Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Something I am curious about. From where Im standing, I believe it may be one or a combination of:

a) Cams - As Cubes stated, the R32 RB25DE head causes the motor to ping easier than normal

b) Cam timing - Possibly issue with CAS, or base timing

c) Static CR (assuming the head is approx as Bl4ck32 stated) - the 9:1 CR would make the motor more succeptable to pinging than say an 8.3:1 motor. However, I dont see this as being the issue right now until we've ruled out timing. However, I have heard two VERY different values for the head cc measurement which has caused some confusion.

One thing to note is that the tuner had dealt with a Stagea RB25 Neo with similar/same pistons. Same symptoms. Put E85 in it and it was all good and made plenty of power.

Always options to consider...

  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

As rolls said

207RWKW on the 7-8 deg of timing. AFR's were apparently spot on.

Been doing a few calcs here and there and all are coming back the same... Approximately 9:1 pending a few things.

The only thing I'm not 100% on is the chamber volume. Im 99% sure it is as per Bl4ck32/Cubes measurements at 62cc. That is unless there was a serious issue with the head being overheated earlier on in its life. I just cant be too sure unless I get it measured...

Anyone got any ideas on how much (an average value) they would take off a warped head to see it flat again?

I would go somewhere else and get a second opinion.I dont know how the motor was built but to be tuning it for full load on a 30 minute old engine seems a little odd to me. Please correct me if its only a base tune for the run in process that they are doing.

please explain how the engines ever gonna be in better condition to handle a thrashing than a few minutes after the rings have finished bedding in? 1000km run ins are useless

as for the head, it depends how badly it was warped but normally its not enough to affect compression by any signifigant amount. i've had my head faced 3 times now (its never been cooked badly though) and i'd be lucky to have gained 0.1 compression.

Edited by JonnoHR31

Yeah once the rings are bed in, change the oil and go for gold, never understood the process of running in a motor. Once you've bedded the rings and got any metal left over from the build out of the oil then what else is going to change? Nothing I hope!

Again I will say it won't be an inherent problem with the the RB25DE head or cams specs.. my money is on the wrong pistons for the application.

Ive done a few investigations and by using online calculators and inputting the following:

6cc dome pistons (Confirmed many times via R33 RB30DET thread/Spool Imports)

1.28mm Head Gasket (0.05") (Cometic) (Confirmed via Spool Imports)

86.5mm Stroke x 86.5mm Bore

0 Deck height (From speaking to the builder, the deck height is actually below 0 deck height (decreasing compression!) exact value Im unsure of)

62cc combustion volume (Head type Confirmd by Cubes as being an R32 RB25DE head. Also, 4 different R32 RB25DE heads all cc'd to this value - so the only way mine may read less is if it had been seriously overheated and decked to get it straight again)

Standard pin height 1.280" (As confirmed by Spool)

Approximately 9:1 (probably less due to pistons being below deck height)

A few online calculators ask for teh HG bore. Without it infront of me I can only guess, but all in all, EVERY different calculator got approximately 9:1 Static CR.

Is there something im missing?

Edited by R32Abuser

If deck height is below 0, wouldn't that increase compression??

I was more trying to make the point that the head and cams are fine.. there is no inherent problem with that type of head and cams that would cause this issue.

Does the dyno plot look normal - like the cams are relatively in the right spot? If so that compression pressure is pretty much spot on.

My RB30/26 with CP 9:1 pistons was around 160psi +/-5psi - when I advanced the inlet 7degrees there was very little compression presure difference (maybe 5psi at most). This would suggest to me that your engine has the correct static compressure ratio of 9:1.

So many things to check before pulling the engine apart. Start by checking the CAS like I said.

From all that I've read, and from thinking about it:

If the piston (flat section of the piston-not including domes/dish's) sits below the deck of the block, then the combustion volume when the piston is at TDC is larger compared to if the piston was sitting above the deck ("proud of the deck").

Correct me if Im wrong tho?

Does the dyno plot look normal - like the cams are relatively in the right spot? If so that compression pressure is pretty much spot on.

My RB30/26 with CP 9:1 pistons was around 160psi +/-5psi - when I advanced the inlet 7degrees there was very little compression presure difference (maybe 5psi at most). This would suggest to me that your engine has the correct static compressure ratio of 9:1.

So many things to check before pulling the engine apart. Start by checking the CAS like I said.

Yup. Builder is slapping a different/known working CAS on it.

Taking it back to the dyno, checking if it knocks again, if so, getting a safe tune to do some k's on it. If not - great!!!

Thoughts?

Yup. Builder is slapping a different/known working CAS on it.

