Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi guys just did a compression test in my R33 RB25DET

Results

Cyl 1 - 155

Cyl 2 - 155

Cyl 3 - 140

Cyl 4 - 152

Cyl 5 - 155

Cyl 6 - 157

What do you guys think of these results? Good? bad?

Is Cyl #3 to low??

All comments welcome!!!~!!

After seeing others' compression tests on RB25's, I really question wtf was up with mine.

I'll be sure to post it up later this evening when I can give exact figures, but mine varied between 125psi and 135psi dry (unsure if warm or not tbh)

It never burns oil. Oil level never drops between services (5 - 7500kms) and I had very minimal blowby. Am now running 15psi through it, and makes 285rwkw.

Either the test was done incorrectly, the pressure tester thingywatsit is faulty, or I have a rebuilt engine with lower compression. Sorry to hijack a brand new thread, but don't spose I could get any insight on my situation?

I'll be sure to get another pressure test+leak down done when I put turbo back on and take for retune - will be at a different workshop to the first test too.

i know what you mean Troy, when i drove from perth to gold coast mine used a bit of oil and i tested to find 125 on 1-5 and 6 was 120.was making 350rwhp at 16 psi. sounded low but even so kept driving. eventually opened it up and found 5 pistons had broken ringlands exactly the same size piece broken and number 6 had slightly picked up. apart from it using a bit of oil i always thought i had a rebuilt engine with low compression

Yeah it's odd. Regardless, I'll continue driving it as is and taking care of it, until shit hits the fan I suppose. Then off to Melbourne or Sydney for a rebuildz - which we all know is when the REAL fun begins.

Yes my vechicle doesnt use any oil either, although there was a little oil in the metal intake pipe just before the turbo comp housing. Other then that the car runs quite well, besides the boost tapering off in high rpm.

i hate hijacking threads.. i havent done a comp test but ive had a reletative compression test done (i have no idea what the difference is or if there is a difference in the comp tests) but the scale shows 0-100 on my print out.. All cylinders are 90 or above. No excessive oil use running 11psi.. no idea what power my car is making either.. I just assumed if its above 90 then it cant be alll that bad (the reason i ask is my mate said my engine is totally f**ked after reading the rel. comp. test)

Edited by defari

^^^

sounds like you had a leak down test not a compression test, so those numbers are % not pressures.

People also have to remember that if you play with cam timing or you have different cams then comparing to factory compression figures will tell you nothing.

Edited by D_Stirls
^^^

sounds like you had a leak down test not a compression test, so those numbers are % not pressures.

People also have to remember that if you play with cam timing or you have different cams then comparing to factory compression figures will tell you nothing.

agreed, we gained 20psi compression just by setting the cam gears correctly after another shop set them wrong, went from 130 to 150psi on RB26

also, what kind of tester are you using?

My first tester said 120psi across all 6.

My Second Tester said 220psi across all 6.

My Third said 160psi across all 6.

As long as they are all within 5-8psi of each other.

If not, turn the boost down and wait for it to blow up gracefully.

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

    • 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.
    • Yes they do. For some maybe. But for those used the most by abusers, ie Skylines, the numbers are known. The stock eyebrow height for R32/3 Skylines is about 365/375mm or thereabouts. The minimum such heights are recorded in adjacent columns in the database.
    • Hmmm, interesting. Makes me wonder whether there is bias as well. It's the cheapest fuel, so it is used for all kinds of ill-maintained shitboxes which are bound to have issues regardless. Nicer cars tend to require higher octane rated fuel and can't use it anyway. FWIW, the official NSW E10 facts page is decent. 
×
×
  • Create New...