LT1-LT4 Modifications 1993-97 Gen II Small Block V8

What is a good static compression ratio?

Old 09-10-2014, 12:21 PM
  #41  
TECH Addict
 
hrcslam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maricopa, AZ
Posts: 2,610
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Shownomercy
Because it is a interview in a way. Just cause you can copy and paste from various vendor websites does not mean you have a shred of experience in what you are pushing as the truth. So people actually having done the things that you try to talk about like you have will call you out on it time and time again. You made a car pass Cali inspection? Congrats, I would say that is tough, but in the scheme of things, this is a modified car forum and no one really cares. My car makes over 700whp and is daily driven, and with a valid inspection sticker. I am not going to comment on how much my car is worth compared to yours cause its all what the car is worth personally to you that matters.

Speaking of the FAA though, funny thing I have close to four things approved by the FAA for flight. I can assure you they are not as serious as you think they are.

Regardless of all this, people will always call you out cause as you just stated you have experience in EGR and stock emissions stuff. Giving advice on N20 and what not is a little out of your experience and by that nature you really should not be arguing with people who have done things only fueled with what you have read somewhere.

Anywho, this will all go over you so meh.
I think it's more him trying to give him self credit and self worth with the shear amount of criticism he receives here because of his posts.

I did mostly Helicopters and Military/Government stuff before moving to Tucson to the commercial civilian side of things. The FAA is a joke. Pathetic IMO. The A&P means nothing in the grand scheme of things. I know many a mechanic without A&P's that would run circles around all the A&P's in my hangar. It's insane. The FAA has standards far far far below my own.

Last edited by hrcslam; 09-10-2014 at 12:27 PM.
Old 09-10-2014, 12:25 PM
  #42  
TECH Addict
iTrader: (7)
 
KW Baraka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: S.A., TX
Posts: 2,180
Received 130 Likes on 99 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Shownomercy
......Just cause you can copy and paste from various vendor websites does not mean you have a shred of experience in what you are pushing as the truth......
You know.....I have a really hard time with someone who posts 'application specific' advice, and the bulk (if not all) of what they 'recommend' comes from linked articles.

A person with actual experience (BTW, Pat (Bowtienut) logs upwards of 100 competition nitrous runs per year) will get and hold my trust/respect to a much higher degree.

Someone who has zero hands-on experience in a particular area handing out advice? Not so much.

Jus' sayin'......

KW
Old 09-10-2014, 01:18 PM
  #43  
Man-Crush Warning
iTrader: (1)
 
Shownomercy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,150
Received 119 Likes on 88 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by hrcslam
I think it's more him trying to give him self credit and self worth with the shear amount of criticism he receives here because of his posts.

I did mostly Helicopters and Military/Government stuff before moving to Tucson to the commercial civilian side of things. The FAA is a joke. Pathetic IMO. The A&P means nothing in the grand scheme of things. I know many a mechanic without A&P's that would run circles around all the A&P's in my hangar. It's insane. The FAA has standards far far far below my own.
The only time the FAA is a pain is when a customer DER takes FAA stuff as the bible and does not deviate from them at all. At that point you enter into the adage, the plane will fly when the paperwork weighs more than it. Case in point, LJ85.
Old 09-10-2014, 05:01 PM
  #44  
TECH Addict
 
hrcslam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maricopa, AZ
Posts: 2,610
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Shownomercy
The only time the FAA is a pain is when a customer DER takes FAA stuff as the bible and does not deviate from them at all. At that point you enter into the adage, the plane will fly when the paperwork weighs more than it. Case in point, LJ85.
What's funny is I'm that guy that takes the tech data as bible. If I don't deviate, at all, I am not wrong. If I find something wrong with the book(s), I get it changed; I've refused to do tasks because company policy and tech data conflict. Sorry, not on my name. Most my co-workers tell me how it's impossible to follow the data to the T, but I do it and in less time then they take to not.

You work business jets? I've not much experience with those. But, I know that those have more strict tolerances (perceptional anyway) to the books than what commercial enforces. They still don't hold a candle to the detail of helicopters. I'm entirely too **** for fixed wings. I drive my management crazy, then their bosses and QC back me up.

I'm used to paperwork taking longer than actual work. LOL. You ever done a RESET? If not, that's where every single inspection that has ever been written on an air frame is performed at the same time (it resets all scheduled maintenance inspections to the same point). We tore helicopters to the frame, cleaned and inspected everything (including opening up wiring harnesses and inspecting all wires and cleaning them all), fixed or replaced everything that was bad. Then put it all back together, ground runs, test flights, tq checks, ready for missions in 45-80 days (air frame dependent). The paperwork on those rivals the encyclopedia Britannica. Imagine doing the zero time close outs on that. It takes a day just to review the log book post RESET, and none of the actual RESET paper work goes in the log book.
Old 09-10-2014, 06:04 PM
  #45  
Man-Crush Warning
iTrader: (1)
 
Shownomercy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,150
Received 119 Likes on 88 Posts

Default

I do stuff for fixed wing and the silly rotor guys. At the moment our only rotor frame is the AW169 and supposedly there may be a new contract for a tilt wing.

For me the FAA presents test requirements that are completely overkill and customers err on the side of that cause they A) don't know otherwise B) don't want the liability. Biggest issue is passing vibration tests that test situations that will never ever occur on the frame, unless the wings have fallen off and you are plummeting. Just causes more weight and cost into product.

So far, I have never had the FAA have my stuff pulled apart, all my FAI for conformity have been flying color passes. But again, the FAA isn't as bad as people make em out to be, sadly they are more concerned with paper trail than the product meeting said print

But I digress, run a 8.1:1 SCR.
Old 09-10-2014, 06:34 PM
  #46  
TECH Addict
 
hrcslam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maricopa, AZ
Posts: 2,610
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Shownomercy
I do stuff for fixed wing and the silly rotor guys. At the moment our only rotor frame is the AW169 and supposedly there may be a new contract for a tilt wing.

For me the FAA presents test requirements that are completely overkill and customers err on the side of that cause they A) don't know otherwise B) don't want the liability. Biggest issue is passing vibration tests that test situations that will never ever occur on the frame, unless the wings have fallen off and you are plummeting. Just causes more weight and cost into product.

So far, I have never had the FAA have my stuff pulled apart, all my FAI for conformity have been flying color passes. But again, the FAA isn't as bad as people make em out to be, sadly they are more concerned with paper trail than the product meeting said print

But I digress, run a 8.1:1 SCR.
LOL, 8.1:1 too funny. You have no credibility! 8.1:1, pfft, go home! LOL.

I miss those silly twirly wings! Hopefully I get back to that soon, applied for a job locally with great pay, excellent benefits, and awesome job security. Got an offer, just waiting on the back ground check...... Fingers Crossed.

The paper trail is the truth. That really is all it's about; Government control and finding out who to blame for what going wrong.

Back on topic. I thought N20 was treated like N/A for the build with the exception of ring gaps and PTW clearances. Then the tune adds fuel and pulls timing at activation? So SCR should be determined just like it would be for DCR on a cam N/A build?
Old 09-16-2014, 10:33 AM
  #47  
Banned
 
cardo0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Not really, I troll the **** out of tech, its a cesspool of silliness.

But, I also have a 3600lb sled that goes 140mph, what you got son?

Because it is a interview in a way.

U sound more like AA member than a "Man-Crusher". Now u want to brag your non-emissions car and have nothing to share 'bout compression for NOx. And that derelict babbling attracts other lamebrain unemployed experts bragging again and again and again off topic. Yea someone that has to tell u how good they are means u would defiantly miss it if they didnt. Same troll now is asking for the right compression ratio science shows he really dont know poop 'bout NOx but is just here to share his butt hurt whining and whining and whining. Cant shut up a real oink head.

