5.9, max safe compression?

-
Well, KB 107 + .030 is my choice. The pistons have 5cc notchs, and I should wind up about 10.4 dcr. I am thinking I should dyno this motor to get it spot on, which will allow me to sneak up on the right tune without hurting anything. Since those pistons are close enough to not need a rebalance, I plan to rebuild the stock rods so I can safely spin it a bit more than 6,000 rpm if I need to. If my math is right the dcr will be 10.889 with a 4.030 bore, 5cc piston notches, .040 compression distance. Sound right?
 
Last edited:
You are computing static CR there, not dynamic CR. I am getting 10.8 SCR and 8.7 DCR at sea level with that cam....will be maybe 8.5 to 8.6 at 1000' altitude. Looks like a very touchy combo, very easily pushing into detonation, and I personally would not do it. Better be talking to AJ a lot!

What is the main use for this engine/car?
 
1965 Dart 2dr,904 with 3.55 gears. Just a fun car to take to shows, mostly.
 
nm9stheham, so mena favor? Calculate this combo for me please, static and dynamic.

.030, 360, KB 107 @ zero deck, head gasket @ .075 X 4.04 63cc head chamber. And again with this head gasket if you please, .038 X 4.1.
Thanks
 
IMO, 8.7@ sealevel is too high for iron heads, but I have not seen enough data on this site to say that for sure. 8.7 will be easy for aluminum heads tho. The best guys to talk to would probably be the guys who build them.
One problem I foresee is that with .040 quench you have nowhere to go with a thicker gasket, to reduce the total chamber volume. Adding just .010 to the gasket, will put the Q into the gray area of .050 to .080. And that .010 gasket will add a little over 2cc to the total chamber volume. So the theory would say that the extra 2cc would bring the Dcr into the doable range, while the Q goes into the don't-do-it zone, and perhaps just makes it worse. So you add .010 more, and it gets still worse!. I'd hate to see you buying thicker gaskets every week!
Far better to engineer it right in the first place even if the Dcr ends up sub-optimum. Or you could just go with a later closing intake angle,lol. But swapping cams every week might get old too.
We know 8.2Dcr/iron works at sealevel. The difference from 8.2 to 8.7, may not be worth chasing, unless you got something else riding on this combo. And if it gets up there, we also know that aluminum works at 8.9 to maybe as high a 9.2 as some here on FABO have claimed.
It may be cheaper in the long run to zero deck it and run some closed chamber aluminums, as I did. By zero deck, this time, I mean running quench in the range of .035 to .045. That could mean a zero deck and up to a .045 gasket, or .028 gasket and up to .017 in the hole. etc. Then let the Scr be what it will be, and letting the Dcr fall into the range of doable; I run 87E10 on a Dcr of 8.7aluminum , IIRC,one fellow here runs 9.2Dcr-aluminum on 91.
>Bear in mind that your engine only needs enough octane to suppress detonation at maximum loading. Probably 80 to 95 % of the time in a street-engine's life, it will run just fine on 87. Yet we have to put the gas in the tank for the maximum loading. Cuz we just cannot control our right foots,lol.
So, if your engine gets into detonation with a 750DP, perhaps downsizing to a 600Vacuum secondary, or a 500AVS, will keep it out of detonation. Or my favorite trick is to use a spreadbore and slow the secondaries down, for the week. Then on the weekend, put in the hi-test and crank the secondaries back in! I mean the 5.9 will have no trouble spinning most street tires anyway, whether at Dcr of 8.7 or 8.2 or maybe even 7.7,lol.
 
nm9stheham, so mena favor? Calculate this combo for me please, static and dynamic.

.030, 360, KB 107 @ zero deck, head gasket @ .075 X 4.04 63cc head chamber. And again with this head gasket if you please, .038 X 4.1.
Thanks
Hey those are my specs almost exactly. You will need to supply the ICA and altitude
 
Sea level, ICL will have to wait a 1/2 or so .... BRB!
 
