Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I been thinking about running higher compression ratio. Note this isn't a debate thread.

I would like to get up to 10:1 CR (I can settle with less down to 9:1 min) and eventually roll with gt2860-5s.. maybe -9s.. making around 500 hp, goal is to make a super responsive machine.

What I have is stock rb26 block and heads. I already have 86.5 pistons w/ 16 cc dome volume, manufacture states a 8.5 CR for these pistons.

I used a quick compression ratio calculator, assuming the rb26 heads are 70 cc. I calculated with a 1 mm HG that 2mm would be shaven off. However, with no idea about piston deck clearance height that 2 mm may be more or less.

The ultimate problem rests on the valve clearance.. and if I were to do a 10.25 lift, how much would I have left =/

Anyone have experience with increasing CR in a rb26 and boosting decent power?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/328522-rb26-and-higher-compression/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

High comp is an awesome idea. I'm tossing up between an R33 GTR or an S15 for my next car. Either way, i'll be getting custom 9.5:1 pistons. If I get a GTR, i'll run -9 turbos and Tomei 260 cams with a Nistune, fuel pressure reg and stock AFM's for an easy, cheap HELLA RESPONSIVE 320rwkw.

Shaving the head or head gasket thickness is NOT the way to go about it though. It will stuff up the cam timing for sure. You're bringing the cam sprockets closer to the crank which makes them turn slightly.

Edited by bradsm87

The biggest problem with th RB26's is the massive chamber volume meaning you need to run massive domes on the pistons to get any sort of compression increase which then puts more stress on the rings.

If response is your biggest motivator I would be aiming for around 9:1 comp and look at getting VCAM if the budget will stretch.

i have them and there fine

Based on what? The fact the car runs? :)

Thing is - it could be better :P

500hp using -5's means you'll have added lag/less throttle response/transient response/come on boost later/part throttle and so on.

The -9's for 500hp blow the -5's away in every single way unfortunately as that is what they are made for.

The -5s around 650-700hp... So why use 650hp worth of turbo for 500hp when you can get 500hp out of a more reponsive choice?

There is no logic in your comment as i see it as the car with -9s vs -5s for 500hp - car with -9s will be faster every single time (all things being even).

The OP also says he wants super responsive, so again going the larger turbo for no reason, is silly.

^ I been thinking about it a lot actually. I been stuck. The reason why -5 stays in the fight... is because it has more top end. And at 500 hp it is more efficient, 77% whereas the -9's at maximum is 74%. This means the the air is less hot when it's exit's the turbo. Or ultimately a cooler air charge. And for a higher compression motor every little bit helps. And from reading around the difference of 500 rpm of response can be made up else where.

That's why it's still a card on the table.

Other news:

Also reading up... 70 cc is wrong for the volume of the chamber..it's more close to 63cc.. and if the deck clearance is 0.5 above... then my calculation says that only 0.7 mm needs to be shaven to get a 10:1 ratio

But ultimately I need to know if anyone who has experience with this CR. How much of the upper rpms can be played with since ignition timing is shortened. And using if any effects using a 260 cam duration with 10.25 lifts.

Thanks.

Edited by Sidwysracr
Based on what? The fact the car runs? :down:

Thing is - it could be better :)

500hp using -5's means you'll have added lag/less throttle response/transient response/come on boost later/part throttle and so on.

The -9's for 500hp blow the -5's away in every single way unfortunately as that is what they are made for.

The -5s around 650-700hp... So why use 650hp worth of turbo for 500hp when you can get 500hp out of a more reponsive choice?

There is no logic in your comment as i see it as the car with -9s vs -5s for 500hp - car with -9s will be faster every single time (all things being even).

The OP also says he wants super responsive, so again going the larger turbo for no reason, is silly.

have you driven a car with them?

when ur in qld ill let you have a drive

Sorry to say, yet I feel 500HP from -9s is really pushing the limits. 500HP = 375KW, assuming your would lose 50KW via the drivetrain thats still 325RWKW. 50KW loss is abit rich in itself.

I know the talk, I also know the numbers.. I dont personally have faith in -9s for that sort of power on a stock RB. The RB just is not efficient enough in its given form to do that.