Yea i link and even sometimes cut and paste good information for those asking. I dont know anyone here that has done continuous objective testing of different compression ratios with different size NOx applications - other than some NOx vendors or D. Vizard. But to share that here makes some of the hacks sequel like pigs for stepping on there amateur progress. So what? They can sequel all they want - it dont change the facts or the truth.
Old 09-16-2014, 12:38 PM
  #48  
TECH Addict
 
hrcslam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maricopa, AZ
Posts: 2,610
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by cardo0
Not really, I troll the **** out of tech, its a cesspool of silliness.

But, I also have a 3600lb sled that goes 140mph, what you got son?

Because it is a interview in a way.

U sound more like AA member than a "Man-Crusher". Now u want to brag your non-emissions car and have nothing to share 'bout compression for NOx. And that derelict babbling attracts other lamebrain unemployed experts bragging again and again and again off topic. Yea someone that has to tell u how good they are means u would defiantly miss it if they didnt. Same troll now is asking for the right compression ratio science shows he really dont know poop 'bout NOx but is just here to share his butt hurt whining and whining and whining. Cant shut up a real oink head.

Yea i link and even sometimes cut and paste good information for those asking. I dont know anyone here that has done continuous objective testing of different compression ratios with different size NOx applications - other than some NOx vendors or D. Vizard. But to share that here makes some of the hacks sequel like pigs for stepping on there amateur progress. So what? They can sequel all they want - it dont change the facts or the truth.
None of this made any sense. Can you try again in some form of understandable grammar?

BTW, Cardo0, I'm not unemployed (if that was what you were trying to say), I am gainfully employed with a reputable international employer with good pay and benefits. I have, however, found a better job with a better employer with better pay, benefits, and schedule locally. Why wouldn't I take it?

Last edited by hrcslam; 09-16-2014 at 06:30 PM.
Old 09-16-2014, 01:50 PM
  #49  
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
 
nitrous2fast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,084
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by hrcslam
none of this made any sense. Can you try again in some form of understandable grammar?
+1^^^^
Old 09-16-2014, 05:14 PM
  #50  
11 Second Club
iTrader: (1)
 
96capricemgr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,975
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 12 Posts

Default

cardo, you keep trying to apply grossly outdated or wildly generic "knowledge" to the WRONG PLATFORM.
The LT1 is very similar to older SBC engines but is different.
In the 90s when I became interested in cars all the magazines and writers like Vizard were saying 185psi cranking was about the max for a street pump gas(92 octane) motor, BUT even the Caprice LT1 at 10:1 cranks higher than that and is fine on 87 octane.

You have to be a troll but the most dedicated one I have ever seen, no way a normal functional human being could be as thick as you are in the face of so many vastly more experienced posters.
Old 09-16-2014, 07:59 PM
  #51  
Banned
 
cardo0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

U are distorting the facts again. D. Vizard said 220psi is max compression press for a street engine and 180 psi is the minimum for a street performance engine from his very popular "How to Max Perf .... on a Budget - copyright 1999, page 96 (and u advertize a 1996 engine also). Why do u have to lie about everything i post??

U truly have some chronic mental issues and need to seek help. The topic here is compression ratio with NOx. And u have nothing but personal attacks to contribute. No useful information. U only display your mental and emotional problems by lying and lying. As i said before the blabbering derelicts here only attract more trolls and u confirm that fact.

Last edited by cardo0; 09-16-2014 at 08:28 PM. Reason: revise street compression minimum
Old 09-16-2014, 08:40 PM
  #52  
Banned
 
cardo0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

None of this made any sense.

Oh it made sense. I read 3 trolls with their butt hurt replys.
Old 09-16-2014, 08:44 PM
  #53  
Man-Crush Warning
iTrader: (1)
 
Shownomercy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,150
Received 119 Likes on 88 Posts

Default

Since so far the only correct thing you have pointed out is that I am in fact a troll on ls1tech, I would correct you in your assumption I am "butt hurt", believe me, you won't suceed in that.

I am merely enjoying the fellow troll, doing some quality troll work. Although in your case, I am not sure you intend to do so.

