Singh grooves in cylinder head

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

larrycavan
Expert
Expert
Posts: 866
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:17 am
Contact:

Postby larrycavan » Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:08 pm

I'm also very interested in trying this out on a big single cylinder Honda Radial 4 Valve motor. What depth do you make the groves and how far into the squish area do you extend them?

This needs to be right.....I can't afford a "bungle in the jungle"..

Larry C

automotive breath
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:54 pm

Postby automotive breath » Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:08 pm

ACE wrote:… I would really like to get to the bottom of this subject, and I have a complete engine machine shop facility with Superflow dyno and flow benches, and over 31 years experience, but very limited time to waste. I'm thinking about building a high compression 400plus cid sbc to test this. I also have magazine connections, and am confident that some independent testing would be of much interest….

larrycavan wrote:I'm also very interested in trying this out on a big single cylinder Honda Radial 4 Valve motor. What depth do you make the groves and how far into the squish area do you extend them?

This needs to be right.....I can't afford a "bungle in the jungle"…Larry C

ACE & larrycavan,
I am confident that the benefits I describe can be realized with out an investment of a huge amount of time and effort. I realize none of us have time to waste and agree independent testing would be of much interest. I am willing to work with both of you to assure success, if you are interested in my input send me an email at automotivebreath@hotmail.com

Twinscrew

Postby Twinscrew » Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:48 pm

How about some of the professional head designers/porters that post here frequently?

stealth
Expert
Expert
Posts: 891
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:37 am

Postby stealth » Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:34 am

Just a question here.

Does the grooving help all by itself or is the benefit a result of the ability to increase the CP ratio. I guess my question is will it help on a lower 11:1 engine without increasing any other changes.

Also, what do you believe the effect will be on a larger squish area in a case where the piston is left in the hole a little (say like .090) as used in some N20 engines.

automotive breath
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:54 pm

Postby automotive breath » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:26 pm

stealth wrote:Does the grooving help all by itself or is the benefit a result of the ability to increase the CP ratio. I guess my question is will it help on a lower 11:1 engine without increasing any other changes.


I have done this several times, take a good running moderate compression engine, add grooves and run, the benefits were resized even when the compression was lowered slightly with the volume of the grooves or a wider squish clearance.

stealth wrote:Also, what do you believe the effect will be on a larger squish area in a case where the piston is left in the hole a little (say like .090) as used in some N20 engines.


I don’t have any experience with N2O. If I were to do a N2O engine I would cut multiple grooves, I believe they lower squish zone pressure during combustion. They might accelerate an already fast flame front, may be controllable with ignition retard.

The widest squish clearance I have tried N/A is 0.070”. This was on a 351W that had detonation problems at launch. With the grooves and the wider squish clearance the compression was lowered and detonation was eliminated. The power difference was substantial, chassis had to be modified to handle the additional power at launch. I suppose the elimination of detonation was responsible for most of the power gains, I normally don’t see quite that much gain.

Image

Image

user-9613590

Postby user-9613590 » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:29 pm

It might been mentioned but I just ask what the effect will be to emissions?Could the groove (properly made) lower the emissions of otherwise marginal engine to acceptable;after all if it the burn is better so should be the emissions??

automotive breath
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:54 pm

Postby automotive breath » Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:13 pm

Morgo wrote:It might been mentioned but I just ask what the effect will be to emissions?Could the groove (properly made) lower the emissions of otherwise marginal engine to acceptable;after all if it the burn is better so should be the emissions??

This is something I have never tried to measure, other than with the eyes and nose. Two of these three tailpipe emissions can be reduced by improving quality of combustion.

1. Hydrocarbons: unburned or partially burned fuel, a major contributor to urban smog, as well as being toxic.

2. Nitrogen oxides (NOx): generated when nitrogen in the air reacts with oxygen under the high temperature and pressure conditions inside the engine. NOx emissions contribute to both smog and acid rain.

3. Carbon monoxide (CO): a product of incomplete combustion, carbon monoxide reduces the blood's ability to carry oxygen and are dangerous to people with heart disease.

Anyone with experience testing emissions on street driven race cars?

Torquemonster

Postby Torquemonster » Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:39 am

Short answer is yes. How do we know?

We are in process of launching a new product after trialing several units, extablishing proof of concept and seeing positive data in the field.

The unit improves combustion via better vaporization of the fuel and will have applications in any water cooled engine.

The testing has been focused around fuel consumption reductions - which we are getting good results on.

For giggles we decided to test emissions as well and were pleasantly surprised at the gains there -

so to answer your question again - yes - if the fuel is burned more efficiently - emissions clean up at no cost to power.

Taking it a step further - we are presently trialling a prototype product that for patent reasons I cannot divulge in detail here until fully filed. The first prototype made a significant performance gain, got emissions so low it passed Euro6 which does not come into effect until 2012... and if I told you the mpg gain I'd get laughed at so will simply say

- we were pleased.

We also have 2 engines available now making over 1000hp to try out - and that will be a great test. 1 is an EFI street twin turbo motor, the other an NA race motor on carbs.

If we succeed at this extreme of the spectrum - it will be the beginning of the end for chilling fuel - a very wasteful practice that makes power because it acts as a mini intercooler - but at an opportunity cost of something better and cleaner.

We have some pretty big players looking right now as they know what else we have cooking - but suffice to say here - we will see cleaner greener race engines very soon - and they will not be slower. Even if we fail on that front - someone else will succeed

The old engines that wasted so much fuel will become an embarrassment and might even be phased out except for nostalgic events.

Formula One will be going green from 2009

think vapor.

