Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi,

Need some help here I just got back and had installed a new forged RB25 looked all good until put on the dyno to find out that it makes less power then before (made 240rwkw which wasn't even final tune before an assembly fault saw it go back to the builder to come back with 218rwkw).

Tuner did a comp test to find out it was 100psi across the board (seems low as I was expecting 150 and the tuner expected 140-150) did a leak down test as well everything is sweet and sealing up perfect, checked, re-checked and then another two times checked timing and everything is sweet.

JE forged pistons

Forged eagle rods

1.3mm head gasket

hks 264 cams

Anyone with some suggestions that could possibly result in not removing the head please let me know!

Regards,

blinksta

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/354081-forged-rb25-w-low-comp/
Share on other sites

they seem a bit low but as long as they are even then that is the main thing. If you are really worried do a leak down test and that'll tell you the full story.

You can't really use the factory compression figures when you played with the head especially when you have changed the cams. The opening and closing times of the cams are different and therefore you will lose more compression before the valves close, this is part of the reason why bigger cams are more efficient at higher revs.

Edited by D_Stirls

yea done a leak down test all comes up perfect and managed to speak to the builder unfortunately he wasn't much help either and said that the cam timing must be off, but that has been checked I guess will have to check again.

The pistons were the exact same as before when making the 240rwkw, im thinking it might be the cams that are dodgy and have to go back to stock :S

I probably should have explained that better the tuner was speaking to the builder about the engine as to why it's making low comp and they were on the phone for roughly an hour and the end result was the builder suggesting that the cams could be the problem.

Sorry I don't know the actual comp ratio I will find that out in the next hour when I go have a look, but I would think that having standard size pistons or even a half mil over combined with a 1.3mil HG and drop in cams shouldn't reduce the comp by that much, I would expect maybe 10-20psi drop?!?

ok so I find out that the comp was built to 8.9:1 but they did yet another comp test and have some interesting numbers of 140, 115, 120, 125, 125, 105 or close to that which as you can tell is just completely rooted so to check they are going to measure (another r33 in the yard which is 100% healthy) from the seat of the spark plug to the piston (or something along those lines I will still angry from the readings) to confirm 150% that the engine wasn't built properly.

If the rings haven't bedded in correctly then it isn't the builder fault. there seems to be something wrong with the compression tester since the first test was all even and now they are all over the show. Also that much variation should have shown up in the leak down test and it would have been far from perfect.

As i said before you can't compare the results for a standard rb25 to one with bigger cams the one with bigger cams is guaranteed to have lower compression.

Leak down test was <=2% so everything was sealing, another comp test was done today and those numbers came up there is no blow by at all after checking the blow by hose and catch can, it was all measured with snap on tools as well so they are very realiable (granted not impossible to break or fail).

Putting bigger cams on a stock block will reduce compression but not that much they would have to be some very aggressive cams for that to happen and these are only 264.

no the cams have a large affect on the compression. When i played with the cam timing on my CA the compression went from 165 before the timing adjustments to 140 after so that is 25psi drop with just the timing being adjusted on stock cams. You have also got longer duration cams so your valves are open for longer and you will lose compression because of that, how much depend on the timing.

At the end of the day if you are getting good leak down results and no blow-by then the cylinders are sealing.

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

    • Had I known the diff between R32 and R33 suspension I would have R33 suspension. That ship has sailed so I'm doing my best to replicate a drop spindle without spending $4k on a Billet one.
    • OEM suspension starts to bind as soon as the car gets away from stock height. I locked in the caster and camber before cutting off the kingpin. I then let the upright down in a natural (unbound) state before re-attaching it. Now it moves freely in bump and droop relative to the new ride height. My plan is to add GKTech arms before the car is finished so I can dial camber and caster further. It will be fine. This isn't rocket science. Caster looks good, camber is good, upper arm doesn't cause crazy gain and it is now closer to the stock angle and bump steer checks out. Send it.
    • Pay careful attention to the kinematics of that upper arm. The bloody things don't work properly even on a normal stock height R32. Nissan really screwed the pooch on that one. The fixes have included changing the hole locations on the bracket to change the angle of the inner pivot (which was fairly successful but usually makes it impossible to install or remove the arm without unbolting the bracket from the tower, which sucks) and various swivelling upper arm designs. ALL the swivelling upper arm designs that look like a capital I (with serifs) suck. All of them. Some of them are in fact terribly unsafe. Even the best one of them (the old UAS design) shat itself in short order on my car. The only upper arm that works as advertised and is pretty safe is the GKTech one. But it is high maintenance on a street car. I'm guessing that a 600HP car as (stupidly, IMO) low as you are going is not going to be a regular driver. So the maintenance issues on suspension parts are probably not going to be a problem. But you really must make sure that however your fairly drastically modded suspension ends up, that the upper arms swing through an arc that wants to keep the inner and outer bolts parallel. If the outer end travels through an arc that makes that end's bolt want to skew away from parallel with the inner bolt, you will build up enormous binding and compressing forces in the bushes, chew them out and hate life. The suspension compliance can actually be dominated by the bush binding, not the spring rate! It may be the case that even something like the GKTech arm won't work if your suspension kinematics become too weird, courtesy of all the cut and shut going on. Although you at least say there's no binding now, so maybe you're OK. Seeing as you're in the build phase, you could consider using R33/4 type upper arms (either that actual arm, OEM or aftermarket) or any similar wishbone designed to suit your available space, so alleviate the silliness of the R32 design. Then you can locate your inner pivots to provide the correct kinematics (camber gain on compression, etc).
    • The frontend wouldn't go low enough because the coilover was max low and the upper control arm would collapse into itself and potentially bottom out in the strut tower. I made a brace and cut off the kingpin and then moved the upright down 1.25" and welded. i still have to finish but this gives an idea. Now I can have a normal 3.25" of shock travel and things aren't binding. I'm also dropping the lower arm and tie rod 1.25".
    • Motor and body mockup. Wheel fitment and ride height not set. Last pic shows front ride height after modifying the front uprights to make a 1.25" drop spindle.
×
×
  • Create New...