$ per mile: high compression/high test vs. low compression/regular

On 01/31/2013 06:06 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 03:46 AM, jim beam wrote:
>> On 01/30/2013 05:08 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>> On 01/29/2013 02:31 PM, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
>>>> "Jim Wilkins" > wrote in news:ke4bln$5ml$1@dont-
>>>> email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> "Existential Angst" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Awl --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As all usenet thermodynamicists know, engine efficiency increases
>>>>>> with higher compression.
>>>>>> But high test can cost 10% more than regular. Does high compression
>>>>>> increase engine efficiency by at least 10% to account for the higher
>>>>>> cost of high test gas?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My crude PV=nRT calcs + Carnot's law indicate that it does not, not
>>>>>> by a long shot.
>>>>>> Opinions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Somewhat related: WTF decided to make diesel more so much more
>>>>>> expensive than gas, when it's much cheaper to produce (comes off
>>>>>> much earlier in the fractionating column)??
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> EA
>>>>>
>>>>> If your engine has a knock sensor it will slowly advance the spark
>>>>> until it senses knock, then back off and try again. This gives the
>>>>> maximum advance that the fuel, temperature, humidity and load
>>>>> conditions allow, and does improve the performance when you put in
>>>>> hi-test. You'd have to make measurements to see if the gain is worth
>>>>> the added cost
>>>>
>>>> Sorry but your not quite right. the comp will only adv the timing
>>>> up to
>>>> the ign map in the comp.not untill ping unless it is within the map
>>>> range
>>>> already. high test in an eng not rated for it will just waste the hi
>>>> test because the fuel map is not optimized for the higher octaine gas.
>>>> some of the newer eng with a higher comp ratio will do it but the
>>>> run of
>>>> the mill car will not. KB
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is quite true.
>>>
>>> But one factor you are all forgetting is how much better the exhaust
>>> sounds on a high-compression engine vs. a similar engine with less
>>> compression
>>>
>>> nate
>>>
>>>
>>
>> you're an unspeakable retard. what you're in fact hearing is the
>> difference in the manifolds and engines that are built for higher and
>> lower outputs. if you had two otherwise identical engines, same
>> manifolds and exhausts, with only compression ratios different, you'd
>> have a real hard time telling the difference. especially if you were a
>> cloth-eared idiot with no analytic skills and even less sense about
>> opening their mouth on a topic on which they've go no experience and
>> even less knowledge.
>>
>>
>
> Bull****. I actually have experience with of what I speak. When I
> swapped engines in my '55 Stude - WITHOUT CHANGING MANIFOLDS, PIPES, OR
> MUFFLERS - I noticed a distinct difference in the "sharpness" of the
> exhaust note.

no, you noticed the difference between one clapped out piece of carp and
another that [maybe] wasn't quite as bad.


>
> I swapped from a '63 or '64 model (I forget now) standard 289 which was
> in the car when I bought it to an engine built from a service block (but
> also a 63-64 casting.) The replacement engine was built to Avanti R1
> spec, the main differences between the two engines being the compression
> ratio (8.something to 1 to 10.25:1) and slightly more aggressive cam
> timing. Displacement, combustion chamber shape and head port
> configuration, manifolds, etc. all remained either very similar or
> exactly identical.

uh huh. and cam timing doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to
exhaust note - valves being open for different durations just doesn't
come into it. </sarc>


>
> Again, I did not change anything past the heads, because I'd already
> replaced the exhaust as part of the initial process of getting the car
> on the road, and the original '55 C-K body exhaust system actually used
> good sized pipes capable of supporting more horsepower than the original
> '55 engine choices put out. Studebaker actually downsized the diameter
> of the tailpipes for 56-64, even for the Golden Hawks and supercharged
> GT Hawks, so my system was actually less restrictive than the factory
> system on a "Super" package GT Hawk.

again, you're completely clueless - big pipe != better flow if it causes
turbulence. real dyno'd racing pipes are all about flow dynamics, not size.


--
fact check required

On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:06:03 -0500, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>On 01/31/2013 03:46 AM, jim beam wrote:
>> On 01/30/2013 05:08 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>> On 01/29/2013 02:31 PM, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
>>>> "Jim Wilkins" > wrote in news:ke4bln$5ml$1@dont-
>>>> email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> "Existential Angst" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Awl --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As all usenet thermodynamicists know, engine efficiency increases
>>>>>> with higher compression.
>>>>>> But high test can cost 10% more than regular. Does high compression
>>>>>> increase engine efficiency by at least 10% to account for the higher
>>>>>> cost of high test gas?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My crude PV=nRT calcs + Carnot's law indicate that it does not, not
>>>>>> by a long shot.
>>>>>> Opinions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Somewhat related: WTF decided to make diesel more so much more
>>>>>> expensive than gas, when it's much cheaper to produce (comes off
>>>>>> much earlier in the fractionating column)??
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> EA
>>>>>
>>>>> If your engine has a knock sensor it will slowly advance the spark
>>>>> until it senses knock, then back off and try again. This gives the
>>>>> maximum advance that the fuel, temperature, humidity and load
>>>>> conditions allow, and does improve the performance when you put in
>>>>> hi-test. You'd have to make measurements to see if the gain is worth
>>>>> the added cost
>>>>
>>>> Sorry but your not quite right. the comp will only adv the timing
>>>> up to
>>>> the ign map in the comp.not untill ping unless it is within the map
>>>> range
>>>> already. high test in an eng not rated for it will just waste the hi
>>>> test because the fuel map is not optimized for the higher octaine gas.
>>>> some of the newer eng with a higher comp ratio will do it but the run of
>>>> the mill car will not. KB
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is quite true.
>>>
>>> But one factor you are all forgetting is how much better the exhaust
>>> sounds on a high-compression engine vs. a similar engine with less
>>> compression
>>>
>>> nate
>>>
>>>
>>
>> you're an unspeakable retard. what you're in fact hearing is the
>> difference in the manifolds and engines that are built for higher and
>> lower outputs. if you had two otherwise identical engines, same
>> manifolds and exhausts, with only compression ratios different, you'd
>> have a real hard time telling the difference. especially if you were a
>> cloth-eared idiot with no analytic skills and even less sense about
>> opening their mouth on a topic on which they've go no experience and
>> even less knowledge.
>>
>>
>
>Bull****. I actually have experience with of what I speak. When I
>swapped engines in my '55 Stude - WITHOUT CHANGING MANIFOLDS, PIPES, OR
>MUFFLERS - I noticed a distinct difference in the "sharpness" of the
>exhaust note.
>
>I swapped from a '63 or '64 model (I forget now) standard 289 which was
>in the car when I bought it to an engine built from a service block (but
>also a 63-64 casting.) The replacement engine was built to Avanti R1
>spec, the main differences between the two engines being the compression
>ratio (8.something to 1 to 10.25:1) and slightly more aggressive cam
>timing. Displacement, combustion chamber shape and head port
>configuration, manifolds, etc. all remained either very similar or
>exactly identical.
>
>Again, I did not change anything past the heads, because I'd already
>replaced the exhaust as part of the initial process of getting the car
>on the road, and the original '55 C-K body exhaust system actually used
>good sized pipes capable of supporting more horsepower than the original
>'55 engine choices put out. Studebaker actually downsized the diameter
>of the tailpipes for 56-64, even for the Golden Hawks and supercharged
>GT Hawks, so my system was actually less restrictive than the factory
>system on a "Super" package GT Hawk.
>
>nate
Greetings Nate,
That reply you got from jim beam was only aimed at insulting you and
is typical of the replies coming from all those cowards who get off
from acting like experts and trying to insult people. I can't figure
out if it's mostly a bunch of teenage boys or cowardly old guys who
can't defend themselves, verbally or physically, in face to face
contacts with normal people. Either way, the posts come from cowards.
It reminds me of the CB craze in the 70s. All these guys would get on
the radio and pretend to be something they weren't. Well, Usenet is
where a lot of those guys ended up on. They can pretend to be anybody
they want. Walter Mittty types. And who wants to pretend they are just
regular folks? So these cowards get on Usenet and pretend to be tough
guys and experts. They make up names for themselves instead of using
their real names when they post messages. Then they feel free to
insult whomever they want and go to bed at night pretending to be real
men instead of facing up to reality, that they're cowards, and they
are too cowardly to even try to change. It's best to just ignore them.
That's what kill filters are for.
Eric

