Chamber Grooves - what do you guys think?

putztastics · Post by **putztastics** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 9:49 am

To all.

-- If you never hear from me again please remember my widow and orphaned children.

-- If you cannot locate my widow and children that might mean we are all living high on the hog because of the oil companies buyout.

katman · Post by **katman** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:18 pm

automotive breath, could I call you about this head mod? If so, PM me your number and times convenient for you.
I tried to PM you but kept getting an error.

putztastics · Post by **putztastics** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:34 pm

automotive breath wrote:For the first time I have found a simple modification that allows increased compression with out the need for high octane fuel!

http://members.cox.net/raunch/LT1%20Shon%201

http://members.cox.net/raunch/Shon%204_edited.jpg

That looks like a pretty simple modification.

I have a SB 360 Dodge test mule engine chomping at the bit and a dyno. The engine has .042 quench and closed chamber heads.

I see .070 quench is recommended would the quench have to be changed?

Would you agree to me performing the modification in your pictures to this engine and posting before and after dyno results here?

BRENT FAY · Post by **BRENT FAY** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 4:26 pm

Didnt Honda F1 do the preheating the fuel before the combustion chamber several or more years ago? Probably when the still ran turbos? I would think for the slot deal the tighter quench would be more effective.

putztastics · Post by **putztastics** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:03 pm

BRENT FAY wrote:Didnt Honda F1 do the preheating the fuel before the combustion chamber several or more years ago? Probably when the still ran turbos? I would think for the slot deal the tighter quench would be more effective.

Yeah they preheated the 85% toluene fuel but it wasn't close to 440 degrees, more like 150 or so.

automotive breath · Post by **automotive breath** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:27 pm

putztastics wrote:That looks like a pretty simple modification.

I have a SB 360 Dodge test mule engine chomping at the bit and a dyno. The engine has .042 quench and closed chamber heads.

I see .070 quench is recommended would the quench have to be changed?

Would you agree to me performing the modification in your pictures to this engine and posting before and after dyno results here?

I would like to get Somender Singh involved, you agree?

Give me details of the engine, I like closed chamber heads and the high squish percentage they provide. You have a picture of the combustion chamber to post? If not how about a casting number so I can find a picture on eBay.

As for the quench, I tested my modified engine at .040" like I normally run and then installed a thicker gasket to open the quench up. With 36% quench percentage and .070" quench distance the engine runs its best. Every engine is different; with so many variables I don't believe its one size fits all. This is what worked for me.

putztastics · Post by **putztastics** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:20 pm

automotive breath wrote: I would like to get Somender Singh involved, you agree?

Yes.

Give me details of the engine, I like closed chamber heads and the high squish percentage they provide. You have a picture of the combustion chamber to post? If not how about a casting number so I can find a picture on eBay.

Chamber;

Dodge Magnum factory 53006671 heads. As you can see the chamber is actually double quench.

Engine;
10.47 CR will run on VP Red, 100LL
flat top Arias pistons zero deck
245 245 @ .050 solid lifter cam
Edelbrock Victor 340 intake
Holley 700 DP

As for the quench, I tested my modified engine at .040" like I normally run and then installed a thicker gasket to open the quench up. With 36% quench percentage and .070" quench distance the engine runs its best. Every engine is different; with so many variables I don't believe its one size fits all. This is what worked for me.

Did you do your testing on a dyno?

automotive breath · Post by **automotive breath** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 12:28 am

putztastics wrote:I'm not sure it is the same problem. I see two separate problem areas;

1) Fuel vaporization efficiency.

2) Combustion efficiency.

I think we both agree, if you improve fuel vaporization, combustion efficiency will also improve.

putztastics wrote:As we all know liquid fuel does not burn.

Again we agree, gasoline vapor mixed with the right amount of air is what we desire.

putztastics wrote:Trying to vaporize liquid fuel in the chamber right before combustion is too late.

