My EA82T Compression Ratio findings .
Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:03 am
Well this didn't go as I planned it but that may not be for the worse .
As some of you would remember reading the plan was to have my spider turbo EA82T engine rebuilt and along the way mod a few things inc a raised compression ratio - 7.7 to 1 sounds a bit pathetic by today's standards .
When the engine was striped it was found that the pistons were proud of the deck faces and my engine builder told me that this engine had been opened up and freshened up before .
It was all in good condition but you (I do anyway) fit new rings and bearings and hone the bores .
I asked for ~ 8.5 - 9.0 CR and when measured I was told it already was about 8.5 to 1 - because of a typo in the calcs .
The piston crowns were ceramic coated to make up for the EA82T's lack of piston oil squirters and it was assembled late last year .
At the time it may have been suggested to me that in std form the pistons in these engines don't reach the tops of the bores so it was easy to assume that someone had milled a fair amount off the cases of this engine pushing the static compression ratio up to 8.5 to 1 .
Now recently people here came back and said no the pistons don't sit down the bores on a std EA82T so what are you on about ?
Thinking this didn't ring true I asked my engine builder for the various measured volumes so I could do the calcs myself .
Well all looked about right until I noticed that the volume in the head gasket above the piston didn't tally with the CR number given . What I didn't know at that point was the compressed thickness of an EA82T head gasket so I asked again and mentioned the odd looking gasket volume .
I really had to know that gasket thickness to be certain that the pistons weren't to close to the heads deck faces .
Anyway these are the volumes given today and as I feared the CR will be just over 8 to 1 .
Chamber 38.2cc , Piston dish/valve reliefs 20cc , Head Gasket 6.647 cc , minus 1.66 cc for pistons being 10 thou proud of deck faces .
So CR = Swept Volume + Clearance Volume/ Clearance volume or 445.39 + 63.187/63.187 = 8.049 meaning near enough to 8.05 to 1 .
My first though was can it be raised reasonably easily but I don't think is doable in practise without custom made pistons . At a guess you'd be struggling to make a worthwhile difference by machining the heads and if you remove too much the deck rigidity can suffer and not clamp up reliably on the head gaskets . Also the inlet/coolant ports creep closer together which means mods to the inlet manifold so its ports line up with those in the heads .
Even the cases wouldn't stand having more than 5 removed before the piston/head clearance got to the 25 thou minimum . No cost effective solution .
The only good thing to come out of this was that Stu Wilkins , who rallied an 86 RX Turbo in the mid late 80's , said you don't want high CRs in these engines anyway . In those days the rally people tried raising the CR as well and found that the only way to stop them detonating was to retard the ignition timing which killed their power no matter how much boost they ran .
I'm not certain but I think the regs of the day forced the teams to run the std header pipe and of course no intercooling and I reckon both would have a major say in what you could screw out of these engines power wise before detonation became the limiting factor .
I guess they were running leaded Avgas and the homologated turbo and camshafts but you can only push so hard on such a basic engine design head and manifold wise before the grim reaper starts knocking on the pistons and head gaskets .
So Scoobidoo in you unique fashion you gave me reason to question what I though was fact and unbeknownst to me at the time I was wrong .
I suppose I should be thankful for it being up 0.3 of a ratio and I'm going to have to think a little harder about finding ways to pull the bottom end up - without resorting to small turbos .
I have asked an SA contact to rat up a pair of 87 only hotwire NA EFI cams which should be a quite mild upgrade over the std turbo cams .
The IHI VF8 and VF10 turbos arrived from Victoria today so I have something larger than the std one to think about .
The immediate choices would be to either use the EJ flanged turbine housing off the VF10 because it uses the same turbine as the EA82's turbo and is slightly larger (15R vs 12R) and effectively recreates the highest performance std turbo used on any EA82T - but with EJ mounting and dump pipe flanges . Or use the VF10 complete .
I managed to find a Vortex owner in Europe (through USMB) and he confirmed that the 87 (I think) version in some parts of Europe had the Spider manifold/best std factory turbo cams/rare EA flanged 15R turbine housing and made a std 136 ps vs the usual L EA82T's 120 ? Torque is supposed to be up 10 ft/lbs as well .