I do not mean to imply I am the inventor. The company does of course have in house - but I'm just a helper

User avatar
allblowdup
Pro
Pro
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:07 pm
Location: Grande Prairie Alberta
Contact:

Postby allblowdup » Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:26 am

Sounds a little like the 150 mpg carb idea from years ago. Suppossedly it boiled or vaporized the fuel before the motor took it in. The engine ran on just the vapors and no raw fuel. Will be looking forward to hearing about what you guys are doing.
Mark

It's not that I learn slow it's just I forget so fast.

User avatar
MadBill
Guru
Guru
Posts: 12304
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 10:41 am
Location: The Great White North

Postby MadBill » Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:23 am

What happened to the Smokey Yunick Hot vapor Engine?
Felix, qui potuit rerum cognscere causas.

Happy is he who can discover the cause of things.

Unkl Ian
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:23 pm
Location: Just outside Toronto

Postby Unkl Ian » Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:35 pm

He talked about it in his last book,explained why and how,
and the hassles of trying to license the idea.
Please help make Speedtalk a Troll free zone.

automotive breath
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:54 pm

Postby automotive breath » Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:45 pm

Torquemonster wrote:The testing has been focused around fuel consumption reductions - which we are getting good results on.

For giggles we decided to test emissions as well and were pleasantly surprised at the gains there -

so to answer your question again - yes - if the fuel is burned more efficiently - emissions clean up at no cost to power.

If we have learned anything from Smokey Yunick and Larry Widmer; the ICE as we know it leaves plenty of room for improvement in the areas of efficiency and performance.

Can you tell us what air/fuel ratio you are running?

doctorpipe
New Member
New Member
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:42 am
Contact:

Postby doctorpipe » Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:16 pm

These grooves sound promising. My confusion is on the jaguar 12 cylinder, the May head raised the compression and power by having a small chamber around the exhaust valve. I know it has limitations, but it worked better than the old flat deck head (efficiency wise). Does anyone have an opinion on grooving the May heads? I have considered doing this as that is the point where my Jag is at right now. I am trying to get more efficiency out of it. Any suggestions?
Thanks,
John

mudracer
Member
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 2:08 pm
Location: Oregon
Contact:

Postby mudracer » Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:28 am

so, conceivably, some redneck like me could get the grinder out, cut some grooves in some old cracker heads, and *( IF i get it right, and thats a BIG IF) make more power and get better mileage?

this is quite the idea, but I dont see a lot of people gettin out grinders just yet. I might try it on a set of old 305 cracker heads and put them on a vortec bottom end just to see if i can get 200 lbs of cranking pressure, and then maybe try to run it on 87 octane pump gas.
Duane


http://sutherlinbbfest.org/

Torquemonster

Postby Torquemonster » Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:18 am

MadBill wrote:What happened to the Smokey Yunick Hot vapor Engine?


lol - probably went the way of the 1984 Chrysler IX-8 flat 8 concept that ran a hybrid drive system capable of driver programmable rpm levels. It made up to 4 digit power/torque but used 0.3 liters of fuel per 100km... being a hybrid however - it probably used a lot of electric energy.

lets just say not all urban legends are fables... just as not all conspiracies are THEORIES.

the problem with society is it rests on "established thoughts" - imagine the power of those that provide those thoughts? Are facts really facts?

for anything new or challenging - society trusts the "experts" to tell them what is and isn't right.... experts who learn what can and can't be done from books and lecturering professors that learned the same thing... so they know what can and can't be done because "everyone knows" or "science proves". But hey - if an underlying fundamental assumption is incorrect (but we do not know) - the conclusion will be wrong - but "fact" as far as we go.

Science does NOT seek the truth... that may shock you. Science seeks to prove a theory and understand a matter in relation to the variables they have allocated to the study. So theories come and theories go - text books stay the same long after science has moved on to the next theory... but truth is not the end game because truth would require the possibility of assumptions science will not accept... if I go any further we'll be getting into philosophy

In my opinion - science proves bugger all on many things the world takes as gospel - forgive me for having some contempt for established ideas. Really I should be grateful not frustrated - in fact - yes... the whole system is fantastic really - because that is our opportunity :lol:

we just have to play by the rules of the game where we can't change the rules. Inventors have been very bad at this historically

this is a long winded way of saying Smokey and others knew a lot more than they were willing to put into a book. Even with Smokey's brilliant reputation - he'd have been made into a nut case.

There's a lot of nut cases onto something - a piece here, a grain there. But few know how to bring it to market...

most hilarious are the experts cries of "if this were true everyone would be onto it" who are about as smart about how the world really works as a slug on its way to the cabbage patch over a salt brick - despite their credentials

so does that mean we give up and go away?

nope. But the motorcycle we had running on water won't transform into your daily driver for a while yet. In the meantime - we play with what we can and push the boundaries where they will stretch. In time - the boundaries will stretch. There are several organizations that already are sitting on stuff decades ahead of where we are - and have done so for a long time. We aim to force them to play with us. Then we all benefit - the fragile earth included



hasn't anyone yet wondered why late model cars get about the same mileage as cars on carbs could 20 years ago - despite being lighter, higher compression, having high pressure and super accurate sequential fuel injection, head technology bla bla bla? there are no excuses - just commerical and political reasons

Shell sent a vehicle to achieve over 1000mpg in some competition a few years ago... wouldn't you like to know more about that and why you can't buy that technology?

amazingly they won't tell us their secrets nor give us their special blend - but we know the real boundaries are a lot bigger than established thinking thinks...

so this post better end on that puff of logic...

:wink:


Return to “Engine Tech”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amilcar, bigjoe1, bill jones, Bing [Bot], F-BIRD'88, goldmember63, johnny5, machinedave, regularguy22, swampbuggy and 40 guests