Jump to content
SAU Community

Compression Test Results


roys33
 Share

Recommended Posts

What if your engine has between 180 and 190 psi??

We've got a Snap-On gauge and an ABW gauge. I'll give you $50 if you can show me 190psi on your engine on either one.

*sub clause* as long as it is an unopened engine haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so next question apperantly my motor is supposed to rebuilt 10000klms ago so id take a uneducated guess and say it wasnt obviously but since they are so close wouldnt that lessen the chance of me having bad blowby?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so next question apperantly my motor is supposed to rebuilt 10000klms ago so id take a uneducated guess and say it wasnt obviously but since they are so close wouldnt that lessen the chance of me having bad blowby?

It doesn't mean it's not built. Forged engines can have lower static compression due to the forging being made from a different material than the factory piston. They can expand more when at temp so the piston to bore clearance is more than the factory cast piston when they are cold and even when they are hot. Just not as much.

I would say get a second test done at a different place and compare the result. Definitely make sure the engine is up to temp before pulling it apart.

Also get them to do a wet test and a leak down test. This will help you determine where the compression loss is occurring.

You could have valve train losses rather than ring problems and no, that won't give you excessive blowby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and I forgot to add that 50psi is nothing compared to the 1500-2000psi your combustion chamber sees at peak power and cylinder pressure.

Engine A might have 2000psi whereas Engine B might have 1850-1950psi due to his lower static result. Both cars will make within 5-10 HP of one another and potentially live just as long as one another.

thanks for explaining all that..

Im not sure i quite get my head around some of that , if the motor were down 50psi at 400rpm i would of thought thats a 30% loss of gas.. so at peak power it would be 30% still? so thats more like 1400psi instead of 2000psi which would be more than 5hp loss?

comparing my E85result on 16psi to some others on 25psi, seems like my compression could be the difference to me.. thats what i though anyway.

Edited by SliverS2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks for explaining all that..

Im not sure i quite get my head around some of that , if the motor were down 50psi at 400rpm i would of thought thats a 30% loss of gas.. so at peak power it would be 30% still? so thats more like 1400psi instead of 2000psi which would be more than 5hp loss?

comparing my E85result on 16psi to some others on 25psi, seems like my compression could be the difference to me.. thats what i though anyway.

A lot of people think that but in actual fact it's not the case.

Once the gases passing the ring/ring gap reach supersonic speed, none more can pass no matter how much more pressure is added. Gasses reach supersonic at fairly low engine RPM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a couple of different types of electronic tests. Pulse test and cranking speed test.

The pulse test measures variations in manifold pressure I am fairly sure. The pulses will usually be off if the cylinder is down on compression. The cranking speed test is done by monitoring cranking speed. A cylinder with reduced compression will have less resistance and therefore the engine will crank faster on that part of the cycle. I am fairly sure it's like a timing light with a scope type rpm counter. I have used neither of these methods and have only ever heard about them. From what I was told, they are pretty accurate also. I don't know about the pulse test as measuring the cylinder on the intake stroke is not really going to be terribly accurate as most of the rings made for modern engines are torsional so they act differently on the downward stroke. I don't know enough about it to argue with someone about its accuracy though lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We use cranking speed fairly regularly when we suspect a dead engine. We don't use a tester though. All you do is unplug the CAS and crank it over. Listen to the note of each stroke. If you are down on one cylinder, you will hear it quite easily.

Healthy engine will be: da da da da da da

Unhealthy will be: da da DA da da da f**k!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've got a Snap-On gauge and an ABW gauge. I'll give you $50 if you can show me 190psi on your engine on either one.

*sub clause* as long as it is an unopened engine haha

Hey mate Ive had 3 compression tests done at the same place with all results showing 180 to 190. Not sure what gauge they have used but I understand what your saying. It is a built 2.8 though. So does that make a difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey mate Ive had 3 compression tests done at the same place with all results showing 180 to 190. Not sure what gauge they have used but I understand what your saying. It is a built 2.8 though. So does that make a difference?

Yeah if you have had the engine built and it's higher comp ratio, that will improve the normal results usually. You would only need to go up to 9.5:1 at most to see figures like that.

Do you run standard head gasket or a spacer multi layer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a couple of different types of electronic tests. Pulse test and cranking speed test.

The pulse test measures variations in manifold pressure I am fairly sure. The pulses will usually be off if the cylinder is down on compression. The cranking speed test is done by monitoring cranking speed. A cylinder with reduced compression will have less resistance and therefore the engine will crank faster on that part of the cycle. I am fairly sure it's like a timing light with a scope type rpm counter. I have used neither of these methods and have only ever heard about them. From what I was told, they are pretty accurate also. I don't know about the pulse test as measuring the cylinder on the intake stroke is not really going to be terribly accurate as most of the rings made for modern engines are torsional so they act differently on the downward stroke. I don't know enough about it to argue with someone about its accuracy though lol

cheers for the info.. the reason i asked is with RACQ they do an electronic compression test.. when i bought my 33 it showed 5 cylinders were 95% and 1 cylinder at 90%.. it was hard to find any info on how it was calculated.. but i assumed the engine was still quite healthy.. 3 years on and its still boosts fine, doesnt drink oil etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep bore scope.

We have one at the shop for just such occasions. It really is surprising how many people sell cars under false advertising.

We can also tell if you have forged rods and ARP studs inside by looking up the sump plug hole

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Yeah if you have had the engine built and it's higher comp ratio, that will improve the normal results usually. You would only need to go up to 9.5:1 at most to see figures like that.

Do you run standard head gasket or a spacer multi layer?

