Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi guys I'm new to this forum,

Ok iv purchased an rb30 block, it's been deck,honed, blue printed, balanced ,

New stock rb30 rods, race bearings, acl dura light pistons ra9301y 1.00 rib 0.025

Iv got a rb25det neo head that I plan on using for the build, I'm wondering what head gasket

I should use? Any info would be great please.

I've looked (for the past 10 minutes lol) for the pistons you state above. I cannot find them.

http://www.acl.com.a...80?OpenDocument

Apparently, duralite are only for 202 motors. Sure you dont mean another style of piston from ACL?

The only information (cc details etc.) I can find on ACL pistons is their Race series available in 2 styles for the RB30ET:

One with a 4.5cc dish (http://www.aclperfor...rgedPistons.htm)

and the other with a 10cc dish (http://www.aclperfor...orgedPiston.htm)

Key this into my static comp spread sheet above and you get:

4.5cc dish pistons with a Neo head = 9.06 static CR

10cc dish pistons with a Neo head = 8.42 static CR

Of course, this is ASSUMING you have a ZERO DECK HEIGHT on your block and the head is standard item and has a 51cc combustion chamber.

Edited by R32Abuser

Also I have found some conflicting details regarding piston compression heights for some RB30 pistons. Obviously this will affect how the piston sits in the bore and therefore the static CR. So depending on these values the above static CR estimates may or may not be accurate.

This drives home the point to measure everything up before/during the build.

Thanks for that r32 abuser, Them numbers are what's on top of the piston, i typed that number in google and it came up with some one quoting these pistons as acl duralight, I do know that they are acl pistons tho, And that they Are for a rb30et , ok so the head is standard, will just be taking it to head works to get it checked and stuff like that befor I put it on,

And by zero deck hight do you mean the piston being

Flush with the top of the block, ? Because yep that's all been done, and I'm thinking my piston is the 4.5cc dish, now for what head gasket to be used? I'm looking at a steel head gasket but not sure of what thickness

Ok so your deck height is the distance between the top of the piston at TDC and the top of the cylinder as per "deck clearance" below:

squishband.jpg

Obviously if the piston sits above the cylinder, this will increase the static CR (all things being equal). Similarly, if the piston sits below the cylinder, this will decrease the static CR.

I used a cometic 1.28mm head gasket as recommended in the RB30 DOHC guide. You can also use a standard RBXX head gasket IIRC. Once again, the thickness of your head gasket is going to influence your final static CR so first measure up what your motor has been built to and try a few different thickness head gaskets in a static compression ratio calculator. See what value you get and go from there.

Edited by R32Abuser

Why don't you get your head prepped and cc'ed and double check the deck height and piston dish and tell us what compression ratio you want.

Hopefully can get an answer that won't be a guess.

Agreed.

Ultimately I reckon a stock head gasket will be fine but it is such a pain in the arse if you have assumed incorrectly.

I have a neo head sitting in the garage and I was considering getting a basic RIPS bottom end sent over (which will probably be very similar to your setup) which would comp up nicely with a neo head but I will still double check everything before closing it up.

Bare in mind, 0.020" (aka 20 thousandth of an inch) is only 0.5mm. If those pistons are sitting 20 thou below deck height its enough to shift the static CR quite a bit. In my build its enough to shift the static CR from 9:1 down to 8.64:1.

Food for thought.

This is what I used on my first Rb30 6MKRY9608 http://www.aclperformance.com.au/NissanRB30ETForgedPistons.htm

and these on the 2nd build. that and there like $800.00 from the US or like 1200 if you buy them in Aus. NIS264405i05 http://www.us.mahle.com/C1256F7900537A47/vwContentByKey/W26HSFB8505STULEN/$FILE/2010%20AP%20complete.pdf

I email acl and they for all the info I need in this piston

Bowl volume 12.0cc

 

Comp Ht 31.10mm

 

Clearance & Position .025mm At 45.3mm from bottom of skirt

 

So now saying that my head has about 51cc chambers and block deck hight being 0.5mm what size head gasket will I need to get my compression good

  • 1 year later...

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...