Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Never heard of this company Grex, and it seems to me that 2.7 is done more by bore than stroke (cant rember stock rb26 bore).

From a recent discussion on another forum i understood that a 2.7 wont give that much extra power really, but if you are doing it to keep safe then it would be good.

but grex..... hope they are not releates to MotoRex in the usa

That price is just for the pistons, doesnt include the conrods or crankshaft that come in the higher priced ($10,000+) kits.

And yes, Grex is Greddy is Trust etc. They are the same company, but technically they are different.

is it worth the price tag

http://turbulence.com.au/shop/product_info...products_id=135

i thoguht they would be more expensive then that, can anyone confirm if the kit is any good

MrChams is running the Trust 2.7 kit in his R32

I sure am... there are different kits from what I understand.

The kit that I have is 87.5mm GREX pistons and GREX H pattern rods.

The larger 2.7ltr piston kit helps my Greddy T78 spool up quicker.

Due to the cost of after market cranks, I am running a standard crank that has been shot penned and cryogenically treated (dunno what the hell that is but hey...)

The standard cranks are pretty strong. Before my rebuild this crank held 720hp with no signs of breaking. Not sure what there limit is.

I'm still running in the engine. Once I have it tuned I'll let you all know how I went for power.

The kit on the link above is just the over sized 87mm piston kit.

MrChams is running the Trust 2.7 kit in his R32

This is not the stroker kit.

The piston size makes it 2.7ltr.

My pistons are 87.5mm not 86.5mm. Typo

If you check out this link, you can calculate the displacement

http://www.benedict.esu7.org/sblock/ccfrm.html

It's something like this (don't quote me on it)

Bore radius squared x pi x stroke x no. of cyl = Total cubic displacement

How do you get the extra stroke necessary for 2.7L from a standard crank and 86.5mm pistons? :confused:
I sure am... there are different kits from what I understand.

The kit that I have is 87.5mm GREX pistons and GREX H pattern rods.

The larger 2.7ltr piston kit helps my Greddy T78 spool up quicker.

 

I'm still running in the engine. Once I have it tuned I'll let you all know how I went for power.

how much difference? Just outta interest.

And running in an engine? Thats over-rated in this day and age

Ahhh okay...

Std bore & stroke (86x73.7) = 2568cc (juuuuuust enough to claim 2.6 Litres :P)

87.5mm bore & std stroke = 2659cc (also juuuuuuuuuuust enough to claim 2.7 Litres :))

Did you do these internal upgrades by themselves? Could you really tell the effects of extra 100cc capacity? Or did you do other things like camshafts, cam gears, etc etc at the same time?

The stoke on the trust piston is 75.7mm and the piston size is 87.5.

http://www.benedict.esu7.org/sblock/ccfrm.html

Regarding the mods etc,

It's not just the pistons that has given the improvement but extensive head work.

The head work included modifying the bowl shape, different angles on the valves and valve chamber, valve guide modified, cam area opened for bigger cams and the obvious port enlargement.

I am currently running the standard cams with adjustable cam gears.

Bigger cams will be fitted soon once I decide what size to get.

Yes, I did notice the difference. The engine does feel like it has more down low torque but I can't say till we tune it on the dyno.

Ahhh okay...

Std bore & stroke (86x73.7) = 2568cc (juuuuuust enough to claim 2.6 Litres :P)

87.5mm bore & std stroke = 2659cc (also juuuuuuuuuuust enough to claim 2.7 Litres :))

Did you do these internal upgrades by themselves? Could you really tell the effects of extra 100cc capacity? Or did you do other things like camshafts, cam gears, etc etc at the same time?

I don't agree with not running in an engine.

My mechanic use to work for Nissan Japan.

They did test on how to run in RB engines. He told me that the best result was when they ran the engine up to 4,000rpm for the 1st 1,500km then oil change then up to 5,000rpm to 5,000km.

He told me the bore was perfect after such a run in.

The test also involved using mineral based oil in some engines and full-synthetic in other engines.

The full-synthetic oil run engines came out much better.

how much difference? Just outta interest.

And running in an engine? Thats over-rated in this day and age

The price is very high just for Greddy pistons.

You should be able to get the pistons for approx $2500 and the rods for approx the same, $2500...

damn, when i saw the pic and the price i already got the credit card out, but for pistons only hm doesnt seem worth it,
The stoke on the trust piston is 75.7mm and the piston size is 87.5.

http://www.benedict.esu7.org/sblock/ccfrm.html

How exactly do you increase stroke by 2mm with a piston upgrade on standard crank? :confused:

And I don't need a web calculator, I remember my Year 7 volumetric formulas :Oops: Probably the first time I've used them since high school :)

They did test on how to run in RB engines. He told me that the best result was when they ran the engine up to 4,000rpm for the 1st 1,500km then oil change then up to 5,000rpm to 5,000km.

 

He told me the bore was perfect after such a run in.

The test also involved using mineral based oil in some engines and full-synthetic in other engines.

The full-synthetic oil run engines came out much better.

5000km run-in??? That would take most people 6 months to complete. You really think that's a feasible run-in time?

What engine parts could POSSIBLY need 5000kms bedding in time??? :uhh:

No comment on the full-synthetic running in oil use... People have different ideas on that one, but the vast majority believe that mineral oil for the first 1000kms or so is still the best way to go.

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...