Compression Ratio vs. Boost Pressure

A Forum For All Forced Induction Systems Topics Such As Turbos, Superchargers and Nitrous Oxide.
Post Reply
User avatar
MrMazda92
Supporting Member
Posts: 5201
Joined: October 8th, 2009, 5:35 pm
antispam: No
Location: Midwest

Compression Ratio vs. Boost Pressure

Post by MrMazda92 »

I know this has been said dozens of times here over the years, but I've been frustrated time and again by people who just don't understand this concept. Today I stumbled on a very well written post on Probetalk by our very own David Coleman.

***Please note that this information applies to TURBOCHARGERS as well as SUPERCHARGERS***
David Coleman wrote:The only way to make more power is to increase cylinder pressure and burn more fuel. The main purpose of the supercharger is to supply the motor with a more dense air charge, which allows for the ability to burn the additional fuel. By adding a supercharger, additional air should no longer be a problem. Ensuring that there will be enough additional fuel to maintain the proper air to fuel ratio will be the key to using the maximum effective compression.

All motors have a static compression ratio. This is the amount that the air inside the cylinder is compressed. It is a ratio of the cylinder volume at BDC to the volume at TDC. When a supercharger is added, additional air is forced into the cylinder effectively raising the compression ratio. The result of this is called effective compression. The formula for finding the effective compression is very easy:

((boost psi / 14.7) + 1) x motor compression = effective compression.

The effective compression allows a supercharged motor to be compared to a normally aspirated motor. For the most part, a supercharged motor with the same effective compression as a (similar) normally aspirated motor with the same static compression should have about the same overall power.

This may bring up the question that if the overall power should be about the same, why go with a supercharger? The main advantage of the supercharger is that it allows for a moderate compression level during normal driving while allowing for very high compression levels when needed. Obviously a high compression motor of about 14:1 makes a lot of power, but it would never survive daily driving. A lower compression motor is great for daily driving, but greatly reduces the potential for power. The supercharger allows for higher compression levels than could be used without a supercharger, while still offering the benifits of a standard compression motor. Many street supercharged systems will go beyond 18:1 effective compression under boost. Under race conditions, many supercharged race motors will go well beyond 22:1 effective compression. Both of these levels are far beyond what could be done reliably or cost effectively without a supercharger.

This brings us back to the question of just how much boost or compression can be run. Obviously there can't be a simple number that could be used for every application. This is why it's so critical to chose the proper components. It's not necessary to build a low compression motor to use a supercharger, but the correct parts are still necessary. The biggest factors will be in things like head bolts (or preferably studs), gaskets, and the strength of the other engine components. It goes without saying that the incredible power that a supercharger can add, can easily start breaking things. It is very important that as the boost levels rise, the need for a stronger crank, rods, pistons, etc... becomes very critical. Many people forget this as the motor itself is relatively mild, while the supercharger pushes it well beyond the practical limits it was intended for.

Now, back to the compression issue. Anyone who has looked into supercharging has heard that you need a low (static) compression motor. This may have been true once upon a time, when roots type (positive displacement) superchargers ruled the land, but it's not so necessary now. The problem with a low compression motor is that it relies heavily on the supercharger for its power. An 8:1 motor is definitely not going to be a power house. Sure, you can throw 18 lbs of boost on it and get some real power, but why? A higher compression motor of 9.5:1 will have much more power without the blower. Then, with less boost you could easily have the same overall power - only it would be much more usable. Both of the motors (8:1 with 18 lbs boost and 9.5:1 with 12 lbs boost) will have almost the same effective compression and about the same overall power. The big difference will be where you see the power, and how much of a demand will be placed on the supercharger. Obviously, the 9.5:1 motor is going to have far greater torque and low end power as the boost is only starting to come in. It is also going to be much easier to find a blower to survive only 12 lbs of boost -vs- one that would have to put out 18 lbs. It is now very easy to see why a higher compression motor with lower boost is becoming so popular.

Please understand that when I say higher compression and lower boost, there are limits to each. Going over about 10:1 will make the amount of boost that is usable drop quickly to the point that the supercharger is somewhat wasted. In my opinion, anything less than 8 lbs of boost is a waste of a supercharger. Going over 10:1 will also make daily driving with pump gas much more difficult. In this same way, compression levels much under 9:1 will require substantial boost levels to make massive power gains. This would require boost levels that are very demanding of a supercharger. This is truly unnecessary. This isn't to say that the lower compression / higher boost set-up doesn't have a slightly higher potential for power, because it does. A lower compression motor has the ability to contain more volume. This can be an advantage, but is such a minor one that it's not necessarily worth the effort - unless it's for an all out race motor. Even then there are limits for the same reasons as the street / strip motor.

