Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi Joel, I like it when the guys go and do their own research. It's much better than me telling you stuff, that you will forget tomorrow. If you do the work, you may not remember the answer, but you will always remember how to find out if you do forget.

The answer is that the optimum squish zone will result in improvements in Economy, Emissions, Performance and Response. Because there is a much higher chance for the fuel and air to burn completely. Since it takes out some unburnt fuel, it also improves the bore lubrication (no washing) and therefore engine life.

One of my favourite quotes comes from RaceTech Inc;

"On many engines, a squish or quench area is used to negate combustion in certain areas to avoid knock. By having a matched area where the piston and combustion chamber come in close proximity at TDC, the gasses are kept cool enough so that they will not ignite until the piston has moved down the bore and cylinder volumes are increasing. This keeps the rate of pressure rise below the knock limit. Some people are dismayed when they install a thicker head gasket to lower the CR and have knocking worse than before. This is because they have negated the designed-in quench effect. A large squish area also tends to promote increased chamber turbulence which is important for mixing and power at high rpm."

There is plenty of other squish zone reading around, a couple of guys in the US wrote a mega thesis on it a few years back. Do a search, it's there somewhere.

Ok here is what I have so far.

Sydney kid.. Would you be so kind as to have a look at the cam belt setup and let us know if this is how you did your's or if this is the best way to do it?? Thanx :D

File is 86k.

Hey Joel ... all seams all right just for a few things .....

1 . why not go a copper head gasket std head gaskets cant hold high boost pressure ..... ?

2. a compression ratio of 7.1 is perfect for turbos just think of it as the more air and fuel you can cram into the cylinder the more bang you get ......

my car runs on around 7.5.1 comp and loves the boost ...

and remember the higher the comp ratio the less off a wack youll get when u hit boost itll more feel like a v8 at 9.1 ...... just letting you know due too experience in the engineering side ...

Hu?

I've used a multi-layer metal headgasket that has its middle layer with a O-ring around the bore, it saved me $80 compared to using a stocker head gasket with a machined O-ring in to the block. Every little $$ counts when your at Uni and on $200 p/w. I havn't been out for a long long time, which is good for the studies though. :D

The comp ratio is around 8.2:1 by my calcs and Andrews calcs.

The only issue with the RB30 forged pistons is the comp would have been around 7:1, perfect squish but crappy comp. I didn't want 7:1. Every one told me not too.

Lowest I was told to go was 8:1. At the time I wasn't aware of Squish hence why we ended up settling on Wiesco RB25DET 14cc dome pistons that gave us around the 7.8-7.9 comp. Then shaved 20thou off the block to bring it up to 8.2:1. Should have done another 20thou or even 40thou.

Im unsure sure how it will affect the engine as I can't find any results on the net of how a engine has performed after its squish has changed by 3 fold. By the looks of it the difference is minimal, well from the little i've found on the net.

Remember for every .5 of a cr you dorp you need approx another 2.9psi to achieve the same final compression.

Drop to 7:1 and that means you will have to run an extra 6psi to make the same power if you were running a 8:1cr. So realisitically using the measurement of "I can run 2bar no problems now" is pretty usless as the final comp. ratio after the boost has been pumped in and compressed is the same.

Hi Joel apparently you asked ..............

Sydney kid.. Would you be so kind as to have a look at the cam belt setup and let us know if this is how you did your's or if this is the best way to do it??

Did I answer that?

hehe I can't remember, I could go through all the posts again but havn't got time. I've left a law subject essay to the last minute. :P Too busy stuffing around with the RB30 last weekend.

I really didn't have much choice in the matter as the Dayco 94407 was the only belt I could track down. The powergrip I was told didn't exist.

But out of curiosity how have the RB30DET's you know of been done?

Found an what looks to be an issue when using the stock RB20/25 exhaust manfifold on the RB30DET.

Pic 1.

The RB20 setup. Note the how water galley that is situated at the top of the block sitting a few mm down from the deck. It extends from the front of the block (end of the water pump) to the back of the block. (6 small of welsh plugs)

Pic 2.

