Detonation is caused by two things.

1) Increase cylinder pressures. Which can be caused by either forced induction or higher compression pistons or both.

2) Gasoline that burns too fast and lights to easily. Race fuel is harder to light off, and burns slower. Cheap gas burns easier.

As you increase cylinder pressure you have to introduce fuel that burns slower. You have to do this because the molecules are closer together and the reaction will travel faster, thus concentrating the explosion time wise. What happens is explosion happeneds before you get to TDC, and the piston is trying to come up, and the explosion is trying to stop it from coming up. The piston then cocks side ways, and that is what you hear, the piston slamming into the cylinder wall. If you put a slower burning fuel (i.e. race gas) in the engine then the bulk of the explosion will take longer time wise and occur after TDC and stop the detonation, and you make more power.

You can also stop deonation be retarding the timing. What happens here is you light the mix later, or closer to TDC. By the time the explosion ocurrs fully, you have crossed TDC, and the explosion happens late enough not to cause detonation.

Timing and fuel are everything. As long as you control detonation, you can run whatever compression you want, but the higher the cylinder pressures go the more timing and fuel become critical.

Boost; 14.7 psi is the pressure of the air we breath at sea level. So we an engine that will draw in 2.0 litres of air at atomosphereic pressure. So if you put 7 pounds of boost on your engine, the engine thinks it is a 3.0 liter, because that is the amount of air you are moving through it. At 14.9 pounds of boost it thinks it is a 4.0 liter and so on. Ever notice that at 7 pounds of boost engines make about a 50% increase in power, that is because they think they are 50% bigger.

Compression ratio; Every 1 point you increase in compression gives you a 4% increase in horsepower. 9.0 to 10.00 on a 100 horse engine will yeild you 104 horse engine if everything else remains the same. And the same holds true for every point you increase. That is why a 12.5 engine runs better than a 9.5 engine. Now that holds true no matter what atmospheric pressure is. So a 12.5 to 1 engine will make more power than a 9.5 to 1 engine at 7 pounds of boost, at 14 pounds of boost and at 30 pounds of boost. BUT... the increase cylinder pressures require you to control detonation. As long as you can control detonation, you can run these boost levels.

Lets make this simple. We have a 100 hp engine with 8.5 to 1 compression. We put 15 pounds of boost on it, now we have a 200 hp engine. Now lets build a second engine with 12.5 compression. The first jump we goto 9.5 and get 4% to 104 hp, now we got to 10.5 anf get 108.16 horse, now to 11.5 and 112.48, and finally 12.5 we get 117 hp, now we add our 15 psi of boost and we got 234 horse power engine. So at 15 psi a 12.5 to 1 engine will make ruffly 17% more horsepower. That wins races.

Now because of detonation you may need to pull more timing out, and may loose part of that horsepower at high boost levels, but you will get there quicker, and on the bottom end of the race track you should make enough of a difference that the low compression car can't run you down on the big end of the track. With the electronics in timing we have a 12.5 to 1 15 psi street motor is a reality. Now if you go all out on a race engine. the 12.5 motor may be limited to 28 psi, where a 8.5 to 1 may be able to go to 30 psi without detonation, but I would put my money on the 12.5 engine.

My buddy has a drag bike running 35 psi on 13.0 to 1, but he is running on methanol which burns much slower than any gasoline. High compression and turbos do work.

gary

Visit the Howell Automotive Open House August 20th, 2005. The largest gathering of Chrysler 2.0 engines on the planet.

US Small Business Administration Export Business of the Year for 2003

Visit Howell Automotive at www.howellautomotive.com

Thanks for explaing, it really helpped me understand on what is going on thanks for the time to type that up

Boca Raton, Florida
95 Eclipse GS- sold
99 Eclipse GSX- 386awhp
98 Eclipse GS- sold
92 Prelude

I know it can be done, it just comes down to can the engine take that abuse of 12.5:1 plus boost on pump gas on the street. Most likely no, thats why 12.5:1 would be a streetable all motor but in order to boost it, it would have to be race only.



current status unknown

http://hometown.aol.com/ohshootuhh/

Perf:
KYB AGX Struts
Neuspeed Sport Springs
5 Strut Bars (2 F/U, F/L, R/U, R/L)
Sprint Front Camber Kit
$15 Rear Camber Kit
Corbin's A/F Gauge
MSD DIS-2 Ignition System
Some Regrind Cams that need High Compression (which I don't have)
Ported Intake Manifold
Ported Throttle Body
Nameless Cold Air Intake with a K&N Filter
Custom 2 1/2 inch exhaust with Dual DTM Muffler
Empty Catalytic Convertor
Energy Suspension Motor Mount inserts
Hurricane_GS Short Shifter
Symborsky Shift Kit
Clutchmasters Stage 3 Modular
225/50/16inch Wheels and Tires


Audio:
Alpine CD Head Unit
Alpine Flex4 25W X 4 for Fronts and Rears
Alpine V-12 450W X 1 for Subs
Infinity Reference Series 5 1/4 and 1 inch tweeter component systems for fronts and rears
Blaupunkt 3 way 6x9's in the rears
3 MTX 5000 10" 12 ohm subs running 4 ohms mono

Flame Red SRT-4 GT40,8.5:1 Built Shortblock, Brian Crower Stage 2 Cams, etc etc etc...

