compression ratio poll

Discussion in 'Technical' started by spork1o1, Apr 11, 2007.

?

If you were building a motor (289,302) for street use would you shoot for 10:1 or 9:1

  1. 10:1

    46 vote(s)
    56.8%
  2. 9:1

    35 vote(s)
    43.2%
  1. baddad457

    baddad457 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,861
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    171
    Location:
    Opelousas La.
    Nope, it came up on my subscribed threads list as current.:huh:
     
  2. facelessnumber

    facelessnumber Drew Pittman

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    3,710
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    157
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    Vehicle:
    '71 Grabber
    Yeah, somebody probably voted in it, sent it floating to the top... Where I promptly saw just now it and voted too. :rolleyes:
     
  3. baddad457

    baddad457 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,861
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    171
    Location:
    Opelousas La.
    :D Ah, that's probably it. I was beginning to think :hmmm:my computer was in a time warp :rofl2:
     
  4. baddad457

    baddad457 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,861
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    171
    Location:
    Opelousas La.
    I voted for 10 to 1. Not a fan of NOS....................in my motors, I love hufffin the stuff at the Dentist's office though :D:ola::jumping2::party6::bananaman
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2011
  5. PaulS

    PaulS Member extrordiare

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,858
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle area
    Vehicle:
    1966 Mustang, 1972, 73, 73 and 73 Mavericks
    Unless I was building for E-85 I always get as close to 10:1 as I can.
    Compression is of prime concern when you are building an engine because it not only adds HP but it also provides a platform for better economy.
    I wish we still had 120 octane gas because then I would go with 11.5 - 12:1 compression - even with a short duration cam for the street.
     
  6. David74maverick

    David74maverick Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    127
    Location:
    Arizona
    Vehicle:
    '74 maverick, '87 Celica
    I'm running a 289 bored 0.030" over with 54cc heads milled .010 so they are around 53cc now with 1.84" intake and 1.46" exhaust (351w valves) and a comp camps 280H cam and I can barely run it with 91 octane without detonation... I have my timing down to around 6 to 7 degrees to. this is also my daily driver... so I voted for 9:1 compression to keep things managable. higher compression will get you more power but it'll cost more to run.
     
  7. CornedBeef4.6L

    CornedBeef4.6L no longer here

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Messages:
    5,217
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    137
    Vehicle:
    no longer here
    I'd go at least 12 to 1 upwards of 14 to 1 in fact I am for my street motor its 13.5 to 1.... and I am building a 281ci small block cammer Aluminum trickflow heads and aluminum block. Should push 450 plus fwhp to 500fwhp

    but again that's just me.....


    and e85 is your best friend of you want to run crazy compression or power adders!!!!!!
    ;):D
     
  8. CornedBeef4.6L

    CornedBeef4.6L no longer here

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Messages:
    5,217
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    137
    Vehicle:
    no longer here
    My last engine ran 10.5 to 1 with iron heads 61cc heads and pop up pistons with a mild cam on 93 pump gas.....cams have alot to do with what you can get away with...static and dynamic compression are two different beasts....but one still affects the other....and that is where valve train timing events come into play
     
  9. PaulS

    PaulS Member extrordiare

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,858
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle area
    Vehicle:
    1966 Mustang, 1972, 73, 73 and 73 Mavericks
    "Dynamic compression" is only low at extremely low rpm. As the rpm increases the compression goes up until you reach just over your peak torque where it is higher than your "static" compression if your exhaust is working properly.
    That overlap that is interpreted as lower "dynamic compression" is designed to pull more air and fuel in at higher rpm (just above the peak torque it peaks) and with the added density of air you get higher compression.
    Now, if you kill that added density with a poor exhaust or other combination of poorly selected parts then it won't reach optimum levels - reducing power output and fuel economy.
    If you run a fuel (like E-85 or racing fuel) that thrives on 13+:1 compression you can get away with it.
     

Share This Page