I think the problem for some of these designs is that they are on the edge for mass production. They work fine for the creator, he knows what to watch for, but really cannot be "dumbed down" for the masses.
Kind of like setting quench clearance tigher on your own engine than you would recommend for everyone else.
Production vehicles must work without glitches at the dumbest common denominator.
Larry's Soft Head
Moderator: Team
-
putztastics
- Expert
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:42 pm
- Location: ND
- Contact:
hydra, the use of pejoratives neither enhances the discussion nor your image. Simply providing your reasoning—in this case that the claims are not independently corroborated and may seem exaggerated—would be sufficient. The purpose of this thread appears to gain those independent tests. For some reason, too many threads on this topic get lost in the invective.
Over the past 20 years, swirl and ‘fast burn’ have become standard parts of design. Endyn claims the indicated results for its commercially available Honda products, so some independent verification may be possible.
To put some numbers on it, Larry says that his Supra head and piston (which he has developed a CNC program for) allows 20+psi boost with 9.5 static compression on pump gas. For comparison, a factory Supra seems to rebel above around 15-18psi boost with 8.5 static compressions. Cam timing may play a role.
Over the past 20 years, swirl and ‘fast burn’ have become standard parts of design. Endyn claims the indicated results for its commercially available Honda products, so some independent verification may be possible.
To put some numbers on it, Larry says that his Supra head and piston (which he has developed a CNC program for) allows 20+psi boost with 9.5 static compression on pump gas. For comparison, a factory Supra seems to rebel above around 15-18psi boost with 8.5 static compressions. Cam timing may play a role.
-
automotive breath
- Guru
- Posts: 1681
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 11:54 pm
- Location:
This is very true; it’s not likely that the OEM is going to deliver a production car with ultra high compression and ultra lean air/fuel ratios. In addition very few people have the knowledge and skill to reproduce the results of some of the pioneers.putztastics wrote:... the problem for some of these designs is that they are on the edge for mass production....
On the other hand look how far we have come in the last 20 years. Back in 1985 the 23 degree SBC head was still in production. Twenty years later the efficient LSx Chevy engine is capable of producing huge amounts of power on pump gas, low ignition timing and deliver great gas mileage too. This advancement is a result of many people like Larry that believe they can get results with ideas that seems impossible to others.
It’s disappointing that this thread turned into bashing of the concept and the person that claims to have put it all together and made it work. With this type of attitude we learn less and it’s less likely that Larry will come forward and deliver additional information.
I do have some comtemporary info on the May "Fireball" heads and will try to dig it out and post it. It basically relates what you would expect: Lower fuel consumption, lower emissions AND more power.
I think it was the Mercedes 2.8L straight six that used a similar chamber....
The reason the lean burn revolution didn't take place in production cars was because of the reason stated; risky state of tune for (conservative) car makers and political........
Here in Europe at least the technology was taken out of the manufacturers hands by the EU politicians who "decided" cats were the way to go. Lean mixtures and cats don't go too well together, as you know. Ford, I seem to remember, was less than impressed by this.
John.
I think it was the Mercedes 2.8L straight six that used a similar chamber....
The reason the lean burn revolution didn't take place in production cars was because of the reason stated; risky state of tune for (conservative) car makers and political........
Here in Europe at least the technology was taken out of the manufacturers hands by the EU politicians who "decided" cats were the way to go. Lean mixtures and cats don't go too well together, as you know. Ford, I seem to remember, was less than impressed by this.
John.
You're right, I guess I was a little harsh... I still stand by what I said though.DavidNJ wrote:hydra, the use of pejoratives neither enhances the discussion nor your image. Simply providing your reasoning—in this case that the claims are not independently corroborated and may seem exaggerated—would be sufficient. The purpose of this thread appears to gain those independent tests. For some reason, too many threads on this topic get lost in the invective.
