|
|
Oct 25, 2011 10:58:31 GMT
|
Hi All,
I have a Technical question for everyone, i have Google'd it, but the answers confused me. I'm hoping that someone more a bit more technically minded than me can answer this in a simple way for me.
I want to lower the compression ratio of my car. I'm hoping to achieve this by fitting a spacer plate between the head and the block, and using double gaskets.
My compression ratio is - 9.25:1 I want it to be around - 8.40:1
My question is, can anyone do the relevant maths to tell me how thick the spacer plate needs to be?
Hope someone can help.
Regards, Phil
|
|
|
|
|
will930
Part of things
Decked K11 Micra - RetroRunner Mk2 Golf
Posts: 521
|
|
Oct 25, 2011 11:09:12 GMT
|
within the micra comunity we use 2 oe head gaskets and have been proven to work well with 160+ hp and it works fine.... but if you can get a copper gasket made up, i think they can be done in virtually any thickness iirc! don't count me on this but it works, theres are other methods and try thinking using different combinations and use an online compression ratio calculator www.csgnetwork.com/compcalc.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2011 11:27:45 GMT
|
Forgot to add,
Bore size - 81mm Stroke - 84mm
|
|
|
|
MrSpeedy
East Midlands
www.vintagediesels.co.uk
Posts: 4,791
|
|
Oct 25, 2011 12:03:59 GMT
|
Also need to know if they're flat top pistons or is there a combustion chamber in the head or is that flat too ? Either way, you need to know the volume of that
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2011 12:20:28 GMT
|
This might work if the combustion chamber covers more or less the whole bore area. If there are squish areas, making the head sit higher might actually increase detonation tendency.
|
|
Citroën DS 21 '66, Renault 16 TS '73, Scimitar GTE '74, Audi 80 '87, Merc 190E '88, Peugeot 205 GTI '88, BMW 735iL '89, Merc 230TE '89 , BMW 320i '92
|
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2011 12:34:42 GMT
|
Bore area on 1 cylinder is - 51.53cm2 Volume of one cylinder is - 432.85cc Overall capacity is - 2597.11cc
Pistons are flat top.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2011 12:56:22 GMT
|
Right, the clearance volume on my engine is -
46.79cc
I need it to be -
51.50cc
To get a compression ratio of 8.40:1
That's a difference of 4.71cc per cylinder. My Brain Hurts. How do i get an extra 4.71cc of Clearance Volume per Cylinder?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2011 16:14:42 GMT
|
You head gasket needs to be 4.71/51.53 cm thicker. That is roughly 0.9 mm.
|
|
Citroën DS 21 '66, Renault 16 TS '73, Scimitar GTE '74, Audi 80 '87, Merc 190E '88, Peugeot 205 GTI '88, BMW 735iL '89, Merc 230TE '89 , BMW 320i '92
|
|
markbognor
South East
Posts: 9,970
Club RR Member Number: 56
|
Lowering Compression Ratiomarkbognor
@markbognor
Club Retro Rides Member 56
|
Oct 28, 2011 21:00:38 GMT
|
Is it likely that there might be enough meat in the pistons to machine off some height?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2011 21:08:30 GMT
|
more often than not yes, which would be rather more preferable than two gaskets. or just stick to the standard compression and get it mapped properly, more responsive engine then
|
|
|
|
|
RobinJI
Posted a lot
"Driven by the irony that only being shackled to the road could ever I be free"
Posts: 2,995
|
|
Oct 28, 2011 21:54:17 GMT
|
or just stick to the standard compression and get it mapped properly, more responsive engine then This is a fair point, what are you wanting to lower the compression ratio to achieve? 9.25 isn't exactly high, dependent on the engine you could get away with decent boost on that with proper management, especially if it's a 4 valve head. What's the engine this is being done to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2011 22:04:06 GMT
|
This is a fair point, what are you wanting to lower the compression ratio to achieve? 9.25 isn't exactly high, dependent on the engine you could get away with decent boost on that with proper management, especially if it's a 4 valve head.