wrote in message ...

On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:06:03 -0500, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>On 01/31/2013 03:46 AM, jim beam wrote:
>> On 01/30/2013 05:08 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>> On 01/29/2013 02:31 PM, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
>>>> "Jim Wilkins" > wrote in news:ke4bln$5ml$1@dont-
>>>> email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> "Existential Angst" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Awl --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As all usenet thermodynamicists know, engine efficiency increases
>>>>>> with higher compression.
>>>>>> But high test can cost 10% more than regular. Does high compression
>>>>>> increase engine efficiency by at least 10% to account for the higher
>>>>>> cost of high test gas?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My crude PV=nRT calcs + Carnot's law indicate that it does not, not
>>>>>> by a long shot.
>>>>>> Opinions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Somewhat related: WTF decided to make diesel more so much more
>>>>>> expensive than gas, when it's much cheaper to produce (comes off
>>>>>> much earlier in the fractionating column)??
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> EA
>>>>>
>>>>> If your engine has a knock sensor it will slowly advance the spark
>>>>> until it senses knock, then back off and try again. This gives the
>>>>> maximum advance that the fuel, temperature, humidity and load
>>>>> conditions allow, and does improve the performance when you put in
>>>>> hi-test. You'd have to make measurements to see if the gain is worth
>>>>> the added cost
>>>>
>>>> Sorry but your not quite right. the comp will only adv the timing
>>>> up to
>>>> the ign map in the comp.not untill ping unless it is within the map
>>>> range
>>>> already. high test in an eng not rated for it will just waste the hi
>>>> test because the fuel map is not optimized for the higher octaine gas.
>>>> some of the newer eng with a higher comp ratio will do it but the run
>>>> of
>>>> the mill car will not. KB
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is quite true.
>>>
>>> But one factor you are all forgetting is how much better the exhaust
>>> sounds on a high-compression engine vs. a similar engine with less
>>> compression
>>>
>>> nate
>>>
>>>
>>
>> you're an unspeakable retard. what you're in fact hearing is the
>> difference in the manifolds and engines that are built for higher and
>> lower outputs. if you had two otherwise identical engines, same
>> manifolds and exhausts, with only compression ratios different, you'd
>> have a real hard time telling the difference. especially if you were a
>> cloth-eared idiot with no analytic skills and even less sense about
>> opening their mouth on a topic on which they've go no experience and
>> even less knowledge.
>>
>>
>
>Bull****. I actually have experience with of what I speak. When I
>swapped engines in my '55 Stude - WITHOUT CHANGING MANIFOLDS, PIPES, OR
>MUFFLERS - I noticed a distinct difference in the "sharpness" of the
>exhaust note.
>
>I swapped from a '63 or '64 model (I forget now) standard 289 which was
>in the car when I bought it to an engine built from a service block (but
>also a 63-64 casting.) The replacement engine was built to Avanti R1
>spec, the main differences between the two engines being the compression
>ratio (8.something to 1 to 10.25:1) and slightly more aggressive cam
>timing. Displacement, combustion chamber shape and head port
>configuration, manifolds, etc. all remained either very similar or
>exactly identical.
>
>Again, I did not change anything past the heads, because I'd already
>replaced the exhaust as part of the initial process of getting the car
>on the road, and the original '55 C-K body exhaust system actually used
>good sized pipes capable of supporting more horsepower than the original
>'55 engine choices put out. Studebaker actually downsized the diameter
>of the tailpipes for 56-64, even for the Golden Hawks and supercharged
>GT Hawks, so my system was actually less restrictive than the factory
>system on a "Super" package GT Hawk.
>
>nate
Greetings Nate,
That reply you got from jim beam was only aimed at insulting you and
is typical of the replies coming from all those cowards who get off
from acting like experts and trying to insult people. I can't figure
out if it's mostly a bunch of teenage boys or cowardly old guys who
can't defend themselves, verbally or physically, in face to face
contacts with normal people. Either way, the posts come from cowards.
It reminds me of the CB craze in the 70s. All these guys would get on
the radio and pretend to be something they weren't. Well, Usenet is
where a lot of those guys ended up on. They can pretend to be anybody
they want. Walter Mittty types. And who wants to pretend they are just
regular folks? So these cowards get on Usenet and pretend to be tough
guys and experts. They make up names for themselves instead of using
their real names when they post messages. Then they feel free to
insult whomever they want and go to bed at night pretending to be real
men instead of facing up to reality, that they're cowards, and they
are too cowardly to even try to change. It's best to just ignore them.
That's what kill filters are for.
Eric

================================================== =========

And Nate is quite right. As one who raced sports cars in the early '70s, I
can back him up that a high-compression engine sounds a lot crisper and
sharper. When I replaced the stock engine in my Alfa with a Tom O'Brien
high-compression racing engine, the difference in the exhaust note was very
distinct. And that was with the same carbs and exhaust system.

