cutting a slit in each chamber to relieve quench
I'll say if it were worth the effort, don't you think the major companies would have done it on their cars already? Ford needs every bit of effort out of the mustang just to whine about being left in the dust. . . GM didn't do it on the LS9 for the ZR1 did they? NO! Don't even consider this crap.
i'm pretty sure that even though ls1tech is the new honda board doesnt mean that all of a sudden tight quench and sharp peaks in quench area will make hot spots is a fallacy. it's going to be true as long as someone with a brain can see the obvious. as long as you're dealing with peaks in a area thats prone to detonation and lots of heat chilling this **** wont work. there shouldnt even be room for debate. im not one to rule out a wild theory but this one sucks. if you in some way decide it's awesome do it and prove people wrong if not this thread should just die because it's a dumbass idea.
I'll say if it were worth the effort, don't you think the major companies would have done it on their cars already? Ford needs every bit of effort out of the mustang just to whine about being left in the dust. . . GM didn't do it on the LS9 for the ZR1 did they? NO! Don't even consider this crap.
concerning the "relieving" quench, wouldnt it be more efficient to port out a slight "cove" instead of creating peaks where hot spots would form? something tells me youll eventually end up with a hemispherical head the further you go with that idea.
TECH Regular
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
No matter what,it is going to create hot spots in the combustion chamber from the sharp edges of the sin grooves.That would in-evitably lead to an engine prone to abnormal combustion/pre-ignition on a high HP/TQ application.I have yet to see an argument worthy of convincing anyone of the positive effects of sin grooves.
Last edited by lovescamaros28; Jul 30, 2009 at 05:31 PM.
TECH Regular
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
If you are going to spend the time and energy and money to remove the head to do this, you're better off just getting a thinner head gasket to cut down the quench distance to better optimize power. It's proven to work, and as long as you don't get stupid with going too thin, it's safe.
So pull the heads, and swap from a stock mls gasket of 0.056" thick to a cometic 0.040" gasket and you be able to run lower octane gas, increase compression a little, and reduce your detonation tendency all for the cost of a new head gasket and some labor.
So pull the heads, and swap from a stock mls gasket of 0.056" thick to a cometic 0.040" gasket and you be able to run lower octane gas, increase compression a little, and reduce your detonation tendency all for the cost of a new head gasket and some labor.
Last edited by lovescamaros28; Jul 30, 2009 at 05:30 PM.
No matter what,it is going to create hot spots in the combustion chamber from the sharp edges of the sin grooves.That would in-evitably lead to an engine prone to abnormal combustion/pre-ignition on a high HP/TQ application.I have yet to see an argument worthy of convincing anyone of the positive effects of sin grooves.
He actually has it right. Tighter quench helps with detonation and often requires less timing to make the same power since the flame front is accelerated by the pressure differential. This is the reason that people that have too high off a compression ratio and try to fix it with thicker gaskets usually make there problems worse.
TECH Regular
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Here is a link that might justify what I was explaining.http://somender-singh.com/component/...id,55/catid,2/ Coming from a guy who supposively took Singh's guidance.I dont know...I can see where you are coming from also with tighter quench resulting in more turbulance and thearby cooling the gases.
Last edited by lovescamaros28; Jul 30, 2009 at 06:50 PM.
Here is a link that might justify what I was explaining.http://somender-singh.com/component/...id,55/catid,2/ Coming from a guy who supposively took Singh's guidance.I dont know...I can see where you are coming from also with tighter quench resulting in more turbulance and thearby cooling the gases.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Gas Monkey Built a 6-Wheel Ferrari Testarossa With a Corvette LT4 Engine
Verdad Gallardo
7 Most Reliable High-Performance Engines GM Has Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
Amazing '71 Camaro Restomod Is Modern Muscle Car Under the Skin
Verdad Gallardo
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo There is an area between ~.060-~.070 quench height where the air/fuel mixture won't be burnt in the quench area. Of course, lowering compression lowers the risk of detonation but you need to go above that quench. In most cases tightening the quench will over come the added compression factor, unless of course you were already too much to begin with.
