BIG Low End TORQUE

Eh? It's even more important IMO. Quench is like mechanical octane. Zero deck it with pistons dished to get your lower compression (the dish matching the chamber) and you'll be much better off.


-=Whittey=-
 
I agree that for a high performance applications maintaining quench is as important in a boosted engine as an NA engine, but for a low rpm grunt motor I really doubt it would help. If you know of any studies that show quench helping an engine running below its peak torque RPM I'd be interested in reading it...and be happy to retract my opinion. ;)
 
As for getting Big Torque at low RPM, concentrate on enhancing your low RPM VE. This would involve porting, boatloads of valve lift, a cam with a wide LSA, and an extremely efficient scavenging exhaust system. Oh, and fiddle with cam timing a bit...
 
54Ford":20ofvjhq said:
If you know of any studies that show quench helping an engine running below its peak torque RPM I'd be interested in reading it...and be happy to retract my opinion. ;)
Well, I can't find any right now, but i'll have to ask the same of you. Do yo uhave any studies showing any negative effects (or no effect at all) on a low RPM motor?

Here are my thoughts. Quench makes motion. At any appreciable speed, that motion will be big. That motion helps homogenize the air/fuel in the chamber. This mixture motion also mechanically increases the flame speed. Both of these are a Good Thing (tm).

The homogenization decreases lean areas which are prone to preignition as well as decreasing overly rich areas which are much slower to burn. This increases stability of the mix cycle after cycle. The increase in flame speed lets you run LESS timing while still having a complete burn by the end of the stroke. Less timing means less negative work which means more power and longer equipment life.

Best running (when everything is at running temp) quench is 0.0001, or, having the piston just barely off the head. That causes all the boundry layer air in that quench area to be forced (rapidly) into the chamber. This greatly increases mix motion, increases overall air/fuel being burned, decreases effective combustion chamber surface area (and therefore total boundary layer air in-chamber) and decreases the distance the flame must travel to ignite all the air/fuel.

The difference RPM makes to this all is when the spark is fired. You do not want a long slow burn because it'll never finish doing work before the exhaust valve opens, even at low rpm. In any case, the reliability and the increased 'mechanical octane' (from the homogeneous charge) lets you run a higher static compression making even more torque.

Thats my idea anyway. <shrug>


-=Whittey=-
 
Whittey":2u23z9y8 said:
Best running (when everything is at running temp) quench is 0.0001, or, having the piston just barely off the head.
Theoretically, yes. But if I ever hear of some guy building his motor with only a tenth clearance to the head, I'm gonna follow him around with the cam-corder running... :lol:
 
Well the .040 is considered the ideal safe limit for quench. When the engine is warmed up and running the quench area gets smaller due to the expansion of the metals. With aluminum rods you need extra "room" since aluminum expands even more than steel. You can go down to .030 with forged rods/pistons but thats pushing it.

One side effect of the added turbulance is spark blowout, with my stock duraspark II My engine didn't like to run well with stock plug gap, I had to reduce it a bit to keep good spark. After a few months I purchased a MSD 6T box and blaster 2F coil which allowed me to increse the gap quite a bit, I think Its at about .042 now and I picked up some power and better gas mileage. One of these days I'll get this engine going again, 4x4'n last year my air cleaner got ripped and she ingested too much dirt and burns oil bad now :( I put a stock 300-6 in the bronco for now.
 
SuperMag":2gzn23mm said:
Whittey":2gzn23mm said:
Best running (when everything is at running temp) quench is 0.0001, or, having the piston just barely off the head.
Theoretically, yes. But if I ever hear of some guy building his motor with only a tenth clearance to the head, I'm gonna follow him around with the cam-corder running... :lol:
You might have to ask him to wait for you though. As I said, once it is up to operating temperatures, no quench is the place to go. When you're building the engine, it's not up to operating temp and so you build to the 0.030 or 0.040 (or even higher, depending on them motor) clearance.


-=Whittey=-
 
I got a tip that Mr's MacInnes AND Bell are coming with Santa! I sure am glad Oprah told my wife I should get what I want - even if it's a drill press or some such...

Broncr
 
MustangSix":25h5z7m0 said:
I think if you look for the work of Harry Ricardo on Flathead designs you may find some low speed implications.

IIRC Sir Harry made very nearly the entire piston top the quench area and moved the combustion chamber to the area above the valves. Given the much improved efficiency of the head and the very low valve train inertia of flatheads compared to OHV engines, the "Ricardo Engine" outperformed most of the OHV engines of its day
 
Got any pics? I asked for Sir Harrys book for xmas but I doubt that'll happen.


-=Whittey=-
 
Where would you go to buy Sir Henry's book?
I've never even seen a copy of it.

John
 
John, the book is called The High Speed Internal Combustion Engine by Sir Harry Ricardo. Prices in used books stores (online and street-side) run from about $300 -$600 depending on age and condition. Ebay is usually a little cheaper, as the sales are from individuals. But I haven't seen any go there for less than about $200 since the late 90's. (I don't see them all, though.)

First published in 1927, there were (IIRC) 5 reprintings of several thousand copies at roughly one decade intervals. I think the last edition came out in 1970. While the book is a real classic, much of his work has been incorporated into later books, whether openly acknowledged or not. Sir Harry was not a "wordy" man, and the reading can be heavy going, as he wrote it for his fellow English engineers between the World Wars. Sir Harry was convinced that they would have to fight the Germans again, and as a staunch English patriot, he wanted to ensure that the latest thinking and research was available to his fellow engineers in England's military industrial complex.

Nonetheless, it is astounding to nearly all first-time readers that nearly everything mechanical and analog ever developed for spark ignition engines is included in his work, including lots of neat stuff no longer in widespread use (or regaining favor, like water/alky injection to delay detonation).

Start saving your lunch money, Bro...! ;)

Edit: Oh yeah, it was his tireless upgrading of English engineering that earned Sir Harry his peerage. The Merlin engine that powered the Spitfire was his direct brain child. :)
 
Is it as bad to read as Scientific Design of Exhaust and Intake Systems by Philip H. Smith?


-=Whittey=-
 
Worse. I have Smith's book, too.

OTOH, I cherish both books and do not need to be "entertained" by what I'm reading. Any die-hard engine lover (which is most of us here) will read and reread both books many times over a lifetime.
 
Back
Top