>I know it can be done, it just comes down to can the engine
>take that abuse of 12.5:1 plus boost on pump gas on the
>street. Most likely no, thats why 12.5:1 would be a
>streetable all motor but in order to boost it, it would have
>to be race only.
>
>

It would be boardline at best, but it does leave the 10.5 option open. Or you could run 12.5 and a boost controller set for 4 psi on the street, and when you put the race gas in at the track, crank that baby up and kick arse

Visit the Howell Automotive Open House August 20th, 2005. The largest gathering of Chrysler 2.0 engines on the planet.

US Small Business Administration Export Business of the Year for 2003

Visit Howell Automotive at www.howellautomotive.com

that's awesome info man. It's so much better then anything we could learn at school. THANKS!

16.1 @ 87.11
http://www.virtuallyinfamous.com

ARD 57mm tb and p&p manifold, Neuspeed STB, Pro-kits, Illuminas, Injen CAI with K&N, 2.5" pacesetter catback,
AF/X UDP, Rear STB, Powerslot rotors, RRE SS Brakelines.

There is a guy here in Tampa running 8psi on 11.5:1 compression stock internals on a Honda S2000 on 93 octane.

Here's some pics:








current status unknown

http://hometown.aol.com/ohshootuhh/

Perf:
KYB AGX Struts
Neuspeed Sport Springs
5 Strut Bars (2 F/U, F/L, R/U, R/L)
Sprint Front Camber Kit
$15 Rear Camber Kit
Corbin's A/F Gauge
MSD DIS-2 Ignition System
Some Regrind Cams that need High Compression (which I don't have)
Ported Intake Manifold
Ported Throttle Body
Nameless Cold Air Intake with a K&N Filter
Custom 2 1/2 inch exhaust with Dual DTM Muffler
Empty Catalytic Convertor
Energy Suspension Motor Mount inserts
Hurricane_GS Short Shifter
Symborsky Shift Kit
Clutchmasters Stage 3 Modular
225/50/16inch Wheels and Tires


Audio:
Alpine CD Head Unit
Alpine Flex4 25W X 4 for Fronts and Rears
Alpine V-12 450W X 1 for Subs
Infinity Reference Series 5 1/4 and 1 inch tweeter component systems for fronts and rears
Blaupunkt 3 way 6x9's in the rears
3 MTX 5000 10" 12 ohm subs running 4 ohms mono

Flame Red SRT-4 GT40,8.5:1 Built Shortblock, Brian Crower Stage 2 Cams, etc etc etc...

Yes, for two cars running the same boost but one at 9.5 to 1 and the other at 12.5 to 1, the 12.5 to 1 compression car is going to be faster.

Although, as you described, running higher compression gives you a "modest" HP increase. (1 point is 4%) Now modest is a reletave term. 4% would be a huge increase for some forms of racing (which is why, as you pointed out, that wins races) but it could be considered modest when you compare the HP difference between a turboed vs. non turboed car, especially a "street" car.

My point being, since there is a "total" cylinder pressure you can run (which comes from a combination of your compression ratio and your boost pressure), if you are maxing out your engine internals to this "total cylinder pressure," wouldn't it be more advantageous to run a lower compression ratio and more boost? That way the total power would be the same, since you would be running the same total cylinder pressure. You are just doing it in a different way, with lower compression and more boost, not more compression and less boost.

That seems to be the route some 4G63 owners continue to take. I would think it is "safer" and more economical to run a lower compression ratio. It would be safer because you do not risk getting knock as much when you are not at the track. You can be safe running lower octane gas and save money in the process (lower octance costs less). When it's time to race at the track, you just turn that boost up to the max level the internals can take and run that race gas. The power loss from the lower compression, and the lower fuel economy, isn't too significant on the street since that drop in power is, again, "modest" with a drop in compression ratio.

If you are running 12.5 to 1, even if you turn your boost controller to 0 you STILL need high octane. You are going to be spending more on higher octane gas and at 12.5 to 1 you are putting your engine more at risk for knock.

Just want your opinion on this. I always like a good technical discussion

"Tutto fa brodo."

Todd Scungio
98 RS
15.173 @ 90.70 MPH

And also a 2011 Ralliart

I agree Todd. And even as Gary has mentioned, it's all about fuel and timing. It seems to me that your timing can be more aggressive if your CR is lower.

I'd rather have more aggressive timing with lower compression rather than conservative timing with hihg compression.

_____________________________________
Jason ESi-T

04' BMW 325Ci
91' Nissan 240SX
98' Eagle Talon ESi (sold)

>I agree Todd. And even as Gary has mentioned, it's all
>about fuel and timing. It seems to me that your timing can
>be more aggressive if your CR is lower.
>
>I'd rather have more aggressive timing with lower
>compression rather than conservative timing with hihg
>compression.

It is my assertion, that if we put our two theories to the test, that my theory would win races. In practice is winning races. Your theory was the prevaling theory not that long ago and it wone races, and at that time running that way was the very edge of want an engine would stand, but now we have moved the edge farther out. Our knowledge of how a turbo system works is ever changing. In the 60's the Chevy Covair Monza Turbos didn;t have wastegates, they used a restrictive muffler to control spool, rust up a muffler an you blew the engine. Progress marches on, we must embrace new theories and practics.

