Turbo selection
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 531
Likes: 5
I agree.
Of course compression works with boost. Anything works with anything, potentially. Compression is beneficial for off boost power, no doubt. But there is no denying the rule of thumb that less compression and more boost will make more power, provided there is enough turbo for the application. All other variables held equal.
Of course, it is admittedly a give and take scenario and one has to ask themselves what they really are aiming for when making these decisions.
I agree.
Not sure why you're so quick to jump to such an ill-mannered conclusion? My LQ4 with the "lazy" stock compression ratio works fantastic for me. Fun to drive and can easily chug down the shitty pump gas around here (safely). It'll stomp just about anything on the street around here, and then when I'm done with that, I can hookup a trailer and drag my lawnmower across town. Or, fill the bed with plywood and woodworking tools and hit the interstate for 2+hrs. I'll keep my stock and "lazy" compression ratio thankyou very much.
Of course compression works with boost. Anything works with anything, potentially. Compression is beneficial for off boost power, no doubt. But there is no denying the rule of thumb that less compression and more boost will make more power, provided there is enough turbo for the application. All other variables held equal.
Of course, it is admittedly a give and take scenario and one has to ask themselves what they really are aiming for when making these decisions.
Not sure why you're so quick to jump to such an ill-mannered conclusion? My LQ4 with the "lazy" stock compression ratio works fantastic for me. Fun to drive and can easily chug down the shitty pump gas around here (safely). It'll stomp just about anything on the street around here, and then when I'm done with that, I can hookup a trailer and drag my lawnmower across town. Or, fill the bed with plywood and woodworking tools and hit the interstate for 2+hrs. I'll keep my stock and "lazy" compression ratio thankyou very much.
Of course compression works with boost. Anything works with anything, potentially. Compression is beneficial for off boost power, no doubt. But there is no denying the rule of thumb that less compression and more boost will make more power, provided there is enough turbo for the application. All other variables held equal.
Of course, it is admittedly a give and take scenario and one has to ask themselves what they really are aiming for when making these decisions.
I've run just over 11:1 on pump gas and it worked perfectly fine for years, we have E at the pump now and its almost $2 gal cheaper than reg gas so I use that. Don't even need an intercooler with E and 11:1 compression!
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 531
Likes: 5
Leaving power on the table is not necessarily a bad thing. You don't always know what kind of gas you're going to get when you're several hundred miles out on the road somewhere. I intentionally choose to leave power on the table in my application. I really don't care about competitive drag racing. I run a very conservative timing table. I only have 8 PSI springs in my gates. For me: longevity > max power.
I personally prefer to have a super safe combo that I can drive anywhere at anytime, and not have to think twice about the gas I'm going to find when I'm far afield.
Maybe you should re-read that one?
Obviously? Again, I think you misunderstood me.
Also, the stock CR for an LQ4 is 9.4:1.... Don't know I'd call that low.....
Really? So none of the sloppy style builds are fast? Like the Colorado? Or? OK LOL! Forcefed86 on this very forum comes to mind as well. IIRC he's well into the 8's with some lowly SBEs. Or are these type of builds not actual fast cars because they're not built by just whipping out a credit card and buying shiny new stuff from a catalog?
Must be nice. It's starting to catch on here. But still nowhere near the availability of a lot of other places around the country.
I personally prefer to have a super safe combo that I can drive anywhere at anytime, and not have to think twice about the gas I'm going to find when I'm far afield.
Maybe you should re-read that one?
Obviously? Again, I think you misunderstood me.
Also, the stock CR for an LQ4 is 9.4:1.... Don't know I'd call that low.....
Must be nice. It's starting to catch on here. But still nowhere near the availability of a lot of other places around the country.
Leaving power on the table is not necessarily a bad thing. You don't always know what kind of gas you're going to get when you're several hundred miles out on the road somewhere. I intentionally choose to leave power on the table in my application. I really don't care about competitive drag racing. I run a very conservative timing table. I only have 8 PSI springs in my gates. For me: longevity > max power.
I personally prefer to have a super safe combo that I can drive anywhere at anytime, and not have to think twice about the gas I'm going to find when I'm far afield.
