What a question/debate to be putting up on the RB forums... even if it was 2JZ vs. SR20 I think the answer is going to be pretty biased
I have to agree. This is opening a can of worms. Even if you compared Nissan vs Nissan (ie: RB vs SR) its going to be biased what more comparing a Nissan and a Toyota engine.
Yup i know but prob we can learn more from ths thread by listening to members view on why they choose rb,sr,2j....just my 2cents:bandit:
Bump: yup bro .the RB26 is the best engine to tune but something always fails or breaks(correct me if im wrong ) where else the 2jz can withstand huge amount of power without breaking down frequently...Exp: coil packs.......
Bump: yup bro .the RB26 is the best engine to tune but something always fails or breaks(correct me if im wrong ) where else the 2jz can withstand huge amount of power without breaking down frequently...Exp: coil packs.......
I think its good that you're trying to get a serious discussion regarding these two engines but I think we need people like Blackhowling to also contribute on behalf of the 2JZ. I have to admit, I don't know much about 2JZs cause these past 8 years or so have been purely RB20, RB25, RB26 and RB28 engines for me.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that an RB26 always fails or breaks down. I believe them to be fairly robust engines provided you do not skimp on maintenance.
Also, both these engines despite being 'flagship' engines for their respective makers have many differences such as the displacement for starters. While both are twin turbos, the setups are also different (correct me if I'm wrong but the 2JZs have a sequential twin turbo setup). The drivetrains are also different - Supra being RWD.
Even if we look at how these engines have evolved into what they are, the route or path taken by the engineers are very much different. The RB26 which has been around since the introduction of the R32GTR in 1989 has retained the 2.6L displacement for the later R33/R34s with improvements and tweaks along the way.
The Supra engines experienced what can be seen as more obvious changes during the same period as the MKIIIs had the 1JZ (2.5) while the MKIV has the 2JZ (3.0). If I'm not mistaken, the 1JZ head manufactured by Yamaha (I think) flows better so tuners in Japan ended up with the 1.5JZ - using the 2JZ block with the 1JZ head. Blackhowling is the expert on this. I'm probably so wrong it's not funny. So from what I see, these engines evolved into what they are in very different fashion.
Tuning wise, I guess locally the RBs enjoy more support and exposure which is not necessarily a good thing. If you want to get really technical about the engines then this thread will go on for many many pages. The RBs run AFMs from factory but, correct me please, 2JZs run MAP.
In other words, there are many differences that make both engines great and I'm the least qualified to comment on 2JZs cause I feel that one could devote their entire lives to becoming experts in their engine of choice be it RB, SR, Honda Vtecs, Rotaries, 2JZs and still learn new things as they go along. As for me, I'll stick to RBs cause I have a long way to go before I could call myself knowledgeable so I'll leave the 2JZ to the hardcore enthusiasts. :wavey: