I have only ever heard one other person ever say anything good about K cars, he has a barnyard full of K cars and Yugo's.

Ok according to your study, 2 persons had something good to say about the K car. Soooooooooo, that would tell me that those persons are representative of the whole population that has ever purchased a K car. Using that logic that would mean all K cars were good. And you mention that he is one other person, I will assume that the second person would be you?

I really don't know how to take this. Lets say that the K car was a not so desirable car and no one really liked it but drove it because it was available and got people from one point to another and back. So people in this country purchased nearly 1 million of them with this junky lean burn in 9 years until Chrysler pulled the plug.

On the other hand the camaro was produced and perfected since 1967+- up till 2002 with just over 800,000 third generation camaros built. Most car companies use production figures to base their success on. GM pulled the plug on the F car as well. Using sbchevy logic, would this mean that the camaro was a junkier car?

I would have to go by production numbers because I never heard any person say anything good or bad about either car.

All I am saying is that some of you hot rodders are proving my point in band-wagoning about how sh$%@ and dumb the lean burn was and that if it was up to you it would never see light off the drawing board but it did start a revolution in the automotive industry for the better of us all. Same thing with the grooves.

Finally something I can agree with in this thread.

K Cars
Chrysler lean burn
Grooves in cylinder heads

I can agree they are classified in the same file cabinet.

Geez you guys are so polarized on this. Gentlemen, its not a box. There are no "lines" here. Its not a works/doesn't work thing. You start comparing K cars and EFI to grooves and you're putting things on one side of a line or the other.

Listen, every piece of automotive technology has its day. Some last a long time (like EFI), others die a fast death (like magic fuel pills and acetone). Others last somewhere in the middle (like tornados and ram air)

Even if I didn't like Singh's grooves, I wouldn't discount it unless I had cold hard facts, and I would try it for myself. I certainly wouldn't be so absolute about something just because its "new." Just because you THINK it doesn't work doesn't mean it can't. I'm also a little tired of hearing the "manufacturers don't use it" argument. Manufacturers are so far behind what could be because the bean counters look at it the same way you guys are. The engineers say, "this is good new technology" and the bean counters say, "we've been just fine for 100 years without them, and new technology costs money."

Are you guys so resistant to change that you can't at least give it its due attention before just discounting it as snake oil? I feel like I'm talking to a group of Baptist Iowa farmers from 1949 discussing gay marriage. Its not that big of a deal. If you don't like it, move over and let us discuss the tech part. You can stand back and laugh if you want, but I feel like we're spending so much time discussing the yes's and no's that we're not talking about tech anymore.

I don't go into 305 chevy threads and tell them they're working with snake oil, I stand back and realize that they'll learn their own way.

Huh? I thought thats what I am trying to explain. I better just watch by the side lines on this cuz I think I have different electrical paths in my brain.

I was simply trying to explain how polarized we are. I feel like the "pro-groove" folks are talking to conservative ears who have discounted the entire idea before even thinking about it. Analogous to talking gay marriage to Iowa farmers. When I said "are YOU GUYS so..." I meant "are you people who are anti-groove..."

I'm pro-groove, by the way, but I prefer a straight-up tech talk instead of all this accusational snake-oil talk.

This groove deal has been around since AT LEAST 1999. How much time do we give an idea? 1999 was the year Singh claimed to have filed his patent on this technology. So 2006-1999 = 7 years. That seems like a reasonable amount of time for a radial improvement in combustion efficiency to catch on.

Just read through the Singh website Curtis and look at the wild claims, I mean really read through all the various links. Then compare to what's been posted on this thread. It either makes a pig in a poke pull like a train from 500 RPM in high gear, allows you to run 13:1 compression on pump gas, makes a slug off the line lift the front wheels and have to abort the run, doesn't make any more HP but does prevent detonation (general thoughts from some on this thread), must have .070 quench to work, was .035 on engine masters engine but grooves were in piston. What the heck, where is the ACTUAL supporting data?

After 2800 views nobody had posted verifiable/documented data. Do I believe AB, not a chance. Only because it's too easy to tout something via the internet without any ramifications to the contrary. Just because someone says it's true doesn't mean it is. Especially since no one knows AB from Adam. There is no doubt AB has a passion for this for some reason, his pics are all over the Singh site, at least I assume they are his pics and not pics he cut off of the Singh site and repasted here.

As far as manufacturers this would appear to be a slam dunk. Next to nothing to tool up this modification. As for the patent, well I'm sure the auto manufacturers have slightly better lawyers to interpret patent infringement issues than Dr Singh, especially since he indicated on his website he can't afford to pay for testing.

It certainly may work like the cat's *****, or maybe not.

Curtis, I also have to take exception to your comments on, I assume, my conservative ears to this modification. I can assure you, the type of R&D and thoughts we put into our engine programs is FAR from conservative and I can also assure you FAR more sophisticated than what typical folks would be accustomed to. To this point though we have not taken the step to cut into the surface of our heads, other than on the surfacing machine. More than happy to take that step on a clients head if they wish it, or something of substance is posted with actual benefits.

Sure, the website sucks. I agree. But that doesn't mean that the grooves don't work. My website sucks, but my cars that are represented on the website are great

I find it strange no one ever asked why I have this passion!

Hey, why do you have this passion?

Curtis, your being logical, I consider that a great gift.

I have been modifying engines for over 30 years; I still have my first 327 and 454. Performance is my passion, having the knowledge and skill needed to port a set of heads is priceless.

For the first time in those 30 years I have found a simple modification that changes the characteristics of the performance engine. I compare this it to replacing a points distributor with capacitive discharge. I have spent the last two years learning why it works and how to improve it. As more people get involved that learning process will speed up with ideas from others.

Obviously you didn't take it well, you sure do get wound up kind of easy.

You did mean the Aries and Reliant right? Seriously, you had to have anticipated some ribbing for bringing those up.

I have several friends that are mechanics and were back when the K cars first came out, to a man they have nothing good to say about them. I know several people that have owned one (or more) and none of them have fond memories of theirs. My wife's niece currently owns my late F-I-L's LeBaron K-car convertible. It sits in the driveway because the electrical system keeps having failures and they can't find parts for it, she had to buy another car to get her around. She won't part with it though because it was her Grandfather's. If Grandpa were alive today he'd tell her to scrap the POS.

Also, comparing sales numbers of a limited usage car like the F-body to a platform that came in several multi-purpose configurations and was aimed at a broader customer base isn't really a fair comparison now is it? If it makes you feel any better, I don't have too high of an opinion of 3rd Gen F-bodies either.

I do see merit behind the Singh's Grooves theory. Not saying it does or doesn't work but I'm willing to give it consideration. You'll never change my mind about K cars though.

I really apologize over my wording, I am not the most eloquent writer in the world but one thing I have learned from college writing and debating is literally taking things apart with a fine tooth comb. Perhaps I get carried away.

That story about the grandparents K car is funny because I am dealing with the same thing. My father will not scrap his moms car even though she past away over 10 years ago.

Trust me, you wont find me driving a K car around any time soon. I used it purely as an example of shear disgust and skepticism by automotive hobbyist and it kind of worked, I think.

I never tried the groove but then again most people smell their hand after the accidentally put it in dog dodo. I was really skeptical of the thong when it came out too, now I wish I had stock in the underwear companies. I asked a few women why they were thongs and their reason made perfectly good sense to me.

I kind of compare the groove to the fast burn heart shaped chamber. Who in their right mind would stick that thin part out into the combustion chamber like that? Wouldn't it create more problems with localized hot spot? It worked though.