The "Porting and Polishing" Myth

[Pinhead]

I didn't reintroduce Singh Grooves in this thread... The other threads in which I brought up the mods had run their course. There were enough posts after mine that I didn't want to change the topic, and would end up repeating what had already been said.

The original topic of discussion in this thread was the difference between polished ports and rough ports. I posted examples of the advantages of rough ports along with backup comparisons of before and after results, comparing "stock" and reworked ports. It was intended to stimulate discussion about and back up the validity of the ORIGINAL topic. Ultimately, links are intended to stimulate INVESTIGATION.

Does the original post constitute "proof"? If so, how is that any different than the posts that I've made in this thread? I don't have the capacity nor the desire to access each and every one of the modified vehicles and do my own test runs complete with unmodified cylinder heads. I'm willing to bet 99% of the "mods" performed on this forum are done in the same manner.

 

[Lazy JW]

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...........

Well, I reckon I may have taken a bit of offense at being branded as "too terribly brainwashed by Big Oil's propoganda a viral marketing...". I'm such a sensitive fellow, ya know

I came to this forum several years ago in search of information. I found it here, and much more besides. Good, useful information, and I have taken some of that new-found knowledge and put it to good use. I take a very serious approach to economy and fuel efficiency so as to be able to better utilize our precious, dwindling natural resources.

I put together a 300 that has averaged over 19 mpg for over a year in all weather and fuel availability; total consumption, including any and all time idling, etc. Some here have insinuated that I am a charter member of the Ananias Club for making such inflated claims of fuel mileage.

I have studied the Nebraska Tractor tests for fuel economy results and reported my findings here. I have researched cam timing specs from slow-speed engines that got great fuel economy numbers and posted them for everyone's edification. I know that most folks aren't interested in old tractors but some of them beat the new cars at part-throttle fuel economy.

So I commented, and have been taken to task for making comments that I should not have allowed myself to be goaded into. But if you don't want my opinion, reckon maybe you ought not ask for it.
Joe

 

[Pinhead]

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...........

Well, I reckon I may have taken a bit of offense at being branded as "too terribly brainwashed by Big Oil's propoganda a viral marketing...". I'm such a sensitive fellow, ya know

I came to this forum several years ago in search of information. I found it here, and much more besides. Good, useful information, and I have taken some of that new-found knowledge and put it to good use. I take a very serious approach to economy and fuel efficiency so as to be able to better utilize our precious, dwindling natural resources.

I put together a 300 that has averaged over 19 mpg for over a year in all weather and fuel availability; total consumption, including any and all time idling, etc. Some here have insinuated that I am a charter member of the Ananias Club for making such inflated claims of fuel mileage.

I have studied the Nebraska Tractor tests for fuel economy results and reported my findings here. I have researched cam timing specs from slow-speed engines that got great fuel economy numbers and posted them for everyone's edification. I know that most folks aren't interested in old tractors but some of them beat the new cars at part-throttle fuel economy.

So I commented, and have been taken to task for making comments that I should not have allowed myself to be goaded into. But if you don't want my opinion, reckon maybe you ought not ask for it.
Joe

[rant]

FWIW I wasn't aiming the brainwashed comment to anybody in particular, just people in general. I've found that 99.9% of the time when I talk fuel economy, most people have nothing but misinformation. For instance, a LOT of people think that todays cars burn 99% of the fuel that goes into them. What they don't realize is that figure is taking into consideration the catalytic converter. 99% of the fuel DEFINITELY isn't being burned inside the engine and turned into power. In fact, a GM ECU tuner that I've talked to said that they tune FOR the catalytic converter. They have to dump excess fuel out of the exhaust to keep that POS good and hot to make it work. This is good for NOx emissions, but terrible for CO emissions and even worse for efficiency.

When the general public thinks that their car is already 99% efficient, they don't think there's room for improvement. Hence the brainwash effect.

[/rant]

Back to the topic of discussion, though.