Maybe you should re-read that one?
Obviously? Again, I think you misunderstood me.
Also, the stock CR for an LQ4 is 9.4:1.... Don't know I'd call that low.....
Really? So none of the sloppy style builds are fast? Like the Colorado? Or? OK LOL! Forcefed86 on this very forum comes to mind as well. IIRC he's well into the 8's with some lowly SBEs. Or are these type of builds not actual fast cars because they're not built by just whipping out a credit card and buying shiny new stuff from a catalog?
Must be nice. It's starting to catch on here. But still nowhere near the availability of a lot of other places around the country.
I personally prefer to have a super safe combo that I can drive anywhere at anytime, and not have to think twice about the gas I'm going to find when I'm far afield.
Maybe you should re-read that one?
Obviously? Again, I think you misunderstood me.
Also, the stock CR for an LQ4 is 9.4:1.... Don't know I'd call that low.....
Really? So none of the sloppy style builds are fast? Like the Colorado? Or? OK LOL! Forcefed86 on this very forum comes to mind as well. IIRC he's well into the 8's with some lowly SBEs. Or are these type of builds not actual fast cars because they're not built by just whipping out a credit card and buying shiny new stuff from a catalog?
Must be nice. It's starting to catch on here. But still nowhere near the availability of a lot of other places around the country.
I build and tune all my own stuff as well as lots of other peoples. I'm the last one to credit card race as I will gladly tell someone they don't need something expensive or there is an easy way to do it cheaper. I run $100 Jegs wheels and cheap VSR turbos on my cars as I dont see the point of running anything more expensive. But there comes a time to spend some money with drivetrain and fueling, then when SBE limits have been exceeded its time to build an engine. I dont see the point of building an engine with low compression to make big power especially if good fuel is available. You can play it safe all you want but that doesnt make your statements below true:
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 531
Likes: 5
I can't say I've seen any particularly fast sloppy builds, very few seem to trap over 150, even less over 160. I'm aware of how far you can push a SBE, I've made over 1000hp with them. These days 8's aren't anything crazy, SBE guys are in the low 7's now but they aren't sloppy builds most of them are fancy turbos on methanol in lightweight race cars.
I guess that's the difference. I think it's cool that someone can go that fast, all with a JY pullout. Obviously a 350k mile shortblock isn't the best for the absolute meanest ETs and trap speeds, but that was entirely obvious wasn't it? But then here you are tipping your hat to sloppy even after you have said in here that you aren't impressed LMAO:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/racer-s-l...ver-right.html
I don't know..... Looks like over half of the threads you start are dumping stuff in the classifieds/marketplace.
But there is no denying the rule of thumb that less compression and more boost will make more power, provided there is enough turbo for the application. All other variables held equal.
Of course, it is admittedly a give and take scenario and one has to ask themselves what they really are aiming for when making these decisions.
Of course, it is admittedly a give and take scenario and one has to ask themselves what they really are aiming for when making these decisions.
https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/co...%20its%20power
"When discussing compression ratios that are typically in the automotive realm—between 8:1 and 15:1—the amount of power you could expect to pick up will vary between 2 and 4 percent per point of static compression gained."
https://itstillruns.com/horsepower-v...-10009983.html
"The general rule of thumb is that, not accounting for temperature-induced power losses, a turbo will increase horsepower by about 7 percent per pound of boost over a naturally aspirated configuration, and a supercharger will increase it by 5 or 6 percent per pound of boost"
https://powersports.jepistons.com/blog/compression-ratio-theory-and-how-to-calculate-in-powersports#:~:text=The%20generally%20accepted%20g auge%20for,the%20power%20to%2051.5%20horsepower
"The generally accepted gauge for adding compression is that one full point of compression can add between 3 to 4 percent power. So, if an engine is making 50 horsepower and we add a full point of compression (from 11 to 12:1 for example), this could potentially push the power to 51.5 horsepower. "
Supposing the fueling is up to the task and all other variables held equal, a naturally aspirated engine is functionally limited by the amount of atmosphere it has to inhale is it not? If you double the atmosphere by hitting it with 14.7 PSI, you are in effect doubling the power output. Of course it will be slightly less in practice because of parasitic power loss etc.