Visit the Howell Automotive Open House August 20th, 2005. The largest gathering of Chrysler 2.0 engines on the planet.

US Small Business Administration Export Business of the Year for 2003

Visit Howell Automotive at www.howellautomotive.com

>Yes, for two cars running the same boost but one at 9.5 to 1
>and the other at 12.5 to 1, the 12.5 to 1 compression car is
>going to be faster.
>
>Although, as you described, running higher compression gives
>you a "modest" HP increase. (1 point is 4%) Now modest is
>a reletave term. 4% would be a huge increase for some forms
>of racing (which is why, as you pointed out, that wins
>races) but it could be considered modest when you compare
>the HP difference between a turboed vs. non turboed car,
>especially a "street" car.

But then you not comparing apples and apples. The 4% is exclusive of other mods. If you took our base 100 hp engine, and added headers, air intake, intake manifold, cams etc, and got it to 150 hp, then put the high compression pistons in, then you still get 4% or 6 hp.

>
>My point being, since there is a "total" cylinder pressure
>you can run (which comes from a combination of your
>compression ratio and your boost pressure), if you are
>maxing out your engine internals to this "total cylinder
>pressure," wouldn't it be more advantageous to run a lower
>compression ratio and more boost?

That was the thinking a few years ago. That idea is a hold over from a bygone era. With today's ignitions and fuel management systems you can run a lot closer to the edge. The lower is better idea came in an era of carbs and points, we have much better systems now. Volvo sells a factory 10.5 to 1 turbo engine now.

> That way the total power
>would be the same, since you would be running the same total
>cylinder pressure.

That is not what Boyles Law states. With the higher compression you are starting an explosion in a smaller space. So the intial hit is harder since it is not spread out over a a larger area. The flame travel propogates better.

> You are just doing it in a different
>way, with lower compression and more boost, not more
>compression and less boost.

It is different. But the higher compression works better in practice. In Pro Star Funny Bike classes, which are running turbos, they are running high compression some 15 to 1. Once the first guy went to high compression everybody was left scratching there heads, as they could not keep up. When they went to high compression they caught back up. So in reallity the high compression guys, are beating the lower compression guys.


>
>That seems to be the route some 4G63 owners continue to
>take. I would think it is "safer" and more economical to
>run a lower compression ratio.

It is safer, but it is not faster. If your racing high compression will win, on the street we can probably find a compromise. 10.5 with 8 psi, or 12.5 with 5 psi. The higher compression will yield better fuel economy as well.

> It would be safer because
>you do not risk getting knock as much when you are not at
>the track. You can be safe running lower octane gas and
>save money in the process (lower octance costs less). When
>it's time to race at the track, you just turn that boost up
>to the max level the internals can take and run that race
>gas. The power loss from the lower compression, and the
>lower fuel economy, isn't too significant on the street
>since that drop in power is, again, "modest" with a drop in
>compression ratio.

It all comes down to who is the most modest, the guy willing to let it hang out there for the world to see wins. We learn new stuff everyday, if you don't build on what you know you stay in the same place. If you keep running low compression, you may not learn the next secret.
>
>If you are running 12.5 to 1, even if you turn your boost
>controller to 0 you STILL need high octane. You are going
>to be spending more on higher octane gas and at 12.5 to 1
>you are putting your engine more at risk for knock.

Pull timing out, we have been runing 12.5 pistons on the street for 2 years in a 420A, with a timing retard close to 30K miles now on pump gas, and then we crank the timing and fuel to it at the track.

>
>Just want your opinion on this. I always like a good
>technical discussion

It comes down when you playing the game who get to the other end first, and that is the only rule, then you have to bring your biggest gun out first. Playing it safe is not an opition.

Gary

Visit the Howell Automotive Open House August 20th, 2005. The largest gathering of Chrysler 2.0 engines on the planet.

US Small Business Administration Export Business of the Year for 2003

Visit Howell Automotive at www.howellautomotive.com

<That is not what Boyles Law states. With the higher compression you are starting an explosion in a smaller space. So the intial hit is harder since it is not spread out over a a larger area. The flame travel propogates better.

Ugh, I forgot about Boyle's law. (and I'm one of the last people who should have forgotten it!) That alone makes sense that you would get more power. Expansion from that smaller space would make the combustion process more efficient, just as you stated.

Yes, I was thinking along the lines of the "total cylinder pressure" theory, and I guess with higher compression and better control of the fuel/ignition/all the other variables, you can push the envelope more.

<It is safer, but it is not faster. If your racing high compression will win, on the street we can probably find a compromise. 10.5 with 8 psi, or 12.5 with 5 psi. The higher compression will yield better fuel economy as well.

I was considering if someone is running lower compression and more boost they could be safer AND run the same power. It looks like you answered the question: it is safer, but you don't get as much power as a well tuned higer compression system.

<It comes down when you playing the game who get to the other end first, and that is the only rule, then you have to bring your biggest gun out first. Playing it safe is not an opition.

