Click on image for the lowdown. 
====
| | |
2 members (Otto Skorzeny, 1 invisible),
92
guests, and
2
robots. | | Key: Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod | | | Forums66 Topics128,031 Posts1,055,433 Members48,422 | | Most Online14,466 Apr 26th, 2026 | | AD Chevy Trucks Over 6,000 pictures Brad Allen has an awesome collection of Chevrolet factory pictures that he has set up from film strips. Check them out!
Lots of work on Brad's part ... pure enjoyment (and references) for you!
| | THANKS!
For helping keep this great
old truck web site
on the Internet for over 30 years! and not clogged down with Ads! Again, thanks! | |
#61087 05/30/2006 1:36 PM | Joined: Mar 2005 Posts: 627 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Mar 2005 Posts: 627 | What is the compression value if a stock 848 is placed onto a stock 261 engine?
How does the compression value correlate with the amount milled off the head? In other words what would the compression increase be if you mill 0.01, versus 0.02, versus 0.3, etc.?
What is the maximum compression value that will provide proper performance using regular, versus extra, verus premium gasoline?
And here is a long shot question FOR SOMEONE WHO REALLY KNOWS THEIR STUFF! What % increase in fuel mileage results if a fellow goes with the maximum compression value suitable for higher grades of gasoline rather than going with the maximum compression suitable for regular gasoline?
I sure wish California Bill and/or Roger Huntington would have written another book after the 261 engine and 848 head became available!!
Mike Barnes 1950 GMC 1-ton pickup
| | |
#61088 05/30/2006 2:06 PM | Joined: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,002 Shop Shark | | Shop Shark Joined: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,002 | I don't have time to explain the easy ones to you, but here's the hard one. I recently had a discussion with Tom Langdon "FOR SOMEONE WHO REALLY KNOWS THEIR STUFF!". For every 2 points you raise your compression you will get an increase of 8% in performance, and 7% in mileage, all other things being the same.
Larry
I don't own a vehicle that isn't old enough to drink. | | |
#61089 05/31/2006 12:23 AM | Joined: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,897 Shop Shark | | Shop Shark Joined: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,897 | lgriffin
Does that mean if I started with a stock gmc 302 with 7.5:1 compression ratio and 160 hp and changed pistons to the venolia 9:1 compression pistons... I would have a 60% gain in power... roughly 256 hp everything else being the same?
Sweet! Those numbers shattered my expectations. I was hoping for 225 hp.
We'll have to put it on the dyno when it is together to see where it really stands! | | |
#61090 05/31/2006 12:58 AM | Joined: Dec 2003 Posts: 510 Shop Shark | | Shop Shark Joined: Dec 2003 Posts: 510 | Sorry, just raising the compression won't increase the horsepower nearly that much by itself. I did a little fiddling around with Dyno2000 and just raising the compression (while keeping everything else stock) showed a 19 hp gain.
The addition of a 600 CFM 4-barrel and headers with mufflers added another 30 hp.
A mild cam added another 30 or so.
These are just computer simulation numbers, so I wouldn't put any real faith into them, but they can be useful to see that it takes more than just one single item to generate power.
Another thing to consider is the 160 hp is "Gross" and what you measure on a dyno will depend on how it's done. If it's a chassis dyno, you'll see rear wheel hp which can be significantly lower than flywheel hp. Testing it with and without engine accessories (alternator, power steering pump, A/C compressor, etc.) can have a dramatic effect on "Net" hp.
I've been building motors and hot rods for a while and I've never heard of anyone comparing mileage between max compression for high octane fuel vs max compression for regular gas. Maybe because mileage is such a subjective thing. One thing ic constant: you'll pay more for premium gas. And in my opinion, raising the compression won't do enough for mileage to make it cost-effective from a mileage standpoint. If you want lots of power, then higher compression is great.
