Welcome! Please use the navigational links to explore our website.
PartsASAP LogoCompany Logo Auction Link (800) 853-2651

Shop Now

   Allis Chalmers Case Farmall IH Ford 8N,9N,2N Ford
   Ferguson John Deere Massey Ferguson Minn. Moline Oliver

Tractor Pulling Discussion Forum

Fuel vs. compression?

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
MH55

05-11-2008 06:54:45




Report to Moderator

I purchased an engine for my tractor last fall. I know the internal dimensions, however I have no idea what the compression ratio is. Ran 110 octane over the winter to be safe. I did a compression test this spring, averaged 250psi across all 4 cylinders. Made some comparisons with my stock engine parts and estimated ratio at 12.5:1. Only an estimate cause I have no idea what the chambers look like, just know how thick the head base is and should be... Running 1650 to 1800 rpm, what octane should I run? Any suggestions...

[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
Gearnut

05-13-2008 07:30:40




Report to Moderator
 Re: Fuel vs. compression? in reply to MH55, 05-11-2008 06:54:45  
Just for the sake of conversation, you can divide the gage pressure by 14.7 to get the compression ratio, but that's IF you were able to raise the piston extremely slow so that all the generated heat goes away. Of course you can't do that because the pressure will bleed away past the ring gaps. So, when you get a reading of like 300 psi while doing a cranking compression test, part of that pressure is due to the expansion of air due to heat generated.

(PV=nRT is the formula, P being pressure, V being volume, n is the number of moles of gas, R is a constant, and T is temperature in Kelvin.... you can look this up in any engineering manual)

In a nutshell, the resulting PSI is loosely tied to compression ratio, but not directly. Many many factors involved, like someone pointed out, cam profile, etc all goes into it on top of the non adiabatic compression process.

Mark

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
ChadS

05-14-2008 09:00:37




Report to Moderator
 Re: Fuel vs. compression? in reply to Gearnut, 05-13-2008 07:30:40  
I like these "for conversation sake" topics.

My experiment is a 262.5 ci 4 cyl. 112.5cc head, and a 24 cc dome, and a 14.5 cc dish. Head gasket is 7.5 cc I came out to 13.4 to 1. The block and head deck surfaces are stock, not milled. Im "expecting" 268-272 psi of cyl pressure at testing speed for that machine.

I read old tractor repair and I&T shop manuals, and I see compression ratios at 5 to 1 and 100 psi at testing. Well, for anybody who has a M farmall, with flatops and a 8060 gas head which is still pretty common, Ive tested em myself, torn into em to know what they had, sure enough, the book specs I found were dead matched to the base model M engine. So, lets say there is a relative between compression ratio and cyl pressure,, we can pretend for a moment or two,, right?? LOL

same book spec, 5 to 1 and 100 psi. broken down, 1 to 1 equals 20 psi going off this book spec, and I feel I can stand by it by seeing the "book speced" tractor engine in front of me, that Ive ran tests for comparissons. Ive gone thru alot of compression guages!! LOL!!

Sure, cams will throw off cyl pressure, different ratio rocker arms affect cyl pressure, head milling, gasket thickeness, etc etc, but take one thats not been messed with,, and compare it, spec it out and when I did, I seen this come before me,,, a formula for cyl pressure related to compression ratio.

1 to 1 = 20 psi
5 to 1 = 100 psi
10 to 1 = 200 psi
15 to 1 = 300 psi

Question,,, conversation sakes now,,, a small block V8, naturally aspriated running 14 to 1 compression ratio. Would it run all day long with a camshaft profile that did not deflate the cyl pressure by overlap?? Say at 5000 rpm on a dyno?? No playing with cams,, what it came with stock is what you get to use,,, I promise you, it would not run, and if it did, it would not be for long before it breaks. a perfect 14 to 1 is 280 psi on the scale, but with autos and cams with overlap,, you get to see a 14 to 1 engine test 180 psi and run on 93 octane, but it sure sounds cool with the rumpty rump sound the cam gives em. Also, thats why I think there is no scale ever related V8's and cyl pressure from the performance spectrum.