Swirl ports existed long before Endyn came on the scene. If Endyn was as bleeding-edge as they set themselves out to be wouldn't they be a lot more successful or reknowned? How many Endyn-powered race cars have won championships on a national level? The way it stands they're just another Honda shop in fancy wrapping. I'm not saying they're not competent or that everything they claim is not true, just that they're not as hi-tech as they'll have you believe. They haven't re-invented the wheel or anything, and some of their more outlandish claims are just absurd...Over the past 20 years, swirl and ‘fast burn’ have become standard parts of design. Endyn claims the indicated results for its commercially available Honda products, so some independent verification may be possible.
Don't believe everything you read. If I told you my Supra head and piston (which I developed a CNC program for) allows 20+ psi boost with 9.5 static compression on pump gas would you believe me?To put some numbers on it, Larry says that his Supra head and piston (which he has developed a CNC program for) allows 20+psi boost with 9.5 static compression on pump gas. For comparison, a factory Supra seems to rebel above around 15-18psi boost with 8.5 static compressions. Cam timing may play a role.
OEMs have been making ultra-high compression ultra-lean burning engines for over 100 years now, they're called diesels, nothing terribly exotic about those is there?automotive breath wrote:If 16:1 is too "on the edge" for mass production then wouldn't say 14:1 introduce a healthy margin for error?putztastics wrote:... the problem for some of these designs is that they are on the edge for mass production....
This is very true; it’s not likely that the OEM is going to deliver a production car with ultra high compression and ultra lean air/fuel ratios. In addition very few people have the knowledge and skill to reproduce the results of some of the pioneers.
Hydra,I feel your being overly harsh in your statements about Larry also.While I also don't agree w/all his claims and practices and have gotten into some disscussions with his followers that were heated at times I still respect his opinion.He has been around racing for too long not to know many things that can help us on this board,we may not agree w/him but I doubt any of us blindly believe everything we are told by anyone besides close family.
There is not much to be found on Michael May but I did locate a brief reference to him in his role in working with Jaguar:
http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=52&i=12153
http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=52&i=12153
-
putztastics
- Expert
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:42 pm
- Location: ND
- Contact:
I got my first ride in an LS1 Camaro this morning, the guy told me "it's supposed to have premium but I've run it with regular".
If 16:1 is too "on the edge" for mass production then wouldn't say 14:1 introduce a healthy margin for error?
There's your answer.
Last edited by putztastics on Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jesse Lackman
http://www.revsearch.com
http://www.revsearch.com
Some of his jaguar stuff is on the net, very interesting though would be his R&D work on the VW ultra high compression engines, those are the ones also widmer quotes.SteveS wrote:There is not much to be found on Michael May but I did locate a brief reference to him in his role in working with Jaguar:
http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=52&i=12153
But as mentioned swirl ports are around for a long time, especially on motorcycles where even some pre war motorcylces had such ports, with known benefits.
One manufacturer who was particulary busy in developing and discussing the pros and cons on a scientific base was weslake eng.
The circle closes itself into car engine R&D since they took much of their MC knowledge to car engines later on.
cheers
PS: Quote:
I do have some comtemporary info on the May "Fireball" heads and will try to dig it out and post it. It basically relates what you would expect: Lower fuel consumption, lower emissions AND more power.
that would be very very appreciated
There is always advancement to be made.
Larry's "definitions" are sometimes "altered" to "suggest" an "ideal perception" of "his" experiences.
He also uses "quotes" a lot which makes me "wonder" if he does this with his fingers as he's talking to you?
Once you understand how definitions alter the meaning of any sentence, much of what he writes can instantly become clearer. That goes for many laws and other legal oriented matter as well, which I suspect is where he learned that trait. What means one thing to you may mean something else entirely to someone (a judge for instance) else.
SWB
He also uses "quotes" a lot which makes me "wonder" if he does this with his fingers as he's talking to you?
Once you understand how definitions alter the meaning of any sentence, much of what he writes can instantly become clearer. That goes for many laws and other legal oriented matter as well, which I suspect is where he learned that trait. What means one thing to you may mean something else entirely to someone (a judge for instance) else.