Dan,

Can you tell me if you believe using a multilayer metal head gasket say 1.3mm would impact on the results and how so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For anyone interested in how my car has from I believe 'worn' over time - was never tuned for a couple of years.

I didn't know the test was meant to be done at temp so results are cold:

Cyl./psi

DATE: 27/05/2010

1/155

2/150

3/150

4/150

5/155

6/150

DATE: 29/09/2012

1/155

2/152

3/ 145

4/145

5/151

6/150? (forgot to jot down but was fine)

Not sure what may have happened to cyl. 3&4 but was certainly lower. No matter how many times I tested it wishing it was a bad read.

Was certainly giving the motor a hard time untuned though.

I feel a lot better now though after reading this thread regarding the 'dynamic' vs static result of how the engine will actually perform. The spread

Cyl. 1 and 3/4 seems high?

Edited by tranman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • There are a few variables here, some are relevant but not critical (IMHO) to help answer your question. The two major things: 1) Ignoring anything to do with forced induction - all engines have their own natural torque curve, and it will ALWAYS roll over higher in the rpm.  There is a fixed relationship between power and torque.  When dealing with kw and nm, the relationship between them is roughly: kw = (rpm * nm) / 9549 nm = (kw / rpm) * 9549 The peak torque of an engine (without boost) will typically climb until somewhere nearish the middle of it's operating rev range, give or take a bit - then start dropping again.   The nearer the minimum and maximum rpm of the engine the steeper that drop off tends to be. 2) Boost simply increases the density of the air going into the engine, which inflates the torque at that point.  The ramp up in the torque curve you see on a turbo engine is due to the boost rising, but it's essentially just multiplying the torque you'd see if it was naturally aspirated.  The roll over you see at the end will typically be what would have always happened with the engine, whether it was naturally aspirated or turbocharged.   If the torque never started dropping then power would climb infinitely. The cool thing about this is you absolutely can tune the power delivery to suit the needs of the owner and/or the limitations of the car, and I regularly do this.    With modern turbos we've got to the point where a setup that someone may run well over 20psi of boost with could actually reach target boost well under 4000rpm if the tuner/owner WANTED to - and a lot of people seem to do this when there is actually no realistic benefit, generally it just adds a massive amount of strain to the engine and drivetrain and often actually makes the car harder to drive. As a general rule I tend to tune the boost curves for cars I tune to reach a "useful" torque level through the rev range and will often end up with a curve that ramps hard to a point, then creeps for the rest of the rev range - not to make the boost curve "soft" as such, but more to make sure its neither laggy nor pointlessly violent in it's delivery.   There have been cars I've tuned to be almost like a centrifugal supercharger (or naturally-aspirated-ish) where they actually only hit like 8psi of boost before opening the gate, then ramp up the next 10psi over the rev range... if the car is "loose enough" to drive. On the flip side I've tuned a car that had stock cams and the engine's natural torque curve fell over HARD in the higher rpm and resulted in a slightly awkward power curve to work with, in that case I actually started ramping up boost to boost torque in a way to offset the engines "NA" torque drop off... at peak rpm actually running a good 5psi+ more boost that what the "flat curve" would have defined.  This gave the owner an extra 500rpm or so of useable rev range, and had a fairly solid impact on times he was running at motorsport events due to being able to hold gears a bit longer and also falling into a more useful part of the rev range in the following gears. Here's an example of an RB in a GTSt I've done the "softened" boost curve to not pointlessly ramp straight to the max boost target early in the rpm, but still made sure it builds useful boost.  If you went in the car you'd not guess at all that the boost curve was doing anything "weird", it feels like it spools immediately and accelerates relentlessly (traction dependent) and holds to max rpm.   I don't know if you'd guess what the boost curve was doing by driving the car, or even looking at the dyno plot... but imho it suits the combination.  
    • therefore on the first examples, as we see, changing cams (graph 2) influences the quantity of torque at high revs its OK for me. so a tuner can act on the wastegate via the boost controller to increase the boost at high revs? on the last example, the boost does not decrease ok, but the torque does. this can come from cams etc etc ok. but on the other curves the boost is not constant, it increases, this is what I find strange to my mind. even more so if it comes from the relief valve. sorry I'm very new don't blame me. in my mind I couldn't imagine how the boost could be higher after the spool  
    • right, but fundamentally, for a given mechanical setup, you are either using all the torque (and therefore power) it will give, or you are choosing to run it less efficiently. Many tuners will have a practice of identifying peak available torque and then winding it back a couple of % for safety, but unless you are working around a very specific issue like a weak gearbox, there is nothing to be gained by making 20 or 30% less than the engine can
    • You can manipulate the torque delivery by ramping in boost gently, then throwing it all in after peak torque to keep the torque flat. It's nothing magical.
    • Tuning the wastegate to do it. That is all. Most people want the boost to not fall off like the most recent example. Those also look like dyno runs with an Auto/Torque converter setup, which does fun things to the graph. The boost tapers down like that because the turbo cannot supply the same amount of air at 7000rpm that it can at 3000 in terms of PSI. That, or the tuner has decided that it tapering off like that is what someone chose to do. IF you have a wastegate that can't bleed enough air to slow the turbine, and IF that turbo can flow enough air to feed the engine at high RPM, you get 'boost creep' which is a rise of boost pressure beyond what you are capable of controlling and/or want. None of these show symptoms of that, but if you had a run that was 20psi at 3000rpm, and 27psi at 7000rpm, it could be an example of that. Or simply that the person wanted boost later for their own reasons... The dyno graphs don't always show the full context.
×
×
  • Create New...