Putting quench in a flattop piston?

Not sure what he is trying to do. Seems to take a flat top high compression piston cut a mirror image pocket to combustion chamber reducing compression ratio. He has not created any new squench area.

Squench area is the flat part of the cylinder head that is met by a corresponding flat part of the piston top. As the piston approached TDC the pressure in the quench area rises faster than in the combustion chamber area causing air /fuel mixture to "squirt" from squench area into the combustion chamber. This inturn causes turblence within the combustion chamber promoting A/F mixing and flame front propagation.

Piston pocket volume dictates compression ratio, the best shape is a mirror image of the combustion chamber and become part of the total combustion chamber at ignition. It is possible that the ramp he has cut from piston squench area to pocket imparts some swirl as does the groove some are cutting from squench area to combustion chamber.
 
Thanks for responding. I think what he's trying to do is something like this;http://www.theoldone.com/articles/The%5FSoft%5FHead%5F1999/
This is a fairly comprehensive discussion of "Softhead" by the Old One.Granted, he's talking about what he does on high performance racecar engines, and alot of it goes over my head, but, as I understand it; "What you want is a piston top that mirrors the top of the cylinder" is HALF right. The 1/2 of the piston top that corresponds to the intake valve SHOULD 'mirror' the top of the cylinder.Thats the 'squish'. The other 1/2 of the piston top, thats right under the exhaust valve and spark plug, should have a shallow trench, I think thats what they're calling the quench area.
The Old One makes the analogy of charcoal brickets. The 'quench area', or trough, is to crowd all the air fuel mix into a small area, for quick and complete burn, like the brickettes piled up.As opposed to the unaltered flattop piston, which is like the brickets layed out in a circle, touching each other.Interesting, he (first link)hypothosises the thinner material under the quench trough is cooler than the rest of the piston top, and that this promotes the fuel droplets gathering there.The Old One says nothing about that.And yes, he uses Somender Singh grooves, to encourage turbulence.Also something the Old One only hints at.
I think what Mike Holler (sp?) is talking about, in the first link I posted, is making (or re-making) a flat top piston so it will have this Squish/Quench technology. Advantages? Higher compression without detonation.More complete and usable combustion; i.e.quicker burn yielding more useful energy. More power, acceleration and economy.After all, in a lap type race, like indy, less pit stops win races, so economy is important, as The Old One agknowledges. Most 'performance enhancements' are improvements in efficiency.Improving efficiency should mean you can move down the road using less fuel, OR moving down the road faster. I'm interested in the former.I'm not going to be racing my milktruck. I am going to be driving around the country, mostly state hiways, 55-65mph tops and, once every 6 mos. or so pulling an 8000Lbs trailer.Would like a little extra power when pulling trailer uphill, and any mileage gains I can get.Thats why I'm interested in this.More power per combustion should mean lower RPMs for the same speed torque. Seems to me thats a good thing.So, how thick are the tops of these flat topped pistons? Mostly interested in the 262, and the Chebbie pistons (I think 292) that work in them.I also have a 223.Jim
 
Divco man, you are getting your terminology confused. The quench or squish area on the piston is "only" the flat portion on the top most piston surface. The trough as you call it is not the same thing as the squish or quench. It is merely a dish cut into the to piston top to reduce the compression ratio to a predetermined amount, and that is this guys purpose of that part of this operation he is doing. A flat top piston will always yield more turbulence and produce more quench than a dished piston will, because the flat top has more surface area to produce more of a compressing effect than a dish piston will. He is only defeating the purpose of what the flat top piston can do for him.
 
There are three designs for piston top to be made giving the compression ratio needed. Short compression height flat top or dished top which do not come close enough to cylinder head to cause good (if any) squench. Very ancient designs. Third is a flat top with a pocket mirroring the combustion chamber having the required volume to give the desired compression ratio. The compression height of this design at TDC is within .040- 050" of the cylinder head. This area between the flat top area of the piston and flat non -combustion chamber area of the cylinder head is squench area.
The optimum design combination would be a flat top piston with only valve reliefs and a cylinder head with combustion chamber having enough volume for the required C/R. But it is not going to happen except by chance. The different volumes needed for the different C/R is not possible in cylinder head manufacture where it is possible with pistons.
 
O.k, now I'm really confused! I THOUGHT I understood this quench/squish stuff, after reading on the ENDYN site, 6 or 7 times. (Granted, a lot of the stuff he's talking about, like about jet intakes, makes my eyes glaze over!)
Anyway, I thought the "Squish" area was the area under around the intake valve. This, I thought, is the area where you shape the top of the piston to "Mirror" the top of the combustion chamber, with domes, valve reliefs, etc. to, as you say, come within 0.40 or 0.50 of touching. This 'squishes' all the air/fuel mix over to the other side of the combustion chamber; the area around the exhaust valve, and sparkplug. I thought this was the "Quench" area. The trough. Now you guys are talking about "Squench". WTF is that? Is this a third area, as in Squish, quench, and Squench?
Also, you say "dished out for a given compression ratio", but he makes it clear he doesn't concern himself at all with static compression ratio's.Not being argumentative, just trying to understand.Reading Endyne's material, I wondered if we could do something like using this "Lean Burn Technology", (thats what he calls it, by the way) to modernise our engines, for the advantages previously posted. Then, when I saw the Mike Holler article on "Rolling yer Own" (pistons) I thought he was attempting to do just that. Granted, on a chrysler engine, but an older engine with flat-top pistons.Now, as I sayy, I'm confused. Jim
 
