Lil 289: I calculate my highway milage by filling my tank till the filler neck if full. Fill it next time the same way and divide miles by gallons.
Ron, I'm assuming your 90 was an Auto? My car and my brothers car (89GT R.I.P.) both got 27-28 highway. Both cars had ram air though. I honestly believe it helps.
Auto breath; some pretty good comments.
On injector size: I tried running my 347 with 30 pound injectors and a 36 pound sample tube @ 61 pounds. I ran it at around 38 pounds with a 30 pound tube. I didn't notice any difference. There probably was a small one but I couldn't tell. That car was a turd with the untuned stock computer. 470 hp @ 6100 on the dyno with a Braswell 750. It was lucky to make 400 in the car with the computer. LS1 is next.
performance and fuel economy
Moderator: Team
Joe,
When you went from 2:73's to 3:55's did you also change the speedometer gear? Some people forget to take that into account. I'm not saying that I don't believe your car's mileage stayed the same or got better. I do believe this happens on occasion for reasons stated by everyone here. Just wanted to make sure.
When you went from 2:73's to 3:55's did you also change the speedometer gear? Some people forget to take that into account. I'm not saying that I don't believe your car's mileage stayed the same or got better. I do believe this happens on occasion for reasons stated by everyone here. Just wanted to make sure.
-
Joe Mendelis
Lil 289, I did change the speedo gear in my car. It was accurate. When I checked the milage it was real highway driving @ 75-80 mph. I was actually trying to see what it would get being careful. I have seen my stock GT get 29 MPG once, just like Ron's car. Funny thing is, it was when (it was stock still) I was going 90-95 on the highway. My car now (Accord 
) gets worse milage the faster you go over 75.
So much for pumping loss and throttling and all that stuff. All that theory is fun to talk about, but how bout this; How does my Accord get 31MPG on the highway and my brothers Camaro with 300+ hp will get within 3% of fuel milage. How is that possible with 346 inches and 8 pistons and ring packs? Both are 5 or 6 speed manual. The LS1 has to go through a driveshaft and 3.42 ring and pinion. That has to be less efficient than a front wheel drive honda! The Camaro has more tire contact area too. Maybe drag and frontal area has something too do with it.
I will say the Honda gets 25 mpg driving 3 miles to work at 35 MPH through Concord. I should ask him what it gets average.
) gets worse milage the faster you go over 75. So much for pumping loss and throttling and all that stuff. All that theory is fun to talk about, but how bout this; How does my Accord get 31MPG on the highway and my brothers Camaro with 300+ hp will get within 3% of fuel milage. How is that possible with 346 inches and 8 pistons and ring packs? Both are 5 or 6 speed manual. The LS1 has to go through a driveshaft and 3.42 ring and pinion. That has to be less efficient than a front wheel drive honda! The Camaro has more tire contact area too. Maybe drag and frontal area has something too do with it.
I will say the Honda gets 25 mpg driving 3 miles to work at 35 MPH through Concord. I should ask him what it gets average.
Joe, the comparison with the Accord at higher speeds is interesting. I'd be surprised to discover a '90 mustang as aerodynamic. I remember driving nto rain on I-95 at 75-ish MPH, and noticing that the back glass didn't get a drop of water untill I slowed to take my exit. (It showed a vortex at slower speeds) So it's punching a pretty good hole in the air if no boundry-layer water from the roof can make that little turn (hatchback) If I remember right,(risky) the mustang w/3.08's was around 2200 RPM at 80. And, the motor had somewhat of a "sweet-spot" around there. The Honda seems to be getting less and less "in tune" from 75 MPH. Or the smaller motor has to work harder as the aero drag becomes a major factor.
Hell, I don't know, but it's a good excuse to drive a V8.
Hell, I don't know, but it's a good excuse to drive a V8.
Yesterday I was browsing the web and came across an interesting post on the Ford Muscle forum regarding one persons chance discovery of how heating the fuel line gained him a whopping 10 mpg. The thread was about adding acetone to gas to increase mileage but this guy's increases weren't from the acetone, just heating the line.
http://www.fordmuscle.com/phpBB/viewtop ... 01&forum=1
Check out the post by mavman about nine posts down.
http://www.fordmuscle.com/phpBB/viewtop ... 01&forum=1
Check out the post by mavman about nine posts down.
