Is this your First Visit? Click the Register button to Join.

User Name

Articles

Forum

New Posts

Calendar Community

Forum

Unanswered

Forum Actions

Mustang Forums

Quick Links

Classifeds

Garage

Log in

Advertising Info | Sponsors List | Advanced Search

Increasing CR vs boost pressure

Results 1 to 15 of 28

+ Reply to Thread

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Last

Thread: Increasing CR vs boost pressure

Thread Tools

#1

05-06-2006, 09:36 AM

black2003cobra
Administrator

Join Date:

Sep 2003

Location:

Rochester, NY

Posts:

4,025

Register

Video

Latest Activity

2003 - 2004 SVT Mustang Cobra

Help

Remember Me?

Increasing CR vs boost pressure

Edit 10/19/07. To whom it may concern. The source of the material below is me.
Plagiarism = literary theft, or trying to pass someone else's words off as your own.
For myths on copyright, please see Brad's web page: => http://www.templetons.com
/brad/copymyths.html
================================================== ======
This question seems to come up time and time again. Is it better to increase the static CR or boost
pressure. There are a couple reasons why supercharged or turbocharged engines run lower static
compression ratios. A static CR in the range of 8-9 is very common. Here are a couple considerations.
Consideration #1
Heat from compression by a supercharger or turbo can be removed (for the most part) through use
of an intercooler. Heat from compression within the cylinder cannot. Also, the cylinder pressure at the
end of the compression stroke (prior to ignition) goes up exponentially with an increase in static
compression ratio, versus a linear increase with boost pressure. Therefore, increasing the static CR is
going to unavoidably push you closer to the knock limit for a given fuel. In other words, the octane
requirement goes up more by increasing the static CR than it does by increasing boost.
For example, increasing the static CR from 8.5 to 9.5 increases the temperature within the cylinder at
the end of the compression stroke (but before ignition) by ~63F, (assuming IAT2 = 130F and ideal

assuming atmospheric and boost pressures of 14.7 and 14 psi, respectively. On the other hand,
increasing the boost pressure from 14 to 15 psi increases the outlet temp of the compressor by only
~11F, assuming AE=60% and IAT1 = 90F. And by further assuming an intercooler efficiency of
80%, the increase in IAT2 is only ~2F. Hence, the increase in temp at the end of the compression
stroke will hardly change at all. Also, the increase in cylinder pressure at the end of the compression
stroke only goes up by ~20 psi (from 574 to 594 psia) with this increase in boost pressure.
So summarizing the effects of increased temp and pressure at the end of the compression stroke for
the two cases:
Increased CR from 8.5 to 9.5: T = ~63F and P = ~97 psi
Increased boost from 14 to 15 psi: T = ~2.4F and P = ~20 psi
A higher temp and pressure increase the likelihood of deadly preignition for a given octane fuel. And
for those astute observers that know the physics Ive applied, yes, although Ive idealized things to
keep it simple, (by not including effects such as heat loss thru the cylinder walls during the
compression stroke or ignition and valve timing in the calculations), Im sure theyll also recognize
that this doesnt change the conclusion.
Consideration #2
Power is increased by two completely different mechanisms for the two approaches. Increasing the
static compression ratio increases power via an increase in thermal-conversion efficiency. Increasing
boost pressure increases power via an increase in mass-air flow rate. Theres less gain in thermalconversion efficiency (and hence power) via an increased static CR compared to the power gain by
increasing the mass-air flow rate via an increase in boost pressure. For example, increasing the static
CR from 8.5 to 9.5 results in an increase in thermal-conversion efficiency (for an ideal Otto cycle) of
about 3.2%. On the other hand, increasing the boost pressure from just 14 psi to 15 psi, increases
the mass-air flow rate by about 3.5%. If boost pressure is increased by 2 psi, (from 14 to 16 psi), the
increase in mass-air flow rate will now be more than twice that compared to the increase in thermalconversion efficiency, (~7% vs ~3.2%), and T and P still wont be as great as they are when
increasing the static CR from 8.5 to 9.5. Therefore, not only can it be safer from the knock point of
view, but a little more power is gained as well, (relatively speaking that is).
In conclusion, I would contend that for a forced-induction application, that low compression is in
general, the better way to go.
================================================== ===========
Boost vs compression ratio Part II
Since writing part I, there have been some comments made that I felt warranted a part II.
Comments such as, Good stuff, but peak combustion pressure and temperatures are far higher than
they are pre-ignition. Or, I have more gauges than a pimply faced teenager in his Honda Civic, so I
can run closer to the ragged edge. Or, The engineers didnt put 8.5:1 compression pistons in the

