One I forgot about, I ran this engine in my 67 for a while. The piston to head clearance was very tight, some of the pistons were touching the heads at 7500 RPM. The engine ran great but was detonation limited with the tight clearance.

Been reading this with great interest. Is there any fuel milage advantage in doing this? or is it mainy for detonation control?

I also would like to comment on how this thread is going too. It's nice to see someone come on with something new and different and not have it turn into a pi**ing match. This is how it should be. Nothing like a respectful conversation!

Mark

Thanks Mark,
I have been called AB Normal, nerd and have been told to go sell my crappy heads on ebay even though I'm not selling anything.

I'll find some people that are more involved using this to improve fuel economy than my self and post the information.

From Turbobricks:

This is really interesting. I'm building a 383 with the 062 Vortec heads and 21.5cc D-cup pistons. I would like to use a very short duration (204/214 @ .050") Crane Hyd. Roller and be able to use 87 Octane. I had been shooting for a quench distance of .043" using a Permatorque head gasket which would require zero deck height but it also put my DCR with this cam at 7.8, a little iffy on 87 Octane in a heavy car. If I read this correctly by employing the Singh Grooves I can open up my quench distance to .065"-.070" thereby dropping my DCR to about 7.5 and possibly have even better results in regard to MPG, torque and detonation resistance. Or am I over simplifying?

You should end up with a strong low RPM combination with the vortec head, 383 CI, short duration roller cam and decent compression. Whats the calculated static compression ratio with the d dish and 0.065" piston to head? How does that cam compare to the production cam?

Which of course makes absolutely no sense.

Look at that picture of the chamber with the "groove" in it that has been run.

Given the combustion chamber is THE BEST tool together with the top of the piston to gauge flame front, pattern, swirl and overall combustion efficiency all I see is the groove capturing soot and carbon. IF this groove had an impact on the combustion process I'd expect to see something MUCH different.

Rick, I have done exactly what Hippie is suggesting with the described results. What about this dosen't make sense?

What would you expect to see with the combustion chamber shown?

I continue to try to understand this, with the grooves and high compression it is possible to get near complete burn with the 23 degree SBC. Normally we see a unburned arc in the squish zone, some people say the is a result of a wet flow vortex created during the intake stroke resulting in uneven mixture. With the grooves this arc disappears.

What's strange is a tan deposit can been seen in the chamber and on the piston, I had it annualized at a Lab, it ended up being sulfur from the fuel. I have never seen this before.

This came from a grooved 13:1 compression 355



Here's a picture of this type head before we started running the grooves, the unburned arc is evident in all of the chambers

It takes less than 5 minutes of research on the WEB to see that this "trick" has been wondering out there since what, 2001 or so. This inventor to this day has never, other than that Briggs test, shown one iota of proof this does squat.

I can research the WEB for 5 minutes and come up with all kinds of posts showing cow magents improve mileage, magic pills in the gas tank, ionizers, and all kinds of other crap.

If this was the best thing since sliced bread there would be actual data to support these claims.

There is NONE, zippo, zilch, nada. It's all the same anecdotal "proof" we see on diet commercials.

Rick,
I understand you are skeptical and need data to support the claims, that's perfectly understandable. I would like to see the same.

I can tell by your responses here and on other forums that you have a lot of experience and I respect your opinions. I would like to hear answers to to my questions.

You must have missed the dozens of quantitative dyno tests on Sommender's own website, some of which support and some of which don't support it much. Sommender Singh never said it was the best thing since sliced bread, and neither did we. Its merely a different way to improve things, so if you don't like it, don't try it. The rest of us will get the benefits. Its still in its infancy, but I can assure you its not like a pogue carburetor or a fuel magnet. It has measureable results so check them out.

Simply discounting it because you haven't tried it and don't believe it doesn't add any credibility to your side of the argument either. Check the dyno tests and read up some more on it.

This has been a very respectful and informative thread so far. Please don't start throwing childish rocks. If you have something constructive to contribute, please do.

Here are some links to get you started on the data part.

http://somender-singh.com/content/section/4/37/
http://somender-singh.com/content/category/5/15/43/
http://somender-singh.com/component...oard/Itemid,55/
http://mpgresearch.info/
http://speedtalk.com/forum/
In this link you'll see that Bosch and GM are joining forces to use grooves as a means to lower emissions and increase fuel efficiency on production vehilces. They seem to think its worth while. http://www.greencarcongress.com/200...sch_and_st.html
Popular Science Magazine seems to like it. http://www.popsci.com/popsci/future...ecbccdrcrd.html

Exact copy from one of your links, please note lots of anectdotal evidence and please note proof section..............

Childish???? Two flowbenches, one cam doctor, full dyno, full machine shop. I think not. Realistic and been around the block..........yes. There is absolutely nothing at all childish about asking "where's the beef". If it's great, show me the stuffing.

That GM story relates to this modification HOW??? I do not see it listed in any of the resources. TOTALLY different technology they are working on.

Reading that pop sci article and the quotes by the Dr. is what put this in the melt fat away column for me. His "logic" and reasoning for NOT wanting to put together a study and documentation is very, very weak and suspect.


From the SINGH.COM site
Mod Stories ( 3 items )
The articles here represent anecdotal evidence to substantiate the claims made by Somender Singh's Patent.

Usually from emails, they have not been independently verified, but represent another perspective on real world results from the Grooving process. These were unsupervised, unsolicited, independent projects undertaken by the author without direction from this site or Somender Singh. All representations made and any claim of accuracy lay with the author and are not the responsibility of this site or Somender Singh.



Other Engines ( 3 items )
Here we will discuss other engine efficiency technologies.



Proof ( 0 items )
Numerical confirmation of the anecdotal evidence given elsewhere on this site.

unless i just totally cant read, auto breath has tried it and friends have tried it, and is TRYING to tell you that it works. why don't you go back and re read this thread from the beginning.

i am thinking that if turbulence is what you want, then cutting grooves at right angles to the ones we have seen pictures of so far, so that the flame would have to go across them, rather than travel down thru them, would create alot more turbulence. any thoughts?

'automotive breath', to answer your earlier question the cam I have selected is a Crane PowerMAX 2020 Hydraulic Roller. It has 256/266 Adv. Dur. with 194/204 @ .050" on 111 LSA and 111 Int CL with .407"/.429" Lift, a real stump puller. Max RPM will be 5,000. The 383 will be in a 1976 Monte Carlo with a 200-4R and 3.73 gears.

Rick I understand you skepticism but nobody has their hand on our wallets asking us to send them a Check or Money Order to try this. It's all been laid out there for the world to see and do with what they will. If you try it and it doesn't work you are out your time and a cc or 2 off your chamber. The only real negative I see is possible weakening of the head on late model thin castings like my Vortecs. That still bugs me. Maybe I'll give it a shot on the Kohler in my old Wheel Horse first. Heads for it are a dime a dozen on eBay.

In an application like mine where I am using forged D-cup blower pistons with the Vortec chamber would it work to cut the groove(s) in the squish area of the piston toward the cup? I realize it may not generate the full effect but it should still have some effect and I'm a lot more comfortable grooving my pistons than the heads.