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

    • My first car was a HG. I'm very familiar with them. A mild cam upgrade is a good idea. The 186 is a very flexible engine - meaning it has good torque from down low. You can give up a little torque down low for quite a lot more excitement in the mid range, and a bit more up top - but they are not exactly a rev monster. You need to upgrade valve springs at the minimum. For a bigger cam, you'd want to make sure it wasn't still running the original fibre cam gear. That would be unlikely, given that most of them shat themselves in the 70s and 80s, but still within the realms of possibility. Metal cam gear required. Carbies are a huge issue. The classic upgrade was always a Holley 350, which works, but is usually pretty bad for fuel consumption. The 186S had a 2 barrel Stromberg on it that was very similar to the one on the 253, and is a reasonable thing if you can find one, and find someone to help you get it set up (which is the same issue with setting up a 350 to work nice). The more classic upgrade was twin sidedraught CD type carbs, or triples of same, or triple Webers. The XU-1 triple Webers being the best example. You can still buy all this stuff new, I think, but it's a lot of coin to drop. And then the people able to set them up are getting fewer and further in between. There's still some, but it used to be everyone's** dad and uncle could do it. **Not everyone's! But a lot. All in all, I wouldn't get too carried away with the engine. Anything you do to it without a full rebuild for power and revs will only make it slightly faster. I am all in favour of a complete teardown rebuild, with nice rods and pistons, 10 or 1.5:1 compression, and a clean port job with at least a big enough cam to run 98 with that compression, if not bigger. And if I did that to a dirty old red motor, I'd want to inject it too, which I'd struggle to fight against the devil on my shoulder that would argue for ITBs and trumpets. But the bills would start to mount up, and it will still never make stupid power. OK, a few people still know how to build absolutely mental red motors, courtesy of the work that went into HQ racing and modern knowledge being applied. But even a 300HP red motor is no match for an RB20 with a TD06. So you have to decide what it's worth to you. I'd just put a set of 6>2>1 extractors, a 2.5" exhaust and an electronic ignition conversion/dizzy on it and just run the old girl like the fairly slow old girl that she really is.
    • Thank you so much for the comments.  This is very interesting and gives me some great ideas to think about. Keen to keep it simple and relatively classic looking. That said, i am not too worried about staying 100% period correct.  A little extra performance and relatively good (or improved) economy is just what i am looking for. Ill be keeping any parts i swap out so if i get nostalgic i can always swap it all back in.  Right now just trying to get some good ideas from people in the know (I still have a lot to learn in this space). Thank you again!  
    • Wrt the engine, you're very much limited by 'production quality' as to how much extra power you can extract from them (I'm talking i6 red-motor) -- a lot here depends on how 'authentic' or 'period correct' you want the modifications to be... ...I'm too old... <grin>...the first true performance engine Holden made, was in the HD/HR models ~ this was the 'X2' performance pack...it came with twin downdraft strombergs on an otherwise unimproved intake manifold, with a two piece exhaust manifold (reckoned to be as good as extractors)... ....these engines were built upon the '179HP' cylinder block, which included extra webbing in the casting to make it stronger and less susceptible to block distortion... The next performance i6 came out with the HK Monaro (also found it's way into the LJ GTR Torana ... the car I wish I hadn't sold)...it had pretty much the same manifold setup, but was built against the '186S' block...this block retained all the extra webbing of the 179HP block, but added a forged steel crankshaft (instead of the stock cast crankshaft), because it was possible to snap the crank... ...apart from the inherent weaknesses in the stock (cast crank) blocks, the next limiting factor is the cylinder head porting & combustion chamber design, and the actual valve sizes. Back in the day, you could buy a 'yella terra' cylinder head (from stage 1 to stage 5 gradients), and this was the way to get serious power out of them -- with the extra breathing of these heads, you could fit a triple SU or DCOE Weber setup... ...obviously, these mods were a waste of time on a stock cylinder head/camshaft grind. My housemate rebuilt the i6 in his VH dunnydore about 6 months back -- this is a 186S block with the 12port 2850 blue motor head and intake/exhaust manifolds, with a dual throat Weber off an XF Falcon mounted on an adapter plate ; it's not a bad makeup...got more torque & fuel economy just light-footing it about on the first throat, but stand on it and it makes more giddy-up than the standard 2850 blue motor that it replaced. Personal note: I'd just fit an RB30 and be done it it 😃  
    • Thanks for sharing. That's a great video! My buddy is doing the same thing on his build (S chassis struts and towers). He's building an S14 with billet RB30 shooting for 2000whp... a race car with a TH400 just like this video. For a road car I just couldn't go this route as the strut has to be almost vertical and the caster is not going to pivot correctly (let alone camber gain). You think the R32 frontend is bad, wait till you put a MacPherson strut on without modeling it all in Solidworks to check geometry. I'm not saying it's a bad way to do it but I'd be really curious to see how it affects the geometry.
    • Hey Christof and welcome!  Sounds like an awesome project! I'm not sure many of the regular users on here would know much about the HK but I could be wrong.  Looking forward to updates.
×
×
  • Create New...