Anyone Entering the Engine Masters Challenge?
03-12-2006, 11:57 PM
#41
FormerVendor
David,
All that stuff works as a system but yes if you are limited in bore the canted valves always have an advantage on any bore. I would have the canted valve AND the big bore on an all out race engine with unlimited rpm potential.
When you are RPM limited in some ways the choices then become more complex as now you are trying to make the most possobly HP out of what you can trap and burn at a certain RPM. Without a blower or turbo you are only going to ingest so and so much air and fuel PERIOD.
So what we can make out of that trapped charge each time is more important than increasing air and fuel throughput with RPM and engine size like we do on a normal all out race engine. On the EMC engines we are basically not going to acheive any or much more air and fuel throughput because they limited engine size and rpm in the rules. You just maximize the power you can with what you have so it's more of an efficiency deal in my opinion.
I would like to see an EMC with say an SBC or LS1 or whatever and lock the external dimensions and then let people do what they wanted inside that cylinder case or block with a spec head casting and see what happened. Maybe also make it pas a tirture test as well. Maybe another EMC with a spec shortblock and competitor supplied cam intake and heads! Obviously there's problems with these ideas but it could be very interesting~!
All that stuff works as a system but yes if you are limited in bore the canted valves always have an advantage on any bore. I would have the canted valve AND the big bore on an all out race engine with unlimited rpm potential.
When you are RPM limited in some ways the choices then become more complex as now you are trying to make the most possobly HP out of what you can trap and burn at a certain RPM. Without a blower or turbo you are only going to ingest so and so much air and fuel PERIOD.
So what we can make out of that trapped charge each time is more important than increasing air and fuel throughput with RPM and engine size like we do on a normal all out race engine. On the EMC engines we are basically not going to acheive any or much more air and fuel throughput because they limited engine size and rpm in the rules. You just maximize the power you can with what you have so it's more of an efficiency deal in my opinion.
I would like to see an EMC with say an SBC or LS1 or whatever and lock the external dimensions and then let people do what they wanted inside that cylinder case or block with a spec head casting and see what happened. Maybe also make it pas a tirture test as well. Maybe another EMC with a spec shortblock and competitor supplied cam intake and heads! Obviously there's problems with these ideas but it could be very interesting~!
03-14-2006, 07:00 PM
#42
Little known story of the EMC. Norm Grimes, actually beat out Kaase in 2003 with a score of 1182 on the same dyno, the same day at Westech. He got booted because his mufflers were illegal, but those 1182 pulls where with legal mufflers. Kaase won with a 1178.8 score. The amazing thing is this was back when compression was unlimited and this bore/stroke combo should have won.
GSM
Sun Valley, CA * Chevrolet
Norm Grimes may be known to readers as a tuner for NHRA blown alky standouts Rick Santos and David Wells, but now he's focusing on a street engine for the Engine Masters Challenge. He explained his theory for winning the Challenge quite clearly.
"I believe my engine could win based on the extensive time and energy spent on selecting and preparing the many parts required. Developing the powerplant and teaming the components to make the best-possible power in the given rpm range is what it's all about, and I feel we can do this just as well, if not better, than anyone."
NORM GRIMES
GSM
ENGINE: Chevy
BORE: 4.5-inches
STROKE: 3.69-inches
PEAK HP: 721 @ 6,500 rpm
PEAK TQ: 615.6 @ 5,900 rpm
AVG HP: 548
AVG TQ: 598.8 ft.-lbs.
SCORE: 1146.8
Astute NHRA tuner Norm Grimes brought a well-engineered Chevy engine with a beautifully executed cooling system. The reverse-flow package looked ready to bring to market, and we hope it ends up as a regular part number soon. It proved to be more than just looks, as Grimes laid down a serious score and was poised to show well in the Finals. However...
A look at the mufflers he chose to run raised many eyebrows, and we were forced to research the Dynomax Bullets ourselves to see if they met our rules criteria. Every piece of Dynomax literature we could find with reference to the Bullet design was clearly labeled "FOR RACE USE ONLY", and our rules clearly stated the mufflers must be street-style units. Norm told us he'd asked an exhaust professional if the mufflers were street parts, and he'd been told they were. He also shared that he'd seen them advertised by distributors (not the manufacturer) as being for "street cars".