I know, I know, as Stirling Moss once said "First is first, second ain't shit." Which I agree with.

But they don't give trophies for the biggest engine explosion so make sure you keep your cars tuned well!

"Tutto fa brodo."

Todd Scungio
98 RS
15.173 @ 90.70 MPH

And also a 2011 Ralliart

>
>Ugh, I forgot about Boyle's law. (and I'm one of the last
>people who should have forgotten it!) That alone makes
>sense that you would get more power. Expansion from that
>smaller space would make the combustion process more
>efficient, just as you stated.

I revert back to my Chem Eng classes alot when working on engines.

>
>Yes, I was thinking along the lines of the "total cylinder
>pressure" theory, and I guess with higher compression and
>better control of the fuel/ignition/all the other variables,
>you can push the envelope more.

Exactly and that is what it is all about, pushing the envelope.

>
>I was considering if someone is running lower compression
>and more boost they could be safer AND run the same power.
>It looks like you answered the question: it is safer, but
>you don't get as much power as a well tuned higer
>compression system.

Exactly. The electronic end of fuel and spark control is what makes this all possible. Everbody that works are cars thinks inside the carb and points box, weather or not you worked on cars with carbs or points. You did it this way because that is the way it was always down. You have to think outside the box, and challenge old rules of thumb.

Look at merge collectors they were all the rage, now they are old hat. Somebody looked at and said, "Hey maybe it isn't the merge, it is the restriction of the choke point that is yeilding the power." Damn if he wasn't right, now the top races have ditched the merge collectors and are using restrictor rings on regular collectors. You drop a 3 inch collector down to 2.5 inch diameter of an inch of pipe then go back up to 3 inch. You get the same results as a merge collector, but for a $2 peice of pipe instead of a $60 merge collector, and you can play with the size and tune the thing. This is an example of don't look at because it works, but see why it works, it may lead you to something else. Think outside the box, look at like you never saw it before you will learn more that way.

>
>I know, I know, as Stirling Moss once said "First is first,
>second ain't shit." Which I agree with.

Ever have somebody come up to you on Monday morning and ask, "Who finish second in the race yesterday?"

>
>But they don't give trophies for the biggest engine
>explosion so make sure you keep your cars tuned well!
>

Give time, it will be a 1/2 hour show on Speed Vision in the middle of the night.

gary

Visit the Howell Automotive Open House August 20th, 2005. The largest gathering of Chrysler 2.0 engines on the planet.

US Small Business Administration Export Business of the Year for 2003

Visit Howell Automotive at www.howellautomotive.com

To give you some idea on this theory and explanation, i run a 14.7 @97mph on an hrc stage 2 running at only 6psi. And that's not on an eclipse, that's on a chrysler sebring (same engine) with 10:1 compression and about 3,500lbs heavy. Stock cylinder head. Street tires with heavy 40lb Momo 17" rims, NOT gutted, full street spec and pump gas (and a bag full of dirty laundry in the trunk!). Not counting having boost leak up and down the track.

Maybe i havent heard it yet, but I havent found any stage 2 2gnt's with 8.5:1 or 8:1 compression running faster than that time in similar trim (similar turbo, same amount of boost, street tires).

The truth is, boost hits so much harder with this compression than car with 8:1 or 8.5:1 compression. Like he said, the lower the compression gives you a better ability to run lower octane gas and not have to fiddle with your ignition timing as much. but if you have the means to tune the electronics, the possibilities are endless.

_________________
Vinnie Lima
vlima@csc.com
AIM: Kiku888
1997 Chrysler Sebring "Silver XTC"
I4 420a w/ HRC Stage 2.45 w/ FMIC
14.7@97 mph@6psi
Proud member of the
ASOG BoOsT JuNkIe Crew

If would make sense that the boost would kit harder with higher compression, just as throttle response is better with higher compression with an NA car.

Visit the Howell Automotive Open House August 20th, 2005. The largest gathering of Chrysler 2.0 engines on the planet.

US Small Business Administration Export Business of the Year for 2003

Visit Howell Automotive at www.howellautomotive.com

>Detonation is caused by two things.
>
>1) Increase cylinder pressures. Which can be caused by
>either forced induction or higher compression pistons or
>both.
>
>2) Gasoline that burns too fast and lights to easily. Race
>fuel is harder to light off, and burns slower. Cheap gas
>burns easier.

Don't forget temperature. That should be #3 on the list. Timing retard, intercooler, good cooling system, and properly sized turbo keep peak temps away from the detonation point.

Corbin

'95 ESI-T
HRC+FMIC+ETC...

Corbin
'97 GSX dressed like a '95 ESi

>>Detonation is caused by two things.
>>
>>1) Increase cylinder pressures. Which can be caused by
>>either forced induction or higher compression pistons or
>>both.
>>
>>2) Gasoline that burns too fast and lights to easily. Race
>>fuel is harder to light off, and burns slower. Cheap gas
>>burns easier.
>
>Don't forget temperature. That should be #3 on the list.
>Timing retard, intercooler, good cooling system, and
>properly sized turbo keep peak temps away from the
>detonation point.
>
>Corbin
>
>'95 ESI-T
>HRC+FMIC+ETC...
>
>


That begs the question what is a properly sized turbo? The unibody record is held by a Neon driven by Mike Crawford. http://www.nhraimport.com/2001/events/records.html Mikes car uses a T3/T4, that his competitors and conventional wisdom all said is too small. So sizing of turbos is not an exact science either.

