2nd Gen Ram Tech 1994-2001 Rams: This section is for TECHNICAL discussions only, that involve the 1994 through 2001 Rams. For any non-tech discussions, please direct your attention to the "General discussion/NON-tech" sub sections.

Are these compression numbers ok for my 5.9 ?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 23, 2011 | 12:00 AM
  #1  
candymancan's Avatar
candymancan
Thread Starter
|
Veteran
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Default Are these compression numbers ok for my 5.9 ?

I tested it dry and then squirted oil in there. This is my Jeeps 5.9 Magnum with 123k on it. I do believe the Jeep 5.9 has a higher compression ratio then the dodge because i have to use 93 octane

#1. 160, with oil 167

#2. 149, with oil 155

#3. 164, with oil 167

#4. 165, with oil 168

#5. 163, with oil 169

#6. 163, with oil 168

#7. 164, with oil 166

#8. 160, with oil 165


Is this ok ? Number 2 seems low, but it didnt Jump anymore then the others did with oil in it. I checked it twice to make sure and this was with a hot/warm engine. The spark plugs were clean, i didnt see any oil on them or even any carbon. Well #7-8 were a little dirty on the threads but not the actuall plug.

Here is what all the plugs looks like

http://i1083.photobucket.com/albums/...2/IMAG0070.jpg

This is what 7 and 8 look like

http://i1083.photobucket.com/albums/...2/IMAG0163.jpg
 

Last edited by candymancan; Jul 23, 2011 at 12:03 AM.
Reply
Old Jul 23, 2011 | 12:06 AM
  #2  
lastrights's Avatar
lastrights
Grand Champion
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,849
Likes: 5
From: the burgh
Default

How many miles in the truck and the year ?
 
Reply
Old Jul 23, 2011 | 12:11 AM
  #3  
candymancan's Avatar
candymancan
Thread Starter
|
Veteran
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Default

1998, Grand Cherokee 5.9 Limited, with 123,500 miles.
 
Reply
Old Jul 23, 2011 | 12:24 AM
  #4  
matty675's Avatar
matty675
Record Breaker
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,504
Likes: 1
From: Chesapeake, VA
Default

those numbers are awesome!
 
Reply
Old Jul 23, 2011 | 07:22 AM
  #5  
dhvaughan's Avatar
dhvaughan
Hall Of Fame
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,204
Likes: 10
From: Gainesville, Ga.
Default

very awesome. drive on.
 
Reply
Old Jul 24, 2011 | 08:46 PM
  #6  
candymancan's Avatar
candymancan
Thread Starter
|
Veteran
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Default

any ideas what the numbers are suppose to be ? Someone told me 160-170 is the compression from a new engine if so thats great. Im wondering tho why 1 cylinder is a tad lower then the rest.
 
Reply
Old Jul 24, 2011 | 09:11 PM
  #7  
drewactual's Avatar
drewactual
Champion
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,697
Likes: 3
From: Cape Carteret NC
Default

Heheheheheheee... Because the valve seat has a crack... Sorry, couldn't resist... But, its likely true..
 
Reply
Old Jul 24, 2011 | 09:14 PM
  #8  
Adobedude's Avatar
Adobedude
All Star
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 907
Likes: 2
From: Corrales, New Mecico
Default

Originally Posted by drewactual
Heheheheheheee... Because the valve seat has a crack... Sorry, couldn't resist... But, its likely true..
 
Reply
Old Jul 24, 2011 | 09:37 PM
  #9  
HeyYou's Avatar
HeyYou
Administrator
Veteran: Air Force
Community Favorite
15 Year Member
Community Builder
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 87,468
Likes: 4,220
From: Clayton MI
Default

Originally Posted by candymancan
any ideas what the numbers are suppose to be ? Someone told me 160-170 is the compression from a new engine if so thats great. Im wondering tho why 1 cylinder is a tad lower then the rest.
Different amounts of carbon on the valves.... you could try giving it a good seafoam treatment, and then running the test again..... might be enlightening. Or it may not....

Chrysler says, anything over 100 pounds is "acceptable", and all cylinders should be within 25% of each other. (which seems awful generous to me.... but, hey...... that's just me.) Your numbers look pretty good for an engine with over 100K on it.
 
Reply




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:37 PM.