Jump to content
SAU Community

Building 3 Litre Gtr , Piston Are 30 Thou Out Block


Recommended Posts

I think it's best to speak with a repretable Engine builder about this....I would imagine as long as the ring seal on the head gasket is big enough so the Piston has clearance then i would imagine it should be fine with thicker head gasket.

Cheers Ryan , the story is I have a r32 Gtr 3l bottom end 26 head . Detroit locker in the arse crazy fuel setup os gieken gear box, Carbon twin plate .gt28 60 -10 turbos 260 cam 2000 I'd injectors 6 boost manifolds titanium ferrera everything for the heads oversized valves Killa springs , made 420 kw on 17.8 psi done sixth piston ring , stripped it done pistons ,rods , bearings and done better oil return better oil pump nothing else can be upgraded ! Lol but on putting it together my mechanic has found the pistons are 30 thou hanging out the block , he done the Maths and said a 1.8 head gasket would solve the problem . I'm a bit worried about the idea , don't know how it's happened to be out so far. Wondering the pros and cons on fixing the problem like that ?? Didn't think after spending so much cash I would have this problem arise at this stage of the build . Any thoughts would be appreciated

The pistons in my build hang out by 10-15 thou, I am using a 1.5mm head gasket from memory. You could possibly have valve reliefs cut into the pistons, or have the pistons shaved and balanced again. Best bet to speak to Rhemac or another engine builder/machine shop

how much was shaved from the head and block...surely anyone reputable would've measureed the amount removed?

You mentioned larger valves which even if a thicker head gasket resolved the .75mm (.030") piston protrusion, you'll still have to factor in the amount of valve lift......did you also increase cam lobe lift......even if you didn't, a larger valve head will travel further out of its chamber because of its angle.

There are way too many factors to consider and everything should've been planned together before removing any metal, anywhere....did the machinist have some sort of plan in mind before going nuts on a surface grinder?

Abe's example won't help you...he has .25mm protrusion and more than likely standard size valves.....not sure if he's running more lift though.

PS: I wouldn't go maching piston tops unless you like flirting with death....especially in motors that are renown for smashing already very weak top lands....worse comes to worse, you may have to get a de-comp plate made.

Abe's example won't help you...he has .25mm protrusion and more than likely standard size valves.....not sure if he's running more lift though.

Yeah, Standard valves with 8.5 cams

how do you shorten conrods without cutting them in half.

you could machine the mating surfaces of rod and cap then line bore to get the correct diameter again...but then you would have to re-cut the brg tangs followed by balancing them again.

Sounds like a pretty expensive option not to mention it would weaken the rods

But I like your thinking though :)

Only way around this one is to find out how much metal has been removed in total then replace it with something of similar thickness over and above a standard head gasket thickness.

If the machinist has no recollection of how much material was removed, you'll have to measure (accurately) the overall thickness of the head and block....only an engine reconditioner will have outside mic's or calipers that size.

Good luck with it

Yeah, I was thinking removing the caps, machining the rod side down the 30 thou picking it back up, machine and re bore it.

You kind of forget about the cost of machining when you do it all the time.

def a solution Dale bit who makes a piston with a lower pin height?

regardless, he also needs to consider how much has been taken off the head's surface now that he's running a larger valve which all adds to valve protrusion...not to mention that by bringing cams closer to the crank you also have valve timing issues that you need to sort out...but shouldn't be too much of an issue with adj gears.

I'd still want to know how much material has been removed for peace of mind

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

So much crazy talk happening here, de-comp plates what the hell, it is in reality a pretty straight forward build.

If they have machined off too much then a thicker gasket could indeed fix you problem, with out measuring everything I couldn't tell you what you need. Have the CC'd your combustion chambers? If we had that information and the cc of the dome in your pistons we could at least then try to work out the comp ratio. As far as the pistons hitting valves you will need to dummy assemble the motor with some Plasticine and turn the motor over, dissect it and then measure the piston to valve clearances.

Sounds like a recipe for disaster if this has come from your "engine builder"

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...