Jim, the quench, squish is not limited to location on the piston top. It can be any flat surface on the piston top other than the dome or a dish cavity. I agree that making a dish that mirror images the combustion chamber is the most beneficial design if you are going to have to have a dished piston. But the surface on top of the piston that remains flat is the quench area, and that portion of the piston is what compresses the gases the tightest, creating quench in the first place, because it comes the closest to the cylinder heads matching quench area, the deck. This guy might be trying to create "swirling" of the gases by ramping and creating a cavity in the piston top. But if he also is calling that cavity or dish "quench", then he is also confused about what he is doing or saying also. Those "Singh" grooves have been discussed in great detail on other forums, and I think the general concensus is that they fall into the "snake oyl" category, and dont really provide any more benefit than a head that doesn't have those grooves in them to start with. Hope that helps.
 
Well, thanks guys, for your responces. Everythings now clear as mud.I've re-read the article on the Endyne site 7 or 8 times, (as well as several other articles on the site) and feel like I understand about 40% of it. The Mike Holler article is a recent find, frankly I'll have to read it again, to see if he says WHY he's doing what he's doing.I'll add it to my list, to re-read every month or so, and this post and your replies will be added to the list, as well.Eventually it will sink in. Jim
 
CNC-Dude":1afaqngc said:
...... Those "Singh" grooves have been discussed in great detail on other forums, and I think the general concensus is that they fall into the "snake oyl" category......
Click to expand...

I must respectfully disagree with a portion of this statement; I too have read almost everything I could find on the internet about the magical Singh grooves, hoping to find anything that would help in my quest toward improved fuel economy and overall efficiency.

The portion of the above quoted statement with which I disagree (partly) is about the general consensus; virtually all of the "experts" such as Darin Morgan, Joe Sherman, David Redzus, etc. agree that they do no good at all in high performance engines operated at high speeds, and also in almost any "modern" designed combustion chamber. Darin Morgan did state that they help somewhat in old style combustion chambers operated at slower speeds. I have no reason to disagree with that statement, and it does indeed make sense considering that the squish velocity becomes quite high at high speeds anyway, and improving squish velocity is the main focus of the Singh grooves in the first place. The overwhelming majority of folks interested in engine development are primarily interested in high-speed, high power applications and really don't care all that much about thermal efficiency.

HOWEVER, this still leaves us with our low-speed, relatively archaic Ford sixes, and there just "may" be some benefit to be found by improving squish and mixture turbulence as per Mr. Singh, and most of his claims are in the area of improved low-speed operation. I dunno for certain, and hard data is almighty difficult to find, largely due to the fact that truly scientific research on this subject is unlikely to be done by those who have the wherewithal to accomplish it, and we impecunious Ford Sixers will probably never have the money to invest in such a project.

That said, I still would like to put some Singh grooves in a 240 head and slap it on my 300. Perhaps someday my ship will come in and I can stop treading water long enough to actually get it done.
Joe
 
Thanks for weighing in, and well said, Joe.My sentiments exactly, both on the grooves, and on what I'm looking for; improving economy & torque, not speed.Jim
 
Looks like I'll be joining, to 'follow the thread". On the issue of the grooves, again. "Theoldone" article I posted the link to is written by Larry Widmer(sp) who seems to have some pretty impressive credentials, having gotten mucho bucks for building heads for Roger Penski, etc. Performance heads for race cars.The article I posted, as well as others on the Endyne site I'm still reading thru, are laying out principles of the "softhead", as he calls it. He doesn't say specifically how, but he does talk about enhancing swirl.When I read that, I assumed he was talking about the grooves.Jim
 
Divco man":10fctro3 said:
..... I assumed he was talking about the grooves.Jim
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.
Larry Widmer has done some very good stuff. Be clear that his engines are designed to work as a SYSTEM, which he has painstakingly developed over a long period of time with much investment in both time and money, plus plenty of trial and error. I'm certain that if you could talk to him directly he would eventually admit that there has been a lot of error included, also a lot of broken parts.

