grasshopperR Posted November 20, 2016 Report Posted November 20, 2016 Every time I look up a Volvo compression test, it's always the people with horrible compression (90-125). I was wondering what VS has on their cars. Hopefully better! Edit: including mileage in a post would be nice
Fudge_Brownie Posted November 22, 2016 Report Posted November 22, 2016 On 11/19/2016 at 9:13 PM, grasshopperR said: Every time I look up a Volvo compression test, it's always the people with horrible compression (90-125). I was wondering what VS has on their cars. Hopefully better! Edit: including mileage in a post would be nice If I remember right 185 is considered new, and 150 is the lower end where it starts to go become concerning. I remember doing it on a 100k engine that went another 100k and I believe at the time I was mostly getting in the mid 150's. Not all gauges read the same - precision varies. Rule of thumb is that uniformity is more important. That's because unless the car has crazy high mileage, you're not expecting all 5 cylinders to fail simultaneously. and uniformly. So if you see 140-140-140-90-140, you've got a problem, but it isn't the 140's. If you're getting uniform but low numbers, I'd probably get another gauge to confirm.
grasshopperR Posted November 22, 2016 Author Report Posted November 22, 2016 3 hours ago, Fudge_Brownie said: If I remember right 185 is considered new, and 150 is the lower end where it starts to go become concerning. I remember doing it on a 100k engine that went another 100k and I believe at the time I was mostly getting in the mid 150's. Not all gauges read the same - precision varies. Rule of thumb is that uniformity is more important. That's because unless the car has crazy high mileage, you're not expecting all 5 cylinders to fail simultaneously. and uniformly. So if you see 140-140-140-90-140, you've got a problem, but it isn't the 140's. If you're getting uniform but low numbers, I'd probably get another gauge to confirm. I did 2 tests so far, one test showed I was in the 155-165 area and one faulty gauge wouldn't show anything above 60 psi. So, I don't know for sure completely.
adamdrives Posted December 2, 2016 Report Posted December 2, 2016 I was pleasantly surprised by 180-190 across all my cylinders at 115k. Though I think lpts would be on the higher side.
andyb5 Posted December 3, 2016 Report Posted December 3, 2016 After replacing my cylinder head last summer (worn valve stem seals were leaking oil into the exhaust, no effect on combustion/compression) I tested mine with a rented gauge from Autozone, so I can't speak to the absolute accuracy of the gauge, but all 5 cylinders were between 165 and 170. I was pretty happy with those numbers - for a motor with ~185k on it at the time to exhibit less than 5% variation across all 5 cylinders seemed pretty good to me.
TryingBe Posted December 22, 2016 Report Posted December 22, 2016 Turbo 254k miles 150, 150, 120, 0, 80 Replaced it with a turbo 142k engine 177, 175,172, 168, 170
MattyXXL Posted March 10, 2017 Report Posted March 10, 2017 131k fresh rebuild just over 1k ago 190 across the bar wet
TryingBe Posted March 12, 2017 Report Posted March 12, 2017 On 3/10/2017 at 11:10 AM, MattyXXL said: 131k fresh rebuild just over 1k ago 190 across the bar wet What's the dry test number? Wet test is usually used to diagnosis a problem.
gmsgltr Posted March 13, 2017 Report Posted March 13, 2017 14 hours ago, MattyXXL said: No clue, I only do it wet. EPIC
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.