Author Topic: 7.8 vs 9 compression ratio  (Read 2201 times)

Offline Lowell Foo

  • Senior Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 878
    • Racing Greed
7.8 vs 9 compression ratio
« on: October 03, 2012, 10:08:23 pm »
92 Laser AWD, 50 trim, 494whp
92 Talon AWD, 50 trim, 11.55 @ 127mph w/ 399whp.
90 Talon AWD, 11.40 @ 123 ~ 10 years ago.  Currently in storage.

Offline Lowell Foo

  • Senior Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 878
    • Racing Greed
Re: 7.8 vs 9 compression ratio
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2012, 10:13:27 pm »
Exact same turbo, header, o2 housing, downpipe, cams.  Stock short block with balance shafts vs. 9:1 built motor, no balance shafts.  474whp dyno also had a ported stock intake manifold and SS valves.
92 Laser AWD, 50 trim, 494whp
92 Talon AWD, 50 trim, 11.55 @ 127mph w/ 399whp.
90 Talon AWD, 11.40 @ 123 ~ 10 years ago.  Currently in storage.

Offline Marke Bailey

  • Senior Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2049
  • B.C.'s quickest DSM.
Re: 7.8 vs 9 compression ratio
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2012, 10:20:56 pm »
40 whp sounds like its worth it to me... hahaha
The Sleepy Slushbox.

"She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts, kid. I've made a lot of special modifications myself."

Offline Jordan Kruger

  • Senior Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2210
Re: 7.8 vs 9 compression ratio
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2012, 11:12:13 pm »
So the stock block made more?
337awhp.  ---> 500 awhp ? =)

Replacing parts since early 2010.

Offline Lowell Foo

  • Senior Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 878
    • Racing Greed
Re: 7.8 vs 9 compression ratio
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2012, 11:17:41 pm »
Stock block is the solid line.  431 vs 474.  The 9:1 motor should make a little more torque down low, but that might be attributed to starting the pull 500rpm later. 
92 Laser AWD, 50 trim, 494whp
92 Talon AWD, 50 trim, 11.55 @ 127mph w/ 399whp.
90 Talon AWD, 11.40 @ 123 ~ 10 years ago.  Currently in storage.

Offline KevinBuckham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
Re: 7.8 vs 9 compression ratio
« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2012, 12:03:52 pm »
Are you detonation limited on both runs?  If you aren't detonation limited I would expect the higher CR to have more power, but this is the *first* time I've seen evidence back to back.  Pretty darn cool! 

Performance books are full of theoretical curves, but it's great to see it on our cars. :)

I assume you had less ignition timing on the second motor?  In theory the higher CR should need less ignition timing as well, but it's possible you might get away with the same ignition timing in either situation but the higher CR motor the ignition timing is closer to MBT.  (For example it's possible that the 7.8:1 motor needs more ignition timing but it's impossible to give it what it needs on 94 octane because of the potential for detonation increases if you delay the spark.)

Offline Lowell Foo

  • Senior Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 878
    • Racing Greed
Re: 7.8 vs 9 compression ratio
« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2012, 01:06:23 pm »
Both cars with methanol spray, so MBT was reached.  Wouldn't have it any other way on my cars.

Ignition timing I'm not sure about, but I would say within 1 or 2 either way between cars.  It's pretty easy to be 1 degree out when setting the CAS.  These two dyno pulls were done a few years apart as well.
92 Laser AWD, 50 trim, 494whp
92 Talon AWD, 50 trim, 11.55 @ 127mph w/ 399whp.
90 Talon AWD, 11.40 @ 123 ~ 10 years ago.  Currently in storage.

Offline KevinBuckham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
Re: 7.8 vs 9 compression ratio
« Reply #7 on: October 04, 2012, 01:17:22 pm »
Well I think you just sold us all on building higher compression motors. :)

Offline Robert Vorley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 773
Re: 7.8 vs 9 compression ratio
« Reply #8 on: October 04, 2012, 02:36:11 pm »
I love dyno plot comparisons!

It would be neat to see a 10:1.

Who's running 10:1?

1997 Eagle Talon AWD,
461 awhp, 357 tq @ 28 psi on RG's "heart-breaker" Mustang Dyno

Offline Zach Holt

  • Senior Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3625
Re: 7.8 vs 9 compression ratio
« Reply #9 on: October 04, 2012, 04:11:05 pm »
I love dyno plot comparisons!

It would be neat to see a 10:1.

Who's running 10:1?



when EI stoped fucking me around ill pick up my car and see what she does. Ive been looking forward to it for over 2 years

so once its out of hawk ill share what she does :) lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi
Then google.
Then read old postings about it.
Then ask.

Offline Ryan Coft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1973
  • Retired!
Re: 7.8 vs 9 compression ratio
« Reply #10 on: October 04, 2012, 10:49:36 pm »
I love dyno plot comparisons!

It would be neat to see a 10:1.

Who's running 10:1?



I did, but it was stroker and different setup completely. Apples to oranges comparison

Offline andrew volcz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 864
Re: 7.8 vs 9 compression ratio
« Reply #11 on: October 04, 2012, 10:50:51 pm »
As will zachs? 2.4L 10:1 setup
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 11:02:03 pm by andrew volcz »

Offline John Hartman

  • Senior Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 17539
Re: 7.8 vs 9 compression ratio
« Reply #12 on: October 05, 2012, 06:32:04 pm »
great comparison
91 Eagle Talon TSi 5spd awd.  GT-12, TriFlow Cams, 850s, Tial, JIC, Jackal, sticky rubber.
86 Merkur XR4Ti 5spd, rwd, turbo, 91,381km.  Original paint, heated leather. intercooled, big VAM, Full 3" exhaust, Cossie sway bar, 16" tires.
06 Mazdaspeed6 6spd awd, DISI turbo, heated leather HIDs, Corksport, Cobb, Konig, Centric...
2018 VW Golf Alltrack turbo Tornado Red, 6mt, some free mods

Offline Lowell Foo

  • Senior Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 878
    • Racing Greed
Re: 7.8 vs 9 compression ratio
« Reply #13 on: October 08, 2012, 08:54:57 am »
Made a few changes and made 449/406 this morning.  

« Last Edit: October 08, 2012, 09:00:48 am by Lowell Foo »
92 Laser AWD, 50 trim, 494whp
92 Talon AWD, 50 trim, 11.55 @ 127mph w/ 399whp.
90 Talon AWD, 11.40 @ 123 ~ 10 years ago.  Currently in storage.