Simple Power Upgrades

Moderator: Mod Squad

BigPhill

Simple Power Upgrades

Post #1 by BigPhill » Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:04 pm

I'm considering starting a build-up for my 96 with a 300. I would like to know what others have done to increase the low end torque. I have access to a 96 donor engine for $500. It is fuel injected and has low miles. What i have considered is stripping the block down and trying to "blueprint" the parts and try to better the factory 300. I would like to increase the torque to around 350 ft./lbs. just above idle, and i would also like to shave the head to get more power per unit of fuel burned. aka horse power. I still have to get emissions testing but dont know if my the modifications required would cause my computer to throw a code.how would i remedy these problems and get the performance i want?



Lazy JW
FSP Moderator
Posts: 5385
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:25 pm
Location: Careywood, Idaho

Re: Simple Power Upgrades

Post #2 by Lazy JW » Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:49 am

BigPhill wrote:.... I would like to increase the torque to around 350 ft./lbs. just above idle...


Wouldn't we all! :wink: :lol:

These engines are fairly simple to "blueprint", the bottom end doesn't need much besides some hypereutectic EFI pistons and "zero-deck" the block. If you have money to burn go ahead and have everything balanced but you'll never really notice it at low speeds.

The head is where the most benefit can be gained. Mild pocket porting does wonders on a 300, do NOT increase port size if low-speed torque is your goal. Back-cut the intake valves 30º. Leave the fast-burn chambers alone. Don't get carried away with raising the compression, especially if low-low speed torque is your goal. Detonation is an ugly thing.

If you put too much cam in the EFI will be unhappy, as will the smog Nazis. Low speed torque will also suffer. Some high-lift rockers on the stock cam 'may' help. For low-low speed torque look at the cams from www.reedcams.com. I am running their 188º Economaster cam in my carby 81 F-150. They may have some advice on cam selection for your application.

You already have the EFI exhaust manifolds so about all you can do there is install a high-flow cat. Won't help at super-low speeds though.

It would be interesting to see if a 300 can indeed make 350 lb/ft of torque at say, 800 rpm :? Any dyno jockeys out there willing to take that on?
Joe


74 F-350 300-6, EFI manifolds into single exhaust, Carter YF, T-18B, Dana70 w/4.11, Flatbed dually w/dump bed. Great farm truck!
Image

pssnmn1

Post #3 by pssnmn1 » Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:49 am

what was the part number on those pistons lazy if you don't mind.



BigPhill

Post #4 by BigPhill » Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:59 am

Mild pocket porting does wonders on a 300, do NOT increase port size if low-speed torque is your goal. Back-cut the intake valves 30º. Leave the fast-burn chambers alone.


Could you explain what pocket porting is and how to do it? Pics please. and what is back cutting the valves. I work on small equipment and have never built an engine for a car before but after reading books and talking to a local drag engine builder i would like to tackle a small rebuild. The cam i was considering is the clifford 264H cam. Is there another that might be better for my apps. I'll look at reed cams in just a second. Thanks for the help.



User avatar
StrangeRanger
VIP Member
Posts: 5789
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: Copley, OH

Post #5 by StrangeRanger » Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:23 pm

First off, the stock engine makes 260 ft-lbs @ 2000 RPM. You're looking at increasing torque by just over 1/3 but at a lower RPM. I really do not think this is possible on a normally aspirated engine; if you want to add a turbo, not so much of a problem.

Second, you're working with a '96 so you have MAF which is a good thing but you also have to contend with OBD-II which can be problematical. Anything that is not quite as the processor expects is much more likely to set an error code than on earlier versions. The misfire sensor is going to pick up any variation in power strokes among the cylinders. If you cut the head for a higher CR, it is probably advisable to polish and CC it to maintain uniform ignition characteristics.

Most of the gains on a 300 are to be found in head work it has been discussed over and over again in the forum. Use the search utility and look for posts relating to "porting", "bowl", "CC", "unshroud" and "back cut"

Likewise for the conversion to 1.75 Ch**y rockers with a stock cam. Lots of posts. They will not give the benefit of an aftermarket camshaft, but given the ZDDP issues (that's another search) of modern oils, the gentler ramps of the stock cam have some longevity advantages.


1996 F-150 (tow missile)
1993 Mustang 5.0 (hot rod and auto-x monster)
1982 Tiga Formula Ford (SCCA racecar)
2013 Hyundai Elantra Coupe (daily driver)

User avatar
optikal illushun
Registered User
Posts: 797
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 3:21 am
Location: Coal Region, Pa
Contact:

Post #6 by optikal illushun » Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:29 pm

look for my thread on my EFI head build up. it has pretty much everything one wants to do for low speed torque in one area.


1993 F-150 XLT 4x4 RCLB
Modded 300/Built E4OD/D44 SAS
- Crane coil/Taylor wires/fresh tune up
- Crane cam w/ steel timing gears
- Hedman headers
- Ported intake(s)
- Some kinda exhaust

Lazy JW
FSP Moderator
Posts: 5385
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:25 pm
Location: Careywood, Idaho

Post #7 by Lazy JW » Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:56 pm

pssnmn1 wrote:what was the part number on those pistons lazy if you don't mind.


I used Federal-Mogul # H519P30

The standard bore # is H519P but mine is .030" oversize, hence the 30 suffix, the "H" prefix means Hypereutectic.