Taking it back to the dyno, checking if it knocks again, if so, getting a safe tune to do some k's on it. If not - great!!!

Thoughts?

Running in takes 20 -30 mins - get a proper tune and see what it can do.

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

    • First up, I wouldn't use PID straight up for boost control. There's also other control techniques that can be implemented. And as I said, and you keep missing the point. It's not the ONE thing, it's the wrapping it up together with everything else in the one system that starts to unravel the problem. It's why there are people who can work in a certain field as a generalist, IE a IT person, and then there are specialists. IE, an SQL database specialist. Sure the IT person can build and run a database, and it'll work, however theyll likely never be as good as a specialist.   So, as said, it's not as simple as you're thinking. And yes, there's a limit to the number of everything's in MCUs, and they run out far to freaking fast when you're designing a complex system, which means you have to make compromises. Add to that, you'll have a limited team working on it, so fixing / tweaking some features means some features are a higher priority than others. Add to that, someone might fix a problem around a certain unrelated feature, and that change due to other complexities in the system design, can now cause a new, unforseen bug in something else.   The whole thing is, as said, sometimes split systems can work as good, and if not better. Plus when there's no need to spend $4k on an all in one solution, to meet the needs of a $200 system, maybe don't just spout off things others have said / you've read. There's a lot of misinformation on the internet, including in translated service manuals, and data sheets. Going and doing, so that you know, is better than stating something you read. Stating something that has been read, is about as useful as an engineering graduate, as all they know is what they've read. And trust me, nearly every engineering graduate is useless in the real world. And add to that, if you don't know this stuff, and just have an opinion, maybe accept what people with experience are telling you as information, and don't keep reciting the exact same thing over and over in response.
    • How complicated is PID boost control? To me it really doesn't seem that difficult. I'm not disputing the core assertion (specialization can be better than general purpose solutions), I'm just saying we're 30+ years removed from the days when transistor budgets were in the thousands and we had to hem and haw about whether there's enough ECC DRAM or enough clock cycles or the interrupt handler can respond fast enough to handle another task. I really struggle to see how a Greddy Profec or an HKS EVC7 or whatever else is somehow a far superior solution to what you get in a Haltech Nexus/Elite ECU. I don't see OEMs spending time on dedicated boost control modules in any car I've ever touched. Is there value to separating out a motor controller or engine controller vs an infotainment module? Of course, those are two completely different tasks with highly divergent requirements. The reason why I cite data sheets, service manuals, etc is because as you have clearly suggested I don't know what I'm doing, can't learn how to do anything correctly, and have never actually done anything myself. So when I do offer advice to people I like to use sources that are not just based off of taking my word for it and can be independently verified by others so it's not just my misinterpretation of a primary source.
    • That's awesome, well done! Love all these older Datsun / Nissans so rare now
    • As I said, there's trade offs to jamming EVERYTHING in. Timing, resources etc, being the huge ones. Calling out the factory ECU has nothing to do with it, as it doesn't do any form of fancy boost control. It's all open loop boost control. You mention the Haltech Nexus, that's effectively two separate devices jammed into one box. What you quote about it, is proof for that. So now you've lost flexibility as a product too...   A product designed to do one thing really well, will always beat other products doing multiple things. Also, I wouldn't knock COTS stuff, you'd be surprised how many things are using it, that you're probably totally in love with As for the SpaceX comment that we're working directly with them, it's about the type of stuff we're doing. We're doing design work, and breaking world firsts. If you can't understand that I have real world hands on experience, including in very modern tech, and actually understand this stuff, then to avoid useless debates where you just won't accept fact and experience, from here on, it seems you'd be be happy I (and possibly anyone with knowledge really) not reply to your questions, or input, no matter how much help you could be given to help you, or let you learn. It seems you're happy reading your data sheets, factory service manuals, and only want people to reinforce your thoughts and points of view. 
    • I don't really understand because clearly it's possible. The factory ECU is running on like a 4 MHz 16-bit processor. Modern GDI ECUs have like 200 MHz superscalar cores with floating point units too. The Haltech Nexus has two 240 MHz CPU cores. The Elite 2500 is a single 80 MHz core. Surely 20x the compute means adding some PID boost control logic isn't that complicated. I'm not saying clock speed is everything, but the requirements to add boost control to a port injection 6 cylinder ECU are really not that difficult. More I/O, more interrupt handlers, more working memory, etc isn't that crazy to figure out. SpaceX if anything shows just how far you can get arguably doing things the "wrong" way, ie x86 COTS running C++ on Linux. That is about as far away from the "correct" architecture as it gets for a real time system, but it works anyways. 
×
×
  • Create New...