs165db
07-18-2006, 10:39 AM
As far as twin turbos are concerend, not to get off topic, but if you are just looking for raw power the large single turbo conversion is your best bet. If you want versatility, the twins are very flexible.

HondaChili
07-18-2006, 12:06 PM
As far as twin turbos are concerend, not to get off topic, but if you are just looking for raw power the large single turbo conversion is your best bet. If you want versatility, the twins are very flexible.

hmmm, I'dont know what you really mean by versatility. Single turbo's definitely produce more power however the "verstility" here comes from the type of turbo
you want to buy. Single turbos (that aren't T88) will usually spool faster than OEM. With all turbo-ed cars, What you really want to look at is the powerband.

TRD2000
07-18-2006, 02:33 PM
hmmm...

parallel rb26. = 2 X 1.3 litre turbos.
Sequential 2JZ = 1 X 3L turbo till 4000rpm ish + 1 X 3L turbo FROM 4000rpm ish

while running twins allows for a smaller turbo that spools faster, if you half the flow you move that spool well up the rev range and it seems to me there's no point running twins... IMO

Sequential means you can use two different sized turbos, a little one to get you going and a big one (or a different housing A/R etc.) to take over when the little one runs out.

what would be really cool would be to run ALL your flow through one decent turbo to start... then as it starts to taper off, open your exaust to another turbo... you could divert gasses from the first turbo so it stayed in it's range and gradually feed in another turbo till you had TWO decent turbo's running in their range. congratulations you've got TWINS!..... oh weit doesn't the 2JZ do something like that already?

net result sequential makes for a broader powerband ...ALA Chilli ^^^ making the car "easier" to drive, more tractable

RB Power
07-18-2006, 07:38 PM
Purely cause engine respons i'dd go with the RB26DETT, i dont think the heavyness of the negine's realy matter. would you like a porche? engine at he wrong place? and also with AWD?? :cwm27: if you'd turn off its computer it wound have handling... :disappoin
Returning to the question, cause of the RB26's smaller capacatie it would score again, I know more RB's with 1200+ HP then I know 2JZGTE's and that's nos because of theire maximums.. but caus of their internal dureability. You've probably all seen the JUN R33 at TopGear, "witch had never broke down in the last 5 years" snd Jeremy Clarkson also said the that was the most grippy and best handling car he'd ever driven. (here coms the porsche idea again:shakehead) It realy needs heavy front mounted engine... and so does the Supra.:iceslolan

HondaChili
07-18-2006, 11:53 PM
hmmm...

parallel rb26. = 2 X 1.3 litre turbos.
Sequential 2JZ = 1 X 3L turbo till 4000rpm ish + 1 X 3L turbo FROM 4000rpm ish

while running twins allows for a smaller turbo that spools faster, if you half the flow you move that spool well up the rev range and it seems to me there's no point running twins... IMO

Sequential means you can use two different sized turbos, a little one to get you going and a big one (or a different housing A/R etc.) to take over when the little one runs out.

what would be really cool would be to run ALL your flow through one decent turbo to start... then as it starts to taper off, open your exaust to another turbo... you could divert gasses from the first turbo so it stayed in it's range and gradually feed in another turbo till you had TWO decent turbo's running in their range. congratulations you've got TWINS!..... oh weit doesn't the 2JZ do something like that already?

net result sequential makes for a broader powerband ...ALA Chilli ^^^ making the car "easier" to drive, more tractable


^^^ agreed, however i do want to say that the first turbo spool on the supra is a waste. There is barely a difference from it spooling and not within the first 3500k rpms. By doing a True twin setup Both turbos actually spooled a little bit quicker (roughly around 200 rpm quicker). The reason I did the TTC mod is to reduce wear on only the first turbo, save gas, and allow a smoother transition. If you look at a dyno chart of a stock tt, the power curve always takes a dip around 4k (or when the second turbo spools). After the TTC mod the Curve is alot smoother.

TatII
07-20-2006, 07:41 PM
hmmm...

parallel rb26. = 2 X 1.3 litre turbos.
Sequential 2JZ = 1 X 3L turbo till 4000rpm ish + 1 X 3L turbo FROM 4000rpm ish

while running twins allows for a smaller turbo that spools faster, if you half the flow you move that spool well up the rev range and it seems to me there's no point running twins... IMO

Sequential means you can use two different sized turbos, a little one to get you going and a big one (or a different housing A/R etc.) to take over when the little one runs out.

what would be really cool would be to run ALL your flow through one decent turbo to start... then as it starts to taper off, open your exaust to another turbo... you could divert gasses from the first turbo so it stayed in it's range and gradually feed in another turbo till you had TWO decent turbo's running in their range. congratulations you've got TWINS!..... oh weit doesn't the 2JZ do something like that already?

net result sequential makes for a broader powerband ...ALA Chilli ^^^ making the car "easier" to drive, more tractable


my co worker just bought his R32 GTR so finally i can comment first hand on what i said earlier. the R32 is almost lag less, on the highway you tap the gas, the boost will hit almost instantly. when in first gear, theres no sudden spike in power ( like a supra ) the turbos spools very smooth and very fast.

after putting the GTR on the lift, the turbos are very very small. even smaller then the CT16s found on the supra. the trade off that is that you can't run that high off a boost or else the turbos will shatter from over spinning.

and the supra and RX-7 doesn't run two different sized turbos. the first and secondary turbos are the exact same size. they just basically use the first turbo to pressurize the second turbo. the transition is not smooth, ( even at stock boost ) and the first turbo by itself is practically useless. it doesn't flow enough air to make any real power.

parrallel owns sequential in my opinion. thats why the twin turbo Z has better boost response, and after being in a GTR first hand, the boost response is much better then a supras.

and me and hondachilli knows each other so we know how the supra's system feels too.

jcsaleen
07-31-2006, 11:52 PM
Rb26dett just because it is in the legendary R34.

Right_LiRrr
08-18-2006, 11:27 PM
Rb26dett just because it is in the legendary R34.

I would have thought it was the R32 that was legendary :wink:

But I agree with everything Tat says - not just because he knows everything, but from experience in visiting auto shows as well.

As with powerhandling, I would think the supra is much more consistent in creating high power. At the last two big dyno events I went to, the supras always cracked 1000hp whereas the skylines, although very capable of doing the same, usually had problems and never got to make their full power. (both cars were of very well respected motorsport teams here in Aus.)

But for a true sports car where every aspect is judged, the skyline is just superb in my opinion...although, it's not for everyone. This is not to say the supra doesn't do very well on a track, because it does.

Both legendary engines, both close to bulletproof and both underrated (the sly japs! =P) Most GTRs here in aus (jap imported) dyno at about 310-320whp stock...so that says a lot.

kachok25
08-30-2006, 12:14 PM
For raw HP potental and stock form daily driving I have to say the 2JZ for stock form racing RB26. Seeing as I drive more than I race I have to say the 2JZ

Add your comment to this topic!