Gary

PS Mike Runs 13 to 1

Visit the Howell Automotive Open House August 20th, 2005. The largest gathering of Chrysler 2.0 engines on the planet.

US Small Business Administration Export Business of the Year for 2003

Visit Howell Automotive at www.howellautomotive.com

Amazing. I cannot imagine a 12.5:1 compression motor boosting without serious knock. I guess it comes from learning by way of my uncle, and his mid 70's ATP turbo'd drag bike. His school of thought was along the lines that my 8.8:1 was too high. He runs 7:1 and ~20PSI and still knocks on lower octane race fuel. (and clicked off low 9 second runs ~15 years ago)

Has the technology really come this far?

If so, i really begin to wonder why some of my fellow boosted 420A's can't keep timing above 14* advance @15PSI on 8.6:1 compression and 93 octane, even after much richening of the mixture.

______________________________
If a sentence found online has 35% misspellings or greater and includes at least two racially charged expletives, chances are it is a YouTube comment.

'95 Eclipse TurboGS (garage deco)
'95 TSi AWD (restoring a survivor)
'97 Talon ESi-T (poor impulse control)
'99 Eclipse RS-T (daily beater)
'13 Evo X (mostly stock)
'17 Sienna (Middle Aged Dad Mobile)



Factory Service Manuals: http://nawdu.de/files/

>Amazing. I cannot imagine a 12.5:1 compression motor
>boosting without serious knock. I guess it comes from
>learning by way of my uncle, and his mid 70's ATP turbo'd
>drag bike. His school of thought was along the lines that
>my 8.8:1 was too high. He runs 7:1 and ~20PSI and still
>knocks on lower octane race fuel. (and clicked off low 9
>second runs ~15 years ago)
>
>Has the technology really come this far?

A combination of technology has come that far, and the fact that things we once took for granted did work are now being re-examined with electronics. Example Smokey Yunick was using large scoops on Indy cars before turbos, the pressure at speed was so great the engines wouldn't live. They would lean out and melt. Now in IRL they do just that and they live, and it is because of the electronics. Alot of old ideas are being re-examnined now with a fresh look from the electronics end of things.

>
>If so, i really begin to wonder why some of my fellow
>boosted 420A's can't keep timing above 14* advance @15PSI on
>8.6:1 compression and 93 octane, even after much richening
>of the mixture.

My turbo car is running 28 total advance on 16 pounds of boost on 104 unleaded.

Visit the Howell Automotive Open House August 20th, 2005. The largest gathering of Chrysler 2.0 engines on the planet.

US Small Business Administration Export Business of the Year for 2003

Visit Howell Automotive at www.howellautomotive.com

that's it... ill take my 10.5 to 1 engine stroked running 8psi now please..

one day.. but first off lets rip some heads running n/a high compression stroked..

-Jason

97 Talon ESi-T (forever in progress...)


95 GS (Gone)
16.74@83.18mph
119.8 whp - 113.3 lbs/ft


2GNT #677
My Wiki Page: www.2gnt.com/index.php?d=Iamnotwhoiam
Pictures: http://picasaweb.google.com/iamnotwhoiam/Talon/

This is giving me a headache reading all this, but this is some good info.

no more 420A

only 4G63

haha this is GREAT! man i love it when there are discussions like this!


96RS ~ full 99GS special body conversion, aem cai, greddy header, greddy sp exhaust, afx pulley, b&m sS, magecores & NGKs, S-AFC, Sparco Torino, illuminas, prokits, ingalls camber, gunmetal GS rims, ST Sways, STBs, lower rear tie bar, sound system, a shit load more.

97 ~ GSX stock for cock for now but smokes (for the haters) MY 420a. To all the haters _|_ tia

The Original 2GNT []D[][]Y[][]D


96 RS


97 GSX

my head hurts, O_o

all I hear is boost is more efficient than compression. I guess some compression helps, that's how the Lan EVO can churn out that 280HP out of the 4G63.

http://www.hadesomega.info -car specz and movies 95 Eclipse RS | 76' 280Z | 89' MR2 | 99 Neon | 91 Zephyr
Who sez FF can't drift?

I hate it when I come in later on good discussions because I am busy.

I am totally with Gary on this one. Think about the advantages of the high compression with a turbo. I know me and Jason talked about this a while ago when he came in town. The stroker kit by it's nature will add some low end torque, the bore to stroke ratio is one of the big deturminations of deciding wether the engine will produce more torque or more hp. The high compression stroker producign more low end torque will be able to pull the endgine harder at the lower rpm,s and get you up to the mid to high range where the turbo can take over and pull you hard to redline. So I do believe a properly tuned high compression turbo motor will beat a low compression motor. As with any motor propewr tuning and a good driver are the key, without both you've got nothing.

Even on a stock motor I think there is a lot to be gained from timing adjustments and good fuel management. so tunign is key.

"The fastest draw is when the sword never leaves the scabbard,
The strongest way to block, is never to provoke a blow,
And the cleanest cut is the one withheld."

