<VV> Real compression ratio's (was 102 HP FC Engine)

[Ramon Rodriguez III]

Alright, this message pushed me to ask a question that came up with a
friend last week.

According to the data I have all the early engines had an 8.0:1 compression
ratio (base engines) or a 9.0:1 comp ratio (base engine PG and 102 etc.)
According to the same book all late model engines were 8.25:1 (base
engines) or 9.25:1  Turbo's are all listed as 8.0:1 early and 8.25:1 late.

I'm not going to go in and type up the info for every available engine but
those are the only compression ratio's listed for all.

So according to this data the 110's and 140's had a higher compression
ratio than the 102.

Now the reason this came up last week with my friend is that he ran the
numbers and found that based on displacement and cylinder head cc's the
real compression ratio's were much lower than advertised.  It also seemed
to me there should be a lot more different compression ratio's than just
four based on how many different heads there were on the same pistons and
cylinders.  He said the numbers came out about a full point or more lower
than in my specs (7.0:1, 8.0:1, 7.25:1, and 8.25:1 very roughly speaking).

So what is the truth here?  What engines have what actual compression
ratio's?  If the 102 is the highest CR the data I have is WAY off!  Real CR
numbers would be nice to have especially considering todays available pump
gas.

Ray "Grymm Rodriguez III
Lake Ariel, PA

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:39 PM, <RoboMan91324 at aol.com> wrote:

> The reason that the 102 is OK  for a car and not an FC is that
> it has the highest compression ratio of any  Corvair engine and the power
> band kicks in at a quite high RPM.
>