Quote:
|
Originally Posted by leathermang
1. I think yall are using the wrong base to compare from... thus the results are higher than they really should be...even though small anyway...
It should be a comparison between the cylinder volume with the piston at bottom compared to the two situations with the tester in place compared to the original equipment...
|
I thank you for pointing out a flaw in the way I approached this mental exercise. If we consider Brian's concern, though (an adapter that displaces LESS volume than what is usually in that part of the prechamber), I still think that it would make for a LOWER reading. It has effectively increased the volume of the prechamber by the same absolute amount on both ends of the compression stroke, yes?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by leathermang
2. The figures which are given for making decisions concerning the health of your engines are derived from tests made by Mercedes Engineers using compression testers themselves... and probably exactly like the ones you are using... thus negating the difference completely.... sending this ' problem' to the theoretical file... instead of being something to worry about...
|
Agreed, I consider the point to be entirely academic! As noted before, I wouldn't lose any sleep over using either of the adapters I have. I'd just use whichever was more convenient in a given situation.
Still, not a bad exercise in trying to understand a measurement and how possible sources of error work (both direction and magnitude). For example, when performing the "2mm of valve lift" measurement to find valve timing, how much is a given error in measuring the valve lift reflected in the timing that is determined?