The camshaft is definitely a big factor in fuel economy. Take the GM 3.8L, for instance. In GM's "grandma cars" with the 3800, the peak HP is 120 hp at 4200rpm and peak torque is 170 ft-lbs at 2200rpm. Many of these big, heavy cars get 30 + mpg going down the highway (I know a man with a 2004 LeSabre that gets 39mpg at 50mph). Their cruising speed is very close to peak torque.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry, Pinhead. You didn't reintroduce Singh's grooves here; I guess I did. All of the gimmicks, okay, technologies, that you've presented so far (and I do thank you for the web addresses) tend to run together in my mind because they all seem to me to be making insupportable claims. That's a major problem in getting someone like me to give them any serious thought. If they made a more modest statement such as, "We think most users will see some improvement under some conditions when our device is correctly employed," I would be more impressed than I am hearing of 40% gains. Pinhead, you misunderstand if you think we are reflexively hostile to new ideas. But they do have to pass a reasonableness test. If you tell me that someone has discovered an ivory-billed woodpecker in the Carolina hills that hasn't been seen in thirty years, I'll say, "How cool!!" If you say there are Jurassic-era plesiosaurs inhabiting Loch Ness, I'll say, "Bull S##t!" (Actually, I'd like to be wrong about that!!)

And you can't say to us, "You all are ignoring me, 'everyone' must be brainwashed, etc.," without us thinking that we are the "everyone."

 

[Pinhead]

Don't real world examples of real world engines under real world conditions constitute "supportable evidence" to be considered? This isn't just a single test on a single engine that magically got triple the mileage.. That I would consider an unsupportable claim UNLESS I can see HOW and WHY it works.

I've seen a car that got 90mpg... For about 5 minutes of driving. It had a catalytic cracking chamber that cracked the fuel into lighter hydrocarbons and fed the air/fuel through a small engine carb (think a B&S carb). It didn't have a lot of horsepower (imagine that lol) but it went down the road. After a little while the catalyst was completely sludged up and quit working. After that, it was down to about 15mpg and seemed like about 8 horsepower. :roll: Simple vapor carbs work, but are tough to control, F/A ratio wise. They also generally leave the heavier hydrocarbons on the bottom of the box as unusable sludge.

There ARE ways to drastically improve the chemical/thermal efficiency of the ICE, many of which are either impractical, unstable, dangerous, or expensive to implement.

Along with Smokey Yunick, have any of you ever heard of Larry Widmer? Take a look at www.theoldone.com and try to tell him there's no way to drastically increase the efficiency of the ICE. Sure, he's got a lot bigger budget and has completely reworked pretty much everything in the engine... But his engines consume less fuel and air per hp than most every other engine out there. He's pursuing performance, but efficiency is just a byproduct of his designs.

I guess I'm taking this thread even further off topic, but at least it should stimulate a conversation...

 

[Anonymous]

I'm WILLING!!!!! to learn, Pinhead, but a short look at Widmer's site indicates to me that it is similar to the other sites you've listed that I have looked at . . . long on assertions and short on explanations. For instance, he shows a picture of one of his "roller-wave" pistons with a "reflecting groove", but (unless I missed it) offers no explanation of what the groove is supposed to do. He tells us that, "combustion chambers don't like to see their reflections in mirror-polished piston tops," with no reasons offered. It won't do.

"Real-world" tests produce real-world numbers. The tests strike me the same as the "testimony" of "sober, reliable, experienced, observers" who have personally seen Nessie, Bigfoot, and assorted UFOs. No, I exaggerate, but anyway they leave me skeptical.

Anyway, here's a technology that Detroit hasn't approved that should interest you, Pinhead. Check out the April 12, 2006 post by Stubby entitled, "Total Exhaustion by Smitty," on the Tech forum (Stubby knew how to post the article). I make no claims for or against it.

 

[XPC66]

Ooohh three letter acronyms to support the argument.... sorry Pinhead, but when I read your last post I wondered why you would want to increase the efficiency of In Car Entertainment.

Guys the only way you'll see if any of it is fact or fiction is to try it and do it in isolation i.e. no other mods.

