Thinking out loud: 3.6L V6DI
 

So, I'm bored at work today - and I'm goin' through GM's powertrain site, reading up on the Direct Injection V6 we're likely to get. Mainly trying to figure out if it's possible to Turbo it.

Here's what I found:

The engine has a forged crank and connecting rods.
It has a fuel shut-off at 7000rpms.
CR is an astounding 11.3 : 1 :help: (why is that astounding?)
Because it only requires regular unleaded - they don't even "reccomend" premium!!!

I'm no powertrain engineer...but does this engine seem to be built for Forced Induction, or at least "willing" to accept it? The innards should be able to handle it; and by simply using premium fuel; you should easily be able to push 5-7 lbs of boost into it.

Thoughts?

A CR of 11.3:1 doesn't seem like its ready for FI to me.

Agreed,

That is extremely high CR for blowers or turbos. You might get away with 5 pounds of boost, but I wouldn't go past that. For the money you'll spend on FI, I don't think you'll be happy with the end result. That high of a compression ratio doesn't really give you a lot of room to grow.

Now, don't get me wrong that's a great little motor.

Can someone catch me up on what CR is, and what the numbers mean?

Thanks:thumbup:

Compression Ratio
It's the ratio the air is squeezed when the piston compresses during it's upstroke. So, 11.3 : 1 means the air taken into the cylinder is compressed to 1/11.3th of the cylinder's volume. For Reference, that's higher than the LS7's compression ratio.:yikes: An "average", or "normal" CR is anywhere from high 9
s to mid-low tens. 11+ is crazy-compression!

Which brings me back to my question. You guys makes sense, but doesn't Direct Injection shift our conventional understanding of CR's a little? That's where I was coming from: I mean, 11.7 with Regular Fuel!!! I thought that could mean with a tune, and premium fuel - one could get an extra 100 horses out of the little 6.

CR=Compression Ratio. A Compression Ratio of 11.7:1 means that the volume in the cylinder at the time when the piston goes from the bottom of it's cycle to the top gets compressed 11.7 times it's normal pressure while being ignited by a spark. A higher compression ratio means that more fuel/air are being compressed in a given volume and thus the resultant "bang" is bigger and more power is generated.



At least I'm pretty sure that's a simplified version of how to explain it. If anyone knows better, please educate me.

-Tim

Dragoneye beat me to the punch... sorry for the double-tap!

I think that the difference between the DI and other fuel injection methods is that DI is much more precise in the metering of fuel and the control of fuel and spark mapping throughout the RPM range of the motor. That's why, with the aid of better internals, stratospheric CRs can now be achieved. Mostly I think it's attributable to the precision of the system altogether. It's badass isn't it?!!!:headbang:

O ok, thanks both of you.
Dragon, you could be right about the forced induction idea. In the other engine thread about Gen V engines, asrapid mentioned rumors of GM making a turbo V6 with over 400hp. EXCITING! :happyanim:

you do not want to run that high CR with boost. most guys i know who build FI motors swap stuff around and build about 7.5-10 CR (without the blower)to run anywhere from 22lbs to 6lbs (respectively)


running at 11.3:1 (which is higher than the 4th gen v-8 camaros stock) allows you to get more power from your gas.

in a way its like when the LT1 motors were introduced, the vette motors were around 10.5:1 and the maro motors were around 10.3:1 CR. they just about demanded premium (mid-grade was recommended) due to the high CR.

heres an interesting writeup about CR ratios and boost and octane
http://www.sdsefi.com/techocta.htm

All LT1s in Y and F-bodies were the same CR to my recollection (10.5:1?.) The LT4 was higher (10.8:1?,) but LT1s were the same. The biggest differences were Y-bodies had four-bolt mains, and B-bodies had iron heads and cams I think.

I think they can get away with higher CRs on the DIs because it atomizes the fuel better which makes it more efficient by enabling it to burn more completely. I don't think it's FI-friendly, especially since the pistons don't look like they're forged. Maybe some spray, but SC and turbo seem to be out of the question.

yeah, the LT1s were 10.4:1 and the LT4s were 10.8:1 some f-bods ended up with 4-bolt mains left over from the vette production lines. and b-bodies did have the iron heads, but the reverse flow cooling was what really allowed the higher compression to be run. cooling the heads first then the block allowed for more controlled and constant temps which helps to prevent detonation which can be a biiiiiiiig problem when you start bumping up CR

well there was already concept of v6 3.6 l TT in torana (it wasn't DI ) with around 380 hp. Now rumors on other forums are that present 3.6 l v6 can go up to 4.0 l and there is v6 TT in development which should come instead of new ultra v8 (for cadillac engine)with more then 400 hp in DTS/STS replacement. I don't know how much of this is true but i wouldn't be suprise if GM start developnig more and more smaller displacement engine with turbochargers. Even 2.8 l V6 TT (on e85) in saab aero x was developing around 400 hp.
I hope some of the rumors are true but we know there was also rumors about new ultra v8 engine and v12..and we know both of this engine was cancelled later on. So until we see it:)
And also when you have direct injection you are not limited (like in SFI) to inject fuel when(before) intake valves are open..you can injected much later (actually computer can determine when fuel is injected and it is not limited by time when intake valves are open) so you can avoid detonation which can occurre when fuel is injected at the start of compression(at higher CR).But offcours when you have 11 something compression ratio and you put turbo on that there are more strees to other internal engine parts..so i assume GM would lower CR before putting turbochargers.

i'm hearing about how all this injection correlates to the compression ratios being so high, but the 1970's SS engine the L-78 and it had a carb on it... this engine achieved a compression ratio of 11.0:1 so what does the better atomization of the fuel have to do with the compression ratio?

I am no expert, but I believe the advantage of the DI is the placement of the precise quantity of fuel 'directly' into the cylinders by the injector, more so than the improved atomization. I am not sure how that will allow the old standards of lower CR for turbo to change....