--
Ed Huntress

On 01/31/2013 09:30 PM, jim beam wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 06:06 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>> On 01/31/2013 03:46 AM, jim beam wrote:
>>> On 01/30/2013 05:08 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>> On 01/29/2013 02:31 PM, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
>>>>> "Jim Wilkins" > wrote in news:ke4bln$5ml$1@dont-
>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Existential Angst" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Awl --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As all usenet thermodynamicists know, engine efficiency increases
>>>>>>> with higher compression.
>>>>>>> But high test can cost 10% more than regular. Does high compression
>>>>>>> increase engine efficiency by at least 10% to account for the higher
>>>>>>> cost of high test gas?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My crude PV=nRT calcs + Carnot's law indicate that it does not, not
>>>>>>> by a long shot.
>>>>>>> Opinions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Somewhat related: WTF decided to make diesel more so much more
>>>>>>> expensive than gas, when it's much cheaper to produce (comes off
>>>>>>> much earlier in the fractionating column)??
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> EA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If your engine has a knock sensor it will slowly advance the spark
>>>>>> until it senses knock, then back off and try again. This gives the
>>>>>> maximum advance that the fuel, temperature, humidity and load
>>>>>> conditions allow, and does improve the performance when you put in
>>>>>> hi-test. You'd have to make measurements to see if the gain is worth
>>>>>> the added cost
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry but your not quite right. the comp will only adv the timing
>>>>> up to
>>>>> the ign map in the comp.not untill ping unless it is within the map
>>>>> range
>>>>> already. high test in an eng not rated for it will just waste the hi
>>>>> test because the fuel map is not optimized for the higher octaine gas.
>>>>> some of the newer eng with a higher comp ratio will do it but the
>>>>> run of
>>>>> the mill car will not. KB
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is quite true.
>>>>
>>>> But one factor you are all forgetting is how much better the exhaust
>>>> sounds on a high-compression engine vs. a similar engine with less
>>>> compression
>>>>
>>>> nate
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> you're an unspeakable retard. what you're in fact hearing is the
>>> difference in the manifolds and engines that are built for higher and
>>> lower outputs. if you had two otherwise identical engines, same
>>> manifolds and exhausts, with only compression ratios different, you'd
>>> have a real hard time telling the difference. especially if you were a
>>> cloth-eared idiot with no analytic skills and even less sense about
>>> opening their mouth on a topic on which they've go no experience and
>>> even less knowledge.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Bull****. I actually have experience with of what I speak. When I
>> swapped engines in my '55 Stude - WITHOUT CHANGING MANIFOLDS, PIPES, OR
>> MUFFLERS - I noticed a distinct difference in the "sharpness" of the
>> exhaust note.
>
> no, you noticed the difference between one clapped out piece of carp and
> another that [maybe] wasn't quite as bad.

Yes, clearly, a brand new engine with all NOS, never-used parts, isn't
"quite as bad as a piece of crap."

>>
>> I swapped from a '63 or '64 model (I forget now) standard 289 which was
>> in the car when I bought it to an engine built from a service block (but
>> also a 63-64 casting.) The replacement engine was built to Avanti R1
>> spec, the main differences between the two engines being the compression
>> ratio (8.something to 1 to 10.25:1) and slightly more aggressive cam
>> timing. Displacement, combustion chamber shape and head port
>> configuration, manifolds, etc. all remained either very similar or
>> exactly identical.
>
> uh huh. and cam timing doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to
> exhaust note - valves being open for different durations just doesn't
> come into it. </sarc>

I glossed over a bit, but I have actually heard quite a few standard
Stude 289s with R1/R2 cams installed in them - it's a fairly common
thing for enthusiasts to do. There's still a difference in sound
between a cammed standard 289 and a R1.

>>
>> Again, I did not change anything past the heads, because I'd already
>> replaced the exhaust as part of the initial process of getting the car
>> on the road, and the original '55 C-K body exhaust system actually used
>> good sized pipes capable of supporting more horsepower than the original
>> '55 engine choices put out. Studebaker actually downsized the diameter
>> of the tailpipes for 56-64, even for the Golden Hawks and supercharged
>> GT Hawks, so my system was actually less restrictive than the factory
>> system on a "Super" package GT Hawk.
>
> again, you're completely clueless - big pipe != better flow if it causes
> turbulence. real dyno'd racing pipes are all about flow dynamics, not
> size.

