Duffster

iTrader: (103)

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.

rons 00z

iTrader: (10)

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.

Wnts2Go10O

iTrader: (12)

thats really a poor argument for anything. gm doesnt use head studs, 6 bolts per cylinder with studs, or arp2000 rod bolts either so that makes them useless i suppose. the reason people dont use it en mass is because its a silly, mostly unproven idea. funny thing is, its silly ideas that usually advance technology. saying cars would be controlled by computers during 60's wouldve had you labeled a crackpot. now... no care is without at least one ecm computer.


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.

lovescamaros28

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.

lovescamaros28

Actually you have that backwards.An engine with a higher compression ratio typically requires higher octane fuel.In addition,more compression also leads to an engine more prone to detonation because of the increase in combustion temperature.

JonCR96Z

iTrader: (33)

Not necessarily. There are some sharp edges in lots of combustion champers regardless they could be smoothed somewhat if a hop spot did occur. Also that is one of the benefits of quench is that the turbulence (or pressure wave that it creates helps to cool hot spots. Hence the term "quench". Assuming that the grooves accelerated the velocity out of the quench area that might in it self help alleviate the heat created and stored at those sharp points.

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.

lovescamaros28

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.

JonCR96Z

iTrader: (33)

There are 10+ post on that link and I don't see any of them that say what you are saying. Be more specific.

lovescamaros28

Primarily the last post referring to the thicker head gasket with low compression being less prone to detonation.

JonCR96Z

iTrader: (33)

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.

racer7088

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.

JonCR96Z

iTrader: (33)

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...

dewey04

iTrader: (7)

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.