My aluminum cylinder heads are fireringed as well as my 565 that will be tested later down the road. My cast iron cylinder heads are not. I have the means to do the cylinder heads but at this time send blocks out.
Rindert ,
Thanks for the heads up on the h2s…yup I worked the bakken and have some idea how nasty that stuff is. That being said I’m not real concerned about corrosion … copper head gaskets will be used. Because they are reusable and work amazing. I may be doing alot of testing of high dollar parts but not spending money on this project other than the actual build of unit. I’m just fortunate to have a big parts and technology pile and look forward to the r&d. Also the amount of copper exposed is a little over 4.25 diameter and 0.040 thick. It may attack that edge and over 10s of thousands of 100s of thousands cause a failure but when I get a set up I like it will get a quality MLS gasket for permanent use.
My race engines run on methanol which is also highly corrosive to copper as it’s made from syngas commercially. Methanol is no joke …can’t let it sit in fuel system for long periods as it will eat them up. So I guess you could say I’ve got the background to go into their use with eyes wide open. Definalty appreciate the heads up if you will though.
Good, you know-o. But there’s just one more experience out here. @JO_Olsson had a rabbit truck where the throttle plates were brass. A piece broke off one of those plates and went through his engine.
And there are some oil field and industrial type engines out there that are made specifically to run on sour gas.
Rindert
The Mazda has steel plates. They have some sort of yellow coating on them to prevent corrosion. I know, I have a Ranger. I don’t know about your Volvo. If a magnet sticks it’s steel.
Rindert
Hi Rob,
Looking forward to learn a few tricks from your builds/experiences…
It seems you have all the knowhow on how an engine works and are able to tweak the ecu’s / pcm’s or however they are called …
I do some real fun things myself already, be it still at novice levels…
It would be so helpfull for others to learn into what can be done at the spark / fuel mapping levels…
Woodgas, fuels, liquids, solid fuels… it is endless learning fun…
One approach i try to follow with my setups is the mapping based on knock and AFR
But i also have exhaust measuring equipment, gas quality measurement, the works. growing from theoretical reader to a practical builder so to speak…
2 quality’s standing out for your future achievements, you know engines and you know ecu mapping…
WARNING FOR HIGH COMPRESSION DREAMS
I have done a lot with propane…similar in some ways to woodgas. Loose a bit of power…solution! Fix it by going up in compression. I did it with Ford cleveland 6 cylinger motors. Built two motors, had 55 thou taken off the top of the block to get the compression high enough, if you think the machinist was reluctant the first time…should have heard him the second time I requested it!! I built both motors at 13:1 cos the said Propane can handle it, I certainly got it all working properly, addressed ignition and everything…but the second motor was required because the first motor just wasn’t any good, not at idle for torque, not at 3000rpm overtaking on the highway and not at the bowser hoping for better mileage!! It was my work vehicle being a mobile mechanic and often working many hours drive from home in rural areas. The second motor was a real desperate move…went to a mild cam as well…and the second motor was a flop like the first.
It took me some time but there are other evidences of high compression being no good! However I used to teach apprentice mechanic…I know that all the technical manuals say that high compression is the saviour of every problem. All I can say is that these manuals were traditionally correct when motors in the 1950’s were running 5:1 ratios. Lets be clear, going from 5:1 up to 9:1 is a good idea. But 9:1 up to 13:1 was a very bad idea.
Basically compression ratios are like RPM. All engines are basically happiest at about 2300RPM. And with compression ratios all spark ignition engines are basically happiest at a bout 8.5 or 9:1.
I think ther might be an exception for very high RPM applications, because high RPM is basically a “compression lowering” action because cylinder filling is much ahrder at 7000rpm than it is at 2300rpm.
I have a lot more to say on the subject but no point if no-one wants to respond so I will wait and see what you guys come up with. Also I am saying less because this is a real sticky point, I am probably the only guy I know who can say he has built motors and only modified the compression ratio. Mostly people throw so much money into a motor when changing compression that who would know why it performs better…and if it was below expectation would they tell anyone after spending so much???
I can’t talk about alternate fuels Neil. I have built a number of SBC and BBC running 10.5 to 1 from pistons and heads, street and strip cars and a mud truck. On gasoline I found that ratio to be just about right and other than paying for 93 Octane Sunoco there was no downside. However I have never run one of those engines for a hundred thousand miles either. It’s usually long terms stresses that tell the true tale.