What's the engine this is being done to?[/quote]
^ whs need more details really,as raising the head by fitting a spacer/more gaskets could cause more problems than it's worth! an OHC engine will have the cam timing slightly altered for example,or longer/adjustable pushrods needed on an OHV ect
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2011 22:57:29 GMT
|
I would take the plugs out and crank the engine over on the starter until frozen peas start coming out the plug holes. For a drop in ratio of 0.85, I would estimate that you only need to take one pea out of each cylinder. If more come out, just put them back in again minus one which you can keep in the glovebox (reversible mod innit). Hope this helps.
|
|
1974 Lancia Beta Saloon 1975 Mazda 929 Coupé 1986 Mazda 929 Wagon 1979 Mazda 929 Hardtop 1982 Fiat Argenta 2.0 iniezione elettronica 1977 Toyota Carina TA14 1989 Subaru 1800 Wagon 1982 Hyundai Pony 1200TL 2-dr 1985 Hyundai Pony 1200 GL 1986 Maserati 425 Biturbo 1992 Rover 214 SEi 5-dr 2000 Rover 45 V6 Club 1994 Peugeot 205 'Junior' Diesel 1988 Volvo 760 Turbodiesel Saloon 1992 Talbot Express Autosleeper Rambler 2003 Renault Laguna SPEARS OR REAPERS
|
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2011 19:05:07 GMT
|
9.25 is low enough for anything really What engine is it? There is no need to go lower than 9:1 ever, unless you're lazy and can't be arsed to do it properly. Properly specced, set up and mapped high CR engines will take shitloads of boost, and be responsive and fuel efficient in vacuum. Lowering CR allows you to run more boost as it raises the knock threshold, but will not convert the air/fuel mix into as much power as a high cr engine. So you need to cram more air/fuel in there in the first place. Cool charge raises knock threshold - ie efficient intercooler. A turbo working inside it's max efficiency area of a compressor map will provide cooler charge than one that is being over-worked. A good exhaust manifold design (especially divided manifolds) reduce 'reversion', increasing the knock threshold - as less spent gas is contaminating the fresh air/fuel mix. Good fuel will raise the knock threshold, Water injection does amazingly well too, doing several jobs at once, letting you run more boost. Cam timing also makes a huge difference to the engine once positive manifold pressure is introduced - cams can 'spit' a little bit of mix back out into the inlet as they don't shut the inlet valve in time for the compression stroke - this is the 'dynamic' compression ratio which is the actual reality version of the theoretical compression ratio that you work out. The way the boost is introduced is major key - too much too early in the revs is what kills a lot of high-cr forced induction engines. If you have this much boost that early, then you need a larger turbo as the hot side is too small and is strangling it. Basically, employ as many of those things as you can and not worry about it I realise most of these things are turbo-related, but similar principles apply to supercharging. I ran 20psi on a stock vauxhall 20seh engine (2l 8v, 10:1 CR) for about a year till it got upgraded, no det, knock or anything. It was brilliant, I was a fool to change it! Sorry for the essay, hope it's helpful!
|
|
Last Edit: Oct 31, 2011 19:08:44 GMT by lolface
78 Kadett C 2.0 8 valve turbo, holset, rust&other stuff..
|
|
RobinJI
Posted a lot
"Driven by the irony that only being shackled to the road could ever I be free"
Posts: 2,995
|
|
Oct 31, 2011 23:34:15 GMT
|
I'll back up djivesp on that. Dropping your compression is always a compromise, and if it's going to be a pain to do, you might as well sort the other issues that are making you have to make that compromise first, especially as a lot of them are things that you'll be making/fitting new anyway.
