When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
My old Curt Brown engine was 2.0L 10:1 running 93 octane and ~33-34psi daily (~65K miles). New Curt Brown engine is 9.5:1 2.15L and will run the same boost. I would recommend you run the 9.5:1, but that is just me based on my experience. As long as you run a conservative timing curve and have the knock tables set aggressively to pull timing at the first sign of knock you should be ok.
If you're just going to run gas and no ethanol you'll always get more power out of lower compression with more boost than higher compression and less boost. Keep it 9:1.
If you're just going to run gas and no ethanol you'll always get more power out of lower compression with more boost than higher compression and less boost. Keep it 9:1.
I've heard the opposite until detonation manifests. I believe Buschur Blocks are all 10:1.1 unless specified otherwise. I have a choice now of 9.0:1 or 9.5:1 and I'm currently torn.
I've heard the opposite until detonation manifests. I believe Buschur Blocks are all 10:1.1 unless specified otherwise. I have a choice now of 9.0:1 or 9.5:1 and I'm currently torn.
You've heard incorrectly. Buschur gets away with 10:1 by running ridiculously low timing which isn't necessarily good. Pump gas = 9:1 comp
A FULL point of compression I nets about 3% more power on a kill mode tune that has the fuel/octane to deal with it. So, for arguments sake, 1/2 a point would be 1.5%. Well, pump gas never gets a kill mode tune, it knocks first. And the higher compression will only make it knock sooner.
Originally Posted by ayoustin
If you're just going to run gas and no ethanol you'll always get more power out of lower compression with more boost than higher compression and less boost. Keep it 9:1.
You'll make more power (boost for boost), have better engine response and turbo spool with a higher compression setup. The 1/2 a point in compression isn't going to allow you to run more timing and boost of any significance. Heat is the killer so make sure you have a good intercooler core to support higher boost levels.
Stock compression is 8.8:1. Unless you think a stock engine is laggy and drives like crap off boost, stay with 9:1. Nothing is more of a buzzkill than being stuck with lower power because you bumped compression too high and now you're knock limited.
Higher compression = more likely to knock. Lower compression is less efficient. A half point is not going to be noticed by even the most attentive driver.
The discussion was anecdotal showing a dyno graph of a 9:1 setup and then imposing boost limitations of ~7-8psi lower assuming a 10:1 to make theoretical comparisons all while using crappy 91-92 octane gas. Like I previously stated, I ran 33-34psi daily for ~65K miles on 93pump with 10:1 compression using both a GTX3576R and GTX3582R. The difference going from stock 8.8:1 to 10:1 was significant enough to cause the turbo to surge in 3rd gear due to the increased spool because of the higher compression. I posted about this many years back and you can see max boost on this dyno run was 32.8psi, but plenty of street logs showing 33.9psi even in the middle of summer.
The discussion was anecdotal showing a dyno graph of a 9:1 setup and then imposing boost limitations of ~7-8psi lower assuming a 10:1 to make theoretical comparisons all while using crappy 91-92 octane gas. Like I previously stated, I ran 33-34psi daily for ~65K miles on 93pump with 10:1 compression using both a GTX3576R and GTX3582R. The difference going from stock 8.8:1 to 10:1 was significant enough to cause the turbo to surge in 3rd gear due to the increased spool because of the higher compression. I posted about this many years back and you can see max boost on this dyno run was 32.8psi, but plenty of street logs showing 33.9psi even in the middle of summer.
Yeah. Aaron at ER really just has no clue then I guess...?
Yeah. Aaron at ER really just has no clue then I guess...?
Did I incorrectly characterize the data presented in the post you referenced? No need to choose data collected from a 9:1 motor to theorize the performance of a 10:1 motor when data from an actual 10:1 setup is presented.
Did I incorrectly characterize the data presented in the post you referenced? No need to choose data collected from a 9:1 motor to theorize the performance of a 10:1 motor when data from an actual 10:1 setup is presented.
I must be missing something, but I don't see where you made 648whp (What Aaron made on 92). All I see is 573, on 110 octane.
Dec 6, 2018, 07:22 AM