Regardless, we had to enforce our own rules, and Norm was disqualified from the competition for running illegal mufflers. We want to state clearly that we do not feel Norm Grimes or GSM was trying to cheat in any way, shape, or form. We simply feel Grimes was misinformed, and did not check directly with the manufacturer with regards to the parts. It's truly unfortunate, and we felt horrible about it. As a consolation, and out of respect to both the builder and the awesome engine he crafted, we will be running Grimes' entry at Westech again, with Challenge-legal mufflers. The results of these tests will be published here in a future issue, and we're looking forward to seeing how well the GSM entry will do.
They never published those numbers due to the fact that they would take away from Kaases win. That's straight from the horses mouth who ran the contest at the time.
So that big bore, short stroke deal couldn't ever make enough average power to win huh?
I've asked Kaase face to face why the small bore, short stroke? He said "because you need the lever arm in there to make TQ"..... yeah he litterally said that. Then again the guy also said "I don't know" to a few questions that got a little too prying about the motor/combination. The more you talk to him the more he actually answers, and the less "poker playing" goes on. Does that mean he actually thinks you need the long stroke for more lever arm to make low end TQ or more piston speed to make it? Got me...
Between the results from Grimes motor and every other dyno chart i've ever seen doesn't prove that you need piston speed to make TQ, at low RPM or any other RPM.
So I guess those simple math formulas that I gave still don't apply.... huh.
Seems to me that the world of WOT 2500rpm max effort motors are a mystery...... either way the same rules that make motors work at higher RPM can be applied to lower RPM without too much trouble.
Erik.... at least the old man IS a degreed ME. He actually could pass the classes and test, unlike you. FWIW, most engineers I know don't need to go to a 2 year school to learn how to run machinery. BTW with your age and housing situation I don't know if I would wanna go into PERSONAL fight here. Then again that would explain why you are MARRIED to piston speed, it's about all your going to get. You really need some help with your self image if someone who you claim doesn't know much and doesn't do anything threatens you this much.
Bret
GSM
Sun Valley, CA * Chevrolet
Norm Grimes may be known to readers as a tuner for NHRA blown alky standouts Rick Santos and David Wells, but now he's focusing on a street engine for the Engine Masters Challenge. He explained his theory for winning the Challenge quite clearly.
"I believe my engine could win based on the extensive time and energy spent on selecting and preparing the many parts required. Developing the powerplant and teaming the components to make the best-possible power in the given rpm range is what it's all about, and I feel we can do this just as well, if not better, than anyone."
NORM GRIMES
GSM
ENGINE: Chevy
BORE: 4.5-inches
STROKE: 3.69-inches
PEAK HP: 721 @ 6,500 rpm
PEAK TQ: 615.6 @ 5,900 rpm
AVG HP: 548
AVG TQ: 598.8 ft.-lbs.
SCORE: 1146.8
Astute NHRA tuner Norm Grimes brought a well-engineered Chevy engine with a beautifully executed cooling system. The reverse-flow package looked ready to bring to market, and we hope it ends up as a regular part number soon. It proved to be more than just looks, as Grimes laid down a serious score and was poised to show well in the Finals. However...
A look at the mufflers he chose to run raised many eyebrows, and we were forced to research the Dynomax Bullets ourselves to see if they met our rules criteria. Every piece of Dynomax literature we could find with reference to the Bullet design was clearly labeled "FOR RACE USE ONLY", and our rules clearly stated the mufflers must be street-style units. Norm told us he'd asked an exhaust professional if the mufflers were street parts, and he'd been told they were. He also shared that he'd seen them advertised by distributors (not the manufacturer) as being for "street cars".
Regardless, we had to enforce our own rules, and Norm was disqualified from the competition for running illegal mufflers. We want to state clearly that we do not feel Norm Grimes or GSM was trying to cheat in any way, shape, or form. We simply feel Grimes was misinformed, and did not check directly with the manufacturer with regards to the parts. It's truly unfortunate, and we felt horrible about it. As a consolation, and out of respect to both the builder and the awesome engine he crafted, we will be running Grimes' entry at Westech again, with Challenge-legal mufflers. The results of these tests will be published here in a future issue, and we're looking forward to seeing how well the GSM entry will do.
They never published those numbers due to the fact that they would take away from Kaases win. That's straight from the horses mouth who ran the contest at the time.
So that big bore, short stroke deal couldn't ever make enough average power to win huh?