You can do a web search for Federal-Mogul for more details.
Joe


74 F-350 300-6, EFI manifolds into single exhaust, Carter YF, T-18B, Dana70 w/4.11, Flatbed dually w/dump bed. Great farm truck!

Image

Lazy JW
FSP Moderator
Posts: 5385
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:25 pm
Location: Careywood, Idaho

Post #8 by Lazy JW » Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:03 pm

BigPhill wrote:...
Could you explain what pocket porting is and how to do it? Pics please. and what is back cutting the valves...


In the "Hardcore Inline Tech" section here at FordSix is an excellent article on porting, also one on the three-angle valve job.
Joe


74 F-350 300-6, EFI manifolds into single exhaust, Carter YF, T-18B, Dana70 w/4.11, Flatbed dually w/dump bed. Great farm truck!

Image

BigPhill

Post #9 by BigPhill » Tue May 01, 2007 11:50 am

thanks for the info. I'll read the posts and ask more questions later



Pinhead
Registered User
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:29 am

Post #10 by Pinhead » Wed May 02, 2007 9:26 pm




User avatar
StrangeRanger
VIP Member
Posts: 5789
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: Copley, OH

Post #11 by StrangeRanger » Wed May 02, 2007 9:52 pm

Nice ad, not. :roll:

Even if this crock were true, which point I do not grantyou, there's not much there for an engine which is maximized for 2000 RPM and limits out at less than 4000.


1996 F-150 (tow missile)
1993 Mustang 5.0 (hot rod and auto-x monster)
1982 Tiga Formula Ford (SCCA racecar)
2013 Hyundai Elantra Coupe (daily driver)

Pinhead
Registered User
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:29 am

Post #12 by Pinhead » Wed May 02, 2007 10:46 pm

StrangeRanger wrote:Nice ad, not. :roll:

Even if this crock were true, which point I do not grantyou, there's not much there for an engine which is maximized for 2000 RPM and limits out at less than 4000.


That isn't an ad... Which part do you refuse to believe? The only part of the post that would cost anything are the valves. The edging and grooving, however, have been proven to work and are absolutely free. You don't have to use the valves to see benefits from edging and grooving. Those two mods are simply there to further increase detonation tolerance and low-RPM torque and stability.



User avatar
StrangeRanger
VIP Member
Posts: 5789
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: Copley, OH

Post #13 by StrangeRanger » Wed May 02, 2007 10:52 pm

Polishing, deburring and CCing the chambers is an obvious part of any performance buildup.

As for the "grooving" it smells like snake oil to me. Unless you can show me before and after dyno traces, done on an independent dynomometer, that verify the claims, I will continue to regard it as such.


1996 F-150 (tow missile)
1993 Mustang 5.0 (hot rod and auto-x monster)
1982 Tiga Formula Ford (SCCA racecar)
2013 Hyundai Elantra Coupe (daily driver)

66 E100 Pickup
Registered User
Posts: 732
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:38 pm
Location: Fresno, CA.

Post #14 by 66 E100 Pickup » Thu May 03, 2007 1:18 am

hmmm... I can accept the concept and explanations as reasonable.

I don't like the moving, unlubricated part in that valve though. That spells trouble.

The de-edging is very well known. The grooving makes sense. Honda at one point in the 70's had a separate small chamber that did swirling and concentrating. Many newer Japanese engines have similar deals going.

I wonder what kind of a groove (depth, shape) could be safely cut in the 240/300 head?

Have to thnk about this one. My 4" Makita would make quick work of that job lol :lol:

John



User avatar
StrangeRanger
VIP Member
Posts: 5789
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: Copley, OH

Post #15 by StrangeRanger » Thu May 03, 2007 8:15 am

Maybe, and I emphasize maybe, on a non-PCM driven ignition. The late model EFI 300s have high swirl, fast burn cylinder heads and ignition curves programmed in to match. Any mod which alters either the onset of ignition or the rate of burn is going to either reduce power output, increase emissions or both. Additionally on the 96, which has OBD-II, the misfire sensor is looking for variances from the expected onset and duration of ignition as well as cylinder to cylinder variances. If you groove the head and the resulting volume is not exactly the same on all six cylinders you will set an error code. Even if it is the same, the variance from expected values very well might.

I take a very, very dim view of all these Mickey Moused modifications that are guaranteed to improve mileage/performance/economy. The guys in the engineering departments at Dearborn aren't stupid (although they are extremely constrained by budget.) Mods like polishing and de-burring the cylinder head cannot be automated and production budgets do not allow for extensive hand work. If readily automated, very low cost mods like these grooves actually did anything, we'd have seen them in production.


1996 F-150 (tow missile)
1993 Mustang 5.0 (hot rod and auto-x monster)
1982 Tiga Formula Ford (SCCA racecar)
2013 Hyundai Elantra Coupe (daily driver)

pssnmn1

Post #16 by pssnmn1 » Thu May 03, 2007 8:22 am

i'm a bottom end guy so you guy raised a whole bunch of interesting
questions for me, but i have just one..

how would you keed that incredibly thick heavy valve from slamming into
the top of the piston with out sawing a 1/4 inch off the top and giving yourself something like 2:1 compression?

not meaning to antagonize just trying to figure out what i'm missing.