Not huge numbers but with better header/exhaust/intercooling maybe adequate .
Cheers A .
As some of you would remember reading the plan was to have my spider turbo EA82T engine rebuilt and along the way mod a few things inc a raised compression ratio - 7.7 to 1 sounds a bit pathetic by today's standards .
When the engine was striped it was found that the pistons were proud of the deck faces and my engine builder told me that this engine had been opened up and freshened up before .
It was all in good condition but you (I do anyway) fit new rings and bearings and hone the bores .
I asked for ~ 8.5 - 9.0 CR and when measured I was told it already was about 8.5 to 1 - because of a typo in the calcs .
The piston crowns were ceramic coated to make up for the EA82T's lack of piston oil squirters and it was assembled late last year .
At the time it may have been suggested to me that in std form the pistons in these engines don't reach the tops of the bores so it was easy to assume that someone had milled a fair amount off the cases of this engine pushing the static compression ratio up to 8.5 to 1 .
Now recently people here came back and said no the pistons don't sit down the bores on a std EA82T so what are you on about ?
Thinking this didn't ring true I asked my engine builder for the various measured volumes so I could do the calcs myself .
Well all looked about right until I noticed that the volume in the head gasket above the piston didn't tally with the CR number given . What I didn't know at that point was the compressed thickness of an EA82T head gasket so I asked again and mentioned the odd looking gasket volume .
I really had to know that gasket thickness to be certain that the pistons weren't to close to the heads deck faces .
Anyway these are the volumes given today and as I feared the CR will be just over 8 to 1 .
Chamber 38.2cc , Piston dish/valve reliefs 20cc , Head Gasket 6.647 cc , minus 1.66 cc for pistons being 10 thou proud of deck faces .
So CR = Swept Volume + Clearance Volume/ Clearance volume or 445.39 + 63.187/63.187 = 8.049 meaning near enough to 8.05 to 1 .
My first though was can it be raised reasonably easily but I don't think is doable in practise without custom made pistons . At a guess you'd be struggling to make a worthwhile difference by machining the heads and if you remove too much the deck rigidity can suffer and not clamp up reliably on the head gaskets . Also the inlet/coolant ports creep closer together which means mods to the inlet manifold so its ports line up with those in the heads .
Even the cases wouldn't stand having more than 5 removed before the piston/head clearance got to the 25 thou minimum . No cost effective solution .
The only good thing to come out of this was that Stu Wilkins , who rallied an 86 RX Turbo in the mid late 80's , said you don't want high CRs in these engines anyway . In those days the rally people tried raising the CR as well and found that the only way to stop them detonating was to retard the ignition timing which killed their power no matter how much boost they ran .
I'm not certain but I think the regs of the day forced the teams to run the std header pipe and of course no intercooling and I reckon both would have a major say in what you could screw out of these engines power wise before detonation became the limiting factor .
I guess they were running leaded Avgas and the homologated turbo and camshafts but you can only push so hard on such a basic engine design head and manifold wise before the grim reaper starts knocking on the pistons and head gaskets .
So Scoobidoo in you unique fashion you gave me reason to question what I though was fact and unbeknownst to me at the time I was wrong .
I suppose I should be thankful for it being up 0.3 of a ratio and I'm going to have to think a little harder about finding ways to pull the bottom end up - without resorting to small turbos .
I have asked an SA contact to rat up a pair of 87 only hotwire NA EFI cams which should be a quite mild upgrade over the std turbo cams .
The IHI VF8 and VF10 turbos arrived from Victoria today so I have something larger than the std one to think about .
The immediate choices would be to either use the EJ flanged turbine housing off the VF10 because it uses the same turbine as the EA82's turbo and is slightly larger (15R vs 12R) and effectively recreates the highest performance std turbo used on any EA82T - but with EJ mounting and dump pipe flanges . Or use the VF10 complete .
I managed to find a Vortex owner in Europe (through USMB) and he confirmed that the 87 (I think) version in some parts of Europe had the Spider manifold/best std factory turbo cams/rare EA flanged 15R turbine housing and made a std 136 ps vs the usual L EA82T's 120 ? Torque is supposed to be up 10 ft/lbs as well .
Not huge numbers but with better header/exhaust/intercooling maybe adequate .
Cheers A .