The RB30 setup. Note the how water galley that is situated at the top of the block sitting basically flush with the deck.

It looks like it is way too close. Especially being where the lower exhaust manifold bolts are the water galley has a rise that flattens outhence fouling the manifold.

The RB20t block definately has a LOT more clearance.

Pic3.

Misc pic.. Came across that poster a while back in a Wheels Mag.

It states - "Nissans new Godzilla on wheels aims to slay the Sierra. And its here soon"

Lol they obviously wern't too worried about the V8's back then.. :)

Pic4.

My 91' R32 Bathurst GTR.

Have a read of this peoples.

http://www.racehelp.com/article_racing-10.html

It contains some interesting info regarding quench & piston design among other things.

<span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'>It appears that for a high reving engine which is classified as 6500+rpm the quench or squish gap/clearance is around the .050-.055".</span>

This is due to the standard cranks felx & pin flex etc..

Well apparently according to one engine builder.

sent an email to gates in USA a while ago

"I'm trying to locate a particular belt of yours somwhere in Brisbane.

The one I am after is the Gates POWERGRIP GT2 p/n 1200 8MGT 30

it measures 1200mm long, 8mm pitch on teeth, 150 teeth.

If you would be able to tell me where I am able to purchace this belt

it would be greatly appriciated."

Reply

"Either Consolidated Bearing Company or Powergrip Industries in Brisbane

should be able to help you out with this one.

Best Regards,

Peter"

hope that helps anybody

I too have emailed gates australia regarding the Powergrip belt. Two issues.....the belt needs to be cut down from 30mm to 25mm (factory width), not sure who can do this.

Secondly, The powergrip GT2 belt has a lower temp rating than a cam timing belt.

I asked if there is an equivelent to an RB30 belt, but 1200mm long. The response from gates is as follows....

I have just checked with our global database and it appears you are in

luck. T306 is the same profile as the T175 (RB30 belt) and is 1200mm

long with the 8mm pitch and has a top width of 23mm.

We currently have the T306 belts available and the list price is

$120.65

The T306 may be the way to go? I haven't ordered one yet, so cannot confirm the above.

hehe I can't remember, I could go through all the posts again but havn't got time. I've left a law subject essay to the last minute. :) Too busy stuffing around with the RB30 last weekend.

 

I really didn't have much choice in the matter as the Dayco 94407 was the only belt I could track down. The powergrip I was told didn't exist.

 

But out of curiosity how have the RB30DET's you know of been done?

Hi Joel, we mount the tensioner high and generally use a standard idler in the standard (low) position. But when we machine the head and/or the block (to get the compression ratio where we want it) we use a second tensioner in the idler position. We use the Dayco 94407 belt.

Hope that helps

It's good to use VCT up to a certain horse power level (maybe 250rwkw???) with the standard turbo or a mild turbo upgrade, then after that you ditch the VCT and go with adjustable cam gears to get better results from different cams and bigger turbo kits.

just a note to some ppl

a mate has just done a lot of work building his engine for his vlt

its a stock n/a 3l bottomend , fully prepped though , and a 25 head , vct welded up.

now it was made apparent to him and many others that bolting a 25 head to stock vl bottom would result in approx 8.3 comp , well after many hours work , we cc'd it all and it turned out to have about 64cc , which gave a comp ratio of bout 8.8:1 , too high for a performance engine as timing would be stupidly low.

i know most ppl using this great thread are using forgies aswell , but just check out some things before going ballistic on ur new engine.

anyway we are now going forgies for this engine , etc etc etc

good luck to all who do the conversion , its a top idea

andrew

just a note to some ppl

a mate has just done a lot of work building his engine for his vlt

its a stock n/a 3l bottomend , fully prepped though , and a 25 head , vct welded up.

now it was made apparent to him and many others that bolting a 25 head to stock vl bottom would result in approx 8.3 comp , well after many hours work , we cc'd it all and it turned out to have about 64cc , which gave a comp ratio of bout 8.8:1 , too high for a performance engine as timing would be stupidly low.

i know most ppl using this great thread are using forgies aswell , but just check out some things before going ballistic on ur new engine.

anyway we are now going forgies for this engine , etc etc etc

good luck to all who do the conversion , its a top idea

andrew

Hi Andrew, I have done this conversion more than once and the compression ratio is 8.3 'ish always. I suggest you get them to check it again. Standard compression ratio on an N/A VL is 9 to 1 with 58 cc combustion chambers (SOHC 2 valve). If you do the mathematics you will see that with 64 cc combustion chambers (DOHC 4 valve) there is no way you only loose 0.2.

