Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys

I know this has been covered a million times before. I've been searching the forums and google but haven't really find the answer I was looking for. (Sorta)

I recently had a pre-purchase inspection done on a GTR I'm interested in and the compression test come back as 120 across all cylinders. Some people have said this is OK as it's consistent and others have said it's too low. Can someone please let me know if these figures are ok or too low as everything else has checked out and I'm close to putting down a deposit.

Cheers

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/462884-rb26-compression-test-results/
Share on other sites

Can be a number of things, after market head gasket, worn seals/bores

Low compression across all cylinders generally associate with a tired motor, i would only bite if you were to factor the cost of a rebuild into the price, which you would want to do anyway regardless of condition if long term ownership is your goal

Both statements "its too low" and "its consistent so its OK" are pretty much right.

Standard compression according to the workshop manual is 171psi, so 120 is way low.

However, you don't know if the test was done correctly, with an accurate guage, with a fully charged battery, with a warm engine etc etc as it should be.

So instead people generally look for consistency in the results because that removes all those factors.

The main things you are trying to avoid with a compression test are some sort of major mechanical issue like a broken ring land, bent valve etc etc which will show up even if the test is not done correctly. The remaining issue is general wear on the rings which can show up as low compression everywhere, but even then it tends not to be consistent.

So....the remaining problem is it may be heigh klm and the rings worn. Does it smoke at idle or light throttle driving?

  • Like 1

Seems like the check was done on a cold engine. (not sure why)

Car was re-checked at running temp and come back at 150-155 across all cylinders and I'm much more comfortable with that.

  • Like 2

So to carry this thread on longer the variation here is 30psi.

Is that average/normal?

What should it be cold? compared to 170psi when warm and new.

Cams, head gaskets can create variation as well as a looser build for higher end builds/power

Worn engines reducing in compression due to wear.

A cold compression test can tell you as much as a warm compression test. At least when it's cold you have a better chance of picking up irregular noises.

Hence the no greater than 10% across all 6 as a general rule.

Edited by Sinista32

I've been watching this thread and I think we're both happy to report the car made 160-165 per cylinder today at Croydon Racing Developments.

We still have no clue what method was used for the first test to get 120 and to be frank, I don't think I want to know lol.

I'm glad it is now put to bed!

  • Like 1

I've been watching this thread and I think we're both happy to report the car made 160-165 per cylinder today at Croydon Racing Developments.

We still have no clue what method was used for the first test to get 120 and to be frank, I don't think I want to know lol.

I'm glad it is now put to bed!

Official paperwork said 170-165 across all cylinders. Car came back with very good results from CRD and I was really happy with their service. I Would definitely recommend them to anyone is Sydney.

Very happy and glad it's been put to bed.

  • Like 1
  • 2 years later...

digging up an old thread .. had a compression test done as per a pre purchase inspection on a R34 GTR with 77,000km. The car is mainly stock and had cooled down quite abit before the test was done but not cold.. the results were ;

 150 - 150 - 148 - 149 - 139 - 143

Cylinder 5 a worry?
 

Edited by jaysevu
  • 6 months later...

digging up an old thread again.. hopefully get an answer this time haha. Inspected another r34 GTR and did a comp test.

The engine was rebuilt in 2010.. 

152 - 140 - 150 - 160 - 155 - 155

I read there shouldn't be anymore then 10% discrepancy between cylinders so is 140-160 a bit much? 

Depends on whether you take 10% discrepancy to be "from lowest to highest" or "from any one to the average/median".  On that basis, your typical value is ~155 and the lowest one is just on 10% lower than that.  There is also measurement error associated with both your lowest and your highest values (and all the others in fact, but we'll ignore those as they are so close together).  So it could be worse or a little better than your numbers show.

If it were me - I'd like to see the worst one not be that bad.  But it is probably fine and could and probably will run just fine for a looooong time.  Or, it could be an indicator that the injector in that cylinder is a bit crappy and has damaged the exhaust valve or seat or any of a bazzillion other possibilities.  Did a leakdown test get done also?  Can be more informative than just a comp test.