So, a 300HP engine should make 600HP with 14.7 PSI of boost:
And, the same 300HP engine should make 320 HP with 1 PSI of boost:
In the example above, 1 PSI of boost is about 6% increase in power.
Raising the compression 1 full point equates to a power increase of about 3-4%
Increasing boost by 1 PSI equates to a power increase of about 6%
Last edited by ElQueFør; May 20, 2022 at 04:38 PM.
Thread Starter
Launching!
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 234
Likes: 16
From: South dakota
500+RWHP is nothing to scoff at. Not everything needs to be a max effort barnstorming race motor. And just because it isn't doesn't make it "lazy".
I guess that's the difference. I think it's cool that someone can go that fast, all with a JY pullout. Obviously a 350k mile shortblock isn't the best for the absolute meanest ETs and trap speeds, but that was entirely obvious wasn't it? But then here you are tipping your hat to sloppy even after you have said in here that you aren't impressed LMAO:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/racer-s-l...ver-right.html
I don't know..... Looks like over half of the threads you start are dumping stuff in the classifieds/marketplace.
And what if the fuel is more of a wildcard? The definition of a street car has been and always will be debated. Driving to work and the grocery store is cool and all, but not my subjective definition of what constitutes a street car. Driving the next 2 or 3 states over is more "street car" IMO.
https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/co...%20its%20power
"When discussing compression ratios that are typically in the automotive realmbetween 8:1 and 15:1the amount of power you could expect to pick up will vary between 2 and 4 percent per point of static compression gained."
https://itstillruns.com/horsepower-v...-10009983.html
"The general rule of thumb is that, not accounting for temperature-induced power losses, a turbo will increase horsepower by about 7 percent per pound of boost over a naturally aspirated configuration, and a supercharger will increase it by 5 or 6 percent per pound of boost"
https://powersports.jepistons.com/blog/compression-ratio-theory-and-how-to-calculate-in-powersports#:~:text=The%20generally%20accepted%20g auge%20for,the%20power%20to%2051.5%20horsepower
"The generally accepted gauge for adding compression is that one full point of compression can add between 3 to 4 percent power. So, if an engine is making 50 horsepower and we add a full point of compression (from 11 to 12:1 for example), this could potentially push the power to 51.5 horsepower. "
Supposing the fueling is up to the task and all other variables held equal, a naturally aspirated engine is functionally limited by the amount of atmosphere it has to inhale is it not? If you double the atmosphere by hitting it with 14.7 PSI, you are in effect doubling the power output. Of course it will be slightly less in practice because of parasitic power loss etc.
So, a 300HP engine should make 600HP with 14.7 PSI of boost:
And, the same 300HP engine should make 320 HP with 1 PSI of boost:
In the example above, 1 PSI of boost is about 6% increase in power.
Raising the compression 1 full point equates to a power increase of about 3-4%
Increasing boost by 1 PSI equates to a power increase of about 6%
I guess that's the difference. I think it's cool that someone can go that fast, all with a JY pullout. Obviously a 350k mile shortblock isn't the best for the absolute meanest ETs and trap speeds, but that was entirely obvious wasn't it? But then here you are tipping your hat to sloppy even after you have said in here that you aren't impressed LMAO:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/racer-s-l...ver-right.html
I don't know..... Looks like over half of the threads you start are dumping stuff in the classifieds/marketplace.
And what if the fuel is more of a wildcard? The definition of a street car has been and always will be debated. Driving to work and the grocery store is cool and all, but not my subjective definition of what constitutes a street car. Driving the next 2 or 3 states over is more "street car" IMO.
https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/co...%20its%20power
"When discussing compression ratios that are typically in the automotive realmbetween 8:1 and 15:1the amount of power you could expect to pick up will vary between 2 and 4 percent per point of static compression gained."