If you want to post the dimensions you used I can probably verify where the error is in the calculations.

Secondly, who says 8.8 is too high for a performance engine anyway?

See that car at the bottom, it has over 1,000 bhp (now that's a real "performance engine") and it runs 9.3 to 1. I would argue that 8.8 to 1 is too LOW, in fact I have many times.

I suggest you read Joel's posts of 23/3/04 and prior, he covers the reasoning behind this very well.

Hope that clears up any misconceptions

sydneykid

thanks for ur advice mate , i respect what u say , i have read many a response from u and u seem like a very knowledgeable chap

i will let him know the points u have made.

my mate works for tighe cams , he is an engineer , i dare say he did his calculations correct but who knows.

anyway , we planned for a cr of bout 8.2-3:1 , while using custom zorst manifold , gt35 or 30/40 dunno which one , custom inlet etc etc , anyway i will see what he says , also will try and grab the specs and post em up

thanks again

andrew

OVL..

I don't know exactly as I'm still reading in to it but here's my best shot.

Try to ignore the static compression ratios, thinking of them as only a base compression ratio that means in practice very little when you start to fiddle with cam timing, after market cams, turbo efficiency range etc.

It comes down the the dynamic compression ratio.

Rememeber this. For every .5 of a CR you drop in static comp you will be required to pump in another 2psi to make the same power/dynamic compression. Approximately that is.

Lets see what this looks like on paper.

An RB30DET with a static CR of 9:1 on 1 bar of boost makes 260rwkw.

An RB30DET with a static CR of 8.5:1 will require an extra 2psi (makes it 17psi) to achieve the same dynamic compression ratio hence 260rwkw.

Only real difference is that the RB30DET with a static comp of 9:1 will have better response, fuel economy and spool the turbo a little earlier.

Say you were to drop to 8:1. You would need an extra 4 psi (hence 19psi) to make the same power as a RB30DET running a 9:1cr with 15psi of boost.

Work the turbo's efficiency range in to this with a required power goal/ fuel used etc and you will find the 9:1cr is pretty much on the mark.

Running a higher static comp also leaves the door open for much better performance for when you or if you decide to slap a set of cams in it.

I've started to realise there is so much more involved when looking for a certian amount of power. So many variables that all work hand in hand to achieve the most responsive, fuel efficient engine.

I'm sure we have all read or heard at some stage or another that when you cam up an engine it is best to up the compression ratio. And why.. Dynamic compression ratio.

Having to pull timing out of a higher comp engine simply states that the burn is more efficient. It isn't a bad thing.

All this has started to make sense when I have heard tuners say with stock RB25DET's they tend to pull a little bit of timing and tend to richen it up a little if running on the limit around peak torque. Peak torque you will find occurs around where the engine is running at its highest VE (RPM of which most air is able to fill the cyclinders) hence at the peak torque the dynamic compression ratio is at its highest.

Do a bit of googling.. Definately worth the effort if you are building up a motor.

Guys,

I have noticed in the RB25 Workshop manual it says to first Torque the head down to a small number... like 25-30pounds all round...

Then torque to 70-75 (100Nm) and then back to 0!!? then back to 101Nm??

Why?

Doesnt this create unnessacery stretch on the head bolts, and doesnt the gasket loose its "mojo" (tensile)

Do you guys tension the head a diffrent way?

