Chamber Grooves - what do you guys think?
Moderator: Team
-
putztastics
- Expert
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:42 pm
- Location: ND
- Contact:
Best Test
It seems to me that people are keen to test 'just' the Groove, ostensibly for some kind of scientific purpose.
I agree with Automotivebreath that one must also consider the advantages that a modification allows as well as the specific advantage of the modification itself.
If a regular engine can not be successfully set at a certain tuning of advantage, but this is allowed with the Groove, then it seems like the Groove has merit.
Is quantifying the exact benefit of the Groove channel (minus the added displacement which has been negated with head shaving) as important as seeing what a groove will do for most users?
I'm interested to know how much it costs to do a dyno pull on that engine with the Grooves and the most advantageous tune that they enable because this is what will happen when someone puts Grooved heads on their engine.
Who would Groove their heads and not take advantage of what they provide in terms of performance?
For instance, the benefits at high rpm might be negligible, but the "tuned" torque and HP might be greater at a lower rpm with the Groove, thus enhancing engine life (and whatever other benefits come from running a lower rpm).
Also, knowing what happens from idle rpm under load would show what is possible in terms of getting up to speed (relevant to the ¼ milers and regular daily drivers like myself) and apparently it would show great differences from the regular engine.
As for a two day test, it seems like this wouldn't require a repeat of the first example, just a comparison of the un-Grooved engine results with the new "tuned" Groove. As mentioned before emissions would be useful for a number of practical performance reasons.
It strikes me that for whatever reason, the advantages of the Groove have been downplayed to a large degree and no one has come forward to show what this mod actually means in terms of detailed performance potential.
I understand that you split the cost with Automotivebreath out of intellectual curiosity which I applaud heartily. Others have not come forward with their results for reasons that I cannot understand, so I am asking now, what would it cost to have you perform another test with the Grooved engine that shows what it is now capable of, as opposed to what the Groove 'alone' changes (which seems more like showing how a Grooved engine MOST resembles an unmodified configuration. Answer: +3lbs of torque)
I agree with Automotivebreath that one must also consider the advantages that a modification allows as well as the specific advantage of the modification itself.
If a regular engine can not be successfully set at a certain tuning of advantage, but this is allowed with the Groove, then it seems like the Groove has merit.
Is quantifying the exact benefit of the Groove channel (minus the added displacement which has been negated with head shaving) as important as seeing what a groove will do for most users?
I'm interested to know how much it costs to do a dyno pull on that engine with the Grooves and the most advantageous tune that they enable because this is what will happen when someone puts Grooved heads on their engine.
Who would Groove their heads and not take advantage of what they provide in terms of performance?
For instance, the benefits at high rpm might be negligible, but the "tuned" torque and HP might be greater at a lower rpm with the Groove, thus enhancing engine life (and whatever other benefits come from running a lower rpm).
Also, knowing what happens from idle rpm under load would show what is possible in terms of getting up to speed (relevant to the ¼ milers and regular daily drivers like myself) and apparently it would show great differences from the regular engine.
As for a two day test, it seems like this wouldn't require a repeat of the first example, just a comparison of the un-Grooved engine results with the new "tuned" Groove. As mentioned before emissions would be useful for a number of practical performance reasons.
It strikes me that for whatever reason, the advantages of the Groove have been downplayed to a large degree and no one has come forward to show what this mod actually means in terms of detailed performance potential.
I understand that you split the cost with Automotivebreath out of intellectual curiosity which I applaud heartily. Others have not come forward with their results for reasons that I cannot understand, so I am asking now, what would it cost to have you perform another test with the Grooved engine that shows what it is now capable of, as opposed to what the Groove 'alone' changes (which seems more like showing how a Grooved engine MOST resembles an unmodified configuration. Answer: +3lbs of torque)
-insert pithy comment here-
-
putztastics
- Expert
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:42 pm
- Location: ND
- Contact:
The cost of that testing was 100% mine.
I did try different fuels, at different timing etc. 100LL made the best power, the engine was still within 1-2 hp of pre groove trim in the 6200-4000 RPM range.
Like I have said next time there should be some steady state tests for very accurate BSFC numbers before and after the grooving.
One more thing I could have tried was straight 91 pump gas. The engine had 165-170 cranking compression, 11 static and 9.19 dynamic (KB calculator) CR. So it might have run on 91 with the grooves. I'm not set up with any form of knock sensors, what I would do is wire them to headphones, so knock is not easy to hear. I do not think it was knocking but with the Klotz + 91 mix there was some run on after the engine was shut off, sometimes a sign the octane is a little low.
