ADVANCED Performance Modifications For advanced modification topics only.

Running 10.5:1 pistons

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old May 17, 2007 | 09:43 PM
  #1  
Mase's Avatar
Thread Starter
Junior Member
 
Joined: 02-06-06
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
From: Hamilton, ON, CA
Running 10.5:1 pistons

I just want to know who's running them and any problems they are having.

I run meth and have HPT so I think that should cover the basics.
Reply
Old May 17, 2007 | 09:48 PM
  #2  
D4u2s0t's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: 12-18-05
Posts: 17,838
Likes: 1
From: North Jersey
why would you want to raise the compression on your boosted engine?
Reply
Old May 18, 2007 | 12:30 AM
  #3  
Sw4y1313's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 09-25-06
Posts: 1,860
Likes: 0
From: USAG Stuttgart, GER
Throw on some ARP Head Studs and a Cometic Head gasket and you could be making some nice numbers with that blower. nothing wrong with higher compression. dont listen to everyone who says higher compression is bad, it isnt if done right. mild boost + higher compression = more power then them =P
Reply
Old May 18, 2007 | 12:40 AM
  #4  
D4u2s0t's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: 12-18-05
Posts: 17,838
Likes: 1
From: North Jersey
Originally Posted by Sw4y1313
Throw on some ARP Head Studs and a Cometic Head gasket and you could be making some nice numbers with that blower. nothing wrong with higher compression. dont listen to everyone who says higher compression is bad, it isnt if done right. mild boost + higher compression = more power then them =P
well, with 271 hp i'm guessing he's not putting out "mild" boost.
Reply
Old May 18, 2007 | 12:41 AM
  #5  
ssmitty85's Avatar
New Member
 
Joined: 02-27-06
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
From: Oregon
yea. what he said.. if your goal is boost, instead of performance, then lower ratio is what you want.. ive seen a boosted K20 runnin 11 to 1 ratio makin 350+whp on 13 psi. I guess its just easier turnin up the boost with a lower comp. then fine tuning with the higher comp
Reply
Old May 18, 2007 | 01:03 AM
  #6  
Mase's Avatar
Thread Starter
Junior Member
 
Joined: 02-06-06
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
From: Hamilton, ON, CA
well I've gone uping the boost, so now I think I want to try something different with low boost. This will help keep the SC in its efficiency range.
Reply
Old May 18, 2007 | 01:11 AM
  #7  
NJHK's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-05-06
Posts: 10,877
Likes: 2
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Originally Posted by Mase
well I've gone uping the boost, so now I think I want to try something different with low boost. This will help keep the SC in its efficiency range.
Also understand that you are going to be increasing combustion chamber temperatures by raising the compression. You would also need to fine tune ignition timing depending on how much of an advance it is currently.

You'd also probably want to run richer as well.

You'd be better off going with a more efficient compressor which would yield more power than your supercharger even with higher compression. Another thing to think about, how much air is being delivered into the combustion chamber (talking about your valvetrain) per intake stroke.

Higher octane would be needed as well to avoid knocking.

I think you're really pushing it with that high. Even the J-bodies with the M62 start seeing knocking issues when they reach 3.0" or under.

(Note: The L61 motor is 10.0:1 compression)

Last edited by NJHK; May 18, 2007 at 01:12 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply
Old May 18, 2007 | 02:38 AM
  #8  
Blown 4-banger's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 04-03-06
Posts: 7,570
Likes: 0
From: Mesa, AZ
Rice eater from the RL forums, has 10.5:1 compression with a 2.6" pulley.

...he has to run a minimum of 100 octane, all the time...
Reply
Old May 18, 2007 | 03:00 PM
  #9  
Mase's Avatar
Thread Starter
Junior Member
 
Joined: 02-06-06
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
From: Hamilton, ON, CA
Originally Posted by NJHK
Also understand that you are going to be increasing combustion chamber temperatures by raising the compression. You would also need to fine tune ignition timing depending on how much of an advance it is currently.

you increase this by putting a smaller pulley on too, so I'm sure a 2.5" produces something close to it.

You'd also probably want to run richer as well.

That's no problem, the meth will help here.

