News:



  • May 14, 2024, 02:11:30 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Nikasil Vs Chrome  (Read 505 times)

Offline Motorman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 3271
Nikasil Vs Chrome
« on: June 10, 2020, 09:19:52 PM »
blank
« Last Edit: August 22, 2021, 08:25:28 AM by Motorman »

Offline Peter Nevai

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 975
    • C3EL
Re: Nikasil Vs Chrome
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2020, 05:32:33 PM »
Nickasil was developed so aluminum liners could be used in performance engines. The nickel is only the bonding agent it is easily plated onto aluminum. The piston wears away the nickel and then mates to the much harder silicon carbide  which is used as it is soluble with nickel. Aluminum liners are lighter and better conductors of heat than steels and as most instances the cylinder block is also aluminum the thermal expansion rates are the same so tolerances can be tighter. Plus Nickasil carries lubrication better. As for advantages in our model applications??? Nickasil was developed for ringed pistons where the rings are iron or steel. So no clue as to what the comparisons would be vs ABC. Nay not be the best match for an aluminum piston without ring.
Words Spoken by the first human to set foot on Mars... "Now What?"

Offline Brian Hampton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 578
Re: Nikasil Vs Chrome
« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2020, 09:13:13 PM »
To do a direct quote from the Enya 61 CXLR specifications (this is the original ringed version)...
"Cylinder liner...Brass, nickel-plated of silicon carbide composite"
Nikasil is a trademarked name so can't be used as a description.

The later red headed 61 CXL is ABC but I was not happy with it because of a total lack of compression when hot even after I fitted the replacement piston/liner Enya sent me as an exchange.


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here