Once again, the compression -vs- boost issue. For a car that will see the streets (actually for most applications), the best thing to do is start with a motor compression that is high enough to make the horsepower you want for normal driving. Don't rely on your supercharger to make all your horsepower. With a good motor compression, add as much boost as is safe for your particular application. Decide on a final effective compression, and work your way back through the formula to find your maximum boost level: ((effective compression / motor compression) - 1) x 14.7 = boost. With the proper fuel system and related engine components, an effective compression of 16:1 to 18:1 should be more than workable. For heavily modified cars, effective compressions over 20:1 should be very carefully considered. Remember, even Indy cars only run about 18 Lbs of boost and reasonable static compression levels. Technology has come a long way and modern day supercharging should take full advantage of this.

While these opinions are not exactly the most popular, they are based on facts and real world performance. While there will always be those who continue with tradition and stick with what was done in the past, it is those who reach for something more that are winning races. Often times, some of the best advice can be found from those who have done what you want to do. All too often it is those who know the least that offer the most advice. After having been involved in supercharging for many years, I have heard it all. Most of it was worthless. It was often the least mentioned things and trail and error that have been the most rewarding. Hopefully this information will help to explain some of the often misunderstood aspects of supercharging.

[I got this from the archives....search is good]
I hope to never see another "You need low comp. pistons to turbo your engine" reply to any thread, ever again...
Daily:
'12 Challenger R/T + STP - 3.92 w/ LSD, JG Cam, headers, SkipShift delete, Clutch Delay Valve delete, Hurst STS, RAM Clutch Adjuster, StopTech 6 Piston Brakes, Sticky Nittos, 435 WHP

Kid Hauler:
'08 Suburban LT 4WD - TVS 1900 Blower, LF SC Cam, headers, AFM delete, true 5" lift, 33x12s, 523 WHP

First Love:
'92 GS 5 spd - Straightneck KL/67mm TB, MegaSquirt/Coilpacks, 5 lugs/Speed6 brakes/FD wheels, wiretuck, coilovers, headers, AEM WB, Borla
Deleted: VAF/Power Steering/Air Conditioning/EGR/ABS/Auto Seatbelts/etc
User avatar
Daninski
Supporting Member
Posts: 7055
Joined: June 18th, 2007, 10:51 am
Location: Trenton ON.

Re: Compression Ratio vs. Boost Pressure

Post by Daninski »

I have to agree wholeheartedly. However a lower compression engine (DE vs ZE) would under normal driving conditions be subject to less stress overall.
2004 Subaru WRX Silver, stage 2, minty interior.
2002 Subaru WRX Blue, SOLD (best E test numbers I've ever seen)
94 MX-6. Sold
92 GS KLZE 5 Speed
96 GS 5 speed, KLZE, Sold
95 GS Minty Shape Sold
92 GS Sold
92 GS Parts Car scrapped.
Feedback viewtopic.php?f=37&t=66348" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
7477th member.

I know you believe that you understand what you think I said but I'm sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
User avatar
Nd4SpdSe
Senior Member
Posts: 11212
Joined: May 25th, 2002, 2:01 am
Location: Québec City, Quebec, Canada
Contact:

Re: Compression Ratio vs. Boost Pressure

Post by Nd4SpdSe »

Low Compression is a Poor Excuse for Poor Tunning

FYI, my truck makes 6psi of boost and it's compression is 8.3:1
1992 Mazda Mx-3 GSR - 2.5L KLZE : Award Winning Show Car & Race Car ['02-'09] (Retired)
2004 Mazda RX-8 GT - Renesis Wankel : LS3 Coils, BHR Mid-Pipe + Falken RT-615K 245/40r18
2011 Mazda Mazda2 GS - 1.5L Manual : Yozora Edition (1 of 500)
2003 Nissan Xterra SE - 4x4 Supercharged : 2" Body Lift, 4" Suspension Lift & 33" MTR Kevlar
2001 Nissan Frontier SE - The Frontrailer : Expedition/Off-Road Trailer Project
User avatar
Josh
Supporting Member
Posts: 3432
Joined: April 18th, 2002, 2:01 am
Location: Washington state
Contact:

Re: Compression Ratio vs. Boost Pressure

Post by Josh »

^^ I second that!

I have had several motors over the years ranging from 10:1, 9:1, and now 8.4:1. The only thing lower compression allows is a greater margin for error when it comes to tuning...