in spite of how close one cares to run to the knock limit of a given octane fuel, (for a given fuel and
AFR, etc.), the engine can make more power by reducing CR and increasing boost pressure, than the
other way around for the same peak cylinder pressure. This is why it is common to see lower
compression ratios on SI forced-induction motors. Obviously there are tradeoffs, however, as a direct
result of the lower thermal-conversion efficiency. But when it comes to maximizing power and torque
output at wide-open throttle for a given octane fuel, etc., lowering CR and raising boost pressure is
the safer approach.
This conclusion is based primarily on two basic facts:
1. Mean-effective pressure (MEP) goes in direct proportion to the mass of air ingested,
(which is directly related to boost pressure), but goes up sublinearly with compression
ratio, CR
2. To good approximation, peak cylinder pressure goes in direct proportion to both.
And as mentioned in Part I, while heat from compression by a supercharger can be effectively
removed through use of an intercooler, heat from compression within the cylinder cannot. As a result,
peak combustion temperatures do not tend to rise significantly with increases in boost pressure,
whereas they will go up with increased compression ratio. And as we all know, a lower peak
combustion temp also reduces the likelihood of knock. One also needs to recall that power and torque
are directly proportional to MEP, where the mean-effective pressure is defined as the effective
pressure over the cycle, which is equal to the work generated over the cycle divided by the displaced
volume. In other words, if the indicated MEP goes up X%, indicated power and torque will also go up
X% at a given engine speed. Additionally, one needs to recognize that for a given octane fuel, AFR,
etc., that as peak cylinder pressure and temperature are raised, eventually the engine going to
knock, or detonate. This shouldnt be any surprise since this is exactly how a fuels octane, (i.e. its
resistance to knock), is measured. It is put in a special test engine whose compression is raised until
the engine knocks. (The reference fuels used for comparison are iso-octane defined as having ON =
100, and normal heptane having ON = 0.) References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating.
Or section 6 here => http://blizzard.rwic.und.edu/~nordli.../gasoline.html
For the ideal Otto cycle, it is very easy to derive expressions for the peak combustion pressure (P3)
and temperature (T3), and mean-effective pressure. As in Part I, Im not going to derive or show all
the math, but simply get to the bottom line and show the results. For those that want the details, the
interested reader is referred to any number of good text books on engine fundamentals, (Taylors,
Heywoods, etc.). Ive also posted the equations, sans proof, in this thread: http://www.eng-tips.com
/viewthread.c...=215499&page=1
Taking the ratio of mean-effective pressure to peak cylinder pressure, or vice versa, one will find that
the dependency on boost pressure drops out and the ratio only depends on CR for a given fuel and
AFR. (Note - timing does not factor in simply because MBTT at TDC for the ideal cycle, but this does
not change the conclusion.)

where the thermal-conversion efficiency for the ideal cycle is given by, t = 1 CR^(1-), cv is the
constant-volume specific heat for the mixture, c is the combustion efficiency, Qhv is the fuels
heating value, and is the polytropic exponent which can be taken to have a value of around
1.25-1.3, over the full cycle, (Ref., H.M. Cheung and J.B. Heywood, SAE paper 932749).
Using these results, one can plot the ratio of indicated mean-effective pressure to peak cylinder
pressure, iMEP/P3, vs compression ratio. From this plot, one will see that as CR goes up, the ratio
iMEP/P3 will go down. (See plot below).