This I have a problem with, when the fuel air mix is compressed in the squish area with the piston coming to the top of the bore, the flame is traveling at high speed toward the squish area. The pressure in the squish area gets extremely high. If it gets high enough, fuel will condense in the squish area. Bad news (especially if the octane rating is too low). Liquid fuel will not compress and it will not burn. It’s forced past the rings into the oil and what remains in the bore ATDC begins expanding causing high exhaust pressure and temperatures at TDC of the exhaust stroke. This pressure can even flow past the intake valve into the intake track during overlap causing poor idle.

With grooved heads additional turbulence helps to keep the fuel air mixed. In addition a path for the flame is created into the squish area resulting in clean burn, opening the squish distance inhances this burn..

putztastics · Post by **putztastics** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:04 am

Interesting.

Do you think vaporized fuel was condensing in Smokey's engine?

On a side note I had wondered why Smokey wanted the intake mixture temperture at 440F. It wasn't until years later I learned about fuel volitility and about the testing of what percentage of fuel was vaporized at whatever temperature. The temperature at which 100% of a fuel is vaporized is called the "end point of vaporization".

That temperature is 437F for pump gasoline.

My personal opinion is that a gasoline "vapor" engine built for ultra high efficiency like Smokey's will not use the same technology as a full race engine, the goals are not the same. This is illustrated by the 440 degree intake mixture temperature Smokey deliberately used, this would never be done in a race engine, and Smokey himself didn't do that in racing engines.

Smokey's patents on that engine were bought by GM and used extensively forever after. That's why GM will not tell you what the gas mileage is on their cars, Smokey wouldn't tell either when Popular Science asked, he said "I'm not gonna say, because you wouldn't believe it anyway".

putztastics · Post by **putztastics** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 12:00 pm

Actually the idea of totally vaporized fuel in the intake charge might be compatable with a forced induction race engine since the loss of mixture density from heating the total intake charge can be made up by boost pressure.

Conventional wisdom would say adding all that heat to the intake charge would increase detonation, but it didn't work that way in Smokey's engine. There were engineers that would not believe his intake temperature was 440 degrees until they got a third degree burn from touching the intake manifold.

They tried lugging at low rpm, wide open throttle, but could not get that engine to detonate.

Ape · Post by **Ape** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 12:42 pm

hi
why not looking into the fireball chamber of michael may, which was in use on some jaguar prototypes, they ran that chamber on some vw prototypes on 14:1 with some astonoshing results.
Does somewhat similar things on a more scientific base, at least thats what they claimed.

cheers
christian

automotive breath · Post by **automotive breath** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:03 pm

Ape wrote:hi
why not looking into the fireball chamber of michael may

Intresting, I'll read up on it.

automotive breath · Post by **automotive breath** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:15 pm

putztastics wrote:Do you think vaporized fuel was condensing in Smokey's engine?

No. The difference being the high temperature. Most of us keep our intake charge as cool as we can; the down side is this can lead to condensed fuel in the cylinder. This becomes obvious with a carbureted engine requiring a warm up.

putztastics wrote:Smokey's patents on that engine were bought by GM and used extensively forever after. That's why GM will not tell you what the gas mileage is on their cars, Smokey wouldn't tell either when Popular Science asked, he said "I'm not gonna say, because you wouldn't believe it anyway".

Is it a fact that GM bought his patent? I have an article about his design in an old hot rod magazine; I think I remember they reported 60 MPG!

putztastics wrote:Did you do your testing on a dyno?"

No. Most of my testing is done at the dragstrip

jacksoni · Post by **jacksoni** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:17 pm

IMHO- Considering the current state of the world and GM's fortunes ( or lack thereof) the bean counters and engineers would give all their gonads for a few tenths mpg, let alone 60. If Smokey's patents or Singh's patents or anything else worked in a real car they would be all over the place. They really should drag out that 100mpg carb they have had sitting on the shelf for so long that the oil companies paid them off not to use.

putztastics · Post by **putztastics** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 8:38 am

automotive breath wrote:Is it a fact that GM bought his patent? I have an article about his design in an old hot rod magazine; I think I remember they reported 60 MPG!

Yes it is a fact GM bought those patents.

I think this was in the mid 80s.

Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk

Chamber Grooves - what do you guys think?

Re: Combustion efficiency

Re: Combustion efficiency

Re: Combustion efficiency

Re: Combustion efficiency