Here I am

Engine/Transmission (1998.5 - 2002) Engine/power

Attention: TDR Forum Junkies
To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.

Thanks, TDR Staff

Engine/Transmission (1994 - 1998) Factory gauges screwin up

Engine/Transmission (1994 - 1998) KDP party

Status
Not open for further replies.
:) Been thinking. Did some research on the 12 v verses the 24v. The 12 v has a compression ratio of 17. 5-1 and the 24 v has only a compression of 16. 5-1. Seems to make since to remove the head and have it to shaved to equal a compression ratio of 17. 5- or 18-1 and then install the oring head gasket with the metal to withstand the extra compression. The benefit would be more torque and better fuel mileage without of all of the mods I read about at a great cost. This would not need the extra fuel added or air added with boost. Yes this would void warranty but many are already their own warranty stations already. ANY FEEDBACK????? :cool: :cool: :cool:
 
I always thought that the compression that ignites the fuel started at around 19 to 1. If your information is correct then I have been labouring under false info all these years. Just at what compression ratio does the fuel mixture ignite?

WD
 
Compression

I'll try to answer this. I'm not sure if all my info is correct, but here goes:



First a diesel ignites it's fuel from Heat, not compression, but it is the compression and cranking speed and the temperature of the intake air that creates the heat.



Said differently, you could start a diesel with say only 14:1 comp. ratio if the engine was cranked at very high speed, and started only in warm ambient temps.



Our grid heater takes care of our intake temp. and our twin batteries takes care of the cranking speed in the cold. Those who live in the south probably could do without the second battery, and might not even notice if the grid heater fails.



The extra compression might give a little more off idle torque, but once the turbo is spooling, and creating boost the compression ratio is not really an issue, the extra air forced into the cylinders creates much higher pressures and creates the power for our Cummins. For an engine without a turbo or supercharger the compression ratio is a much more critical issue.



Actually the folks who are going for the really high HP are adding a thicker head gasket and REDUCING their compression ratio so that the extra boost doesn't blow head gaskets so easily.



I hope this helps answer your question, if I got any of this wrong, I'm sure someone will let us know. :)



Greg L the Noise Nazi
 
It's heat, not pressure that ignites the diesel fuel. The amount of heat rejected into the combustion zone surfaces (among other things, a function of the ratio of swept volume to surface area) is a key factor in the combustion process.



Large industrial diesels, because of a more favorable swept volume to surface area ratio (a lower percentage of heat rejected to the water jackets), can operate with a lower static compression ratio. For example, the Cooper-Bessemer LSVB-20-T is a 20 cylinder, vee-configuration, 4-cycle turbocharged and intercooled power generation diesel that produces 6300 KW (8450 BHP) @ 400 RPM. It has a 15. 5" bore, a 22" stroke and a compression ratio of 11:1. This same factor, in conjunction with relatively lower frictional and pumping losses, allows the larger diesels to have a better thermal efficiency (brake specific fuel consumption) than smaller diesels, all else being equal.



Rusty
 
Last edited:
It's not so much compression ratio, it's cylinder pressure. I'm guessing cylinder pressure would be higher with say 30lbs boost, than it would be with 18lbs. for instance. The more air you can cram into the cylinder when the intake valve snaps open, the higher the cyl. presure will be when it shuts and the piston goes to the top. (My old VW Rabbit has a 24-1 ratio, but no turbo. ) I remember a line from Robert Patton in an old mid 90's TDR Magazine, "Higher cylinder pressure equals shorter engine life"
 
Lsfarm has the idea with the lower compression of high HP motors. You want your turbo or other boost device (supercharger) to make your compression for you, if its mechanically created your running the risk of failure, not just breaking things, but catastrophic failure like broken blocks, cranks and rods. This gives a more stable operating range to the motor, low rpms to high rpms with the blower being able to adapt the boost with rpm increase. gosh aren't engines neat!
 
