What are acceptible compression numbers? '95 RX7.
#1
What are acceptible compression numbers? '95 RX7.
Through searching, I was coming up with conflicting numbers for decent compression on the FD rotary engine. From what I've found on scuderiaciriani.com, it says the service limit is 690 kPa {7.0 kgf/cm2, 100 psi} minimum @ 250 RPM. So what is a proper compression number for these cars?
Reason I'm asking, is I'm looking at the 3rd gen 7 again, and am trying to get solid info. Thanks.
Reason I'm asking, is I'm looking at the 3rd gen 7 again, and am trying to get solid info. Thanks.
#3
Anyone have hard facts regarding this? I am looking for specific numbers (both in PSI, and kgf/cm2 if possible). I can't seem to locate hard data about it. I've gone through just about every thread that matched with the word "compression" in it. And I've visited all of the "major" guys' websites. Anyone with a definitive answer?
#5
Racing Rotary Since 1983
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,136
Likes: 563
From: Florence, Alabama
compression readings are very much rpm dependent. in other words if your motor cranks at 250 rpm versus 200 or 300 you will get significantly different numbers. there is a chart on it somewhere....
howard coleman
howard coleman
Trending Topics
#9
Go to www.iluvmyrx7.com, then look it up in the manual on page C-10. Acceptable is 7.0kgf/cm² (100psi) at 250rpm, with no more than 1.5kgf/cm² (21psi).
I believe that Mazda may have lowered the number to 6.0 after many engines failed (dumbasses who hammered the engine while cold).
Now go download that manual and read it before asking next time.
I believe that Mazda may have lowered the number to 6.0 after many engines failed (dumbasses who hammered the engine while cold).
Now go download that manual and read it before asking next time.
#10
the problem is there is only one set standard and the tool costs alot to buy.
how the readings are obtained also play a big factor.
Rx7oneluv is about right for a ball park
too much difference between rotors is bad too.
how the readings are obtained also play a big factor.
Rx7oneluv is about right for a ball park
too much difference between rotors is bad too.
#11
Originally posted by dgeesaman
Go to www.iluvmyrx7.com, then look it up in the manual on page C-10. Acceptable is 7.0kgf/cm² (100psi) at 250rpm, with no more than 1.5kgf/cm² (21psi).
I believe that Mazda may have lowered the number to 6.0 after many engines failed (dumbasses who hammered the engine while cold).
Now go download that manual and read it before asking next time.
Go to www.iluvmyrx7.com, then look it up in the manual on page C-10. Acceptable is 7.0kgf/cm² (100psi) at 250rpm, with no more than 1.5kgf/cm² (21psi).
I believe that Mazda may have lowered the number to 6.0 after many engines failed (dumbasses who hammered the engine while cold).
Now go download that manual and read it before asking next time.
#12
New cars are spec'd out to 8.5 kg/cm^2 or 121psi, and the minimum I go by (the updated minimum) is 6.0kg/cm^2 or 85psi. Anything above 7.0 kg/cm^2 or 100 psi I would consider "good" or "normal". Most properly functioning engines fall in the 7s range. Ported engines don't count. You won't start to notice power loss or idle/startup problems until below 6.0, although autos are more sensitive. The more consistant the numbers are between chambers, the better. I'd consider less than 0.5kg/cm^2 difference between the highest and lowest readings (out of 6 readings) good, most cars are under 1.0, and once the difference gets to 1.5 you start getting problems. Also, the test must be done HOT, it has been proven that doing it cold artificially inflates numbers. The standards also only apply to 250rpm at sea level. Higher elevations and/or lower rpms will lower your numbers and vice versa. Ok, I think that covers everything...
#13
Originally posted by zmarko
How about creating a good link so I can go download that manual before coming across like you're better than me. I already posted that 7.0 is the "minimum" compression number, I'm trying to get NORMAL, DECENT compression numbers. You've given me information I already know. And I've searched and NOT been able to come up with the information I need. THAT is why I asked.
How about creating a good link so I can go download that manual before coming across like you're better than me. I already posted that 7.0 is the "minimum" compression number, I'm trying to get NORMAL, DECENT compression numbers. You've given me information I already know. And I've searched and NOT been able to come up with the information I need. THAT is why I asked.
without the comma
#14
Originally posted by Nathan Kwok
New cars are spec'd out to 8.5 kg/cm^2 or 121psi, and the minimum I go by (the updated minimum) is 6.0kg/cm^2 or 85psi. Anything above 7.0 kg/cm^2 or 100 psi I would consider "good" or "normal". Most properly functioning engines fall in the 7s range. Ported engines don't count. You won't start to notice power loss or idle/startup problems until below 6.0, although autos are more sensitive. The more consistant the numbers are between chambers, the better. I'd consider less than 0.5kg/cm^2 difference between the highest and lowest readings (out of 6 readings) good, most cars are under 1.0, and once the difference gets to 1.5 you start getting problems. Also, the test must be done HOT, it has been proven that doing it cold artificially inflates numbers. The standards also only apply to 250rpm at sea level. Higher elevations and/or lower rpms will lower your numbers and vice versa. Ok, I think that covers everything...
