End3r

I'm about to buy an fc with low compression, so I found a car that had damage to take the engine from and swap into the one I'm buying.

The details of the engine (which I havent bought yet):

Front rotor: 7.7 kg/cm2, 7.6, 7.6

Rear rotor: 8.9 kg/cm2, 8.8, 8.8

*Compression was done following RETed's guide on a digital mazda compression tester.

The car is an 87 N/A with 54,000 miles. I have done searching/research on compression, but what would explain the disparity between the two rotors? I mean, the front is certainly good and the rear is awesome, but is there a problem with them being "significantly" different?

Thanks guys

RETed

It's a bit low on the front, but it's within spec by Mazda numbers.
Disparity between readings is 1.5 kg/cm^2 or about 20psi.


-Ted

End3r

Is 7.6 kg/cm2 really a bit low? I was under the impression a 7 on the mazda tester was good.

What would be an explanation for the rear rotor being noticeably better?