https://itstillruns.com/horsepower-v...-10009983.html
"The general rule of thumb is that, not accounting for temperature-induced power losses, a turbo will increase horsepower by about 7 percent per pound of boost over a naturally aspirated configuration, and a supercharger will increase it by 5 or 6 percent per pound of boost"
https://powersports.jepistons.com/blog/compression-ratio-theory-and-how-to-calculate-in-powersports#:~:text=The%20generally%20accepted%20g auge%20for,the%20power%20to%2051.5%20horsepower
"The generally accepted gauge for adding compression is that one full point of compression can add between 3 to 4 percent power. So, if an engine is making 50 horsepower and we add a full point of compression (from 11 to 12:1 for example), this could potentially push the power to 51.5 horsepower. "
Supposing the fueling is up to the task and all other variables held equal, a naturally aspirated engine is functionally limited by the amount of atmosphere it has to inhale is it not? If you double the atmosphere by hitting it with 14.7 PSI, you are in effect doubling the power output. Of course it will be slightly less in practice because of parasitic power loss etc.
So, a 300HP engine should make 600HP with 14.7 PSI of boost:
And, the same 300HP engine should make 320 HP with 1 PSI of boost:
In the example above, 1 PSI of boost is about 6% increase in power.
Raising the compression 1 full point equates to a power increase of about 3-4%
Increasing boost by 1 PSI equates to a power increase of about 6%
500+RWHP is nothing to scoff at. Not everything needs to be a max effort barnstorming race motor. And just because it isn't doesn't make it "lazy".
I guess that's the difference. I think it's cool that someone can go that fast, all with a JY pullout. Obviously a 350k mile shortblock isn't the best for the absolute meanest ETs and trap speeds, but that was entirely obvious wasn't it? But then here you are tipping your hat to sloppy even after you have said in here that you aren't impressed LMAO:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/racer-s-l...ver-right.html
I don't know..... Looks like over half of the threads you start are dumping stuff in the classifieds/marketplace.
And what if the fuel is more of a wildcard? The definition of a street car has been and always will be debated. Driving to work and the grocery store is cool and all, but not my subjective definition of what constitutes a street car. Driving the next 2 or 3 states over is more "street car" IMO.
https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/co...%20its%20power
"When discussing compression ratios that are typically in the automotive realmbetween 8:1 and 15:1the amount of power you could expect to pick up will vary between 2 and 4 percent per point of static compression gained."
https://itstillruns.com/horsepower-v...-10009983.html
"The general rule of thumb is that, not accounting for temperature-induced power losses, a turbo will increase horsepower by about 7 percent per pound of boost over a naturally aspirated configuration, and a supercharger will increase it by 5 or 6 percent per pound of boost"
https://powersports.jepistons.com/blog/compression-ratio-theory-and-how-to-calculate-in-powersports#:~:text=The%20generally%20accepted%20g auge%20for,the%20power%20to%2051.5%20horsepower
"The generally accepted gauge for adding compression is that one full point of compression can add between 3 to 4 percent power. So, if an engine is making 50 horsepower and we add a full point of compression (from 11 to 12:1 for example), this could potentially push the power to 51.5 horsepower. "
Supposing the fueling is up to the task and all other variables held equal, a naturally aspirated engine is functionally limited by the amount of atmosphere it has to inhale is it not? If you double the atmosphere by hitting it with 14.7 PSI, you are in effect doubling the power output. Of course it will be slightly less in practice because of parasitic power loss etc.
So, a 300HP engine should make 600HP with 14.7 PSI of boost:
And, the same 300HP engine should make 320 HP with 1 PSI of boost:
In the example above, 1 PSI of boost is about 6% increase in power.
Raising the compression 1 full point equates to a power increase of about 3-4%
Increasing boost by 1 PSI equates to a power increase of about 6%
I guess that's the difference. I think it's cool that someone can go that fast, all with a JY pullout. Obviously a 350k mile shortblock isn't the best for the absolute meanest ETs and trap speeds, but that was entirely obvious wasn't it? But then here you are tipping your hat to sloppy even after you have said in here that you aren't impressed LMAO:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/racer-s-l...ver-right.html
I don't know..... Looks like over half of the threads you start are dumping stuff in the classifieds/marketplace.
