Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No. .0005" extra is much better than .0005" too little. The clearance they specify is normally the minimum clearance that will work in the vast majority of situations. In all honesty, most of the cheap bore gauges that people use to check a bore are only accurate to .0005" anyway and depending if the block was allowed to cool before the final honing and measurement they can move that much anyway.

Should I worry?

the cp,s will run .004 clearance at the pin if the bore measures right on 86mm exactly. get a competant machine shop to measure the bores , hone the bores correctly and the gaps at what youve stated will work fine. a correct hone finish would be my favor over a tad more piston to bore clearance. we have run the cp,s at .006 thou clearance after a few teardowns and you can hear them at that clearance and dont seem to upset the knock sensor.

i used trust/os pistons. at 1.9thou they are fine. but i didnt like the fact that they came with no ring spec sheet. and was told but the trust dealer at the time they are gapped to suit the 1.9thou bore.....

done 50,000km at 1.6 bar no drammas as yet :laugh:

  • 4 weeks later...

hey guys, so to steal the thread but i am dropping my CPs off tomorrow at the machinist, my mate/ building adviser has not used CPs before. im looking at around 350kw-400kw at rears and spinning to around 8500 tops.

can i get an idea of what a couple of u recomend as far as piston to bore and ring gaps

and how much better is the ACL oil ring over the CP.

Mate im a big fan of the ACL's but no bastard wants to use them. The thick upper rings seal really well...even in big clearanced drag race stuff and as you say the oil control is much better than the CP's as even at 16 thou the CP's tend to 'float' on the bore.

Ha, ha I used em (ACL's)!!!

Built mine near the end of last year and have put 10,000k on it so far. Got the block machined to 86.5 and run a 3.5 thou piston to bore clearance, then built the rest up myself.

I was a little generous with the compression ring end gaps 17 top, 21 thou second ring, but it seems to work well.

Dynoed at 363RWKW at 20psi and revs up to 9000RPM. Daily driver since 2004! and still is.

any opinions on my application i am tending to go with dirtgarages slightly larger clearnces, meeting the manufactorer in the middle..

as i have said its going tomorrow so an opinion would be great

its in a 26 at 86.5

Mate im a big fan of the ACL's but no bastard wants to use them. The thick upper rings seal really well...even in big clearanced drag race stuff and as you say the oil control is much better than the CP's as even at 16 thou the CP's tend to 'float' on the bore.

Whereabouts can I order the ACL rings from and are they piston specific or just bore specific? Meaning do I ask for an 86.5mm set of ACL piston rings? I have no problem spending the extra on them.

Jason.

  • 4 months later...

I started my gapping process only to find out that when I place either the top or second ring in the bore that the gapping is bigger than what was recommended i.e top - 17 thou, second, 19 thou and oil around 16 thou. I am guessing that means that the machinist honed my bores too big allowing the rings to have a bigger gapping. What advice can you'll give me to correct this and please don't tell me to get 86.5mm and rebore? Can I get some ACLs that would fit the build? This has got me really frustrated.

Back to basics. You need to measure the pistons witha micrometer and see what cylinder bore to piston clearance the block was setup with. Check your piston "recommended clearence" data. It will be between 2.5-4 thou depending on the brand and material of pistons. If thats ok then look at rings. Something not right and to proceed without the propper checks will end up in disaster.

Wouldnt you want a steel gas nitrided top ring rather then a chome/moly coated ductile iron top ring?

Or do CP offer a proper top ring now? like acl and mahle use. Out of curiosity, last time we used several sets of CP's they didnt offer a good top ring.

I would do what shane said and get a set of acl rings that have the same thickness about 1.5mm, 1.5mm and 2.7mm from memory???...but I would measure the thickness of your rings now with verniers to see.

Edited by r33_racer

Sorry for hijacking the thread, but I have a question....

Since most blocks when bored/honed are done with a torque plate(well if done properly)...if you were being precise with your ring gaps, then it would make sense to check and set ring gaps whilst a torque plate is bolted to the block right?

Does anyone do that? or only pedantic builders goto that length? I understand the bore distortion might only be .0005 or thereabouts going from torqued to untorqued.....but still...might only be half a thou, to some thats not much, to others thats alot.

Been thinking about it, and was curious if anyone bothers?

Sorry for hijacking the thread, but I have a question....

Since most blocks when bored/honed are done with a torque plate(well if done properly)...if you were being precise with your ring gaps, then it would make sense to check and set ring gaps whilst a torque plate is bolted to the block right?

Does anyone do that? or only pedantic builders goto that length? I understand the bore distortion might only be .0005 or thereabouts going from torqued to untorqued.....but still...might only be half a thou, to some thats not much, to others thats alot.

Been thinking about it, and was curious if anyone bothers?

I've done it both ways on an RB and the difference is negligible plus its awkward to square the ring properly with the torque plate fitted as it's only slightly larger than the bore size.

appreciate the response mate. did you manage to get those pics of the rd28? or too busy? no issue if not.

Have you ever checked bore with and without torque plate to see what variation there is?

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...