User avatar
StrangeRanger
VIP Member
Posts: 5789
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: Copley, OH

Post #17 by StrangeRanger » Thu May 03, 2007 8:58 am

Think about the forces involved in moving that lump at 30 cycles per second (3600 RPM.) It's going to beat the entire camshaft/valvetrain into pulp in a very few hours.

The biggest single weakness of the OHV engine design, and the principal reason for the change to OHC, is valvetrain inertia. The whole idea behind aluminum rocker arms, thinwalled chromoly pushrods etc. has been to reduce inertia. That valve certainly isn't going to help.

If one could work out the whole lubrication business, that design might have some utility on flathead engines. They already have the lowest possible valvetrain inertia, so they could possibly take the hit, but I doubt it.


1996 F-150 (tow missile)
1993 Mustang 5.0 (hot rod and auto-x monster)
1982 Tiga Formula Ford (SCCA racecar)
2013 Hyundai Elantra Coupe (daily driver)

Pinhead
Registered User
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:29 am

Post #18 by Pinhead » Thu May 03, 2007 1:36 pm

Do you guys actually think that the valves would be made/produced/manufactured if they had absolutely no chance of working? They wouldn't make any money on a big venture like that if they had no way of selling them...

The valves are generally 20% heavier than their stock counterparts. They can make them out of hardened titanium and end up being roughly the same weight.

How high does the average 300-6 rev?

From Mike @ Omnivalves.com:

Thanks for you interest in OmniValves ...........

A couple things , Weight the valves are about 20 to 40 percent heavier, depending on the Omni Ring total amount of lift. The lift on the valves varies depending on the use. Also on the weight, the ring floats, since it floats it is not always added to the weight. If you remove the weight of the ring the valve is only about 10 to 30 percent heavier. If we make the valves out of titanium that makes the valve about the same weight as a stock valve.

With stock springs we have had no problem with valve floating or any other problems at RPMS up to 6500 with our omnivalves.

As far as pre ignition, we have no problem at all with pining.

The cam timing does not have to be change, it is the ignition timing that has to be changed, about 10 to 12 degrees retarded. We run most of the motors at 20 to 24 degrees total advance.

Our valves do work good with big overlaps, because there is no negative effect from the overlap, only the good and none of the bad.

But we believe we get the biggest gains on the compression overlap. Something that is rarely talked about because until now nothing could be done about it.


He mentions running 10 to 12 degrees retarded from stock. This is due to reduced EGR that would normally exist from reversion. The more "pure" mixture burns more quickly and therefore less ignition advance is needed.

There have been numerous discussions concerning the valves.

http://www.speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopi ... sc&start=0
http://mpgresearch.com/viewtopic.php?t= ... mni+valves

Somender Singh's Grooves have been proven to work by thousands of individuals that have simply "done it." There have been absolutely NO negative reports.

MPG Research has an entire section dedicated to the Singh Grooves because they are so popular and work so well.

Here is a good thread on the grooves and turbo volvos

Grooves on Speedtalk.com

Singh's Grooves in Ported & Milled vortec heads on stock 350 (Hotroddres.com)

Groove discussion at Performanceyears.com Forums

Grooves at CamaroZ28.com

Grooves at InnovativeMotorsports.com forums

Grooves at Turbo-Mopar.com Forum

Another discussion on the Grooves on Performanceyears.com Forums

Singh Groove testing redux and CFD for groove positioning on Speedtalk.com Forums

Here's a good example of it being used in a racing application:

I have been busy with much of the same. Most of my work is with race cars and an occasional street driven hot rod. Here's an example of my involvement.

A good friend, Glenn was having problems with his super pro 66 Mustang. Some of you may recognize the car from Ford races in the Houston, New Orleans or Gulf Port areas. He runs a small flat tappet cam shaft in a high compression 351 Windsor. The car was running mid to low 10s but he was having problems with trace detonation at launch with a transbrake.

I cut grooves in his AFR heads and he opened the squish clearance. Normally I would expect the reduced squish to create detonation. The result was low RPM power that was too much for the car to handle. I was there for the first night out after the modification. The car ended up in the trailer because he couldn't control the wheel standing.

He has now softened the combination to allow launch with out excessive wheel standing. Needless to say he's convinced.

Here's some picture from his project and other recent activities.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image


71f150 wrote:There is no question that Somender Singh's grooves work. The question is how well do they work?

The answer to that is not that difficult if you can understand how quench or squish works in your engine.

Squish or quench as it is also commonly known, refers to the action created as the piston approaches TDC and the air/fuel between the piston and cylinder head is squished into the combustion chamber. Put your finger in a closing door and it will get 'squished'. Get the picture?

Squish or quench distance is the distance between the piston at TDC and the cylinder head. 'Tight quench' commonly refers to a small distance between the piston and cylinder head and 'loose quench' a large one. Back to our door analogy, 'tight quench' means your finger is gonna hurt a lot and 'loose quench' means its only gonna hurt a bit.

The area occupied by the quench pad and the outer ring where the combustion chamber doesn't quite meet the cylinder wall is called the squish band (or quench band) and the squish volume is simply that area multiplied by the quench distance.

As the piston rises up the bore, the squish or quench volume reduces to its minimum once the piston reaches TDC. As it does so, the air/fuel within the squish volume is expelled into the combustion chamber as the forces of nature try to equalize the differences in pressure between the two. That means that the squish action creates kinetic energy out of a pressure differential. That kinetic energy can be viewed as turbulence within the combustion chamber, even though the piston may be at TDC and for a brief instant not even moving. Turbulence will expose more of the air/fuel charge to the flame front, a good thing for complete combustion and for reducing detonation but a better thing for making more power.

