So what do you huy's think is better, more boost less compression or a little more compression and less boost. All things being equal to get the same power output out of both setups.
So what do you huy's think is better, more boost less compression or a little more compression and less boost. All things being equal to get the same power output out of both setups.
2006 SilveradoLittle Black Bitch
If its primarily a street vehicle, I would run the most compression I could that would still allow me to hit my power goals on the chosen octane under boost in the given app. That would give you a more responsive engine out of boost, also more efficient. But, by going on the lesser compression side you have way more room for error with the tune under boost, less chance of timing being pulled and you have the capability to make more overall power with the fuel being the limiting factor. Its all about the particular combo in ? and what your after....
Gen I Viper
werd. imo low 9's in the compression ratio is prob best. A lot of high power guys go in the 8's but like he said. Leave some room for error. You can always turn up the boost. But you cant turn down the compression.Originally Posted by ATX ENGINE MAN
If its primarily a street vehicle, I would run the most compression I could that would still allow me to hit my power goals on the chosen octane under boost in the given app. That would give you a more responsive engine out of boost, also more efficient. But, by going on the lesser compression side you have way more room for error with the tune under boost, less chance of timing being pulled and you have the capability to make more overall power with the fuel being the limiting factor. Its all about the particular combo in ? and what your after....
Here comes the great debate...
Gone, but not forgotten!
boost
99RCSB Broke because I wasted thousands and thousands of dollars on my truck.
compression should match intended boost level ........... done.
2002 Tahoe 4.8 - soon to be turbo'd - SOLD
1989 Mustang - LX Vert - 351W-TT - 2inches of dust covering it
2012 Raptor - 497rwhp at 10psi
If you aint breaking - you aint going fast enough
that was the point
2006 SilveradoLittle Black Bitch
Get this months GM High-Tech Performance mag. There is a great article dedicated to this exact topic.
PS - I tried to get it off the web, but couldn't.
Gone, but not forgotten!
There is no answer to this question
Too many variables.
static compression
dynamic compression
aluminum or iron heads
intercooler or no intercooler
type of intercooler
fuel
tune
boost level.
compressor efficiency
ect
ect
ect.
2002 Tahoe 4.8 - soon to be turbo'd - SOLD
1989 Mustang - LX Vert - 351W-TT - 2inches of dust covering it
2012 Raptor - 497rwhp at 10psi
If you aint breaking - you aint going fast enough
+ 1
99RCSB Broke because I wasted thousands and thousands of dollars on my truck.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
