Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Well long story short,

My step father is putting an RB30E+T into his EH holden,

Long process, finally got it going, took it for a bit of a drive to set the boost controller...

Pulled up to check where the tyres were rubbing, and noticed a miss, took it back to the house... did all the normal checks, couldn't find anything...

Next day my step father checked it over and found milky oil on the dipstick and in the rocker covers,

Did a compression test 140psi on 1,2,4,5 and about 125 on the 3 and 6

Motor was rebuilt about 10 years ago and done bugger all K's since, was in another EH that was a weekender...

What's do u's reckons wrong?? we're in the process of removing the head as we're leaning toward head gasket...

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/277312-compression-test-results/
Share on other sites

by the sounds of it he would have... he's sending him an email at the moment,

it's was also blowing steam out the exhaust... that was our main reason for thinking gasket...

also radiator lost fluid and pressurized with gas...

inside exhaust was also wet...

Edited by axe s

sounds like a head gasket to me. Also, I'm assuming the motor was originally from a VL, Holden in all there wisdom decided to get the heads for that motor made from there own supplier because it was "cheaper", and it was, in every sense of the word, hence VL's had a problem with the heads cracking when the engine was over heated :(

+1 for a headgasket. nissan sohc heads are fine, they do not crack because they're made of a 'cheaper' material-they're all made from the same standard grade, its its all about process, both before the casting is made and operating conditions after. Anyway as above, the heads would only warp/crack if the cooling system wasnt bled correctly (most people either still dont know they have to do this or still cant do it correctly (2 top bleeders))

Genuine Nissan headgaskets are the best to go by in my book, even Supercheap ones are up to the task. I wouldnt try lowering the compression... as far as I recall the rb30et compression ratio is already pretty low at 7.8:1. Skim the head, and gain some response unless you want to run huge boost.

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...