Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Compression Ratio Information / Calculation / Comparison

Submit corrections and additions to this information to The Olds FAQ Compiler.

Information

The change in horsepower due to the change in compression ratio is relative but not directly proportional. That is to say that a change from 8:1 to 9:1 will give you a larger increase than would the change from 13:1 to 14:1. I seem to recall for every one point change around 7:1, that is the change from 7:1 to 8:1, would be slightly more than a 3% power increase. Once you get up to around 13:1, that same one point change is only good for about a 1.5% power increase.

The rule of thumb for the compression ratios run in most street engines is: for every point change in the compression ratio your power output will change by 2%. Using this rule of thumb on an engine that produces 400 hp, every 1 point change in compression ratio will result in approx. a 8hp change in output.

One thing that you have to remember is that this is a static model. The only variable changing is the compression ratio. Most of the time when a compression ratio change is made, significant other factors are changed which can significantly affect power output.

On avaliable pump gasoline it probably could be argued that your power might actually increase. This would be true if your compression ratio were high enough to force the use of a retarded timing curve (due to pre-ignition).

The TRW L2323F forged piston which is rated at 10.25:1 comes out much less if you were to actually compute the mechanical compression ratio. Two factors that reduce the mechanical ratio are the as follows:

1. The steel shim head gaskets Olds used had a compressed thickness of only .017". The common Felpro head gasket is .043".

2. When you have a valve job performed, the valves have their margin reduced, reducing their slight protrusion into the combustion chamber. Valve seats are slightly recessed into the head by the grinder. Both of these increase the head's combustion chamber. If any or all seats are replaced, this could go either way.

These two factors can increase your combustion chamber volumn by 5 to 7 cc's. This is enough to significantly change the compression ratio.

Consider the use of the car when determining the compression ratio. Your camshaft profile probably has the most significant impact on what mechanical compression ratio you should run. A longer duration camshaft will allow you to use higher mechanical compression ratio pistons because it lowers the effective compression ratio by keeping one or both valves open slightly into the compression stroke.

Be careful about the effects of production tolerances on compression ratio. Simply selecting a set of pistons labeled as 9.0:1 is not enough - you have to take into account the real combustion chamber volume, head gasket thickness, piston dish volume, and piston deck height. In reality, these dimensions are usually on the large side, resulting in less than the advertised compression ratio. While this is certainly safe from a detonation standpoint, it is not particularly healthy for performance.

The bottom line is that during any quality engine rebuild, it pays to take the time to check all of the factory dimensions. You may decide that it's not worth the time and expense to correct discrepancies, however at least you'll make that decision consciously.

[ Thanks to GABowles, Joe Padavano for this informatiton ]

Calculation

Put the head on something so you can move it around, V- type stands work well. Install a spark plug and tilt head so you have high side. Make a cc'ing plate out of a piece of clear plastic by drilling a ¼" or so hole in the plastic. Put a thin coat of grease on the head or piston to be cc'd. Smush the plate onto the head or piston, with the hole at one edge of the chamber. Measure how much fluid will fill the chamber. Water with some dish soap helps to break the surface tenson of the water. The air will self purge as you fill the chamber. Sometimes you have to tap the head a little to get rid of the bubbles.

A Burette is probably the nicest setup. A 60cc, or a 20cc syringe for pistons with a small dish, can be used with good results. An accurate the sphincter of the universe-baster would work just fine, graduated in cc's, or you can convert to cc's.

Elevate the hole, so it's at the top of the chamber, and the water [or oil or whatever] will drain away. Water can be used on the bench-done parts, and engine oil when cc'ing the total clearance volume on the assembled engine.

Typical Olds 425-HC-T Engine CRatio specifications:

4.125" Bore

3.975" Stroke

0.015" Deck clearance [piston top is this far below block's deck surface]

4.250" Gasket hole diameter

0.045" Gasket thickness when installed

2.750" Piston dish volume

0.045" Piston dish depth

10.5:1 Stock CRatio.

[ Thanks to Chris Witt, Walter for this information ]

Volume Formulas

Changed cc's to cubic inches by dividing by 2.54^3. Then, using CR=BDCV/TDCV, where

BDCV = Volume at BDC, = TDCV + piston displacement

TDCV = Volume at TDC, = amount of oil required to fill the combustion chamber at TDC, as measured per above.

piston displacement = pi/4 * bore^2 * stroke

pi = 3.14159

Bore = 4.125"

Stroke = 4.250"

1 ml = 1 cc

From the above, we can easily calculate:

cc in^3 What

6984.0 425.00 Total engine displacement

870.5 53.10 Cylinder displacement [piston swept volume]

4.4 .27 Piston dish volume

3.3 .20 Deck clearance volume

10.5 .64 Gasket hole volume [stock is more like 4-5cc]

18.1 1.11 Total Clearance Volume, except head

98.1 5.99 Total Clearance Volume, including std. 80cc head

Which yields a CRatio of 9.87 with an 80cc head, or 10.78 with a head shaved 0.045" [head loses 1.01cc per .005" cut]

Note: each cc of volume in the Clearance Volume affects the CRatio about 0.1 point at these numbers [bore, stroke, etc.]

Comparison

An overbore of .030" or .060" makes a difference of up to about 3% in the cylinder displacement, which is practically negligible in the grand scheme of things.

Amount to cut the head in order to achieve the stock advertised compression ratio:

Bore:

Std .030 .060 C/R Engine

.032 .026 .019 10.5 425HC Toro/SF pistons, 80cc heads

.033 .026 .020 10.25 425HC Std. 455 HC pistons, 80cc heads

.040 .033 .026 10.25 455HC Std. HC pistons, 80cc heads

.090 .082 .074 9.00 455LC Std. LC pistons, 80cc heads

.152 .147 .142 10.25 350HC Std. HC pistons, #8 [79cc] heads

.078 .073 .067 10.25 350HC Same pistons, #5-6-7 [64cc] heads

.134 Why bother? 9.00 350LC std. LC pistons, #8 [80cc] heads

.060 .053 .047 9.00 350LC same pistons, #5-6-7 [64cc] heads

.047 .042 .036 10.25 330HC HC pistons, 64cc heads

.061 .055 .049 9.00 330LC LC pistons, 64cc heads

.037 .030 .024 10.5 E400HC dishless flattop pistons, 80cc heads

Early 400 engine, 4.000 bore x 3.975 stroke

.049 .042 .036 10.25 L400 HC pistons, 80cc heads

.051 .043 .035 9.00 L400 LC pistons, 80cc heads

Well, after some careful measuring it was discovered that the 425 Toro/Starfire engine had higher compression pistons than the std. 425 HC. At first glance they appear identical, but the T/S pistons have a slightly shallower dish, like .040" rather than .060", which cc'd out to 4.5cc for the T/S pistons and 7cc for the lesser-car pistons. Each cc is about 0.1 on the compression ratio, so the Toronado/ Starfire pistons offer about 0.25 more compression ratio, all else equal.

Rule of Thumb:

Basically, to get the 'advertised' CRatio with today's .045" gasket, you have to cut the heads about .050". Since the gasket is about .025 or .030" taller, you are really only moving the heads .020 or .025" closer to the block- hardly worth milling the intake/head face to match.

Also, there's no way to get even a 9:1 CRatio with #8 heads on a 350. In fact, with low-comp pistons, the CR calculates out to about 7.5:1 !!! For a 9:1, you'd have to mill a ridiculous amount, like 0.125", off the heads. Yuck.

[ Thanks to Chris Witt for this information ]

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/95787-compression-ratio-formula-and-info/
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...