Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Something I am curious about. From where Im standing, I believe it may be one or a combination of:

a) Cams - As Cubes stated, the R32 RB25DE head causes the motor to ping easier than normal

b) Cam timing - Possibly issue with CAS, or base timing

c) Static CR (assuming the head is approx as Bl4ck32 stated) - the 9:1 CR would make the motor more succeptable to pinging than say an 8.3:1 motor. However, I dont see this as being the issue right now until we've ruled out timing. However, I have heard two VERY different values for the head cc measurement which has caused some confusion.

One thing to note is that the tuner had dealt with a Stagea RB25 Neo with similar/same pistons. Same symptoms. Put E85 in it and it was all good and made plenty of power.

Always options to consider...

  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

As rolls said

207RWKW on the 7-8 deg of timing. AFR's were apparently spot on.

Been doing a few calcs here and there and all are coming back the same... Approximately 9:1 pending a few things.

The only thing I'm not 100% on is the chamber volume. Im 99% sure it is as per Bl4ck32/Cubes measurements at 62cc. That is unless there was a serious issue with the head being overheated earlier on in its life. I just cant be too sure unless I get it measured...

Anyone got any ideas on how much (an average value) they would take off a warped head to see it flat again?

I would go somewhere else and get a second opinion.I dont know how the motor was built but to be tuning it for full load on a 30 minute old engine seems a little odd to me. Please correct me if its only a base tune for the run in process that they are doing.

please explain how the engines ever gonna be in better condition to handle a thrashing than a few minutes after the rings have finished bedding in? 1000km run ins are useless

as for the head, it depends how badly it was warped but normally its not enough to affect compression by any signifigant amount. i've had my head faced 3 times now (its never been cooked badly though) and i'd be lucky to have gained 0.1 compression.

Edited by JonnoHR31

Yeah once the rings are bed in, change the oil and go for gold, never understood the process of running in a motor. Once you've bedded the rings and got any metal left over from the build out of the oil then what else is going to change? Nothing I hope!

Again I will say it won't be an inherent problem with the the RB25DE head or cams specs.. my money is on the wrong pistons for the application.

Ive done a few investigations and by using online calculators and inputting the following:

6cc dome pistons (Confirmed many times via R33 RB30DET thread/Spool Imports)

1.28mm Head Gasket (0.05") (Cometic) (Confirmed via Spool Imports)

86.5mm Stroke x 86.5mm Bore

0 Deck height (From speaking to the builder, the deck height is actually below 0 deck height (decreasing compression!) exact value Im unsure of)

62cc combustion volume (Head type Confirmd by Cubes as being an R32 RB25DE head. Also, 4 different R32 RB25DE heads all cc'd to this value - so the only way mine may read less is if it had been seriously overheated and decked to get it straight again)

Standard pin height 1.280" (As confirmed by Spool)

Approximately 9:1 (probably less due to pistons being below deck height)

A few online calculators ask for teh HG bore. Without it infront of me I can only guess, but all in all, EVERY different calculator got approximately 9:1 Static CR.

Is there something im missing?

Edited by R32Abuser

If deck height is below 0, wouldn't that increase compression??

I was more trying to make the point that the head and cams are fine.. there is no inherent problem with that type of head and cams that would cause this issue.

Does the dyno plot look normal - like the cams are relatively in the right spot? If so that compression pressure is pretty much spot on.

My RB30/26 with CP 9:1 pistons was around 160psi +/-5psi - when I advanced the inlet 7degrees there was very little compression presure difference (maybe 5psi at most). This would suggest to me that your engine has the correct static compressure ratio of 9:1.

So many things to check before pulling the engine apart. Start by checking the CAS like I said.

From all that I've read, and from thinking about it:

If the piston (flat section of the piston-not including domes/dish's) sits below the deck of the block, then the combustion volume when the piston is at TDC is larger compared to if the piston was sitting above the deck ("proud of the deck").

Correct me if Im wrong tho?

Does the dyno plot look normal - like the cams are relatively in the right spot? If so that compression pressure is pretty much spot on.

My RB30/26 with CP 9:1 pistons was around 160psi +/-5psi - when I advanced the inlet 7degrees there was very little compression presure difference (maybe 5psi at most). This would suggest to me that your engine has the correct static compressure ratio of 9:1.

So many things to check before pulling the engine apart. Start by checking the CAS like I said.

Yup. Builder is slapping a different/known working CAS on it.

Taking it back to the dyno, checking if it knocks again, if so, getting a safe tune to do some k's on it. If not - great!!!

Thoughts?

Yup. Builder is slapping a different/known working CAS on it.

Taking it back to the dyno, checking if it knocks again, if so, getting a safe tune to do some k's on it. If not - great!!!

Thoughts?

Running in takes 20 -30 mins - get a proper tune and see what it can do.

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

    • 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...