I still have my 360 test mule engine and could do grooves testing on that one. It has about .5 less CR so it would probably run on 91 with grooves.
I did try different fuels, at different timing etc. 100LL made the best power, the engine was still within 1-2 hp of pre groove trim in the 6200-4000 RPM range.
Like I have said next time there should be some steady state tests for very accurate BSFC numbers before and after the grooving.
One more thing I could have tried was straight 91 pump gas. The engine had 165-170 cranking compression, 11 static and 9.19 dynamic (KB calculator) CR. So it might have run on 91 with the grooves. I'm not set up with any form of knock sensors, what I would do is wire them to headphones, so knock is not easy to hear. I do not think it was knocking but with the Klotz + 91 mix there was some run on after the engine was shut off, sometimes a sign the octane is a little low.
I still have my 360 test mule engine and could do grooves testing on that one. It has about .5 less CR so it would probably run on 91 with grooves.
Jesse Lackman
http://www.revsearch.com
http://www.revsearch.com
Best Test
(100% costs) My apologies, and 100%more sincere thanks for doing this test.
Are my other assumptions off as well?
What about the .070 space and higher compression used by automotivebreath? Timing changes?
My point being that setting the Groove to its maximum benefit would tell us about its potential more than [same engine, same tune but with Grooves]
Would what I'm suggesting take two days?
Are my other assumptions off as well?
What about the .070 space and higher compression used by automotivebreath? Timing changes?
My point being that setting the Groove to its maximum benefit would tell us about its potential more than [same engine, same tune but with Grooves]
Would what I'm suggesting take two days?
-insert pithy comment here-
-
automotive breath
- Guru
- Posts: 1681
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 11:54 pm
- Location:
Re: Best Test
As putztastics said, his testing was completed on his time with his money. Larry Meaux agreed to split cost of testing my SBC.liquigas wrote:...I understand that you split the cost with Automotivebreath out of intellectual curiosity which I applaud heartily...
Old thread,but I just heard back from a "groovy user" today... I grooved a set of Arctic Cat snowmobile heads 4 months ago,and at the same time I took a couple 'thou off to true the heads. Not nearly enough to kick the CR up by any noticable amount,and told him to take a few degrees of WOT ignition out of it. Result?
The result was short lived... Quote: "It pulled like crazy when we tried it...never been anything even like it...then it promtly snapped the gearbox chain and totalled the 'box", end quote.
...guess I know what to do on my own ancient ET340P now. 
The result was short lived... Quote: "It pulled like crazy when we tried it...never been anything even like it...then it promtly snapped the gearbox chain and totalled the 'box", end quote.
...guess I know what to do on my own ancient ET340P now. -Bjørn
"Impossible? Nah...just needs more development time"
"Impossible? Nah...just needs more development time"
(call me the dead thread resurrector) is it me or was this thread ended on a highly interesting tantalizing but still not conclusive note? 6 foot pounds in the low RPM range seems worthy of more investigation. Especially considering how easy the grooves are to create.
By definition, they don't do nothing, they obviously had a small impact with absolutely no tuning to optimise their effect...
Putz found interesting stuff then... a year goes by and no one is pursuing it?
Hell when I first heard about the grooves (AB on Hotrodders forum) I thought "great another stupid gimick. And more then a year later here I am reading a year old thread on it that prooves they have some mild beneficial effect... did the discussion migrate to a new thread?
By definition, they don't do nothing, they obviously had a small impact with absolutely no tuning to optimise their effect...
Putz found interesting stuff then... a year goes by and no one is pursuing it?
Hell when I first heard about the grooves (AB on Hotrodders forum) I thought "great another stupid gimick. And more then a year later here I am reading a year old thread on it that prooves they have some mild beneficial effect... did the discussion migrate to a new thread?