-
Torquemonster
heating the line can work but it hurts power - it's not an ideal situation and can be dangerous.
making the engine more efficient overall is the best but most expensive approach.
many LPE 500hp small block Chevy's return better than 30mpg at cruise
I've seen 500 cubic inch V10 Vipers return 28mpg with almost 900rwhp on boost - not on stock tune tho - it requires custom ECU or chip but safe A/F ratios
the fringe gadget community is frought with rumor and BS, but the lunatic cynics which determine the opinion of most people are as bad if not worse. Some of the air spiral gadets like the Hyclone often do work if placed in the right spot and on some models... I've seen good results, tho on some cars got no improvement at all. 20+% gain in mpg at cruise with small power gains are common - especially with 2 units.
One product that definitely works most times if placed in the right place is the Fuelstar which is a tin catalyst. I know all the cynical arguments - forget them - they work - there are thousands who can testify to it and I've tested them very accurately.... can't speak for other brands or imitations.
duh - there's still a lot of legends out there that think water injection doesn't work
The Fuelstar is brilliant on engines that are octane limited. I've run a unit on a high compression 340 Cuda that needed 100 octane to run full throttle before fitting. With the Fuelstar it ran 1/10th quicker (on the 1/4) on 87 octane pump gas than on avgas and no ping! don't work?
HELLO?
plus mpg goes up. Add a 0W/30 or 0W/40 synthetic oil to a Fuelstar install and 30% mpg gains are common without engine mods. Do not put the thin oil on old engines tho as their bigger clearances will hate you for it.
Water injection under vacuum cruise will allow much leaner mixes and more advance - big gains to be had but few do it because no one thinks of it. Water needs to be atomized well - over 100psi and good jets work with its own ecu controller. When it converts to steam in the chamber you also get a powerful expansion as a droplet expands 1500%. Ask WW2 Merlin powered Spitfire pilots vets who much power they gained when they sprayed water.
If you get into the engine - simply closing the quench to under 0.035" and good tuning will help power everywhere and mpg.
anti-reversion headers (a forgotten fossil that works incredibly well) are awesome for regaining excellent drivability and part throttle mpg with bigger cams (with more overlap) esp in conjunction with anti-reversion intake valves, tight quench, and coatings properly applied...
1000hp, 30mpg and clean emissions is not only possible it is easy - all in the same car. That is not a wild guess.
The 28mpg Viper that made 888rwhp was NOT high tech - there was HEAPS of room to improve on that - I'm not even going to speculate what i know could be done on that car.... the 28mpg BTW was measured and reported in a Car Magazine shootout - not a pencil and guess work.
hope I've stirred a few thoughts.
re heads - velocity improvement is important as is wet flow as mentioned. Max flow is great until velocity is reduced below stock velocity levels.
Turbos can be used to improve mpg - something very few know and even fewer understand... but that does not mean turbos will always improve cruise mpg - it is all in the combo and tune.
I've got 60mpg out of turbo power
getting out of mainstream now....
I've had vaporizers made where the car ran on invisible gas - literally on the smell of gas... lol the problem with those is they only produce enough vapor to cruise at modest speeds - you need to phase in extra fuel for power and phase the vapor down at idle, and phase the injectors back at cruise to keep the A/F at the ideal level... not easy to do without electronic controls. If done right the potential is huge
The limits for the 5.7 would be beyond my credibility here, but using conventional methods and the things I've talked about here would make a good power increase and high 30's mpg at a steady 65mph very feasible (without a vaporizer).... the ECU would lean out the A/F and advance the spark at cruise and richen up under load. High EGT's would be controlled via water or expensive mods made to allow the engine to tolerate lean conditions at cruise without harm.
A well tuned stock 3.8 V6 with Fuelstar has returned well over 40mpg in a 4 door heavy sedan with a slush box auto trans.... a 5 sp would be better.