If we didn't have to deal with cold starts, high elevation, or both, our engines could be set up to run a lot lower compression.



If you go to the top of Pike's Peak and crank up your Cummins there, it is the equivalent of about 10:1 CR since you only have 60% as much air pressure as you do at sea level.



Vaughn
 
OK, let's take a run at this from another direction. As far as mechanical compression ratio, it has to be high enough to generate enough heat from compression to start a cold engine.



What stresses an engine's mechanical components is peak firing pressure. For a given peak firing pressure, one can have either a higher mechanical compression ratio and lower boost pressure, or a lower mechanical compression ratio and higher boost pressure. Either combination can get one to the same maximum compression pressure and ultimately the same peak firing pressure.



Where the wheels start coming off (sometimes literally :eek: ) is trying to run higher mechanical compression ratios with higher boost pressures. As either is increased, compression and peak firing pressures will increase as well. At some point, the design criteria used by the engine designers will be exceeded. Therefore, to get the engine to live, the rule of thumb is that as boost goes up, mechanical compression ratio should go down. If mechanical compression ratio goes down too much, however, the engine won't start when cold or at high altitudes - it can't build enough heat through compression to ignite the fuel.



Rusty
 
Actually, in the HO version of the 24 valve, the compression IS higher - that's what gives part of the increased power output...



Sure you CAN run higher CR - as Ford and GM did at least in earlier diesels - not sure about later ones - but then you are limited as to max psi boost with turbos - what you gain on one end, you lose on the other... PLUS, running around with a higher CR on a steady basis places greater constant stresses on the engine internals - whereas the lower CR of the Cummins means it's largely LOAFING in terms of stress during low-demand situations - and only really starts working hard when demand is increased. That undoubtedly contributes a great deal to the Cummins durability and longevity... ;)
 
The replies brings a thought. It is said that the 24 v fuel mileage is lower than the 12 v. Chrysler claimed higher mpg with the 24 v which did not happen. In question is the compression. The VW with the 24-1 compression ratio got real good fuel mileage "no Turbo" . I understand the boost thing but that involves more fuel to ignite the larger air space of lower compression offset with the turbo. Chrysler seems to allow less timing with 24 v which can also lower fuel mileage. As I read the fueling boxes add more fuel and can add timing advance. I do know diesels have a narrow window for timing. It does make since that the engine life can be shorter with higher compression but then there are the 18 wheelers which go 300 to 400,000 miles before overhauls. What compression they run I do not know.



Have read about the new cummins which has high pressure injection. I do not know if they went back the 12 v which would change the swirl pattern in the engine and could fire better.
 
Cummins didn't go to the 24V 5. 9L engine to get better performance or economy than the 12V 5. 9L engine. The only reason they did the redesign is emissions regulations. As we see from the dyno results, a 12V can make as much or more power than a 24V. The 24V can just make a given level of power with lower emissions than the 12V at the same level of power. Said another way, the 24V can make more power than the 12V for the same level of emissions.



Rusty
 
strap in..

Simply put, if you keep the PEAK cylinder pressure constant, and engine that favors boost over mech comp ratio will ALWAYS make more power.



This means for max power, you should LOWER compression and INCREASE boost. Why? It has to do with *average* cylinder pressure on the power stroke of the otto cycle. Remember that in a standard engine the compression and expansion ratios are identical. Consider the following hypothetical examples:



Engine A has a static mechanical compression ratio of 20:1. Engine B has a static mechanical compression ratio of 10:1, half of the other engine. if we built both engines to have identical peak cylinder pressures (all else being equal) and have NO turbo, then the Higher expansion ratio of the 20:1 engine means that cylinder pressure decays quickly. It has applied more if the work (cylinder pressure)to the crankshaft early in the power stroke, where the leverage on the crankshaft is poor.



But the lower compression (and expansion) motor has a slower decay of cylinder pressure. It applies a greater portion of the work to the crankshaft LATER, when there is more leverage on the crankshaft.



