Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I posted this here out of PM's so all can see and possibly understand how to work out a comp ratio.

Before you read on have a quick look at this link those of you who don't understand how to work out a comp ratio, it will help you know what some of the measurements are. http://www.musclemotorparts.com/comp_ht.htm

One not mentioned in the link is deck clearance. This is measured when the piston is at TDC (as high as it will go in the bore) you then measure how far down the piston is sitting from the deck (top of the block)

Squish/quench is the deck clearance plus the thickness of the headgasket. This is not related to compression ratio however it is important as it prevents detonation, increases fuel economy, power and the general efficiency of the engine. Google a little on Quench and or Squish. Lots and lots of info.

--------

The Wiseco catalogue is a little strange in a few area's, which SK also pointed out. The head cc's are a little high (mine cc'd up to 62.2cc) & the final comp they state are .3 of a cr lower to what I work it out to be.

ok on to the specs.

In the catalogue the specified RB30DET pistons have a compression height of 1.260" which is the measurement from the center of the pin to the top deck of the piston. It states the deck clearance is .040" with that setup.

The RB25DET pistons have a compression height of 1.240" which means the piston sits over the rod 0.020". Hence lower in the bore by 0.020".

The builder decked the block by 0.020". Which theoretically means the piston will be sitting in the bore the same height from the deck as what the RB30DET piston would have (0.040"). Am I on the right track?

The head gasket I am using is 100% a .050" Cometic MLS HP. They do not compress once torqued.

When I punch these figures in to my Engine CR program it states I am going to have a 9.2:1 CR!. The builder measured the comp ratio by doing a dummy setup then measuring how far the piston went down the bore or something?!? May his tools are out a little. The squish/quench would obviously be .040" + .050" = .090".

The builder stated I will have an 8.2:1cr. The only way I could have an 8.2:1 cr is if the deck clearance was 0.1" which is 2.5mm down the bore.. Not good for performance & economy. I did a few little drawings. If the piston was sitting 2.5mm down the bore + the 1.25mm headgasket this would have the dome sitting basically level with the base of the head or level with the top of the head gasket. I've pulled a spark plug out and well it doesn't look that way at all.

The more I think about it the more I confuse my self.

Steve, If you read this could you post your details with regards to you headgasket thickness & expected CR? Is it a 1.6mm head gasket which gave u an 8.6:1cr?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/37160-comp-calc/
Share on other sites

It's one thing to theorise about clearances and such, and another thing to what the tolerances are when the physical motor is built. With all the manufacturing allowances it's possible to get variations in parts that cannot be accounted for in pure theory. i.e. a deck height .05" more than it's "supposed" to be. This could be due to the the crank centerline being machined on a lower tolerance, the block being slightly larger, or the rods or pistons not being up to their spec etc.etc.

Those "RB30" pistons of Wiseco's are shocking, there is no way a dish of 11cc's can get you anywhere near a decent CR with a twin cam head.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/37160-comp-calc/#findComment-744440
Share on other sites

Still 2.5mm (0.10") in total is a hell of a lot when you are talking bearing clearances etc. But then what would I know, I don't build motors.

Yer they are shocker's having a 11cc dished piston.

Only way to find out for sure.

Slap it all down on paper and ask him.

He's easy to approach and makes time to explain things so you are happy.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/37160-comp-calc/#findComment-744485
Share on other sites

I spoke to Adelaide engine developments.

They did mention the comp ratio gets a little sloppy with GTR pistons in both a RB30 and a RB25.

Once again due to the compression height being a little lower.

The RB26 pistons sit lower down the bore by 0.059" which is around 1.475mm.

Unless you shaved around 1.475mm off the rb25 block with the gtr pistons in it you would have a quench that doesn't work. Hence the engine will make less power, be less responsive (especially down low), use more fuel etc..

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/37160-comp-calc/#findComment-744812
Share on other sites

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

    • 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.
    • Here's Logans Silvia with R32 Drivetrain, mine will be slightly lower (more angle). He was constantly blowing the RH axles at around 16deg. I want to avoid this.    
×
×
  • Create New...