I've asked Kaase face to face why the small bore, short stroke? He said "because you need the lever arm in there to make TQ"..... yeah he litterally said that. Then again the guy also said "I don't know" to a few questions that got a little too prying about the motor/combination. The more you talk to him the more he actually answers, and the less "poker playing" goes on. Does that mean he actually thinks you need the long stroke for more lever arm to make low end TQ or more piston speed to make it? Got me...
Between the results from Grimes motor and every other dyno chart i've ever seen doesn't prove that you need piston speed to make TQ, at low RPM or any other RPM.
So I guess those simple math formulas that I gave still don't apply.... huh.
Seems to me that the world of WOT 2500rpm max effort motors are a mystery...... either way the same rules that make motors work at higher RPM can be applied to lower RPM without too much trouble.
Erik.... at least the old man IS a degreed ME. He actually could pass the classes and test, unlike you. FWIW, most engineers I know don't need to go to a 2 year school to learn how to run machinery. BTW with your age and housing situation I don't know if I would wanna go into PERSONAL fight here. Then again that would explain why you are MARRIED to piston speed, it's about all your going to get. You really need some help with your self image if someone who you claim doesn't know much and doesn't do anything threatens you this much.
Bret
Last edited by SStrokerAce; 03-16-2006 at 05:18 PM.
03-14-2006, 09:49 PM
#43
On The Tree
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: harrisburg PA
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holy *****-fight batman!
IMO but not yet proven..maybe very soon...that extreme piston speed can play games on the induction system...but we are talking very extreme. If you are concerning piston velocity as a 1 thru 3rd factor in engine design...you need to go back to field hockey, it simply is not a big enough factor for question.
Within the design rules of the EMC, the smaller bore will have an advantage due to many reasons...including but not limited to - Combustion Homoginity (go ahead OldSstroker...bust my nuts on the english), which is directly related to detonation resistance.
In reality, what does the EMC have to do with real life...in todays world, the EMC is based on rules gone past. I don't know that I have seen any of these designs placed within this challenge prove dominate in any class of racing that I deal with...not today atleast.
Bret,
Dispose of your differences with erik, it will pay well in the end.
Erik,
In this "real" world you talk of, Play mind to the fly that is buggin you in your face ... but don't ever forget about the 747 that is going to bite you in the ***.... It is easy to get focused on things that become less critical in the end.
Dennis
IMO but not yet proven..maybe very soon...that extreme piston speed can play games on the induction system...but we are talking very extreme. If you are concerning piston velocity as a 1 thru 3rd factor in engine design...you need to go back to field hockey, it simply is not a big enough factor for question.
Within the design rules of the EMC, the smaller bore will have an advantage due to many reasons...including but not limited to - Combustion Homoginity (go ahead OldSstroker...bust my nuts on the english), which is directly related to detonation resistance.
In reality, what does the EMC have to do with real life...in todays world, the EMC is based on rules gone past. I don't know that I have seen any of these designs placed within this challenge prove dominate in any class of racing that I deal with...not today atleast.
Bret,
Dispose of your differences with erik, it will pay well in the end.
Erik,
In this "real" world you talk of, Play mind to the fly that is buggin you in your face ... but don't ever forget about the 747 that is going to bite you in the ***.... It is easy to get focused on things that become less critical in the end.
Dennis
03-14-2006, 11:00 PM
#44
Originally Posted by racer7088
Many of the guys winning these contests are engineers and they do it the "wrong" way according to you. Why is this? Can you explain this in your "bret math" way? Just because you and your dad do not understand why piston speed is used by so many engine builders and engineers is no reason to spread the incredible misinformation and mumbo jumbo that you do more often than not.
Now the best part of all of this is the fact that you don't use it correctly and try and poke fun of it makes me laugh the most.
So these formulas don’t work? (apparently since you are only using half of one side of one of them)
Intake Port Cross Section Area x Average Intake Port Velocity = Displacement x (RPM/360)
Intake Port Cross Section Area x Average Intake Port Velocity = Piston Area x (Piston Speed/60)
Hmmm interesting………. Both sides of those equations equal each other in units. Otherwise they wouldn’t work and you couldn’t put a = in there.
Here are some good quotes from you on the subject in that thread:
Originally Posted by racer7088
The head's flow curve and cross-sectional sizing needs to be taylored to the engine's piston speed to run in the heads sweet spot of velocity vs. restriction and turbulence where it makes it's best power.
Originally Posted by racer7088
Engine size is a 3D function and the extra dimension or D is the stroke. Therefore when you add that extra dimension and the rpm you are turning you can now see how well that head works on a given bore diameter.
