Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

mark firstly nice work,

Can i ask did you extend the block? as it sounds like you have increase the stoke and allowed for it in the piston design (pin height) which will work but has serious long term issues as the stoke to conrod ratio will be extreme as the rb26 run a low ratio std. What this means is the rods have pivot alot more through each stroke and adds alot more load (wear) to rods, bearings and crank.Guys like sydneykid can explain alot better then me. Please dont take this the wrong way as i know it works and its a great effort to have a go and do something custom yourself much cheaper than buying japanise kit but i believe the reason the japan kits only run a slight increase in stoke is mainly due to this isssue.

pete

Edited by pnblight
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

mark firstly nice work,

Can i ask did you extend the block? as it sounds like you have increase the stoke and allowed for it in the piston design (pin height) which will work but has serious long term issues as the stoke to conrod ratio will be extreme as the rb26 run a low ratio std. What this means is the rods have pivot alot more through each stroke and adds alot more load (wear) to rods, bearings and crank.Guys like sydneykid can explain alot better then me. Please dont take this the wrong way as i know it works and its a great effort to have a go and do something custom yourself much cheaper than buying japanise kit but i believe the reason the japan kits only run a slight increase in stoke is mainly due to this isssue.

pete

It will make massive torque though with rods that short. Which is why the jap stoker kits tend to make more torque then their minimal stroke increase would imply.

There are three things to keep in mind when comparing rod / stroke ratios and power output;

1. Longer rods go slower through TDC, keeping the total combustion chamber smaller, that’s the actual chamber in the cylinder head plus the exposed part of the cylinder. Thereby giving an increase in combustion pressure, this means more torque per firing.

It’s been while since I did the numbers, but from memory, comparing an RB30 conrod length to an RB26 conrod length means that the combustion pressure is around 2.5% higher (with the same compression ratio). This means a noticeably improved efficiency of combustion.

2. Larger rod ratios keep the rod more vertical, reducing the side loads on the piston and reducing friction between the piston and the bore. Using the same RB26 vs RB30 conrod comparison sees a reduction in side loads of around 10%. I don’t know the total friction numbers for an RB but if we assume that they are similar to a SB Chevy where about a quarter of the friction comes from the pistons. This means a reduction in friction of around 0.5%, not a lot but certainly better than adding friction.

3. The maximum piston speed of an engine using an RB30 rod occurs a bit later in the cycle compared to an RB26. Which means it is closer to maximum lift of the camshaft. Hence when the piston is moving the fastest, the valve is more open, causing less of a restriction. This means better filling on intake and better exhaust flow.

There are a number of other benefits from a higher rod stroke ratio such as slower more effective compression to squish zones, longer dwell at TDC means higher preignition tollerance, less detonation etc.

It is also worth mentioning that #2 above means that an engine using an RB30 length of conrod (compared to an RB26) will have less cylinder wall and piston wear. More relevant is that it will have a far less chance of breaking a conrod due to the lower side loads.

The bottom line, given the choice, I would choose the RB30 rod stroke ratio over the RB26 every time.

:D cheers :)

Edited by Sydneykid

Yeah, what SK said. Basically longer rod to storke ratio is better. However due to me wanting to retain the factory block yet increase the stroke, something had to compromised, thus the low rod to stoke ratio. But i dont cosider it too big a trade off, its not that much worse than other jap brand stokers, yet gives me more capacity at vastly reduced price. The other thing to note is that some the benefits of longer rod to stroke, ie better cylinder filling, are most notable on engines with very poor breathing, ie restrictive induction and heads. Something a turbo charged engine has less to worry about.

So whist in an ideal world i would have preferred a longer rod to stroke ratio, in the real world, for what i wanted, std block, more capacity, affordability, something had to give

Oh and redline is 8000 at the moment, but will be raised once bigger injectors go in.

Edited by mark99
Yeah, what SK said. Basically longer rod to storke ratio is better. However due to me wanting to retain the factory block yet increase the stroke, something had to compromised, thus the low rod to stoke ratio. But i dont cosider it too big a trade off, its not that much worse than other jap brand stokers, yet gives me more capacity at vastly reduced price. The other thing to note is that some the benefits of longer rod to stroke, ie better cylinder filling, are most notable on engines with very poor breathing, ie restrictive induction and heads. Something a turbo charged engine has less to worry about.

So whist in an ideal world i would have preferred a longer rod to stroke ratio, in the real world, for what i wanted, std block, more capacity, affordability, something had to give

Oh and redline is 8000 at the moment, but will be raised once bigger injectors go in.

