Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone ,

I am currently building a 3.2 L with an RB26 cylinder head my block is stock and I will run E85 and E100
My mapper who is Romain Levesque from dear RaceCAL LtD (former syvecs technical director) asks me to make a ratio of around 9.5.

so after reading a lot of topics on it
I found pistons with a CR 9.0 and 10.0 expensive IRP
what direction would be taken to achieve a ratio of 9.5 without having to plane the block by 2mm or to do it a minimum, but to be able to play with the thickness of the cylinder head gaskets

thank you in advance for your response

12 hours ago, krysto_77 said:

t of topics on it
I found pistons with a CR 9.0 and 10.0 expensive IRP
what direction would be taken to achieve a ratio of 9.5 without having to plane the block by 2mm or to do it a minimum, but to be able to play with the thickness of the cylinder head gaskets

thank you

I'd verify how invested in exactly 9.5 he is if it turns out to be a massive amount more effort to go 9.5 vs 9.0 or 10.0.  He may have just said that as a suggestion not realising it'll be a huge deal to go specifically there when half a point either side isn't so bad.

  • Thanks 1
5 hours ago, Lithium said:

Je vérifierais à quel point il est investi exactement dans 9,5 s'il s'avère que cela demande beaucoup plus d'efforts pour passer à 9,5 contre 9,0 ou 10,0. Il vient peut-être de dire cela à titre de suggestion, sans se rendre compte que ce serait une grosse affaire d'y aller spécifiquement alors qu'un demi-point de chaque côté n'est pas si mal.

 

yes you are right, indeed it is for information only.  there is not much difference being at 9 or 9.5 or 10.  but when I see that you have to plane the block by 2mm if you have taken (example) CP piston which means that you end up with an 8.2 with the rb26 cylinder head.  hence the question I ask is what would be best to achieve what he is asking me.  take pistons in 9.0 or 10.0 to avoid planing a famous 2mm on the block knowing that I worked on the dome of the cylinder head which became total hemispherical17134181700198466972571900996895.thumb.jpg.d9873563c434a92f3d37240bdf5fcf7d.jpg

47 minutes ago, krysto_77 said:

but when I see that you have to plane the block by 2mm

Which is a thing done by no-one ever. Not even remotely a good idea.

I would run an engine with 10:1 these days. Good management and fuel compared to the early 90s when these boat motors were designed & built.
 

  • Like 1
1 hour ago, krysto_77 said:

yes you are right, indeed it is for information only.  there is not much difference being at 9 or 9.5 or 10.  but when I see that you have to plane the block by 2mm if you have taken (example) CP piston which means that you end up with an 8.2 with the rb26 cylinder head.  hence the question I ask is what would be best to achieve what he is asking me.  take pistons in 9.0 or 10.0 to avoid planing a famous 2mm on the block knowing that I worked on the dome of the cylinder head which became total hemispherical17134181700198466972571900996895.thumb.jpg.d9873563c434a92f3d37240bdf5fcf7d.jpg

You will need custom pistons made, the combustion chamber is to modified for any off the shelf piston to give a good compression ratio 

  • Like 1

It's also worth noting that the static compression ratio needs to be considered in conjunction with your camshaft specification to ascertain the dynamic compression. 9.5:1 is fine with stock cams but if you're running 288's then you'll be pumping 120psi and it'll be a dog.

11 hours ago, Komdotkom said:

Il convient également de noter que le taux de compression statique doit être pris en compte en conjonction avec les spécifications de votre arbre à cames pour déterminer la compression dynamique. 9,5 : 1 convient aux caméras d'origine, mais si vous utilisez des 288, vous pomperez 120 psi et ce sera un chien.

I see what you mean !! 👍

so I drive with E85 AND E100 my cylinder head and full supertech with 270° camshaft and 10.25 lift

this weekend I spoke with my mapper and he told me 10 ratio would be even better

so I went to set up a setup with :

3.2l crankshaft from expensive spool import with a stroke of 91mm

Nitto or IRP connecting rods length 152.5 mm

and piston irp ratio of 10

after having the information near spool import the setup did not work because of the crankshaft which is 91 mm 

therefore the assembly mounted in the engine block will come out 1mm high above the cylinder head gasket surface

so I have to review the construction of the lower engine

low IRP is Italian I am French I wanted to limit the costs because as they are in Europe I do not have customs fees to pay 🤷‍♀️

Il y a 20 heures, Komdotkom a déclaré :

Vous pouvez probablement simplement acheter la manivelle, les bielles et les pistons auprès de Spool Imports sous forme de package.

Yes indeed ; They offered it to me, I'm waiting for their quote 😉

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

    • Driveline vibration is resolved. I ended up loosening all my engine mount and trans mount bolts, giving it a good shake then retightening everything and it's gone... Let's just say I was surprised that fixed it.  I've been happily driving it around again but unfortunately put zero time into my direct port/constant pressure WMI setup. I'm on vacation next week, so I'll try and finalize it then.  On a different note, I spent all week fuel/ignition mapping 2x 216L V16 engines. Turbo's were burning glycol and we swapped them out for larger units. We also had planned emissions testing on site, so I figured I'd be there the same week to use their instrumentation and massage any emissions issues out if needed. This was a first for me. Fuel management is similar in certain ways to automotive (i.e air density as load variable) but very different in others. It's all PLC based and AFR's are controlled by air and not fuel. They use a control valve between the turbo and air manifold to control pressure which in turn controls AFR's. Due to this, target AFR tables supplied by the OEM are in pressures and not mass which really through me off. They use air pressure vs fuel pressure tables. I also relied on an O2 concentration sensor the emissions team had in the exhaust. Ignition timing was also all over the place and we were losing a fair bit of power. They're now happily sitting at 16-40BTDC depending on load. We were making about 1600kw at 900rpm at 90% load. Engines were running a lot smoother as well.    
    • heh, aint no R32 ever meeting modern targa cage rules unless the driver is veeeery short OP, good luck with the sale, since its already in the land of freedom I'm sure you will find a good buyer.
    • meh, it was a good video, clear about the issue and how he dealt with it. A bit heavy on the RTV and very brave to put an RB in anything without rebuilding it first, but otherwise I thought it was good Dose, I'm not sure that having the pickup forward is a big issue; yes of course the oil could shift under brakes but the sump should never be empty enough for that to be a problem (unless you also have a higher volume oil pump, and that oil can't return from the head to the sump quickly enough)
    • I can donate $100 to your upgrade fund. So long as you can donate the IC7 my way....
    • I'd love a Haltech ECU, and Haltech 10 dash. Was having a chat with Rob and Andy @ Haltech when Rob put one in his MR2. First one I'm kind of interested in too, as you can dim it RIGHT down. Andy was saying bright dashes is one of his peeves too!
×
×
  • Create New...