The port area is a 2D function and so is the piston area by definition. I can not get more than a certain amount of basic airflow without a certain basic amount of port crossectional area in critical areas.
If you have a piston that has say 12 square inches of surface area and a port with say 3 square inches of port area then the port will usually go 4 times as fast in air velocity as the piston speed if you convert them both to ft/sec.
The port area is a 2D function and so is the piston area by definition. I can not get more than a certain amount of basic airflow without a certain basic amount of port crossectional area in critical areas.
If you have a piston that has say 12 square inches of surface area and a port with say 3 square inches of port area then the port will usually go 4 times as fast in air velocity as the piston speed if you convert them both to ft/sec.
Originally Posted by racer7088
I do agree with you though that RPM and displacement determine airflow too but piston speed is a bore independent way of looking at that
Originally Posted by racer7088
Pistons speed is what makes power in an engine. It equals rpm and stroke together.
Originally Posted by racer7088
Engine size and rpm and rod stroke ratio all matter in instantaneous velocity in the head along with camshaft events and profiles. It's a huge system but it follows trends and they can be understood……
Quotinga bunch of simple formulas like you do below is redundant since everyone already knows this stuff. What we are talking about is how this stuff interacts dynamically.
Quotinga bunch of simple formulas like you do below is redundant since everyone already knows this stuff. What we are talking about is how this stuff interacts dynamically.
Originally Posted by racer7088
Piston speed is often used for evaluating how good a head is in general but you can use rpm and stroke along with your exact bore and valve size if that floats your boat.
Originally Posted by racer7088
Extremely basic example If I have a 12 square inch piston top and it is going 25 M/S average piston speed and I want 100 M/S average intake runner velocity I would run a 3 square inch cross section intake port and the air flow will be roughly 4 times what the piston speed is (12 / 3 = 4). So I have now that 25 M/S at the piston times 4 is 100 M/S in the intake runner and you are in the ball park.
Originally Posted by racer7088
If you have a piston that has say 12 square inches of surface area and a port with say 3 square inches of port area then the port will usually go 4 times as fast in air velocity as the piston speed if you convert them both to ft/sec.
I guess the fact that the formulas are right or not is not the question here… the question here is does it matter that I posted to discredit your claims that ONLY piston speed matters.
I just have a problem that while you call this “bret math”, “incredible misinformation and mumbo jumbo” when you obviously agree with it. Wonder if it’s just because I rattle your cage and question your unlogical claims.
BTW this is my FAVORTIE quote of yours…..
Originally Posted by racer7088
In the scientific world you hold as many variable constant as possible and that's what piston speed talk is about. It's all about physics and math.
Originally Posted by racer7088
Pistons speed is what makes power in an engine. It equals rpm and stroke together.
It’s funny that you agree with all of this but you STILL keep misquoting yourself and spreading misinformation. Funny, I wouldn’t expect a “teacher” to be confused with a “bunch of simple formulas” because they are “redundant since everyone already knows this stuff.”
Maybe I just want to keep you in line so you don't spread more BS. It's really not for discrediting you as it is to explain how the world really works, but it seems to have that nice side benefit.
Bret
03-15-2006, 07:25 AM
#45
TECH Fanatic
Originally Posted by airflowdevelop
Holy *****-fight batman!
IMO but not yet proven..maybe very soon...that extreme piston speed can play games on the induction system...but we are talking very extreme. If you are concerning piston velocity as a 1 thru 3rd factor in engine design...you need to go back to field hockey, it simply is not a big enough factor for question.
Within the design rules of the EMC, the smaller bore will have an advantage due to many reasons...including but not limited to - Combustion Homoginity (go ahead OldSstroker...bust my nuts on the english), which is directly related to detonation resistance.
In reality, what does the EMC have to do with real life...in todays world, the EMC is based on rules gone past. I don't know that I have seen any of these designs placed within this challenge prove dominate in any class of racing that I deal with...not today atleast.
Bret,
Dispose of your differences with erik, it will pay well in the end.
Erik,
In this "real" world you talk of, Play mind to the fly that is buggin you in your face ... but don't ever forget about the 747 that is going to bite you in the ***.... It is easy to get focused on things that become less critical in the end.
Dennis
IMO but not yet proven..maybe very soon...that extreme piston speed can play games on the induction system...but we are talking very extreme. If you are concerning piston velocity as a 1 thru 3rd factor in engine design...you need to go back to field hockey, it simply is not a big enough factor for question.
