Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi guys. I'm planning to forge my Rb25det next year and looking for some advise. It appears Pistons manufactures offers differenct compression ratioed pistons such as 8:1, 8.5:1, 9:1 and 9.3:1 for the RB25det.

Refer to what I've read the RB25det NEO engine runs 9:1 compression. What would be the advantage or dis-advantage of increasing or decreasing compression ratio? I’m looking to make around 350rwkws.

Thanks for the input.

you will not utilise 350rwkw on the street.. you also wouldnt require a forged engine..
In fact you could get by on the street in an old corolla hatch back, do wonderful touring in an r31 Pintara. No one requires a forged engine or a turbo, or a sports or sporty car! Perhaps we could change from a forced induction forum to a NA Lada group. Perfect for street use. The topic question was on compression ratios, not whether it's worth building an engine to a goal. Edited by WHITE gtt
  • Like 1

For me the trade off is actual cylinder pressures vs power/torque output . The better you can make an engine inhale and exhale the lesser the boost pressure it generally needs to make a power target .

If you want a broad spread of power there has to be enough cylinder trapping ability to make torque at low revs but not choke things up at higher revs .

The old rule of thumb was that the hotter the cam profiles are the higher the static compression ratio can be . In NA land the only two things you can do to an engine to increase its output over the same rev range is to increase its capacity or its compression ratio .

What higher CRs do to a turbo engine off boost is increase the compression pressure and in theory the combustion's cylinder pressure which equates to more torque . It also tries to minimise what you lose low down with longer period cams at low revs .

My thoughts on hotted up RB25 road engines .

I'd personally go for the upper or 9.3 CR pistons because you don't go everywhere on full boost , I'd look at good mild cams even if it means changing springs so they don't coil bind .

A critical thing is TO MAKE SURE whoever builds you engine DOES NOT remove the heads quench zones and that the flat outer areas of the piston crowns are as close to the heads deck face as is safely possible . This is the way to minimise the end gasses volume in the fight against detonation . I'd also insist on having some sort of ceramic thermal barrier coating applied to the piston crowns to insulate them from combustion heat and give an extra level of detonation protection . If the funds are there I'd also ceramic coat the chamber sides of the exhaust and if possible the inlet valves . The main enemies of turbo engines are heat and detonation and heat drives detonation to a degree .

Pistons conduct their heat to the cylinder walls via their rings and valves to the guides and head via their stems . The less heat you lose the more is available to burn the fuel air charge and push the pistons down .

I also tend to think 350 Kw is a bit high and while certainly achievable the state of tune of the engine would be a bit high as in lack the every day round town poke . Its also debatable that you can get that sort of power to the ground in a RWD car and wheel spin never got anyone anywhere except broke and harassed .

Call we a wuzz but 260-280 well tuned usable Kw I think is more fun in a RWD Skyline . If your engines bottom end is in good nick I run it as it is , the right head mods cams and turbo should be able to make more than enough power on the street .

Your call , cheers A .

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...