SWB
-
Larry Widmer
- Show Guest
- Posts: 299
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:46 pm
- Location: Fort Worth, Texas
- Contact:
I think most will agree that today’s engines with modern combustion spaces (combustion chamber / plug position / piston design) burn a much higher percentage of their (ingested) air fuel mixture than did engines of the mid-eighties.
If you burn (more) of the mixture, it is therefore possible to have a faster burn that lasts longer. If that doesn’t make sense to some people here, I’m sorry.
In 1985, the notion of swirl didn’t make sense to most of my head-designing contemporaries either. Comments, that it could only work in extremely low RPM applications abounded, but by the early ‘90’s, damned near every new head design incorporated swirl-inducing ports and swirl chambers.
Today, I’d like to think that with all the information that’s only fingertips away, most people would have figured out that the engine efficiency depends on mixture preparation combined with the ability to deliver that mixture to a combustion space that’s engineered to mechanically force quick ignition of as great a portion of that mixture as possible. From the domestic side, you need look no further than some of the engines “formulated” for the Popular Hot Rodding’s Engine Masters series. Examples of small chamber volume, combined with lots of well-positioned quench to direct and position the mixture are everywhere. While achieving low brake fuel specifics are not part of the contest, you’d better believe that burning as much of the available mixture is the primary objective.
Don Terrill can tell you I didn’t “jump” at the opportunity to give an interview for Speed Talk. In fact many months went by before I finally consented. I wasn’t looking for a pedestal to preach from.
I was fortunate enough to have been able to participate in a number of heavily funded development programs from the mid 70’s through the late 80’s when I retired (1987). I studied every technical paper relative to combustion I could get my hands on. I worked with some brilliant engineers on mixture preparation and delivery methodology. We had digital fuel control systems before most in the automotive industry even knew what “digital” was. We ran 24-1 air fuel ratios in passenger car engines 1978. I won’t dare mention what we achieved for fuel mileage. For the 1979 Indy 500, I designed and built the fuel injection manifolding for the General Dynamic’s digital Electrosonic throttle body for the Cosworth V8. Roger Penske told us that he’d never run anything except a mechanical fuel injection system because electronics ones couldn’t be dependable for 500 miles. My how the times have changed. In 1986 was given a blank check to design an “optimal” combustion space for an OE manufacturer. We mutually worked through hundreds of cylinder head / chamber idiosyncrasies, and I retired comfortably set for the rest of my life. …..And I almost forgot! During that same period, I also managed to crank out a few racing heads for drag racing, NASCAR, CART, and the Mini-Indy series.
I’ve consulted for a few projects since 1987, but I’ve had absolutely no desire to ever get involved in the “scene” again.
Today…I have a hobby shop. I enjoy playing with little 4-valve Honda engines. I have the ability to build and test most anything I design in-house. I acquire the equipment I need without going into debt, and last year, I managed to pay myself $70.00. I can’t wait to get to work everyday.
I could care less if someone says that something I’ve built can’t or won’t work. If I’d listened to all the people who made statements like that during my life, there’d have been no point in ever trying to improve any aspect of projects I’ve worked on.
I still contend that the best thing that ever happened to me was leaving California (MT, Edelbrock, etc) in the very early 70’s and returning to Cowtown to start my business (Endyn). Isolated in Ft. Worth, I was never exposed to the latest trick-of-the-week on either coast, nor was I influenced by anyone in the industry other than Jim McFarland, who’s advice to me was to always “keep my nose to the grindstone”, and I did. I lived in my shop for seven years. I worked on problems until I found solutions, and if I didn’t understand why the (solution) worked, I took the time to examine it until I did. More people should consider adopting the practice.
Now guys….if it’s not immediate to my hobby, it really doesn’t concern me, so you can relive the “feeding frenzy” of twenty years ago to your hearts’ content….…..and a few of us will sit back and smile with the knowledge that despite all years of change, for some, everything remains the same.