Bottom line: a motor's (or a vehicle's) power and driveability are the result of many different factors. And what's good for me might not be right for the next fella as far as driveability. Along those lines, I wouldn't want a motor that made a whole buncha horsepower at 7000 rpm and very little torque at 2000 unless I was gonna be using it solely for racing. Conversely, a motor that makes moderate power at 4000 rpm and has a flat torque curve from 1500 to 4000 might feel a whole lot stronger that the race motor when driven on the street.
The best advice I've been given is to determine what I want as far as the purpose of the vehicle and then combine the appropriate parts to come as close to the goal as you can without any major negative trade-offs.
Good luck with it. | | |
#61091 05/31/2006 4:09 AM | Joined: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,002 Shop Shark | | Shop Shark Joined: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,002 | bigbadswingdaddy, 7.5 to 9.5 is 2 points. 160 hp plus 8% is 173 being generous. Hey the next time in the bay area, can I drop by and try some of your smoke. 50GMC253, First you don't compute compression by what is shaved off the head. You determine the number of cc's in the combustion. I'm not familar with the 235/261 but I believe they are quite similar, so I would start with California Bill and/or Roger Huntington book. I'm building a 292 for E85 which is why I got that information from Tom. I also have Leo Santucci's book, and Inliners for a lot of help. ChevyAsylum has it right. Larry
I don't own a vehicle that isn't old enough to drink. | | |
#61092 05/31/2006 5:46 AM | Joined: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,897 Shop Shark | | Shop Shark Joined: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,897 | I feel sheepish!
Lg drove through your neck of the woods friday and again on sunday. Oakdale is a great place to get gas on the way to and from yosemite | | |
#61093 05/31/2006 5:48 AM | Joined: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,897 Shop Shark | | Shop Shark Joined: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,897 | I feel sheepish!
Lg drove through your neck of the woods friday and again on sunday. Oakdale is a great place to get gas on the way to and from yosemite. | | |
#61094 05/31/2006 3:32 PM | Joined: Mar 2005 Posts: 627 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Mar 2005 Posts: 627 | Replacing the 235 with a 261 bought the extra CCs. I’m using a reground 261 cam which provides more lift than the 235. My dual intake will provide ample fuel mix at the top end. Increasing the compression will increase HP across the board and boost economy at the same time. However, my primary interest in compression is to have ample power at lower RPMs for decent acceleration from a stop. At the same time I don't want compression so high that my idle speed will be excessive or make the truck shake and rattle when stopped. I have no desire to go 120 MPH but I would like enough power to cruise up a reasonable hill at 60 MPH without losing speed or downshifting.
My goal with these questions is to determine the maximum compression I can go with to reach my goals with pump gas. After determining the appropriate compression target I need to determine how much to shave off my head to obtain it.
With a fixed load we know that fuel consumption improves with higher octane fuel due to increased power per pound of fuel mix. And, the higher the octane the higher the compression can be. That is why I am asking the economy questions; it might well be possible to pay more for premium, increase compression, gain a reserve power across the board, and actually improve or break even in the all important miles per dollar category.
Mike Barnes 1950 GMC 1-ton pickup
| | |
#61095 05/31/2006 4:08 PM | Joined: Jun 2005 Posts: 887 Shop Shark | | Shop Shark Joined: Jun 2005 Posts: 887 | There is a link to an article that was written in the 60's somewhere on this site that is about building a 261. It reccomends milling the head but I'm not sure how much.
Over at Clifford Performance they reccomended milling the head 100 and recessing the valves. I thought that recessing the valves you'll lose some or all of the gain from milling the head. So I milled the head 50 and decked the block 50 and then checked valve clearance by putting some modeling clay on the piston top below the valves and slowly cranking the engine, then I pulled the head and discovered there was no problem with clearance- Maybe you can mill the head 100 without recessing the valves?
Unfortunately I didn't measure the cc's in the cylinder and head to calculate my new compression ratio, and there is no other way to reliably calculate it.
