• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Cranking Compression Formula

Motech

_-_-_-_-_-_
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Moto(s)
aprilia RSV Mille: BMW R1200RT: F650-GS: GPZ-Ninja 1000R: Bandit 600: Seca 650:
Name
Nancy
A question was raised recently about how much compression pressure to expect to see on a motorcycle engine. It's a good question, not so easily answered due to varying factors.

Gone are the days of generic specs. Used to be, cars and bikes alike, you could assume 140-150 psi to be good, 125-130 as borderline, 90-110 will cause misfiring at idle, and 80 psi & less will cause misfiring at all engine speeds. With technical fuel & ignition management advancements, variable intake runner, valve and cam timing systems, etc... we've seen compression ratios and horsepower output climb higher and higher, all while simultaneously reducing tailpipe emissions to levels so minute we can no longer consider suicide in an enclosed garage. With all these advancements, cranking compression pressure specs can vary anywhere from 130 psi to over 200 psi, and old-school compression expectations are out the window.

As a result, it's really hard to find accurate compression specs for vehicles--especially motorcycles--as manufacturer's are hesitant to publish them due to so many variables and, frankly, the relative uselessness of compression testing in modern powertrain diagnostics. But with this simple formula, all you need to know is your engine's compression ratio, and you can very quickly calculate how much cranking compression pressure your engine should produce, no matter if it's an old carbureted trail thumper or a modern EFI repli-racer.


  • AP=Atmospheric Pressure (about 14.7 @ sea level)
  • CR=Compression Ratio
  • VE=Volumetric Efficiency (constant, always a factor 1.15)
  • CP=Compression Pressure

Cranking Compression Formula:

AP x CR x VE = CP


Example (my bike, 2001 Aprilia Futura, 998cc v-twin)

14.7 x 11.75 x 1.15 = 198.62 psi

Another Example (2005 Suzuki DRZ400SM, 398cc single)

14.7 x 11.3 x 1.15 = 191.02 psi

Another Example (2007 Kawasaki Ninja 500R, 498cc I-twin)

14.7 x 10.8 x 1.15 = 182.57 psi

One More (2006 Honda GL1800 Goldwing, 1832cc boxer-6)

14.7 x 9.8 x 1.15 = 165.66 psi

I doubt anyone outside the factory engineers can provide acurate compression specs for most modern engines, and I wouldn't even want to try and track them down. But I found each of these bikes' compression ratio specs with 3-4 mouse clicks, and since the other two factors are fixed (at least at sea level), it makes it pretty easy to figure out what your optimum base cranking pressure should be.

Remember though, all compression tests should be performed with wide-open throttle, fully charged battery, ignition and fuel injectors disabled, and all spark plugs removed on multi-cylinder engines for best results. About a 10-15% loss could be considered normal on a healthy, high-mileage engine, but 10% or more higher results are immediately suspect (altered valve timing or carbon buildup). And on multi-cylinder engines, 10-12% consistency is more important than actual numbers.

S.A















(Thanks to Leon Algers of Professional Technicians Seminars, division of Standard Motor Products Inc.)
 
Note this formula is not valid for two-stroke engines.
 
I don't think VE should be factored in at all as the effective engine speed you'll be spinning the engine at while getting your data is so low that VE is a non-factor.

Also, you've left out a huge piece of the pie which would account for valve overlap.

And that's only the most simplistic approach. The easiest way to get good data is to take a known good, fresh engine of a particular design and get the PSI by simply testing it. Otherwise you end up trying to factor in valve opening, flow characteristics at low rpm, how much the cylinders have already filled before the valves close, etc., etc., mathematically and that's a nightmare.

I'd much rather do a compression test and simply check for differences between cylinders. Or even better, do a leakdown test which will tell you more.
 
I don't think VE should be factored in at all as the effective engine speed you'll be spinning the engine at while getting your data is so low that VE is a non-factor.

Also, you've left out a huge piece of the pie which would account for valve overlap.

And that's only the most simplistic approach. The easiest way to get good data is to take a known good, fresh engine of a particular design and get the PSI by simply testing it. Otherwise you end up trying to factor in valve opening, flow characteristics at low rpm, how much the cylinders have already filled before the valves close, etc., etc., mathematically and that's a nightmare.

I'd much rather do a compression test and simply check for differences between cylinders. Or even better, do a leakdown test which will tell you more.

This formula is for production engines, not highly modified race engines. If you use it, you will find it very, very useful in establishing a base target for cranking pressure. Is it perfect? No. But I submit it is very close, and when searching for compression specs, I can find the compression ratio for any engine in under a minute vs trying to find elusive compression specs in a manual that may not even have them listed, and certainly more quickly and easier than "take(ing) a known good, fresh engine of a particular design and get the PSI by simply testing it.".

And VE is a factor, simply a constant developed by the mathematicians who created this formula, not a literal representation of an engine's true volumetric efficiency. If you were to ask them, I believe it would be more representative of 85% VE rather than 115%, but that is irrelevant. If you try to think like an engineer regarding this VE factor, it will just piss you off.

For the record, and in my professional experience, compressed air leakdown testing is useless when trying to pinpoint the source of, say, a 25% compression loss. Ever really and truly find it with your ear that way? Not me, and I've been at this a very long time. (I once believed I could, but I was mistaken.:laughing) Sure, it might work for catastrophic compression loss, and then only as a rough indicator, but never very useful for diagnosis of marginal loss. For that, smoke injection is the shit. :thumbup

Thanks for your input ST, I dig this kind of dialog. :thumbup
 
Thanks for your input ST, I dig this kind of dialog. :thumbup


:thumbup Gotta keep you on your toes.

Interesting that compression numbers aren't published much anymore. I remember once upon a time when all I had to do was thumb to the correct section of my Motor's Manual. My dad had a few, covering all American cars from the early 30's through most of the 60's. For me, growing up, they were recreational reading.
 
Most bikes have compression numbers in the shop manuals. At least all mine do.
 
:thumbup Gotta keep you on your toes.

Thanks for that. :laughing

Interesting that compression numbers aren't published much anymore. I remember once upon a time when all I had to do was thumb to the correct section of my Motor's Manual. My dad had a few, covering all American cars from the early 30's through most of the 60's. For me, growing up, they were recreational reading.

No kidding, way back when the mind was a bigger sponge than the kids. :laughing
 
I'd be interested in some details about the formula. First, my understanding is that pressure is a differential measurement, not an absolute measurement. E.g. inflating a tire to 3 bar means that the tire's internal pressure is three times that of atmospheric pressure; regardless of what the atmospheric pressure actually is. If you inflated that tire at sea level and then rode it up a tall mountain, the inflation pressure would actually go up, despite having the same mass of air in the tire. It seems that the same should be true of a cylinder... One that shows a 200psi compression reading should do so regardless of atmospheric pressure.

Second... Are you sure V.E. is a constant? From my understanding, it varies between engines, and it varies by RPM on an individual engine. E.g. any performance mod that requires changes to the fueling is doing so by increasing the VE of the engine. Also, 1.15 sounds awfuly high... My understanding is that high revving/high CR motorcycle engines tend to have fairly low VE, which is part of the reason that they can run on relatively low octane fuel without knocking, even though they have unbelievably high compression ratios.

Again, just my understanding. Curious if I'm missing something.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top