All in all, 5 star trolling cado0
Old 09-16-2014, 09:07 PM
  #54  
11 Second Club
iTrader: (1)
 
96capricemgr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,975
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 12 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by 96capricemgr
cardo, you keep trying to apply grossly outdated or wildly generic "knowledge" to the WRONG PLATFORM.
The LT1 is very similar to older SBC engines but is different.
In the 90s when I became interested in cars all the magazines and writers like Vizard were saying 185psi cranking was about the max for a street pump gas(92 octane) motor,.
Originally Posted by cardo0
U are distorting the facts again. D. Vizard said 220psi is max compression press for a street engine and 180 psi is the minimum for a street performance engine from his very popular "How to Max Perf .... on a Budget - copyright 1999, page 96 (and u advertize a 1996 engine also). Why do u have to lie about everything i post??

U truly have some chronic mental issues and need to seek help. The topic here is compression ratio with NOx. And u have nothing but personal attacks to contribute. No useful information. U only display your mental and emotional problems by lying and lying. As i said before the blabbering derelicts here only attract more trolls and u confirm that fact.

Where on that page does it say specifically LT1 engines?

I highlighted where I said I was stating what I read in the 90s so you quoting a book written AFTER the things I was talking about just makes you the one the one distorting things.

I have EXPERIENCE with street/strip LT1s as in multiple with cranking compressions all the way up to 245psi. till outside the magic range you want to believe as gospel.

Vizard was for all practical purposes a magazine writer, he never was, has been or will be some great engine master, you put him up on way too high a pedestal. His books are a great introduction for the novice, some of us go further within specific applications. His experience is with a much greater range of engines than most of us, but you will find a lot of folks here who know the LT1 far better than he.
Old 09-16-2014, 10:17 PM
  #55  
11 Second Club
iTrader: (6)
 
ElkySS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Houston Tx
Posts: 2,149
Likes: 0
Received 31 Likes on 24 Posts

Default

I cant decide if I'd want this cardoo guy banned or not. I mean the **** he says is just rediculous but it is very entertaining.
Old 09-16-2014, 11:18 PM
  #56  
TECH Addict
 
hrcslam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maricopa, AZ
Posts: 2,610
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by cardo0
U are distorting the facts again. D. Vizard said 220psi is max compression press for a street engine and 180 psi is the minimum for a street performance engine from his very popular "How to Max Perf .... on a Budget - copyright 1999, page 96 (and u advertize a 1996 engine also). Why do u have to lie about everything i post??

U truly have some chronic mental issues and need to seek help. The topic here is compression ratio with NOx. And u have nothing but personal attacks to contribute. No useful information. U only display your mental and emotional problems by lying and lying. As i said before the blabbering derelicts here only attract more trolls and u confirm that fact.
For the love of all that is right in the world, at least use the proper terminology!

What is NOx?: NOx is the generic term for a group of highly reactive gases, all of which contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts. Many of the nitrogen oxides are colorless and odorless. However, one common pollutant, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) along with particles in the air can often be seen as a reddish-brown layer over many urban areas.

Nitrogen oxides (NOX) formed during the combustion of coal are mainly nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), together commonly referred to as NOX. NOX formed during combustion is composed predominantly of NO (90-95%) and a lesser amount (5-10%) of NO2. A very small percentage of nitrous oxides (N2O) are also formed . The nitric oxide slowly oxidizes to nitrogen oxide in the atmosphere. However this reaction is accelerated in the presence of ozone (O3) and reactive organic compounds. Source
Old 09-17-2014, 06:48 AM
  #57  
Banned
 
cardo0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Since so far the only correct thing you have pointed out is that I am in fact a troll on ls1tech, I would correct you in your assumption I am "butt hurt", believe me, you won't suceed in that.

Cant butt hurt something that is brain dead.


Vizard was for all practical purposes a magazine writer, he never was, has been or will be some great engine master, you put him up on way too high a pedestal. His books are a great introduction for the novice, some of us go further within specific applications. His experience is with a much greater range of engines than most of us, but you will find a lot of folks here who know the LT1 far better than he.