'51 Chevy 1/2 ton w/'62 261, HEI, offy, fentons, dual carter/webbers, t-5 & 12 bolt posi
| | |
#61096 05/31/2006 4:45 PM | Joined: Jul 2000 Posts: 619 "MONGO" | | "MONGO" Joined: Jul 2000 Posts: 619 | NM51: Could be Frank Mcgurks\'s article "Reworking the late model Chevrolet and Corvette Engines" your thinking of it says: (Page 7 Under Cylinder Head Modification) "Increasing the compression ratio in an engine will add very close to 10 H.P. increase in engine performance for every full unit increase above the standard compression ratio. (For example, increasing comp. ratio from 7 1/2:1 to 8 1/2:1 will show a 10 H.P. increase.)" MONGO | | |
#61097 05/31/2006 4:48 PM | Joined: Dec 2003 Posts: 510 Shop Shark | | Shop Shark Joined: Dec 2003 Posts: 510 | Originally posted by 50GMC253: Replacing the 235 with a 261 bought the extra CCs. I’m using a reground 261 cam which provides more lift than the 235. My dual intake will provide ample fuel mix at the top end. Increasing the compression will increase HP across the board and boost economy at the same time.
I don't think that this is a valid assumtion. Increasing compression will increase BMEP across the board, but it doesn't necessarily correspond to an across-the-board increase in horsepower or economy.
In order for BMEP to be utilized efficiently, adjustments (and trade-offs) have to be made in ignition timing, valve timing, intake and exhaust flow and combustion chamber shape and temperature. If compression (and the resultant BMEP) is relatively low then effective flow into and out of the cylinder is less critical than it would be on a higher (again relatively) compression motor.
We're talking about getting the maximum amount of air-fuel mixture into the combustion chamber to be compressed and burned. And in general, with higher compression non-Diesel motors (Diesels are a whole nuther color of horse) the idea is to make power in the higher rpm bands of the motor's capability. This requires more adjustments of valve and ignition timing and intake/exhaust flow become extremely critical. The result is a race motor, which is less than optimal for driving on the street...let alone towing a boat to the lake.
My goal with these questions is to determine the maximum compression I can go with to reach my goals with pump gas. After determining the appropriate compression target I need to determine how much to shave off my head to obtain it.
Lotsa guys have doe the empirical research in this area. Conventional wisdom says that with all other factors being equal, 9.0 to 9.5:1 is about the practical maximum for street use and "regular unleaded" pump gas. My own experience has shown that at 9:1 I could run "regular" with no pinging. At 10:1, I had to run "premium." This was on a fairly healthy 355 V8 with Vortec heads...at 10:1 it felt like 350 to 375 hp...give or take a fudge factor or two. There have been some experiments with cam lobe separation, retarded timing and water injection to allow higher compression ratios to be used, but I'll stick with the old 9:1 rule of thumb.
Now: How much to mill? Good question. The only real way is to cc the head and use a bit of mathematics to calculate the desired combustion chamber size. Make sure you take into consideration deck height and piston configuration, too.
With a fixed load we know that fuel consumption improves with higher octane fuel due to increased power per pound of fuel mix. And, the higher the octane the higher the compression can be. That is why I am asking the economy questions; it might well be possible to pay more for premium, increase compression, gain a reserve power across the board, and actually improve or break even in the all important miles per dollar category.
Some quick calculations show that at the current prices for unleaded and premium in this area ($2.79 and $3.09) there's a 10 percent price differential. You would have to increase mileage by that amount just to break even on the cost of premium...without considering recovering the cost of the modifications to make this possible.
You may have an idea that could be be made to work. I won't say that it's impossible. But it might be difficult to make it worth your while to accomplish it. A final thought on this. I considered what the automobile manufacturers might think about it and the first thing that came to mind was the difficulty they'd have in selling the consuming public that it was cheaper to buy more expensive gas. Some folks might see the wisdom if it could be demonstrated, but the vast majority of consumers would just see that they had to pay more per gallon without reasoning any further.
