Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hmmm.. I dont think it's a fantastic result.

I got my RB25DET done when I bought my car (57,000km's) and I got 160 across five cylinders and 150 on the other.

Yeah I heard that it's consistency that is a good thing, but the higher the better I think?

The guy who tested it (Unique Auto Sport in Castle Hill) said that they have tested heaps of RB25's and mine was up there as one of the highest they'd seen. I have heard a lot of people testing down around 140, but never as low as 125.

I'm not sure what the implications of this are though. Sorry I cant be of much help either...

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/98939-compression-test/#findComment-1801813
Share on other sites

well, i dont know what to think right now, maybe i didnt do the comp test correctly...but its even across all cylinders to the lb, so i think its all good...the engine has been very well looked after, i just did it out of curiosity...try it again tomorrow, getting a rollcage fitted so maybe they'll point me in the right direction as what it is...

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/98939-compression-test/#findComment-1802063
Share on other sites

125 isn't perfect but still in the reasonable limits. It's good when all the cylinder have lost compression equally, but losing compression doesn't mean a real lot as it's turbo, the turbo's will always have less psi than a N/A engine. I don't own an RB25 though but this compression is good enough (not great) for a turbo engine

Cheers

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/98939-compression-test/#findComment-1802667
Share on other sites

theres no smoke or oil used, the turbo seals are blown out but driving off boost it doesnt smoke at all, power is still fantastic...i have a feeling the low readings were because my battery is ratshit...like i mean..if you start it and stall the car, be prepared to push it..that and my throttle body was closed...

Looking at my spark plugs, theyre almost brand new still, no buildup of anything at all, engine overall seems to be running brilliantly. Must have been the way i did it...

BTW, sorry nismoid...i searched but i didnt get a straight answer to what i was looking for so i posted a new thread...my bad...

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/98939-compression-test/#findComment-1803007
Share on other sites

I wouldn't have thought this is much for an rb25, but I have heard that an even spread across all the cylinders is more important.

My rb25det from a 97' s2 r33 has between 153-160 across all cylinders, being the lowest and highest from all readings.

125 sounds a little low, but if the others say its ok if it aint using oil and water etc, then i could be wrong. Possible try testing another one if you can, just for reference.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/98939-compression-test/#findComment-1816005
Share on other sites

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...