To better illustrate the idea of turbulence - and I really suggest you get over feeling silly about what I'm about to suggest and go try this as it will make a lot of difference in a minute - go fill your sink or a good sized bucket with water, put your hands together at the palms as though you are about to clap underwater and then quickly slam them shut. What happens? You expel the water from between your hands and it goes shooting away from your palms as the surfaces come closer together. Can you see where I'm going with this? If you didn't just try this, you might not see it just yet, so honestly - go try it. For those that already know what happens, you have just simulated "squish".

Now - I'm sure you know what will happen if you cup your hands together, leaving only a small hole at the top and then slam them shut just under the surface of the water. You're gonna make a water jet like you did when you were a kid taking a bath! You remember doing that don't you? Changing the shape of the cup, the speed at which you closed your hands, the size of the hole the water squirted out of....well - you were doing what Somender Singh did with the quench in an engine. He took the underwater clap and turned it into a water jet.

NOW have you got the idea?

Of course, you can still mess things up if you don't cup right, or you have the hole in the wrong spot or you don't let enough water in. So the question of how well the grooves work will be dependent on how well you calculated your squish band, volume, groove depths, shape and direction. You gotta remember, the cylinder already has an amount of 'squish' going on in there. You could be making things better or worse!

Get it right and you will achieve a more complete burn, which in turn will give lower EGTs, higher ETs and better MPGs.
Get it really wrong and you'll likely have detonation!

For those of you who are mathematically inclined and would like to understand the whole concept of squish, I suggest you read chapter 4 of Prof. G.P. Blair's Design and Simulation of Four Stroke Engines. It's all there!

Cheers,
Steve K


The Mad Porter wrote:When we were going through our tear down inspection at engine masters the NHRA tech inspector (Wes Roberson) noted the grooved quench pad on our 434" third place combo. He winked at me and stated "NHRA is using this but instead of grooving the heads some teams are grooving the pistons instead"

Although I have noted little in the way of HP increases I have noted increased detonation resistance for a given static c/r, more stable idle with higher vacuum in my vacuum rule combos and small increases in low speed torque.

Our EMC combo was pulled down to 1,800 / 1,900 RPM with out a hint of detonation and was very stable even when loaded at wot far below what the combo would normally see on the street or track. In high compression octane limited combos they are of some benefit when paired with tight quench.




8)


There is enough information out there on the 'net about the Singh Grooves that I shouldn't have to re-draw it out for you... I found all of these links and quotes in less than 3 minutes. There are plenty of people at MPG Research that Groove OBD-II with excellent results. The added detonation tolerance has allowed for more boost or more static compression, which ever way the individual chooses.

The OmniValves are quite a bit newer and there's a lot less info about them available. However, they have been used with great results and are for sale. I'll have to find a link.

Edging is such a simple idea that most people look past it and consider "deburring' good enough. However, Edging goes much further and allows for much smother flame propagation, and therefore more even pressure on the piston, more torque, and less detonation (less of a pressure "spike" into the squish land).

71f150 wrote:For a more thorough understanding of the grooves, I suggest that you thoroughly read Chapter 4 of Gordon P. Blair's "Design and simulation of four-stroke engines". Be sure to pay particular attention to the pages on 'squish', around page 414 from memory. The answer is all there, in black and white print. No secrets. No magic.
Last edited by Pinhead on Thu May 03, 2007 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.



pssnmn1

Post #19 by pssnmn1 » Thu May 03, 2007 1:45 pm

i personally no nothing of the grooving of which you speak or show,
i was talking about the valve in your previous post with what looks like a huge flapper on the end.

please post more it is a forum after all.



Pinhead
Registered User
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:29 am

Post #20 by Pinhead » Thu May 03, 2007 1:56 pm

pssnmn1 wrote:i'm a bottom end guy so you guy raised a whole bunch of interesting
questions for me, but i have just one..

how would you keed that incredibly thick heavy valve from slamming into
the top of the piston with out sawing a 1/4 inch off the top and giving yourself something like 2:1 compression?

not meaning to antagonize just trying to figure out what i'm missing.


That is one thing that you have to deal with (piston-valve interference). However, the decreased static compression should be more than made up for with the increase in net dynamic compression. Since there is much less reversion, the charge that makes it into the cylinder is forced to stay in the cylinder, making for higher dynamic compression. That's why the combination of the grooves, edging, and the valves work so well; the increased dynamic compression could cause detonation, which the groove and edging counter.



Pinhead
Registered User
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:29 am

Post #21 by Pinhead » Thu May 03, 2007 2:01 pm

StrangeRanger wrote:Maybe, and I emphasize maybe, on a non-PCM driven ignition. The late model EFI 300s have high swirl, fast burn cylinder heads and ignition curves programmed in to match. Any mod which alters either the onset of ignition or the rate of burn is going to either reduce power output, increase emissions or both. Additionally on the 96, which has OBD-II, the misfire sensor is looking for variances from the expected onset and duration of ignition as well as cylinder to cylinder variances. If you groove the head and the resulting volume is not exactly the same on all six cylinders you will set an error code. Even if it is the same, the variance from expected values very well might.