Within the design rules of the EMC, the smaller bore will have an advantage due to many reasons...including but not limited to - Combustion Homoginity (go ahead OldSstroker...bust my nuts on the english), which is directly related to detonation resistance.
In reality, what does the EMC have to do with real life...in todays world, the EMC is based on rules gone past. I don't know that I have seen any of these designs placed within this challenge prove dominate in any class of racing that I deal with...not today atleast.
Bret,
Dispose of your differences with erik, it will pay well in the end.
Erik,
In this "real" world you talk of, Play mind to the fly that is buggin you in your face ... but don't ever forget about the 747 that is going to bite you in the ***.... It is easy to get focused on things that become less critical in the end.
Dennis
I understood what you meant just fine...all of it.
Jon
03-15-2006, 11:45 AM
#46
FormerVendor
Originally Posted by SStrokerAce
Erik.... at least the old man IS a degreed ME. He actually could pass the classes and test, unlike you. FWIW, most engineers I know don't need to go to a 2 year school to learn how to run machinery.
Bret
The fact that your dad does not know that TQ is a force and not work is mind boggling to me. I can't believe anyone that has an ME degree could even say that. I know he's old but WTF!
I did just great in all the engineeering classes I had and made over 100 averages in some since we got extra credit as well. You haven't even had any of these I assume or you would know how wrong your dad is but you don't.
I was in the honors college in physics and chemistry for a while till I moved over to the other colleges. I can still complete my ME degree and I probably will. I came back to Houston to do it and got involved with the school and my own shop and so I still haven't finished it. What do you care? Am I that interesting to you?
Where is this shop you own? What tit are you still hangin off of? I own my own home in another city where I orginally opened up shop. Now it's down here. I lived in three different apartments near it and am trying to get a place near where I may be moving. Right now I live in a friends home that's in Iraq and at my mothers which is 30 miles West of the school to save money while I rent my own home.
You are a person plain and simple that can't deal with being corrected when you say stuff thats wrong or that isn't true. If you could you wouldn't have all these problems but you simply don't understand most of this stuff. Why not try and learn from people that really do this stuff or try and argue with facts. You can't seem to do that.
Most people have no idea of what you are even saying with you fifty quote posts. Try and stick with fewer quotes in the future and less personal attacks and more people might pay attention to you.
03-15-2006, 11:58 AM
#47
FormerVendor
Bret,
If you really think that this very nice and smart guy can beat everyone else there in the EMC by 100+ points I think again that I know exactly where you stand in the understanding of these contests. I may also have some property to sell you.
I think you should come out and beat Jon Kaase by 100 points too and all the other "dummies" not using enough bore in the EMC contest. You and your dad and co. can come and show and the Pro-Stock guys how it's done!
You talk and talk and yet I see know action. BUILD one of these things that doesn't have the oil pump fall off and BEAT everyone. It should be EASY as they aren't using enough BORE. They are all fools and don't understand the secret stuff you and your dad do.
DO IT AND SHOW US ALL!
If you really think that this very nice and smart guy can beat everyone else there in the EMC by 100+ points I think again that I know exactly where you stand in the understanding of these contests. I may also have some property to sell you.
I think you should come out and beat Jon Kaase by 100 points too and all the other "dummies" not using enough bore in the EMC contest. You and your dad and co. can come and show and the Pro-Stock guys how it's done!
You talk and talk and yet I see know action. BUILD one of these things that doesn't have the oil pump fall off and BEAT everyone. It should be EASY as they aren't using enough BORE. They are all fools and don't understand the secret stuff you and your dad do.
DO IT AND SHOW US ALL!
Originally Posted by SStrokerAce
Little known story of the EMC. Norm Grimes, actually beat out Kaase in 2003 with a score of 1282 on the same dyno, the same day at Westech. He got booted because his mufflers were illegal, but those 1282 pulls where with legal mufflers. Kaase won with a 1178.8 score. The amazing thing is this was back when compression was unlimited and this bore/stroke combo should have won.
03-15-2006, 03:23 PM
#48
Erik, Bret,
Dennis is right, both of you guys should back up a bit. You both can enter the contest. You don't have to beat Kaase to win. Not everyone has the business that can throw a $100k at the contest. I'm under the impression he spent more on piston rings than some people spend on their LS1s. But a respectable showing would be nice.