When talking about a modified motor with better than standard VE and flow, I believe you could benefit from the 'laggier' turbos.

The term 'dynamic' comes into effect, and while more boost at lower RPM may be acheived, it is not rocket science that pressure and flow are not one in the same.

Dont want to start a turbo war here, yet food for thought.

have you driven a car with them?

when ur in qld ill let you have a drive

Yep, and a car with -9's, many of the variants.

Either way mate 650-700hp worth of turbo for only 500hp is a silly choice.

From any RPM the -9's are on sooner. Given you have the same power - it's pretty easy to workout which car will be faster mate... The one that is more responsive (as i said, given all things equal and just the turbos changed)

Sorry to say, yet I feel 500HP from -9s is really pushing the limits. 500HP = 375KW, assuming your would lose 50KW via the drivetrain thats still 325RWKW. 50KW loss is abit rich in itself.

I believe the figure is more like 60-70kw loss that seems to come from the depths of these pages. Which would pretty much be spot on (if all the people are right :))

The OP is also talking about a built motor, that again would easily make 320rwkw out of -9's like everyone else does :)

I agree -5's on a built motor would be good - however ONLY if you are chasing 600hp+, and not the 500hp stated here.

oh yeah forgot bout that .

just said it on the "smaller chamber" side of things

if it was goin single turb there is no shortage of manifolds . and nothing a plazmaman on the intake wont fix .

can someone say if a neo head has a realistic chamber size for a 26 ? as in does it achieve a higher comp ratio in a way that is beneficial ?

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. Been a while but things are moving along. I just have something that I am wondering about. Since I will use OEM turbo oil pumbing, I got myself a new bolt, the one that goes into the engine block oil feed. As I recall (and see visually) this bolt comes restricted with I think a 1.7mm hole? Not quite sure but it was something around that size. The turbos have 1mm restrictor bolts installed, as necessary due to ball bearings and my higher oil pressures. Can I now just use that OEM bolt with the 1.7mm hole in for the engine block or will this actually be too much oil flow restriction and I have to drill it out first? In my head it would make sense for the bolt to be at least 2mm wide as both turbos take "1mm of oil flow". Do let me know if my logic is flawed here, I just want to make sure I don't kill my turbo bearings with too little oil. Don't know if I can trust the saying I read somewhere that ball bearing turbos essentially only need an oil mist
    • There are several aftermarket options available, from not-too-painful moneyhttps://justjap.com/collections/driveshafts-bearings/products/d-max-reinforced-replacement-rear-driveshaft-set-fits-nissan-s13-s14-s15-r32-r33-r34-c35 and  https://justjap.com/products/crank-motorsport-billet-rear-axles-fits-nissan-skyline-r33-gts-t-r34-gt-t?srsltid=AfmBOorQk4xkGUa98kO7v2ePLUiNt-HRrM2AwWNw9mbSIVE1ujBVwY__, all the way up to The Driveshaft Shop https://driveshaftshop.com/skyline-cv-axles/
    • Yeah based on old XRC5964S specs, it looks to be roughly GTX3576R sized? But this 5964S compressor will flow 90lb airflow somewhat similar to the compressors in both the GTX3584RS or G35-1050.. I fully expected the 0.64 rear A/R to choke up top - seems way too small from typical convention - but these are seemingly beneficial over the prior 0.82 results.. Be interesting to see if he comments on the EFR question in that thread - he mentioned in a prior video that BW EFR's were the "cats pajamas 10 years ago", but by the sounds of things all his kits have been using Xona for quite a while now.
    • Yeah it’s still got the oem manual gearbox and clutch, only kinda mods are a blow off valve, coil overs, and a aftermarket intercooler. Also had it for about 2 months now with a lovely midnight purple paint on it.
    • Yeeeppp, been following a lot of the testing on the latest Xona stuff and there are some mental results.  He also went over 1000hp @ 4 hubs on his Mainline with a XRE6364S (63mm) which was also well into the 20psi range before 4000rpm on a 2.5. Crazy stuff. Fwiw the XRE5964S is basically the modern equivalent of their old HTA3582 - would drive nicely enough on an RB25 or 26, but proven capable of a huge amount of power if you want to spicy with rpm tho even at sane boost levels will make stout numbers 
×
×
  • Create New...