Cheers,

Trev

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

    • Yeah, this is one of the most annoying things about nissan part numbers... I've got an unrelated example... Image is of the AT output shaft ~ they have the same part#, but clearly the shaft on the left is beefier design to that on the right ...the difference (essentially) is the 'lighter' shaft on the right, is for engines up to RB25DE (this includes RB20 variants) : the shaft on the left is for RB25/26DET(T)....are they interchangeable? Yes...but obviously one shaft is going to be stronger than the other...and, the lighter shaft is around USD115, but the heavier shaft closer to USD150...same part#... ...epc-data usually tells a tale ~ the amayama listing for 39100-23U60 has a note "Longest side is between 60 and 105 cm" ; no such info is there for 39100-23U70 ...and given the great disparity in price between the 2 parts, it makes me at least curious (to the point of caution) where the 'extra money' went? ...ie; these 2 parts have a cost difference that (to myself at least) isn't explained by 'plastic boot'...ie; with amayama there's AUD700 price difference ...plastic versus rubber?...I'm not seeing it like that...and 60cm ~ 105cm...??...that's a huge disparity....something hinky going on here... I'd try searching by VIN, not model... /2cents
    • I don't know for sure, but I'd expect them all to be interchangeable given the diff end and hub end don't move/change between any C34 series. Often Nissan will change part numbers and the aftermarket follows those year ranges; but the original part number change doesn't mean other parts won't fit. The change could be a change in material, internal parts or even just supplier. For example, all the RB gearbox to engine bolts are no longer available and there is a new part number instead. The only change is they went from cadmium plated bolts to zinc plated due to the issues manufacturing with Cadmium. They look different but work the same.
    • One year is a bit concerning. Did you try contacting GSP? It says 5 year warranty on the box if I remember correctly. I'm also running their driveshafts on my S2 Stagea.   You could check the part numbers on Amayama for your year. Here's the link for my 1998 which gives the 39100-23U60 part number. Well, that and 39100-23U70. https://www.amayama.com/en/genuine-catalogs/epc/nissan-japan/stagea/wgnc34/6649-rb25det/trans/391 What does it say for yours?
    • I ordered a GSP Front R/H Axle from here - https://justjap.com/products/gsp-premium-front-driveshaft-r-h-nissan-r32-r33-r34-skyline-gtr-stagea-4wd#description It lasted around a year before one of the boots blew out. I'm lowered, but I have GKTech roll center adjusters. One year seems a little premature. I think I'm going to spend the extra money on an OEM cv axle this time. This website - https://tfaspeed.com/collections/nissan-stagea-wgnc34-x-four-parts/products/nissan-stagea-awc34-260rs-rb26-right-front-axle-drive-assembly Makes it sound like the readily available OEM CV axle will only fit 11.1999 Stagea and up (mine is a 2.1997 S1). The JustJap listing didn't mention any years or anything for the GSP axle. Amayama shows '11.1999' and up as well for that part number. As well as 'plastic boot type'. See attached picture. So I guess my question is, does that axle (39100-23U60) really only fit S2 Stagea? It's the front driver side. If it does, I'd love to buy that instead of rolling the dice on another GSP. I've found that OEM one cheaper here: https://www.partsfornissans.com/oem-parts/nismo-jdm-r32-r33-r34-skyline-gtr-r32-gts4-right-front-axle-3910023u60 and here https://www.nissanparts.cc/oem-parts/nismo-shaft-ft-drive-3910023u60 Just a little confused because the JapSpeed listing for the GSP front driver axle doesn't mention any specific years or anything and it fit my S1 Stagea fine. So will 39100-23U60 fit my S1 Stagea even though technically it says '11.1999' and up? What would have changed? Thanks.  
    • Thanks for the info. The only "Issue" I've had with the shifter is I always found the throw between 4th and 6th gear too close. I'm always worried to shift into 4th accidently and sending my motor to the moon. Adam LZ recently came out with a video and stated Serialnine revised their shifters to correct this and will change all the revised parts for 150$. Strangely enough, I contacted Serialnine right after and they denied it and said it's bullshit. I found that strange as he's a distributer. I'll keep this forum post updated on that saga.
×
×
  • Create New...