And what if the fuel is more of a wildcard? The definition of a street car has been and always will be debated. Driving to work and the grocery store is cool and all, but not my subjective definition of what constitutes a street car. Driving the next 2 or 3 states over is more "street car" IMO.
https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/co...%20its%20power
"When discussing compression ratios that are typically in the automotive realmbetween 8:1 and 15:1the amount of power you could expect to pick up will vary between 2 and 4 percent per point of static compression gained."
https://itstillruns.com/horsepower-v...-10009983.html
"The general rule of thumb is that, not accounting for temperature-induced power losses, a turbo will increase horsepower by about 7 percent per pound of boost over a naturally aspirated configuration, and a supercharger will increase it by 5 or 6 percent per pound of boost"
https://powersports.jepistons.com/blog/compression-ratio-theory-and-how-to-calculate-in-powersports#:~:text=The%20generally%20accepted%20g auge%20for,the%20power%20to%2051.5%20horsepower
"The generally accepted gauge for adding compression is that one full point of compression can add between 3 to 4 percent power. So, if an engine is making 50 horsepower and we add a full point of compression (from 11 to 12:1 for example), this could potentially push the power to 51.5 horsepower. "
Supposing the fueling is up to the task and all other variables held equal, a naturally aspirated engine is functionally limited by the amount of atmosphere it has to inhale is it not? If you double the atmosphere by hitting it with 14.7 PSI, you are in effect doubling the power output. Of course it will be slightly less in practice because of parasitic power loss etc.
So, a 300HP engine should make 600HP with 14.7 PSI of boost:
And, the same 300HP engine should make 320 HP with 1 PSI of boost:
In the example above, 1 PSI of boost is about 6% increase in power.
Raising the compression 1 full point equates to a power increase of about 3-4%
Increasing boost by 1 PSI equates to a power increase of about 6%
You must be bored, did you have fun stalking me while I built another turbo kit?
I drive my cars all over, never had a problem with fuel, runs perfectly fine on any available pump gas.
Selling parts to upgrade makes sense to me, makes sense to others that come to me as well, whatever I sell comes off their tab. I've had friends walk away with a profit after a turbo build by selling their old parts. What do you do, let old parts rot on the shelf?
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 531
Likes: 5
You came in here swinging because, I said in effect, it will be possible to make more power by raising the boost level, than by raising the compression level a comparable unit.
You have failed to prove otherwise.
It took all of 30 seconds and several clicks to find out among other things, that you're basically a hypocrite. You say in this thread how unimpressed you are with sloppy builds and they're not fast. Yet in another thread easily found with minimal effort on my part, you're nodding to the whole sloppy mantra as shown above in post #25.
Well I have been. But PM me your address and I'll start mailing you all my unneeded parts. Whatever you do with them is fine with me.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 676
Likes: 72
OP your fine with your 11 5 to 1 engine as is. Don't spend money chasing someone else's bullshit. Don't change you engine to lower comp if your willing to run e85. I promise I've run 12 to 1 and 25 psi on e and never had an issue. We can argue some bull but it won't answer your question. Your fine. Run your engine as is and slap 10psi on it and it will make your number easily.
I have always been more of a lower comp. thinking deal, let the boost make up the diff. Main reason is politicians, tomorrow they could order 87 octane max, and I could still drive. I see E85 going away one day, esp. if food shortages happen. Food or fuel, who do you think will win. Many years ago, they came out with gasohol,
was actually early E85, didn't catch on. No E85 near me, so I run 93. Everybody can make up their own mind, build it the way you want.
was actually early E85, didn't catch on. No E85 near me, so I run 93. Everybody can make up their own mind, build it the way you want.
I have always been more of a lower comp. thinking deal, let the boost make up the diff. Main reason is politicians, tomorrow they could order 87 octane max, and I could still drive. I see E85 going away one day, esp. if food shortages happen. Food or fuel, who do you think will win. Many years ago, they came out with gasohol,
was actually early E85, didn't catch on. No E85 near me, so I run 93. Everybody can make up their own mind, build it the way you want.
was actually early E85, didn't catch on. No E85 near me, so I run 93. Everybody can make up their own mind, build it the way you want.
