Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I’m on my way back from work when all of a sudden it feels like I lose one cylinder. Missfireing like crazy running real rough. I get back home and start trouble shooting what’s going on. Turns out one of my coil packs died but while I had all the spark plugs out I thought I’d give my new compression tester a go. Much to my dismay all 6 cylinders were around 110 psi. (full report below) I don’t believe this to be the cause of the misfire as I’m %99 my coil was munted. But still 110 psi in all 6 cylinders isn’t good. I’ve got a few ideas what could be causing the problem. But any input or ideas would be great. I’m thinking it could be worn piston rings or possibly ringland failure. Although I find it hard to believe the ringland failed on all 6 cylinders.  Also The engine only has 150k on it and is basically stock only thing I’ve done to it is upped the boost from 7 to11psi nothing crazy. But what I think the problem most likely is, is my timing belt is starting to go or skipped a tooth or something and is throwing the timing off and therefore the compression. But hey I’m just some hopeless 18 year old. If any of y’all have the slightest idea what could be going on some guidance would be greatly appreciated.?

Rb25det NEO in a rs4s stagea

150xxx kms

C1 105 psi 

C2 110 psi 

C3 107 psi

C4 110 psi

C5 105 psi

C6 117 psi

Edited by Selli160
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/479319-low-compression-rb25/
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, GTSBoy said:

Now you shouldn't trust your technique. There's no way that it would have been ~110 before with a dud tester and now gone down to 90.

As above. 
sounds like you are really keen to rebuild this motor!

19 hours ago, Ben C34 said:

Ignore results continue to drive  

 

I second this notion. When my last 2.6 started to drop compression I turned up the boost... Thing ran for another 80,000kms till I sold it.

1 hour ago, Selli160 said:

or get ready to rebuild the engine

No.....go back and read what I said. I find it very difficult to believe that your results are consistent. Try again before making any decisions. Also, a leakdown test is more informative than simple compression testing.

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...