Hyclones, pod filters, polarisers, electric superchargers, etc., they all have sworn testimony and some even have proofs to back them up. Trouble is what self respecting street racer is going to tell his mates the cone filter he paid $100 for is as useless as tits on a bull.....especially after bragging how good they are.... the exhaust note is worth it though.

 

[Lazy JW]

Intersting that Smitty would mention Bigfoot and Nessie because this is the type argument that I call a "Sasquatch". You can't prove it exists and I can't prove it doesn't.

I still think there is some validity to the Singh grooves and have been scheming on how to try it. How about grooves in the top of the piston? The net result should be similar and I won't risk ruining a head. Any thoughts?

The PowerLynz are no doubt effective as well. I seriously doubt the percentage of gain though, but that pesky Sasquatch keeps raising his ugly head
Joe

 

[Stubby]

We have all seen so many inflated claims over the years. It's no wonder we are suspecting of HUGE GAIN claims. I think there are some small gains to be had from many different tricks or gimmics or whatever you want to label them. These claims are no different from the 50 HP gain from bolting on this intake or those headers.

I am sure we could build a 250 six with a 274 cam, 11:1 compression, zero deck height, DUI dizzy, 390 or 450 cfm 4V carb. Dyno it with a stock exh manifold, then dyno it again with a good set of headers. The headers would show HUGE GAINS. I wouldn't advertise the headers as the fix for the world. I would advertise them as an important piece of the combo. Once it is bolted on, it becomes part of a combination.
Most of these groundbreaking discoveries are being marketed as the key to unlocking the misteries of the internal combustion engine.

If you read some of the post on this forum, you will see some of LazyJWs accomplishments. He has achieved some of Singh's claims without grooves. Singh claims to be able to run the engines at a low RPM in high gear without detonation. LazyJW also has achieved some impressive MPG with his well planned combination. I am inclined to believe JW over some of these other guys for the simple reason, JW has nothing to gain but my respect, and the good feeling from helping others. The other guys want some of my money. The claims of some of these guys about BIG OIL are also designed to play on peoples fears and paranoia. Don't get me wrong, I know the big oil companies are as corupted as the government and their marketing tactics are just as bad. Just don't try to play me with my fears.

JW, Sasquatch does exist.

 

[Pinhead]

ICE = Internal Combustion Engine

About the grooves, it IS all about the combo. In other words, they make the biggest difference on an engine that is detonation limited or on the verge of detonation. Cutting the groove alone won't make a HUGE difference on a stock unmodified car (unless there is something causing detonation such as high compression with low octane, etc). But it does make a difference. That's why most engines that get the groove cut also have the head shaved for higher compression. It allows you to run higher compression without negatively effecting the operation of the vehicle (doesn't run hotter, doesn't ping, doesn't put excessive pressure on bearings, etc). In fact, the engine generally runs cooler because the fuel is being more thoroughly burned in the chamber near TDC where it can do the most good (changing thermal energy into kinetic energy).

Nobody is going to make money off the grooves or the intake port threads (PowreLynz) unless you ship your head out to have it done. The idea wouldn't be given away freely on the 'net if they wanted to keep it for money.

The MPGResearch forum has an entire section dedicated to the Singh Grooves because they have proven to be such a great tool to increase efficiency.

 

[XPC66]

How does liberating more energy in the combustion chamber make the engine run ccoler? I would have thought the EGT would drop and the CHT rise?

 

[Pinhead]

Energy is energy. If the thermal energy is converted to kinetic energy, there is less thermal energy left to be absorbed into the engine (all else being equal). EGT and engine temps will go down. Also, if there is less ignition advanced needed to get peak cylinder pressure at the optimum timing (which is usually the case with the grooves, ~13 deg ATDC) than the chamber is in contact with that burn for less time than if the engine needed more advance.

 

[XPC66]

Well I'd have to see that one. The general rule is the more power an engine produces the larger the radiator and greater the water flow to remove the increased heat transfer. I don't think you are going to get an adiabatic condition, no matter how well it isothermally converts energy to work..... that's a holy grail in combustion engines and the like. One thing's for certain, even if it was adiabatic, it isn't going to exceed a factor of 1 and therefore cannot cool an engine.