OP your fine with your 11 5 to 1 engine as is. Don't spend money chasing someone else's bullshit. Don't change you engine to lower comp if your willing to run e85. I promise I've run 12 to 1 and 25 psi on e and never had an issue. We can argue some bull but it won't answer your question. Your fine. Run your engine as is and slap 10psi on it and it will make your number easily.
You making a post with anything containing useful information or data from a reputable and cited source isn't worth your time either, apparently.
You came in here swinging because, I said in effect, it will be possible to make more power by raising the boost level, than by raising the compression level a comparable unit.
You have failed to prove otherwise.
Stalking someone by viewing what they chose to plaster all over the world wide web? How laughable.
It took all of 30 seconds and several clicks to find out among other things, that you're basically a hypocrite. You say in this thread how unimpressed you are with sloppy builds and they're not fast. Yet in another thread easily found with minimal effort on my part, you're nodding to the whole sloppy mantra as shown above in post #25.
Tough "street" car brah!
Well I have been. But PM me your address and I'll start mailing you all my unneeded parts. Whatever you do with them is fine with me.
You came in here swinging because, I said in effect, it will be possible to make more power by raising the boost level, than by raising the compression level a comparable unit.
You have failed to prove otherwise.
Stalking someone by viewing what they chose to plaster all over the world wide web? How laughable.
It took all of 30 seconds and several clicks to find out among other things, that you're basically a hypocrite. You say in this thread how unimpressed you are with sloppy builds and they're not fast. Yet in another thread easily found with minimal effort on my part, you're nodding to the whole sloppy mantra as shown above in post #25.
Tough "street" car brah!
Well I have been. But PM me your address and I'll start mailing you all my unneeded parts. Whatever you do with them is fine with me.
To the OP, of course every combo is different and a lot depends on your environment and what your chosen fuel actually is but 11.5:1 compression with boost and pump gas just doesn't work out here in AZ with our **** 91 octane and it has nothing to do with how good of a tuner you have/are. General rule of thumb, running higher compression ratios when fuel isn't an issue and you aren't octane/knock limited will make more power vs having a lower compression ratio but more often then not octane is the limiting factor.
Every single OEM out there would disagree with you and I will disagree with you as well as I see this on a daily basis. As an example take a stock LT-1 and throw 8 psi of boost at it and you will have no timing in it and it will be extremely octane/knock limited on 91 oct with a shitty looking curve due to garbage combustion at such low timing. A full point drop of compression results in more power and a much better looking curve at the same boost level. How much timing you can get away with for a given combo has nothing to do with how good of a tuner you are as it's not your choice how much it will take.
To the OP, of course every combo is different and a lot depends on your environment and what your chosen fuel actually is but 11.5:1 compression with boost and pump gas just doesn't work out here in AZ with our **** 91 octane and it has nothing to do with how good of a tuner you have/are. General rule of thumb, running higher compression ratios when fuel isn't an issue and you aren't octane/knock limited will make more power vs having a lower compression ratio but more often then not octane is the limiting factor.
To the OP, of course every combo is different and a lot depends on your environment and what your chosen fuel actually is but 11.5:1 compression with boost and pump gas just doesn't work out here in AZ with our **** 91 octane and it has nothing to do with how good of a tuner you have/are. General rule of thumb, running higher compression ratios when fuel isn't an issue and you aren't octane/knock limited will make more power vs having a lower compression ratio but more often then not octane is the limiting factor.
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 531
Likes: 5
My first statement was:
And to reiterate, you have failed to prove otherwise, you just acted as a troll yourself and have talked about your purely anecdotal "evidence".
I will be a grown up and admit fault by saying that I probably could have worded my subsequent response to your trolling posts a little better. I see that now.
My initial response:
The essence of sloppy mechanics is a return to traditional hot-rodding where a guy built what he could with what he had. And if there's one video to sum that up:
I've been planning another turbo LS build for a while. But, I've been busy doing other projects for the past couple years or so, and glad of it.
My coolest car (and cooler than yours) makes at most 100 HP and has a whopping 6:1 compression. If you go fast all the time, people can't see ya.
