Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey guys i crashed my r33 drift car. im stripping it but i have decided to keep the engine and gear box to put in a 180sx. funds are low so it wont be till mid next year before i get the new car up and running. the motor and gear box are out of the car sitting on my garage floor covered up and have been for about 3 months now. MY question is what should i do to protect the engine while it sits for so long to make sure its all good when i finally get it going again? thanx guys

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/295354-storing-an-engine/
Share on other sites

Put the engine on an engine stand.

Leave oil in the sump. Turn it on it's side once a week to get the oil to soak up to the pistons and pins, straighten it up. Spray 2 seconds of WD40 into each spark plug hole and replace the spark plug. Rotate the engine 3 times, once a week after you have done that.

Cover up the intake pipe when done. Glad wrap and electrical tape will do. Don't shove rags in there as they tend to get forgotten about and can get sucked in later.

The WD40 will stop the rings from binding and rotating it will keep them from sitting in the one position in the bore

None of this is necessary but will ensure it stays lubed and internally rust free and smoothly operating for a long time.

Yer I don't know how you plan to do an RB25 conversion in a 180sx if you can't crank an engine over by hand...

1. Go get a nice torquey ratchet

2. Stick it on the bottom crank pulley

3. Elbow grease

Steves got a point. good way to find out the answer to a question is to ask.. The bolt through the centre of the balancer, turn that sucka. this turns the crank around which will turn everything else connected to it. Had your weetbixs?

If that were to happen, then there is another problem. There shouldn't be enough slack to do that

no not necessarily, iv seen it happen on cars that havnt even done there 100000kms timing belt change. its one of the main rules your taught when becoming a qualified mechanic. the engine is designed to turn one way, not both.

Edited by TRB-001
no not necessarily, iv seen it happen on cars that havnt even done there 100000kms timing belt change. its one of the main rules your taught when becoming a qualified mechanic. the engine is designed to turn one way, not both.

If it has slack to slip on the crank when turning anti clockwise, then what do you think happens when you turn the belt clockwise? The slack moves to the other side. Therefore, it would be far too loose.

Yes the 'engine' is designed to rotate one way but no the belt is not. The belt has a rounded tooth design and it doesn't matter which way you rotate it, it will have equal possibility of slipping either way.

Also the tension on the belt does not change, if you rotate it clockwise, the tension is on the idler side, if you rotate it anti-clockwise, the exact same tension is on the tensioner side.

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...