Beyond this there is Hydrogen Peroxide injection. This allows leaning out an easy 30% on fuel while only using a tiny amount of 60% pure peroxide - but requires careful handling and specific storage materials to store it right. Overuse can straighten a crank - so little is more.... Peroxide fuel injection is the ultimate in a straight torque curve but very hard to get good data on.... you are on your own with PFI as much as the water engine boys are...
speaking of water - you can buy a welder that cracks water into hydrogen/oxygen and uses the hydrogen as fuel for a welder.... not cheap at $10,000 but think it through - if you can use the water cracking to weld you can use the same fuel to run an engine... something a few have nutted out but no one can market for obvious reasons... for those to whom it is not obvious - a water engine made popular would crash the global economy according to the "experts" and even worse - reduce oil company profits... which is why you'll buy fuel cell cars not water converters. The problem has NEVER been with the technolgy to crack water - that was done a long time before fuel cells were thought of.... as a few in the know can testify.
by now I'm a total crank - but hopefully a few will go play and learn the truth if they do it right and are patient
making the engine more efficient overall is the best but most expensive approach.
many LPE 500hp small block Chevy's return better than 30mpg at cruise
I've seen 500 cubic inch V10 Vipers return 28mpg with almost 900rwhp on boost - not on stock tune tho - it requires custom ECU or chip but safe A/F ratios
the fringe gadget community is frought with rumor and BS, but the lunatic cynics which determine the opinion of most people are as bad if not worse. Some of the air spiral gadets like the Hyclone often do work if placed in the right spot and on some models... I've seen good results, tho on some cars got no improvement at all. 20+% gain in mpg at cruise with small power gains are common - especially with 2 units.
One product that definitely works most times if placed in the right place is the Fuelstar which is a tin catalyst. I know all the cynical arguments - forget them - they work - there are thousands who can testify to it and I've tested them very accurately.... can't speak for other brands or imitations.
duh - there's still a lot of legends out there that think water injection doesn't work
The Fuelstar is brilliant on engines that are octane limited. I've run a unit on a high compression 340 Cuda that needed 100 octane to run full throttle before fitting. With the Fuelstar it ran 1/10th quicker (on the 1/4) on 87 octane pump gas than on avgas and no ping! don't work?
HELLO?
plus mpg goes up. Add a 0W/30 or 0W/40 synthetic oil to a Fuelstar install and 30% mpg gains are common without engine mods. Do not put the thin oil on old engines tho as their bigger clearances will hate you for it.
Water injection under vacuum cruise will allow much leaner mixes and more advance - big gains to be had but few do it because no one thinks of it. Water needs to be atomized well - over 100psi and good jets work with its own ecu controller. When it converts to steam in the chamber you also get a powerful expansion as a droplet expands 1500%. Ask WW2 Merlin powered Spitfire pilots vets who much power they gained when they sprayed water.
If you get into the engine - simply closing the quench to under 0.035" and good tuning will help power everywhere and mpg.
anti-reversion headers (a forgotten fossil that works incredibly well) are awesome for regaining excellent drivability and part throttle mpg with bigger cams (with more overlap) esp in conjunction with anti-reversion intake valves, tight quench, and coatings properly applied...
1000hp, 30mpg and clean emissions is not only possible it is easy - all in the same car. That is not a wild guess.
The 28mpg Viper that made 888rwhp was NOT high tech - there was HEAPS of room to improve on that - I'm not even going to speculate what i know could be done on that car.... the 28mpg BTW was measured and reported in a Car Magazine shootout - not a pencil and guess work.
hope I've stirred a few thoughts.
re heads - velocity improvement is important as is wet flow as mentioned. Max flow is great until velocity is reduced below stock velocity levels.
Turbos can be used to improve mpg - something very few know and even fewer understand... but that does not mean turbos will always improve cruise mpg - it is all in the combo and tune.
I've got 60mpg out of turbo power
getting out of mainstream now....
I've had vaporizers made where the car ran on invisible gas - literally on the smell of gas... lol the problem with those is they only produce enough vapor to cruise at modest speeds - you need to phase in extra fuel for power and phase the vapor down at idle, and phase the injectors back at cruise to keep the A/F at the ideal level... not easy to do without electronic controls. If done right the potential is huge
The limits for the 5.7 would be beyond my credibility here, but using conventional methods and the things I've talked about here would make a good power increase and high 30's mpg at a steady 65mph very feasible (without a vaporizer).... the ECU would lean out the A/F and advance the spark at cruise and richen up under load. High EGT's would be controlled via water or expensive mods made to allow the engine to tolerate lean conditions at cruise without harm.