Not entirely wrong, but in any case, that was a peripheral comment to
the original point.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 01/31/2013 06:51 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>
> wrote in message ...
>
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:06:03 -0500, Nate Nagel >
> wrote:
>
>> On 01/31/2013 03:46 AM, jim beam wrote:
>>> On 01/30/2013 05:08 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>> On 01/29/2013 02:31 PM, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
>>>>> "Jim Wilkins" > wrote in news:ke4bln$5ml$1@dont-
>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Existential Angst" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Awl --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As all usenet thermodynamicists know, engine efficiency increases
>>>>>>> with higher compression.
>>>>>>> But high test can cost 10% more than regular. Does high compression
>>>>>>> increase engine efficiency by at least 10% to account for the higher
>>>>>>> cost of high test gas?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My crude PV=nRT calcs + Carnot's law indicate that it does not, not
>>>>>>> by a long shot.
>>>>>>> Opinions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Somewhat related: WTF decided to make diesel more so much more
>>>>>>> expensive than gas, when it's much cheaper to produce (comes off
>>>>>>> much earlier in the fractionating column)??
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> EA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If your engine has a knock sensor it will slowly advance the spark
>>>>>> until it senses knock, then back off and try again. This gives the
>>>>>> maximum advance that the fuel, temperature, humidity and load
>>>>>> conditions allow, and does improve the performance when you put in
>>>>>> hi-test. You'd have to make measurements to see if the gain is worth
>>>>>> the added cost
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry but your not quite right. the comp will only adv the timing
>>>>> up to
>>>>> the ign map in the comp.not untill ping unless it is within the map
>>>>> range
>>>>> already. high test in an eng not rated for it will just waste the hi
>>>>> test because the fuel map is not optimized for the higher octaine gas.
>>>>> some of the newer eng with a higher comp ratio will do it but the
>>>>> run of
>>>>> the mill car will not. KB
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is quite true.
>>>>
>>>> But one factor you are all forgetting is how much better the exhaust
>>>> sounds on a high-compression engine vs. a similar engine with less
>>>> compression
>>>>
>>>> nate
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> you're an unspeakable retard. what you're in fact hearing is the
>>> difference in the manifolds and engines that are built for higher and
>>> lower outputs. if you had two otherwise identical engines, same
>>> manifolds and exhausts, with only compression ratios different, you'd
>>> have a real hard time telling the difference. especially if you were a
>>> cloth-eared idiot with no analytic skills and even less sense about
>>> opening their mouth on a topic on which they've go no experience and
>>> even less knowledge.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Bull****. I actually have experience with of what I speak. When I
>> swapped engines in my '55 Stude - WITHOUT CHANGING MANIFOLDS, PIPES, OR
>> MUFFLERS - I noticed a distinct difference in the "sharpness" of the
>> exhaust note.
>>
>> I swapped from a '63 or '64 model (I forget now) standard 289 which was
>> in the car when I bought it to an engine built from a service block (but
>> also a 63-64 casting.) The replacement engine was built to Avanti R1
>> spec, the main differences between the two engines being the compression
>> ratio (8.something to 1 to 10.25:1) and slightly more aggressive cam
>> timing. Displacement, combustion chamber shape and head port
>> configuration, manifolds, etc. all remained either very similar or
>> exactly identical.
>>
>> Again, I did not change anything past the heads, because I'd already
>> replaced the exhaust as part of the initial process of getting the car
>> on the road, and the original '55 C-K body exhaust system actually used
>> good sized pipes capable of supporting more horsepower than the original
>> '55 engine choices put out. Studebaker actually downsized the diameter
>> of the tailpipes for 56-64, even for the Golden Hawks and supercharged
>> GT Hawks, so my system was actually less restrictive than the factory
>> system on a "Super" package GT Hawk.
>>
>> nate
> Greetings Nate,
> That reply you got from jim beam was only aimed at insulting you and
> is typical of the replies coming from all those cowards who get off
> from acting like experts and trying to insult people. I can't figure
> out if it's mostly a bunch of teenage boys or cowardly old guys who
> can't defend themselves, verbally or physically, in face to face
> contacts with normal people. Either way, the posts come from cowards.
> It reminds me of the CB craze in the 70s. All these guys would get on
> the radio and pretend to be something they weren't. Well, Usenet is
> where a lot of those guys ended up on. They can pretend to be anybody
> they want. Walter Mittty types. And who wants to pretend they are just
> regular folks? So these cowards get on Usenet and pretend to be tough
> guys and experts. They make up names for themselves instead of using
> their real names when they post messages. Then they feel free to
> insult whomever they want and go to bed at night pretending to be real
> men instead of facing up to reality, that they're cowards, and they
> are too cowardly to even try to change. It's best to just ignore them.
> That's what kill filters are for.
> Eric
>
> ================================================== =========
>
> And Nate is quite right. As one who raced sports cars in the early '70s,
> I can back him up that a high-compression engine sounds a lot crisper
> and sharper. When I replaced the stock engine in my Alfa with a Tom
> O'Brien high-compression racing engine, the difference in the exhaust
> note was very distinct. And that was with the same carbs and exhaust
> system.
>

dude, if you leave the exact same engine in place and simply replace the
cam, you'll hear the same difference. that's all that's happening here
- valve duration is making it sound different, not compression.


--
fact check required

On 01/31/2013 06:59 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 09:30 PM, jim beam wrote:
>> On 01/31/2013 06:06 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>> On 01/31/2013 03:46 AM, jim beam wrote:
>>>> On 01/30/2013 05:08 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>> On 01/29/2013 02:31 PM, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
>>>>>> "Jim Wilkins" > wrote in news:ke4bln$5ml$1@dont-
>>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Existential Angst" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Awl --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As all usenet thermodynamicists know, engine efficiency increases
>>>>>>>> with higher compression.
>>>>>>>> But high test can cost 10% more than regular. Does high
>>>>>>>> compression
>>>>>>>> increase engine efficiency by at least 10% to account for the
>>>>>>>> higher
>>>>>>>> cost of high test gas?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My crude PV=nRT calcs + Carnot's law indicate that it does not, not
>>>>>>>> by a long shot.
>>>>>>>> Opinions?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Somewhat related: WTF decided to make diesel more so much more
>>>>>>>> expensive than gas, when it's much cheaper to produce (comes off
>>>>>>>> much earlier in the fractionating column)??
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> EA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If your engine has a knock sensor it will slowly advance the spark
>>>>>>> until it senses knock, then back off and try again. This gives the
>>>>>>> maximum advance that the fuel, temperature, humidity and load
>>>>>>> conditions allow, and does improve the performance when you put in
>>>>>>> hi-test. You'd have to make measurements to see if the gain is worth
>>>>>>> the added cost
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry but your not quite right. the comp will only adv the timing
>>>>>> up to
>>>>>> the ign map in the comp.not untill ping unless it is within the map
>>>>>> range
>>>>>> already. high test in an eng not rated for it will just waste the hi
>>>>>> test because the fuel map is not optimized for the higher octaine
>>>>>> gas.
>>>>>> some of the newer eng with a higher comp ratio will do it but the
>>>>>> run of
>>>>>> the mill car will not. KB
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is quite true.
>>>>>
>>>>> But one factor you are all forgetting is how much better the exhaust
>>>>> sounds on a high-compression engine vs. a similar engine with less
>>>>> compression
>>>>>
>>>>> nate
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you're an unspeakable retard. what you're in fact hearing is the
>>>> difference in the manifolds and engines that are built for higher and
>>>> lower outputs. if you had two otherwise identical engines, same
>>>> manifolds and exhausts, with only compression ratios different, you'd
>>>> have a real hard time telling the difference. especially if you were a
>>>> cloth-eared idiot with no analytic skills and even less sense about
>>>> opening their mouth on a topic on which they've go no experience and
>>>> even less knowledge.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bull****. I actually have experience with of what I speak. When I
>>> swapped engines in my '55 Stude - WITHOUT CHANGING MANIFOLDS, PIPES, OR
>>> MUFFLERS - I noticed a distinct difference in the "sharpness" of the
>>> exhaust note.
>>
>> no, you noticed the difference between one clapped out piece of carp and
>> another that [maybe] wasn't quite as bad.
>
> Yes, clearly, a brand new engine with all NOS, never-used parts, isn't
> "quite as bad as a piece of crap."

you're an illiterate retard - re-read what i said.


