Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Freshly rebuild rb25det s2 has no compression! Was sitting in my shed for 6months (nice dry shed and every hole in motor was plugged).

I brought it from a well renowned motorsport guy who had it built for me (bit of a deal for a Neo head i had) i had also brought a Jerico wc4 dogbox off him 2 years ago...

Timing was good checked it over a few times, compression test came up 0-5psi...

Any help would be great! 

You would confirm with another gauge, and confirm cam timing is correct, then pull the head off for a look.

 There is no trick or shortcut.

 

For all cylinders to be super low I would be thinking it is something silly.

Is it possible the camshafts are 180° out with the crank? Timing marks all line up correctly but as the crank rotates double the amount as the cams then could they be 180° out?

I've just purchased a leak down test kit so will wait for that to arrive then do that.

4 hours ago, Driftieboy said:

Is it possible the camshafts are 180° out with the crank? Timing marks all line up correctly but as the crank rotates double the amount as the cams then could they be 180° out?

I've just purchased a leak down test kit so will wait for that to arrive then do that.

Wouldn't cause no compression. It would work exactly like it should, except it would be trying to spark at TDC on the exhaust stroke.

Although that depends on what exactly you meant by "180° out". 180 crank degrees or 180 cam degrees? 180 crank would be weird, but timing marks wouldn't line up. would need to be 360 crank for the timing marks to line up.

1 hour ago, GTSBoy said:

Wouldn't cause no compression. It would work exactly like it should, except it would be trying to spark at TDC on the exhaust stroke.

Although that depends on what exactly you meant by "180° out". 180 crank degrees or 180 cam degrees? 180 crank would be weird, but timing marks wouldn't line up. would need to be 360 crank for the timing marks to line up.

I mean when checking the timing i noticed that when i put the crank on it's timing mark, both camshafts timing marks were on the opposite sides of what they should have been so then i spun the crank a full 360° untill the crank was back on it's mark again and now both of the camshafts were on there correct mark, so when assembling the eninge how do you know when your not 180° out? They guy i brough the motor from done the timing so i wonder if he has got it wrong?

1 minute ago, Driftieboy said:

how do you know when your not 180° out

The same as on any engine. TDC compression on cylinder #1 is when the piston is at the top (easily found by timing mark on crank if correct, or by feeler rod through spark plug hole if suspicious of markings) and the #1 cam lobes pointing at the sky.

TDC on exhaust, the cam lobes are pointing downish. The exhaust cam will be close to closing and the inlet cam will be close to opening.

We don't talk in cam degrees. There is no "180 out". You are talking about 360° out, engine degrees. And as I said, if it was 360° out, you would still get compression. All the mechanical things are still working in concert. TDC is still TDC. If the inlet valve opens just before TDC, then the engine will still ingest air. If the exhaust cam is closing at that same point, then the air will still be trapped inside the cylinder and get compressed on the next upstroke. Etc.

The question of whether the engine will run or not will depend on how the ignition is timed wrt to the engine. If it was a crank driven distributor then it would attempt to fire on the wrong stroke, while the valves are on overlap. Not going to run. If the ignition timing is driven from the cam (like it is on an RB) then the engine should actually run. It's just that all the marks on the timing chain won't line up when they're supposed to so you'll have to have it 360° out to get them to line up.

But, regardless, your lack of compression is far more likely to be either all teh valves are bent/stuck open, or you have another severe cam timing error (other than 360° out), if it is even possible to get it that bad.

1 hour ago, GTSBoy said:

The same as on any engine. TDC compression on cylinder #1 is when the piston is at the top (easily found by timing mark on crank if correct, or by feeler rod through spark plug hole if suspicious of markings) and the #1 cam lobes pointing at the sky.

TDC on exhaust, the cam lobes are pointing downish. The exhaust cam will be close to closing and the inlet cam will be close to opening.

We don't talk in cam degrees. There is no "180 out". You are talking about 360° out, engine degrees. And as I said, if it was 360° out, you would still get compression. All the mechanical things are still working in concert. TDC is still TDC. If the inlet valve opens just before TDC, then the engine will still ingest air. If the exhaust cam is closing at that same point, then the air will still be trapped inside the cylinder and get compressed on the next upstroke. Etc.

The question of whether the engine will run or not will depend on how the ignition is timed wrt to the engine. If it was a crank driven distributor then it would attempt to fire on the wrong stroke, while the valves are on overlap. Not going to run. If the ignition timing is driven from the cam (like it is on an RB) then the engine should actually run. It's just that all the marks on the timing chain won't line up when they're supposed to so you'll have to have it 360° out to get them to line up.

But, regardless, your lack of compression is far more likely to be either all teh valves are bent/stuck open, or you have another severe cam timing error (other than 360° out), if it is even possible to get it that bad.

Ok cheers thanks for the clarification!

Thanks for that picture, yes all i checked timing correctly as per picture with the harmonic balancer removed aswell to be sure.

Have just done the leakdown test (had to rush back to work) i mananged to quickly test cyl 1&3 each at TDC and the air was rushing out of the exhaust side and out the exhaust, couldn't hear anything from intake but next time i test I'll remove the intercooler to listen properly

 

 

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...