Michael J. Kulaga
e-mail: Michael_97RS@2gntDSM.zzn.com aol IM: MJKulga
http://highlander.dsmpower.com/

All Motor Beast in the Making

Injen CAI, 55mm TB, Hooker 4-1 Stepped Header, GS-T Muffler, AFX UDP, S-AFC, 8.5mm Magnecor Wires, SS Clutch Line, NRG Susp. Motor Mount Ins., FU/RU/RL STBs, TSW Blade 17x7.5, Bridgestone Potenza RE730 215/45ZR-17. Front KVR Cross-Drilled Rotors and Carbon Fiber Pads

To Be Installed: Ported/Polished Intake Manifold, Rear disc brake conversion kit, SS Brake Lines, Rear KVR Cross Drilled Rotors and KVR Carbon Fiber Kevlar Pads

Firefly:
Mal: You don't know me, son, so let me put this to you plainly: If I ever kill you, you'll be awake. You'll be facing me. And you'll be armed.

>I hate it when I come in later on good discussions because I
>am busy.
>
>I am totally with Gary on this one. Think about the
>advantages of the high compression with a turbo. I know me
>and Jason talked about this a while ago when he came in
>town. The stroker kit by it's nature will add some low end
>torque, the bore to stroke ratio is one of the big
>deturminations of deciding wether the engine will produce
>more torque or more hp. The high compression stroker
>producign more low end torque will be able to pull the
>endgine harder at the lower rpm,s and get you up to the mid
>to high range where the turbo can take over and pull you
>hard to redline. So I do believe a properly tuned high
>compression turbo motor will beat a low compression motor.
>As with any motor propewr tuning and a good driver are the
>key, without both you've got nothing.
>
>Even on a stock motor I think there is a lot to be gained
>from timing adjustments and good fuel management. so tunign
>is key.
>

Your right tuning is the key. And the fuel and spark management systems we have today is what makes it possible for us to tune a high compression turbo, 10 or 15 years ago this was not practicle.

Visit the Howell Automotive Open House August 20th, 2005. The largest gathering of Chrysler 2.0 engines on the planet.

US Small Business Administration Export Business of the Year for 2003

Visit Howell Automotive at www.howellautomotive.com

This is the first I am reading this as well.

Easy proof of theory. All winning turbo 4-cylinder cars currently in the circuit are running a minimum of 9.5 compression.

Dino, Armond and I have seen up to 42deg timing. 14deg seems to be the lowest our ecu can drop it to when it detects knock from what I have seen. This is all based on personal experience mind you with a knock monitor and real time logging. The problem I have with our car and high compression is I think it sucks at pulling timing if you leave it to its own resources, ie stock ecu. The way it looks to me, correct me if someone thinks I am wrong or I am missing something here, is our ecu does not pull enough timing until after it gets knock. In fact, I suspect from doing a lot of watching in real time as it gives timing that what it does do is to continually keep feeding it timing as much as it can until it reaches a problem which at that point can be too late as it has already peaked too high and can not pull back out enough in time. Thoughts on this? It is also why I think the Jet ecu is crap. It does nothing the ecu could not have done on its own. The big helper on our car is to retard the timing.

Gary, do you feel your secret is using the Crane vs the MSD? I noticed HRC is swapping to the Crane as well. At least it looks that way. It is boost dependant rather than rpm dependant. The MSD is not an issue for me at all as I set it to pull 6deg from 4-7k regardless of what boost I run, but the turbo is fully spooled well before 4k so that always worries me. The crane does look good, but it seems to be limited to only 15psi which is why I would currently rather run the MSD as I am running 18psi pump gas on my 8.8:1 compression. I am happy with how it is working for what is a crude timing retard though. Nothing blown yet and pulls damn hard. I always felt this is because my lower compression is saving my ass from time to time without better timing management.

I do know the fully programmable MSD will allow 3bar with fully programmable rpm point timing which is looking nice to me right now. I know 2 people who are starting to work with this setup so I should know more about it in the next few months. Downside is the cost of course.

05 Mazda RX-8
06 Lotus Elise

Man decides to come around and post a bombshell topic. I have nothing to add other than anyones desire to keep "agressive timing" once turbo'd. If aggressive timing doesn't work well with turbo's then screw it. If a higher compression or higher boost produces more cyl pressure than less timing advance is gonna be needed to prevent detonation at some point. They key words are "more cyl pressure" and "need". If you can keep agressive timing advance then how hard can you really be pushing the engine? Whether you have 13:1 or 7:1 wouldn't the ability to keep aggressive timing indicate you aren't pushing much cyl pressures?

:farfrommugen:
Yes I still own a 2gnt.
Damn right I've been here longer than U
klassic_liven@yahoo.com

With proper control you should be able to goto 30 psi, with 28 degrees of total timing and live.

Visit the Howell Automotive Open House August 20th, 2005. The largest gathering of Chrysler 2.0 engines on the planet.