>
>>>
>>> I swapped from a '63 or '64 model (I forget now) standard 289 which was
>>> in the car when I bought it to an engine built from a service block (but
>>> also a 63-64 casting.) The replacement engine was built to Avanti R1
>>> spec, the main differences between the two engines being the compression
>>> ratio (8.something to 1 to 10.25:1) and slightly more aggressive cam
>>> timing. Displacement, combustion chamber shape and head port
>>> configuration, manifolds, etc. all remained either very similar or
>>> exactly identical.
>>
>> uh huh. and cam timing doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to
>> exhaust note - valves being open for different durations just doesn't
>> come into it. </sarc>
>
> I glossed over a bit,

duh, no ****.


> but I have actually heard quite a few standard
> Stude 289s with R1/R2 cams installed in them - it's a fairly common
> thing for enthusiasts to do. There's still a difference in sound
> between a cammed standard 289 and a R1.

uh huh.


>
>>>
>>> Again, I did not change anything past the heads, because I'd already
>>> replaced the exhaust as part of the initial process of getting the car
>>> on the road, and the original '55 C-K body exhaust system actually used
>>> good sized pipes capable of supporting more horsepower than the original
>>> '55 engine choices put out. Studebaker actually downsized the diameter
>>> of the tailpipes for 56-64, even for the Golden Hawks and supercharged
>>> GT Hawks, so my system was actually less restrictive than the factory
>>> system on a "Super" package GT Hawk.
>>
>> again, you're completely clueless - big pipe != better flow if it causes
>> turbulence. real dyno'd racing pipes are all about flow dynamics, not
>> size.
>
> Not entirely wrong,

wow, disingenuousness at it's finest.


> but in any case, that was a peripheral comment to
> the original point.

no, it's central to the point that you don't understand what you're
talking about - you're misattributing one cause to another effect.


--
fact check required

"jim beam" wrote in message ...

On 01/31/2013 06:51 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>
> wrote in message ...
>
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:06:03 -0500, Nate Nagel >
> wrote:
>
>> On 01/31/2013 03:46 AM, jim beam wrote:
>>> On 01/30/2013 05:08 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>> On 01/29/2013 02:31 PM, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
>>>>> "Jim Wilkins" > wrote in news:ke4bln$5ml$1@dont-
>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Existential Angst" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Awl --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As all usenet thermodynamicists know, engine efficiency increases
>>>>>>> with higher compression.
>>>>>>> But high test can cost 10% more than regular. Does high compression
>>>>>>> increase engine efficiency by at least 10% to account for the higher
>>>>>>> cost of high test gas?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My crude PV=nRT calcs + Carnot's law indicate that it does not, not
>>>>>>> by a long shot.
>>>>>>> Opinions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Somewhat related: WTF decided to make diesel more so much more
>>>>>>> expensive than gas, when it's much cheaper to produce (comes off
>>>>>>> much earlier in the fractionating column)??
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> EA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If your engine has a knock sensor it will slowly advance the spark
>>>>>> until it senses knock, then back off and try again. This gives the
>>>>>> maximum advance that the fuel, temperature, humidity and load
>>>>>> conditions allow, and does improve the performance when you put in
>>>>>> hi-test. You'd have to make measurements to see if the gain is worth
>>>>>> the added cost
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry but your not quite right. the comp will only adv the timing
>>>>> up to
>>>>> the ign map in the comp.not untill ping unless it is within the map
>>>>> range
>>>>> already. high test in an eng not rated for it will just waste the hi
>>>>> test because the fuel map is not optimized for the higher octaine gas.
>>>>> some of the newer eng with a higher comp ratio will do it but the
>>>>> run of
>>>>> the mill car will not. KB
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is quite true.
>>>>
>>>> But one factor you are all forgetting is how much better the exhaust
>>>> sounds on a high-compression engine vs. a similar engine with less
>>>> compression
>>>>
>>>> nate
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> you're an unspeakable retard. what you're in fact hearing is the
>>> difference in the manifolds and engines that are built for higher and
>>> lower outputs. if you had two otherwise identical engines, same
>>> manifolds and exhausts, with only compression ratios different, you'd
>>> have a real hard time telling the difference. especially if you were a
>>> cloth-eared idiot with no analytic skills and even less sense about
>>> opening their mouth on a topic on which they've go no experience and
>>> even less knowledge.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Bull****. I actually have experience with of what I speak. When I
>> swapped engines in my '55 Stude - WITHOUT CHANGING MANIFOLDS, PIPES, OR
>> MUFFLERS - I noticed a distinct difference in the "sharpness" of the
>> exhaust note.
>>
>> I swapped from a '63 or '64 model (I forget now) standard 289 which was
>> in the car when I bought it to an engine built from a service block (but
>> also a 63-64 casting.) The replacement engine was built to Avanti R1
>> spec, the main differences between the two engines being the compression
>> ratio (8.something to 1 to 10.25:1) and slightly more aggressive cam
>> timing. Displacement, combustion chamber shape and head port
>> configuration, manifolds, etc. all remained either very similar or
>> exactly identical.
>>
>> Again, I did not change anything past the heads, because I'd already
>> replaced the exhaust as part of the initial process of getting the car
>> on the road, and the original '55 C-K body exhaust system actually used
>> good sized pipes capable of supporting more horsepower than the original
>> '55 engine choices put out. Studebaker actually downsized the diameter
>> of the tailpipes for 56-64, even for the Golden Hawks and supercharged
>> GT Hawks, so my system was actually less restrictive than the factory
>> system on a "Super" package GT Hawk.
>>
>> nate
> Greetings Nate,
> That reply you got from jim beam was only aimed at insulting you and
> is typical of the replies coming from all those cowards who get off
> from acting like experts and trying to insult people. I can't figure
> out if it's mostly a bunch of teenage boys or cowardly old guys who
> can't defend themselves, verbally or physically, in face to face
> contacts with normal people. Either way, the posts come from cowards.
> It reminds me of the CB craze in the 70s. All these guys would get on
> the radio and pretend to be something they weren't. Well, Usenet is
> where a lot of those guys ended up on. They can pretend to be anybody
> they want. Walter Mittty types. And who wants to pretend they are just
> regular folks? So these cowards get on Usenet and pretend to be tough
> guys and experts. They make up names for themselves instead of using
> their real names when they post messages. Then they feel free to
> insult whomever they want and go to bed at night pretending to be real
> men instead of facing up to reality, that they're cowards, and they
> are too cowardly to even try to change. It's best to just ignore them.
> That's what kill filters are for.
> Eric
>
> ================================================== =========
>
> And Nate is quite right. As one who raced sports cars in the early '70s,
> I can back him up that a high-compression engine sounds a lot crisper
> and sharper. When I replaced the stock engine in my Alfa with a Tom
> O'Brien high-compression racing engine, the difference in the exhaust
> note was very distinct. And that was with the same carbs and exhaust
> system.
>

