The "Porting and Polishing" Myth
- Thread starter MandarinaRacing
- Start date
Pinhead":3b7xdeeh said:
Here is the challenge!!!
Pinhead, you take JW's combo and bump it two points of compression, add all of the grooves you need to keep detonation under control. You can groove the ports, the chambers, you can even regroove the tires. If you can get it to improve 25%, I'll reimburse all of your expenses and buy the engine. It will have to be tested by JW in the WHITE OX, in the realworld.
The White Ox is about as real as it gets.
StrangeRanger":33w0svdl said:
I thought the First Law of Car Enthusiasts negated that decades ago.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is " If things don't change, they'll stay as they are"; while
the First Law of Car Enthuisists is "If things don't change, they'll still result in an increased power of at least 25%"
The Second Law of Car Enthusiasts is "My stock car has a freak motor".
The Freak Motor...
Where do violin makers fit into this?
OK, if everything is "join the dots", then no one violin should be better than any other, assuming equivalent quality of materials.
Disregarding magic, we are then left with the grey area that covers those "freak" instruments...
My point is that when lumped with a collection of materials that may be assembled in a certain way, and utilise a degree of handwork, there is scope for a virtuoso who unthinkingly incorporates a bunch of subtle changes - each all but undetectable by itself.
Plus - much as we like to think manufacturing process is controlled to the nth degree - what of a casting that is poured, or cools, slightly differently. As a result, it ends up with some different quality that may be beneficial. We all acknowledge there are duff castings that get out the door - surely there can be exceptional ones, too. One that conducts heat better in some localised area, or resonates less at certain strategic frequencies, for example.
I suggest that if a mystic can think themselves into levitation, a present skeptic can equally hold them down.
Cheers, Adam.
Where do violin makers fit into this?
OK, if everything is "join the dots", then no one violin should be better than any other, assuming equivalent quality of materials.
Disregarding magic, we are then left with the grey area that covers those "freak" instruments...
My point is that when lumped with a collection of materials that may be assembled in a certain way, and utilise a degree of handwork, there is scope for a virtuoso who unthinkingly incorporates a bunch of subtle changes - each all but undetectable by itself.
Plus - much as we like to think manufacturing process is controlled to the nth degree - what of a casting that is poured, or cools, slightly differently. As a result, it ends up with some different quality that may be beneficial. We all acknowledge there are duff castings that get out the door - surely there can be exceptional ones, too. One that conducts heat better in some localised area, or resonates less at certain strategic frequencies, for example.
I suggest that if a mystic can think themselves into levitation, a present skeptic can equally hold them down.
Cheers, Adam.
Stubby":3s7olhnx said:
I like this idea!
Just to clarify, the TorqueMotor is not in the White Ox, didn't mean to mislead anyone. I intended to use it in the White Ox but ran short of money, time, etc. and put it into the 81 F-150.
Turns out I like it so well I hate to swap it out. The 81 with its tall gears (2.73) is the perfect application for a torquer. It could even stand taller gearing but I'd need to get it really cheap.
I actually REDUCED compression ratio by using EFI pistons with the carby 300 head. Why? because I intended it to be worked pretty hard. Ford used reduced compression on their HD 300's installed in trucks and buses. All of the tractors I have studied used lower compression as well WITH VERY EARLY INTAKE CLOSING EVENTS. I am using the smallest Economaster cam from www.reedcams.com and installed it 4º advanced. It still delivers 175 psi cranking compression.
If one really wants to study fuel efficiency I believe it behooves us to take a careful look backward at what was acheived in the 1940's with low compression engines, low octane fuel, magneto ignition and running updraft carburetors through oil bath air cleaners. I have evidence that shows them achieving BSFC numbers of .50 lbs/hp-hour. Not exactly earth-shaking numbers but this was technology that was readily available to the average farmer and could be repaired by the village blacksmith. Why can't we do better than that now? And I mean a LOT better.What have we really gained in the past 60+ years?
I'm pretty sure that our present Adminisration considers the Laws of Thermodynamics to be merely more guidelines that don't apply to them :roll:
Joe
Stubby":2vttcmdv said:
Specs?
CR
Chamber CC's
Cam profile
Bore/Stroke
Intake and Port cc's and cross-sectional area
Valve Sizes
Piston-Valve Clearance (would probably require custom pistons with pretty good valve reliefs)
Squish Clearance
carb'd or injected
current mileage at a steady 55mph?
A picture of the chamber side of the head would help a lot, too.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I'm not too good at finding things with the Search menu. I looked for "TorqueMotor" and posts by Lazy JW without success. Joe, how do I get to the Thread where you described that motor at length?
And, anyone, how does one Search for all threads, not all posts, authored by a particular member?
And, anyone, how does one Search for all threads, not all posts, authored by a particular member?
Not much length required. I think it wa Addo that started calling it the TorqueMotor fairly recently and I "borrowed" the name so it won't show up on the search.
300 six:
.030" overbore
Stock 300 open chambered head, 1978 vintage
EFI Hypereutectic pistons, moly rings
Zero deck (actually about .005" ABOVE deck)
Head gasket .042" compressed (advertised thickness)
Mild pocket porting
30º backcut itake valves
188º Economaster cam from www.reedcams.com advanced 4º
Stock intake
Stock exhaust (mildly ported at the OUTLET to match pipe)
Carter YF, stock jetting (needs attention on the jetting)
DS2, stock; had to retard the initial advance to about 6º
87 octane cut-rate, low-life rotgut fuel
I really just tried to emulate a tractor engine without spending TOO much money for a non-shelf cam, etc.
Joe
300 six:
.030" overbore
Stock 300 open chambered head, 1978 vintage
EFI Hypereutectic pistons, moly rings
Zero deck (actually about .005" ABOVE deck)
Head gasket .042" compressed (advertised thickness)
Mild pocket porting
30º backcut itake valves
188º Economaster cam from www.reedcams.com advanced 4º
Stock intake
Stock exhaust (mildly ported at the OUTLET to match pipe)
Carter YF, stock jetting (needs attention on the jetting)
DS2, stock; had to retard the initial advance to about 6º
87 octane cut-rate, low-life rotgut fuel
I really just tried to emulate a tractor engine without spending TOO much money for a non-shelf cam, etc.
Joe