Thanks for the reply Tom!
My observations were straight off the line, but I had a standard compression motor I had just removed for comparisons. At first I thought it would get better after running it in, but it never got better. I actually swapped the cylinder head from an open chamber to a kidney shape on the first motor (minor improvement), and then I tried the second motor at 13:1. For me high compression gave less power. I never had any trouble with ignition because propane is over 100 octane. I’m not going to push what I am saying cos I know I am the minority on this discussion. But I just want people to know chasing high compression isn’t going to help achieve some amazing benefit. For example if a 10% gain was possible there would be recorded proof. In my experience the proof that does exist proves high compression looses power, torque and economy.
I think it works like only a certain amount of compression is needed to ensure the combustion gives maximum effect; after that higher compression just steals power for no gain. I’ll go out on a limb and guess what compression should be 100 octane can behave itself without issues or customising up to about 10:1, my rule is a full point below is best, so 9:1 for 100 octane. For 90 octane 8:1.
I tried and failed to attach an excel spreadsheet of the Ford Cleveland 6 cylinder motor covering more than 40 years of development, so for now have just put the specs for a 1970 and a 2010 latest version. really nothing changes. It is very hard to make more power with out increasing cubes! All that manufacturers do is the rev the motor a little harder for the next model, the extra RPM does more work so they claim the new engine is more powerful thanks to some new development…but it isn’t if you’re towing something (although electronics offer a few great benefits!!)
The two lines below have the manufacturers specs, the last number is the KW recalculated (mathematically) to what the KW would be at 4,250 RPM…and theres nothing exciting happening, even though the 2010 Ford probably has enough electronics to send a rocket to the moon, and the 1970 engine isn’t even a crossflow design!!. I would loved to send the entire spreadsheet, but the two vehicles below only have 3KW between them, and the old motor had to power extra’s: belt driven engine fan, mechanical fuel pump, old-fashioned machining and fluids, etc, etc.
1970-72 XY Falcon High comp 2V 9.1 : 1 127KW@4200rpm 135
2008-11 FG Falcon 4.0 DOHC VCT XR6 10.3 : 1 195KW@6,000rpm 138
These are Australian models that you probably don’t recognise, I don’t know what engines you can compare power in 1970 to currently? Maybe the 350 chevy? Would be interested. In summary Im just saying power from cubic capacity is hard to improve without revving it up on the dyno. As for me I enjoy torque at low RPM.
The 1970s V8’s were sorry because of emissions changes. Low compression, smog pumps, badly designed EGR.
I think at a stock rating my 1976 350sbc for my pickup had 160 HP at 3800RPM brand new. Probably with a 2bbl Rochester DualJet.
Three considerations additions I can throw into this soup Neil Weise:
Propane as a motor fuel is much closer to gasoline in compressed combustion characteristics than to a blended gasses woodgas mix.
Rob Windt, an Australian who’d had a lot of working engines propane conversions would say on propane he could shove an engine up to 12 to 1, even 13 to 1 but for engine safety and life on a truly heavily loaded engine it should not be taken above 11 to 1 STATIC COMPRESSION ratio.
I drive semi-modern engines in my 2003 Toyota Camry; 2007 Hyundai Tucson; 2017 GMC 350 boxvan; and even the Wife’s 2014 Ford Edge.
All using regular 87 octane pump gasoline. Compressions from I think 9.x to 1 to up to 10.x to 1.
All loaded cruising at 1700 to 2300 RPM.
Now the same sized engines in the last ~5 years are all going 11 to1, up to an amazing 12.x to 1. And one going to be the traveling nurse wife’s next vehicle in a NA 4-cylinder engine now made with an amazing 13 to1 compression ratio. Same vehicle size and loading weights. Same loaded cruising RPM’s. Same recommended pump gasoline E-10 87 octane. How? How?
Hey, they are now all using fully controlled independent intake and exhaust camshafts. Then they can then tweak into and out of a straight forwards Otto cycle and into an Atkinson’s cycle. If they have an add a small turbo or driven supercharger, they can in and out be cycling into a delayed intake valve held open intake track pushed back loading-up Miller cycle.
They are now finally controlling variably, the effective compression ratios by varying the cylinder filling rate.
And you are correct that the developed electronic tuner systems are made for only a limited number of these systems for those who are only after OOhrah! high RPM screaming bursts power.
I agree. Just go bigger on the engine displacements. Tweak as you can with ignition timing. Do better control over intake air and gasses temperatures. Heck. Use lower pumping loss oils.