The well known 1.8 20vt Audi/VW engines will comfortably run 300bhp (that's ~170bhp/liter) on their standard 9.5:1 compression ratio, and above that the rods give up the ghost long before the CR becomes an issue. I'm not sure what they'd get to above that, especially as people seem to have a habit of running stock turbos well out of their efficiency range, but as far as I'm aware decent rods on their own will allow at least 400bhp. A friends popped the turbo-manifold gasket at 26psi, but otherwise was fine, even with it's tiny little turbo chucking out hideously hot air at those pressures.
Assuming proper management, and decent charge temperatures let you get to a similar situation to the same 170bhp/liter, that would be ~440bhp with your 2.6, plenty to be destroying other parts long before worrying about an extra head gasket. (ok, that's simplified a lot, but then the 20vt isn't actually even beginning to struggle with knock at 170bhp/liter.)
It's also very common-place to charge MX-5's on stock internals with the 9.4:1 CR, resulting in 200+bhp from their 1.6's internally stock, even with seriously aggressive ignition timing there's no knock problems, again, internal failures due to strength cause problems long before.
Assuming this is your SD1, you won't quite be up there with the multi-valve engines, but there's no reason you can't get fairly close.
|
|
Last Edit: Oct 31, 2011 23:38:13 GMT by RobinJI
|
|
|
|
|
You will also have to consider the possibility of not having such an strong over-engineered engine. I for one have a 1.8 turbo which runs 0,7bar stock and blows ring lands at 1,1bar, and that's at 7,5:1 CR. And that's an all stock engine, so sadly, not all engines take to boost very well. If you want to do it properly, you'll need to have a proper look at the bottom end design and decide if you need stronger pistons, thicker rods, lower CR, etc or none of the above. If parts (engines) are cheaply enough and you just fancy a go, then by all means have a go
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basically i have a 1984 Rover SD1 2600s
I want to turbo it because i can, and because its not been done before (well, it has but didn't work well) I love the 6 cylinder and want to embarrass a few V8 owners along the way.
I'm using the Turbo and exhaust manifold from a Mkiii Toyota Supra, the 3 litre 7MGTE, and the compression ratio they used is 8.4:1, so i figured it'd be a good starting point o have the same ratio for my engine.
Its a pretty strong engine in the SD1, they suffered with oil starvation to the top end but there are kits available to cure this. The Pistons already have oil squirters built in to cool the underside of the CROWN, so things look good from that side.
So the general consensus is to go with the standard compression ratio and see what happens?
Thanks for all the replies so far, this is exactly the reason i love RR!
|
|
|
|
mk2cossie
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 3,061
Club RR Member Number: 77
|
Lowering Compression Ratiomk2cossie
@mk2cossie
Club Retro Rides Member 77
|
|
the rolling road operator when i got the granny dyno'd said that would be fine for boosting, and my engines at 10:1 cr ;D its all down to keeping the timing in check at the end of the day. and getting decomp plates made up is a bit of a compromise really. two headgaskets is just asking for trouble on a cast iron straight six surely? ;D bung the turbos on there with the standard lump, then if it lunches something worry about it then
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like a good plan then just remember to get the ignition timing and fuelling right (are you going to use FI or stay carb?) and use an intercooler
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basically I have a 1984 Rover SD1 2600s I want to turbo it because I can, and because its not been done before (well, it has but didn't work well) I love the 6 cylinder and want to embarrass a few V8 owners along the way. I'm using the Turbo and exhaust manifold from a Mkiii Toyota Supra, the 3 litre 7MGTE, and the compression ratio they used is 8.4:1, so I figured it'd be a good starting point o have the same ratio for my engine. Its a pretty strong engine in the SD1, they suffered with oil starvation to the top end but there are kits available to cure this. The Pistons already have oil squirters built in to cool the underside of the CROWN, so things look good from that side. So the general consensus is to go with the standard compression ratio and see what happens? Thanks for all the replies so far, this is exactly the reason I love RR! I'm sure you know the Rover 2.6 is a re-developed version of the Triumph 2000/2500 engine, which have been successfully turbo charged, I'd do some reading on that? turbo-tr6.info/
|
|
|
|
|