Did you consider the OS Giken 3 litre solution?

Longer cylinder liners.

But using the RB30 length conrods and a 38 mm spacer.

Instead of the RB26 length conrods and an 18 mm spacer.

Then you could have used a standard RB30 crank and the oversized pistons for 3.1 litres. I believe the liners and spacer plate would have cost less than a bespoke crankshaft.

:w00t: cheers :D

I still think this setup would be awesome for a street gtr running mild say up to 400rwkw maybe more, depends where it proves to be reliable. :w00t:

Being able to run 2.9ltrs and retain the stock rb26 block has huge advantages for those that wish not to run the rb30 block.

I still think this setup would be awesome for a street gtr running mild say up to 400rwkw maybe more, depends where it proves to be reliable. :w00t:

Being able to run 2.9ltrs and retain the stock rb26 block has huge advantages for those that wish not to run the rb30 block.

Mark99 I take my hat off to you for going down this route and sharing the experiences - as Cubes says, an interesting alternative and certainly has the potential for a good streetable GT-R.

I'm not convinced of the cost benefits, however as I have a similar power curve with more headroom potential (i.e. rpm) using an HKS stroker crank and offset pin pistons. This crank has the advantage of being counterweighted and less prone to inducing destructive harmonics at high rpm. A good aftermarket damper is obviously part of the package.

The HKS "entry level" stroker cranks and pistons are now in the order of $6k to $6.5k in Australia. It would be interesting to see what the true cost of modifying the RB30 crank and making custom pistons is compared to the HKS kit.

Again, not meant to be a critisism but just some personal experience I'd like to add to the discussion. Will certainly watch your progress with interest!

There are three things to keep in mind when comparing rod / stroke ratios and power output;

1. Longer rods go slower through TDC, keeping the total combustion chamber smaller, that’s the actual chamber in the cylinder head plus the exposed part of the cylinder. Thereby giving an increase in combustion pressure, this means more torque per firing.

It’s been while since I did the numbers, but from memory, comparing an RB30 conrod length to an RB26 conrod length means that the combustion pressure is around 2.5% higher (with the same compression ratio). This means a noticeably improved efficiency of combustion.

2. Larger rod ratios keep the rod more vertical, reducing the side loads on the piston and reducing friction between the piston and the bore. Using the same RB26 vs RB30 conrod comparison sees a reduction in side loads of around 10%. I don’t know the total friction numbers for an RB but if we assume that they are similar to a SB Chevy where about a quarter of the friction comes from the pistons. This means a reduction in friction of around 0.5%, not a lot but certainly better than adding friction.

3. The maximum piston speed of an engine using an RB30 rod occurs a bit later in the cycle compared to an RB26. Which means it is closer to maximum lift of the camshaft. Hence when the piston is moving the fastest, the valve is more open, causing less of a restriction. This means better filling on intake and better exhaust flow.

There are a number of other benefits from a higher rod stroke ratio such as slower more effective compression to squish zones, longer dwell at TDC means higher preignition tollerance, less detonation etc.

It is also worth mentioning that #2 above means that an engine using an RB30 length of conrod (compared to an RB26) will have less cylinder wall and piston wear. More relevant is that it will have a far less chance of breaking a conrod due to the lower side loads.

The bottom line, given the choice, I would choose the RB30 rod stroke ratio over the RB26 every time.

:w00t: cheers :D

Average cylinder pressure over time is actually greater with a short rod than with a long rod. The reason for this is that maximum leverage on the crank occurs when the rod and crank are at right angles. This condition happens quicker with short rods leading to more torque.

That said, longer rods will always be preferable (a rod ratio of about 1.75) for the other reasons sydneykid mentioned.

Edited by Mik
Average cylinder pressure over time is actually greater with a short rod than with a long rod. The reason for this is that maximum leverage on the crank occurs when the rod and crank are at right angles. This condition happens quicker with short rods leading to more torque.

That said, longer rods will always be preferable (a rod ratio of about 1.75) for the other reasons sydneykid mentioned.

Is that in reponse to my #1?

If that is the case, then I am not sure that we are talking about the same thing.

With the longer rod, the piston is around TDC longer for the same number of crankshaft rotation degrees. Hence “around longer” means while the combustion is actually occurring, That’s why I say “Thereby giving an increase in combustion pressure, this means more torque per firing”.

The angle of the rod at ½ stroke is something altogether different. Where the longer rod is also an advantage as the right angle to the crank occurs earlier in the combustion process. Therefore imparting more torque at that time.

