Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi guys i've done a compression and leak down test on my rb26 to see if i can determine why it burns about a qt of oil between changes (5000Kms)

Ive somewhat ruled out valve seals because it doesnt smoke on start up even after sitting for some days, neither on deceleration, neither on idle.

There is slight white/blue on hard accel but i cannot see it in from inside the car....i was told this by a friend driving behind.

It fills the catch can with less than a table spoon of oil during the period also.

Anyway here are the results...

...Compression________________Leak down

....DRY........WET____________DRY...........WET

1) 155.........200 __________1) 12%..........10%

2) 151.........200___________2) 8%...........7%

3) 160.........205___________3) 10%.........10%

4) 157.........200___________4) 11%.........11%

5) 145.........190___________5) 15%.........14%

6) 152.........198___________6) 20%.........14%

Did not hear any air escaping through the intake,exhaust,through the coolant etc, only through the dip stick hole and the oil fill cover...about the same amount for all cylinders

So what do u guys think Rings or turbos or....???

Yeah I thought that might have been the case.

It would show different symptoms usually for turbo, as you have mentioned. It would more than likely get smoke on startup after leaving it overnight. Which would lead you to either stem seals or turbo, but the test there pretty much points to rings for me anyway, that will be the smoke under acceleration too.

Did you perform your own comp test prior to purchasing? How long have you had it for?

I started the engine when it was on the ground and did a comp test, no. 5 was a little lower that the rest...same as it is now, and then did a next test after about 5-6mths of running in the car and it was more or less the same....just 1-2psi difference

I used a different gauge this time tho so i cant compare it to the last results, and it has been about another 6mths since the last test.

Going from the difference between the wet and dry test on no. 6 it points to rings, but is that difference so bad??? ie. from 20% to 14%.....

I would of thought there might have been a larger difference in leak down between wet and dry on no. 5 seeing that it had the lowest comp.

The car still makes good power tho.

Yeah I know what your saying re no 5, I would have expected a different result there.

Maybe take it to a reputable garage and have another test done, can't hurt having another set of results to compare with. Should cost sub $100, and you can then get another opinion as well. Was the test performed at WOT?

Personally I think your looking at combined blow by across all cylinders. Not anything major, but enough to cause that amount of oil loss over x period of time. In any event, whether it's one cylinder, 2, or all of them, the end result is the same, it will need a rebuild in order to resolve it.

If it's making good power and still pulls strong, then leave it for a bit longer and just watch your oil.

You could even investigate running a different grade oil in order to minimize it.

Don't mind getting a second opinion at all but there is no one locally to do it that's why i had to buy my own equipment to do it!

Its a cheap gauge from harbor freight in the states though, so i dont know how accurate it is......did each test about four times though to ensure a consistent result!

The comp test seems more or less ok for a rb with some ks on it....just no. 5 is a little lower but yet doesn't show any improvement in leak down when it was done wet.

Oil control rings was suggested as a probable cause but neither a comp test nor leak down would determine this right???

Test was done wot on a warm motor using redline 20w50

Yeh....

I got one of those small greddy copy catch can filled with copper scuff pad thingy with one 1/2" hose from the cam covers running to it then back to original spot on the rear turbo

Is it possible that the 1/2" hose is too small??

The rest of the pcv system is stock.

I dont think there excessive pressure in the sump tho....It does not blow out the dipstick and it isnt on that tight

  • 4 weeks later...

2 things to try:

Cold comp test (not on a warmed up motor)

Comp test with a cap full of oil down the cylinder (also cold)

Doing it cold may show you less impressive results, and major variances in the results from a cap full of oil in the bore shows worn rings.

Perhaps remove your front pipe and look for evidence of a greasy burn, all turbos with worn seals have been a little greasy in the exhaust housing that I have worked on.

Realistically you are going to have to make your own decision here.. Another thing to note, is your breather setup stock (I noted you said you had a catch can) and how is it setup.

Unfortunately these things are not as simply diagnosed as they are said, GL.

Do the plugs show any signs that it's burning oil?

Just to make sure....If its burning oil what color will the plugs be??

Also going by the comp and leak down results is ok for me to rule out the bottom end as the problem or is it still possible for it to have good comp and oil getting past bad oil control rings and being burnt???

2 things to try:

Cold comp test (not on a warmed up motor)

Comp test with a cap full of oil down the cylinder (also cold)

Doing it cold may show you less impressive results, and major variances in the results from a cap full of oil in the bore shows worn rings.

With regards to the cap of oil, isn't that what the "wet" and "dry" readings referred to?

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...