US Small Business Administration Export Business of the Year for 2003

Visit Howell Automotive at www.howellautomotive.com

i think the main diffrence here is gary is talking about all out winning whereas we are mostly talking about getting to school and work faster. i do agree and have often fought that high compression on a turbo would be the best way to go for speed but i don't wanna spend lots of money to get to work every day so i'm goin to 9to1 compression and gonna boost on top of that.

http://www.ocaddict.com

thanks beefgg for the sig

>i think the main diffrence here is gary is talking about all
>out winning whereas we are mostly talking about getting to
>school and work faster. i do agree and have often fought
>that high compression on a turbo would be the best way to go
>for speed but i don't wanna spend lots of money to get to
>work every day so i'm goin to 9to1 compression and gonna
>boost on top of that.

It comes down to speed cost money, how fast do you want to go?

Visit the Howell Automotive Open House August 20th, 2005. The largest gathering of Chrysler 2.0 engines on the planet.

US Small Business Administration Export Business of the Year for 2003

Visit Howell Automotive at www.howellautomotive.com

So if I read all this right, I shouldn't be worried about 21psi on 9.5:1 pistons? I'm more interested in what Gary has to say about the Crane system. I have one on the shelf in my garage waiting to be put in. Will it handle 3 bar with the correct sensor? Or am I going to be limited to how much boost it will allow me to run? Is there any way to tie it in with the DFI system and use it's boost signal? Man, this is good stuff!

Greg

'19 Genesis G70 3.3t AWD
'88 Chrysler Conquest TSI

>So if I read all this right, I shouldn't be worried about
>21psi on 9.5:1 pistons?

Forged with good rods. I would try that on stock pistons and rods.

>I'm more interested in what Gary has
>to say about the Crane system. I have one on the shelf in my
>garage waiting to be put in. Will it handle 3 bar with the
>correct sensor?

Yes, it will handle a 3 bar map sensor.

>Or am I going to be limited to how much
>boost it will allow me to run? Is there any way to tie it in
>with the DFI system and use it's boost signal? Man, this is
>good stuff!

I don't think so, on the 2GNT we need to piggy back the system and use the factory box for the timing efforts. This will not let you tie the Crane into the DFI. However if you want to make a crank trigger assembly, you can run the complete DFI and ditch the factory computer. It will require additional electronics because of the wasted spark ignition.
\
Gary

Visit the Howell Automotive Open House August 20th, 2005. The largest gathering of Chrysler 2.0 engines on the planet.

US Small Business Administration Export Business of the Year for 2003

Visit Howell Automotive at www.howellautomotive.com

>Forged with good rods. I would try that on stock pistons
>and rods.

JE 9.5:1 forged pistons and Crower rods.

>Yes, it will handle a 3 bar map sensor.

That's good to know.

>I don't think so, on the 2GNT we need to piggy back the
>system and use the factory box for the timing efforts. This
>will not let you tie the Crane into the DFI. However if you
>want to make a crank trigger assembly, you can run the
>complete DFI and ditch the factory computer. It will require
>additional electronics because of the wasted spark ignition.

Could you elaborate on this a little more? I'm thinking there will be instances I would want the timing to retard further than 15 degrees AND I wouldn't mind using the DFI to it's fullest potential either.

Greg

'19 Genesis G70 3.3t AWD
'88 Chrysler Conquest TSI

>>Forged with good rods. I wouldn't try that on stock pistons
>>and rods.
>
>JE 9.5:1 forged pistons and Crower rods.
>
>>Yes, it will handle a 3 bar map sensor.
>
>That's good to know.
>
>>I don't think so, on the 2GNT we need to piggy back the
>>system and use the factory box for the timing efforts. This
>>will not let you tie the Crane into the DFI. However if you
>>want to make a crank trigger assembly, you can run the
>>complete DFI and ditch the factory computer. It will require
>>additional electronics because of the wasted spark ignition.
>
>Could you elaborate on this a little more? I'm thinking
>there will be instances I would want the timing to retard
>further than 15 degrees AND I wouldn't mind using the DFI to
>it's fullest potential either.

The DFI is kick a$$. You should need to pull out that much timing. Mike Crawford is run 28 degrees on 35 psi, with nitrous. You have good pistons, and good rods, so you should be fine with proper fuel mangement and that is what the DFI will give you. I'm planning on going to 30 psi with not timing retard. I have Forged JE's with Cunningham rods, which is comperable to what you have.

Gary

Visit the Howell Automotive Open House August 20th, 2005. The largest gathering of Chrysler 2.0 engines on the planet.

US Small Business Administration Export Business of the Year for 2003

Visit Howell Automotive at www.howellautomotive.com

No timing retard? I was going the use the boost referenced timing retard available with the Crane Fireball system. Not needed? How are you monitoring knock? My motor won't be fed a steady diet of race gas - only when at the track. How do you know how far you can push it on pump gas? Thanks for all the info Gary, you've already been a big help.

Greg

'19 Genesis G70 3.3t AWD
'88 Chrysler Conquest TSI

>No timing retard? I was going the use the boost referenced
>timing retard available with the Crane Fireball system. Not
>needed? How are you monitoring knock? My motor won't be fed
>a steady diet of race gas - only when at the track. How do
>you know how far you can push it on pump gas?

My mistake, I was thinking race fuel. With pump gas the timing retard will be needed. Run it to the edge of timing, and keep you knock sensor hooked up. On the track, you race fuel and put the timing back in for best performance.

