Hot Rod Forum banner
41 - 60 of 70 Posts

· Die-Trying
Joined
·
366 Posts
automotive breath said:
.

It really doesn't matter, nothing you or I could say or do would change the
opinion of those that know it won't improve performance. Even if you provided
decisive A/B test results, the validity of the test would be questioned.

do you have any? decisive a/b test results that is.
 

· Boost Retard
Joined
·
411 Posts
crussell85 said:
I guess my largest interest in singh grooves was to increase the quench area to reduce compression, in other posts they are saying that the grooves are decreasing the risk of detonation, is any of this true?
I'm not sure if you said it earlier or someone else, but I don't get "increase quench area to reduce compression." Depending on how you're defining it, grooving the quench pad either doesn't change quench area or decreases it, and if you increase the distance as Singh suggests you'll further decrease the effect.

Second, yes, groves seem to make the engine less detonation sensitive (that is where my 10% increase in compression on the briggs idea came from, generally those briggs L-heads do not like compression increases and almost never show any positive effects from it but I knew that I'd be safe based on previous experience with groves), but there are loads of other ways to skin that cat. I've run as high as 11.8:1 compression on an iron headed SBC with 87 octane without groves and without detonation problems. My DD in college was at around 10:1 (again, iron headed SBC that by the time I was done with it could average 35-37mpg highway, still crappy in the city though), and much of the time I didn't have the money for better than 87 and that thing ran reliably like that after some tweaking.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
9,699 Posts
Closest thing to an actual dyno run I could find on the web, completely wrong type of load cell/device however and extremely inaccurate way to do any kind of testing...but he did it anyway...got to give him credit for that. :rolleyes:

Pretty meaningless output changes as a result.

http://www.herningg.com/singh/

Test report PDF;

http://www.herningg.com/singh/Engine%20Running%20Tests%20Analysis.pdf

How anyone could draw any kind of conclusions from a test that uses the incorrect type of load cell is beyond me.

Best quote I could find of Mr Singh's groove testing is this from a Popular Science article;

In November 2002 Singh actually received one such permission from a manufacturer to test his modification on its engines. The manufacturer was Briggs and Stratton, and the engines were two 149cc side valves. Singh borrowed $3,000 and drove the 500 miles to the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) test facilities in Pune, but day after day, his test was delayed. He waited in a cheap hotel for two weeks, pacing, smoking, burning money. “It was a very frustrating experience,” Singh says, wringing the tension from his graying temples with permanently grease-stained fingers. “Sometimes it was like a bloody test of will.”

Finally he was allowed to bring his engines and hook them to a Benz EC-70 dynamometer with a five-gas analyzer and a Benz gravimetric fuel-measuring device. A week later, he got his results. According to ARAI, at between 2,000 and 2,800 rpm, Singh’s modified engine used between 10 and 42 percent less fuel than its unmodified twin, with no appreciable losses in torque or power. And, as he suspected, it ran cooler too—as much as 16°C cooler.

This, it would seem, represented success on a massive scale. With record-high gas prices at the pump and intimations of global warming encroaching on the front page, the world’s auto manufacturers are investigating every option to simultaneously comply with federally mandated fuel-economy standards yet continue to feed the market for ever larger vehicles. This spring GM and Ford announced a joint investment of $1 billion to develop their own version of a six-gear automatic transmission already popular in Europe, to achieve perhaps a 4 percent increase in fuel economy. Singh’s invention, in contrast, offered five times that fuel savings.

Unfortunately for Singh, Briggs and Stratton wasn’t interested in fuel economy—it wanted better emissions. And according to the test, Singh’s modification made emissions slightly worse. Things looked dire: Singh had lost his only sponsor and blown his money on a test that was essentially useless.

“The problem is, it’s a side valve,” explains Steve Weiner, a 35-year Porsche race-tuning veteran and the owner of Rennsport Systems in Portland, Oregon. “Nobody’s been using those things in our world since the 1950s. Not even on lawn mowers. They’re hugely inefficient and dirty.”

According to Weiner, what Singh needs to prove his concept is a standard, scientific A:B test, on a standard engine, “preferably something mainstream—a high-efficiency ****box even—and dyno testing with a five-gas analyzer. Then he needs to take one of his modified cylinder heads, swap it out on the same engine, and dyno test that. A to B. Even if the emissions don’t go down a whisker, if there’s an increase in fuel economy—my god, that’s a win. If you can even find that, the world’s your oyster. Whether it’s valid in the U.S. or not.”

In short, what Singh needs to prove his ideas to the world is a test he can neither afford nor gain access to. It’s a simple fact, simple enough to diagram on a child’s chalkboard, and it’s driven him to the point of mania. He screws the green ring round and round his finger, then grabs himself by the face. “This bloody country,” Singh spits. “We have millions of dollars and millions of people for puja [a Hindu festival], but when one bloody inventor wants to get a simple engine tested . . .”
I suggest we redesign all the engines produced today back to side valve design engines to take advantage of this revolutionary technology, think of the savings! We could improve the fuel economy of a side valve engine up to 42% (caveat: in a 800 rpm range), what a concept!

