Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

sorry for the newb question fellas, but i was wondering; by rebuilding the bottom end, does it affect the compression of the cylinders in any way? ie. would a low compression turbo engine (which is bad) still be 'bad' after a rebuild? Also, what are the safe compression levels on an rb20det?

cheers, miguel

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/125623-engine-rebuild-question/
Share on other sites

Are you referring to the engines CR and it being bad cause it was built bad originally? or do you mean the engine is shagged from old age and abuse and the compression has dropped and needs a rebuild...if the latter then yes an oversized bore with new pistons and rings to suit will ensure compression is good again and tolerances are tight.

Id imagine compression would be around the 160-170 mark..similar to an rb25.

from memory, anything between 127psi and 170psi is good compression, and variance of no more than 15psi between cylinders (these are from rb20det manual if i remember them correctly)

low-compression related problems can arise from

-piston rings (or cracked piston / stuffed bores)

-head gasket

-valves / head

bottom-end rebuild will include new piston rings and will fix any bottom-end related compression problems.

Usually to tell if your rings / pistons aren't holding compression you can add 10ml or so of oil to the cylinder when doing the compression test, if the comp increases then your rings are gone.

(not to be confused with 'compression ratio')

when rebuilding an engine you can lower the compression ratio by taking material out of the head, however this is completely different from what i've mentioned above, and low compression ratio's aren't necessarily bad, particularly for turbo's which are more prone to detonation. An aftermarket thicker head gasket can also lower the comp ratio.

it would be impossible to detect if the comp ratio has been altered without taking the motor apart.

hope this answers your question

Edited by MerlinTheHapyPig

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Version 1 aluminium airbox is.......not acceptable No pics as I "didn't like the look.....alot" Even after all my "CAD", and measurements, the leg near the fusebox just didn't sit right as it ended up about 10mm long and made the angle of the dangle look wrong, the height was a little short as well, meh, I wasn't that confident that Version 1 was going to be an instant winner I might give Version 2 another go, there's plenty of aluminium at work, but, after having in on and off a few times, and laying in the old OEM airbox without the new pod filter and MAF, there may be an option to modify the OEM air box and still use the Autoexe front cover and filter.... maybe This >  Needs to fit in here, but using the panel, and not the pod, the MAF will need to fit in the airbox though> I'm thinking as the old OEM box and Autoexe cover that is sitting in the shed is just sitting around doing nothing, and they are relatively abundant and cheap to replace if I mess it up and need another, it may well fit with some modifications to how the Autoexe brackets mounts to the rad support, and some dremiling to move it get in there, should give me some more room for activities, as I don't want to move the MAF and affect the tune Sealing the hole it requires to stick it in the air box is simple, a tight fit and some pinch weld will seal it up tight  I am calling this a later problem though
    • and it ends up being already priced in as though you're just on 91RON without any ethanol. Car will lose a bit of economy as the short and long term fuel trims bring down the AFR back to stoich or whatever it is for cruise/idle for the engine.  
    • Oh, you are right. But, in Australia E10 is based on 91RON fuel and ends up being 94RON. Hence it being the cheaper option for economy cars. The more performance oriented cars go for the 98RON fuel that has no ethanol mixed in. The only step up we have left then at some petrol stations is E85.
    • There is a warning that "this thread is super old" but they ignore that anyway...
    • With 10% Ethanol, we're talking 2-3% fuel consumption difference. The emissions reductions and octane boost in my opinion far outweigh this almost non existent loss.    My tanks sitting at 80%. Luckily that should go down fast as I'm on vacation again for the next two weeks. 
×
×
  • Create New...