On an LS1 the stock gasket is .054 with the piston ~.005-.010 out of the hole. Making the quench right around .045-.055 depending on block growth. This is the norm as it's on the high side for clearance but not loose enough to cause problems. The common problem for compression is running too small of a chamber. Bumping up the gasket .010 will lessen the compression by a few tenths but may actually cause more problems by allowing gas to be trap in the quench area, possibly creating an uneven air/fuel mix and taking away from some of the thermal efficiency. The correct solution would be add to the chamber volume and/or reduce gasket thickness. Also as I said before tightening the quench allows the same location of peak pressure and power potential with less timing, which also reduces detonation tendencies.
That post does suggest that the grooves work better with the looser quench and that there was positive(?) results from the groove even with tight quench.
On an LS1 the stock gasket is .054 with the piston ~.005-.010 out of the hole. Making the quench right around .045-.055 depending on block growth. This is the norm as it's on the high side for clearance but not loose enough to cause problems. The common problem for compression is running too small of a chamber. Bumping up the gasket .010 will lessen the compression by a few tenths but may actually cause more problems by allowing gas to be trap in the quench area, possibly creating an uneven air/fuel mix and taking away from some of the thermal efficiency. The correct solution would be add to the chamber volume and/or reduce gasket thickness. Also as I said before tightening the quench allows the same location of peak pressure and power potential with less timing, which also reduces detonation tendencies.
That post does suggest that the grooves work better with the looser quench and that there was positive(?) results from the groove even with tight quench.
FormerVendor
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,065
Likes: 6
From: Houston, Tx.
Jon, I have seen about 6 people try this and none seemed to get any results and they were looking for them and wanted them. Also, as was said by the previous SAM students whom I do not know, the fact is that you do not see this technology really anywhere in all out NA racing basically at all with people who WILL TRY ANYTHING to get more power.
I think it might have some gains in some totally unrelated areas but these grooves don't seem to help good race heads at all although who know that there aren't SOME heads that this might not help? I can't answer that at all but I do know that I haven't seen it do anything on the people's stuff I have seen and I was also interested like you in this deal.
Also if it did work you would be right in that people would probably try and keep it a secret so again maybe it might help a certain style of head a lil but I can't see any major gains but hell who knows unless you do it yourself. FWIW quench area is not necesarily good anyway but if you have it you have to deal with it and on many engines you need it for any compression at all.
I think it might have some gains in some totally unrelated areas but these grooves don't seem to help good race heads at all although who know that there aren't SOME heads that this might not help? I can't answer that at all but I do know that I haven't seen it do anything on the people's stuff I have seen and I was also interested like you in this deal.
Also if it did work you would be right in that people would probably try and keep it a secret so again maybe it might help a certain style of head a lil but I can't see any major gains but hell who knows unless you do it yourself. FWIW quench area is not necesarily good anyway but if you have it you have to deal with it and on many engines you need it for any compression at all.
It seems the idea behind design is for gas mileage anyway. And what is good for gas mileage doesn't always correlate with performance. I also think that it would have drastic difference in different applications, even if all were negative results.
Still waiting on an LSx guinea pig...
Still waiting on an LSx guinea pig...
I just read this entire post. I think the die grinder slits cut in heads or pistons is a crappy idea for making more power sorry. I would like to see some one give it a try and send some pictures after trying to make some power with them. A good tricks to lower the compression with out sacrificing horsepower are gas porting the pistons. Removing the area in between the valve reliefs on the piston some cases you have to play around with valve angles to make power when you do this. Deshrouding the valves on some heads. I do agree with not running a thicker head gasket though unless you want to have the head gasket as the weak point for the engine. I use thicker gaskets some times on stock engine turbo cars running pump gas so the gasket goes instead of the pistons. All of these are inexpensive efficient ways to lower compression with out changing pistons and having custom head work preformed.