 

[Pinhead]

That is true. I'm not saying that the engine will run cold. Just cooler.

 

[Lazy JW]

Energy is energy. If the thermal energy is converted to kinetic energy, there is less thermal energy left to be absorbed into the engine (all else being equal). EGT and engine temps will go down. Also, if there is less ignition advanced needed to get peak cylinder pressure at the optimum timing (which is usually the case with the grooves, ~13 deg ATDC) than the chamber is in contact with that burn for less time than if the engine needed more advance.

I think Pinhead is right. If less advance is needed (which SHOULD happen if the burn is indeed more efficient) then the engine will run cooler. My own TorqueMotor did this very thing. I even went to a 205º thermostat and still can't get it to overheat in 100º+ F weather.

Also, diesel engines turn a higher percentage of available BTU's into power so they tend to be easier to cool. Less waste heat to dump.
Joe

 

[XPC66]

Yeah, but retarding will always result in lower CHT and higher EGT, simply because the combustion temperature drops through incomplete burn. That's why the decrease in NOX & hydrocarbons, but increase in CO. It's also why you end up with burnt valves and cordial breaks.

If you're adding heat, there is no way that anything in contiguous contact isn't going to heat up too....even a space shuttle tile.

 

[Pinhead]

Not always. Retarding the ignition timing (retarding it away from "stock," optimized settings) raises EGT because a good portion of the fuel is still burning when the exhaust valve opens. Due to crankshaft geometries, you want peak cylinder pressure at around 13 degrees ATDC on the power stroke (this is where you get peak efficiency/power). If the burn is quicker and more complete, all else being equal, EGT's will go down.

Think about the combustion process as a cycle. Also remember that nothing is "instant." Burning gasoline does take time. Any more advance than is needed results in negative torque and higher CHT's (because the chamber is in contact with the "burn" for a longer duration). Any less advance than is needed results in lower CHT's and higher EGT's (because the fuel is still burning when the exhaust valve opens, hence burnt exhaust valves). I say needed, because different cylinder head designs produce different burn patterns and speeds and therefore need less ignition advance.

Compare a hemi chamber to a heart-shaped chamber with swirl... Otherwise idendical engines will need ENTIRELY different ignition curves. This is because the turbulence in the chamber due to the swirl and eddie current speeds the burn, requiring less ignition advance. The Singh Grooves have the same effect.

 

[XPC66]

I'm pretty much up to speed with engine stuff. The EGT rises, not necessarily because of continued burning, but because the PVT is still up and the combustion incomplete.... although there are ocassions when fuel does detonate in the port as it passes the white hot exhaust valve caused by incorrect ignition timing; those little burble pops coming off throttle

In fact if you've ever played with turbo motors you would know that, by design, there's generally plenty of unburnt fuel leaving the exhaust port to keep the valve cool. The radiator on a turbo engine is bigger than it's N/A equivalent to accomodate the improved VE, MBT and BMEP, even though the rich mixture should keep both EGT and CHT low, which of course actually means lower than it would be at stoich.

You familiar with optimum tuning using spark, EGT & CHT then spark, EGT & CO and their hard limits?

Running low CHT and high EGT is a classic indicator the timing is wrong, because incorrect mixture won't give that condition. And because of this the corrollary is that improved rate of combustion will not reduce CHT.


MBT usually occurs between 11° and 16°, but isn't cast in stone.

 

[Lazy JW]

Bear in mind that I made significant changes to my engine from stock. Different cam, pistons, deck height. Good, efficient combustion chambers get the job done with less ignition advance. The more fuel we can turn into useable power the less we have to dump out the exhaust pipe and radiator. If it were possible to convert it all to power then we wouldn't need a cooling system. If I knew how to do that I would be very wealthy.
Joe

 

[StrangeRanger]

If I knew how to do that I would be very wealthy.
Joe

Simple. Just get Congress to repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics.