Bzzzz, wrong again. Yet another example of you not reading what's posted before lipping off. The effort expended by an engine to generate -15PSI is negligable in terms of how much total energy is generated. Tell me genius, how much HP is spent generating -15PSI? Unless someone hasn't already done the work for you, I won't see the answer.

You are clueless about the mechanics of heat just as you were compeltely lost when it came to fluids. You constantly post irrelevant articles then put forth some molested logic as to how it pertains to your faulty argument. Your latest posts are simply hilarious. Throttling? You just cut and pasted this B.S. from somewhere else. Diesels, how irrelevant. The mechanics of diesels is WHOLLY different from gasoline. You can't even see the difference. It's obvious that you don't understand the concepts. You don't know what they're talking about in any of these articles you post. You see a few keywords then bring it here praying it pertains to the discussion and supports your position. But, just like the WS6 article you posted was complete B.S., this latest round of cut n pasting by you is equally flawed and irrelevant. You have no context in which to participate in this discussion. You have no experience other than some flawed experiments from some lame magazine or website.

Please, you even mixed up Bernoulli's equation with the Combined Gas law then spent 2 pages trying to defend it...this after you lied about taking 2 semesters of fluids.

I should have listened to Swat Dude. You don't understand the workings of internal combustion. You will never understand it.

I give up trying to explain these most basic of concepts to you. Enjoy life back on ignore.

 

You'd almost me funny if you weren't so arrogant.

Here's your big chance to support your claim:

GM's 3.8 liter V6 is running 9.4:1 with iron heads using 87 octane fuel.

Show me some engines equipped with aluminum heads that are running 12.4:1 (or better) on 87 octane.

I'll even spot you 4 valve head layouts.

Show me some.

SHOW ME!!!

 

I used Bernoulli drives about 8 years ago for data backups...

 

This one is so easy that the links and sources are essentially endless:

http://cpl.usc.edu/throttleless/

"Conventional premixed-charge spark-ignition engines employ a throttle to reduce power and torque when demand is low by reducing the pressure of the combustible mixture drawn into the cylinder. This results in the well-known “throttling loss.” Under typical highway cruising conditions, this loss is typically 15% or more of the otherwise available power output of the engine. This loss leads to reduced fuel economy and increased pollutant emissions."

 

:lol1: Like it would matter. You would just go on another tangent. I've already given examples of boosted motors with effective compression ratios far above that running on pump gas.

Toda racing is running aluminum headed Hondas at nearly 14:1 on pump gas.

My GN motor, while iron headed, runs 8.5: and 12PSI of boost on pump gas, that's an effective CR ((FCR) = [(Boost/ 14.7) +1] x CR) of about 15.4:1. My friends GN can run almost 20 intercooled PSI on pump gas (depending on the weather) which is an effective CR of 20:1. Sure it's intercooled, but damn, that's MASSIVE compression for pump gas.

Look at nearly any non-intercooled turbo car and you'll see very high effective CR on pump gas.

But this is it, final for real final time.

You are simply clueless.

 

Again:

Show me an engine running 12.4:1 (or greater) on 87 octane pump gas.

NO BLOWERS for "equivalent CRs."

And the GM 3.8 is a STREET engine...

and:

http://www.ott.doe.gov/hev/spark_ignition.html

 

Blowers change the entire equation because they FORCE more air (which permits more fuel) into the combustion chambers....I'm not discussing blowers and what YOU think is an "equivalent CR."

I'm discussing Normally aspirated engines.

And staying within that context, I want you to PROVE to me that going to aluminum heads allows a 3:1 bump in compression ratio with the same octane fuel.

GM's 3.8 runs 9.4:1 with iron heads and 87 octane (on the street).

If your claim is valid, you should be able to produce MANY examples of streetable engines (normally aspirated) running 12.4:1 on 87 octane.

Show me some. LOL

 

I want you to PROVE (via actual examples) that 12.4:1 is a achievable CR with 87 octane pump gas in an engine that is even remotely streetable.

SHOW ME SOME EXAMPLES!!!!!!!

GM 3.8: Iron heads, 9.4:1 and 87 octane

You're on record claiming that aluminum permits a 3:1 increase in compression with the same octane fuel.

Back up that statement by producing examples of 12.4:1 NA gasoline engines running 87 octane (and aluminum heads).

And you're a 3.8 liter guy, so this should be SIMPLE for you.

You must have "tons" of friend who are running NA 3.8s with 12.4:1 CRs on 87 octane.

ROTFL

 

I'm "clueless?"

Please produce an example of a NA gasoline engine running a 20:1 compression ratio on pump gas.

ROTFL

Good luck.

 

I'm waiting for ACTUAL EXAMPLES to back your CLAIMS that NA, gasoline engines, fitted with aluminum heads, can run "vastly higher" compression ratios.

BASELINE ENGINE: GM 3.8 liter/IRON heads/9.4:1/87 octane

Your first claim: Aluminum heads allow one to gain three full points in compression.

Required Proof: Porduce actual, real world examples of street driven vehicles running 12.4:1 (or higher) with aluminum heads and 87 octane fuel.

Your second claim (inferred): NA gasoline engines can run CRs up to 20:1 on "pump gas."

Required Proof: Produce actual, real world examples of street driven vehicles running 20:1 compression ratios, with aluminum heads, on "pump gas." (The highest grade REAL "pump gas" is Sunoco 94 octane Ultra.)

SHOW ME!

NEWSFLASH: 11:1 is about the limit for "pump gas" (93/94 octane) in streetable vehicles. And that assumes state-of-the-art aluminum heads and a healthy cam to reduce dynamic cylinder pressures. 11.5:1 MIGHT (MIGHT) be possible with a state-of-the-art 4 valve heads/pentroof combustion chamber.

Bottom line: There is a difference of no more than 2 full points in compression ratios between THE BASELINE (stated above) and the "state-of-the-art." And the OVERWHELMING majority of that is attributable to the higher octane fuel (93/94 versus 87 octane) used in the higher compression engines!!!

 

Here ya go lamer now that the site's back up.

Toyota Prius 1.5L VVT-i gasoline 13:1 on 87
Yamaha YZF-R1 12.4:1 and can do it on 87
Yamaha FZ1 11.4:1 on 87
Yamaha FZ6 12.1:1 on 87
Yamaha YZF-R6 12.4:1 and can do it on 87

Five COMPLETELY streetable emissions compliant gasoline engines running very high compression on 87.

Just because low octane high compression motors are rare, doesn't mean it can't be done.

 

I'm sure you'll have a new diversion for us. I'm sure that these gasoline engine examples won't shut you up. I'm sure that you'll have some complaint or qualification.

What's next? What new examples do you want? 10s cars running 300:1 on 87 that are only available in Nighthawk Black Pearl and pull 1.23 G's on the skidpad and come with 4 cig lighters?

You are such a fool. Typical benchtop racer, too ignorant to realize you're ignorant. But that's what retard mags like Hot Rod do to people like you, fill your head with nonsense and half-truths.

You were wrong about aluminum heads, wrong about cotton filters, wrong about the Injen CAI, wrong about the "cam only swap", wrong squared about ram air, you even mixed up Bernoulli's equation with the Combined Gas Law...this after LYING about taking 2 semesters of fluids. You pulled this same B.S. in the TSX Forums and finally got banned for it. And a simple google search shows you doing this crap in other forums too.

I'm finally going to take Swat Dude's and others' advice and wash myself of you and your continuous lies and B.S.

You are unteachable.

 

LOL

MOTORCYCLES....with insane cam timing/revs (and relatively low dynamic compression ratios)....

They could come close to those CRs with IRON heads in those applications. But they don't use iron heads because they are HEAVIER!!!!

We're discussing CAR engines....

Here's a link to a GM crate motor site.

http://www.macmaster.on.ca/bbcrate.htm

Their PERFORMANCE big block crate engines run 8.75:1 with iron heads and 9.5:1 with aluminum heads. BUT - the aluminum head versions require 92 octane while the iron head versions require just 87.

Again, any ACTUAL DIFFERENCE (in dynamic compression ratios) is attributable solely to the use of higher octane fuel.

 

:lol1: You're too funny. You'ld be funnier if you weren't so ignorant.

 

I'm waiting for examples of 12.4:1 plus AUTOMOBILE engines running 87 octane fuel....

You're a 3.8 liter GM man, so you should EASILY be able to show me an example.

 

Toyota Prius' 13:1 1.5L VVT-i.

 

Again.

AUTOMOBILES

Begin posting actual examples of streetable automobiles running 12.4:1 plus CRS on 87 octane fuel.

SHOW ME.

 

Again.

Toyota Prius' 13:1 1.5L VVT-i

 

Convenient that you can't produce an iron head counterpart version so that we could have an APPLES TO APPLES comparison.

I want to see an example of an engine with iron heads and the same engine with aluminum heads.....

You claimed that aluminum heads provide a full 3 point gain in CR with the same octane fuel.