A well tuned stock 3.8 V6 with Fuelstar has returned well over 40mpg in a 4 door heavy sedan with a slush box auto trans.... a 5 sp would be better.
Beyond this there is Hydrogen Peroxide injection. This allows leaning out an easy 30% on fuel while only using a tiny amount of 60% pure peroxide - but requires careful handling and specific storage materials to store it right. Overuse can straighten a crank - so little is more.... Peroxide fuel injection is the ultimate in a straight torque curve but very hard to get good data on.... you are on your own with PFI as much as the water engine boys are...
speaking of water - you can buy a welder that cracks water into hydrogen/oxygen and uses the hydrogen as fuel for a welder.... not cheap at $10,000 but think it through - if you can use the water cracking to weld you can use the same fuel to run an engine... something a few have nutted out but no one can market for obvious reasons... for those to whom it is not obvious - a water engine made popular would crash the global economy according to the "experts" and even worse - reduce oil company profits... which is why you'll buy fuel cell cars not water converters. The problem has NEVER been with the technolgy to crack water - that was done a long time before fuel cells were thought of.... as a few in the know can testify.
by now I'm a total crank - but hopefully a few will go play and learn the truth if they do it right and are patient
-
OldSStroker
- Guru
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:14 pm
- Location: Upstate New York
Wow! You've shattered all of my beliefs on how the world works, Torquemaster.Torquemonster wrote:heating the line can work but it hurts power - it's not an ideal situation and can be dangerous.
making the engine more efficient overall is the best but most expensive approach.
many LPE 500hp small block Chevy's return better than 30mpg at cruise
I've seen 500 cubic inch V10 Vipers return 28mpg with almost 900rwhp on boost - not on stock tune tho - it requires custom ECU or chip but safe A/F ratios
the fringe gadget community is frought with rumor and BS, but the lunatic cynics which determine the opinion of most people are as bad if not worse. Some of the air spiral gadets like the Hyclone often do work if placed in the right spot and on some models... I've seen good results, tho on some cars got no improvement at all. 20+% gain in mpg at cruise with small power gains are common - especially with 2 units.
One product that definitely works most times if placed in the right place is the Fuelstar which is a tin catalyst. I know all the cynical arguments - forget them - they work - there are thousands who can testify to it and I've tested them very accurately.... can't speak for other brands or imitations.
duh - there's still a lot of legends out there that think water injection doesn't work
The Fuelstar is brilliant on engines that are octane limited. I've run a unit on a high compression 340 Cuda that needed 100 octane to run full throttle before fitting. With the Fuelstar it ran 1/10th quicker (on the 1/4) on 87 octane pump gas than on avgas and no ping! don't work?
HELLO?
plus mpg goes up. Add a 0W/30 or 0W/40 synthetic oil to a Fuelstar install and 30% mpg gains are common without engine mods. Do not put the thin oil on old engines tho as their bigger clearances will hate you for it.
Water injection under vacuum cruise will allow much leaner mixes and more advance - big gains to be had but few do it because no one thinks of it. Water needs to be atomized well - over 100psi and good jets work with its own ecu controller. When it converts to steam in the chamber you also get a powerful expansion as a droplet expands 1500%. Ask WW2 Merlin powered Spitfire pilots vets who much power they gained when they sprayed water.
If you get into the engine - simply closing the quench to under 0.035" and good tuning will help power everywhere and mpg.
anti-reversion headers (a forgotten fossil that works incredibly well) are awesome for regaining excellent drivability and part throttle mpg with bigger cams (with more overlap) esp in conjunction with anti-reversion intake valves, tight quench, and coatings properly applied...
1000hp, 30mpg and clean emissions is not only possible it is easy - all in the same car. That is not a wild guess.
The 28mpg Viper that made 888rwhp was NOT high tech - there was HEAPS of room to improve on that - I'm not even going to speculate what i know could be done on that car.... the 28mpg BTW was measured and reported in a Car Magazine shootout - not a pencil and guess work.
hope I've stirred a few thoughts.
re heads - velocity improvement is important as is wet flow as mentioned. Max flow is great until velocity is reduced below stock velocity levels.
