Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Holy shit those guys are idiots, i hate to say it but that's not gonna come of in one piece. It'll have to be cut off because a 0.2mm interference fit is tight as f**k. A fit that tight should see the collar heated up, slipped on the crank and left to shrink on.

I shrunk my collar on with a 0.1mm interference and 0.1mm crush on the length, 270rwkw and 7000km's with some pretty hard driving and it hasn't let me down.

this happened to me, years ago.... except we built the engine and ran it like that.

What ended up happening is that the collar wore through the back plate of the timing gear, then that caused the balancer to come lose, the balancer started to flop around and it destroyed itself, also it destroyed the crank, then keyway was screwed in the crank.

Nothing i could to but replace the crank, then the new crank that came back from the same engine builder was the same! the collar was sitting over the crank itself. It was only after looking at the new crank for 1 hour trying to work out what happened when i figured it all out! was pretty happy i did not have to go all around and rip the motor appart again for a third time???

I took it back and asked him just to machine it flat so that collar is flush with the crank, 5 years and 160,000km later and all is still good. (inspected it a couple of months ago)

good work for picking it up, saved yourself alot of cash and time etc etc... mine is not grub screwed, and its still working like a charm..

Looking at one of the photo's close up you can see metal that has burred up and jammed it from them pressing it on so heavily. That tells me two thing: first of all those guys are sloppy, second that the chamfer on the inside diameter of the collar isn't big enough to accommodate the radius i can see on the crank.

With that said i would bet that it's not going to move towards the crank shoulder any more than that so machining the front off leavingabout 0.1mm of overhang on the face for the crank pulley and balancer to tighten down on.

Also make sure they machine back the start of the drive flats so doesn't protrude into the front seal area.

I'm bored so i put this drawing together to explain, you could give it to those drongos to fix it because it looks like they need all the help they can get.

post-23983-0-82917200-1331515444_thumb.png

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

    • Well you could certainly buy or build an enclosure for a pod in that corner of the bay. It is absolutely vital that there is a nice big opening to let cold air in to it from the front or underside, otherwise it will just pull air in around the edges from the bay, and if that air is hot, you gain nothing from enclosing the pod. There is lots of good evidence around (including on here, see posts by @Kinkstaah for example) showing that pods pulling hot air from the bay is only a problem when you're static or slow in traffic, and that as soon as you get the car up and moving the air being grabbed by the pod cools down. Although that will obviously vary from car to car, whether there is a flow of cold air to the pod or if it all has to come through the radiator area, etc etc. Obviously, the whole exercise requires as much thought as anything else does. Doing the lazy thing will often end up being the dumb thing. The stock GTT airbox has a cold air snorkel to feed it from over the radiator. Shows that Nissan were thinking. The GT airbox is upside down compared to the turbo one, yeah? Inlet at the bottom, AFM/exit on the lid? That might make it harder to route the turbo inlet pipe using the GT airbox than a turbo one. That would probably be the main reason I'd consider not using it, not that it is too small and restrictive. I'm looking at a photo of one now and the inlet opening seems nice and large. Also seems to have the same type of snorkel that the turbo one has. Maybe all that's required is to make a less restrictive snorkel/cold air inlet, perhaps by punching down through the guard like I did.
    • Also seen this as an option 
    • I get you, we’ll see I’m aiming for 200ish kw now and hopefully 300rwkw down the line after some upgrades maybe like headstuds, E85 flex fuel etc  so trying to make it final for that now, I can get a GTT airbox for $280 so it’s not too bad but not sure if there’s better ways to spend that money. I seen online they say pod filter which isn’t enclosed isn’t good especially for a plus T.      hard to say what to do
    • Meh. How much power can you make from a +T anyway? I wouldn't have though it would be enough to challenge the airbox. It's not as if it's tiny compared with the turbo one. As to putting a pod in a stock airbox .... it's not the filter element that would be restrictive. It would be the air inlet to the box that would be the narrow point, which you could open up regardless of what element was inside. On my R32 I opened up the sort of triangular opening in the bottom front corner of the box, deformed (heated, moulded) some 4" stormwater pipe to fit to that opening and punched a 4" hole down through the inner guard to the spot where the stock intercooler used to be. This was purely in the search for a cold intake, but you could do something similar if you need to open up the inlet side of it. The AFM tube size is the same for both NA and turbo, so the outlet from the airbox is same same anyway. If you're going to do the right thing, then an aftermarket ECU won't care about the AFM (ie, you can get rid of it). But even if it was still there, people pull >300rwkW through them all day, and I suspect you won't be going there.
    • R34 RB25de Neo by the way ^ 
×
×
  • Create New...