| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2003
|
|
Re: high compression VS rev-ability of Hi-Po 18RG
|
Mon, 18 August 2003 16:33
 
|
 |
Agree with the other members, that if you can afford to stud the head, then do so. The mains aren't as important, but would also be a good idea. I have read that you can have the rods reamed and use Chev ARP rod bolts, only coz finding hi-po rod bolts for the RG is like finding hen's teeth.
11:1 or 12:1 is a bit high for 98 octane. Stick with 11:1 or 11.5:1 max and use optimax (102 RON?). Preventing detonation will be the key, but provided you properly set the squish gap you shouldn't have too many problems. From what I have read and heard the hemi chamber seems to be less susceptable to detonation in comparison to closed chamber heads such as that on the 4.1 falcon and numerous other motors.
18RGs are built to rev, the limiting factor being the con-rod strength. As you probably already know, con-rods generally break in tension (caused by high revs) as opposed to breaking in compression. (Assuming good oil supply, no detonation, no NOS  ) A safe limit is 7200RPM for cast rods and crank, but I have read/heard of people who have gone past this with out problems.
As Stewart has said, provided you keep away from detonation, you shouldnt have any problems with the standard gasket.
clubagreenie, I am sure that ridgecrest can custom make any gasket, but don't quote me on that.
I am also very interested if you do find a supplier for high comp pistons.
Definetly balance the motor !!! Don't take too much off the flywheel (plenty of threads on this).
If you can get hold of Desktop Dyno 2000, it is meant to be able to predict the output power and torque to with-in 10% of acutal figures given reasonable input values. It is OK for NA, but not so good for turbo applications. Using the program you can also develop the best cam profile for your application, then all you need to do is re-grind a set of old cams to those specs (or as close to as possible). A lot cheaper than sourcing TRD cams
Bugger, thats a long post.
Time to shut up now 
|
|
|
| | 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 |
