Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Compression Ratio Advice  (Read 8544 times)
SlashProm
Full Member
***

Karma: +0/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« Reply #15 on: May 16, 2021, 02:58:34 AM »

Do they both have the same tune? I'm no expert, but my understanding is that lower compression allows for more boost and timing due to lower cylinder pressure and therefore would be less susceptible to knock. So would the lower compression engine not benefit from more ignition timing? Maybe you need some more timing low down at WOT where it's trying to spool up?
Logged
kubawd
Jr. Member
**

Karma: +5/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


« Reply #16 on: May 16, 2021, 03:36:40 AM »

Lower CR = lower N/A efficiency, so yes, it will spool a little bit worse. Nevertheless, I don't think 0.5CR should make a difference of 500rpm. I suppose that there's something different affecting your spooling time.
Logged
nupustas
Full Member
***

Karma: +3/-7
Offline Offline

Posts: 122


« Reply #17 on: May 16, 2021, 04:51:28 AM »

Almost the same tune, tried rewrite tune to each other, 9,0:1 spools later always. There is some diferences in intake (9,5 longitudal big ported manifold, 9,0 transverse big ported manifold ant bigger IC). Still searching why, i also dont believe, that 0,5 compression ratio can make 500rpm difference.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2021, 05:09:07 AM by nupustas » Logged
prj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +1070/-477
Offline Offline

Posts: 6019


« Reply #18 on: May 16, 2021, 02:37:01 PM »

CR does not affect spool in any noticeable way.
Logged

PM's will not be answered, so don't even try.
Log your car properly - WinOLS database - Tools/patches
SlashProm
Full Member
***

Karma: +0/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« Reply #19 on: May 17, 2021, 07:41:12 AM »

The bigger intercooler on the other hand would make a difference to spool, as you are losing charge air velocity whilst filling the extra volume of piping and core. I'm assuming the larger cooler setup is on the car with the extra lag?
Logged
prj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +1070/-477
Offline Offline

Posts: 6019


« Reply #20 on: May 17, 2021, 10:09:45 AM »

There's something else completely screwed, the bigger intercooler is not going to give you 500rpm spool difference.

Most likely causes:
1) Boost leaks, probably not pressure tested.
2) Incorrectly set turbo actuator
3) Damaged turbo
4) Wrong cam timing

Either way, CR makes no difference on this.

Think of compression ratio as a brick wall. If you are not running special fuel, and just stick a big turbo on, there will come a moment where you can not run any more boost without melting the engine, because the timing efficiency will be so low and the EGT so high.
It's not a "more power, different off-boost response" kind of thing. It's more a "if you want to pass this amount of HP/TQ on pump fuel, your CR is going to have to be this or lower".

Yes, if you are already maxing your turbo on the higher CR and EGT is not getting too high, then dropping the CR will do very little in power terms.
But running a GTX3071 you're gonna need 2.3+ bar boost on the engine, and anything over 1.5 will give you problems on 9.5 CR and normal pump fuel from an EGT standpoint.
So you will be stuck making max 350-400hp on the turbo (with all the associated turbo lag), when you could be making 500 with the correct setup.

Another thing with a GTX3071 is you need to upgrade the valvetrain, because 7200 rpm will not be enough to do a 1->2 and 2->3 shift properly, and anything higher has a risk of floating valves on the 1.8T.
At a bare minimum you need solid exhaust valves and uprated springs to rev to 8000 rpm or so.

As for the performance - if you did a blind test on correctly tuned CR8.0 and CR9.5 1.8T on pump fuel even on the stock turbo you wouldn't notice anything, apart from the marginally higher fuel consumption on the CR8.0 car. And the CR8.0 would still make a little more power when both are tuned to the maximum.
The only reason the CR is pushed up so high on these cars is for fuel efficiency.
Unless you are planning to run the car primarily on ethanol or VP MS109, you absolutely need to significantly drop the static compression ratio if you want to make any power.

I personally think OP has not done his homework. For the type of mods he wants to do, a GTX2860 would be a much better turbo.
With the GTX3071 the car won't make any more power, and will have a ton of turbolag.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2021, 10:17:06 AM by prj » Logged

PM's will not be answered, so don't even try.
Log your car properly - WinOLS database - Tools/patches
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +607/-168
Offline Offline

Posts: 12256


WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 17, 2021, 10:26:49 AM »

The only reason the CR is pushed up so high on these cars is for fuel efficiency.

IMO this part is critical
Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum
Trim heatmap tool

Please do not ask me for tunes. I'm here to help people make their own.

Do not PM me technical questions! Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your ex
nupustas
Full Member
***

Karma: +3/-7
Offline Offline

Posts: 122


« Reply #22 on: May 17, 2021, 12:00:04 PM »

So i get main answer - this is not CR problem.
IC bigger about 50percent and pipes lenght about 20 perc in slow-spool car. Intake checked with pressure (all intake system new, also ckeched after welding). DV doesnt leak(tested and tried to replace it). Turbo actuators set identical in both cars. Cam timing good(i have had set timing in 1,8/1,8t engines many times - always double check before adding valve cover). New chain, new OEM VVT. That part about  damaged turbo sounds bad, because there is almost nothing left to check
Logged
SlashProm
Full Member
***

Karma: +0/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« Reply #23 on: May 17, 2021, 12:22:39 PM »

I've been researching this build for a couple of years now. I plan to have the entire engine built eventually but it's obviously a cost issue. I will be fitting some Inconel exhaust valves from the get go, and aiming for around 8.5 cr. I've decided on a dual ball bearing turbo, as well as a twin scroll manifold and twin scroll exhaust housing to try and keep the lag to a minimum on the 3071. Yes I'd like to put some valve springs in and a water methanol kit on there, sachs 4 puck clutch etc.

The thing is, I know it's going to take me hundreds of hours of logs and tuning to get anywhere near maxing out the turbo. I need to dial in my fuel injectors, re-scale and dial in the maf housing, get the torque model and boost pid somewhere near sane. I'm not even thinking about 2.3 bar of boost and 8k+ rpm right now. I'm just thinking about getting the majority of the parts fitted and getting a stable, low boost base map to work on. 5120 Hack etc will come much, much later. I just wanted to make sure I started the build correctly and wanted some simple advice on best compression ratios and people's experiences with thicker head gaskets. If a thicker gasket is fine I could get 8-8.5:1 with my AUQ pistons. The only reason I want BAM pistons, or any forged 9.0:1 piston with a 20mm wrist pin is because aftermarket pistons seem to be better supported in 20mm pins and it would give me some level of future proofing.

I appreciate your input prj, but just because I'm not taking the most optimum path. It doesn't mean I haven't been doing my research. Otherwise everyone would just have a stroked 1.8t running a k04-064 Tongue
« Last Edit: May 17, 2021, 12:27:07 PM by SlashProm » Logged
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +607/-168
Offline Offline

Posts: 12256


WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 17, 2021, 12:36:24 PM »

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that approach, imo.
Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum
Trim heatmap tool

Please do not ask me for tunes. I'm here to help people make their own.

Do not PM me technical questions! Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your ex
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.023 seconds with 17 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.001s, 0q)