10:1 cr on 92 oct???
#31
Evolved Member
iTrader: (30)
Aaron
#35
Newbie
iTrader: (2)
What intake manifold, stock or Magnus or something? Timing sounds similar to what I was doing at 31psi on the stock intake manifold on 92 octane and 9:1. I squeaked in 9 but only past 7700 and rev'd to 8300 so not in there for long. On the Magnus I was able to dump more in since the VE had improved as well as scavenging to keep the cylinders clean.
Aaron
Aaron
#37
Evolved Member
iTrader: (30)
Lol. Right on the money. Yeah its on a stock intake manifold. I also was able to run 9 degrees around 7800 rpm but thats pretty much the rev limit by then. I just turned it down to 8 degrees bec sometimes it would pull timing if the boost would creep a little higher. The 10:1 compression its pretty much perfect for 93oct but idk about 92 oct. I live in florida so we dont have that here.
Has this car been to the dyno at this level or the track?
aaron
#39
Newbie
iTrader: (2)
So really the 93 lets you run one point more then than I can on 92, basically. If your timing/boost isnt any different but you are making 3% or 4% on power due to compression. Everything being what I would suspect then is my car made 531whp with the same basic setup, 4% more would push it to 552ish. The fact that on average it looks like you can run 3-4* more timing normally would put it where I was after the Magnus (12-13*) out the top and made 574. All in all it seems the timing is worth more than compression at least in my case if all these numbers translate directly across like that.
Has this car been to the dyno at this level or the track?
aaron
Has this car been to the dyno at this level or the track?
aaron
#40
Account Disabled
iTrader: (38)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Virginia Beach, Virginia
Posts: 9,319
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
next up will be setting up the d2 coilovers and the e85 tune when I get the clutch back from tilton. our track was finally purchased after it's been shut down for years so maybe we'll get to race this spring.
#41
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
So really the 93 lets you run one point more then than I can on 92, basically. If your timing/boost isnt any different but you are making 3% or 4% on power due to compression. Everything being what I would suspect then is my car made 531whp with the same basic setup, 4% more would push it to 552ish. The fact that on average it looks like you can run 3-4* more timing normally would put it where I was after the Magnus (12-13*) out the top and made 574. All in all it seems the timing is worth more than compression at least in my case if all these numbers translate directly across like that.
Has this car been to the dyno at this level or the track?
aaron
Has this car been to the dyno at this level or the track?
aaron
If raising the compression will make you "octane limited" before you max out the turbocharger, then you are likely better off using lower compression, provided maximum power is the goal. Contrary to that, if you can max out the turbo and reach MBT on the tune, bumping up the compression will likely show gains (unless you just happen to be at that sweet spot on compression). Thermal efficiency doesn't take a big hit until you start getting under 8:1. Like wise, thermal efficiency doesn't go up much past 11:1.
Eric, the 10:1 I was referring to was closer to 9.5-9.7:1. It's just the flat top -4cc valve pocket piston with zero deck height. They were called 10:1 at the time, like Aaron said though, some companies are catching on and calling them 9.6:1 pistons.
"Dynamic compression" is a joke though. You have so much inertia charging, exhaust reversion and other dynamic effects going on that "dynamic compression" tells you almost nothing. I guess it gives you an idea of the cranking compression at very low engine speeds...
#42
Evolved Member
iTrader: (30)
I look at it like this, Honda guys dont rebuild their turbo motors at 10:1 and go. Almost all of them drop it 8.5:1 or 9:1 and go. 9:1 vs 10:1 in my car really doesnt seem to make a difference. Its great for making records on a given turbo, or if you have a methanol car and are going crazy anyway. Or if you are a rally guy (again more along the lines of a record for a given turbo size) and need to maximise the squish for the amount of air going in.
If I wanted a "pumpgas" record I'd go the other way most likely and drop compression. If I wanted an E85 record I'd still probably go no more than 10:1. If I want a DSM and auto to come up on the converter without nitrous then maybe I'd think about high compression. Tried it, mixed results, not likely to do high compression again.
The rally project is a different story...not one I am going to talk about in public
aaron
#43
Evolving Member
iTrader: (10)
I think I mathed it out to show that ESPECIALLY if the car in question is really only making 525whp.
I look at it like this, Honda guys dont rebuild their turbo motors at 10:1 and go. Almost all of them drop it 8.5:1 or 9:1 and go. 9:1 vs 10:1 in my car really doesnt seem to make a difference. Its great for making records on a given turbo, or if you have a methanol car and are going crazy anyway. Or if you are a rally guy (again more along the lines of a record for a given turbo size) and need to maximise the squish for the amount of air going in.
If I wanted a "pumpgas" record I'd go the other way most likely and drop compression. If I wanted an E85 record I'd still probably go no more than 10:1. If I want a DSM and auto to come up on the converter without nitrous then maybe I'd think about high compression. Tried it, mixed results, not likely to do high compression again.
The rally project is a different story...not one I am going to talk about in public
aaron
I look at it like this, Honda guys dont rebuild their turbo motors at 10:1 and go. Almost all of them drop it 8.5:1 or 9:1 and go. 9:1 vs 10:1 in my car really doesnt seem to make a difference. Its great for making records on a given turbo, or if you have a methanol car and are going crazy anyway. Or if you are a rally guy (again more along the lines of a record for a given turbo size) and need to maximise the squish for the amount of air going in.
If I wanted a "pumpgas" record I'd go the other way most likely and drop compression. If I wanted an E85 record I'd still probably go no more than 10:1. If I want a DSM and auto to come up on the converter without nitrous then maybe I'd think about high compression. Tried it, mixed results, not likely to do high compression again.
The rally project is a different story...not one I am going to talk about in public
aaron
i really need to look into these setups and see what really works, it seems there are so many different setups ranging from 2.0 to 2.4 with every version having a "long rod" variant it seems impossible to say any compression is the "right" compression
#44
Evolved Member
iTrader: (30)
since I am coming from a built 11:1 k24 turbo motor id say its the opposite anymore, most stay around 10:1 or 11:1 if your a k series, but then again the head flow, variable cam timing etc do help out
i really need to look into these setups and see what really works, it seems there are so many different setups ranging from 2.0 to 2.4 with every version having a "long rod" variant it seems impossible to say any compression is the "right" compression
i really need to look into these setups and see what really works, it seems there are so many different setups ranging from 2.0 to 2.4 with every version having a "long rod" variant it seems impossible to say any compression is the "right" compression