I inputted the following numbers
To determine the Scr, I figured the swept to be 748.3cc, 5cc in the eyebrows and 15.75cc in the .075 gasket, and 8.22cc for the .038 gasket, and zero in the deck. So the total chamber volumes were 83.75cc, and 76.22cc. This makes the two combos 9.935, and 10.818 Scrs
The comp cam has an ICA of 63* when in at 106
The Voodoo has an ICA of 65.58, in at 106
The comp has a very slow ramp from advertised to .050 of 50*
The Voodoo is much better at 30*
These are two completely different cams, as to performance. At .050 they are over 3 cam sizes apart; 224 vs 249
I like the voodoo in the 10.8 engine, but it may not like iron heads. It would be fine with aluminums;and should run on skunk-pee.

comments in the quote
Edit; including the Dynamic C/Rs


Cam #1 with thicker head gasket.
110-106
20-811-9 - Xtreme Energy™ Retro-Fit Hydraulic Roller Camshafts
With this one I get:
8.01@160 for the fat-boy gasket, and
8.71@178psi for the thinner one

Cam #2 110-106
Voodoo Solid Roller Cam - Chrysler 273-360 279/285 - Lunati Power
With this one I get;
7.86@156psi/fat-boy, and
8.54@174 for the thinner gasket
 
Last edited:
Thanks. Um? Dynamic ratio is????

These are two different engines and heads. Heads are both aluminum. The Voodoo is in the 10.8 engine.
Skunk pee? LMAO
 
My head is spinning on this one, and maybe It would be smart to go with a piston combo that would allow me to "fix" a too high compression situation. The point made about lowering cr with gasket changes would be easier with the Sealed Power pistons and thier 11.23cc dish. The trouble is the Sealed Power pistons would requier two extra steps, decking the block and balancing the rotating assembly. That adds another $300 to a project that was sopposed to be a low budget build. I need to win the lottery or something. Too many projects.
 
Or just put in a different cam with a later-closing intake. Unless that too has been purchased. Or unless the bigger cam puts the power somewhere that you don't need it to be.
Or get fresh cold ait into the carb,or a smaller carb, or a spreadbore carb, or run different fuels between the primaries and secondaries,or stage the secondaries later. Or install a higher TC, or bigger rear gears, or a lower first gear in the tranny. Or there's water injection at large throttle openings, or more ethanol in the gas, or even ethanol injection. Or just don't floor it,lol. Or if 32* gets you out of detonation, run 32, or just bring full timing in a little later. My engine does not get full timing until 3400, so I can run 87E10 @10.9 Scr. Do you think I have ever noticed a power loss?NO! At 2800 the timing is only 28*. I have never noticed a power loss.
While I still believe 10.9 is too much for iron, go back to post #28; 65 Dart 904/3.55s/fun at car shows.
Nowhere does it say heavily loaded or racing. I'm betting you will be running skinny tires too;probably 245s.
I was unable to find where you listed the stall speed so I assume she's stock; 1750 to 2200. And you are at 1000 ft.
In your tune, you have the ability to generate any timing curve you like, and at PT it can be massively below the detonation threshhold. So the only worry will be at WOT too-heavily loaded or at too low an rpm. So don't floor it in 4th at 2000 rpm!, for goodness sake' Who would do that?
It's a 65 lightweight-A; you are already ahead of the game some 400 pounds. You are 1000 ft elevation in your favor, and it's not for racing.
I say go for it, I would try it, and tune the heck out of it.
With a 64* ICA, and 1000 ft,I get

Static compression ratio of 10.9:1.
Effective stroke is 2.79 inches.
Your dynamic compression ratio is 8.52:1 .
Your dynamic cranking pressure is 173.47 PSI.
Your effective boost compression ratio, reflecting static c.r., cam timing, altitude, and boost of PSI is 8.52 :1.
V/P (Volume to Pressure Index) is 148