I take a very, very dim view of all these Mickey Moused modifications that are guaranteed to improve mileage/performance/economy. The guys in the engineering departments at Dearborn aren't stupid (although they are extremely constrained by budget.) Mods like polishing and de-burring the cylinder head cannot be automated and production budgets do not allow for extensive hand work. If readily automated, very low cost mods like these grooves actually did anything, we'd have seen them in production.


You should know by now that fighting the computer is the biggest roadblock in getting performance/economy out of any engine. GM ECU programmers have said themselves that they tune FOR THE CATALYTIC CONVERTER.

The grooves are patented, so if any of the manufacturers wanted to put it in their engines they would have to get permission from Somender Singh in India, and probably pay him quite a bit of money for it.

One thing I forgot to mention about the grooves is they extend the lean burn misfire limit. The mixture is mixed so much more thoroughly and has enough extra turbulence that a lean mixture will burn much better. This allows you to run leaner without worrying about burning exhaust valves from the now slower-burning mixture.

This brings up the myth that a lean mixture burns hotter. ACTUALLY, fuel burns hottest at 14.7:1 air:fuel ratio. The reason running lean makes your engine run hotter is because it's burning much more slowly, and therefore the "burn" is in contact with even more surface area of the chamber/cylinders for even more time.
Last edited by Pinhead on Thu May 03, 2007 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.



pssnmn1

Post #22 by pssnmn1 » Thu May 03, 2007 2:03 pm

what do you do pinhead?



Pinhead
Registered User
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:29 am

Post #23 by Pinhead » Thu May 03, 2007 2:08 pm

I'm currently attending college to be an electronics engineer, work as a mechanic at a bowling ally, and work on cylinder heads and tune engines for friends/acquaintances for extra cash.

Edit: Should've been a mechanical engineer, though...
Last edited by Pinhead on Thu May 03, 2007 3:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.



The_Josh_Bear

Post #24 by The_Josh_Bear » Thu May 03, 2007 2:08 pm

pssnmn1, strangeranger: Just click the link he posted first about the valves and read the website, there's no reason Pinhead should have to re-post everything.

SR: I know I'm just a newbie and far be it for me to say anyone's wrong or right, but if you read the site you may see how they work a little better, and with your obviously in-depth knowledge of motor mechanics you should be able to come to an informed conclusion in no time. From the site, these people have been working on this technology for 20 years, and it's just finally reaching the market- I would think it's a good product for that kind of dedication!

The site offers free valve sets to "The right person" so SR you may be a right person being in a racing circle, who knows. I've emailed them about it, too, but I'm just a guy that does all his own work so probably not the right person, but hey it's worth a shot.

I've followed Somender Singh since he was featured in Popular Mechanics(last year sometime?) and there is again no shortage of positive feedback on his mod.

The valve thing interests me greatly because for years I haven't been able to get around the fact that all engines only work at peak efficiency at one single RPM, with no dynamic valve adjustability. What an amazing invention...

Thanks for the post, Pinhead, even if I never get a set I am glad to have finally found a plausable answer to valve timing. :)

-Joshua



66 E100 Pickup
Registered User
Posts: 732
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:38 pm
Location: Fresno, CA.

Post #25 by 66 E100 Pickup » Thu May 03, 2007 3:20 pm

regarding the valves, I want to hear how the lubrication issue is resolved. A moving part in the combustion chamber, without lubrication, is a sticking object waiting to happed. Bit of carbon buildup would seem to me all it would take. Once one of them sticks open or closed, you got an imbalanced engine.

I was just kidding about the 4" Makita, but gees it REALLY looks like some did take a cutoff wheel and make those.

If I had to critique the "look", there are too many sharp edges on the groove. These would seem to be hot spots waiting to detonate.

I can keep an open mind on this one, on the other hand there were lots of comments by those who have done it about honking things up and making combustion worse.

John



Pinhead
Registered User
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:29 am

Post #26 by Pinhead » Thu May 03, 2007 3:28 pm

66 E100 Pickup wrote:regarding the valves, I want to hear how the lubrication issue is resolved. A moving part in the combustion chamber, without lubrication, is a sticking object waiting to happed. Bit of carbon buildup would seem to me all it would take. Once one of them sticks open or closed, you got an imbalanced engine.


Since the burn would be considerably more complete, there would be virtually no carbon build up in the combustion chamber or on the valves. The reduced reversion would also help in this regard. If you look at some before and after pics of a grooved cylinder head, the deposits are like night and day. There have even been reports of the grooved chamber cleaning carboned/fouled spark plugs (as long as they fire). That's another reason it would be good to combine the mods.

66 E100 Pickup wrote:I was just kidding about the 4" Makita, but gees it REALLY looks like some did take a cutoff wheel and make those.


Many people have done just that, grooved a small B&S engine or Makita, etc. just to see the results.

66 E100 Pickup wrote:If I had to critique the "look", there are too many sharp edges on the groove. These would seem to be hot spots waiting to detonate.


That's one of the most common questions asked. However, the increased flame speed and even mixture that results from the groove goes so much further in the anti-detonation direction that the "hot spots" that might normally cause detonation doesn't.

66 E100 Pickup wrote:I can keep an open mind on this one, on the other hand there were lots of comments by those who have done it about honking things up and making combustion worse.