You'd be better off going with a more efficient compressor which would yield more power than your supercharger even with higher compression. Another thing to think about, how much air is being delivered into the combustion chamber (talking about your valvetrain) per intake stroke.

Well I can always go TS, but the reason I want to lower the boost on the M62 is because of the efficency, on Eaton's site they don't even have a graph for the stock 12.5psi, so I'm assuming that psi is at it's limit.

since the valve are designed for 9.5:1, I'm assuming there would be plenty of air in and out. I would see this being a problem if I drop the compression.


Higher octane would be needed as well to avoid knocking.

Even in vacuum?

I think you're really pushing it with that high. Even the J-bodies with the M62 start seeing knocking issues when they reach 3.0" or under.

(Note: The L61 motor is 10.0:1 compression)
As long a it doesn't knock during regular driving I am happy.

Originally Posted by Blown 4-banger
Rice eater from the RL forums, has 10.5:1 compression with a 2.6" pulley.

...he has to run a minimum of 100 octane, all the time...
oh yea

What's going on with his car anyways?

Last edited by Mase; May 18, 2007 at 03:00 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply
Old May 18, 2007 | 08:18 PM
  #10  
NJHK's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-05-06
Posts: 10,877
Likes: 2
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Mase, if you care about efficiency and you recognize that raising the compression (just for example sakes) will put you in the temperature range of a 2.5" pulley, why go this route? Less boost or more boost, it's overall about the temperature inside the combustion chamber.

You actually COULD knock in vacuum or with very low boost pressure.

As far as running rich, remember the whole issue with having a return-less fuel system...

One last thing

If you have to use Meth Injection on a constant basis to keep temps down, there IS a problem. It should be a helper, not a must have.

Last edited by NJHK; May 18, 2007 at 08:18 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply
Old May 18, 2007 | 09:45 PM
  #11  
Mase's Avatar
Thread Starter
Junior Member
 
Joined: 02-06-06
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
From: Hamilton, ON, CA
I know what you're saying about heat inside the motor.

One of the main reasons I want to go with 10.5:1 is due to the 2.4L. The solstice I tuned made 311RWHP at only 8psi. Now I know they have more displacement, but in comparison to the turbo cobalt which made 323WHP at the front on 18psi, I'm thinking these motors like compression more than boost.
Reply
Old May 19, 2007 | 01:40 AM
  #12  
NJHK's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-05-06
Posts: 10,877
Likes: 2
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Originally Posted by Mase
I know what you're saying about heat inside the motor.

One of the main reasons I want to go with 10.5:1 is due to the 2.4L. The solstice I tuned made 311RWHP at only 8psi. Now I know they have more displacement, but in comparison to the turbo cobalt which made 323WHP at the front on 18psi, I'm thinking these motors like compression more than boost.
It's not necessarily of what the engine likes...

You're comparing a Turbocharged Unit to your Supercharger unit. Even with your supercharger staying within it's efficiency range, it does not compare to a properly sized turbocharger as far as how much air (CFM) is being produced AND the parasitic loss that you're having when it comes to turning the supercharger. Displacement defenitley does play an effect as well...there is a slight bore increase over your engine but it's mostly the stroke that's the difference, this means more air and higher VE.

It's hard to really compare 2 setups and try to say that they are slightly similar because even if it was the same engine as yours, you're not going to duplicate it's results.
Reply
Old May 19, 2007 | 01:45 AM
  #13  
Witt's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 03-03-06
Posts: 4,958
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Originally Posted by Mase
well I've gone uping the boost, so now I think I want to try something different with low boost. This will help keep the SC in its efficiency range.
If you wanna run low boost, increase ignition timing rather than compression ratio. You'll see larger gains.

People that are running higher comp pistons are doing so because of aggressive cams.
Reply
Old May 19, 2007 | 01:59 AM
  #14  
NJHK's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-05-06
Posts: 10,877
Likes: 2
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Originally Posted by Witt
If you wanna run low boost, increase ignition timing rather than compression ratio. You'll see larger gains.

