The "Porting and Polishing" Myth

Just polish everything and then solve the reason why fuel is puddling and why some sod has shoved a golf ball down the runners. :wink:

More important things are, for example, the angle of attack the mixture has as it enters the combustion chamber and the radius to diameter ratio of the port runner/bowl combo.
 
Rough ports are beneficial in a few ways, all mentioned above. They especially help with fuel economy.

Have you ever heard of PowreLynz? They take this a step further and make the texture uniform across the port. Tests have shown this to create a "variable boundary layer" that expands and contracts as flow is needed. It helps increase velocity (which reduces reversion) at low VE, and opens up for more flow at high VE.

Some REAL WORLD examples of the benefits of intake port texture:

> 1997 Saturn SOHC – 38 mpg highway to 58 mpg, 100 HP to 130 HP

> 1999 Saturn DOHC – 34 mpg highway to 53 mpg , 124 HP to 155 HP

> 1989 Chrysler 2.5 Turbo – 23/27 mpg to 35/42 mpg, 153 HP to 400+ HP (with other mods)

> 1987 Plymouth 2.2 TBI – 29 mpg to 42 mpg

> 2000 Ford Ranger 2.5 – 23 mpg to 27 mpg with power of a 3.0 V-6
 
Wow... I can't believe nobody wants to even comment. With real-world examples raising FE by almost 20mpg in some instances... I can't believe nobody wants to even discuss the idea. I guess everyone's been too terribly brainwashed by Big Oil's propaganda and viral marketing that they can't even see it when it's right in front of them........... :(
 
Pinhead":2tahbz4j said:
Wow... I can't believe nobody wants to even comment. With real-world examples raising FE by almost 20mpg in some instances... I can't believe nobody wants to even discuss the idea. I guess everyone's been too terribly brainwashed by Big Oil's propaganda and viral marketing that they can't even see it when it's right in front of them........... :(

Ahhhh..... here we go again. Ancient technology gets resurrected but only the Enlightened Few truly comprehend the vast implications to mankind :roll: :P :wink:

Do a search on my TorqueMotor buildup, I deliberately left the ports rough for economy. It only improved my mileage by 19 mpg. All the way from zero mpg to 19 mpg :shock: :lol:
Joe
 
So if EVERYBODY knows about it, why does this thread even exist? And if you were to read my post and actually click on the links given, you would see that it is much more than "leaving a texture" as you and others have done.
 
You've posted the EXACT same pile of ... er ...links about 5 or 6 times. Anybody who is going to read them has by now. As for discussing your ideas on your terms, we tried that with Dr. Singh's magic grooves and you didn't like that either.
 
Pinhead":23qhlt7l said:
So if EVERYBODY knows about it, why does this thread even exist? And if you were to read my post and actually click on the links given, you would see that it is much more than "leaving a texture" as you and others have done.

I would suggest the difference in extrapolated and actual air flows is more a function of measuring error and capacity index peturbations caused by dynamic losses. There is no baseline data from an unrifled surface to compare.

If you carefully look at the figures he gives an equivalence figure of ~80kW for the one port. That's 640kW from an eight cylinder running only ~2"Hg pressure drop. That is an awesome achievement, albeit impossible.

Of course if this vortex design does encourage a boundary layer, then it flies in the face of those asserting a rough surface is needed to keep the fuel droplets in suspension and thus more power.
 
Pinhead":yq4r3ds7 said:
....

Some REAL WORLD examples of the benefits of intake port texture:

> 1997 Saturn SOHC – 38 mpg highway to 58 mpg, 100 HP to 130 HP

> 1999 Saturn DOHC – 34 mpg highway to 53 mpg , 124 HP to 155 HP

> 1989 Chrysler 2.5 Turbo – 23/27 mpg to 35/42 mpg, 153 HP to 400+ HP (with other mods)

> 1987 Plymouth 2.2 TBI – 29 mpg to 42 mpg

> 2000 Ford Ranger 2.5 – 23 mpg to 27 mpg with power of a 3.0 V-6

Yup. More unsubstantiated bogus data. If putting some little scratches in the ports really did improve economy by 50% the factories would be doing it.
Joe
 
People on this thread seem to be talking past each other to some extent. Some are talking air-flow, others are talking fuel-air mixture, and then there are the laminar-flow comments and the boundary layer comments, with Singh's grooves thrown in to raise hackles. This is confusing, I'm just a dumb welder!

As I have understood(?) it, polished ports were replaced in fashionable engine-building circles by your choice of textured surface to increase airflow by breaking up the slow-moving air (boundary layer) that was clinging to the polished surfaces. For the same reason, aircraft makers install metal tabs called vortex generators to wing surfaces (which they had earlier tried to make as smooth as possible by means of flush-riveting). Interestingly, breaking up the thick, sticky layers of slow-moving air, the boundary layer, they also reduced vortex-shedding, the formation of rolled-up, turbulent balls of air that reduce lift and increase drag. Eliminating this turbulence over a wing is called laminar-flow control. Over a wing, or a golf ball, or inside a port runner, boundary layer control with the goal of laminar flow is about airflow, not fuel.