John


Where have you seen these results/comments? I've personally never seen negative results from anyone that actually did the mod. There's plenty of people that shoot it down without trying it, however.



66 E100 Pickup
Registered User
Posts: 732
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:38 pm
Location: Fresno, CA.

Post #27 by 66 E100 Pickup » Thu May 03, 2007 7:43 pm

Where have you seen these results/comments?


Just above where you posted some of the results and comments from folks that have grooved.

I appreciate you bringing this to our attention, I spent an hour earlier looking at the two big threads over on the speed forum.

I am a bit nervous about cutting up my OEM head. The 240 has a huge squelch area and to get mixture flowing correctly it will take a long deep cut. I have no idea where the water chambers are vis a vis that big flat spot in the combustion chamber head.

John



Lazy JW
FSP Moderator
Posts: 5385
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:25 pm
Location: Careywood, Idaho

Post #28 by Lazy JW » Thu May 03, 2007 8:16 pm

Pinhead wrote:...
Since the burn would be considerably more complete, there would be virtually no carbon build up in the combustion chamber or on the valves...


Uh huh. Yup. Ya betcha :roll:

And precisely how many of these have YOU modified and run? Dyno results with pictures would be of great help. Verifiable, of course :wink:
Joe


74 F-350 300-6, EFI manifolds into single exhaust, Carter YF, T-18B, Dana70 w/4.11, Flatbed dually w/dump bed. Great farm truck!

Image

Pinhead
Registered User
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:29 am

Post #29 by Pinhead » Thu May 03, 2007 9:09 pm

Uh huh. Yup. Ya betcha Rolling Eyes

And precisely how many of these have YOU modified and run? Dyno results with pictures would be of great help. Verifiable, of course Wink
Joe


Dyno results comparing a grooved engine to a non-grooved engine would show very little difference. They're not so much a power maker as they are a power enabler. They enable you to run higher compression without detonation. If your engine is detonation limited than it will release the power that detonation was robbing you of.

I've grooved every single B&S engine I've got my hands on. My old long-stroke Tecumseh responded extremely well to grooving and planing the "head" for compression (side-valve engine).

If I could afford to put anything on a dyno you can bet I would. I can barely afford to buy the vehicle that I'm modifying ('66 Ford 100, 292 V8 Y-Block), so dyno runs are pretty much out of the question.

About the carbon build-up and flame propagation:

http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... ight=singh

Automotive Breath wrote:
These pictures are from a 13.5:1 compression 383 that I modified last year. The heads are pro topline 220s, the modifications that were done are the grooves and a clean up porting. The piston to head clearance was 0.038" at assembly, both pictures are after 100s of runs

Image
Image



66 E100 Pickup
Registered User
Posts: 732
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:38 pm
Location: Fresno, CA.

Post #30 by 66 E100 Pickup » Thu May 03, 2007 9:41 pm

Yep, that is about the size of the groove (length and depth) it would take a 240 head. I am still a lamer on posting photos, but the valves/chamber area are even less in proportion than that 351.

I gotta agree though, carbon on that valve is going to be maintenance trouble. There are rich burn conditions (choke on start up, for example). Not to mention crappy fuel.

My $0.02. I wish I knew exactly where the water is on this head.

John



Lazy JW
FSP Moderator
Posts: 5385
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:25 pm
Location: Careywood, Idaho

Post #31 by Lazy JW » Fri May 04, 2007 12:10 am

Pinhead wrote:...
Dyno results comparing a grooved engine to a non-grooved engine would show very little difference...


Ok, so if it would "show very little difference" then what's the point?

Probably the best measure of combustion efficiency is BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption). Perhaps we will gain gobs of MPG?
Joe


74 F-350 300-6, EFI manifolds into single exhaust, Carter YF, T-18B, Dana70 w/4.11, Flatbed dually w/dump bed. Great farm truck!

Image

User avatar
Mercury Mike
Registered User
Posts: 814
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:01 am
Location: Irvine, CA
Contact:

Post #32 by Mercury Mike » Fri May 04, 2007 1:27 am

I'd like to see your truck. I love the 272/292/312. My favorite V8 family.


1967 Mercury Monterey "unnamed to date" 390/V8/C6
1965 Mustang Coupe "Sally" 200/6/C4 (Sold)
1962 Falcon Ranchero "Veronika" 170/6/C4 (Lost)
1965 Mustang Coupe "Betty" 200/6/C4
1956 F-100 Big Window "Henry" 272/V8/3ontheTreeOD
1968 Chevy Winnebago 350/th350
1966 Dodge Coronet Magnum 440 V8/Auto 3 Spd (Sold)
1970 Dodge SuperBee 383 V8 (Sold)

Pinhead
Registered User
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:29 am

Post #33 by Pinhead » Fri May 04, 2007 1:36 am

Lazy JW wrote:
Pinhead wrote:...
Dyno results comparing a grooved engine to a non-grooved engine would show very little difference...


Ok, so if it would "show very little difference" then what's the point?

Probably the best measure of combustion efficiency is BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption). Perhaps we will gain gobs of MPG?
Joe


Like I said before, the groove itself won't give you huge gains. It is merely a way to further decrease detonation tendencies, lean burn misfire limits, and therefore allows you to tune/build accordingly. In other words, where you would normally run 9:1 on a particular engine, with the groove you can usually run 10:1 or 10.5:1 without pinging. That'll give you more torque and horsepower.