Show me.

 

There IS NO SUCH THING AS EQUIVALENT IRON AND ALUMINUM HEADS.

You asked for a high compression low octane gas motor, I have you 5. Then you said only in cars. So I gave you one.

And you're still not happy.

You're going to make someone a very fine wife.

Now you want iron and aluminum available in the same car.

Then what will you want? Iron and aluminum on the same motor? Then what...and then what...and then what.

 

The Prius doesn't use an OTTO CYCLE engine....

http://home.earthlink.net/~graham1/M...Combustion.htm

Why must you change the topic to motorcycle engines and Atkinson/Miller cycle engines in order to "prove" your claims?

Sure there are "equivalent" heads....Aluminum buys a 0.75:1 increase in GM's crate motors, MAINLY because their aluminum head applications require 92 octane while their iron heads require 87 octane.

http://www.macmaster.on.ca/bbcrate.htm

I want an APPLES TO APPLES comparison proving your claim that switching to aluminum for the head material allows a full 3 point gain in CR.

SHOW ME!!!!!!

 

:lol1: What's next? You want them to be the same color?

 

APPLES TO APPLES

BUT:

I'll even spot you 4 full points in octane.

Here's a good article on big block performance engines(orginally came with iron heads) using aluminum heads and designed for performance street applications.

http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/72278/index.html

Take a look @ what they're running for compression ratios.

They're all hovering near 10:1. Why aren't such engines running ~ 13:1 - 20:1 (which you claim is acheivable on "pump gas")????

Is EVERYONE ELSE (but you) too dumb to realize that those types of CRs can be run with aluminum heads and "pump gas?"

ROTFL

 

:lol1: Then what? What new qualifier will you tack on. You asked for gas examples, I have them to you. Then you wanted them on equal octane. I have them to you. Then you changed it to in cars only, I gave it to you. Then you say they have to be OTTO CYCLE, like you even know the difference. Then they have to be on the same block. Then and then and then and then...

For every new qualifier you make, I give you and example, then you come right back with a new qualifier.

I've given you plenty of examples of how you can run high compression with aluminum heads, way higher than with iron.

Show ME a 13:1 iron headed gasoline motor that meets emission requirements in a street legal car or motorcycle on pump gas? I don't need any special colors or anything.

 

No-one that I'm aware of builds an ATKINSON/MILLER cycle engine with aluminum heads. And the Prius engine is an ATKINSON/MILLER cycle engine.

In case you forgot, we've been discussing OTTO cycle engines that run on pump gas (up to 94 octane Sunoco).

 

No-one that I'm aware of builds a modern ATKINSON/MILLER cycle engine with iron heads. And the Prius engine is an ATKINSON/MILLER cycle engine.

In case you forgot, we've been discussing AUTOMBILE ENGINES that utlizie OTTO cycle engines and run on pump gas (up to 94 octane Sunoco).

So why can't you STICK TO THAT TOPIC and produce ACTUAL EXAMPLES?

BASELINE ENGINE MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS:

GM 3.8 liter V6/9.4:1/87 octane

You claimed that 3 full points in compression can be gained merely by switching the head material to aluminum (and running the same octane gasoline).

SHOW ME

 

No-one that I'm aware of builds a modern ATKINSON/MILLER cycle engine with iron heads. And the Prius engine is an ATKINSON/MILLER cycle engine.

In case you forgot, we've been discussing AUTOMBILE ENGINES that utlizie OTTO cycle engines and run on pump gas (up to 94 octane Sunoco).

So why can't you STICK TO THAT TOPIC and produce ACTUAL EXAMPLES?

BASELINE ENGINE MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS:

GM 3.8 liter V6/9.4:1/87 octane

You claimed that 3 full points in compression can be gained merely by switching the head material to aluminum (and running the same octane gasoline).

SHOW ME

 

No-one that I'm aware of builds a modern ATKINSON/MILLER cycle engine with iron heads. And the Prius engine is an ATKINSON/MILLER cycle engine.

In case you forgot, we've been discussing AUTOMBILE ENGINES that utlizie OTTO cycle engines and run on pump gas (up to 94 octane Sunoco).

So why can't you STICK TO THAT TOPIC and produce ACTUAL EXAMPLES?

BASELINE ENGINE MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS:

GM 3.8 liter V6/9.4:1/87 octane

You claimed that 3 full points in compression can be gained merely by switching the head material to aluminum (and running the same octane gasoline).

