Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board - Reply to Topic
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Engine> Singh Grooves
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Thread: Singh Grooves Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
10-01-2010 09:36 AM
oldbogie
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4 Jaw Chuck

Makes one wonder what you could do with a flush mounted valve in the chamber and all the volume in the piston...though its been tried and piston weight becomes excessive for performance applications not to mention durability.
Works well in diesels where the revs are low thus inertia of the piston stays down. Didn't work as well in Ford's old MEL engine's nor Chevy's W. Ford of England, with the Cortina, ran the chamber in the piston with good success but a vertical in-line 4 has a less complicated and lighter solution than that forced by the orientation on a V8 with a center mounted carb.

Bogie
10-01-2010 07:31 AM
turbolover
Quote:
Originally Posted by Custom10
Well all this and back to the process.

This whole quench effect,, I was under the impression that piston design has more to do with the effective gains than the head design.

Chamber design is more or less riding shotgun. There is the quench distance always constant and grooves effect it but I would think that pistons have more to do with whats going on,,,grind if you want.

Its a combined effect, the heads usually present more of a problem than the pistons though so they are worked on more. For pistons you can use flat tops and be okay, for the chamber you need good flame propagation characteristics.
10-01-2010 01:56 AM
Custom10 Well all this and back to the process.

This whole quench effect,, I was under the impression that piston design has more to do with the effective gains than the head design.

Chamber design is more or less riding shotgun. There is the quench distance always constant and grooves effect it but I would think that pistons have more to do with whats going on,,,grind if you want.
10-01-2010 01:41 AM
Silverback that's sort of simlar to the may fireball jag heads. there was almost no volume under the intake valve and all the volume was under the exhaust valve. The production setups were all in the high 11.x to 12.5:1 compression and I believe that they considered running as high as 14:1 on pump gas
10-01-2010 01:10 AM
4 Jaw Chuck
Quote:
Originally Posted by techinspector1
Ever since this thread was begun, I have been trying to think of the fellow's name from several years ago, who built a BBC cylinder head that used a high SCR and ran on pump gas. Just tonight, it came back to me....Jim Feuling.
http://www.biographicon.com/view/gq01v
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/e...ild/index.html
Now, I have to wonder how Singh grooves would work on the Feuling head.....

Thanks for those links Tech, I had forgotten about Jim and his designs for low volume combustion chambers.

Increased dimension quench zones is essentially all your doing with the grooves anyway, I'm sure he found the perfect clearance that works with a particular fuel for his heads...not so great for Mom and Pop who get varying fuel quality throughout the year though.

Makes one wonder what you could do with a flush mounted valve in the chamber and all the volume in the piston...though its been tried and piston weight becomes excessive for performance applications not to mention durability.

Jim Fuelings accomplishments makes Mr. Singh look like Homer Simpson nailing his thumb to the wall though doesn't he!

What a career!
09-30-2010 09:01 PM
Silverback Like I hinted before, I don't think it would... a lot of his ideas are similar to Larry Widmer's, and I believe that the effect that they are trying to achieve with their chamber designs accomplishes what it does in the opposite way that that I believe grooves do.
09-28-2010 12:47 AM
techinspector1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverback
BTW, there have been production engines with compressions in the 12.5:1 range that ran on pump gas.
Ever since this thread was begun, I have been trying to think of the fellow's name from several years ago, who built a BBC cylinder head that used a high SCR and ran on pump gas. Just tonight, it came back to me....Jim Feuling.
http://www.biographicon.com/view/gq01v
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/e...ild/index.html
Now, I have to wonder how Singh grooves would work on the Feuling head.....
09-27-2010 11:14 PM
Silverback
Quote:
Originally Posted by crussell85
so lets just say your 11.8 compression on 87 octane is BS as everyone else knows

what would be the best way to increase the combustion chamber size. I am doing some research on unshrouding valves but I am not sure if this is something that I would be able to do. I would like a link or even a book link to some good information on doing this. How many cc's can you pick up by doing this?
What does any of this have to do with grooving chambers?