dude, if you leave the exact same engine in place and simply replace the
cam, you'll hear the same difference. that's all that's happening here
- valve duration is making it sound different, not compression.


--
fact check required

================================================== =============

I don't know where you're getting that, but both engines had the same
Hollywood Sports Cars full-race cams. In the stock engine, I think I managed
to reduce the horsepower by installing it <g> (them, actually -- twin-cam
engine). In the O'Brien engine, they replaced whatever Tom had in there
originally, which may have been Racer Browns. The engine had some race miles
on it when I bought it used, and my HSC cam was virtually unused, so I took
the cams from one and put it in the other.

Changing the cam will indeed change the actual compression -- a race cam
will reduce it at low speeds and increase it at high speeds, normally -- and
you're likely to have a lot of combustion going on in the exhaust manifold
with a high-overlap cam like the HSC, running rich for racing with carbs.
That will give you some sharper exhaust sounds.

But compression alone produces a sharper exit of pressure past the exhaust
valve, and a high-compression engine, all else being equal, will have a
sharper sound.

I'm going with Eric here and am thinking you're bs'ing.

--
Ed Huntress

On 01/31/2013 07:33 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>
> "jim beam" wrote in message ...
>
> On 01/31/2013 06:51 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>>
>> wrote in message ...
>>
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:06:03 -0500, Nate Nagel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/31/2013 03:46 AM, jim beam wrote:
>>>> On 01/30/2013 05:08 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>> On 01/29/2013 02:31 PM, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
>>>>>> "Jim Wilkins" > wrote in news:ke4bln$5ml$1@dont-
>>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Existential Angst" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Awl --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As all usenet thermodynamicists know, engine efficiency increases
>>>>>>>> with higher compression.
>>>>>>>> But high test can cost 10% more than regular. Does high
>>>>>>>> compression
>>>>>>>> increase engine efficiency by at least 10% to account for the
>>>>>>>> higher
>>>>>>>> cost of high test gas?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My crude PV=nRT calcs + Carnot's law indicate that it does not, not
>>>>>>>> by a long shot.
>>>>>>>> Opinions?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Somewhat related: WTF decided to make diesel more so much more
>>>>>>>> expensive than gas, when it's much cheaper to produce (comes off
>>>>>>>> much earlier in the fractionating column)??
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> EA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If your engine has a knock sensor it will slowly advance the spark
>>>>>>> until it senses knock, then back off and try again. This gives the
>>>>>>> maximum advance that the fuel, temperature, humidity and load
>>>>>>> conditions allow, and does improve the performance when you put in
>>>>>>> hi-test. You'd have to make measurements to see if the gain is worth
>>>>>>> the added cost
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry but your not quite right. the comp will only adv the timing
>>>>>> up to
>>>>>> the ign map in the comp.not untill ping unless it is within the map
>>>>>> range
>>>>>> already. high test in an eng not rated for it will just waste the hi
>>>>>> test because the fuel map is not optimized for the higher octaine
>>>>>> gas.
>>>>>> some of the newer eng with a higher comp ratio will do it but the
>>>>>> run of
>>>>>> the mill car will not. KB
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is quite true.
>>>>>
>>>>> But one factor you are all forgetting is how much better the exhaust
>>>>> sounds on a high-compression engine vs. a similar engine with less
>>>>> compression
>>>>>
>>>>> nate
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you're an unspeakable retard. what you're in fact hearing is the
>>>> difference in the manifolds and engines that are built for higher and
>>>> lower outputs. if you had two otherwise identical engines, same
>>>> manifolds and exhausts, with only compression ratios different, you'd
>>>> have a real hard time telling the difference. especially if you were a
>>>> cloth-eared idiot with no analytic skills and even less sense about
>>>> opening their mouth on a topic on which they've go no experience and
>>>> even less knowledge.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bull****. I actually have experience with of what I speak. When I
>>> swapped engines in my '55 Stude - WITHOUT CHANGING MANIFOLDS, PIPES, OR
>>> MUFFLERS - I noticed a distinct difference in the "sharpness" of the
>>> exhaust note.
>>>
>>> I swapped from a '63 or '64 model (I forget now) standard 289 which was
>>> in the car when I bought it to an engine built from a service block (but
>>> also a 63-64 casting.) The replacement engine was built to Avanti R1
>>> spec, the main differences between the two engines being the compression
>>> ratio (8.something to 1 to 10.25:1) and slightly more aggressive cam
>>> timing. Displacement, combustion chamber shape and head port
>>> configuration, manifolds, etc. all remained either very similar or
>>> exactly identical.
>>>
>>> Again, I did not change anything past the heads, because I'd already
>>> replaced the exhaust as part of the initial process of getting the car
>>> on the road, and the original '55 C-K body exhaust system actually used
>>> good sized pipes capable of supporting more horsepower than the original
>>> '55 engine choices put out. Studebaker actually downsized the diameter
>>> of the tailpipes for 56-64, even for the Golden Hawks and supercharged
>>> GT Hawks, so my system was actually less restrictive than the factory
>>> system on a "Super" package GT Hawk.
>>>
>>> nate
>> Greetings Nate,
>> That reply you got from jim beam was only aimed at insulting you and
>> is typical of the replies coming from all those cowards who get off
>> from acting like experts and trying to insult people. I can't figure
>> out if it's mostly a bunch of teenage boys or cowardly old guys who
>> can't defend themselves, verbally or physically, in face to face
>> contacts with normal people. Either way, the posts come from cowards.
>> It reminds me of the CB craze in the 70s. All these guys would get on
>> the radio and pretend to be something they weren't. Well, Usenet is
>> where a lot of those guys ended up on. They can pretend to be anybody
>> they want. Walter Mittty types. And who wants to pretend they are just
>> regular folks? So these cowards get on Usenet and pretend to be tough
>> guys and experts. They make up names for themselves instead of using
>> their real names when they post messages. Then they feel free to
>> insult whomever they want and go to bed at night pretending to be real
>> men instead of facing up to reality, that they're cowards, and they
>> are too cowardly to even try to change. It's best to just ignore them.
>> That's what kill filters are for.
>> Eric
>>
>> ================================================== =========
>>
>> And Nate is quite right. As one who raced sports cars in the early '70s,
>> I can back him up that a high-compression engine sounds a lot crisper
>> and sharper. When I replaced the stock engine in my Alfa with a Tom
>> O'Brien high-compression racing engine, the difference in the exhaust
>> note was very distinct. And that was with the same carbs and exhaust
>> system.
>>
>
> dude, if you leave the exact same engine in place and simply replace the
> cam, you'll hear the same difference. that's all that's happening here
> - valve duration is making it sound different, not compression.
>
>
> --
> fact check required
>
> ================================================== =============
>
> I don't know where you're getting that, but both engines had the same
> Hollywood Sports Cars full-race cams. In the stock engine, I think I
> managed to reduce the horsepower by installing it <g> (them, actually --
> twin-cam engine). In the O'Brien engine, they replaced whatever Tom had
> in there originally, which may have been Racer Browns. The engine had
> some race miles on it when I bought it used, and my HSC cam was
> virtually unused, so I took the cams from one and put it in the other.
>
> Changing the cam will indeed change the actual compression