Or have I missed something?

:teehee: cheers :O

Edited by Sydneykid

Thanks for the interest guys. Yeah really broad power was what i was after for street use.

Gav, for that price is that a fully counter weighted or semi counter weighted crank? While i agree horses for courses, im hoping the cost to be sustantially less than that.

Pete, at this stage, the same as any rb30 crank, so far what i have done seems to have no adverse effects on the crank, but iil keep you posted.

Edited by mark99
Thanks for the interest guys. Yeah really broad power was what i was after for street use.

Gav, for that price is that a fully counter weighted or semi counter weighted crank? While i agree horses for courses, im hoping the cost to be sustantially less than that.

Pete, at this stage, the same as any rb30 crank, so far what i have done seems to adverse effects on the crank, but iil keep you posted.

Address of where to send my crank to ??

Gav, for that price is that a fully counter weighted or semi counter weighted crank? While i agree horses for courses, im hoping the cost to be sustantially less than that.

I believe it's for a "Step 2" crank and I believe fully counter weighted (unless someone can say otherwise?) as shown here:

gallery_705_63_159851.jpg

HKS website states these are good for 9,000 rpm and 588 engine kw, but I suspect this is somewhat conservative.

There are three things to keep in mind when comparing rod / stroke ratios and power output;

1. Longer rods go slower through TDC, keeping the total combustion chamber smaller, that’s the actual chamber in the cylinder head plus the exposed part of the cylinder. Thereby giving an increase in combustion pressure, this means more torque per firing.

It’s been while since I did the numbers, but from memory, comparing an RB30 conrod length to an RB26 conrod length means that the combustion pressure is around 2.5% higher (with the same compression ratio). This means a noticeably improved efficiency of combustion.

2. Larger rod ratios keep the rod more vertical, reducing the side loads on the piston and reducing friction between the piston and the bore. Using the same RB26 vs RB30 conrod comparison sees a reduction in side loads of around 10%. I don’t know the total friction numbers for an RB but if we assume that they are similar to a SB Chevy where about a quarter of the friction comes from the pistons. This means a reduction in friction of around 0.5%, not a lot but certainly better than adding friction.

3. The maximum piston speed of an engine using an RB30 rod occurs a bit later in the cycle compared to an RB26. Which means it is closer to maximum lift of the camshaft. Hence when the piston is moving the fastest, the valve is more open, causing less of a restriction. This means better filling on intake and better exhaust flow.

There are a number of other benefits from a higher rod stroke ratio such as slower more effective compression to squish zones, longer dwell at TDC means higher preignition tollerance, less detonation etc.

Can you explain how a longer dwell at TDC gives more tollerence to preignition???? The longer the time it spends at TDC the more heat combustion chamber consumes meaning more chance of pre ignition. You definately cant get the same timing numbers into rb30/26 compared to a rb26 both with similar dynamic compressions.

fixed ur quote up rob (R31Nismoid)