What does this mean? It means for any given maximum tolerable peak pressure (for a given octane
and AFR), that iMEP will be higher at a lower CR than at a higher CR, independent of boost pressure.

around for the same peak cylinder pressure. The tradeoff is a lower thermal-conversion
efficiency, which translates to a higher specific fuel consumption (pounds per hour per horsepower)
and a doggier response at part throttle.
Although the above conclusion was based on analysis of the ideal cycle, a more complete
thermodynamic model including finite burn duration, heat loss, spark timing, etc, will show the same
trends and lead one to the same conclusion. As an example, cylinder pressure and temperatures vs
crank angle for two engines with the same iMEP, but different CR and boost pressures are shown
below. As can be seen, the engine with the higher CR has higher combustion pressures and
temperatures, making it more likely to knock for a given octane fuel.

================================================== ===========
Boost vs Compression Part III Measured data
From posts in another related thread:
Measured data, example 1, turbocharged Cobra:
Lets use the publicly available, actual data as posted on this web site. Using a turbo Cobra as an
example, consider the data in the Terminator Summary of turbo data thread. (Link => Summary of
turbo data)
From this data, the "typical" turbo Cobra running 15 psi makes around 670 rwHP, (with stock
displacement and CR.)
Now say one increases CR to 10:1 from 8.5:1, and pulls a few deg of timing to avoid knock.
How? Click link => Spark timing impact on knock
Say this increase in CR nets a 6% gain as published in a recent magazine article. This then translates
to 1.06*670 = 710 rwHP. So yes... a nice gain of 40 rwHP.

CReff = CR(1 + Pboost/Patm)

which comes about from how peak cyl pressure scales with both boost and CR. (Note it also can
take into account valve timing, by using the dynamic-compression ratio for the value of CR.) As Ed
(eschaider) has pointed out, this effective-compression ratio is what VP (and others) uses to "rate"
their various fuels.
If one goes through the math, theyll find that this would mean running around 20 psi at this same
reduced timing, but with stock CR of 8.5:1, instead of 10.0:1. (Sorry...yes...a little math. The prime
( ' ) symbols indicate the new values of a quantity.)
Pb' = [(CR/CR')(1 + Pboost/Patm) -1]Patm = [(10/8.5)(1 + 15/14.7) -1]14.7 = 20.2 psi
Again from the regression analysis of actual data shown in the turbo data summary thread, (link
provided above), the change in power with boost is roughly 22 rwHP/psi. So this means with the
same reduced timing, the CR=8.5 motor with 20 psi would now be making 670 + 22*(20 - 15) = 780
rwHP. So a gain of 110 rwHP.
Example from measured Turbo data - summary:
Baseline case; CR = 8.5:1, boost = 15 psi, ~670 rwHP
Higher CR; CR = 10:1, boost = 15 psi, ~710 rwHP
Higher boost; CR = 8.5, boost = 20 psi, ~780 rwHP
Measured data, example 2, twin-screw KB Cobra:
Heres a similar example of the same analysis for a blower car from chassis-dyno measurements
made on the same car. (I didnt have data at 15 and 20 psi, but I do at 17 and 23. Using the
effective-compression formula given above, the higher boost would come out to 22.6 psi for this
case, but I think youll give me the 0.4 psi.)
For this analysis, the data is taken from the same vehicle, on back-to-back pulls, on the same
dynamometer, and covers the full rpm range not just peak power. Since it is from actual measured
data, it includes all additional effects such as any potential belt slip, increased SC drive power, etc.
Data for the CR=10:1, 17 psi case came by scaling the CR=8.5, 17 psi case up by 6%. (A worked
example of how power scales with CR, including actual measured data, is given later in this thread in
post #23, Link => Post #23.)

As one can clearly see, the higher-boost/lower-CR makes significantly more torque than that of the
higher-CR/lower-boost case, all across the rpm range.
================================================== ===========
Boost vs Compression Part IV Impact of valve timing
From thread in 2011 Mustang Forum. Click link => Boosted Coyote Engines using VVT
Yes, valve timing also has an impact and can reduce the risk of knock. One can delay the inlet-valve
closing (IVC) event, which reduces the so-called dynamic compression ratio. Basically, when you
delay the IVC, you aren't running as high a (dynamic) compression ratio anymore which as explained
above, helps reduce peak cylinder pressure & temp, thereby reducing the risk of knock. Below is an
example for the 5L Coyote engine in the new 2011 Mustang GT.