Generally the groove is good for a 20% reduction in fuel consumption, too...



User avatar
StrangeRanger
VIP Member
Posts: 5789
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: Copley, OH

Post #34 by StrangeRanger » Fri May 04, 2007 6:38 am

Pinhead wrote:Generally the groove is good for a 20% reduction in fuel consumption, too...


Absolute, total, complete, unadulterated horse puckey. If anything gave a 20% increase in fuel economy, it would be a standard feature of every production engine in the world. Please do not whimper about it being patented. If it performed as you claim, it would have been licensed by someone. (You also clearly have no understanding of how readily patents are broken.)

So point us at independent dyno tests (not anecdotal evidence from some billt Bob who did it o his Ch**y) that verify all these claims you are posting.


1996 F-150 (tow missile)
1993 Mustang 5.0 (hot rod and auto-x monster)
1982 Tiga Formula Ford (SCCA racecar)
2013 Hyundai Elantra Coupe (daily driver)

Lazy JW
FSP Moderator
Posts: 5385
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:25 pm
Location: Careywood, Idaho

Post #35 by Lazy JW » Fri May 04, 2007 9:25 am

Pinhead wrote:...
I've grooved every single B&S engine I've got my hands on. My old long-stroke Tecumseh responded extremely well to grooving and planing the "head" for compression (side-valve engine)...


Long, long ago in the dark days before World War Two a gentleman by the name of Sir Harry Ricardo did significant research work on this very topic of combustion chamber turbulence. His book, "The High Speed Internal Combustion Engine" is the definitive work on the topic.

Sir Harry was able to demonstrate BSFC numbers that are enviable today, and he did it with flathead engines and compression ratios down around 5:1. The very head design on our modern B&S engines, Tecumseh, etc. with the tight squish area was originally known as the "Ricardo head".

The Ricardo head was quite an improvement over the standard sidevalve head. Take a look at a Model T Ford engine sometime, the Ricardo head gave greatly improved turbulence. I have some old magazines from the 1950's that have discussions of the relative merits of the sidevalve vs. the OHV engine in automobiles. Combustion chamber turbulence was touted as being a prime advantage of the flathead; also lighter valve train weight. This in the day when Hudson was still winning stock car races regularly.

We had a lengthy thread on this topic some time back. I used to think there may be something to it but these unsubstantiated claims of 20% improvement in fuel economy pretty much proves this to be yet more nonsense.
Joe


74 F-350 300-6, EFI manifolds into single exhaust, Carter YF, T-18B, Dana70 w/4.11, Flatbed dually w/dump bed. Great farm truck!

Image

Pinhead
Registered User
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:29 am

Post #36 by Pinhead » Fri May 04, 2007 11:07 am

Lazy JW wrote:
Pinhead wrote:...
I've grooved every single B&S engine I've got my hands on. My old long-stroke Tecumseh responded extremely well to grooving and planing the "head" for compression (side-valve engine)...


Long, long ago in the dark days before World War Two a gentleman by the name of Sir Harry Ricardo did significant research work on this very topic of combustion chamber turbulence. His book, "The High Speed Internal Combustion Engine" is the definitive work on the topic.

Sir Harry was able to demonstrate BSFC numbers that are enviable today, and he did it with flathead engines and compression ratios down around 5:1. The very head design on our modern B&S engines, Tecumseh, etc. with the tight squish area was originally known as the "Ricardo head".

The Ricardo head was quite an improvement over the standard sidevalve head. Take a look at a Model T Ford engine sometime, the Ricardo head gave greatly improved turbulence. I have some old magazines from the 1950's that have discussions of the relative merits of the sidevalve vs. the OHV engine in automobiles. Combustion chamber turbulence was touted as being a prime advantage of the flathead; also lighter valve train weight. This in the day when Hudson was still winning stock car races regularly.

We had a lengthy thread on this topic some time back. I used to think there may be something to it but these unsubstantiated claims of 20% improvement in fuel economy pretty much proves this to be yet more nonsense.
Joe


Ok, let me clarify on the 20% business... I didn't mean you will automatically get 20% better fuel mileage. I mean 20% less is needed. After grooving you can easily go 20% smaller on main jets if you have a carb, and you can lean out the mixture on your FI if you're so inclined. That's what I mean, it extends the lean burn misfire limits. This is further extended with the compression bump that most people do when they groove a head.



Pinhead
Registered User
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:29 am

Post #37 by Pinhead » Fri May 04, 2007 11:14 am

Image



66 E100 Pickup
Registered User
Posts: 732
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:38 pm
Location: Fresno, CA.

Post #38 by 66 E100 Pickup » Fri May 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Pinhead, you gotta come up with something better than a report out of India. I am in the agriculutural business and we haven't trusted data from India for these last many decades. It may have validity, etc., but until we see US confirmation of the same results, you don't pull out your wallet and start doing it.

Sorry, but there are reasons for certain prejudices, and that has nothing to do with individuals or their character, just a general "buyer beware" philosophy. If a guy can't take the time to spell "spark" correctly, would you take his typed numbers as vetted and accurate?

John



rmt
Registered User
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 9:56 am
Location: FL.

