Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone, just bought a r33 gtst with an rb25 NEO swap off marketplace with about 60k miles. My main issue is that the all cylinders are 5-10psi below spec. Highest is 150, lowest is 138.

Didn't get any service records from the previous owner. Any ideas as to what might be the issue?

The car idles and runs pretty rough and I've never pushed it past 4 psi, if that helps.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/483403-rb25-neo-not-holding-compression/
Share on other sites

Most likely the only issue it has is how the test was done, those results are fine. You need plugs out, wide open throttle and well charged battery probably with a booster pack when you do every cylinder. Even then 9.2% variance is not an issue

  • Thanks 1

Yes. Agreed. Apart from one good data point I have (my Neo, tests on a trustworthy comp tester at ~170 psi on all 6) which shows that a healthy Neo can generate substantial cold comp pressure, there's nothing wrong with 140-150 psi.

As Duncan said, it could be a little worn, could be technique, could be a slightly low reading gauge, etc etc. 9% variation does suggest that some of it is wear, because clearly some have worn more than others.

  • Thanks 1
On 4/3/2022 at 12:49 PM, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

Sounds fine to me, just send it with more boost to make up for the slightly below spec compression

What if the turbo is tapped out and it has nothing left to give? No point running a snail at half it’s capacity. It’s too big then. 🤷‍♂️

On 3/4/2022 at 3:32 PM, Piggaz said:

What if the turbo is tapped out and it has nothing left to give? No point running a snail at half it’s capacity. It’s too big then. 🤷‍♂️

I think Johnny's next reply would be something about a 3.2 upgrade and Samsonas.

  • Like 1
On 04/03/2022 at 7:09 PM, GTSBoy said:

I think Johnny's next reply would be something about a 3.2 upgrade and Samsonas.

I feel this car needs a BMW GS7D36SG DCT and yes a 3.2L.

Should go well with a street Garrett G40-900 in full twin scroll form.

 

 

  • Haha 1

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...