The part about Norm Grimes was interesting. I've heard about questionable rulings in other EMCs, letting stuff in in addition to ruling stuff out. If th GSM engine turned those numbers and it wasn't reported, that would be a shame. However, they also would have had more time to prepare and possibly different atmospheric conditions.
But the net is, both of you have stuff to contribute. It takes two to fight and it has gone on long enough that no one is innocent. No need to appologize to each other, just don't mention each other in your posts. Just the technical stuff.
Thanks,
David
Dennis is right, both of you guys should back up a bit. You both can enter the contest. You don't have to beat Kaase to win. Not everyone has the business that can throw a $100k at the contest. I'm under the impression he spent more on piston rings than some people spend on their LS1s. But a respectable showing would be nice.
The part about Norm Grimes was interesting. I've heard about questionable rulings in other EMCs, letting stuff in in addition to ruling stuff out. If th GSM engine turned those numbers and it wasn't reported, that would be a shame. However, they also would have had more time to prepare and possibly different atmospheric conditions.
But the net is, both of you have stuff to contribute. It takes two to fight and it has gone on long enough that no one is innocent. No need to appologize to each other, just don't mention each other in your posts. Just the technical stuff.
Thanks,
David
03-15-2006, 03:55 PM
#49
FormerVendor
Yep,
I PM'd Bret about doing another thread about what people would do in an EMC with specific rules and we can see what we come up with and why.
Say 4.400 bore centers like a SBC and up to 450 inches this time but say a max of 11 to 1 and on super unleaded. Do the same sweep at 300 rpm/sec.
The heads are what are hard to control.
I PM'd Bret about doing another thread about what people would do in an EMC with specific rules and we can see what we come up with and why.
Say 4.400 bore centers like a SBC and up to 450 inches this time but say a max of 11 to 1 and on super unleaded. Do the same sweep at 300 rpm/sec.
The heads are what are hard to control.
03-15-2006, 09:24 PM
#50
On The Tree
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: harrisburg PA
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey! I just got an Idea!!
How's about a combined idea EMC motor...Funded (partially) by ls1tech? (Tony will have to keep his car purchasing down to 3 a month instead of 5).
And seriously guys...agree to disagree ...keep the personal stuff out of it...
Can't we all just get along ?
Dennis
How's about a combined idea EMC motor...Funded (partially) by ls1tech? (Tony will have to keep his car purchasing down to 3 a month instead of 5).
And seriously guys...agree to disagree ...keep the personal stuff out of it...
Can't we all just get along ?
Dennis
03-15-2006, 10:24 PM
#51
Well, I'm planning an SBF Ford, however I was planning a 331 not a 434! Most of what I want to do will work though. I've got a bottom end with 35# crank, 450gm or rods, and 330-350gm pistons with 100gm pins. Planning on canted valve heads. To make it a 434 I would only have to use a different block and longer stroke. To make it win, some serious intake tuning would be necessary.
David
David
03-15-2006, 10:33 PM
#52
TECH Resident
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: K-W, Ontario
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a similar idea a while ago. When team mates in martial arts class would
argue, they would both get sent to the mats to settle their differences.
I'll post a few bucks to support the LS1Tech challenge! Further yet, I'll throw
in an entry of my own
P.S. Jon you have class and quite a bit of patience. You deserve some credit
for keeping your cool.
argue, they would both get sent to the mats to settle their differences.
I'll post a few bucks to support the LS1Tech challenge! Further yet, I'll throw
in an entry of my own
P.S. Jon you have class and quite a bit of patience. You deserve some credit
for keeping your cool.
03-15-2006, 11:08 PM
#53
FormerVendor
Originally Posted by DavidNJ
Well, I'm planning an SBF Ford, however I was planning a 331 not a 434! Most of what I want to do will work though. I've got a bottom end with 35# crank, 450gm or rods, and 330-350gm pistons with 100gm pins. Planning on canted valve heads. To make it a 434 I would only have to use a different block and longer stroke. To make it win, some serious intake tuning would be necessary.
David
David
Step into the light and build a big Windsor and make some power! Don't fear the cubes! People that fear the cubes usually just can't do heads is what I have seen. The big boys never fear cubes. They LOVE cubes and they LOVE power. If you have to do the small deck at least do something in the 350 inch range dear God!
We have a 430 inch LS1 that went 150+ mph in the 1/4 at almost 3300 pounds. Just imagine if we had put those heads on a 331! They would have been wasted for the most part unless you could afford Ti everything and had Bill Gates money and even then you'd have to pull it apart every few runs.