Good luck with the concept. | | |
#61098 05/31/2006 5:00 PM | Joined: Mar 2005 Posts: 627 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Mar 2005 Posts: 627 | ******** Mongo - I thought you were a Brookfield resident! ******** NM51 - Cylinder diameter is large compared to the valve diameter. If the valves require sinking it will steal some compression but you still have a net gain. ******** Many many board members have installed 261s and milled their heads. If you are one of those guys please share specific information on compression after milling, how much was milled, and what grade of fuel you are successfully using now.
I'll bet everyone has heard that the 848 head is the best for 261s (and 235) because it provides more compression. Surely someone can state what the actual compression gain is when this is done?
Mike Barnes 1950 GMC 1-ton pickup
| | |
#61099 05/31/2006 5:30 PM | Joined: Mar 2005 Posts: 627 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Mar 2005 Posts: 627 | ChevyAsylum - You have great inputs. I hope we can keep this thread going for a while.
Again I am a novice but the California Bill and Roger Huntington books both recommend increased compression as about the best way to gain more acceleration for city driving. With higher compression and equal fuel mix you get more HP. With higher compression it takes less fuel mix to get the same HP so if you can keep your foot under control you will save $.
My engine is essentially stock so I can't picture myself pushing it over the max recommended RPM. I agree and understand that timing is important but at lower RPMs it is not as critical. I will however be using HEI and taking the time for road testing and fine tuning (if I live long enough to complete the truck!).
Mike Barnes 1950 GMC 1-ton pickup
| | |
#61100 05/31/2006 6:01 PM | Joined: Dec 2003 Posts: 2,733 Shop Shark | | Shop Shark Joined: Dec 2003 Posts: 2,733 | I'll just jump in here long enough to point out that no one has menetioned the single most important factor in increasing power has always been doing head work. The really powerful inlines all have extensive porting work done on them.
FWIW I milled my head .040 (and bored .040)but was told by the old timer in the machine shop that you could take up .125 off a 235/261 head. That seems excessive to me but he insisted he'd done it many times. Personally I think doing some work on the ports and the manifold did more than anything else with the posssible exception of the HEI to make my 235 come alive.
I'd like to see this thread continue as well and hope to see comments from a lot more of you. This is where we all learn things. | | |
#61101 05/31/2006 6:50 PM | Joined: Mar 2005 Posts: 627 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Mar 2005 Posts: 627 | Dave - What specifically did you do with your manifold?
Did you port the head yourself? I'm not sure an average guy like me could afford the labor to hire that work. However an average guy like me don't have any fancy tools either!
Mike Barnes 1950 GMC 1-ton pickup
| | |
#61102 05/31/2006 7:22 PM | Joined: Jun 2005 Posts: 887 Shop Shark | | Shop Shark Joined: Jun 2005 Posts: 887 | I believe the 850 head is the 261 equivalent of the 848 high compression 235 head. I think with the 848/850 you got 8.25:1 rather than the 7:1 from the other stock heads. Here's the 1955 article on how to soup up the 261, with tips on milling the head, decking the block, porting and polishing the head, pre-ram manifold mulitple carbs, pre-hei igntion tips, and dyno tests...check it out! http://www.selectric.org/55chevy/soup.html
'51 Chevy 1/2 ton w/'62 261, HEI, offy, fentons, dual carter/webbers, t-5 & 12 bolt posi
| | |
#61103 05/31/2006 8:01 PM | Joined: Mar 2005 Posts: 627 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Mar 2005 Posts: 627 | NM51 and Mongo - I appreciate your links to the excellent literature!!!!!
7.1 to 8.25 compression boost is significant. Maybe it won't take much of a shave to approach 9.0.
Mike Barnes 1950 GMC 1-ton pickup
| | |
| |