Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Okay the auction sheet for my Cefiro stated it had a 2.5L. When it arrived it was found to have an RB20 head.

We've since pulled this engine down and discovered 83mm bores. Stock cast pistons of some form and what I'm pretty sure are RB26 rods. Can someone confirm these please.

Also is there an easy way of identifying a GTR crank?

post-15238-1200966252_thumb.jpg

Edited by D-limo
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/202599-do-i-have-an-rb24/
Share on other sites

O5U = RB26

Check the stroke of the crank, slip it back into the block and measure it, RB26 = 73.7 mm

83 mm bore X 73.7 mm stroke = 2394 cc's

Cheers

Gary

66mm :) What does that make it like an RB22??

I thought GTR rods could only be used with GTR cranks?

This is interesting :D

So what block's it got for that stroke? Someone know?

It's like a hot-pot of every RB engine all in one!

The RB20, RB25 and RB26 blocks are all the same height, the RB30 block is 38mm taller.

66 mm stroke x 83 mm bore = 2,143 cc's

I seriously doubt the 66 mm stroke, an RB20 is 69.7 mm standard, so I see no reason why anyone would destroke it. Plus you would run into low gudgeon pin height problems. The 69.7 (RB20), 71.7 (RB25) and 73.7 (RB26) strokes can all be accommodated with the right choice of gudgeon pin height in the piston But 66 mm would require a very low gudgeon pin height to get the piston to the top of the bore. I don't think so.

Cheers

Gary

RB20 + rb20 rods + 83mm bore pistons is a rb22

RB20 + rb26 rods + rb26 crank + 83mm bore pistons is a rb24

if the strokes different they could be 4agze pistons because they fall short of the deck by 3mm so the stroke may be shorter because the blocks been decked to suite 4agze pistons.

My 2 cents

The pistons have UNISA stamped on the so I think that rules out 4AGZE??

It was running an East Bear 1.8mm HG so is it possible that pistons have a high gudgeon pin height?

I didn't actually measure the stroke myself but the guy who did has built Ferrari engines so I think he got it right..

The crank is still installed btw

Sydneykid whats next?? Is there even a next lol

Thanks for the input gents its much appreciated :)

Edited by D-limo
RB20 + rb20 rods + 83mm bore pistons is a rb22

RB20 + rb26 rods + rb26 crank + 83mm bore pistons is a rb24

if the strokes different they could be 4agze pistons because they fall short of the deck by 3mm so the stroke may be shorter because the blocks been decked to suite 4agze pistons.

My 2 cents

Pistons have no effect on stroke. Stroke is the distance the piston travels up and down the bore. Whether it has high or low gudget pins makes no difference to the stroke.

Cheers

Gary

The pistons have UNISA stamped on the so I think that rules out 4AGZE??

It was running an East Bear 1.8mm HG so is it possible that pistons have a high gudgeon pin height?

I didn't actually measure the stroke myself but the guy who did has built Ferrari engines so I think he got it right..

The crank is still installed btw

Sydneykid whats next?? Is there even a next lol

Thanks for the input gents its much appreciated :rolleyes:

Measure the stroke again, if you didn't use a dial guage last time, then use one this time. Rotate the crank such that the piston is at the top of the bore (TDC), and zero the dial gauge. Then rotate the crank 1/2 a turn until it is at the bottom of the bore (BDC). The distance the piston travelled is the stroke.

The previous engine builder would have fitted the 1.8 mm had gasket to lower the compression ratio. The same sized combustion chamber with more capacity (bore and stroke) means higher compression ratio. The 1.8 mm head gasket effectively increases the capacity of the combustion chamber and hence lowers the compression ratio. Personally I am not a fan of thick head gaskets, for one they stuff up the squish and cause detonation.

Cheers

Gary

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

    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
    • You are all good then, I didn't realise the port was in a part you can (have!) remove. Just pull the broken part out, clean it and the threads should be fine. Yes, the whole point about remote mounting is it takes almost all of the vibration out via the flexible hose. You just need a convenient chassis point and a cable tie or 3.
×
×
  • Create New...