All the while reducing the gasifier system sucking drag on the engine.
A gasoline fueled engine being made to suck through the amount if intake drag a gasifer system imposes, will be a comparably weak sister too.
Cheers Cody, you are right about emissions. Is there a 350 chev that you know the KW and RPM for going pre 1973? and then what is the very latest 350 chev that you know the KW and RPM for? Engine output did take a dive through the late 70s and early 80s. When i look at the excel spreadsheet this is very obvious. You know I was surprised that the only innovation that really gave extra power for same capactity motor was around 1985 when you can compare the same motor and long runner intake manifolds were used. On the 250 cubic inch motor that manifold gave 10KW extra power, that was in both models when comparing against a carby and statndard manifold; also when comparing centre-point with long runner multipoint injection. I have also seen the benefit when using propane and include this style of manifold. Certainly a dedicated woodgas motor would love a long runner intake manifold.
It is nice to identify a way to make 10KW for very low cost…yet modern engines are not that far ahead (looking forward to two 350 chev specs if you can find them) . Steve Unruh correctly spoke about manufacturers using higher and higher compressions…first of all I am not that impressed with their KW, torque and fuel economy. Because I am so unimpressed I am happy to say that I think the high compression is just another emission device, I wonder if the high compression is not just a way to heat the mixture prior to ignition to get a cleaner burning exhaust.
And like all other emission claiming devices they simply use more fuel to run a cleaner exhaust, I am sure a comedian has used this to great effect! Who would have thought we can clean up the exhaust by using more fuel…maybe fuel companies finance emission developments LOL!
Hi Steve, Yes, I also was advised up to 13;1 is fine for propane. So i did it. No problems with how it ran and without a lower or standard compression motor to compare it with I would have been very happy. Showing that the motor can run fine at higher compression is one thing…but showing increase in power solely because of high compression is totally different. Everyone believes in high compression but I am just holding a light to the fact that no-one has proved it. I am saying that I have disproved it. Also I am calling out and asking where are the manufacturers motors benefiting from high compression (silence). Ford built a propane motor in Australia at 10.5:1, for those who know the unleaded motors that were converted to propane always performed better and gave better mileage. All I am trying to do is help, it is such a terrible thing to go to the trouble of increasing compression to find you have made things worse!!! like I did!
Well, I’ve been letting this rattle around in my pea brain for a couple days now. Everything I personally know about engines says that higher compression does relate to more power, however for most applications it doesn’t matter. An engine has to be considered as a sum of all it’s parts working in a balanced manner. The people who engineer engines are refiners. They have taken various lumps of metal over a long period of time and tweaked them to their present state of operating efficiency. An impressive accomplishment in my opinion. Changing any one of the functions of the components alters the operating efficiency of any other. Both the quantity and quality of the fuel and air that is getting compressed is the deciding factor along with the rate at which it can be delivered and evacuated. It’s a no brainer with liquid fuels. Gases are another matter and outside my experience. Most boosted engines require lower compression because they are not really designed for the pressures a high compression boosted engine takes. Even top fuel dragster run 6 to 1 compression because what is getting crammed into the cylinders is liquid dynamite. A turbo charged Cummings 4BT with it’s 17 to 1 compression creates massive torque per cu in but it takes a 700 pound block and heads to contain it.
Please, please Neil Wiese what I had written was not disputing your hard-done raising compression ratios and using on real working propane fueled engines.
For everyday driving engines on gasoline my own personal life experiences says the same. I am so damn old that in my early years it was driving ony late 50’s to mid-60’s always were leaded gasoline economy rig vehicles. Well. On the factory configured I-6’s true fuel economy American vehicles wanting to place well on the well-publicized annual PHILLIPS economy races (so’s they could later sell to the true Mom and Pop economy folk) they were compressions and ignition timing set up right at the knats-edge of pinking. Me getting and buying these later as used the carbons and leads deposits on the top of the pistons and combustion chambers forced you to fill up with mid-grade gasoline. Or listen to pinging-city and run rough, losing power. An AMC 4.2 I-6 and a SAAB V-4 were particularly troublesome. I got spoiled with do-anything early Volvo’s. To fuel buying cheap-skates having to use more expensive mid-grade was $'s blowing away out the tail pipe. So I did fair amount of cylinder heads off to manually scrape, scape, scraping-off on my own and then others off to get back to factory setup compression ratios. Get back to the least expensive regular grade of gasolines.