ok, stop right there. compression, as in compression ratio, is swept
volume divided by static volume. the cam makes no difference to that.

if you mean volumetric efficiency, that does indeed change with the cam,
but that's not the same thing, and it's certainly not what was being
described earlier.


> -- a race cam
> will reduce it at low speeds and increase it at high speeds, normally --
> and you're likely to have a lot of combustion going on in the exhaust
> manifold with a high-overlap cam like the HSC, running rich for racing
> with carbs. That will give you some sharper exhaust sounds.
>
> But compression alone produces a sharper exit of pressure past the
> exhaust valve, and a high-compression engine, all else being equal, will
> have a sharper sound.

as a function of the breathing, or volumetric efficiency, and valve open
duration, not the compression. you're listening to burning gas that's
being allowed to escape after doing work.


>
> I'm going with Eric here and am thinking you're bs'ing.

10,000 people all misunderstanding the same thing together doesn't make
a single one of them correct.


>
> --
> Ed Huntress


--
fact check required

On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:06:03 -0500, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>On 01/31/2013 03:46 AM, jim beam wrote:
>> On 01/30/2013 05:08 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>> On 01/29/2013 02:31 PM, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
>>>> "Jim Wilkins" > wrote in news:ke4bln$5ml$1@dont-
>>>> email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> "Existential Angst" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Awl --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As all usenet thermodynamicists know, engine efficiency increases
>>>>>> with higher compression.
>>>>>> But high test can cost 10% more than regular. Does high compression
>>>>>> increase engine efficiency by at least 10% to account for the higher
>>>>>> cost of high test gas?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My crude PV=nRT calcs + Carnot's law indicate that it does not, not
>>>>>> by a long shot.
>>>>>> Opinions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Somewhat related: WTF decided to make diesel more so much more
>>>>>> expensive than gas, when it's much cheaper to produce (comes off
>>>>>> much earlier in the fractionating column)??
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> EA

Fuel price is based on therm content - diesel has a higher energy
density - and supply and demand. Diesel fuel, furnace oil, and Jet
fuel are all closely related - and if the demands for those fuels are
high the price goes higher than gasoline. With catalytic cracking they
can make gasoline out of what would normally be diesel - but it's more
difficult to make diesel out of gasoline.
>>>>>
>>>>> If your engine has a knock sensor it will slowly advance the spark
>>>>> until it senses knock, then back off and try again. This gives the
>>>>> maximum advance that the fuel, temperature, humidity and load
>>>>> conditions allow, and does improve the performance when you put in
>>>>> hi-test. You'd have to make measurements to see if the gain is worth
>>>>> the added cost

On some cars it definitely is.
On my 63 Valiant 170 if I tuned it for hightest I got a lot better
mileage (and power) than if I tuned it for regular. The heads were
shaved 25 thou if I remember correctly - it put 206 HP to the rear
wheels through the pushbutton automatic at 6500 RPM (160 ft lbs
torque) on premium. I had to adjust the timing for the fuel.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry but your not quite right. the comp will only adv the timing
>>>> up to
>>>> the ign map in the comp.not untill ping unless it is within the map
>>>> range
>>>> already. high test in an eng not rated for it will just waste the hi
>>>> test because the fuel map is not optimized for the higher octaine gas.
>>>> some of the newer eng with a higher comp ratio will do it but the run of
>>>> the mill car will not.

There are a lot of engines today that recommend premium - and some
that will take advantage of roughly 115AKI fuels like E85, (there is
no such thing as 101 octane fuel - 100 and over is technically AKI
(Anti Knock Index)
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is quite true.
>>>
>>> But one factor you are all forgetting is how much better the exhaust
>>> sounds on a high-compression engine vs. a similar engine with less
>>> compression
>>>
>>> nate
>>>
>>>
Yes - particularly on a high compression engine with a sweet cam. The
compression alone makes for a crisper exhaust note if you have an open
enough exhaust. - but through the average muffler you don't notice it
much without the better cam
>>
>> you're an unspeakable retard. what you're in fact hearing is the
>> difference in the manifolds and engines that are built for higher and
>> lower outputs. if you had two otherwise identical engines, same
>> manifolds and exhausts, with only compression ratios different, you'd
>> have a real hard time telling the difference. especially if you were a
>> cloth-eared idiot with no analytic skills and even less sense about
>> opening their mouth on a topic on which they've go no experience and
>> even less knowledge.
>>
MOST higher compression engines have different cams - with the right
cam you can run over 15:1 on regular pump gas because the effective CR
is much lower at low speeds - making the engine less likely to
detonate under load. The CR and VE goes up when the engine comes "on
cam" - where it sounds sweet.
>>
>
>Bull****. I actually have experience with of what I speak. When I
>swapped engines in my '55 Stude - WITHOUT CHANGING MANIFOLDS, PIPES, OR
>MUFFLERS - I noticed a distinct difference in the "sharpness" of the
>exhaust note.
>
>I swapped from a '63 or '64 model (I forget now) standard 289 which was
>in the car when I bought it to an engine built from a service block (but
>also a 63-64 casting.) The replacement engine was built to Avanti R1
>spec, the main differences between the two engines being the compression
>ratio (8.something to 1 to 10.25:1) and slightly more aggressive cam
>timing. Displacement, combustion chamber shape and head port
>configuration, manifolds, etc. all remained either very similar or
>exactly identical.
>