Turbos can be used to improve mpg - something very few know and even fewer understand... but that does not mean turbos will always improve cruise mpg - it is all in the combo and tune.
I've got 60mpg out of turbo power
getting out of mainstream now....
I've had vaporizers made where the car ran on invisible gas - literally on the smell of gas... lol the problem with those is they only produce enough vapor to cruise at modest speeds - you need to phase in extra fuel for power and phase the vapor down at idle, and phase the injectors back at cruise to keep the A/F at the ideal level... not easy to do without electronic controls. If done right the potential is huge
The limits for the 5.7 would be beyond my credibility here, but using conventional methods and the things I've talked about here would make a good power increase and high 30's mpg at a steady 65mph very feasible (without a vaporizer).... the ECU would lean out the A/F and advance the spark at cruise and richen up under load. High EGT's would be controlled via water or expensive mods made to allow the engine to tolerate lean conditions at cruise without harm.
A well tuned stock 3.8 V6 with Fuelstar has returned well over 40mpg in a 4 door heavy sedan with a slush box auto trans.... a 5 sp would be better.
Beyond this there is Hydrogen Peroxide injection. This allows leaning out an easy 30% on fuel while only using a tiny amount of 60% pure peroxide - but requires careful handling and specific storage materials to store it right. Overuse can straighten a crank - so little is more.... Peroxide fuel injection is the ultimate in a straight torque curve but very hard to get good data on.... you are on your own with PFI as much as the water engine boys are...
speaking of water - you can buy a welder that cracks water into hydrogen/oxygen and uses the hydrogen as fuel for a welder.... not cheap at $10,000 but think it through - if you can use the water cracking to weld you can use the same fuel to run an engine... something a few have nutted out but no one can market for obvious reasons... for those to whom it is not obvious - a water engine made popular would crash the global economy according to the "experts" and even worse - reduce oil company profits... which is why you'll buy fuel cell cars not water converters. The problem has NEVER been with the technolgy to crack water - that was done a long time before fuel cells were thought of.... as a few in the know can testify.
by now I'm a total crank - but hopefully a few will go play and learn the truth if they do it right and are patient
How come OEMs haven't used some of these ideas? The oil company conspiracy theory, right?
40+ years ago the same kind of things were being bantied around, and some even more bizzare ones. (No offense intended.) I was in the OEM auto business at the time and participated in controlled testing of some of them. They didn't work. That was back in carburetor days, and no, there weren't 100 mpg carbs like the Fish, that were being supressed by Big Oil or Big GM/Ford/Chrysler. That kind of stuff is fun to believe for some, but it just doesn't happen in the real world.
Personally it bothers me when people hawk things like spiral intake inserts to increase fuel economy 24% when gasoline prices have gone over $3/gal. That's praying on fear. The increases people see come from their altered driving habits after installing their magic piece of tin. There are a lot of things one can do to increase overall fuel economy without bothering to stick something in your inlet tract. You can control your fuel economy with your right foot and brain, and maybe cruise control better than with gadgets.
You evidently believe all of your claims. That's fine, but claiming these are the facts might be an slight exaggeration on your part.
I guess I'm one of the "lunatic cynics" you mentioned. If so, I need to get a T-shirt with that on the front. It will replace my "STOP PLATE TECTONICS" shirt.
No personal offense intended....really.
-
Torquemonster
OldsStroker - no offence taken. 1lb of experienced reality is worth more than a lifetime of theory
All I can say is when I get something to work I don't really give a crap about what theories are that say it can't be.
The Hyclone does not increase airflow. But it can improve the way the air moves in poorly designed air tracts - in other words it can simply correct poor design. There's no mystery there.
They are especially worth considering if you change something like remove a factory air box and fit a pod and use an air flow meter then have tuning issues.
In a 2 liter turbo car I was able to gain 4lb of boost on pump gas using one because without it the car ran too lean. With the unit fitted - the Air Flow meter read correctly and we got a good A/F ratio - so I could up the boost. Where's the mystery or BS?
