Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Sure it's nice and even but below minimum reccomended.

Safe compression is anything between 135 ~ 180psi (as per the Nissan Japan Service Manual)

Your engine is tired.... it's had a hard life and needs a refesh.

Re-coondition the block & head, new bearings and piston rings and you should be fine... budget for new pistons just in case but I suspect you may get away without them. However if you plan on putting horsepower into this engine then I suggest you put forged pistons in. Tomei make very nice 0.5mm (20 thou if you speak to any Australian engine builder) overbore pistons for the RB25. CP Pistons are an alternative if your busget isnt that high. Also don't forget to put a 1.2mm Head Gakset in if you're goin to run higher boost.

hey all, just did a compression test on my car and was curious about the readings,

1- 120

2- 119

3- 120

4- 120

5- 119

6- 119

i would just like to know all your opinions on the condition of my engine

thanks

slo33

I got my compression test done with around 130 across all cylinders. Motor seems fine, mechanics said that was a good result.

Dont pull your engine out , it looks like you ahve a good engine there .

The comp test gauge may be reading low , who did it ? if a pro did then treir gauge is reading low and they probaly know it .

If your engine was stuffed its unlikely that it would be so even , my bet is it woul vary a lot more than that , regardless if you are loosing comp from valves or rings .

Do a leak-down test if you want to be sure .

Standard comp for rb25det is 12.2kg /cm2 (about 170-175psi ) @300rpm , limit 9.2 and difference limit between cil 1 kg/cm2 .

rb25de standard comp is 12.8 kg/cm2

rb26 dett 12kg/cm2

I wouldn't say that an engine down on compression by over 30% is a good engine. Sure the gauge may be reading low and it wouldn't be a bad idea to get a test done somewhere else, however if this is the true compression of the engine then it needs a refresh.

Also an engine doesn't have to be blown up to need a re-build. If it's had a hard life but has been serviced and looked after properly then the compression test should look like this one. If something happened like a cracked ringland or dropped valve, then 1 (or more) of the cylinders would read lower than the rest for sure.

I wouldn't say that an engine down on compression by over 30% is a good engine. Sure the gauge may be reading low and it wouldn't be a bad idea to get a test done somewhere else, however if this is the true compression of the engine then it needs a refresh.

i doubt it would be worn like that, but anyway as an example i had a compression test done for a friends car one gauge read 160psi across first few cylinders before getting jammed, grabbed another working compression gauge it read 140psi across the cylinders.

I wouldn't say that an engine down on compression by over 30% is a good engine. Sure the gauge may be reading low and it wouldn't be a bad idea to get a test done somewhere else, however if this is the true compression of the engine then it needs a refresh.

I didnt say that either , what i said was "its unlikely that a worn stuffed engine would have even compression " not imposibble though just unlikely .

Old worn engines dont have so even compression on all cilinders and that leads me to believe that it may have good comp much higher than the test .

If the true comp is 120 psi on all cil that engine would be gutless in stock form with stock or near stock boost a 6 cil bommy will kill it .

Thats the reason i suggested he does a leak-down test that will prove the state of his engine .

and my car seem to run better than most other 33's, i raced another 33 with front mount, 13psi and 3" exhaust and i beat him by car lengths ( my car just had standard shitty little side mount cooler, 11 psi and 3 " exhaust) it made 240 at the tyre spretty easy though

  • 2 years later...

Just got a compression test done today theres abit of difference in the results, but overall looks pretty healthy

Dry / Wet

1. 160 / 180

2. 160 / 170

3. 150 / 170

4. 155 / 175

5. 155 / 190

6. 160 / 180

Edited by skyzaman

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...