This appears to be a half a point too high in Dcr, It might cost you 2* of power-timing at 3200rpm, maybe 4* at 3600, who really knows and will you ever feel it? I doubt it with 3.55s and 300 to 400 less pounds,and skinny tires.And don't forget, you can stage the secondaries to come in a little later. The primaries will make plenty of tire frying torque all by themselves, and if they don't, a sure cure is a 2800TC. Ima telling you; that cam will shred both 245s with a two barrel; A really little 2bbl; A 600 Holley vac secondary with the back barrels wired shut,even!
I ran a 270-280-110 with 223@050, And it could do that with ZERO help from the TC. Just flat-footing it. And that @ 3650 pounds;me in it.
So, as a streeter, you have plenty of after-the-fact options.
I say give 'er.
What's the worst that could happen?
Let's see;
it's not the 2800, that would be a great thing.
it's not the 3.91s or the 2.74 low gear tranny. No, those would be great too.
it's not the TQ, no sir, those are awesome.
it's not the 180 stat in place of the defective 195 that cranks it up to 205.
It's not the full-timing delayed to 3400, nope, the tires are still spinning.
So what is the very worst thing.
Oh I know, the worst thing would be if you go deaf before the tune is in,and you cannot hear the marbles. But I'll tell you a secret; KB107s will survive quite a bit of that, a little atta time. They may not be diesel pistons, but they are not ticking time-bombs either.
 
Last edited:
My head is spinning on this ----- That adds another $300 to a project that was sopposed to be a low budget build.

This engine is a good to go unit correct?
Stock pistons, use'em if there good to.
 
Oh my GAWD
And I was thinking more like SHEEEEEEEEET

This calculator is TERRIBLY misleading as to how overall engine performance is effected with CR, and I wish people would stop pointing to this, as they are doing a great disservice to new engine builders. This ONLY reflects the PEAK HP under certain LIMITED circumstances. It tells you NOTHING about how much added CR effects low RPM torque, widens the torque band at the low end, and improves engine efficiency.

If we did not care about this, we would also never change cam timing to make changes in peak combustion compression numbers.... etc. And we all KNOW that running too big a cam in a low SCR engine kills the low RPM torque. So why then turn around and say that CR is not important? Pure nonsense.

If CR was not important, we would all run 6:1 SCR and never worry about detonation. Let see some dyno curves from that....

Anyway, I was also thinking maybe jack the compression ratio up to 12.5:1 and back the timing down to 12 degrees total. Because everyone knows that a 9.5:1 compression, let alone an 8.2:1 compression 360 engine, will never be able to get out of it's own way.

Let's put a mild 8.2:1 360 on the dyno.

I don't have a dyno curve from a 6:1 compression engine but I do have one from the 8.2:1 engine.

cammon.jpg


Don't be safe. Squeeze every bit of compression you can out of that engine and fight with it until you are completely sick of it. Then give it away and build something you can live with. Or quit the hobby altogether because it is soaking up all your money trying to get the POS to work.
 
Last edited:
@IQ52

By chance, have you ever calmed up a 5.9 w/stock slugs? And how much lift can you get away with?
 
@IQ52

By chance, have you ever calmed up a 5.9 w/stock slugs? And how much lift can you get away with?
If you are referencing piston to valve clearance on a Magnum, I cannot say. The biggest cam I have used on a stock Magnum bottom end is the XR265HR-14.

20-746-9 - Xtreme Energy™ Computer Controlled Hydraulic Roller Camshafts (For 1992-02 Magnum Engines WITH 1.6:1 ROCKERS)

I never recall having measured the retainer to seal clearance on any stock small block Mopar head. I have the tools to cut the valve guides so I just automatically wack them down.
 
No one is telling anyone to be unsafe. More than almost anyone here, I openly ask about the user's the application; I expect that any good engine builder like Jim, IQ52, also asks those things first. The first response to the OP's proposed 10.8 SCR and upper 8's DCR should show that we understand the limits.

My point on the particular Wallace calculator cited is that it is based on just one parameter from thermodynamic curves and nothing else. It does not even comes close to telling anyone, new or old, everything that changes in an engine's operating characteristic with a change in CR. The fine 360 example with a small cam has nothing to do with the limitations of that Wallace calculator.
 
nm9stheham, so mena favor? Calculate this combo for me please, static and dynamic.

.030, 360, KB 107 @ zero deck, head gasket @ .075 X 4.04 63cc head chamber. And again with this head gasket if you please, .038 X 4.1.
Thanks
Not avoiding you RF.... I worked installing equipment for 12 hours today in a coal power plant and will do the same tomorrow.

