AB, I know you were not refering to the PHR article.

That who has no idea what the grooves do? The writers or the builders?

They also mention that the engine builders tend to be tight lipped about certain features, etc., that may give them an edge. The writers had to lean on the the builder pretty hard to get him to talk - but he did offer a good bit of info - more than I thought he would, especially when trade secrets are part of his livelihood.

If I had found the grooves to be a advantage for running high compression on low octane fuel, I think I would hesitate to say so as well.

NO one has still explained to me if it works, why isn't ANYONE using it??

The cr increase could net more torque, meaning more instant effiency, and better fuel mileage, out of a smaller more compact engine. If any car manufacture could get the effiency of a 12.5 cr engine on 93 or even 95, They would be doing it. It's a garantee. Trust me, thier R+D budget's are a lot bigger then all of our together. lol

I don't see a down side though, other than the stress riser and hot spots in the cylinder head.

The who was the builder, he came right out and said he had no idea if the grooves in the pistons did anything as they were never tested.

IMO - No one's using it because we are all too busy finding reasons it can't work.

As far as the OEMs - they have emissions to deal with. We could start discussing the plausability of Smokey's vapor engine which is said to be defeated by the OEMs due to the higher combustion chamber temps increasing the emissions - I believe it was NOx emissions (and needing to run aviation quality oil I think, rumored to be ridiculously expensive something like $100/quart), but I'm not real up on the chemical terminology. (of course Smokey's engine has been the subject of debate much like our current topic - I'm personally not sure of the real facts, however, but he was a genious there is no doubt).

Anyway - I think it's possible there are reasons the OEMs can't make it work on production engines, but that it may still be good combustion chamber technology.

Maybe they will find a way to make it work. Who knows??

Oh, I guess I didn't see that - I need to reread it anyway.

But don't we have one team running grooves in the heads, another running grooves in the pistons? Both that would probably say they "dont' know what the grooves do." Why would you put grooves in anything if you had no idea what the effect would be? Everything else is calculated oh so carefully, then to just go ahead and "throw it (the grooves) in there." Seems odd to me, but obviously I'm not paid to build motors like those guys so my opinion is just my opinion.

All over the country builders "try things" to see what happens. You don't know if something will work or not work unless you test it under controlled conditions. An example out of the PHR article was their modifications to the intake runners. Why they didn't test the grooves I suspect was simply due to teardown time. I suspect the figured it couldn't hurt so why the heck not throw it in and hope for the best.

Excuse me.

The EMC builder did NOT say that he did NOT KNOW what the grooves do.

He said that he did not have time to test the back to back effects, and could not comment about actual gains, if any.....

BUT he did comment that the engine did not detonate at very low rpm under full load conditions, and he seemed to indicate that he was suprised by that fact. (that's what grooves are suppose to do by creating a better burn at high BMEP)

(I am going to inject a comment here about the crappy shaped domes on those grooved pistons. It has been know for years that square corner domes kill power.)

By the way, do you remember when hotrodders claimed that fuel injection would never make as much power as carburetors???????? Many still site the fact that when you take off the long ram mid rpm range FI intakes and install high rpm manifolds/carbs the engine makes more high rpm power...... well DUH.....

If you carefully read what David Vizard says about combustion chamber turbulence, the grooves absolutely have to be of some benefit as claimed. Maybe he will test them someday. He can afford it.

I want to hear about how the field testing is going and how people are being helped. I am not interested in the nauseating arguments about why you guys think it won't work.

If you feel that the OEMs in Detroit (etc) should be using it first.... just remember = If it weren't for the Japs and Fed mandates we'd all still be driving around in pieces of "carp" 1970 technology cars. (Think not? Look at piston airplanes. 2006 and still making engines designed in 1935)

I feel that those of you that have been fighting against this thing for a year or two should finally shut up about it. Neither side of this argument is going to convince the other.

Stop acting like 12 yr. old children with these superfluous arguments. If YOU personally want to spend a 1/2 million dollars on definitive testing to proove it works or not, then do it.

My comment to all is........ If you don't want to use grooves... DON'T.
This is not NAZI Germany, this is the United States Of America, and the last time I checked we still had the freedom to do what we want in these matters.

Most of us live by faith.

Randy, keep up the good work.
x

Lol, Roflmfao

I'm actually enjoying the "discussion". Rick is right there is no cold hard proof but I can see where the idea has merit and I suspect the builder in that article had more of an idea if the grooves worked or not than he is letting on. What that idea is who knows but I'm going to give it a shot on mine on the pistons. I have access to a Bridgeport and one piston that's FUBAR I can use for a set up piece and they're blower pistons being used on a NA engine so I'm not worried about weakening the piston. Like I said earlier I'm just looking for some detonation cushion. If it doesn't ping I can at least assume the grooves didn't do any harm, if it does ping........ well I haven't lost anything but some time.

Thanks Rick
I do respect your opinions as a builder.

(But, that comment is beneath you. You are a better man than that.)

Merry Christmas to all.
God Bless (even you non- believers)
x

Yeah, and no matter how bad, it's still the greatest country I've even been in.

Who said Detroit anyway, I wouldn't give it to them to find way, Those Japan guy's are way ahead of us.

Your post #83 was way over the top and in general made no sense to me.

[QUOTE=hotrodf1]IMO - No one's using it because we are all too busy finding reasons it can't work.

Wooooooooo hoooooooooooooooooh, hotrodf1, you hit the nail right on the head! One wants to take a leak and someone has something negative to say about it. "Oh, why cant you hold it and go later when your eyes turn yellow?" I read some report from PBS about the Gen. Y group hitting the work force and how they have many ideas but only to get knocked down by the old coots in control right now. They are more educated, more connected, and more willing to take a chance but have to jump thru hoops or start off on their own which many of them are doing simply because of the repressing glass ceiling put up by the older coots. I am not a Gen Y but I guess the next older gen after that what ever its called so its not like I am sticking up for my own kind here. All I am saying is that someone should take the bull by the horns and do the tests or just put the groove pistons on the market and let the chips fall where they may.

They say that about EVERY generation!