Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

sounds like that motor has had alot of floggings in its life..

i have 170000ks and still have 170psi...

its like dropping your compression ratio down to 7.6:1, like dropping in some massive cams and loosing the bottem end. why would that be ok? even if they are even

Edited by SliverS2

not scientifically, more estimating...

eg. my rb25 has 9:1 compression and it has 170psi

my old rb20 supposed to have 8.5 and it had 150psi

my old cordia had 7.6:1 and had 150psi , then after cam drop in , went down to 120psi

so estimating from above, all engines were healthy with moderate km's, 120psi must be quite low

must be a big difference between 170psi and 120psi..

teach me wise one... 2 rb25's one has 170psi , one has 120psi

where did the 50psi go? if you were going to buy a motor for your car.. which would you be buying?

I'd buy the one with 120psi coz I can jam 60 pound of boost up its arse more easily

yes i sent it to him with my magic wond and magic hat..

obviously there is some error in the instruments, but i would like to think that all these sorts of equipment are tested to be within certain limits .. 50psi would be a rather MASSIVE error wouldnt it

I'd buy the one with 120psi coz I can jam 60 pound of boost up its arse more easily

i thought you would run from that cause it would be ready to blow up .. never heard anyone recommend to push a motor with more boost if its on its last legs.. usually tell you its a bad idea..is that so you can rebuild it for some $$$ hahaha

i thought you would run from that cause it would be ready to blow up .. never heard anyone recommend to push a motor with more boost if its on its last legs.. usually tell you its a bad idea..is that so you can rebuild it for some $$$ hahaha

I'll explain it better in a minute when I'm not driv.....umm....doing stuff

When you get a compression test, the results are taken statically. That is why you will hear a lot of people refer to them as static compression results.

Three guys get a compression test done, Guy A has 165psi even on all 6, Guy B has 125psi on all 6 and Guy C has between 140-170psi on all 6.

The engines for both A and B are healthy engines. C is a dud.

What happens when a compression test is done is the engine is turned over by starter motor and is not being moved by its own power. This static result can give you an indication of how healthy an engine is but it does not give you any indication of what it will do when the engine is running. A hundred more things happen dynamically when the piston is in motion and under power of combustion. The rings will seal A LOT better and everything is moving MUCH faster so leak down past the rings is virtually no more than when it was standing still.

The reason C is a dud is because one cylinder has 170 and another has 140. The variation is far too high so therefore you can determine the engine has a problem.

If all results are even but low, it can be due to a number of things. Worn exhaust valve guide, carbon build up on valves or ports, lower tension on rings, piston to bore wear etc etc. It shows the engine is aging but still healthy because there is no variation. If its a worn exhaust valve guide, on a static comp test the valve will seat in a totally different position every time and your low results could be due to that. It doesn't mean the engine is going to explode.

We have seen RB26's with 120psi on all 6 making 600hp at the wheels on 30psi boost and 2 years later.....still going strong. Still has 120psi on all 6.

Of course we have to set some limits in our mind about how far is too far for a low result to become a bad result. For a straight 6 that's 8.5/9:1 comp ratio generally I use 120 as a lowest limit before telling someone the engine is had it.

For an Rb20 that was the lower comp ratio you might accept 100-110 as a lowest result.

Back on the worn guide thing, the valve will seal much better when in fast motion or if the spring is improved it could actually clear away any carbon or make itself a fresher seat. That is possibly why you saw a higher result when fitting your larger cams. Camshaft size won't effect static compression results unless the cause of your comp low result is due to valve train deficiencies.

  • Like 1

Oh and I forgot to add that 50psi is nothing compared to the 1500-2000psi your combustion chamber sees at peak power and cylinder pressure.

Engine A might have 2000psi whereas Engine B might have 1850-1950psi due to his lower static result. Both cars will make within 5-10 HP of one another and potentially live just as long as one another.

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

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...