Now the fuel problem. Fuel that has fallen out of suspension in the airstream and is clinging to the port walls by surface tension and is slowly headed downstream in the boundary layer, or which may be puddling in parts of the port where the airflow is detached, may come into the cylinder in big, ugly, hard-to-ignite liquid droplets instead of being the uniformly mixed airborne vapor we wanted. If we had some ramps or other projections in the ports, we might get the liquid fuel sheered off and remixed in the airstream. The rough-cast walls and awful-looking ridges and shelves and lumps we see in factory ports probably do a rather good job of re-attaching liquid fuel (something to ponder!), but of course those are bad for airflow. By changing from old-fashioned polished ports to textured ports and reducing the boundary layer, we could expect less fuel drop-out and less puddling, but maybe still more than with the gnarly stock ports.

Smokey Yunick, who wasn't always right but who was always thinking and had a broad background to draw from, stated that the best form for the short turn radius of a port should not be a continuous curve but a series of small flats. He felt that this would certainly help reintroduce liquid fuel to the airstream, and wouldn't hurt and might even aid airflow. More recently, others (I'll look for the Popular Hot Rodding article) have played with dimpling certain areas, using a center-punch to make tiny craters with raised rims, in the interest of both scouring liquid fuel and of boundary layer control. They did before-and-after testing with a head set up on a flow bench while they shot machinist's layout dye into the airstream, and later looked for evidence of flowing air versus dead-spots.

Okay, smart guys, is all this reasonably close to being right???
 
Good post Seattle, but I challenge anyone to produce laboratory proof that roughing the surface results in better performance.

The plane has turbulators for sure, but a typical good sized intake port runner is handling 15 m/s and giving a reynolds number up around 40000 which tells us it's fully turbulant = nil, zip, nada, laminar flow and any boundary layer would have to be modelled, because mathematiaclly it's too hard to postulate.

Of course a good piston can have turbulators too, lining up with the tips of the quench pads.
 
Seattle Smitty":35kff4c0 said:
....Okay, smart guys, is all this reasonably close to being right???

Well, I'm not one of the smart guys but this sounds reasonable to me. I do wish Smokey was still around to test this out, he certainly knew what to call a spade when he saw one. And I suspect he wouldn't be making absurd claims of 50% fuel economy improvements. I'm not saying that any of these ideas are without merit, but making preposterous claims certainly causes a loss of credibility.
Joe
 
Let me hazard a limited defense of Pinhead, and repeat a point he made elsewhere. (I made this point in one of those threads, but it was buried in other comments and I hate to see Pinhead get such a bashing, so I'll re-state it):

We crotchety old skeptics tend to scorn a gimmick like Singh's groovy squishbands by exaggeration. We say, dripping scorn, "Oh sure, another mechanical miracle that increases power 30% all by itself!!" We observe that all of these "test" engines have had several changes made beyond the one we want to look at in isolation.

But remember what Pinhead said, several times: the groove(s) is not likely to be a noticeable power increaser by itself, but it enables you to do other things that increase horsepower (fuel efficiency, etc.). This is a valid argument, not an attempt to discount criticism on Pinhead's part. Water injection is a technique that works by the same principle. In a good running engine that doesn't detonate, water injection has no value. But water injection enables you to rebuild the engine with more compression so that it will make more power, still without detonation. You can't argue, "Well, of course you made more power, you increased compression, but that doesn't tell us about the water injection in isolation so your test is bogus!"

Now, back off, I'm not arguing the specifics of Singh's tests or the merits of his grooves, or the "findings" of the backyard mechanics and their anecdotes. Like you, I am quite skeptical of all of this. I just think Pinhead 's repeated caveats should be taken into account.
 
Point well taken. I tend to be skeptical of HP claims. We have all been mislead on many occasions. The mags are full of HP claims, from headers to intakes and everywhere in between. Even the manufacturers have done it, and still do.

Good post Seattle, but I challenge anyone to produce laboratory proof that roughing the surface results in better performance.

The plane has turbulators for sure, but a typical good sized intake port runner is handling 15 m/s and giving a reynolds number up around 40000 which tells us it's fully turbulant = nil, zip, nada, laminar flow and any boundary layer would have to be modelled, because mathematiaclly it's too hard to postulate.

Of course a good piston can have turbulators too, lining up with the tips of the quench pads.