SHOW ME

 

No, you just CHANGED the discussion to OTTO cycle engines, just as you always CHANGE the discussion when it's not going well for you. And we all heard you the first time.

You don't even know the difference between and Otto and Miller cycle engine. They're virtually identical except for valve timing.

 

YOU changed it to ATKINSON/MILLER cycle engines and motorcycle engines.

The sole type of engine we were discussing up to the point you made your claim (and well beyond) was automotive, spark ignited, Otto cycle, production/production-based using pump gas.

Without stating ANY other qualifiers, you claimed that switching the head material from iron to aluminum could yield a full 3 point gain in compression with the same octane "pump gas."

SHOW ME!

SHOW ME such an engine (e.g. Chevy small block, Mopar big block, Pontaic 455, Gm 3.8 (NA), etc) that's running 12.4:1 or higher on 87 octane AND such an engine that's running 20:1 on "pump gas."

 

Miller and Otto cycle engines are nearly IDENTICAL. Their only difference is in valve timing dumbass. You're the one who keeps changing the "requirements" for examples. We're talking GAS STREET MOTORS, not otto cycle, not car only...GAS STREET MOTORS. But as always, when you're shown to be wrong (hardly a rare event) you run off on another tangent.

I have you examples of high compression aluminum headed 87 octane burning emission/street legal gas engines.

I'm still waiting for your example of a 13:1 iron headed 87 octane burning emissions/street legal gas engine.

 

You have posted NO such examples of engines meeting all of the requirements stated above (and repeated below):

The sole type of engine we were discussing up to the point you made your claim (and well beyond) were automotive, spark ignited, Otto cycle, production/production-based, streetable engines using pump gas.

Without stating ANY other qualifiers, you claimed that switching the head material from iron to aluminum could yield a full 3 point gain in compression with the same octane "pump gas."

SHOW ME!

Cut the SH!T and start posting examples of 350 Chevies, 455 Pontiacs, 351 Fords, 231 Buicks (normally aspirated), 440 Mopars, etc, etc. running 12.4:1 (or better) with aluminum heads and 87 octane fuel.

I also want to see examples of such engines running 20:1 with premium pump gas (94 octane or less).

SHOW ME!

 

More qualifications. I've already shown you examples of gas burning emissions legal motors running very high compression on 87. Because you don't like the valve timing is YOUR problem.

What's next, you're going to change the requirements to no variable valve timing engines? Then what, 2V motors only?

You're retarded. You're wrong and too stupid to realize it.

 

Engines using the ATKINSON/MILLER cycle permits a SUBTANTIALLY higher mechanical compression ratio (which does NOT translate into a higher DYNAMIC compression ratio). Here's why. (And note ONCE AGAIN the reference to PUMPING LOSSES in OTTO CYCLE engines.):

http://home.earthlink.net/~graham1/M...Combustion.htm

"Atkinson/Miller Cycle

...The main culprit is pumping loss, that is the limiting of the power generated by a conventional Otto cycle engine by restricting the flow of air into the inlet manifold. So, the Prius engine does not use the Otto cycle, but rather the "Atkinson" cycle.

In an Otto cycle engine, the fuel/air "charge" is drawn into the cylinder during the downstroke and then locked in by the intake valve closing near "bottom-dead-center". The whole cylinder's volume of charge is then compressed and burned during the combustion or power stroke. By contrast, the Atkinson cycle does not close the intake valve at bottom-dead-center but leaves it open while the piston begins to rise. Some of the charge is pushed back out into the intake manifold (to be used in another cylinder). The point at which the inlet valve closes is variable. The volume of charge that is compressed and burned can thus be reduced without severely restricting the throttle opening. This way of lowering power output without large pumping losses makes the Prius engine much more efficient than a conventional engine during most driving situations."

Again, you are comparing apples with grapefruits.

I want to see examples of HIGH PERFORMANCE, OTTO CYCLE CRATE MOTORS running the "vastly higher" compression ratios that you claim are possible with aluminum heads and "pump gas."

If your claim is valid then such examples would be ABUNDANT. in fact, they would now be THE NORM.

Such is not the case.

Because you are WRONG.

 

Here's a super hot MOPAR hemi crate engine fitted with aluminum heads, "big cam" and high performance "everything." Note the compression ratio and the required octane.