Therefore, the engine calibrators can make use of the variable cam timing on the 5L Coyote engine to
reduce its relatively high-compression ratio, to a lower compression ratio when using forced
induction.

Last edited by black2003cobra; 12-19-2010 at 11:47 AM. Reason: Adding part IV

Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links

Remove Advertisements

ModularFords.com
Advertisements

05-06-2006, 10:36 AM

PhillyCobra
Senior Member

#2

Join Date:

Jun 2003

Location:
Northeast
Philadelphia
Posts:

793
Reply With Quote

05-06-2006, 11:03 AM

#3

black2003cobra
Administrator

Join Date:

Sep 2003

Location:

Rochester, NY

Posts:

4,025

Hey Philly Of course it would ultimately depend on the type of compressor used (Eaton, KB,
Whipple, or turbo). But for the most part, yesthe comparison of upping the static CR from 8.5 to 9.5
should give a similar increase in indicated power as going from 14 to 15 psi. (The relative increases
were 3.2% vs 3.5%, respectively). In terms of brake power, a supercharger would definitely net you
something less than the 3.5%, of course, but it would depend on what kind. Although it could be
done, I didnt bother calculating the increase in drive power. A turbo would probably see most of that
3.5%.
================================================== ======
7-5-08: Please ignore. Graphics below for in-line posting above.

#4

05-06-2006, 01:55 PM

JT
Senior Member

Join Date:

Jan 2003

Posts:

1,818

Very interesting.

Reply With Quote

#5

06-13-2007, 03:39 PM

Justin@VMP
VMP Tuning

Re: Increasing static CR vs boost pressure

Someone i know tried to put a 20psi blower on a 11.5:1 NA motor, they had good gas (C16) and very
little timing but it still went all to pieces. Thats a good example of how too high of a CR is bad, no
matter what the fuel.

Join Date:

Feb 2004

Location:

Central FL

Posts:

2,911

Reply With Quote

06-14-2007, 09:22 AM

MaxV
Senior Member

Join Date:

May 2006

Location:

San Antonio, TX

Posts:

1,034

#6

compression too much. If you run an 8.0:1 motor on the street with an appropriate amount of boost,
it will feel doggy off the line (before boost comes on). At least when it is compared to a 9.0:1 motor
(even running a bit less timing).
The thermal efficiency of the forced induction components also has a huge amount of importance
when dealing with these cars. An Eaton (ported or not) is going to whip up IATs, forcing the
intercooler/ heat exchanger system to do more work. Pulleying a thermally-challenged blower only
compounds the problem. That is why 16psi from a Heaton does not equal 16psi from a KB or Whipple
or even a properly-sized turbo. Luckily enough, that means you car run more boost AND timing from
the bigger blower, and keep the oily bits inside the motor where they belong...
Reply With Quote

#7

07-05-2008, 01:20 PM

black2003cobra
Administrator

Join Date:

Sep 2003

Location:

Rochester, NY

Posts:

4,025

FYI - Added Part II to keep this altogether in one thread.

Reply With Quote

#8

07-05-2008, 02:05 PM

NeverEnuff
Moderator

Very good info and reading. thanks!

Join Date:

Nov 2006

Location:

TX

Posts:

3,942

Reply With Quote

03-08-2009, 02:23 PM

4vMn12

#9

Good info!
Just my .02 though.....
The scope of this information (atleast what I'm deriving) is "max power" with also references to pump
fuel.
Those who are using pump fuel are most interested in "street drivability/performance";
I think when considering one extreme end of the spectrum, the other must also be considered.
Can you make more power with 3000 CFM, and 6 to 1 compression. Maybe. Does that help a guy that
is looking to put together the best compromize for pump fuel (and street performance). NOPE!
With the scope of pump fuel and street driveability there has to be a happy medium, driving
satisfaction vs. peak WOT performance.
The happy medium is my holy grail at the moment as I decide on piston dish sizes
I'll likely go with an 11.5 cc piston dish, and a thicker head gasket to net around 8.7 to 1 CR, (which I
can change my mind and revert to stock gasket thickness and higher CR if desired).
Although I do admit, if a car is doggy, this can be masked somewhat with gearing, auto-trans with
loose converter, etc. It will still affect the drivability and satisfaction on the street.
The bigger problem is enthusiasts who can't decide if they are driving, or racing there car, hahaha.
Good info regardless!