Truth is 95% of cars out there do not have an ideal air tract and some of these cheap ideas can help - which is more cost effective than spending 10 times more money on a custom intake....
There's no miracle - just a cheap option before you go spending thousands. They are very location sensative - which is why so many swear they do nothing, they're simply too lazy to find the sweet spot. Having said that there will be cars they will not help at all.... but with a money back guarantee it's not rocket science.
How much would you spend to buy an intake or port track that spiralled the air over a stock tract? To get the port or intake surface to spiral air requires a lot of thought and testing and effort... and spiral ports work ok right? Twisted Wedge heads by Trick Flow built a reputation around that.
A Hyclone cannot duplicate the extra CFM of the TF ports, but it can duplicate the spiral of the air - I fail to understand why people can't get over their fear of being ripped off a few bucks that are guaranteed refundable.
re the Fuelstar unit - I don't need to defend them. There are 1000's worldwide that have obtained real world results to outweigh the few that did not. They are not cheap gimicks (they are expensive) and there are many fleet operators that swear by them with more being added all the time.
I don't care how they work or what theory they contradict - I've been testing and measureing stuff for 20 years and know the difference between say 25mpg and say 33mpg for the same driving style and speed.
The problem with the people who say something is impossible is that one day they get passed by someone doing it.
re OEM - there are R&D projects you've never been near or you wouldn't be saying what you said. There's 95% of science and the 5%. Few get into the 5% and those that do are bound by confidentiality agreements - many that last for life. Course not everyone can keep quiet.... lol
I was senior management in an engineering/foundry company that was involved in military projects. I understand the world view - I just do not share it.
BTW - I sell nothing and could care less if any of the above worked - I'm just sharing info not trying to sell.
All I can say is when I get something to work I don't really give a crap about what theories are that say it can't be.
The Hyclone does not increase airflow. But it can improve the way the air moves in poorly designed air tracts - in other words it can simply correct poor design. There's no mystery there.
They are especially worth considering if you change something like remove a factory air box and fit a pod and use an air flow meter then have tuning issues.
In a 2 liter turbo car I was able to gain 4lb of boost on pump gas using one because without it the car ran too lean. With the unit fitted - the Air Flow meter read correctly and we got a good A/F ratio - so I could up the boost. Where's the mystery or BS?
Truth is 95% of cars out there do not have an ideal air tract and some of these cheap ideas can help - which is more cost effective than spending 10 times more money on a custom intake....
There's no miracle - just a cheap option before you go spending thousands. They are very location sensative - which is why so many swear they do nothing, they're simply too lazy to find the sweet spot. Having said that there will be cars they will not help at all.... but with a money back guarantee it's not rocket science.
How much would you spend to buy an intake or port track that spiralled the air over a stock tract? To get the port or intake surface to spiral air requires a lot of thought and testing and effort... and spiral ports work ok right? Twisted Wedge heads by Trick Flow built a reputation around that.
A Hyclone cannot duplicate the extra CFM of the TF ports, but it can duplicate the spiral of the air - I fail to understand why people can't get over their fear of being ripped off a few bucks that are guaranteed refundable.
re the Fuelstar unit - I don't need to defend them. There are 1000's worldwide that have obtained real world results to outweigh the few that did not. They are not cheap gimicks (they are expensive) and there are many fleet operators that swear by them with more being added all the time.
I don't care how they work or what theory they contradict - I've been testing and measureing stuff for 20 years and know the difference between say 25mpg and say 33mpg for the same driving style and speed.
The problem with the people who say something is impossible is that one day they get passed by someone doing it.
re OEM - there are R&D projects you've never been near or you wouldn't be saying what you said. There's 95% of science and the 5%. Few get into the 5% and those that do are bound by confidentiality agreements - many that last for life. Course not everyone can keep quiet.... lol
I was senior management in an engineering/foundry company that was involved in military projects. I understand the world view - I just do not share it.
BTW - I sell nothing and could care less if any of the above worked - I'm just sharing info not trying to sell.
Torquemaster, I’m not challenging as much as trying to follow, so don’t shoot !!! I’ll comment on a few things in hope that you can clarify.