New cars are spec'd out to 8.5 kg/cm^2 or 121psi, and the minimum I go by (the updated minimum) is 6.0kg/cm^2 or 85psi. Anything above 7.0 kg/cm^2 or 100 psi I would consider "good" or "normal". Most properly functioning engines fall in the 7s range. Ported engines don't count. You won't start to notice power loss or idle/startup problems until below 6.0, although autos are more sensitive. The more consistant the numbers are between chambers, the better. I'd consider less than 0.5kg/cm^2 difference between the highest and lowest readings (out of 6 readings) good, most cars are under 1.0, and once the difference gets to 1.5 you start getting problems. Also, the test must be done HOT, it has been proven that doing it cold artificially inflates numbers. The standards also only apply to 250rpm at sea level. Higher elevations and/or lower rpms will lower your numbers and vice versa. Ok, I think that covers everything...
#16
Originally posted by zmarko
Thanks dude. Didn't see the comma before. Thought the link was dead. (I've run into quite a few dead links trying to find these numbers). Anyway, I'm downloading that stuff now. Thanks for the link.
Thanks dude. Didn't see the comma before. Thought the link was dead. (I've run into quite a few dead links trying to find these numbers). Anyway, I'm downloading that stuff now. Thanks for the link.
I strongly recommend buying the service manual in the flesh. It's very informative, and even if you only ever change your coolant using its directions it will pay for itself. I also just bought the two videos from www.rotaryaviation.com (Bruce Turrentine's 13B Rebuild, and 3rd Gen Engine Removal/Install). Excellent, excellent information. Just seeing the tools he uses and how he approaches the tasks is very good for a shade-tree mechanic like myself. It's also proof of why I need air tools.
Dave
#17
ok, read through this thread and have a couple questions. My 95 has been sitting for a while so when I brought her back out I took it directly to the shop to have the new vac lines put in and replace worn hoses/etc. A couple problems have arrisen and I was wondering if they are interlinked or I can tackle them seperatly
1.) engine was compression tested at 6.5 front, and 8.0 rear when it was cold
2.) the car is consistantly generating only 4psi boost
3.) rough idle (found the cause of this- busted wiring harness on the idle motor- will fix soon)
4.) running extremely rich - I passed va emmissions by one point at 25mph on that alone, everything else on the emmissions test was perfect.
The only thing I have done to the car is get a DP to help with heat.
Thanks!
1.) engine was compression tested at 6.5 front, and 8.0 rear when it was cold
2.) the car is consistantly generating only 4psi boost
3.) rough idle (found the cause of this- busted wiring harness on the idle motor- will fix soon)
4.) running extremely rich - I passed va emmissions by one point at 25mph on that alone, everything else on the emmissions test was perfect.
The only thing I have done to the car is get a DP to help with heat.
Thanks!
#18
I had my engine checked yesterday at Rick's Rotary with the Mazda factory tool.
Cranking speed was ~280 rpm.
Front Rotor: 9.0, 8.9, 8.9
Rear Rotor: 8.8, 8.8, 8.5
Engine is a Mazda reman with about 20k miles on it. Pulls real good.
Sonny
Cranking speed was ~280 rpm.
Front Rotor: 9.0, 8.9, 8.9
Rear Rotor: 8.8, 8.8, 8.5
Engine is a Mazda reman with about 20k miles on it. Pulls real good.
Sonny
#19
Lives on the Forum
iTrader: (8)
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 11,576
Likes: 26
From: Morristown, TN (east of Knoxville)
To approximate psi from the mazda tester, multiply the results by 14.7.
90psi and up is a decent engine, but turbo rotaries are very good at turning 90psi into zero. 100 and up is healthy. 110+ is very strong...120+ is like new. Below 90, you're on borrowed time.
Oh, I rebuild engines for a living, so I know what Im talking about
Also, you dont need the mazda tester for a good idea of whether or not the engine needs a replacement. A piston tester, though not accurate for comparing measurements one face to another, is pretty good for measuring overall health of the engine.
90psi and up is a decent engine, but turbo rotaries are very good at turning 90psi into zero. 100 and up is healthy. 110+ is very strong...120+ is like new. Below 90, you're on borrowed time.
Oh, I rebuild engines for a living, so I know what Im talking about
Also, you dont need the mazda tester for a good idea of whether or not the engine needs a replacement. A piston tester, though not accurate for comparing measurements one face to another, is pretty good for measuring overall health of the engine.
#20
Originally posted by RotaryResurrection
To approximate psi from the mazda tester, multiply the results by 14.7.
90psi and up is a decent engine, but turbo rotaries are very good at turning 90psi into zero. 100 and up is healthy. 110+ is very strong...120+ is like new. Below 90, you're on borrowed time.
Oh, I rebuild engines for a living, so I know what Im talking about
Also, you dont need the mazda tester for a good idea of whether or not the engine needs a replacement. A piston tester, though not accurate for comparing measurements one face to another, is pretty good for measuring overall health of the engine.
To approximate psi from the mazda tester, multiply the results by 14.7.
90psi and up is a decent engine, but turbo rotaries are very good at turning 90psi into zero. 100 and up is healthy. 110+ is very strong...120+ is like new. Below 90, you're on borrowed time.
Oh, I rebuild engines for a living, so I know what Im talking about
Also, you dont need the mazda tester for a good idea of whether or not the engine needs a replacement. A piston tester, though not accurate for comparing measurements one face to another, is pretty good for measuring overall health of the engine.
#23
Lives on the Forum
iTrader: (8)
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 11,576
Likes: 26
From: Morristown, TN (east of Knoxville)
kevin- so if I got 6.5 on the front, then that would be around 95-96 psi?
could my boost issue and this be linked together?
#25
Yes. Hot engines tend to seal better than cold, especially if it's an o-ring. I don't recall offhand which it's supposed to be. Also, the cranking speed needs to be factored in. Hopefully the shop handled those things correctly.