> Thanks for all
>the info Gary, you've already been a big help.

Not really, just a little info.

Visit the Howell Automotive Open House August 20th, 2005. The largest gathering of Chrysler 2.0 engines on the planet.

US Small Business Administration Export Business of the Year for 2003

Visit Howell Automotive at www.howellautomotive.com

What about the use of water injection?? Ive heard that with water injection you can run more boost on the regular because it works like race gas and makes the engine less susceptible to detonation (correct me if im wrong). Wouldnt using this on the street make using high compression safer for the daily grind?

Toney
'97 RS 5 Speed (totaled)
15.4606@88.42 Mph
96 Toyota Celica GT
88 Toyota Supra NA-T (w/ sports package)
Got Boost?? Hell yeah I-6 turbo powah baby!

Yes the water injection works that way but unless you have a HUGE tank of water in the car you are going to run out pretty quick. Most guys that use water injection or air to water intercoolers at the track have a 5 gal fuel cell full of water and it is good for 1 - 2 runs.



current status unknown

http://hometown.aol.com/ohshootuhh/

Perf:
KYB AGX Struts
Neuspeed Sport Springs
5 Strut Bars (2 F/U, F/L, R/U, R/L)
Sprint Front Camber Kit
$15 Rear Camber Kit
Corbin's A/F Gauge
MSD DIS-2 Ignition System
Some Regrind Cams that need High Compression (which I don't have)
Ported Intake Manifold
Ported Throttle Body
Drop in K&N Filter and open airbox
Custom 2 1/2 inch exhaust with Dual DTM Muffler
Empty Catalytic Convertor
Energy Suspension Motor Mount inserts
Hurricane_GS Short Shifter
Symborsky Shift Kit
Clutchmasters Stage 3 Modular
225/50/16inch Wheels and Tires


Audio:
Alpine CD Head Unit
Alpine Flex4 25W X 4 for Fronts and Rears
Alpine V-12 450W X 1 for Subs
Infinity Reference Series 5 1/4 and 1 inch tweeter component systems for fronts and rears
Blaupunkt 3 way 6x9's in the rears
3 MTX 5000 10" 12 ohm subs running 4 ohms mono

Flame Red SRT-4 GT40,8.5:1 Built Shortblock, Brian Crower Stage 2 Cams, etc etc etc...

Oh, ok well personally I would probably run 10.5 and run about 10-12 psi like stan did on a regular basis and when I wanted to race on the streets I would use water injection (use the windshield wiper fluid resivoir (sp)) What is the max amount of boost you could run on compression that high on pump gas anyway??

Toney
'97 RS 5 Speed (totaled)
15.4606@88.42 Mph
96 Toyota Celica GT
88 Toyota Supra NA-T (w/ sports package)
Got Boost?? Hell yeah I-6 turbo powah baby!

>Oh, ok well personally I would probably run 10.5 and run
>about 10-12 psi like stan did on a regular basis and when I
>wanted to race on the streets I would use water injection
>(use the windshield wiper fluid resivoir (sp)) What is the
>max amount of boost you could run on compression that high
>on pump gas anyway??

It would vary with timing, and your water injection. I would also consider using methanol instead of water. The methanol will accomplish the same cooling effect, plus it is flamable, and water isn't.

Visit the Howell Automotive Open House August 20th, 2005. The largest gathering of Chrysler 2.0 engines on the planet.

US Small Business Administration Export Business of the Year for 2003

Visit Howell Automotive at www.howellautomotive.com

i got a question.

If i were to completely rebuild my engine, and get all the proper fuel management stuff... how far do you think I can push 93 octane?
I know some people have pushed 18psi with timing retard, but is there anything else you could do to get a little more?

Cuz seriously, I probably won't hit the tracks too often, but I'd like my high power to be available everyday. Not many places around here sell higher then 93 octane.

Thanks Gary for all your help. You're the man!

16.1 @ 87.11
http://www.virtuallyinfamous.com

ARD 57mm tb and p&p manifold, Neuspeed STB, Pro-kits, Illuminas, Injen CAI with K&N, 2.5" pacesetter catback,
AF/X UDP, Rear STB, Powerslot rotors, RRE SS Brakelines.

>i got a question.
>
>If i were to completely rebuild my engine, and get all the
>proper fuel management stuff... how far do you think I can
>push 93 octane?
>I know some people have pushed 18psi with timing retard, but
>is there anything else you could do to get a little more?
>
>Cuz seriously, I probably won't hit the tracks too often,
>but I'd like my high power to be available everyday. Not
>many places around here sell higher then 93 octane.
>
>Thanks Gary for all your help. You're the man!

18 psi with a raising rate of gain fuel pressure regulator is probably beyond the limit. At 16 psi, I was melting the ends of spark plugs doing that. With timing retard, and good fuel management, I think 25 psi would not be unreasonable. Not sure if I would go wild on compression or not, maybe 10.5

Visit the Howell Automotive Open House August 20th, 2005. The largest gathering of Chrysler 2.0 engines on the planet.

US Small Business Administration Export Business of the Year for 2003

Visit Howell Automotive at www.howellautomotive.com