Trick Flow “twisted wedge” heads are the ones I assume you’re referring to, as their other offerings are more conventional in design. I’ve run some through the ringer here (dry and wet testing) in both before and after conditions. What I’ve seen is a well thought design that manages to incorporate some positive design changes with minimum expense to the peripherals. The changes involve rotating the intake valve’s location toward the short-side bore wall, and reducing the angle. These are good things, and it’s the only head that incorporates such a drastic departure from the original while remaining a bolt on affair. But, I have seen nothing that indicates some spiral intentions. As advertised, they do have improved deshrouding as compared to the OE SBF heads with lift. They, in fact spiral (or swirl) less than many cylinder heads. (something I personally don’t see as a negative) They do tend to flow well, but I’ve not seen any performance increases beyond the extra CFM they provide. The later (SBF) TW “R” heads, I’m sure are very capable pieces as they aren’t tied to stock manifold locations, and have ports and longer intake valves to better feed the same valve location and chamber design. I like them, and wouldn’t hesitate to use them. But, I’m afraid spiral effects have nothing to do with it.
Would I want spiral intake plumbing? No. (that’s just my personal answer, no attempt at making a judgment on the matter) One thing I’ve seen stressed (not experimented with) is the air flow sensor should be at the end of as long as possible straight section, so the air can “recover” from turns and provide a more consistent signal to the meter. (laminar in relative terms)
I see any attempt at some organized spiral motion device pretty helpless to preserve it’s effect after the air has passed through a AFM (often with a screen air “straightener”), then a TB, and then expanded into a plenum. By the time the air has reached any individual port, I can’t see the slightest possibility of any positive motion
Once again, not flaming, but, I’m not convinced any more about the claims of these than I was about splitfire plugs.
Trick Flow “twisted wedge” heads are the ones I assume you’re referring to, as their other offerings are more conventional in design. I’ve run some through the ringer here (dry and wet testing) in both before and after conditions. What I’ve seen is a well thought design that manages to incorporate some positive design changes with minimum expense to the peripherals. The changes involve rotating the intake valve’s location toward the short-side bore wall, and reducing the angle. These are good things, and it’s the only head that incorporates such a drastic departure from the original while remaining a bolt on affair. But, I have seen nothing that indicates some spiral intentions. As advertised, they do have improved deshrouding as compared to the OE SBF heads with lift. They, in fact spiral (or swirl) less than many cylinder heads. (something I personally don’t see as a negative) They do tend to flow well, but I’ve not seen any performance increases beyond the extra CFM they provide. The later (SBF) TW “R” heads, I’m sure are very capable pieces as they aren’t tied to stock manifold locations, and have ports and longer intake valves to better feed the same valve location and chamber design. I like them, and wouldn’t hesitate to use them. But, I’m afraid spiral effects have nothing to do with it.
Would I want spiral intake plumbing? No. (that’s just my personal answer, no attempt at making a judgment on the matter) One thing I’ve seen stressed (not experimented with) is the air flow sensor should be at the end of as long as possible straight section, so the air can “recover” from turns and provide a more consistent signal to the meter. (laminar in relative terms)
I see any attempt at some organized spiral motion device pretty helpless to preserve it’s effect after the air has passed through a AFM (often with a screen air “straightener”), then a TB, and then expanded into a plenum. By the time the air has reached any individual port, I can’t see the slightest possibility of any positive motion
Once again, not flaming, but, I’m not convinced any more about the claims of these than I was about splitfire plugs.
I read an article (think it was in car craft but not sure) where they were putting dimples in the cumbistion chamber to increase the turbulance. I wish i rhembered the article but i think the said it helped fuel economy also. Has anyone seen the article and refresh my memory
Sorry if I ask alot of questions, but you never stop learning if you ask questions
Yes, Jim McFarland developed some pistons that had dimples in them.
http://www.circletrack.com/techarticles/99078/
http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/94138/
http://www.circletrack.com/techarticles/99078/
http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/94138/
-
OldSStroker
- Guru
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:14 pm
- Location: Upstate New York
I'll agree that you are probably part of the 5%ers. I would have guessed a 1%er.Torquemonster wrote:
re OEM - there are R&D projects you've never been near or you wouldn't be saying what you said. There's 95% of science and the 5%. Few get into the 5% and those that do are bound by confidentiality agreements - many that last for life.