check out www.Jeepstrokers.com
94 XJ stroker 88 YJ Stroker
94 XJ stroker 88 YJ Stroker
-
automotive breath
- Guru
- Posts: 1681
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 11:54 pm
- Location:
The idea was covered in depth here, use the search feature. More recently
there has been several discussions on "Harley Tech Talk"
http://groups.msn.com/HarleyTechTalk/tc ... 6521222401
http://groups.msn.com/HarleyTechTalk/tc ... =0&CDir=-2
there has been several discussions on "Harley Tech Talk"
http://groups.msn.com/HarleyTechTalk/tc ... 6521222401
http://groups.msn.com/HarleyTechTalk/tc ... =0&CDir=-2
I was using the search feature or I wouldn't have found this threadautomotive breath wrote:The idea was covered in depth here, use the search feature. More recently there has been several discussions on "Harley Tech Talk"
. Here i am resurecting it again (pet peave but why do some people hate when an old thread is brought back up?) Did you and Larry ever get together to prove this out with more testing an tuning for best power?check out www.Jeepstrokers.com
94 XJ stroker 88 YJ Stroker
94 XJ stroker 88 YJ Stroker
-
Piledriver
- Pro
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 5:01 am
- Location: Van Alstyne, Texas
I've been doing a little more research on my own, and have a slightly different theory about what is happening with the shaped grooves (not the Singh style grooves, the ones that provide texture, including the valves)
I suspect the added "texture" is actually doing the exact OPPOSITE of what the inventor holds, and is promoting a surface boundary layer, quite effectively insulating the head from combustion, also aiding combustion by possibly reducing surface wetting etc.
(This IIRC is an ancient 2 cycle head trick)
The patent is from ~1990 and is about expired anyway...
I am considering getting a little more radical and shot peening or trying a pin descaler...some piston domes and chambers for the effect and seeing what happens, thus searching here and stumbled on this old gem...
With the way the reynolds number changes, finding the "perfect" texture sizes migh be a bit tricky, for water the critical size to create a stangant layer would be a few thou... for "normal" air ..5-1mm or thereabouts IIRC. For what happens in a combustion chamber probably only actual testing in metal would really mean anything.
You would probably want to knock off any sharps with scotchbrite, and a thermal barrier coating could still be used.
All this is 180 out from what hot rodders and racers have probably been doing for 100 years... finding ~zero info on it so far.
I suspect the added "texture" is actually doing the exact OPPOSITE of what the inventor holds, and is promoting a surface boundary layer, quite effectively insulating the head from combustion, also aiding combustion by possibly reducing surface wetting etc.
(This IIRC is an ancient 2 cycle head trick)
The patent is from ~1990 and is about expired anyway...
I am considering getting a little more radical and shot peening or trying a pin descaler...some piston domes and chambers for the effect and seeing what happens, thus searching here and stumbled on this old gem...
With the way the reynolds number changes, finding the "perfect" texture sizes migh be a bit tricky, for water the critical size to create a stangant layer would be a few thou... for "normal" air ..5-1mm or thereabouts IIRC. For what happens in a combustion chamber probably only actual testing in metal would really mean anything.
You would probably want to knock off any sharps with scotchbrite, and a thermal barrier coating could still be used.
All this is 180 out from what hot rodders and racers have probably been doing for 100 years... finding ~zero info on it so far.
-
automotive breath
- Guru
- Posts: 1681
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 11:54 pm
- Location:
but why do some people hate when an old thread is brought back up?
No problem bringing up an old thread. It's a subject that has been discussed
here for several years. I believe most of the top level people think it's BS
so they would likely rather see it die. Then again others swear by it.
I have never done any dyno testing, I called Larry and told him I wasn't
able to take him up on his offer.
I still cut the grooves when people ask for it, here's a set of SBF heads
I'm working on tonight.
No problem bringing up an old thread. It's a subject that has been discussed
here for several years. I believe most of the top level people think it's BS
so they would likely rather see it die. Then again others swear by it.
I have never done any dyno testing, I called Larry and told him I wasn't
able to take him up on his offer.
I still cut the grooves when people ask for it, here's a set of SBF heads
I'm working on tonight.
-
forcefed86
- New Member
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:28 am
- Location:
Re: Chamber Grooves - what do you guys think?
[quote="forcefed86"]5 year bump... Any new accomplishments?
Probably. Those who have significant positive results have been beat up by the trolls and naysayers so that few people will share the progress.
I suspect the newest chamber tech and direct injection are making grooves minimal value.
Singh designed these for the ancient 2 and 4 stroke carburated engines in high BMEP conditions with junky gas. We still have junky gas... lol. I saw my first set of grooved heads in 1962.
Doing a set of full-up 289 heads now for a 5.0 f.i.
Probably. Those who have significant positive results have been beat up by the trolls and naysayers so that few people will share the progress.
I suspect the newest chamber tech and direct injection are making grooves minimal value.
Singh designed these for the ancient 2 and 4 stroke carburated engines in high BMEP conditions with junky gas. We still have junky gas... lol. I saw my first set of grooved heads in 1962.
Doing a set of full-up 289 heads now for a 5.0 f.i.