The R1 had a gnarly cam as well as the higher compression.
>Again, I did not change anything past the heads, because I'd already
>replaced the exhaust as part of the initial process of getting the car
>on the road, and the original '55 C-K body exhaust system actually used
>good sized pipes capable of supporting more horsepower than the original
>'55 engine choices put out. Studebaker actually downsized the diameter
>of the tailpipes for 56-64, even for the Golden Hawks and supercharged
>GT Hawks, so my system was actually less restrictive than the factory
>system on a "Super" package GT Hawk.
>
>nate

On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:51:06 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
> wrote:

>
>
>wrote in message ...
>
>On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:06:03 -0500, Nate Nagel >
>wrote:
>
>>On 01/31/2013 03:46 AM, jim beam wrote:
>>> On 01/30/2013 05:08 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>> On 01/29/2013 02:31 PM, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
>>>>> "Jim Wilkins" > wrote in news:ke4bln$5ml$1@dont-
>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Existential Angst" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Awl --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As all usenet thermodynamicists know, engine efficiency increases
>>>>>>> with higher compression.
>>>>>>> But high test can cost 10% more than regular. Does high compression
>>>>>>> increase engine efficiency by at least 10% to account for the higher
>>>>>>> cost of high test gas?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My crude PV=nRT calcs + Carnot's law indicate that it does not, not
>>>>>>> by a long shot.
>>>>>>> Opinions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Somewhat related: WTF decided to make diesel more so much more
>>>>>>> expensive than gas, when it's much cheaper to produce (comes off
>>>>>>> much earlier in the fractionating column)??
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> EA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If your engine has a knock sensor it will slowly advance the spark
>>>>>> until it senses knock, then back off and try again. This gives the
>>>>>> maximum advance that the fuel, temperature, humidity and load
>>>>>> conditions allow, and does improve the performance when you put in
>>>>>> hi-test. You'd have to make measurements to see if the gain is worth
>>>>>> the added cost
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry but your not quite right. the comp will only adv the timing
>>>>> up to
>>>>> the ign map in the comp.not untill ping unless it is within the map
>>>>> range
>>>>> already. high test in an eng not rated for it will just waste the hi
>>>>> test because the fuel map is not optimized for the higher octaine gas.
>>>>> some of the newer eng with a higher comp ratio will do it but the run
>>>>> of
>>>>> the mill car will not. KB
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is quite true.
>>>>
>>>> But one factor you are all forgetting is how much better the exhaust
>>>> sounds on a high-compression engine vs. a similar engine with less
>>>> compression
>>>>
>>>> nate
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> you're an unspeakable retard. what you're in fact hearing is the
>>> difference in the manifolds and engines that are built for higher and
>>> lower outputs. if you had two otherwise identical engines, same
>>> manifolds and exhausts, with only compression ratios different, you'd
>>> have a real hard time telling the difference. especially if you were a
>>> cloth-eared idiot with no analytic skills and even less sense about
>>> opening their mouth on a topic on which they've go no experience and
>>> even less knowledge.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Bull****. I actually have experience with of what I speak. When I
>>swapped engines in my '55 Stude - WITHOUT CHANGING MANIFOLDS, PIPES, OR
>>MUFFLERS - I noticed a distinct difference in the "sharpness" of the
>>exhaust note.
>>
>>I swapped from a '63 or '64 model (I forget now) standard 289 which was
>>in the car when I bought it to an engine built from a service block (but
>>also a 63-64 casting.) The replacement engine was built to Avanti R1
>>spec, the main differences between the two engines being the compression
>>ratio (8.something to 1 to 10.25:1) and slightly more aggressive cam
>>timing. Displacement, combustion chamber shape and head port
>>configuration, manifolds, etc. all remained either very similar or
>>exactly identical.
>>
>>Again, I did not change anything past the heads, because I'd already
>>replaced the exhaust as part of the initial process of getting the car
>>on the road, and the original '55 C-K body exhaust system actually used
>>good sized pipes capable of supporting more horsepower than the original
>>'55 engine choices put out. Studebaker actually downsized the diameter
>>of the tailpipes for 56-64, even for the Golden Hawks and supercharged
>>GT Hawks, so my system was actually less restrictive than the factory
>>system on a "Super" package GT Hawk.
>>
>>nate
>Greetings Nate,
>That reply you got from jim beam was only aimed at insulting you and
>is typical of the replies coming from all those cowards who get off
>from acting like experts and trying to insult people. I can't figure
>out if it's mostly a bunch of teenage boys or cowardly old guys who
>can't defend themselves, verbally or physically, in face to face
>contacts with normal people. Either way, the posts come from cowards.
>It reminds me of the CB craze in the 70s. All these guys would get on
>the radio and pretend to be something they weren't. Well, Usenet is
>where a lot of those guys ended up on. They can pretend to be anybody
>they want. Walter Mittty types. And who wants to pretend they are just
>regular folks? So these cowards get on Usenet and pretend to be tough
>guys and experts. They make up names for themselves instead of using
>their real names when they post messages. Then they feel free to
>insult whomever they want and go to bed at night pretending to be real
>men instead of facing up to reality, that they're cowards, and they
>are too cowardly to even try to change. It's best to just ignore them.
>That's what kill filters are for.
>Eric
>
>================================================= ==========
>
>And Nate is quite right. As one who raced sports cars in the early '70s, I
>can back him up that a high-compression engine sounds a lot crisper and
>sharper. When I replaced the stock engine in my Alfa with a Tom O'Brien
>high-compression racing engine, the difference in the exhaust note was very
>distinct. And that was with the same carbs and exhaust system.

But a different cam. The hot cam with lower compression sounds a lot
tamer than the high compression engine with the hot cam - the high
compression engine with the standard cam sounds only moderately
sharper than the low compression engine with the standard cam. - but
the difference is definitely there.