That statement is as pompous as it gets - something i can expect only from u. LIke u have your own engine dyno and do development work for the major auto mfrs??? U have a bachelors in aerospace and a masters in mechanical engineering too?? The truth is u and your armature forum experts are really peons in comparison to Vizard - and ive nothing to be sorry about for saying it.


I cant decide if I'd want this cardoo guy banned or not. I mean the **** he says is just ridiculous but it is very entertaining.

And now u must be an expert here too. Another retard that thinks hes some kinda judge here and cant figure out how to use the ignore function. I guess he prefers the looney reciting a google definition of NOx. Yea, thats a real expert. He goes from explaining how good a tech he is at the "hanger" to reciting google definitions. Too bad he has to change jobs every 2 years to have real career. Maybe he prefers a career in looney space rather than aerospace. Maybe he wears a nice tight jacket to prevent him from playing with sharp objects - both him and that pompous psychopath that explains how hes an LT1 expert too.

Dang, this place is mental sanatorium - and overcrowded too.
Old 09-17-2014, 07:37 AM
  #58  
Man-Crush Warning
iTrader: (1)
 
Shownomercy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,150
Received 119 Likes on 88 Posts

Default

Now, where at SCR/DCR wise do you run into danger to your intake manifold?
Old 09-17-2014, 09:00 AM
  #59  
Village Troll
iTrader: (2)
 
SS RRR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Jackstandican
Posts: 11,003
Received 517 Likes on 373 Posts

Default

You definitely DO NOT want to see this message on the hidden HUD display which pops up from the dash that GM specifically designed for f-body cars!
Old 09-17-2014, 10:23 AM
  #60  
TECH Addict
 
hrcslam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maricopa, AZ
Posts: 2,610
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by cardo0
Since so far the only correct thing you have pointed out is that I am in fact a troll on ls1tech, I would correct you in your assumption I am "butt hurt", believe me, you won't suceed in that.

Cant butt hurt something that is brain dead.


Vizard was for all practical purposes a magazine writer, he never was, has been or will be some great engine master, you put him up on way too high a pedestal. His books are a great introduction for the novice, some of us go further within specific applications. His experience is with a much greater range of engines than most of us, but you will find a lot of folks here who know the LT1 far better than he.

That statement is as pompous as it gets - something i can expect only from u. LIke u have your own engine dyno and do development work for the major auto mfrs??? U have a bachelors in aerospace and a masters in mechanical engineering too?? The truth is u and your armature forum experts are really peons in comparison to Vizard - and ive nothing to be sorry about for saying it.


I cant decide if I'd want this cardoo guy banned or not. I mean the **** he says is just ridiculous but it is very entertaining.

And now u must be an expert here too. Another retard that thinks hes some kinda judge here and cant figure out how to use the ignore function. I guess he prefers the looney reciting a google definition of NOx. Yea, thats a real expert. He goes from explaining how good a tech he is at the "hanger" to reciting google definitions. Too bad he has to change jobs every 2 years to have real career. Maybe he prefers a career in looney space rather than aerospace. Maybe he wears a nice tight jacket to prevent him from playing with sharp objects - both him and that pompous psychopath that explains how hes an LT1 expert too.

Dang, this place is mental sanatorium - and overcrowded too.
Cardo0, you're fun to mess with. You say the darndest things. Still using NOx huh? Still don't get the difference? I referenced a reliable, reputable, CURRENT source, because I figured that was your style and you'd accept it. Apparently not. My bad. You can dish it, but can't take it huh?

You enjoy your 15 second (slower than stock BTW) modified LT1 California emission legal (stock is Cali emission legal BTW) beast......

Originally Posted by SS RRR
You definitely DO NOT want to see this message on the hidden HUD display which pops up from the dash that GM specifically designed for f-body cars!
I got that message once, damn floor pan blew out! The HUD popped out of the dash just like you said!!!

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: What is a good static compression ratio?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:27 PM.