03-16-2006, 06:49 AM
#54
TECH Fanatic
Originally Posted by airflowdevelop
hey! I just got an Idea!!
How's about a combined idea EMC motor...Funded (partially) by ls1tech? (Tony will have to keep his car purchasing down to 3 a month instead of 5).
And seriously guys...agree to disagree ...keep the personal stuff out of it...
Can't we all just get along ?
Dennis
How's about a combined idea EMC motor...Funded (partially) by ls1tech? (Tony will have to keep his car purchasing down to 3 a month instead of 5).
And seriously guys...agree to disagree ...keep the personal stuff out of it...
Can't we all just get along ?
Dennis
It has a billet crank with a long stroke on the 4 inner cylinders which have to be sleeved, and a short stroke on the four outer large bore cylinders. Well, maybe that's reversed. You wouldn't believe the firing order, but if I told you I'd have to kill y'all.
Two different head porters would each do half of the ports and intake mods.
I'm lost on the cam, because I know SStroker would use a Comp of his design for four of the cylinders, but probably sending the half-ground cam to another grinder wouldn't work.
I get to finish torque all the fasteners and record the torque readings on the dyno runs.
If it wins, no one can take full credit for which theory worked. If it loses, same deal unless, after the contest, we ask Dr. Randolph @ Hendricks to instrument it to measure in real time the torque and friction outputs of each individual cyllinder to find our just which ideas worked and which did not. They have the capabililty and recently publicized it.
This might not be the first multiple bore/stroke engine ever built, but filming the whole thing would make the Orange County Chopper and Boyd Coddington TV shows look like the family channel.
In the end, raffle it off to the contributors to pay the hospital blills.
Last edited by Old SStroker; 03-16-2006 at 05:48 PM.
03-16-2006, 08:58 AM
#55
Better, Dennis and I can mediate disputes. Dennis knows what he's talking about and I have to be educated. So each side makes its technical case, and the decision is made.
Erik, I'm not afraid of cubes, the large motor doesn't meet my needs. Two much for the chassis I want to use. To hard to drive on a road course. Oval Track cars have heavily restricted motors even in the modified class. Not to keep down costs (those are $20-40k motors), but the keep down speeds. Horsepower is so easy. Additionally, I wanted to keep the speeds down enough not to require a cage for drag racing.
And even if I used a Windsor, why wouldn't I use canted valve heads? Valves are very low angle (9x3 and 9x4 I believe). Less than an ET. And Canting unshrounds them. To me, inline valves are a low cost mass production technique.
My problem is I'm not 100% happy with any of the canted-valve designs.
I was also kinda hoping someone would make a strong, small port, high velocity canted valve LS1 head. I would have thought that would have been the trick for the 3.9 and 4.0 bore engines.
The Jegs/Kaase head is an example of a canted valve head using stock intakes, exhausts, and rocker arms.
Erik, I'm not afraid of cubes, the large motor doesn't meet my needs. Two much for the chassis I want to use. To hard to drive on a road course. Oval Track cars have heavily restricted motors even in the modified class. Not to keep down costs (those are $20-40k motors), but the keep down speeds. Horsepower is so easy. Additionally, I wanted to keep the speeds down enough not to require a cage for drag racing.
And even if I used a Windsor, why wouldn't I use canted valve heads? Valves are very low angle (9x3 and 9x4 I believe). Less than an ET. And Canting unshrounds them. To me, inline valves are a low cost mass production technique.
My problem is I'm not 100% happy with any of the canted-valve designs.
I was also kinda hoping someone would make a strong, small port, high velocity canted valve LS1 head. I would have thought that would have been the trick for the 3.9 and 4.0 bore engines.
The Jegs/Kaase head is an example of a canted valve head using stock intakes, exhausts, and rocker arms.
03-16-2006, 09:26 AM
#56
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Salisbury,MD
Posts: 1,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DavidNJ
I was also kinda hoping someone would make a strong, small port, high velocity canted valve LS1 head. I would have thought that would have been the trick for the 3.9 and 4.0 bore engines.
I'll just thow in my quick two cents! I think if anything as far as ls1 development needs to occur first it's the development of a much better intake solution and then you'll see much better numbers on average from these motors, even with their inline heads. Something that would have a good runner length for midrange and top end like the lsx manifolds, but something that doesn't kill flow like the lsx manifolds, and also something that would fit under the stock cowl for those not so quick to cut their cowls like myself. I think that'll go along way to the furthering of power production of these motors.