This is where you need to remember, "You can't race in a laboratory, or on a dyno". :lol: I have never and probably will never be able to research anything in a lab. I will just have to rely on Smokey's and Vizards research as a guide, that, and my own observations.
I can tell you that most engines that I have seen with super smooth ports have had what appeared to be less than ideal low speed distribution problems. I can also tell you that I have seen less stagger jetting in engines with rough ports. This is backed up by inspecting engines during a teardown and freshen up.
Again this can fall into the same category as these other claims. We never had a wideband O2 sensor to nail down the, "close enough for most Holley".
It sure would be nice to duplicate some ports in acrylic and use a high speed camera, combined with wet flow, dry flow, and some smoke. :?

I can tell you that.

1 Then highest HP engines I have seen had smooth ports. But these engines are targeting max HP.

2 I have never seen a street or bracket engine that needed smooth ports.

3 Since the CNC port jobs have become commonplace, there are some seriously high HP machines out there with slightly rough ports. This could reflect the ability to properly size the port instead of the added roughness helping.

4 If the ports are sized properly for the size of the engine, and the intended application, the last remaining HP gains from mirror polishing will not be worth pursuing.

5 These are just my opinions based on my experience. If I were building you an engine, I would try to sell you on the combo that I am comfortable with. I would also stress the word COMBO. That word says it all.
 
Well stated, Smitty. There appeared to be far more desire to discount the whole deal, and Pinhead, than to devise some comprehensive test for "our" engines that would settle the matter, one way or the other.

Hopefully Pinhead has not left for good, though the types of responses he got on this thread and the earlier one would not make it unreasonable that he might. It seemed he was trying to put forth his statements in a manner to promote discussion, and received very little in return. Shot down straight out of hand, no discussion necessary as far as some (moderators no less) are concerned. I wouldn't blame him for leaving if that's how even the moderators act. They're supposed to be keeping us in line.

"If the factories aren't doing it.." With all due respect, bull. That argument came up in the earlier thread. If it wasn't for all the things the factories don't do this board (or any others like it) wouldn't exist. We could just go to the dealerships and have our perfect factory engines and vehicles maintained perfectly forever. We would all know there is no room for improvement, so why bother.

There are many ideas in modern and not-so-modern (let's not forget that's the group we are in) automobiles that came from groups of guys messing with their cars who happened to hit on something. They didn't need help or permission from engineers to do it, they just did it. Who is to say where the next one is coming from, or that there isn't one already right under our noses someplace, if we care to look and perhaps learn something.
 
Why would Pinhead be upset? As far as I can fathom he threw up some ideas with some foundation sites and some agreed and some disagreed. I still disgaree with my 77 yearold mother, but it doesn't stop me valuing her opinions.
 
rmt":ujff5v0w said:
.... Shot down straight out of hand, no discussion necessary as far as some (moderators no less) are concerned. I wouldn't blame him for leaving if that's how even the moderators act. They're supposed to be keeping us in line...

Any time anyone claims 50% improvement in BSFC and offers NO PROOF, I for one, will always call their bluff. Truth can always withstand cross-examination, wishful thinking cannot. I stand ready to listen to any reasonable discussion of FACTS.
Joe
 
Lazy JW":2ge9stri said:
rmt":2ge9stri said:
.... Shot down straight out of hand, no discussion necessary as far as some (moderators no less) are concerned. I wouldn't blame him for leaving if that's how even the moderators act. They're supposed to be keeping us in line...

Any time anyone claims 50% improvement in BSFC and offers NO PROOF, I for one, will always call their bluff. Truth can always withstand cross-examination, wishful thinking cannot. I stand ready to listen to any reasonable discussion of FACTS.
Joe

And I feel that you would be the first to implement said improvements. :D
 
Lazy JW said:
...Truth can always withstand cross-examination...

I seem to have missed the cross-examination.

"POLICY: All new members will be treated with an equal amount of respect as long standing members. We will not forget that we were they once. Allow them to post questions and answer the question even if it has been asked and answered 100 times somewhere else or can be found on the Tech pages."

Pinhead. 20 posts.

If he's wrong then teach him something if you know what he doesn't. Perhaps we would all learn something. Requiring a poster to have proof of all evidence offered in his posts before allowing discussion would eliminate most everything on this entire board.

[/quote]...I stand ready to listen to any reasonable discussion of FACTS....
How about then allowing the rest of us, while wallering in our ignorance, to discuss whether or not something is a fact?
 
Now, now, boys!

On the other threads which developed as the primary discussions of Singh's grooves, the multi-piece valves, and other stuff offered for our consideration by Pinhead, Lazy JW was one of the people who backed up his skepticism with hard numbers that raised pointed questions about the numbers from Singh that Pinhead supplied. And Pinhead never answered, which could be why JW and others reacted irritably when Pinhead reintroduced the subject on this thread. My only suggestion to them was that we be sure to recognize all of what Pinhead, had said, not just fly out at what we think he said. In other words, don't treat a sincere presentation, however flawed, the same way you would treat an outright scam artist. By the same token, Pinhead, you have to anwer the hard questions or concede the point.
 
Back
Top