1st Gen. Ram - All Topics Discussion for all Dodge Rams prior to 1994. This includes engine, drivetrain and non-drivetrain discussions. Anything prior to 1994 should go in here.

Engine spec' questions.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Feb 4, 2010 | 09:07 PM
  #1  
KD93's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 0
From: West Palm Beach, Florida
Engine spec' questions.

I've got a few questions about our engines. I'm wondering what our compression ratio is, 'cause I've been thinking about planing the head a little. Has anyone tried this? No one seems to talk about it but it seems like some untapped power to me. Have to stud the head of course, but no big deal.
Which leads me to my next question. What sort of pistons are we running? If they're aluminum, planing the head won't be an option 'cause they'll cook. And if the crowns have recesses for the valves it'll make it all a bit more involved. Unless aftermarket pistons are available. Ideas on this?
Darn, I have another one but can't remember !! Well, that'll do for starters.

Keran
Reply
Old Feb 4, 2010 | 09:26 PM
  #2  
wannadiesel's Avatar
Adminstrator-ess
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 22,594
Likes: 19
From: New Holland, PA
17.5:1.

More compression is not a good thing on a turbodiesel. You want less compression when you are making more power.
Reply
Old Feb 4, 2010 | 10:04 PM
  #3  
KD93's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 0
From: West Palm Beach, Florida
I was just reading today on Diesel Power Mag's website about that. They were saying that drag and sled-pulling trucks were lessening their ratios because they wanted a longer burn and to keep the crowns cooler. But those guys are over fuelling in a huge way and have much more fuel to burn than I ever will. I'm just looking for a little more power, not another 300HP.
Agreed, too much pressure is a bad thing, but how much is too much? If we're running 17.5:1, what would 17.75:1 do? Surely that isn't going to throw conn rods out the block. Or is it??? Hard to say if the power gain would be worth the trouble. Mmm...
Is this a case of ??
Reply
Old Feb 4, 2010 | 10:06 PM
  #4  
wannadiesel's Avatar
Adminstrator-ess
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 22,594
Likes: 19
From: New Holland, PA
Originally Posted by KD93
Is this a case of ??
Yep.
Reply
Old Feb 5, 2010 | 12:44 AM
  #5  
schamran's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 3
From: Wisconsin
The other problem is your head is flat. You can plane down to nothing and it won't increase your compression ratio. lol You can purchase pistons that will run less compression, but I don't think they are very streetable. According to your sig there's a lot of other stuff you should do to your truck before you get to that point.
Reply
Old Feb 5, 2010 | 05:35 AM
  #6  
JD730's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,510
Likes: 1
From: Belvidere, NJ
Originally Posted by schamran
The other problem is your head is flat. You can plane down to nothing and it won't increase your compression ratio.
Not quite true. The valves are recessed in the head, so planing it down to nothing would increase the compression ratio slightly, however you also run the likely hood of touching valves and pistons together doing silly stuff like that.


You're not going to gain any power thats worth having going from 17.5 to 17.75.

Speaking from experience, I know that running a +.010 or +.020 head gasket on a block that hasn't been cut will lower the compression ratio enough to effect the cold starting enough to notice and be a pain at times.
Reply
Old Feb 5, 2010 | 06:50 AM
  #7  
KD93's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 0
From: West Palm Beach, Florida
According to your sig there's a lot of other stuff you should do to your truck before you get to that point.[/QUOTE]

There is, but I tend to take a LLLOOOOONNNGGGG time to do things. This question of mine is more theoretical, although if it was going to work then yeah, I would do it. Think of it as a 'what if...?' From what you guys are telling me, it's a waste of time, so on to easier and safer upgrades!

Thanks for the input, I appreciate it!
Reply
Old Feb 5, 2010 | 02:40 PM
  #8  
93 12v's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
From: Carencro, LA (near Lafayette)
Cummins makes a B series that runs 18:1, but it's non automotive. I don't know what it's in or how it's built, but seriously doubt it's feasible to put in a pickup.
Reply
Old Feb 5, 2010 | 02:55 PM
  #9  
JD730's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,510
Likes: 1
From: Belvidere, NJ
Originally Posted by 93 12v
Cummins makes a B series that runs 18:1, but it's non automotive. I don't know what it's in or how it's built, but seriously doubt it's feasible to put in a pickup.
Yes, but they are naturally aspirated. They have a square top ring thats machined in aluminum vs. the keystone ring that sits in steel on a turbo piston.
Reply
Old Feb 5, 2010 | 07:34 PM
  #10  
dzl_damon's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,816
Likes: 0
From: Maine
Just run more boost. It's sort of a modifier to your compression ratio mathmatically. That 18:1 compression ratio cummins is N/A lke JD730 said.

Large compression ratios mostly belong to IDI N/A and low boost engines.

Most big power diesels DECREASE compression ratio to accomidate higher boost (which is more efficient with the same MEP's of a higher compression engine, but less efficient in low boost conditions obviously).
Reply
Old Feb 6, 2010 | 02:53 PM
  #11  
KD93's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 0
From: West Palm Beach, Florida
Originally Posted by dzl_damon
Most big power diesels DECREASE compression ratio to accomidate higher boost (which is more efficient with the same MEP's of a higher compression engine, but less efficient in low boost conditions obviously).
Aha! There's the missing link. I've been thinking and thinking on this, and it seemed to me there was something missing in the equation. That's what I've been over looking, the boost. It seems completely obvious really, but you know when you're in the middle of something, it's hard to see things that're right there in front of you. You need to get some distance from it to get a better perspective. Thanks Dzl Damon!


Keran
Reply
Old Feb 6, 2010 | 05:13 PM
  #12  
twichit's Avatar
I grad-u-ated frum Claudes skool of tpying....
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 467
Likes: 1
From: white trash junction
We have a non-turboed Cummins in a 5130 Case IH it is a totel dog compaired to the trucks , if you'er looking for internel mods I have heard about stroke and bore kits but I don't know anything about them you'ed have to pick some other brains on them....Don't have too much fun with your truck it's addicting
Reply
Old Feb 6, 2010 | 05:13 PM
  #13  
JQmile's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 5
Mine dropped about a 1/2 a point with the .020 over head gasket and o-rings, and now it hazes at idle. Not worth it in my opinion. Sled Pullers run 11:1 because they have 150psi of boost and are trying to inject 1,100cc of fuel in a short amount of time
Reply
Old Feb 6, 2010 | 07:25 PM
  #14  
ZSkibo's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
From: Kennett Square, PA
Not to mention the fact that at 17:1 and 35+psi of boost you're looking at really interesting cylinder pressures. Assuming you get studs and rings and twins or whatever the very last thing you'd want to do is increase your comp ratio.
Reply
Old Feb 6, 2010 | 10:33 PM
  #15  
KD93's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 0
From: West Palm Beach, Florida
Originally Posted by JQmile
Sled Pullers run 11:1 because they have 150psi of boost and are trying to inject 1,100cc of fuel in a short amount of time
Plus 40° of timing, in order to burn most of that fuel, with the remainder being used to cool the crown due to ridiculous cylinder temps. That's what I recall anyway, from your fine publication's article I read last week. Thanks for your $0.02 Jason.
Reply



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:28 PM.