Will grooving chambers get you there? I don't know, that engine was before I'd experimented with grooves, I haven't run _that_ much compression with grooves, yet, and I get the feeling that they are not entirely compatible with what I was experimenting with before I ran across the grooving idea. I think that AB probably could answer that.

BTW, there have been production engines with compressions in the 12.5:1 range that ran on pump gas.
09-27-2010 09:42 PM
automotive breath
Quote:
Originally Posted by crussell85
so lets just say your 11.8 compression on 87 octane is BS as everyone else knows
No not everyone.



The best way to increase the combustion chamber size is to work the valve
shroud. It's not difficult at all, clean the head and apply layout fluid, or paint
it with a permanent type felt tip marker. Scribe the bore diameter on the
head deck, avoid cutting in this area at all costs. (people do cut bigger than
the bore, don't go there now)

Install a set of valves that you are willing to ruin. Use the chamber I posted
earlier as a guide. Think about how the fluid flows around the valve face into
the cylinder. I can post more pictures if needed.
09-27-2010 09:03 PM
crussell85 so lets just say your 11.8 compression on 87 octane is BS as everyone else knows

what would be the best way to increase the combustion chamber size. I am doing some research on unshrouding valves but I am not sure if this is something that I would be able to do. I would like a link or even a book link to some good information on doing this. How many cc's can you pick up by doing this?
09-27-2010 09:02 PM
Silverback
Quote:
Originally Posted by crussell85
Silverback, so if the engine started out at 9.8 compression how did you get to 11.8? Do you have a link to this other thread that you were talking about this car in?
That car never saw more than that. There have been quite a few MPG threads on thirdgen.org
09-27-2010 08:58 PM
Silverback
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4 Jaw Chuck
Thats pretty amazing considering a friends brother managed to get 31-33 mpg in 1991 from his 3.1L Firebird when it was broken in, and that was Imperial mpg not US mpg which works out to 26-28 mpg US.

That bird was slippery and not that heavy too, surprisingly good performance from 140hp with the 5 speed.
it's funny, it's not uncommon for the later 305 TBI (LO3) third gens to get better mpg then the same vintage V6's... ad headers, exhaust, ignition box/better coil with a larger plug gap, some basic tbi mods... and you can easily end up in the range that I was in.
09-27-2010 08:14 PM
crussell85 Silverback, so if the engine started out at 9.8 compression how did you get to 11.8? Do you have a link to this other thread that you were talking about this car in?
09-27-2010 09:29 AM
4 Jaw Chuck Thats pretty amazing considering a friends brother managed to get 31-33 mpg in 1991 from his 3.1L Firebird when it was broken in, and that was Imperial mpg not US mpg which works out to 26-28 mpg US.

That bird was slippery and not that heavy too, surprisingly good performance from 140hp with the 5 speed.

Your car wasn't black and called Kitt by any chance? David Hasselhoff is that you?

Knight Rider Intro

09-27-2010 12:01 AM
Silverback I've posted full details in other places and had nothing to do with this thread but the car was an '83 Trans Am with a crossfire injected (basically throttle body with long intake runners) 305 with a TH700r4, 3.23 gears and fairly tall (27") tires, headers, 2 high flow converters and no muffler. No dramatic changes, just a good, well matched combination with years of tweaking and small changes till it got as good as it was going to get (when I was in college and didn't have anything better to do besides playing with my car). It helped that it wasn't incredibly heavy and was one of the most aerodynamic body styles ever built, and I took that further also. The engine started with a good combination for this kind of thing also, small bore, high compression (9.8:1, which was really high for early 80's with iron heads), good valve size, iron heads, long, narrow runners that.

After college my wife (then gf) lived in RI for a while while I was in the DC metro area, so many weekends I'd head up that way and that is where I clocked some of the best MPG numbers, and it wasn't uncommon for me to make it up there (over 400miles), drive around a bit and not have to get gas until i was headed back. It also still managed some pretty crappy mileage around town, in the 16-19mpg range, which I always attributed to a primitive ECM setup in it.

Funny how now I'm pretty happy now when I can mange 20mpg in my LT1 powered TA or either of my TPI powered cars (TA and formula)
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.