5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang Technical discussions on 5.0 Liter Mustangs within. This does not include the 5.0 from the 2011 Mustang GT. That information is in the 2005-1011 section.

8.8 compared to 9:1 compression

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 12, 2006 | 12:36 AM
  #11  
5speed GT's Avatar
5speed GT
Thread Starter
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 664
From:
Default RE: 8.8 compared to 9:1 compression

as usual you are a great sorce of information. so there is no real need to pull the heads off to have them cut to 64cc if they are 65ish now.
Old Nov 12, 2006 | 12:37 AM
  #12  
AdderMk2's Avatar
AdderMk2
Banned
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,374
From: Lil' Rhody
Default RE: 8.8 compared to 9:1 compression

think of it this way. you have a lower than stock compression.... why not boost?
Old Nov 12, 2006 | 01:26 AM
  #13  
threeg502's Avatar
threeg502
1st Gear Member
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 126
From:
Default RE: 8.8 compared to 9:1 compression

The .2 point of comp is a tiny amount. Have you played around with your ignition timing? Differant
(newer) cylinder heads offer faster burn rates than past designs. You may have to run LESS spark advace to optimize the combo. Given to choice I'd take better airflow over that small amount of comp. My point is I wouldn't take the heads off my car for .2 compression.
Old Nov 12, 2006 | 04:30 AM
  #14  
88blackgt's Avatar
88blackgt
4th Gear Member
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,826
From:
Default RE: 8.8 compared to 9:1 compression

boost it, 8.8 is almost ideal
Old Nov 12, 2006 | 11:23 AM
  #15  
2 kwik's Avatar
2 kwik
I ♥ Acer
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,116
From:
Default RE: 8.8 compared to 9:1 compression

it's not 30% use the total hp total it will be like 5%
ORIGINAL: 5speed GT

.038 or .039, I dont remember

I guess 15hp is alot when the head and intake swap(w/ 9:1 compression gt40s) would only yeild about 50hp anyway, so thats like a 30% hp loss.

Old Nov 12, 2006 | 12:33 PM
  #16  
JD1969's Avatar
JD1969
Pro. B.S. caller outer
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,644
From: IL
Default RE: 8.8 compared to 9:1 compression

Did you have the heads rebuilt before you put them on? New valve job etc.? Also remember that judging if there was a performance gain "by the seat of your pants" is not going to tell you anything.
Old Nov 12, 2006 | 12:58 PM
  #17  
5speed GT's Avatar
5speed GT
Thread Starter
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 664
From:
Default RE: 8.8 compared to 9:1 compression

yea, I had a full valve job done with new FMS high lift prings
Old Nov 12, 2006 | 02:39 PM
  #18  
88blackgt's Avatar
88blackgt
4th Gear Member
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,826
From:
Default RE: 8.8 compared to 9:1 compression

if you're going n/a, you're going to want it higher than 9:1. if you're going boosted you're going to want to stay way you are or go sliiiiiiightly lower. either way, i dont really think 9:1 is worth changing things for
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
baddog671
Archive - Parts For Sale
20
Jul 26, 2016 01:20 PM
Dokilar
4.6L (1996-2004 Modular) Mustang
15
Oct 16, 2015 08:13 PM
Matt's 95 Stang
5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang
2
Oct 5, 2015 07:16 AM
uedlose
The Racers Bench
4
Oct 1, 2015 08:31 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:20 PM.