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

    • Yep super expensive, awesome. It would be a cool passion project if I had the money.
    • Getting the setup right, is likely to cost multiples of the purchase price of the vehicle.
    • So it's a ginormous undertaking that will be a massive headache but will be sorta cool if pulled off right. And also expensive. I'm sure it'll be as expensive as buying the car itself. I don't think you could just do this build without upgrading other things to take the extra power. Probably lots of custom stuff as well. All this assuming the person has mechanical knowledge. I'm stupid enough to try it but smart enough to realize there's gonna be mistakes even with an experienced mechanic. I'm a young bloke on minimum wage that gets dopamine from air being moved around and got his knowledge from a Donut video on how engines work.]   Thanks for the response though super informative!
    • Yes, it is entirely possible to twincharge a Skyline. It is not....without problems though. There was a guy did it to an SOHC RB30 (and I think maybe it became or already was a 25/30) in a VL Commode. It was a monster. The idea is that you can run both compressors at relatively low pressure ratios, yet still end up with a quite large total pressure ratio because they multiply, not add, boost levels. So, if the blower is spun to give a 1.4:1 PR (ie, it would make ~40 kPa of boost on its own) and the turbo is set up to give a 1.4:1 PR also, then you don't get 40+40 = 80 kPa of boost, you get 1.4*1.4, which is pretty close to 100 kPa of boost. It's free real estate! This only gets better as the PRs increase. If both are set up to yield about 1.7 PR, which is only about 70 kPa or 10ish psi of boost each, you actually end up with about 1.9 bar of boost! So, inevitably it was a bit of a monster. The blower is set up as the 2nd compressor, closest to the motor, because it is a positive displacement unit, so to get the benefit of putting it in series with another compressor, it has to go second. If you put it first, it has to be bigger, because it will be breathing air at atmospheric pressure. The turbo's compressor ends up needing to be a lot larger than you'd expect, and optimised to be efficient at large mass flows and low PRs. The turbo's exhaust side needs to be quite relaxed, because it's not trying to provide the power to produce all the boost, and it has to handle ALL the exhaust flow. I think you need a much bigger wastegate than you might expect. Certainly bigger than for an engine just making the same power level turbo only. The blower effectively multiplies the base engine size. So if you put a 1.7 PR blower on a 2.5L Skyline, it's like turboing a 4.2L engine. Easy to make massive power. Plus, because the engine is blown, the blower makes boost before the turbo can even think about making boost, so it's like having that 4.2L engine all the way from idle. Fattens the torque delivery up massively. But, there are downsides. The first is trying to work out how to size the turbo according to the above. The second is that you pretty much have to give up on aircon. There's not enough space to mount everything you need. You might be able to go elec power steering pump, hidden away somewhere. but it would still be a struggle to get both the AC and the blower on the same side of the engine. Then, you have to ponder whether you want to truly intercool the thing. Ideally you would put a cooler between the turbo and the blower, so as to drop the heat out of it and gain even more benefit from the blower's positive displacement nature. But that would really need to be a water to air core, because you're never going to find enough room to run 2 sets of boost pipes out to air to air cores in the front of the car. But you still need to aftercool after the blower, because both these compressors will add a lot of heat, and you wil have the same temperature (more or less) as if you produced all that boost with a single stage, and no one in their right mind would try to run a petrol engine on high boost without a cooler (unless not using petrol, which we shall ignore for the moment). I'm of the opinnion that 2x water to air cores in the bay and 2x HXs out the front is probably the only sensible way to avoid wasting a lot of room trying to fit in long runs of boost pipe. But the struggle to locate everything in the limited space available would still be a pretty bad optimisation problem. If it was an OEM, they'd throw 20 engineers at it for a year and let them test out 30 ideas before deciding on the best layout. And they'd have the freedom to develop bespoke castings and the like, for manifolds, housings, connecting pipes to/from compressors and cores. A single person in a garage can either have one shot at it and live with the result, or spend 5 years trying to get it right.
    • Good to know, thank you!
×
×
  • Create New...