Edited by rob82

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

    • Yep, yeah would need to do the flywheel although the 6 bolt NA clutch can handle a 20de if just wants to replace the stocker.
    • No it's fine. Heat sleeve is a thing. With oil running through it it is unlikely. Engine off heat soak can be a thing though. There is no way that you have a leak through the hose. That has pressure behind it and any small hole will turn into a large one in very short order. It is so much more likely to be leaking from the connection.
    • Really? That's piss weak. I didn't know they hobbled the shitboxen that badly. OK. So probs need to buy a flywheel too. But that's not too bad.
    • Hi all. I already posted some newbie-ish questions here and there but this will be my first "big" post. Last summer I went and fulfilled a kind of childhood wish, because I just thought I needed this experience in my life no matter what. The car I bought is a mildly modded 1995 BCNR33 Vspec. It was repainted to a metallic orange color all around and it had all windows reseated. Not so well done black respray in the trunk and a metallic black in the engine bay. From outside it looks very nice except for a minor paint error on the roof and the rear spats needing new adhesive tape. The inside is pretty clean and no broken plastics, missing or faded buttons. Even the adjustable mirrors and trunk antenna work like a charm. Despite a moderately long list of issues I don't (yet) regret buying this car. Most mechanical problems are just due to age, like worn rubbers here and there. The underside sadly has lots of corrosion, especially to the back. It looks like it either has been driven in the winter for a while or it lived near the saltwater in Japan, the rust is nothing terrible but it'll require to be looked after. Mostly panel gaps and all the mounted components underneath are a bit crusty, but I don't think anywhere has progressed so badly that there's going to be holes. Front right jacking rail is crushed and needs some care so it doesn't develop into a rust crater at some point. Worst part is definitely the strut towers. I thought they looked fine but after taking off the strut bar I noticed that it actually started bulging up on the passenger side. Probably would have passed on the car or negotiated down by some thousand Euros more if I had noticed this before buying, but here we are. Trunk area also has signs that there was a water leak to the interior once but nothing too crazy, I guess lots of Skylines had this at some point. As for the list of (known) issues, I'll try to make this compact. I hope the coloring is self explanatory. Mechanical: -Various busted or soon-to-be busted rubber bushings and ball joints. Will replace ball joints with OEM or better and bushings with polyurethane where possible. -Shaking steering wheel at above 80kph -downshift from 5th to 4th is a bit crunchy unless I rev-match, might just try to renew the shifter assembly, but it's not a priority issue -tailshaft centre bearing could use a replacement, is it worth going 1-piece tailshaft as it doesn't look too fresh all around? Chassis: -underbody corrosion on many spots and in hollow spaces, needs to be treated -corrosion on many bolts, hoses, lines, suspension components, subframes, will be treated when replacing of the bushings is needed as time goes on -strut tower top panels and some of the surrounding panels are rusty, so needs fixing. Will look into doing this with a buddy in the winter, otherwise bite the bullet and pay a professional -driver side door is misaligned to the body and needs to go a slight bit more inwards -both door windows are misaligned and have an airgap where the window meets the door at the B pillar -The Aerocatch latches for the bonnet have locks but no keys, need new keys. -driver side door window is kind of gritty and could use a polish -damaged jacking rails and front frame rails, from people lifting the car the wrong way, might have this fixed by a bodyshop Electrical: -Nismo tachometer is just bouncing and displaying nonsense, supposedly worked fine when the stock ECU was still in the car -An old Greddy boost controller sits on the dash which will be removed as it servers no purpose anymore. -a led segment rpm gauge is on the steering column, will probably also be (re-)moved once the Nismo tacho is working correctly -there was an attempt to make the sound system better by the previous owner but it was just inducing noise all the time, ripped out the amp and filters in the back, no music for now -trunk antenna goes up as long as the radio is on regardless of the mode, I want it to only rise if I choose Radio specifically or per switch -3rd brake light is a bit dimmer than the taillights but everything was converted to LEDs so mabye now it just seems dimmer? -reverse light flickers, have to test if that behavior changes when I fiddle with the gear stick. Hope I can get around changing the switch. -Left side taillight, blinker section has minor water intake and is humid after washing. Other side has a hole in it, probably for that exact reason. I'll probably reseal them entirely and plug the holes. Engine: -minor coolant drips on one or the other hose -rear turbo leaks oil onto the exhaust making the car essentially undriveable due to fire hazard -Oil filter relocation kit has an oil drip at the Dash lines, will probably make a new connection there and tighten real good and pray -throttle body assembly is slightly stuck for the first throttle pedal input after sitting for a while I'm always open to suggestions and advice from more experienced people, I'm sure half of this list is easily dealt with and just requires some time and effort to sort out properly. Once I have some proper pictures of the car I will post some in this thread, I just have to remember to take some more once I get the chance to. Will post updates when I have news on anything, I want to try to keep this thread as kind of a logbook as well. Ultimately my goal for this car is to just enjoy it. An engine rebuild is probably going to happen sometime as well, because it is old after all. It will never be fully new again, I am just not that rich. But I want it to look good, work well and not rot away while I drive it. I'm probably gonna spend a lot of money on this journey, hopefully not an unreasonable amount.
    • Hi all. So one of my major issues at the moment is my rear turbo leaking oil on the exhaust (and the general area). I presumed it was the rock hard super old drain hose, which it was not. So now I am in the midst of removing the rear turbo to get access to the banjo bolt that goes into the turbo oil feed. As one of the previous owners accidentally? tore off the OEM oil feed hardline that reaches behind the turbo, they ran braided lines directly to the turbo, presumably PTFE. Now, regardless if the line has rubber or teflon inside, is it just generally a bad idea to do this? I imagine these lines get quite hot being between the engine, turbo core and exhaust manifold. I suppose it's not too far fetched to think the line may even have melted. I'd love to hear your opinions on this as as the replacement OEM hardline piece is 130 per unit. And cutting open the currently mounted line to see inside will mean I just have to get a replacement either way. So far I am hoping maybe the bolt just loosened or (god forbid) they forgot one of the crush washers.
×
×
  • Create New...