zclubhouse Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I have the orginal article kicking around here somewhere, I'm 95% sure it was in a copy of popular mechanics... Sound familiar? I know this won't help the hardcore tech discussion, but if I can find it I'll scan it for an interesting read. It's been a few years since that came out, but if I remember right, this indian guy was making significant imporvements to the crapola super econoboxes india produces. But take it with a grain of salt because when the story went to print he was trying to get meeting with some bigtime automakers and the engineers were shooting him down. I am assuming that there's a big gap between making a glorified gokart burn poor quality gas a bit better and making improvements over high end engineering. Keep in mind that we are talking about a guy with a dusty dremel vs. flow benches and engineering degrees.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UR50SLO Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Here's the link your talking about... For some reason you guy's don't seem to value my input.. That's ok http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2004-09/obsession-mr-singhs-search-holy-grail http://somender-singh.com/ http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Singh_Combustion_Chamber_Turbulence http://www.mpgresearch.com/forum/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsicard Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Back to the grooves. My fathers 13.5:1 283 had "Flame Trails" on the piston domes and chambers. That thing was built in the early seventies, but stories told about it say that it idled smoother than stockers and ran low 12s in a '55 chevy wagon with absolutley no weight reduction. Roger: I am always interested in experiences concerning grooves. Did your fathers 283 have grooves in the cylinder heads. If so please describe. More about the "Flame Trails" if you can. I have seen pictures of heads that have the groove and been run and they appear clean. Maybe that was because they were not run for an extensive amount of time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsicard Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Here's the link your talking about... For some reason you guy's don't seem to value my input.. That's ok http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2004-09/obsession-mr-singhs-search-holy-grail http://somender-singh.com/ http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Singh_Combustion_Chamber_Turbulence http://www.mpgresearch.com/forum/ UR50SLO: Those articles really describe the benefits of the grooves in the cylinder heads. Thanks SO much for posting same. They give good insight to the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Here's the link your talking about... For some reason you guy's don't seem to value my input.. That's ok http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2004-09/obsession-mr-singhs-search-holy-grail http://somender-singh.com/ http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Singh_Combustion_Chamber_Turbulence http://www.mpgresearch.com/forum/ You have to understand that there is a lot of BS out there. It's good to be skeptical and not gullible. It's not good to believe every perpetual motion machine sold on the internet works. This quote from Singh's own website looks like typical eco-freak BS: ' How’s that ' for an equation ? Global Oil Sales each year are exceeding $1500 + Billion mark with Exxon Mobil alone showing a full year revenue of $ 371 + Billion. Sooner then later all this Oil is sure to burn up & turn into " Smoke & CO2 " and hang in the air for a while ? You can't even bring up Brown's Gas as a serious topic here because too many people posted about running their car on tap water and we have enough engineers here that know that it is BS that they just stopped allowing it at all. There are links to Brown's Gas setups on the 3rd link, which is a big red BS flag. The last link is a forum. While we all obviously believe in the value of a forum, they're really only as good as the people in the forum. That forum has a section for Brown's Gas as well. So really what you have is a PopSci article that cuts off right as it gets to the numbers. The fact that we're discussing this topic 3 pages in means that you've got people thinking. But don't assume that anything you say is going to be taken as gospel. Nothing any of us says is taken as gospel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsicard Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 There will always be skeptics and optomists. Example: The person that invented reverse cooling flow for the Small Block Chevrolet engine got into a court battle with GM concerning rights to use the invention. GM used reverse cooling for 3 years and then stopped. Since there is a patent for grooves, perhaps automotive manufacturers are hesitant to use it as they would have to pay royalties. From those that have used grooves, the feedback has always been POSITIVE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 There will always be skeptics and optomists. Example: The person that invented reverse cooling flow for the Small Block Chevrolet engine got into a court battle with GM concerning rights to use the invention. GM used reverse cooling for 3 years and then stopped. Since there is a patent for grooves, perhaps automotive manufacturers are hesitant to use it as they would have to pay royalties. From those that have used grooves, the feedback has always been POSITIVE. Talk about a 180! You were so absolute that it doesn't work because Vizard didn't know about it, now so absolutely convinced by hearsay on the internet that it does work. I'll continue to wait and see if anyone comes forward with more convincing proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsicard Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Talk about a 180! You were so absolute that it doesn't work because Vizard didn't know about it, now so absolutely convinced by hearsay on the internet that it does work. I'll continue to wait and see if anyone comes forward with more convincing proof. The threads were not followed as it is NOT a 180. David Vizard has yet to comment on grooves on Gofastnews.com. If he does try grooves, he will do pre and post dyno tests and data gathering to see what the results are. I suspect they will replicate the data that has already been gathered concerning same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rags Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Jon, Why not just install a head with grooves and test it for yourself? It's not expensive and you, like me, will take other people's results with a grain of salt. Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Why not just install a head with grooves and test it for yourself? It's not expensive and you, like me, will take other people's results with a grain of salt. I would, but I don't have a motor to build that would take advantage of this. I'm pretty sure my 5.3 has dished pistons. rsicard--I reread the thread and we were arguing about timing, not grooves. I got the two confused there. You did not do a 180, I was wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rags Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Yeah but nothing like a L28's dish. I have another set of clean LS1 heads if you want to give it a shot Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I think the piston and head need to be CLOSE for this to work. Quench close. It might be possible to do a groove around each side of the head where the piston would be close to the head. Not sure if that would be worth the hassle or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsicard Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I think the piston and head need to be CLOSE for this to work. Quench close. It might be possible to do a groove around each side of the head where the piston would be close to the head. Not sure if that would be worth the hassle or not. Gentlemen: This is the issue that I would like answered by Mr. Sing himself. What Jon says I believe to be true. I am building a 383 Gen 1 SBC and it has been decked to 9.005" deck height or .005 piston down in the cylinder at TDC. I have purchased AFR 195 heads and they have been tested to deliver the most power (best velocity and swirl on the market) for this displacement. I would like to go with a .028" compressed thickness head gasket which yields .033" quench/squish clearance. The bottom end is TOTALLY forged. I do this because it should generate the greatest in cylinder turbulence and thus fast burn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rags Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I think the piston and head need to be CLOSE for this to work. Quench close. It might be possible to do a groove around each side of the head where the piston would be close to the head. Not sure if that would be worth the hassle or not. Actually, according to Singh's web site, .0788" is optimal head to piston clearance for the grooves to work which is pretty large. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 There will always be skeptics and optomists. Yup. And its up to the optimists to prove their theory. We don't use the Bermuda Triangle Scientific Method, where a person can state, "Grooves in the cylinder head make more power, reduce fuel consumption, and reduce emissions and no one has proved me wrong, so it must be true." That's BS. So far I haven't seen anything other then anecdotal evidence citing: Smoother idle. Cooler engine compartment. Reduced detonation. Someone prove me wrong with a true test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Actually, according to Singh's web site, .0788" is optimal head to piston clearance for the grooves to work which is pretty large. If that's true then we know that the engine is losing A LOT of compression if you have to open up the piston to head clearance that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 If that's true then we know that the engine is losing A LOT of compression if you have to open up the piston to head clearance that much. This unfortunately is very true. You would indeed lose quite a bit of compression opening up that gap that wide. It would essentially be pretty close to running a 2mm head gasket with flat tops. You'd need a really shallow chamber to make up the difference. I can't intuit any reason why a wider gap would be preferable though. I would think that the closer the piston got to the head the stronger the blast would be out of the groove, and if you ran it closer, it would pass through .0788" anyway... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger280zx Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Roger: I am always interested in experiences concerning grooves. Did your fathers 283 have grooves in the cylinder heads. If so please describe. More about the "Flame Trails" if you can. I have seen pictures of heads that have the groove and been run and they appear clean. Maybe that was because they were not run for an extensive amount of time? Honestly, I doubt there are pics anywhere of that engine. It was all I could do to find a couple of pics of the car. I wish I knew more about it, but the car was smashed by a Ryder truck when I was five years old, and by that time the 283 and 4 speed were long gone in favor of a family man's 327 and th400. All I do know is that the old man who built the engine had quite a reputation and EVERYONE my dad knows talks about standing a nickel on end on the air cleaner and spinning the thing to 8000 rpm without the coin falling over...WOW! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UR50SLO Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Jon, Why not just install a head with grooves and test it for yourself? It's not expensive and you, like me, will take other people's results with a grain of salt. Joe Amen... I don't see you guy's able to run low 10's on 93 octane fuel on drag radials with 250cid. I'm no beginer tuner or novice engine builder. I've been doing this long enough to know when somthing makes a difference and when it doesn't. Ever put a screen under your carb? It's worth a solid .4thenths in the 1/4mi on a sbc. Smoother idle better mpg. Oh.. but that's another "Snake Oil" treatment. I see. If I didn't get the results from doing these grooves then I'd say I didn't see any gains. But I honestly did. Before and after... Amazing. The Maxima was more impressive than the Camaro but BOTH made a difference. High Compression does not make Tons of Horse Power. Period. Not enough to make a seat of the pants difference. Look at articles of dyno results if your a "Dyno" guy Raising compression from 9-1 to 12-1 is like 30-50hp. Whoopie. Now you've got to run race fuel at 7-10.00/gallon. Oh.. there's a real street worthy car.. Had a local guy go from 10.5-1 to 14.5-1 I laughed and said you won't pick up anything... So we made a bet. He shaved the heads got his compression up and guess what... Not a single tenth. SBC Nova 10.50 car on the bottle. Ok.. go ahead and keep bashing me now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xnke Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Looking for a piece of the banhammer there, i'd cool it a bit. Compression is the fastest way to gain horses i can think of, other than a proper tune. Compression without a tune won't do much good, either, come to think of it. Really, it would be worth it on a N/A engine just for the detonation resistance and cooler engine bays for the L series, as long as it didn't reduce HP in the process. If i was running flat top pistons, i'd do it in a heartbeat. Next rebuild, for sure. 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.