Now onto loaded IC engine fueling on varying blended woodgas.
Higher compression ratios have been proven independent of other factors.
Here on the DOW in the INDIA Papers. Lab work in the India Insitute of Science Combustion Propulsion and Gasification Laboratory. Later proved by them in deployed into the field water pumping and electrical generation engines. The best working compromises at 13 to 1. NOT Lab predicted 17 to 1.
Also proven in the Swedish Government field trials on converted diesel delivery trucks, and diesel agricultural tractors. Some they lowered the original for-diesel compression ratios to prove the optimal for loaded working when on woodgas.
Reproved again by DOW members and others now woodgas working their own diesel engine
tractors. Most pretty worn out with lowered effective CR’s.
Then a few DOW members with originally gasoline auto 4-cylinders who have like you did block and cylinder heads shaved raising up into the 11’s to 1 then getting back to nearly gasoline power then fueling with woodgas.
None is claiming better power when on woodgas. Just that they are getting closer back to liquid fuels power.
Ha! With the newer to each cylinder intake runner electronic “injector” controlled propane engines it is then done as a LPG liquid.
NeilW. it is the compressed combustion speed of the wood gas that is allowing for raised static compression ratios. It builds piston face pushing combustion pressure slower at more favorable connecting rod and crankshaft angles.
S.U.
Hi Tom, I laughed when I read your post about this rattling around in your brain…i certainly had that and remember it well. The mechanical trades have been optimising engine for years. It used to be very difficult to know how to get the old motors even up to 9:1 cos they were such low compression. And now it is ingrained in us all that we must keep pushing for even higher compressions. Anyway I really appreciated your post and hope it causes you no pain. So I leave you with the same request I gave to Cody. I dont know what vehicle to choose but like in Australia I am sure you have at least 1 engine that was being used pre-polution and until quite recently. My prediction is that if you take the KW@RPM specs for each and mathematically recalculate each to the same RPM you will see for all of the amazing development extra power is hard to see. If this is true how can we say higher compression or any other innovation gives more power? Modern engines rev harder to make more power but that is useless to me.
Hi Steve, You are very gracious in considering I might have been offended. Please do not worry about that!! I only want to learn, and to do so I must share my own experience. There are some things that are very different between using liquid and gas fuels…I just haven’t seen compression ratios being anything other than the same between them (tho high rpm applications confuse matters).
I have two points please
Are the India papers to be found on this website? I am very interested to read up on that! I know very little about woodgas and 30% power loss means it is a lot different to other fuels. maybe woodgas of itself is better off with higher compression, my comments are only opposing this when the traditional view is relied on as being evidence.
You raised the benefits of using woodgas mixing with diesel. The same also applies to mixing propane with diesel. Stories of old with truckies having a propane controller and enjoying the extra power until they wind it up enough to blow the motor. The strange thing is Propane doesn’t like that high a compression normally and propane has lower calorific value than diesel…so how can it make more power? I suppose the answer lies in a faster burning vapor fuel optimising the diesel and vice-versa???
Thanks so much for your comments! Each time I read your posts I realise the very vast knowledge you contain and the passion you have. You are an amazing asset on this forum (and I am thinking of a couple of other guys to!!)
Many thanks, neilw
O.K. Sure. I’ll show you the finder trail rather than just post up the direct read link.
Click open the “Library.” in the top of page blue tool bar.
Then you will have the whole info library contents page.
Scroll way down on that to:
CGPL/India Institue of Science
Click open that.
Scroll down to, Biomass derived producer gas as a reciprocating engine fuel
Download and read that PDF paper saved. THANKS AdminChris!
Lower down in later published IISc/CGPL papers on their actually deployed experiences says they had to back off from the LAB ideal 17 to 1 to a more practical lower.CR.
Ha! Maybe tell a loved one before you deep dive into the Library here on the DOW.
Pull you back out after a time limit.
See, it ain’t that I’m so smart. I read everything and connect back into experiences to remember.
Damn annoying encyclopedia brain’s what it is. Mine’s old, pages torn, and been wet and pages stuck together now. CodyT is the younger brain with this same affliction. He’s prompting and correcting me now.
Regards
Steve unruh.
G’day Neil. didn’t realize you lived at the bottom of the world. Anyway if I lived there I’d build this. That would be a new world to me. I’ve never built anything that didn’t have a bow tie on the valve cover.