Unfortunately, the lower compression motor ALWAYS has less cylinder pressure unless we add boost. Thus, higher compression makes more power.



Consider engines built for drag racing. In the Top Fuel and Funny Car classes where they are allowed to use a supercharger (a HUGE ONE!), the run compression ratios that average as low as 7. 5:1 (although a Nitro motor has the compression ratios staggered, and they are different from cylinder to cylinder). Where they are NOT allowed to run boost (i. e. Pro Stock), they run compression ratios as high as 17:1!!



This helps us to see why the combination of a diesel motor and a turbocharger is a match made in Heaven. By mating these two, you don't have to worry about detonation or running lean or rich.



Let's apply this to diesels. Specifically, let's compare an ETC to an ETH. If we give BOTH engines the same amount of fuel and air (boost), then the ETH motor will ALWAYS make more power, because it will have slightly more cylinder pressure. Something else worth noting is that with these identical circumstances, the ETH will have LOWER EGT than the ETC motor. Why? Higher compression=higher expansion, which means more cooling. When a gas expands, it cools, just as it heats when compressed (which is how a diesel works, and why we benefit from intercoolers)



So why do we see higher EGTs in general from ETH motors? Because they have more fuel in stock condition (different VP44). That's why an ETC responds so well to an Edge Comp, while an ETH responds by 40HP less.



So now we can see that en ETH will have more power than an ETC if ALL else is equal (some amount of fuel, timing, boost, etc... ) But what happens when we start to BOMB and add fuel and air?



The ETH motor will not be able to run as much boost as the ETC before headgasket problems are encountered. At this limit of peak cylinder pressure, the ETC is superior in power. It will take more boost to get it there, but once it has reached the head gasket threshhold, it is able to have a higher AVERAGE cylinder pressure than the ETH motor operating at that same threshhold. Thus, the ETC will make more power. Unfortunately, it will also have HIGHER EGT while having MORE boost! How is this? It's all in the motor geometry and compression ratios. By having lower compression, the fuel charge burns a little slower AND the charge expands less to cool itself. These BOTH point to higher EGT.



What all this means is that the ETC is capable of more power, but is also less thermally efficient as it does (since thermal efficiency is measure by the difference between starting and ending temps). The ETH's higher compression is more thermally efficient. Once you O-ring the heads and move further up the BOMBING ladder, the ETH regains its power advantage since it is able to have a higher peak cyl pressure now.



Another advantage of the ETH over the ETC is that it will spool a turbo faster. Higher compression ratios mean that the velocity of the exiting exhaust gases is higher, which tends to spool the turbo more quickly.



All that to say that if you want to build the ultimate constant-rpm (like maybe sled pulling) CTD, then you should build a lower-compression ETC with a P-Pump and a MOUNTAIN of boost!!



In fact, the ultimate setup would be to lower the compression as much as possible (and still ignite the charge) and then crank up the boost. Take your ETC motor, mill down the tops of the pistons, then run 120+ PSI of boost. Add a 12 plate to your P-pump and go racing! That thing will be a bear to spool, but when it does, OH BOY!!!



You can't have it all-- choose what you want.



HOHN
 
Originally posted by RustyJC

Cummins didn't go to the 24V 5. 9L engine to get better performance or economy than the 12V 5. 9L engine. The only reason they did the redesign is emissions regulations. As we see from the dyno results, a 12V can make as much or more power than a 24V. The 24V can just make a given level of power with lower emissions than the 12V at the same level of power. Said another way, the 24V can make more power than the 12V for the same level of emissions.



Rusty



This is only partially true. Yes, they did go to the 24V IN PART to reduce emissions. But, IF the sarface area of the two intake valves is greater than the surface area of the 1 larger intake valve on the 12V motor, then the engine has more breathing capability with identical ports.