Larry has designed and had custom heads cast for him in order to do some of the things he does; I do not mean to discourage you at all, as I too would like to make improvements in combustion efficiency. My main point here is that much of what Mr. Widmer does cannot readily be taken apart piecemeal and used as individual components. Simply cranking up the compression ratio to 20:1 and adding some grooves is likely to result in disaster. Proper intake swirl, proper combustion chamber turbulence, optimum burn throught the chamber, etc. etc........ :D

That said, don't give up. Improvements can, have been, and will be made.
Joe
 
Once again, Joe, I'm with you 100%.When I read his material, its very clear you gotta take the whole thing, not just parts.
I think this whole thing started for me, when I read another Mike Holler article.I'll see if I can find the link.Something like "turbocharging for Economy". He sets out the basic premise, that most performance improvements are improving efficiency.Doing the same thing, but in a different way, can yield economy improvements.
So, starting with motors where the basic geometry is oriented towards torque and economy, rather than speed is a good start on 'a different way', I figure.With turbo'ing, he reccomends using a turbo about 2/3rds the 'size' of whats normally reccomended.So, for a 4.0, use one for a 2.3 or 2.5, for instance.
Anyway, with that in the back of my head, I stumbled across the Larry Widmer articles, and wondered if the same idea could be used, to adapt what he's doing for race cars, for our lower RPM, torquee motors, in order to make them more efficient, and therefore more economical.How much of the precision he's talking about is because he's working on an engine that wil be turning at 10,000 RPM's, for instance? The hand honing of the valves and guides, the bolting the head to a pressure plate AND pumping 200 degree water thru the coolant passages, etc. I'm sure a lot of that is the result of trial and error, with a string of broken parts along the way.
Would these measures be neccesary as part of a 'different way', on our engines? I don't know.Would we need to start more basic, with shaping the top of the piston, to get the air/fuel mix compressed into a small area, so 'all the charcoal was touching', for a quicker, more complete burn?Thats what I thought (Maybe) the piston reshaping article is about.Got my e-mail, signed onto speedtalk, gonna go see what their thread says about this. I'll try and find that other article about turbo'ing, that lays out the basic premise, and post the link here.Mike Holler's not in Widmers class, (who else is?) but he's no slouch, either. And, he writes so I can understand him, whereas Widmer IS a rocket scientist! :D Jim
 
Lazy, "Hutchins, an engineer for Isky cams, once told me that the biggest help for low lift intake flow was to have the valve as close to the top of the piston as possible and the lift of the valve to follow as closely as possible the movement of the piston."
Sounds just like what Widmer says.Thanks for the link, more stuff to read over and over. Seems like "we" (humans, gearheads, whatever) still may not understand EXACTLY what goes on, in a combustion chamber. Lots of theories.Saw someone has made a sparkplug, with a fiber-optic cable, so you can actually see, and film, what goes on in that fraction of a second.Coarse, even if you see it, in slow motion, you've still got to understand it.

I'm pretty sure, early on, in the development of ICE's, they did some things that worked, but their understanding of how and why was, by current standards, wrong. Medicine, and other sciences have a similar history.I have a feeling we still don't have it all.
Anyway, heres the link to that article.
http://www.allpar.com/fix/holler/slant-six-turbo.html Jim
 
Yup. Sir Harry Ricardo literally wrote the book on engine performance way back in the early days; it is titled "The High Speed Internal Combustion Engine" and I would dearly love to read it. Sir Harry made cylinder heads (flathead engines) of quartz and took high-speed films of the combustion process, from which he developed the "Ricardo Head" used on most flatheads to this day. This was the first legitimate use of quench, a learning curve which still continues.

Harry was convinced that WW1 was not the "War to end all wars", and was determined that the Brits would have the upper hand in engine development for the next war; much of his work was used in the exemplary Rolls Royce Merlin engine made famous by powering Spitfires, Lancasters, Mosquitos, Mustangs, and many more WW2 aircraft.

I've ponderized at length about how to improve our Ford Sixes and haven't made a lot of improvement over what the good fellows at Ford came up with 40+ years ago. My 300 has TIGHT quench (.007" proud of the deck) and reduced compression via EFI hypereutectic pistons; also shaved the head a bit so the compression is about back to stock considering what was taken from the block and the head. I'm running a torque cam with LESS duration and more lift than stock and bit of mild port work, also back-cut the intake valves 30º. Long reach plugs are good in a 300 but I have no idea about a 262.

For best economy, a heated intake is imperative, as is a functioning hot air stove to the air cleaner. Definitely use an HEI type ignition.
Joe
 
Main difference seems to be the weird port layout on the 262's.Have the electronic ignition, everything is still sitting on a shelf, till I finish up body and interior.I've heard of that book, is it out of print/hard to find? I'll see if I can find a copy.Jim
 
Half.com has it for $225 used.
I've really wanted a copy of it also, but havn't plopped down the 2-3 bones for one. Hellooooo Library!
EDIT: I'm pretty sure it's out of print, btw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

1
All Small Six Distance from the top of the piston to the deck of the block with a piston at TDC.
Replies
7
Views
2K
rocklord
rocklord
B
All Small Six Latest from Bubba for Mustang owners
Replies
1
Views
1K
philford
philford
M
200ci I put a 200CID engine in my '73 Mercury Marquis
2 3
Replies
42
Views
7K
karkev
K
bubba22349
Build Thread Bench Racing Exercice On Building a 223 Performance Or Turbo Engine
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
14K
GalaxieInline
G
M
FAST EFI Installation on 200 Inline 6
Replies
11
Views
22K
thesameguy
T
Back
Top