Spend much time at Groom Lake?
I remember McFarland dimpling the chambers on a SBC. He had good results. On a BBC, he no gains, if memory serves. Adding additional surface area to a chamber seems very wrong to me. more of a band-aid than a design improvement or refinement. But, then again, McFarland was improving existing heads, not designing them.
-
automotive breath
- Guru
- Posts: 1681
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 11:54 pm
- Location:
Here's a quote by "Will" on combustion chamber dimples and grooves posted on another forum, I'll add his picture tonight when I get home. AB
Interesting thread. I'm always interested in reading about modifications that may be "outside the box" even if they later turn out to not be beneficial.
Whenever reading claims made by people about how some new modification worked or didn't work, one must always consider the motivations of the person making the claim. Mr. Singh stands to make a lot of money off his idea if it really works and is adopted by automakers or aftermarket mfrs, so we should definitely think skeptically about what he's telling us. What does automotivebreath have to gain by saying it's been working for him in Chevy race cars? I dunno and don't care to speculate, but the fact he's willing to come on here and attest to some positive effects from this mod and has invited anyone who is able to come to his home track and talk with other racers for whom he's performed the mod is somewhat encouraging.
John Wallace, a person I respect says that Mr. David Morgan of RM thinks it's a crock and referred us to a link on another board where this very modification is being discussed. Personally, I don't know Mr. Morgan from Adam but if he's a bigwig at RM then I expect he is very knowledgeable and knows how to make a good cylinder head. Yet I remain unconvinced by what I've seen him write so far on this topic that this mod is completely without merit. He appears to be dismissing it out of hand. He never said he tried it and it didn't work. He gives no evidence whatsoever that his statements are true in all cases and for all applications. If he personally found it didn't work, I'd find it a lot more convincing if he actually took five minutes to put down in writing what kind of engine combination he tried it on, when he tried it, and the exact results he observed compared to that same engine without the grooves. Apparently he is relying on his reputation in the industry to back up anything he says. I'm not convinced he's infallible, therefore I'll consider his statements on this topic but I'm not prepared to dismiss the idea yet.
Someone else brought up dimpling as a "modification of the week" that has since been dismissed. It has not been dismissed and the idea has merit. David Vizard wrote an article on this topic sometime back in Circle Track I think it was, might have been another mag, I don't exactly remember. He talked about the theory behind it and why it works. There are actually some pistons being manufactured now that have dimples in them.
So why isn't every racing team adopting the idea? Because it doesn't appear to have a huge effect on peak power production. If I'm building a dragster engine am I going to spend a lot of time modifying chambers and ports in cylinder heads to improve off-idle response, combustion efficiency at lower RPMs and part throttle conditions, and to reduce octane sensitivity?
This is a picture of the chambers in my '67 #061 heads. I was unable to do back to back testing with this combination to determine whether the dimples were truly beneficial or not so I can offer no reliable data. However, one thing I did observe is that the engine made best power on a chassis dyno with between 30-33 degrees total timing which everyone says is pretty low for a Pontiac. Whether that's a happy coincidence resulting from the somewhat unique 061 chamber design or from the dimples or from some other aspect of my combination, I can't say. Considering how well that engine ran, I really don't think doing this hurt anything. It was also pretty fuel efficient and the Q-jet I had Cliff build for it ended up being a little on the rich side according to the O2 sensor on the dyno, so perhaps fuel requirements were reduced slightly. I also talked with a Pontiac racer down in Portland who had tried this modification on some E-heads for a friend's Pontiac engine. He said that engine had one of the best BSFC numbers he'd seen on a dyno and also required less timing than most E-head engines. Word of mouth that is now thirdhand by the time you read this? Yes. But another datapoint nonetheless.
This particular chamber design would probably not have a lot to gain from the groovy modification, but who knows? There is hardly any squish pad opposite the spark plug in which to cut a groove. More traditional Pontiac heads have a much larger squish pad.
I have plenty of Pontiac small-valve head cores. Just wish I had the time and money to build a test mule engine so I could produce some further datapoints for this discussion.