Remember that Emissions is a good measure of how efficiently the engine is burning the fuel (at least for particulates [soot]). Generally, higher efficiency means greater power potential. The larger valve area and centered fuel injector of the 24V helps efficiency a lot. Unfortunately, they dropped the compression ratio in the 24V over the 12V motors because higher compression means higher levels of other kinds of emissions, like NOx. So, the 24V uses better breathing and a centered injector to regain some of the efficiency lost by lowering compression.



As for a dyno telling that a 12V can make as much power as a 24V, that is only temporarily true. Physics says that if the engine can breathe better, it can make more power. I suspect that the main reason that the 12V is still highly competitive is because of the 7100, not the rest of the motor.
 
Hohn,



You're basing your reply on the assumption that the 24V head breathes better in stock configuration than the 12V head. I think you'll find that some of the aftermarket companies do not feel that such is the case. Specifically, if Cummins designed the 24V head with reduced emissions as the primary design criteria, the porting and valve layout may be biased to inducing swirl and turbulence in the cylinder, not ultimate aiflow. The theoretical curtain area advantages of the 24V engine (assuming equal valve lift) cannot be realized if the port area or port geometry is the choke point.



Ditto the centered fuel injector - inject the fuel into the center of the chamber to keep combustion out of crevice areas and to keep fuel off the cylinder walls.



Having managed technical and training groups for an engine manufacturer for over 25 years, I'm quite familiar with the time/temperature factors driving NOx formation as well as NMHC and CO formation. We can theorize all day about the ultimate BHP output of modified 12V versus 24V engines, but the driving force (as I said) behind the development of the 24V ISB engine and the new common rail 24V (by the way, our company used common rail diesel injection back in the 1940's) remains emissions. Any other improvements engine manufacturers can implement in new designs just become icing on the cake, so to speak.



Rusty
 
Last edited:
Sorry Rusty-- I forgot what you do for a living!



BTW-- I prefer my humble pie Ala Mode...





Anyway, yes, you pointed out the assumptions I made. Is the choke point of the 24V engine in the ports? I know that Banks was compelled to do a LOT of port work on the sidewinder truck. They also cut off the factory intake system, cast a new manifold to get rid of the 90° port turn.



If the 24V head doesn't breathe better than the 12V head, then it should certainly have the POTENTIAL to do so, shouldn't it? Banks seems to have done a good job on the efficiency end of their 24V, since it needs less than 60psi boost to make 700HP, and has relatively low EGT. I don't think it smokes, either.



As for Common rail injection, when I first heard about it I was asking myself what the big deal was and why they didn't do it that way before. I mean, all port injected gas engines are "common rail", so why do a diesel differently?



Thanks for the knowledge. If you don't mind, I'll add you to my buddy list so I can PM you with technogeek questions.



HOHN
 
Somewhere in there. . I heard something about milling the head down. . it is basically a Flat head. . it would only push the valve closer to the pistons. . If U didn't want to increase the ratio, you would have to deck the block and make sure the pistons did not hit the head. . (been there. . done that. . ) but as everyone has stated. . not what U want to do on a CTD...



Many of the pulling tractors start on ether, but the compression ratio's are so low, once everything starts getting spooled up, and warmed up they run a little more normal...



EPA... You can look ahead at when the EPA regulations are going to hit. . and a yr or two before, everyone will be changing or releasing a new engine... Many of the engines were hit with the Tier II regulations for the 2003 yr... many will be hit in 2006 when Tier III kicks in...

Rusty. . do U know the PM for the Tier III for the 175HP-600Hp??? This is for the Non Road Emmisions, so the ON-Road will be a little different.

Thanks,

Bryan
 
compression ratio

Originally posted by rhickman

Lsfarm has the idea with the lower compression of high HP motors. You want your turbo or other boost device (supercharger) to make your compression for you, if its mechanically created your running the risk of failure, not just breaking things, but catastrophic failure like broken blocks, cranks and rods. This gives a more stable operating range to the motor, low rpms to high rpms with the blower being able to adapt the boost with rpm increase. gosh aren't engines neat!





