Author | Topic |

Location: 1st street on the right
Registered: November 2002
|
Re: high compression VS rev-ability of Hi-Po 18RG
|
Mon, 18 August 2003 11:03

|
 |
Stud the head, it should also be better for the head in some way that I read once be temporarily escapes me. Also from memory Ridgecrest don't make a copper gasket for 18rg (if this is wrong or someone else does let me know).
11/12:1 is high for 98Ron, where were you getting pistons like this as I'm also trying to source some (though only around 9.5:1) JP's in Adelaide haven't made 18rg pistons previously and require specs which I'm also trying to get (anyone, anyone). A metgal gasket would let you "play" with comp ratios if the pistons you want aren't available.
The rods should be studded, studding the crank isn't a bad idea for higher revs.
Bore stroke for 18rg is 88.5 x 80 (though another source says 89x80, confirmation) and so is over square, good for revving.
Good cams, the right head (88253 has larger valves) balanced and well built
shoud be strong enough and have adequate power for N/a motor.
|
|
|
| Subject | Poster | Date |
 |
high compression VS rev-ability of Hi-Po 18RG
|
Mr DOHC | Mon, 18 August 2003 07:05 |
 |
Re: high compression VS rev-ability of Hi-Po 18RG
|
oldcorollas | Mon, 18 August 2003 08:44 |
 |
Re: high compression VS rev-ability of Hi-Po 18RG
|
clubagreenie | Mon, 18 August 2003 11:01 |
 |
Re: high compression VS rev-ability of Hi-Po 18RG
|
clubagreenie | Mon, 18 August 2003 11:03 |
 |
Re: high compression VS rev-ability of Hi-Po 18RG
|
earlyrolla | Mon, 18 August 2003 16:33 |
 |
Re: high compression VS rev-ability of Hi-Po 18RG
|
Mr DOHC | Tue, 19 August 2003 00:58 |
 |
Re: high compression VS rev-ability of Hi-Po 18RG
|
Steve M | Tue, 19 August 2003 05:08 |
 |
Re: high compression VS rev-ability of Hi-Po 18RG
|
Steve M | Tue, 19 August 2003 05:16 |
 |
Re: high compression VS rev-ability of Hi-Po 18RG
|
Mr DOHC | Wed, 20 August 2003 00:22 |
 |
Re: high compression VS rev-ability of Hi-Po 18RG
|
earlyrolla | Wed, 20 August 2003 05:59 |
 |
Re: high compression VS rev-ability of Hi-Po 18RG
|
CelicaRA45 | Wed, 20 August 2003 07:14 |
 |
Re: high compression VS rev-ability of Hi-Po 18RG
|
xxaccoxx | Wed, 20 August 2003 12:32 |
 |
Re: high compression VS rev-ability of Hi-Po 18RG
|
Alchemist | Thu, 21 August 2003 03:37 |
 |
Re: high compression VS rev-ability of Hi-Po 18RG
|
Mr DOHC | Thu, 21 August 2003 07:26 |
 |
Re: high compression VS rev-ability of Hi-Po 18RG
|
Norbie | Thu, 21 August 2003 08:58 |
 |
Re: high compression VS rev-ability of Hi-Po 18RG
|
blackRA28 | Thu, 21 August 2003 13:37 |
 |
Re: high compression VS rev-ability of Hi-Po 18RG
|
benen | Thu, 21 August 2003 14:16 |
 |
Re: high compression VS rev-ability of Hi-Po 18RG
|
Norbie | Thu, 21 August 2003 22:56 |
 |
Re: high compression VS rev-ability of Hi-Po 18RG
|
benen | Fri, 22 August 2003 03:15 |
 |
Re: high compression VS rev-ability of Hi-Po 18RG
|
Norbie | Fri, 22 August 2003 03:43 |