This is just something I thought of, and in about a month, Ill know if my scale works when I fire up my engine, and get to do some homework on it. Ill test it, and report back with my results. Its just info Ive taken from old tractor repair manuals, and sat down with a tractor, did all the cc's and all the math, which matched the books, and that info gave me the impression, that a tractor engine and compression ratio and cyl pressure can be very accurate????? Why would a tractor at 5 to 1 need an overlap camshaft profile? and why would a 14 to 1 V8 need a cam with overlap? ChadS

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
MH55

05-14-2008 19:38:15




Report to Moderator
 Re: Fuel vs. compression? in reply to ChadS, 05-14-2008 09:00:37  
Link

This guy seems to have done some off the work for you ChadS...

As for overlap in the cam. Cam profiles with overlap fill the cylinder better at certain speeds. The action of the air flow in the cylinder is very dependent on the degree of lift and overlap... The exhaust rushing out of a properly tuned port will cause a negative pressure condition in the cylinder which will pull the intake charge in to the cylinder... At least that's what I've been told by engine guys...

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
ChadS

05-15-2008 07:47:31




Report to Moderator
 Re: Fuel vs. compression? in reply to MH55, 05-14-2008 19:38:15  
I wonder if he ever got it done?? Interesting reading! But I think one thing is gonna plague him in his calculations,, "Bolt on" parts. Mix matched parts that are known to increase cyl pressure, like the 60 cc 305 heads, and throw em on a 350 or a 400 and it pumps up the cyl pressure real quick. I built a 410ci chevy a few years ago, 400 block, crank and rods, I had it in a S-10 shortbed,,, Before It got built, it has dished pistons, and larger chambered heads, big valve heads though,,, it was in a blazer when I got it,, and it ran real strong! So dropped it in the ol S-10 and had alot of fun with it. Finally spun a rod, so I built it. .040 or .060 over I think it was,, put in flat top pistons, with a set of 487X heads instead of the 400 heads. the 487's were shaved .040. Cam,, was a RV cam,, Well, it wouldnt run on 93, liked 105 citgo, hard cranking, but, it would go pretty good. Id say I ran in less than 6000 rpm most of the time when I ran it thru the gears,, blown head gaskets a few times, so pulled all the plugs out, ran a compression test too. Sure enough, was 240 psi too. Just like the one he mentioned. I put the 400 heads back on, it ran on 93 and had alot more kick to it on the high rpm torque up to bout 5500 rpm, it tested 200 psi with the RV cam. So talked with a builder,, told him what I had and at the time I brought up the RV cam, he stopped me in mid sentance,,, He said, those cams got no overlap! So he loaned me a bigger cam he said, has some overlap,, it will run on 87 and still have power! OK! SOld! Put it in, my smooth running 400 went away and this firebreathin, race car sounding thing emerged and it sounded real good! Ran on 87, loved it!! Had no vacuum at idle so my power brakes sucked,,,, or didnt should I say,, HAHA!! So a few weeks later, got it dialed in, running strong! Ran a cyl pressure test again,,, same battery, same starter,,, 155 psi. I was like WTF??? SO I called him back,,, I was thinmking I had all this money in some good parts and something want right!! He told me,, that the overlap deflates the cyl pressure by letting a partial portion of the awating intake charge, escape with the exaust valves by having both valves open at the same time for a very short duration,,, Allowing me to have a higher mechanical ratio but have a really low cyl pressure and run on 87. I can see how the escaping exhaust pulls the intake charge into the cyl, and it works. High cyl pressure with high ratio already increases the actual vacuum pressure/manifold pressure, naturally,,, so flow thru the intake is helped for sure off the git go with high cyl pressure. Problems I had when the cyl pressure on the V8 at high rpm was, it was tempermental, always adjusting something, milage sucked too, and the race fuel got expencive for a everyday driver,,, (That was 15 years ago too!) But once that cam was put in there with a little overlap,, all my troubles that came with high cyl pressure went away and it was just as reliable as stock. This may not be the text book version but its what I think, while under neath my shade tree, reading hours of compression guage reading results. A low rpm stroker done right, will have two common factors as the high compression V8. Piston speed and cyl pressure. Big difference is, a low rpm stroker, CAN have more actual piston speed at half the rpm of the V8, yet, still run the ultra high cyl pressure with little, or NO overlap if the fuel is good enough. How is that possible??? ChadS