This ones got the idea... . any type of forced induction, be it blower or turbo is basically compression ratio in an aluminum housing! Just as high compression domed pistons do this in a gasser our tubos are forcing air in the cylinder, as the piston comes up their is now more air taking up the space (like a dome on a piston) which creatws compression ratio... figureatively speaking. For a guy building a small block that he wants to run 15psi of boost in he uses a lower compression piston (usually a dish piston 8-8. 5:1) so now he doesnt have to worry so much about detonation and high octane fuel. If you tried this on a 12. 5:1 motor youd have a ton of problems. You would also need a seriously strong bottom end. A top fuel dragster motor is only 6. 5:1 but sees 48 psi of boost. Serious compression there with nitro helping matters. Another large factor will be your cam shaft and its overlap as to when the valves area closed at the same time and for how long, this period of time is when youre making a lot of cylinder pressure right before the exhaust valve or valves opens. Oh well done rambling..... any thoughts????
 
Why the engine runs

Sorry for the length, but I believe this will answer this question (or atleast confuse you:{ )



Originally posted by RustyJC

It's heat, not pressure that ignites the diesel fuel. The amount of heat rejected into the combustion zone surfaces (among other things, a function of the ratio of swept volume to surface area) is a key factor in the combustion process.

It is a combination of all these factors that cause the combustion to occur, but pressure has a much greater effect on the running of these engines.

Remember from Chemistry (van der Waals equation),

(Pobs + a(n/V)^2) * (V-nb) = nRT

or,

PV=nRT to put it simple



The van der Waals equation is what is needed to understand what is happening in our engines. PV= nRT is not complex enough to correctly deal with the atms. produced in the combustion of our engines.

All this equation says (for non chemistry people) is:

The more you squeeze something, the hotter it becomes. Thus said, pressure causes excited atomic molecules which cause an increase in heat. With that in mind, if you inject a flammable fluid into an environment that is much hotter than the flash point of that fluid, the chemical properties of that fluid will change. The increase in pressure and change of environment give the compound, in this case the hydrocarbon cetane, energy required to push the atoms beyond their activated complex, or transition state.



Also, pressure affects the Kinetics of the chemical reactions. Typically, with increased pressure, the rate of chemical change increases, especially with the combustion of a hydrocarbon. In the process of the atoms realigning them selves to an alignment at a lower point in the electron energy well which produces some different chemical compound. In the process releasing a large amount of energy in the form of heat. The harnessed energy drives our engines. Also, it is the theories of Kinetics that allows man to separate crude oil into multiple grades of fuels. ie: the process of cracking.



This is what we think of when the C16H34 (Cetane) and O2 (Oxygen) produce CO2 and H2O

2 C16H34 + 49 O2 <=> 32 CO2 + 34 H2O



Emission standards are ever tougher because no chemical reaction is 100% complete, that is to say, not all the molecules will turn into CO2 and water. Though a chemical reaction occurs, the molecular orientation during these collisions is not always successful.

The incomplete burn, or bad emissions, can be calculated from the Steric factor, k = zpe^-(Ea/RT) and the frequency of this incomplete burn occurring is figured by the Arrhenius equation

ln(k) = -((Ea/R)T^-1) + ln (A)

That is why our engines have emissions.



This is a very long way to say that:

Pressure causes heat, which causes combustion and why engines produce other emissions.



Just my $0. 03

-Rich

P. S. I believe that my chemistry equations are correct, it has been a long time since I have been in a chem. lab, please check

P. P. S. van der Waals is one of many derivatives of this equation, this one is for extreme atmosphere correction with temperature.

correction with temperature.
 
Good post, RGilbert. I like the techie posts that guys like you and RustyJC can put up.