The reality of course is we are into multivalve engines now with pentroof chambers and the output and fuel economy increases have doubled or tripled over side valve technology but who cares...we need grooves!

In case your wondering, grooved heads were tried in the Texaco TCP stratified charge engine in an attempt to get the lean mixture burning by using the groove to spread the flame front across the combustion chamber, this was patented in 1949. You can look it up, SAE has the drawings available. The patent wasn't really developed due to high emissons...mainly due to the grooves providing cool zones in the combustion chamber where excess HC accumulated and the burn rate was only controlled over a low range of engine speeds.

I will say this, if your interested in making your flathead Briggs and Stratton lawnmower engine from a 3.5HP to a 3.55HP engine by raising compression and adding grooves to compensate for the increased tendency to knock...have at her...Mr Singh will be very proud and you could mow with ever increasing speed!

Oh wait...I have an overhead valve Honda engine in my new lawnmower and it uses half the fuel of the B&S flathead engined mower it replaced to do the same amount of work, has more available power, has bearings in the wheels that make it easier to push plus large rear wheels, is way way quieter and my eyes don't sting from unburned HC while pushing it...and cost the same $180 I paid for my first B&S flathead engined model back when I first got married 20 years ago?



Dang foiled again! Damn you modern technology...damn you! :drool:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
16,339 Posts
Silverback said:
Yep, one step at a time, something like this:


and this:


;) :p

Yep, the other nice thing about using a briggs lawnmower engine is that I found that I can get the "good" headgaskets for $3.60 at the local Ace hardware... Cheaper than a $100 set of cometecs...
You can't take data from a flat head engine and transpose it onto an overhead valve engine. Flat heads have very serious issues with burn time and spark plug location. What the Singh grroves do is provide a burn path into the squish/quench zone of these type engines which somewhat defeats the purpose of this area by allowing the flame front to penetrate at a faster rate in the grooves. This reduces general squish/quench, but may be of some benefit from providing an aim of the squish specifically at the spark plug
rather than the more general squish more of less aimed at that side of the combustion chamber in hopes that something gets by the spark plug. I will admit that they seen to imporve idle quality in cammed engines, but that's usually not a feature we care much about and can solve that problem with multi-strike ignitions, albeit, that is the higher priced solution compared to grinding some grooves in the head.

Frankly, I went thru a period of playing with these things years ago and didn't see anything on the dyno nor felt anything in my sensitive butt that would cause me to view them as a useful exercise. I also don't see that they do any harm from the same data either, so I wouldn't discourage anyone from messing around with them. But all the data I hear about is touchy/feely, I haven't seen anybody back that up with numbers and as a PE, I'm looking for numbers.

Bogie
 

· The mobile view is crap
Joined
·
2,025 Posts
Discussion Starter · #48 ·
Silverback said:
I'm not sure if you said it earlier or someone else, but I don't get "increase quench area to reduce compression." Depending on how you're defining it, grooving the quench pad either doesn't change quench area or decreases it, and if you increase the distance as Singh suggests you'll further decrease the effect.

Second, yes, groves seem to make the engine less detonation sensitive (that is where my 10% increase in compression on the briggs idea came from, generally those briggs L-heads do not like compression increases and almost never show any positive effects from it but I knew that I'd be safe based on previous experience with groves), but there are loads of other ways to skin that cat. I've run as high as 11.8:1 compression on an iron headed SBC with 87 octane without groves and without detonation problems. My DD in college was at around 10:1 (again, iron headed SBC that by the time I was done with it could average 35-37mpg highway, still crappy in the city though), and much of the time I didn't have the money for better than 87 and that thing ran reliably like that after some tweaking.
do you mind sharing any of these tips/tricks/secrets on running that high of compression? If you don't want to post them public you could pm me.
 

· WFO
Joined
·
21,015 Posts
Would be hard (impossible?) to do w/total timing set for max power- at least w/any of the iron heads I am aware of. I would be interested in hearing all about this deal, for sure. Especially if it was a SBC >/= 327 cid.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
9,699 Posts
I would certainly be interested in how you could run 11.8:1 compression in an iron head SBC using 87 octane gasoline running standard timing and get 35-37 mpg at highway speeds with a similar engine at 10:1 compression with 87 octane. What kind of vehicle, 1/2T truck, Camaro, full size Impala, Fiero with 2.23:1 gearing + overdrive?

Tell us the secret, special cam, carb, manifold, header? Please don't tell us the highway portion of the mileage test was all downhill?

Perhaps a Smokey Yunick type device?
Smokey Yunicks Adiabatic Hot air engine.

Inquiring minds want to know.
 

· The mobile view is crap
Joined
·
2,025 Posts
Discussion Starter · #53 ·
we would like to at least hear you out silverback. I want to believe you but when tech chimes in and says he would like to see it, then it has got to be a breakthrough that we all would like to know about, this is my thread and I am all ears and am always willing to hear anything just not try everything.
 

· Boost Retard
Joined
·
411 Posts
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)
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
9,699 Posts
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

 

· Boost Retard
Joined
·
411 Posts
4 Jaw Chuck said:
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.
 
41 - 60 of 70 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top