Every single OEM out there would disagree with you and I will disagree with you as well as I see this on a daily basis. As an example take a stock LT-1 and throw 8 psi of boost at it and you will have no timing in it and it will be extremely octane/knock limited on 91 oct with a shitty looking curve due to garbage combustion at such low timing. A full point drop of compression results in more power and a much better looking curve at the same boost level. How much timing you can get away with for a given combo has nothing to do with how good of a tuner you are as it's not your choice how much it will take.
To the OP, of course every combo is different and a lot depends on your environment and what your chosen fuel actually is but 11.5:1 compression with boost and pump gas just doesn't work out here in AZ with our **** 91 octane and it has nothing to do with how good of a tuner you have/are. General rule of thumb, running higher compression ratios when fuel isn't an issue and you aren't octane/knock limited will make more power vs having a lower compression ratio but more often then not octane is the limiting factor.
To the OP, of course every combo is different and a lot depends on your environment and what your chosen fuel actually is but 11.5:1 compression with boost and pump gas just doesn't work out here in AZ with our **** 91 octane and it has nothing to do with how good of a tuner you have/are. General rule of thumb, running higher compression ratios when fuel isn't an issue and you aren't octane/knock limited will make more power vs having a lower compression ratio but more often then not octane is the limiting factor.
Again, owning up to my choice of words which should have been better:
My initial response:
Yes, they are cool, there's one thing we agree on. As soon as I feel the burning desire, I'll swap springs in my gates. But I really don't care at the moment. I have been neck deep in vintage HDs for quite some time now and that takes up all of my wrenching time. Having fun with cheap parts is awesome and quite relatable.
I wouldn't say he grew out of it. He has "paid his dues" is more the way I look at it. Doesn't hurt that he has various degrees of sponsors in terms of people sending him parts to "try" He's earned it though for sure.
The essence of sloppy mechanics is a return to traditional hot-rodding where a guy built what he could with what he had. And if there's one video to sum that up:
I've been planning another turbo LS build for a while. But, I've been busy doing other projects for the past couple years or so, and glad of it.
My coolest car (and cooler than yours) makes at most 100 HP and has a whopping 6:1 compression. If you go fast all the time, people can't see ya.
I wouldn't say he grew out of it. He has "paid his dues" is more the way I look at it. Doesn't hurt that he has various degrees of sponsors in terms of people sending him parts to "try" He's earned it though for sure.
The essence of sloppy mechanics is a return to traditional hot-rodding where a guy built what he could with what he had. And if there's one video to sum that up:
I've been planning another turbo LS build for a while. But, I've been busy doing other projects for the past couple years or so, and glad of it.
My coolest car (and cooler than yours) makes at most 100 HP and has a whopping 6:1 compression. If you go fast all the time, people can't see ya.
100hp ****, one of my cars dyno'd a whopping 26hp with 7:1 compression
It's not all about speed!
OEM's have to factor in the majority of people are idiots, does anyone here want to be regulated to OEM power? You state you disagree, but continue on to solidify my point about crap fuel since you state the power loss in your area is due to **** fuel, hence octane/knock limited. As you state higher compression will make more power if the fuel supports it just like I said.
Kind of along the line of what you were saying here: https://ls1tech.com/forums/forced-in...r-boost-3.html
You specifically said that running low compression is just leaving power on the table and is for people who can't tune and I said I would disagree with that. Obviously OEM's setup their engines to run on pump gas and run safely under LOTS of conditions and I gave an example of where I see lower compression actually making more power on pump gas and doing it safer and it has nothing at all to do with the tuner.
Running low compression is just leaving power on the table, there is no rule of thumb for low compression making more power, that thinking is for people that cant tune or have crap fuel. Higher compression and more boost makes more power every time, that's why actual fast cars run 11:1 or higher compression with 60+PSI from twin 98's.
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 503
Likes: 38
You specifically said that running low compression is just leaving power on the table and is for people who can't tune and I said I would disagree with that. Obviously OEM's setup their engines to run on pump gas and run safely under LOTS of conditions and I gave an example of where I see lower compression actually making more power on pump gas and doing it safer and it has nothing at all to do with the tuner.
Yes what I said in 2013 is exactly what I just said up top today.
Yes what I said in 2013 is exactly what I just said up top today.