Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Unless your chasing massive HP then don't unless your cylinder wall are stuff.

Generally sleeving gives more strenght when quality sleeves are used and fitted by a competant machine shop"rare"

There are quite a few big hp rb26 running around with sleeve, but most of them aren't into discussing about what they've done.

Talk to a machine good shop and see their view.

I don`t have a block at the moment. The one from my car has nice big holes in both sides. The problem is finding a block that is still at standard bore or a maximum of 0.5mm over. I am chasing around 700 flywheel hp from this engine so do not want a block that is over 86.5mm bore.

Cheers, Dror

Sydneykid,

Have you not had any problems at this power level with a block overbored that far? I had been warned that the cylinder walls would crack at this sort of power.

Cheers, Dror

Only done 11 engines that bore size, no problems so far. :D

We have seen 87mm bore RB26s with cracks .we use std or .5mm over bore in very high powered RBs.We use new blocks when the budget allows at a cost of around 2k but remember that much of the machining is already done so some cost is recovered there.

500rwhp is the max we run 87-88mm at.The block flexes and cracks exturnaly on large bore motors and loose power due to bore flex.

We have seen 87mm bore RB26s with cracks .we use std or .5mm over bore in very high powered RBs.We use new blocks when the budget allows at a cost of around 2k but remember that much of the machining is already done so some cost is recovered there.  500rwhp is the max we run 87-88mm at.The block flexes and cracks exturnaly on large bore motors and loose power due to bore flex.

It is interesting how even very skilled people can have differing opinions and experiences. I have seen 86 mm (standard) bores with cracks as well, I don't believe that the bore size is the only reason. Temperature management, machining tolerances, metallurgy, boost pressure and parts used have as much to do with it as arbitrarily limiting bore sizes. Plus we never use "new" blocks, I much prefer an aged one. The more heat cycles they have seen, the higher chance there is that any manufacturing (and casting) stresses are long gone.

I like it when people have differing opinions, makes for an interesting discussion. :D

  • 10 months later...

can a rb30 block be fully boared out (to like 94mm) and have a full new sleve put in to run 89-90mm pistons? it would seal the water jacket at the top and bottom of block,

what do the os gikin boys do when resleeving there n1 blocks with the rb30 kit? does it rmove the whole existing sleeve or just enought to press in?

when a rb engine is re-sleeved is it fully bores out or not?

i did the maths checking out spaing etc, i could use 92mm pistons if this works, and have new sleeves and sill have 2mm of bore around hole cyl (is 2mm enought) idd say 90mm a reliaty tho, 87x90=3320cc nice

can a rb30 block be fully boared out (to like 94mm) and have a full new sleve put in to run 89-90mm pistons? it would seal the water jacket at the top and bottom of block,  

what do the os gikin boys do when resleeving there n1 blocks with the rb30 kit? does it rmove the whole existing sleeve or just enought to press in?

when a rb engine is re-sleeved is it fully bores out or not?

i did the maths checking out spaing etc, i could use 92mm pistons if this works, and have new sleeves and sill have 2mm of bore around hole cyl (is 2mm enought) idd say 90mm a reliaty tho, 87x90=3320cc nice

Adventurous, and I have no idea. RB30 blocks are cheap, all I can suggest is to try boring one cylinder and see how far you can go. It may also be worthwhile to check the cylinder head first. I don't think the water jacket will allow the combustion chamber to be much bigger than 88 mm. There would be no head gasket sealing surface.

From memory the OS Giken 3 Litre liners are around 5 mm thick at 86 mm bore, so that's ~96 mm OD.

:P

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

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...