People that are running higher comp pistons are doing so because of aggressive cams.
You make my cam aggressive...grr
Reply
Old May 19, 2007 | 04:28 PM
  #15  
Blown 4-banger's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 04-03-06
Posts: 7,570
Likes: 0
From: Mesa, AZ
My cams are going to be far past aggressive, more like, "WHAT? Your actually gonna drive that on the street!?!?" 9.5:1 compression FTMFW!!! 15 psi with a 2.6" pulley FTMFW!!!! Boost/Heat equal to a 2.9" pulley, but the CFM of a 2.6", can't beat that!
Reply
Old May 19, 2007 | 04:31 PM
  #16  
lsjwannabe's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: 01-23-06
Posts: 10,731
Likes: 0
From: on here
are you going to run any other cooling mods or just keep the ones you have
Reply
Old May 19, 2007 | 04:52 PM
  #17  
Blown 4-banger's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 04-03-06
Posts: 7,570
Likes: 0
From: Mesa, AZ
Adding a dry ice box/extra coolant resevior, most likely 3/4 to 1 gallon in capacity. Plus I'm thinkin about a 100 shot of nitrous until I get the twin screw, hey it works for the Cobra guys.
Reply
Old May 24, 2007 | 03:22 PM
  #18  
Koop's Avatar
New Member
 
Joined: 05-24-07
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
From: Michigan
Adding compression and lowering boost will grant you the same power as when you had higher boost and lower compression. The benefits are that your spinning the SC slower which = less parasitic loss, and the roots type you use is less and less efficient the faster you spin it. Turbo's its cool to lower comp, but roots type equipped cars love comp.

10.5 is damn high btw
Reply
Old May 30, 2007 | 01:29 PM
  #19  
rnjmur's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 06-06-06
Posts: 2,729
Likes: 9
From: O Fallon, MO
Yeah adding compression and lowering boost will help keep the SC in its best efficiency. However, 10.5:1 is probably gonna be too high to run the car on anything lower then 100 octane.
Reply
Old Jun 19, 2007 | 07:58 PM
  #20  
Onyxd04Redline's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: 06-11-07
Posts: 5,417
Likes: 0
From: Az
Wow some people who actually think like i do. I was blasted over at the redline forums because i'm going with SRP 8:1's and a custom whipple at 20psi.
Reply
Old Jun 19, 2007 | 11:20 PM
  #21  
Blown 4-banger's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 04-03-06
Posts: 7,570
Likes: 0
From: Mesa, AZ
Originally Posted by Onyxd04Redline
Wow some people who actually think like i do. I was blasted over at the redline forums because i'm going with SRP 8:1's and a custom whipple at 20psi.
Tell me, was the head of the attack on you by chance AlphaJaguar? He TRIED to blast me when I posted about my blower porting! He blasts everyone, and says he has 300 whp with no dyno to prove it.
Reply
Old Jun 19, 2007 | 11:42 PM
  #22  
Onyxd04Redline's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: 06-11-07
Posts: 5,417
Likes: 0
From: Az
Originally Posted by Blown 4-banger
Tell me, was the head of the attack on you by chance AlphaJaguar? He TRIED to blast me when I posted about my blower porting! He blasts everyone, and says he has 300 whp with no dyno to prove it.
He was one of them trying to tell me that i was "Retarded" for wanting to drop compression that much and i should stick to around stock compression for 20psi of boost.

One of the reasons why i came over here. Lots of knowledgeable people here.
Reply
Old Jun 19, 2007 | 11:50 PM
  #23  
Doc's Avatar
Doc
Senior Member
 
Joined: 11-11-05
Posts: 9,438
Likes: 0
From: Oceanside, Ca
I was thinking of going 8.8:1 compression...I just haven't found the pistons.
Reply
Old Jun 19, 2007 | 11:51 PM
  #24  
Blown 4-banger's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 04-03-06
Posts: 7,570
Likes: 0
From: Mesa, AZ
Is That Really Tempe Az I See On Your Location!?!? **** Man Im From Chandler!!!
Reply
Old Jun 20, 2007 | 12:08 AM
  #25  
SSweet06's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: 12-05-05
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
From: Grafton,OH
I bought 10:5:1 pistons which Rob Archer told me he was going to do before he had to get rid of the car. Now after reading everything and I talked to Todd at Intense I don't know if I want them anymore. Should I sell them or give them a try? I really don't want to run 100 octane. I run only 94 now so I don't really want to go above that. Any advice would be appreciated.
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:07 PM.