I use the Pat Kelley calculator. (Free on-line.) It spits out these DCR/SCR's:
With the Comp Cam:
9.88/7.98 with the .075 head gasket
19.081/8.71 with the .038 head gasket
That calculator uses the advertised intake timing for intake closing angle so tends to be conservative (i.e., it tends to give a higher DCR than some others.)
These look to be the same numbers that AJ came up with. So I'll pas on the other cam as he has answered it and I have only about 10 more minutes to keep my eyes open.
 
My head is spinning on this one, and maybe It would be smart to go with a piston combo that would allow me to "fix" a too high compression situation. The point made about lowering CR with gasket changes would be easier with the Sealed Power pistons and their 11.23cc dish. The trouble is the Sealed Power pistons would require two extra steps, decking the block and balancing the rotating assembly. That adds another $300 to a project that was supposed to be a low budget build. I need to win the lottery or something. Too many projects.
Or:
1) Put in a bigger cam as AJ sez.
2) Retard the cam some.. I am too tired to play with the numbers tonight.
3) Do what I did back in '75 to bring some 11.2 SCR quench-dome pistons down to 10.3 SCR for using premium fuel on iron heads: grind out the head chambers as many CC's needed to get it there. (I had to do it on the side where the quench domes were not forming the quench gap. Boy, was I nervous about the water jacket! It was my first big engine project.) I have not set down on this project to see how many CC's to take out in this case. But it can come from heads, pistons eyebrows, or valves with big dimples in them. Head grinding yourself is cheap in terms of $$.... if you don't hit water.

(Dang I am so tired I am correcting your spelling LOL!)
 
No one is telling anyone to be unsafe. More than almost anyone here, I openly ask about the user's the application; I expect that any good engine builder like Jim, IQ52, also asks those things first. The first response to the OP's proposed 10.8 SCR and upper 8's DCR should show that we understand the limits.

My point on the particular Wallace calculator cited is that it is based on just one parameter from thermodynamic curves and nothing else. It does not even comes close to telling anyone, new or old, everything that changes in an engine's operating characteristic with a change in CR. The fine 360 example with a small cam has nothing to do with the limitations of that Wallace calculator.
Having seen these compression ratio question so many times I made the judgement from the OP's first post that the project needed to be kept very simple and very safe. No response since then has given me cause to change my mind.
 
Last edited:
When you tell people you can make not only reasonable, but GOOD HP from an 8.5:1 engine, they simply don't believe it. The way I see it is, that's THEIR frikkin problem. Let them keep reading the forums and magazines.
 
Well, this is why I jumped in and cut the line sort of to ask the question about cam size in a stock 5.9. It serves myself and perhaps Greg. The engines actual ratio I do not know but the advertised ratio is a 9.0-1, IIRC.

I have a dead stock '00, 5.9 except the 600 AFB, rpm intake, Hooker Super Comps @ 1-3/4 and a chrome box firing a OE distributor of unknown origin. 727/3.55-26'tire.

It is a strong engine and Performer for what it is.

@IQ52 - Jim, thanks for the cam link. That one escaped me. I haven't been seriously looking for a cam for this but I did want to poke around a bit for something for the future.

I've run a similar Crane Hyd cam like that. Good strong daily driver stuff. I don't what kind of power it'll make in my mill, but it should be a nice addition and a make for a good driving experience with it.
 
@RustyRatRod

Your right! But we knew this and seen it proven. Hot Rod rag did a few low compression builds. They produced good power with reasonable sized cams.

A great proving point is when the craftsman trucks started up, they were limited to a 9.0-1 ratio BUT still they made 700hp.

Use your head(s)!
LMAO
 
Exactly. You just cannot tell these young punksters that who read all the latest mags and hang on all the most popular forums.

Hell,. we were putting cams with 240* @ .050 in stock engines with intakes,l headers converters and gears almost 40 years ago and runnin 12s or better. Unported heads and all.

You just caint tell people anything.


@RustyRatRod

Your right! But we knew this and seen it proven. Hot Rod rag did a few low compression builds. They produced good power with reasonable sized cams.

A great proving point is when the craftsman trucks started up, they were limited to a 9.0-1 ratio BUT still they made 700hp.

Use your head(s)!
LMAO
 
@rumblefish360

We put that cam in a 1995 360 with a dual plane air gap and some slightly worked Magnum heads......431 LB-FT and 413 HP.
 
-
Back
Top