Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Sorry to bring up such an old thread but im currently in the process of building a RB30DET (Forged 3.0l Bottom end, RB26 Head, GTX45, E85, Built C4). My engine builder has told me we want a 11.5:1 compression ratio because we are using E85. ill be looking to run 30+psi with this. Ive contacted Brad @ Spool Imports to see what pistons he can get his hands on that would get close to this CR. He reckons that they (CP Pistons) wont be able to fit enough Dome on the piston to achieve that. Another issue im looking at is, ill be running fairly high lift cams (between 9-11mm lift) so with such High compression im assuming ill have to fly cut the pistons which would lower the compression again surely. So what CR have people running high boost and E85 run and how did you achieve that CR (original CR of piston, work to block, HG thickness etc)?

you're really in unknown territory there mate. I don't think anyone could give you advice having been in a similar situation. 11.5 CR is stupidly high for a 30+psi goal Internal cylinder pressure is going to be incredible, hope you've got strong internals.

Cam wise I'm sure someone could weigh in, you can measure the valve movement and height of the piston so surely clearance can be worked out beforehand

Yea the motor is being built to go for the 850+rwkw so alot of people seem to be very quiet in regards to advice. my builder has a lot of experiance building High HP and high boost motors, and to my knowledge hes built 2 RB30DETs and both went 600+kw for years so i trust what hes doing. just interesting to see that no one else has gone big power with high comp on E85.

Yea the motor is being built to go for the 850+rwkw so alot of people seem to be very quiet in regards to advice. my builder has a lot of experiance building High HP and high boost motors, and to my knowledge hes built 2 RB30DETs and both went 600+kw for years so i trust what hes doing. just interesting to see that no one else has gone big power with high comp on E85.

is your builder from tas by any chance

Yea the motor is being built to go for the 850+rwkw so alot of people seem to be very quiet in regards to advice. my builder has a lot of experiance building High HP and high boost motors, and to my knowledge hes built 2 RB30DETs and both went 600+kw for years so i trust what hes doing. just interesting to see that no one else has gone big power with high comp on E85.

You would think there has to be a good reason for that.

I take it your engine builder has not used astronomical compression ratios in his previous 600w builds otherwise you wouldn't be asking how to acheive it.

I be questioning the engine builder how he is going to run 11.5, over 30psi and achive it with removing the squish pads from both sides of the combustion chamber to handle those power levels and DET and still remain at 11.5.

Oh hell, did i just drop a spanner in all the works by saying that? :)

There is someone in the US from memory who has a CNC machined open cumbustion chamber design with a custom domed piston to suit, still not near where your engine builder wants to be compression wise.

Most builds in your power bracket are running flat tops with open chambers, so very low compression then winding copious amounts of boost into them, usually in the low 8 compression ratio.

If your engine builder wants 11.5, ask him for the piston part number or to organize to get it custom made......

  • Like 1

I don't know why you would do it just to get a handful more hp off boost; you are fuel constrained (or more specifically octane constrained).

More info on NYTSKY's mate would be interesting!

I don't know why you would do it just to get a handful more hp off boost; you are fuel constrained (or more specifically octane constrained).

More info on NYTSKY's mate would be interesting!

I'm not sure I agree. I reckon that no-one really ever gets close to using up all the anti-knock property of E85 just by winding up the boost and adding timing. You have to stop adding timing a fair way before you can make most E85 engine knock simply because you stop making power.

Trying to use up the knock margin by taking the easy option of just piling in massive boost is unlikely to be better than starting with a more capable base engine (more compression) and adding less boost. Boost is bad. Every psi you pump the air up adds heat that you have to cool out of the air. Every psi that you add to the air is also pretty much added into the exhaust manifold. That adds exhaust contamination back into the cylinder that doesn't have to be there.

I reckon it is smart to try to find how high you can run static comp + boost on E85, still get realistic ignition advance numbers, etc. More static comp is going to make the engine more willing to work off boost and very much improve the boost threshold. What's not to like?

