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

    • 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...