Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I am throwing up if I should O-ring my RB cylinder block after the rebore is done? I have heard many arguments for and against.

Please post your opinions here.

I wish to run 25-30psi through the motor when completed.

Head gasket has not yet been decided as this swings with the decision on o-ringing the block. Considering a Cometic triple layer 1.2mm.

All opinions appreciated.

Rgds,

Grippy

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/294691-to-o-ring-or-not-to-o-ring/
Share on other sites

Absoloutly no need to Oring your block mate this is a very "old school" modification and was a common modifcation before more modern advancements in gasket material and design. There are plenty of RB engines out there running the sort of target boost that you are aiming for with a good gasket and not having any issue. I would consider this mod to be fairly outdated and totally uneccessary. I personally have not used the cometic gaskets before so can not give you an opinion on them . I usually use tomei gaskets in the majority of engines that i build and have never had an issue with them.

I don't agree and don't think it's outdated .

I used to use Nismo competition head gaskets in Nissan L Series and FJ20 engines and never had problems with them . They basically had the wire ring inside the gaskets fire ring and you could plainly see the impression they left on the heads face .

As far as I'm concerned Nissan Japan's OEM head gaskets are good things and if you use a wire ring to form a mechanical lock on the outside of the fire rings sandwich they can stand higher cylinder pressures without creeping and breaking their seal .

Your calls , OEM standard of gasket with wire rings or very expensive gaskets without .

There is actually another alternative and that was one I saw Alex (of Pulse Turbocherging/Pulse Racing) years ago use with his FJ's running 30 pounds of boost . Essentially you cut the fire rings out of a std headgasket so all it does is seal oil and water in their passages . The block has a step machined right at the tops of the bores and a non ferrous shallow ring is used to seal the chambers to the block face . I don't remember exactly which material these flat faced squared off rings were made of but the resulting mechanical seal helped him crank 700 + horsepower from his FJ Turbo engine on an engine dyno .

Not bad from an admittedly solid two litre four .

A .

Thanks for the input,

I feel that O-ringing my block is possibly not going to give me any advantage. The engine is going to be used 90% of the time for track/ supersprint work although it will remain registered.

I have a good friend that owns a motorsport shop that mainly deals with drag cars and every engine I see there is O-ringed. So I cannot get an objective opinion from him. He believes that all high boosted engines should be o-ringed but I tend to disagree.

I have another friend that was recommended to O-ring his SR20, he did so, then 6 months later has the block filled to remove the o-ring cutout after advice from a different tuner.??? What is going on there??

The problem that I have with it is that once it is done the block is never the same. I think I will build this motor without the O-ring machining, run either a cometic or Tomei metal gasket, run the boost that I need and go from there. If I find that I start bowing out metal head gaskets maybe I will consider modifying the block further but I would like to keep my block in original condition till then.

Thanks for opinions, I would like to look into this further before a final decision is made. I am still leaning towards no o-rings.

Rgds,

Grippy

The problem you'll have is that everyone is going to have slightly different opinions so you have to find someone you trust and do the grasshopper thing with them .

What you need is facts based on actual results rather than what someones personal spin is on these things .

The bottom line (IMO) is that for significantly higher cylinder pressures you either use a competition standard of gasket or find ways to make more OEM ones stay put around the fire rings .

Your call . How about we ask engine builders about their experiences with WIRE rings .

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...