Why aren't they running the "vastly higher" compression ratios that you claim are possible with aluminum heads? Just think of all the "free" horsepower they're missing out on by being so stupid!

http://www.moparengine.com/p4876690.htm

528 Hemi Crate Motor -
610 horsepower, 650 ft.-lbs. torque
P4876690

Just in case 465 horsepower isn’t enough, Mopar Performance Parts has developed this all new 528 Hemi crate motor which pumps out 610 horsepower and 650 ft._lbs. of torque! Features include a heavy duty cast iron block with cross bolted mains, aluminum heads, a 292° .524"/.543" lift hydraulic cam, forged pistons (10.25:1 compression ratio), a 4BBL dual plane M1® intake manifold, 4.15" forged crank, 4.50" bore and double roller timing chain and sprockets. Stainless steel valves are 2.25" for the intake and 1.94" for the exhaust and include heavy duty single springs and umbrella valve seals. Mopar logo, cast aluminum valve covers and a chrome front cover are included as is Mopar’s precise electronic distributor. Uses a basic 6_quart rear sump oil pan (1970_71 “E”_Body style). Mopar Performance Parts recommends that for maximum performance, a 850/900 cfm Holley carburetor and 2" headers be used (not included).
* P4876690 528 Hemi Crate Motor _ 610 horsepower, 650 ft.- lbs. Torque

Note: 10.25:1 compression ratio with aluminum heads allows the use of current high octane (premium) pump gas and yet the total package makes more power than the original high ratio production version.

 

Just what I figured...more excuses out of you. Swat Dude has you pegged to a T. I show you examples of streetable emissions legal production gas motors just as you asked, now you have to have particular streetable gas motors. Now you want only SB Chevy, Windsors or V6 Buicks (non-turbo of course)...you are SUCH a lamer. All you do is lie on the boards...it's really quite sad. Over the past few pages I've given you example after example, results of mathematical models, all showing aluminum head's ability to run much higher compression that iron...PERIOD. You just come back with excuse after excuse and lie after lie.

Lies about aluminum heads...

Lies about the Cam Only Swap...

Lies about Xenon headlamps...

Lies about cotton filters...

Lies about previous posts...

Lies about Injen's CAI...

Lies about ram air...

You even stooped so low as to lie about you having taken fluid mechanics when you can't even keep 2 of the most basic formulas straight...V is velocity in the Combined Gas Law...please...you are SUCH A LIAR.

You troll forums with your lies to the point you've been banned from the TSX forums.

Lies, lies, lies...that's ALL you're about benchtop loser.

Enjoy life on ignore liar.

 

Any sane person who's been following this thread KNOWS who is RIGHT and who is WRONG.

I've already explained to you why ATKINSON/MILLER cycle engines CANNOT be compared to OTTO cycle engines in terms of (mechanical) compression ratios.

In terms of motorcycle engines being able to run higher compression ratios:

The bike engines you cited run tiny cylinders (and bores) relative to auto engines. That means that flame travel is VERY short, which results in a much faster combustion process. This is one reason why such bike engines can run compression ratios of 12:1 without knock.

Additionally, those engines run radical cams with high overlap and turn insane rpms. Those things combine to LOWER dynamic compression ratios (relative to the high mechanical ratios that you cited).

Hot bike engines and ATKINSON cycle engines CANNOT be compared to the automobile engines that we were ORIGINALLY discussing.

Any sane person can see what's permissable in terms of compression ratios and related fuel octane for AUTOMOBILE/OTTO cycle engines simply by looking into what the better "crate engine" (and engine builders) are offering...

And NONE of them are offering engines that run 11:1 or more on PREMIUM fuel (with aluminum heads).

 

All sane people died from laughing so hard at this thread they dropped dead in their chair...

 

In my humble opinion, the air filter issue borders on 'snake oil'. This is like the debate over standard speaker wire and 'monster cable' or other, super-heavy-duty, 10 gauge, non-oxidized, blah blah speaker cable. The guy who ran McIntosh Hi Fi built a device that completely invalidated their claims and McIntosh started telling their customers that using anything over 18 gauge wire for a 50 foot (or shorter) run was throwing money away.

McIntosh dealers got really irritated because they were making ridiculous margins on Monster Cable. McIntosh finally backed down and no longer makes any statement, positive or negative (no pun intended), regarding "audiophile-grade cable.

Also, look into what's recently happened to the Slick 50 people. What a line of BS they were feeding us!

What I take from this is... give me some empirical evidence by an INDEPENDENT third-party (not someone commissioned by the company peddling the product) and I'll believe your claim. Otherwise, I'm wasting my money on snake oil.

 

Actually what McIntosh said was the average person wouldn't be able to tell the difference, but there were/are measurable differences.

Shall we take this thread down yet another course?

All kidding aside, you make a very valid point.