  • Like 1

I'm not sure I agree. I reckon that no-one really ever gets close to using up all the anti-knock property of E85 just by winding up the boost and adding timing. You have to stop adding timing a fair way before you can make most E85 engine knock simply because you stop making power.

Trying to use up the knock margin by taking the easy option of just piling in massive boost is unlikely to be better than starting with a more capable base engine (more compression) and adding less boost. Boost is bad. Every psi you pump the air up adds heat that you have to cool out of the air. Every psi that you add to the air is also pretty much added into the exhaust manifold. That adds exhaust contamination back into the cylinder that doesn't have to be there.

I reckon it is smart to try to find how high you can run static comp + boost on E85, still get realistic ignition advance numbers, etc. More static comp is going to make the engine more willing to work off boost and very much improve the boost threshold. What's not to like?

That is the same thoughtI had up until I talked to some serious enginer builders; I explained exactly that and all dismissed it stating their experiences. It makes the engine more prone to issues with excessive squish velocity and the handful of hp made off boost was offset by the much larger increase in performance by increasing boost pressure.

I agree there is a balance, but it would be dependant on application as with most of these decisions.

There is a simpler way to get the static CR up and it's as simple as using an RB25 Neo turbo head - smaller volume combustion chamber .

It involves changing manifolds or fixing points but if you want super power it can be done .

I agree that extra fuel octane is great but the point of it is to have the optimum ignition firing point for most power rather than finding the limits of the fuel .

As per boost thresholds I'm not sure higher static CRs will bring them down , more likely increase the pre and just post positive pressure torque .

My mentors taught me that there are two benefits of high static CRs .

First , the only way to increase an engines power other than FI revs and capacity increase is the static CR .

second , it's the way to reduce the torque loss (reduced dynamic compression) on an engine with long duration cams .

Thing is that really high cylinder pressure and power loads means having the engine structure more like a diesel though if anything they are worse off because they make comparatively big torque at low revs . It may not be silly to search what Nissan did to RD28s to make them a reliable diesel .

A .

Has anyone had failures from using E85, from what ive read, E85 being an alcohol cleans and washes the cylinders so with a lot of compression/boost and increasing piston clearances from forged pistons or worn stock pistons I wonder if there could be an increased heat and friction build up to cause a piston failure. Could this be possible on an RB30 piston that doesn't have the oil

squirter to help cool the pistons or does the amount of oil outweigh the ethanol content in the cylinders.

Edited by AngryRB
  • Like 1

E85 engines run MUCH cooler than petrol engines. So your worries about heat issues are unfounded.

E85 does clean up all the crap in the combustion chamber and so on.....but not from "washing" as in wet fuel washing like you appear to be worried about. If it was wet fuel washing the bores then you might worry about reduced lubrication, but the cleaning action is actually from steam. So I wouldn't fret there.

There is a concern with old tired engines or engines with forgies that have been built too loose (as in they don't actually need to be built as loose as a lot of people think they do, and if you make the mistake of building it very loose, then yes, it will be loose enough to possibly permit this concern to occur) then you can get a lot of blowby into the oil, and E85 blowby is full of water. So that can upset the lubrication and possibly lead to failures. But it's not because of heat. The absence of an oil squirter probably not an issue given the lower heat issues with E85 - but any potential lubrication issues from water in the oil are a separate issue that may or may not be assisted by having a squirter - as in, I think if the oil has enough water in it to be a problem, the a squirter probably won't help anyway.

Edited by GTSBoy

I know that engines run cooler, my point was more that if lubrication was being lost from the alcohol's cleaning effect then there would be increased heat build up around the top comp ring as friction increases with boost/comp.

What piston to wall clearance would you suggest if dedicated E85? I was thinking a 4thou could allow washing down the skirts on cold start?

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...