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
MH55

05-13-2008 15:31:54




Report to Moderator
 Re: Fuel vs. compression? in reply to Gearnut, 05-13-2008 07:30:40  
Very well explained. Been a long time since college chemistry, had drawn a blank on the formula...



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
roadgear

05-11-2008 17:30:50




Report to Moderator
 Re: Fuel vs. compression? in reply to MH55, 05-11-2008 06:54:45  
I run a MM U 621 cu. in. 12.7-1 comp. ratio and it turns out 300+ psi and I run c12 vp 112 octane and have run torco 114 but c12 is better fuel but you will pay for it too



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mike n Mo

05-11-2008 10:17:44




Report to Moderator
 Re: Fuel vs. compression? in reply to MH55, 05-11-2008 06:54:45  
I would probably stick with the 110 octane to be on the safe side. Too low of octane and the engine will detonate, which can cause major engine damage. On the other hand, there is no advantage power-wise to using too high of octane, and too high can actually hurt power (not significantly). If you have access to some 100 octane you might try it, but I doubt that 93 octane will be enough under full load. Mike

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
ldj

05-11-2008 08:46:36




Report to Moderator
 Re: Fuel vs. compression? in reply to MH55, 05-11-2008 06:54:45  
I assume you are talking gas and not diesel engine since you speak of 110 octane.
1st, where do find 110 octane? 2nd, I'm just a tinkering hobby backyard mechanic but I never saw a gas engine with 250 lb compression. Just a few weeks ago I read how to figure compression ratio by dividing compression by 14.7 and in your case that would be 17:1. Again, with my limited knowledge I never heard of gas engine being that high.
That dividing compression by 14.7, I wasn't sure about but 14.7 is weight or pressure of air at sea level so if you have 10:1 that would make your compression test read 147lb. with no leakage, which is not possible. But it could be close. Anyone ever heard of this??? If it is correct you still couldn't find compression ratio if you had worn out engine because of leakage.

OH, I know I didn't answer the question.
L.D.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
MH55

05-11-2008 10:22:17




Report to Moderator
 Re: Fuel vs. compression? in reply to ldj, 05-11-2008 08:46:36  
Static compression ratio is designed into the engine build. Influenced by bore, stroke chamber size and gasket thickness. Actual compression is a different thing entirely, influenced by valve timing as much as the engine build and wear levels. Advertised compression ratio is also a corrected number. Influenced by temp and Ambient air pressure (14.7 @ sea level)

110 octane fuel available from Rockett and VP fuels (VP112 race fuel is actually 110 Octane) Got mine from a local Modified racer.

When I did the compression test at cranking speed, the first needle pass on the gauge was approx 180psi. The pressures equalized above 240psi on all cylinders...

I don't have all the answers either.. :P

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
ChadS

05-12-2008 07:22:05




Report to Moderator
 Re: Fuel vs. compression? in reply to MH55, 05-11-2008 10:22:17  
Ive had good luck with E85 with high cyl pressures. I was at 290-295 psi at cranking speed, at 50/50 E85 and 93 pump gas. Had no problems once it was dialed in.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
[Options]  [Printer Friendly]  [Posting Help]  [Return to Forum]   [Log in to Reply]

Hop to:


TRACTOR PARTS TRACTOR MANUALS
We sell tractor parts!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]

Home  |  Forums


Copyright © 1997-2023 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters

Website Accessibility Policy