Yeah, Van Der Waal's is really quite simplistic, and doesn't allow for a lot of things, because it assumes so much:



In the combustion chamber, fuel distribution and temperature are not uniform. Yes, we can calculate a known increase in temperature based on the decrease in volume, but we can't account for things like localized hot spots on the pistons, the heat from the exhaust valve, etc. . Then, we include the fact that all our fuel is coming from a point source (a single injector) which aggravates the uneven energy distribution after combustion. When we think of all the possible little deviations from the ideal within a combustion chamber, it becomes almost impossible to account for them all.



I wonder how much benefit could be had with multiple injectors. Maybe you could point them towards the exhaust valve to help ignition and cool the valve a bit. Maybe technology will evolve to where we can place a RING of injectors around the perimeter of the cylinder. Imagine a ring of TINY injectors to where the injection pattern resembled the spokes on a wheel. The fuel would be injected as a VERY fine mist, with near ideal fuel distribution.



The increase in combustion efficiency would allow much higher levels of fueling with no increase in smoke. You could even thermally image the combustion chamber to find where it is hotter, and have a little more fueling in the hotter spots.



OK, now my mind is exploding with a way to possibly pull this off. What if you had an injection system integrated into the head gasket???? You would have to make the head gasket a little thicker, but you can make up for that with a little more oversquare engine design. each individual injector wouldn't have to be round-- it could be a flat channel in the head gasket, about 1/4" wide by 1/32 tall.



By having a ring of tiny pinholes injecting fuel, you would have superior fuel distribution, BUT you would also need a lot less injection pressure! PLUS, you wouldn't have to worry about that situation where compression pressure exceeds injection pressure, and you get air in the injection lines.



If you could get the head gasket fuel distribution thing figured out, out would be relatively simple to design a way to get the fuel to each cylinder's little fuel distribution network.



IN order to work, this design would rely heavily on metal O-rings to seal the cylinders. Only they wouldn't necessarily be round.



Or, let's try this: We sandwich two thinner headgaskets, and in between, we have this maze of fuel channels formed by wire. Think of it as a printed circuit board, only for routing fuel, not electricity.



I wonder how many point of injection you would need to have a huge increase in efficiency. This would be maybe the toughest thing to determine, because if you have too many, the fuel circuit gasket becomes too complex, and that weakens the gasket. If you have too few, you won't have enough injection points to allow heavier fueling, and/or each individual injection point becomes too large.



Heck, maybe it's just simpler to have extra smaller injectors in a conventional design. I would imagine that having even two or three more injection points would allow much improved fuel distribution and heavier fueling at the same time.



Maybe I should work this out and apply for a patent? Anyone here patented anything? I don't know what level of technical specificity is required to be awarded a patent...



Anyway, it's entertaining to think about if nothing else. I wonder if the bore spacing on a CTD is sufficient to allow a retrofit of such a fuel system??



HOHN
 
Re: Why the engine runs

Originally posted by RGilbert



Originally posted by RustyJC

It's heat, not pressure that ignites the diesel fuel. The amount of heat rejected into the combustion zone surfaces (among other things, a function of the ratio of swept volume to surface area) is a key factor in the combustion process.

It is a combination of all these factors that cause the combustion to occur, but pressure has a much greater effect on the running of these engines. [/B]



I figured my oversimplification was going to get me into trouble. The point I was trying to make is that it wouldn't matter if compression pressure was 2000 PSIG, if the cylinder charge temperature at that point was, say, -100 degF (to use a ridiculous example), the injected diesel fuel isn't going to ignite. OK?



That's why a theoretical diesel engine with a low compression ratio and no starting aids (e. g. , glow plugs, intake grid heaters) may start on a summer day but not on a winter day. If the barometric pressure is the same, the ultimate cylinder compression pressure during cranking would wind up being about the same. What's different between the two situations? Pressure? Nope. Heat (i. e. , cylinder temperature at the point of injection)? Yep. Therefore, my statement that heat, not pressure ignites the fuel.



Rusty
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top