maichor Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I'm not going to make the mistake of reading that thread. I can't afford the time. Besides, didn't you know that spring setup is just a blow off valve they invented! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Some-Guy Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 WOW OH WOW I wish I had TOO much money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryb Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 I cant believe they forgot to paint the pistons! And they weld like I do..... Just got to the custom clutch pictures.....great idea! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woldson Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Duct tape is a nice touch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spotfitz Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 I'm a tuner. I can tune! lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Don't dis the grooves in the head... Research US Patent # 6,237,579 (29May2001) Function trumps form... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue72 Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Perhaps not to diss the grooves, but the application of them. On the website http://www.somender-singh.com/ the general theory is explained as "directs the (added) turbulence towards the igniter". This guy did that with half of his grooves, but the other ones seem a bit counter productive. He took a fringe idea, and still seems to have messed it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators BRAAP Posted October 18, 2008 Administrators Share Posted October 18, 2008 Perhaps not to diss the grooves, but the application of them. On the website http://www.somender-singh.com/ the general theory is explained as "directs the (added) turbulence towards the igniter". This guy did that with half of his grooves, but the other ones seem a bit counter productive. He took a fringe idea, and still seems to have messed it up. I noticed that as well. He added Singh groves for the sake of having them, not implementing them as designed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferrariferg Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 This explains it all. They are all higher than a blimp from suckin down all the paint fumes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Purple240zt Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 ^^hahahahh Probabally marijuana smoke, not paint overspray. Evan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferrariferg Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 lol. Probably both. I couldnt finish going through it. I had to stop halfway through. I felt like my brain was going to start crying. I'm still amazed that they got it to run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Agreed on the Singh Grooves...kind of misapplied 'for the sake of having them'---call it 'Hidden Rice' in that case. I did some work at BP in Castellon earlier this year, and found one guy there that was big into Hondas. Had a hot Civic (don't they all)... He complained that the 'specialists' in the area don't necessarily know what they're doing, but will take your money and B.S. you all day long on what a great job they are doing. He despised Rice as well, and apologized for the decals on his car as 'being there from the idiot I bought the car from' adding that his prime motivation was that he'd helped install the coil-over kit on the car, and knew it was on correctly so buying it wasn't going to present a problem later in something that was knackered up and improvised. His lamentation was JDM import engines costing so much, and opined that he was better off getting a complete JDM Hi-Performance STOCK motor, than letting 'any of these local butchers crack it open and mess it up'... I'm thinking, "I thought I understood what he meant, but these photos are giving me a new appreciation of Carlo's Predicament!" LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin240Z Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Man, I've done some dumb sh!t when building a motor, but atleast I KNOW and ADMIT all the stupid things I've done. This guy has way too much time and money, and no sense.... For a guy who knows about Singh Grooves, you'd think he'd know what plastigauge is. This is PAINFUL to read. But hilarious none the less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
letitsnow Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Perhaps not to diss the grooves, but the application of them. On the website http://www.somender-singh.com/ the general theory is explained as "directs the (added) turbulence towards the igniter". This guy did that with half of his grooves, but the other ones seem a bit counter productive. He took a fringe idea, and still seems to have messed it up. Did you know One Gallon Of Fuel burns up enough AIR to let out almost 20 Lbs of CO2 back into the air from the tail pipe ? Did you know One Litre of Petrol burns up enough Air to produce almost 2.5 Kgs of CO2 out of in-cylinder combustion ! According to some quick searches on google, one gallon of gas weighs about 6.5 lbs and one gallon of air weighs about .01 lbs. Assuming 14.7 air parts air to one part fuel, I get 6.5+(.01*14.7)=6.647lbs for ALL combustion byproducts. Nowhere near the 20lbs just for CO2 that the link said. If my math is incorrect please let me know. I just skimmed through it and this caught my eye, so I investigated. I didn't really read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiwi303 Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 fuel is a liquid, air is a gas, there are hundreds of thousands more fuel molecules in the same space in the liquid as opposed to the gas. besides, you're taking the weight of the C in the fuel molecule, and adding two O molecules from the air, and weighing the resultant new molecule. so the amount of CO2 in the exhaust is heavier than the amount of C in the fuel, the H and O in the fuel molecule just become H2O and gets ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
datsun79z Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Ah, come on fellers. Everyone has to start somewhere. Nice thing about startin at the bottom, is that there's only one way to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
letitsnow Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 fuel is a liquid, air is a gas, there are hundreds of thousands more fuel molecules in the same space in the liquid as opposed to the gas. besides, you're taking the weight of the C in the fuel molecule, and adding two O molecules from the air, and weighing the resultant new molecule. so the amount of CO2 in the exhaust is heavier than the amount of C in the fuel, the H and O in the fuel molecule just become H2O and gets ignored. Good call, I forgot about that. I still feel that you won't get 20lbs of co2 out of a gallon of gas, however, I don't feel like doing the math right now. Maybe later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amorfin Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 What you are forgetting is that a gallon of air doesn't burn with a gallon of gas. That's why there is a something to 1 ratio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
letitsnow Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 What you are forgetting is that a gallon of air doesn't burn with a gallon of gas. That's why there is a something to 1 ratio. I got that in my original formula. I messed up by doing it out in terms of volume, I have to do the math by weight. I would do it, but I just pulled the fuel pump from my Z and have a headache from the smell of rotten gasoline that has sat in the tank/lines for about 10 years. Back slightly more on topic, I'm absolutely AMAZED that this abomination of a DSM made 380whp! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurnoutZ Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 I'd have to admit they do have some good threads... http://www.lancerregister.com/showthread.php?t=226323 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.