If you burn (more) of the mixture, it is therefore possible to have a faster burn that lasts longer. If that doesn’t make sense to some people here, I’m sorry.
In 1985, the notion of swirl didn’t make sense to most of my head-designing contemporaries either. Comments, that it could only work in extremely low RPM applications abounded, but by the early ‘90’s, damned near every new head design incorporated swirl-inducing ports and swirl chambers.
Today, I’d like to think that with all the information that’s only fingertips away, most people would have figured out that the engine efficiency depends on mixture preparation combined with the ability to deliver that mixture to a combustion space that’s engineered to mechanically force quick ignition of as great a portion of that mixture as possible. From the domestic side, you need look no further than some of the engines “formulated” for the Popular Hot Rodding’s Engine Masters series. Examples of small chamber volume, combined with lots of well-positioned quench to direct and position the mixture are everywhere. While achieving low brake fuel specifics are not part of the contest, you’d better believe that burning as much of the available mixture is the primary objective.
Don Terrill can tell you I didn’t “jump” at the opportunity to give an interview for Speed Talk. In fact many months went by before I finally consented. I wasn’t looking for a pedestal to preach from.
I was fortunate enough to have been able to participate in a number of heavily funded development programs from the mid 70’s through the late 80’s when I retired (1987). I studied every technical paper relative to combustion I could get my hands on. I worked with some brilliant engineers on mixture preparation and delivery methodology. We had digital fuel control systems before most in the automotive industry even knew what “digital” was. We ran 24-1 air fuel ratios in passenger car engines 1978. I won’t dare mention what we achieved for fuel mileage. For the 1979 Indy 500, I designed and built the fuel injection manifolding for the General Dynamic’s digital Electrosonic throttle body for the Cosworth V8. Roger Penske told us that he’d never run anything except a mechanical fuel injection system because electronics ones couldn’t be dependable for 500 miles. My how the times have changed. In 1986 was given a blank check to design an “optimal” combustion space for an OE manufacturer. We mutually worked through hundreds of cylinder head / chamber idiosyncrasies, and I retired comfortably set for the rest of my life. …..And I almost forgot! During that same period, I also managed to crank out a few racing heads for drag racing, NASCAR, CART, and the Mini-Indy series.
I’ve consulted for a few projects since 1987, but I’ve had absolutely no desire to ever get involved in the “scene” again.
Today…I have a hobby shop. I enjoy playing with little 4-valve Honda engines. I have the ability to build and test most anything I design in-house. I acquire the equipment I need without going into debt, and last year, I managed to pay myself $70.00. I can’t wait to get to work everyday.
I could care less if someone says that something I’ve built can’t or won’t work. If I’d listened to all the people who made statements like that during my life, there’d have been no point in ever trying to improve any aspect of projects I’ve worked on.
I still contend that the best thing that ever happened to me was leaving California (MT, Edelbrock, etc) in the very early 70’s and returning to Cowtown to start my business (Endyn). Isolated in Ft. Worth, I was never exposed to the latest trick-of-the-week on either coast, nor was I influenced by anyone in the industry other than Jim McFarland, who’s advice to me was to always “keep my nose to the grindstone”, and I did. I lived in my shop for seven years. I worked on problems until I found solutions, and if I didn’t understand why the (solution) worked, I took the time to examine it until I did. More people should consider adopting the practice.
Now guys….if it’s not immediate to my hobby, it really doesn’t concern me, so you can relive the “feeding frenzy” of twenty years ago to your hearts’ content….…..and a few of us will sit back and smile with the knowledge that despite all years of change, for some, everything remains the same.
And perhaps give a lil info on further reading on mays R&D work??DavidNJ wrote:Larry,
That was a nice little history. No ever mentioned you were 'retired'.
However, there are some number of us trying to figure out how to apply your 1999 article to a 2006 pushrod 2v engine.
Could you offer some clarifications?
Thanks,
David
thanks
There is always advancement to be made.