Last edited by 4vMn12; 03-08-2009 at 02:40 PM.

Reply With Quote

#10

03-08-2009, 03:29 PM

black2003cobra
Administrator

Im glad you found the thread interesting, 4vMn12!

Location:

Rochester, NY

Posts:

4,025

As was mentioned, and as you are apparently aware, there are tradeoffs under part throttle (no
boost) when reducing the static compression ratio of the motor. This is due to the drop in thermalconversion efficiency, t, which is a very non-linear function of compression ratio. To help illustrate
this, one can see from the graph below that t really starts to drop off quickly at lower CRs, and
approaches zero when CR = 1. (This is simply because the gas is no longer doing any work on the
system when CR Vd/Vc = 1. In other words, at CR = 1, work = 0, and hence, t work/Qin = 0.)
Clearly such low compression ratios are to be considered extreme cases, however, as they are not
exactly practical nor appropriate with modern fuels and engine designs.
The value you have chosen for you motor is quite typical. Thanks for your input!

Attached Images

Reply With Quote

#11

03-08-2009, 04:23 PM

mustangjohn
Senior Member

Join Date:

Dec 2005

Location:

San Antonio,TX

Posts:

1,686

Great info! I bumped my compression some becuase i couldnt raise boost any more since i was
sticking with a already max pullied ported eaton. While rebuilding the short block i had to buy pistons
anyways so it was sort of like free power. If i was going TS or turbo i never would have changed the
comp ratio.

Reply With Quote

#12

03-08-2009, 06:48 PM

Justin@VMP
VMP Tuning

Bumping CR is one thing I look at, if I ever build a motor for my GT500.
Also, as E85 becomes more available, it starts to look like a real good option for higher CR blown

Reply With Quote

#13

03-08-2009, 06:57 PM

03yllwcobra
Senior Member

Join Date:

Nov 2005

Location:

Greenville, SC

Posts:

1,349

so does this mean i messed up upping my CR From stock to 9.4:1 for my f1a? =(

Reply With Quote

#14

03-09-2009, 03:06 AM

Ninesecsnake
Senior Member

Originally Posted by 03yllwcobra

so does this mean i messed up upping my CR From stock to 9.4:1 for my f1a? =(
Join Date:

Sep 2005

Location:

South Dakota

Posts:

381

No you made the right choice. Keep good gas or E85/98 and you'll be fine. Mine is over 10:1 and we
have zero issues with big turbos. I do use E98, but results are similar with E85 also.

Last edited by Ninesecsnake; 03-09-2009 at 03:10 AM.

Reply With Quote

03-09-2009, 10:32 AM

03yllwcobra
Senior Member

#15

Join Date:

Nov 2005

Location:

Greenville, SC

Posts:

1,349

i dont know if i have enough pump/ injector for e85, i have dual GT Pumps and a BAP with 75lb
injectors.
Reply With Quote

Remove Advertisements

Sponsored Links

ModularFords.com
Advertisements

+ Reply to Thread

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Last

Previous Thread | Next Thread

Similar Threads

Increasing compression instead of boost?

Replies: 21

By jeffs in forum 2003 - 2004 SVT Mustang Cobra

Last Post: 12-18-2010, 06:38 AM

Boost And Fuel Pressure

Replies: 5

By FLYER in forum 1996 - 2004 Mustang GT

Last Post: 04-09-2007, 05:11 AM

Increasing TQ???

Replies: 15

By purevil in forum 2003 - 2004 SVT Mustang Cobra

Last Post: 12-24-2006, 12:27 PM

Common tuning changes when increasing boost?

Replies: 4

By johnny-longtorso in forum 1996 - 2004 Mustang GT

Last Post: 02-12-2006, 09:10 AM

Tags for this Thread

boost, compression
View Tag Cloud
Search

vBulletin - Copyright 2015 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

This forum is not authorized by, endorsed by, or affiliated with the Ford Motor Company. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company