The theory of going to low compression because your boosting is rather stupid IMO. I look at this the same way 10years ago when all the import tunes said, when bosting you should only run the n/a cams....

Good info, thanks for posting
Dark_Rider2k3
Regular Member
Posts: 1603
Joined: March 6th, 2007, 1:17 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (USA)

Re: Compression Ratio vs. Boost Pressure

Post by Dark_Rider2k3 »

What's the compression ratio of the bp? 8.5/1?

Excellent read though!
User avatar
Josh
Supporting Member
Posts: 3432
Joined: April 18th, 2002, 2:01 am
Location: Washington state
Contact:

Re: Compression Ratio vs. Boost Pressure

Post by Josh »

Dark_Rider2k3 wrote:What's the compression ratio of the bp? 8.5/1?

Excellent read though!
9:1
User avatar
MrMazda92
Supporting Member
Posts: 5201
Joined: October 8th, 2009, 5:35 pm
antispam: No
Location: Midwest

Re: Compression Ratio vs. Boost Pressure

Post by MrMazda92 »

Glad to be of service, just remember I only reposted an ancient post. :D Credit goes to David, not me.
Daily:
'12 Challenger R/T + STP - 3.92 w/ LSD, JG Cam, headers, SkipShift delete, Clutch Delay Valve delete, Hurst STS, RAM Clutch Adjuster, StopTech 6 Piston Brakes, Sticky Nittos, 435 WHP

Kid Hauler:
'08 Suburban LT 4WD - TVS 1900 Blower, LF SC Cam, headers, AFM delete, true 5" lift, 33x12s, 523 WHP

First Love:
'92 GS 5 spd - Straightneck KL/67mm TB, MegaSquirt/Coilpacks, 5 lugs/Speed6 brakes/FD wheels, wiretuck, coilovers, headers, AEM WB, Borla
Deleted: VAF/Power Steering/Air Conditioning/EGR/ABS/Auto Seatbelts/etc
Minimonster
Regular Member
Posts: 83
Joined: July 18th, 2002, 2:01 am
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Compression Ratio vs. Boost Pressure

Post by Minimonster »

The key thing needed to marry compression and boost is a stand alone ecu.
Proud builder of
455 hp Miata 10.98@125mph
MX-3 RS 25 psi 451 hp
MX-6 F2T 12.8 @ 112 mph
(Current Project) A 700 hp MX-3 now at 475 hp
User avatar
RS_OBD'oh_2
Senior Member
Posts: 2400
Joined: April 9th, 2007, 1:26 pm
Location: Calgary, AB

Re: Compression Ratio vs. Boost Pressure

Post by RS_OBD'oh_2 »

In a fairly recent car mag.. they had a feature on a civic of all things. But I believe he was running something like 14:1 CR and over 20 (maybe close to 30)psi. He lives somewhere very high above sea level. He managed to rig cry02 (or something like that) to create his own 14.7 PSIA (atmo) to regulate his WGs. I wish I had the article in front of me, but this one car blew most of the rules right out the window.
User avatar
Josh
Supporting Member
Posts: 3432
Joined: April 18th, 2002, 2:01 am
Location: Washington state
Contact:

Re: Compression Ratio vs. Boost Pressure

Post by Josh »

a good example is Mazda's new sky active tech 15:1. It is all about tuning. I prefer High comp, the only reason so many go to low comp is there is more room for error.
User avatar
Nd4SpdSe
Senior Member
Posts: 11212
Joined: May 25th, 2002, 2:01 am
Location: Québec City, Quebec, Canada
Contact:

Re: Compression Ratio vs. Boost Pressure

Post by Nd4SpdSe »

Josh wrote:a good example is Mazda's new sky active tech 15:1. It is all about tuning. I prefer High comp, the only reason so many go to low comp is there is more room for error.
Direct-Injection is a way to get around the issue of pre-donation during compression by having the fuel injected after it's been compressed
1992 Mazda Mx-3 GSR - 2.5L KLZE : Award Winning Show Car & Race Car ['02-'09] (Retired)
2004 Mazda RX-8 GT - Renesis Wankel : LS3 Coils, BHR Mid-Pipe + Falken RT-615K 245/40r18
2011 Mazda Mazda2 GS - 1.5L Manual : Yozora Edition (1 of 500)
2003 Nissan Xterra SE - 4x4 Supercharged : 2" Body Lift, 4" Suspension Lift & 33" MTR Kevlar
2001 Nissan Frontier SE - The Frontrailer : Expedition/Off-Road Trailer Project
Post Reply

Return to “Forced Induction”