Would be nice to see a canted/splayed valve head like you speak of though David. The two could be added for some real killer results.
03-16-2006, 05:23 PM
#57
Three things...
1. Fixed the score Grimes had. He beat him by 3 points not 103.
2. I'd do a 4.5" x 3.4" BBC with 18° Darts, but they probably will not allow that now with the head rules. Dam Kaase with his inventions to kick *** in that contest made that rule. If you see his Poncho you will understand what I'm saying.
3. I'm not arguing anymore. It's just stupid to argue with someone who says all you do is put in personal attacks, when that's all they do. Besides Eric can swat that piston speed fly theory all he wants, i'll focus on the 747.
Bret
1. Fixed the score Grimes had. He beat him by 3 points not 103.
2. I'd do a 4.5" x 3.4" BBC with 18° Darts, but they probably will not allow that now with the head rules. Dam Kaase with his inventions to kick *** in that contest made that rule. If you see his Poncho you will understand what I'm saying.
3. I'm not arguing anymore. It's just stupid to argue with someone who says all you do is put in personal attacks, when that's all they do. Besides Eric can swat that piston speed fly theory all he wants, i'll focus on the 747.
Bret
Last edited by SStrokerAce; 03-16-2006 at 05:30 PM.
03-16-2006, 11:14 PM
#58
On The Tree
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: harrisburg PA
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate to agree with you Bret,
but you cannot measure HP with a micrometer when everone else is making yard-stick improvements. Personal attacks help the ego, but hurt results.
Let me know how I can help, I will try to make time.
David NJ,
have you seen any of the shallow valve bbc stuff. It is about as nice as it gets today. This could be replicated today easily, on small bore stuff ...but we no longer have a use! to bad for PST
There is just not enough money from the comp guys to make it happen.
Dennis
but you cannot measure HP with a micrometer when everone else is making yard-stick improvements. Personal attacks help the ego, but hurt results.
Let me know how I can help, I will try to make time.
David NJ,
have you seen any of the shallow valve bbc stuff. It is about as nice as it gets today. This could be replicated today easily, on small bore stuff ...but we no longer have a use! to bad for PST
There is just not enough money from the comp guys to make it happen.Dennis
03-16-2006, 11:46 PM
#59
FormerVendor
Originally Posted by DavidNJ
Better, Dennis and I can mediate disputes. Dennis knows what he's talking about and I have to be educated. So each side makes its technical case, and the decision is made.
Erik, I'm not afraid of cubes, the large motor doesn't meet my needs. Two much for the chassis I want to use. To hard to drive on a road course. Oval Track cars have heavily restricted motors even in the modified class. Not to keep down costs (those are $20-40k motors), but the keep down speeds. Horsepower is so easy. Additionally, I wanted to keep the speeds down enough not to require a cage for drag racing.
And even if I used a Windsor, why wouldn't I use canted valve heads? Valves are very low angle (9x3 and 9x4 I believe). Less than an ET. And Canting unshrounds them. To me, inline valves are a low cost mass production technique.
My problem is I'm not 100% happy with any of the canted-valve designs.
I was also kinda hoping someone would make a strong, small port, high velocity canted valve LS1 head. I would have thought that would have been the trick for the 3.9 and 4.0 bore engines.
The Jegs/Kaase head is an example of a canted valve head using stock intakes, exhausts, and rocker arms.
Erik, I'm not afraid of cubes, the large motor doesn't meet my needs. Two much for the chassis I want to use. To hard to drive on a road course. Oval Track cars have heavily restricted motors even in the modified class. Not to keep down costs (those are $20-40k motors), but the keep down speeds. Horsepower is so easy. Additionally, I wanted to keep the speeds down enough not to require a cage for drag racing.
And even if I used a Windsor, why wouldn't I use canted valve heads? Valves are very low angle (9x3 and 9x4 I believe). Less than an ET. And Canting unshrounds them. To me, inline valves are a low cost mass production technique.
My problem is I'm not 100% happy with any of the canted-valve designs.
I was also kinda hoping someone would make a strong, small port, high velocity canted valve LS1 head. I would have thought that would have been the trick for the 3.9 and 4.0 bore engines.
The Jegs/Kaase head is an example of a canted valve head using stock intakes, exhausts, and rocker arms.
Also David, you can gear UP if you think you have too much TQ at the wheels. Gearings works both ways.
