Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I'm sure this has been covered somewhere but I can't find info.

What's the general consensus when it comes to checking bearings, can I simply re-tighten the nuts on the rods or do I need to throw em and start again. Are they a TTY bolt, it's on an RB30 if that's different to the other RBs.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/482795-re-using-rod-bolts/
Share on other sites

On 9/5/2021 at 8:39 AM, killa-watt said:

So your saying once you undo em they are bin jobs

Yes, but not because they are TTY bolts (which they are not). It is because they are 30 years old, have done a million billion cycles and an engine builder is BUILDING an engine, usually with the intent to push it hard.

I agree to replacing original factory rod bolts but would happily re-use upgraded bolts next time.  Presumably you’re chasing more power than the original bolts were ever designed to handle plus the age factor so replace them now and they will be fine for the next build as well.

I'm in a similar situation. I've already assembled the bottom end of my 25Neo and next is installing the head. My engine shop said I'm good to reuse the factory rods and bolts (RB26 rods and matching bolts as it is a NEO bottom end, with forged pistons) for this power goal and application (street). I've also been told that there's not much point getting ARP rod bolts if I'm reusing stock rods.

On 9/5/2021 at 10:26 AM, GTSBoy said:

Yes, but not because they are TTY bolts (which they are not). It is because they are 30 years old, have done a million billion cycles and an engine builder is BUILDING an engine, usually with the intent to push it hard.

This has reinspired the fear of god in me. GTSBoy would it be totally moronic to not pull it apart and bring the rods to a shop to get reworked for ARP bolts? I ask this suspecting you will say yes, but I still want to hear it 😁

Edited by CowsWithGuns

6 of one or a half dozen of the other. The expense is not huge and the effort is not huge, so you could say that it is silly to not take the opportunity. It's just sump off, rod caps and pistons off and then put it back together afterwards. It's just annoying given the effort that you've put in goes to waste.

On the other side of the coin - the stock rod bolts have been demonstrated to happily run at streetable ~300rwkW power levels without failing on many engines for many years. So as long as you don't plan to beat on the engine real hard, it will probably be fine.

At this point you choose your poison and you drink it.

Thanks. I've had some time to research and clarify my thoughts. 300+ rwkw is already incredible relative to what I had, so I'm going to put it together and and just stay modest with the power. If I really want to go beyond say 350 or get heinous redlines, I'll pull it out when the time comes and upgrade. This is only my first build too, I think I shouldn't overthink part selection lest I make some rookie mistake that causes failure anyway...

If my bolts eat shit, I'll be sure to report back to the community ;) 

Edited by CowsWithGuns

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...