Post #39 by rmt » Fri May 04, 2007 1:42 pm

This little groove modification still interests me and I can only find that the verdict is still out on it's validity though it appears there is something to it. Since the people that actually are doing and have done something with this particular modification will not be believed with any reports of their progress and findings except with incontrovertible proof perhaps the naysayers, though apparently they have no experience with this modification themselves, could offer their own incontrovertible proof that it is, in their wisdom, [all the things they say that it is].

I can accept "proof" either way. Prove it wrong or prove it right, doesn't matter to me. I just want the truth. But generally speaking I tend to believe those with empirical evidence on a particular given subject far sooner than those without. And those without are still going to have to prove it the real world sooner or later.

Dogma doesn't cut it with me.



mutt
VIP Member
Posts: 1664
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 1:51 pm
Location: toronto, canuckistan
Contact:

Post #40 by mutt » Fri May 04, 2007 1:48 pm

Scepticism is a forgotten virtue. Just read the paper if you doubt me.
But those grooves........hmmmmm. I was all set to rip the head off the truck, and proper sceptics stayed my hand.......looks like, if a feller was to zero deck, and was gonna plane the head anyhow.....well, it LOOKS like it makes sense, it LOOKS like it would be fun to do, dosent strike me as such a deep cut is required, (as to hit water or weaken the cc) and it wouldnt/shouldnt involve a lot of shop time, once the thing was set up.... ....well, whats needed is section cuts of carbed, 240, & FI heads. Not by me, havent the tools or cracked heads laying around. We'd know where the water is, AND the masters of headwork we have here, our Senior Rocket Scientists- could overlay lines showing thier short radius grinding & port profiling.
thats me, big on ideas.



User avatar
StrangeRanger
VIP Member
Posts: 5789
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: Copley, OH

Post #41 by StrangeRanger » Fri May 04, 2007 2:47 pm

Dr. Singh's magic grooves have come up on this site before, probably one or two iterations ago. They crop up from time to time all over the net. But no one who manufactures engines seems to be jumping on the bandwagon. The logical conclusions are either:

1) They do not provide any measurable real world benefit or:
2) They have a major downside which offsets whatever benefits that they do provide.

I would be only too happy to see some valid before and after runs on a normal engine, like a dead stock late model fuel-injected SBC or SBF, run on an independently operated engine dyno equipped with a multi-stream exhaust gas analyzer. Show me that Dr. Singh is smarter than the collective engineering talent of Ford, GM, DCX, BMW, VW/Porsche/Audi, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Fiat, PSA et al. and I will believe it, otherwise I remain a skeptic. :lol:


1996 F-150 (tow missile)
1993 Mustang 5.0 (hot rod and auto-x monster)
1982 Tiga Formula Ford (SCCA racecar)
2013 Hyundai Elantra Coupe (daily driver)

Lazy JW
FSP Moderator
Posts: 5385
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:25 pm
Location: Careywood, Idaho

Post #42 by Lazy JW » Fri May 04, 2007 5:38 pm

Pinhead wrote:Image


Well, this is certainly the closest thing resembling "proof" that I have seen on this topic yet. Sadly, it proves exactly zilch.

In order to make any testing remotely scientific, one must first establish a baseline. Then the base engine needs to be wrung out thoroughly with any changes in timing and mixture carefully documented up and down. This will require multiple runs and all exhaust sniffer data must be included as well.

NOW you can put your fancy groovy head on and repeat ALL of the tests, up and down, CHANGING ONLY ONE THING AT A TIME! And don't forget the sniffer data; no sniffer, no data.

I really, really want to find the Holy Grail of fuel economy. I am sceptical both by nature and by training. I will not hold Dr. Singh's spelling against him, however.
Joe


74 F-350 300-6, EFI manifolds into single exhaust, Carter YF, T-18B, Dana70 w/4.11, Flatbed dually w/dump bed. Great farm truck!

Image

rmt
Registered User
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 9:56 am
Location: FL.

Post #43 by rmt » Fri May 04, 2007 6:13 pm

...They crop up from time to time all over the net. But no one who manufactures engines seems to be jumping on the bandwagon. The logical conclusions are either:

1) They do not provide any measurable real world benefit or:
2) They have a major downside which offsets whatever benefits that they do provide.

I would be only too happy to see some valid before and after runs on a normal engine, like a dead stock late model fuel-injected SBC or SBF, run on an independently operated engine dyno equipped with a multi-stream exhaust gas analyzer. Show me that Dr. Singh is smarter than the collective engineering talent of Ford, GM, DCX, BMW, VW/Porsche/Audi, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Fiat, PSA et al. and I will believe it, otherwise I remain a skeptic.


Perhaps a third logical conclusion is they are not going to use an idea that they are going to have to pay for. The guy that invented the Stanley Work-Mate peddled it for many years, but he wanted points. Stanley finally worked out a deal with him and they both made a fortune. Any one of the big players could have done so years and years earlier. Black and Decker had the rights to battery powered tools for many years, didn't do anything with them. The books are full of examples of big companies missing the boat, or thinking they know what we want when they don't, or resisting change till a new way can no longer be avoided, or resisting till it sinks them.

At any rate none of this has anything to do with us at Ford Six. All of our engines got built a long time ago. Modern engines have many things going for them that are irrelevant to us, except in a costly dream world. And they may have things going for them that make Singh's idea less important. The question is "Does this little idea benefit our old Ford six cylinder engines?" That's all. The results of those tests is what I want to see.

Singh does not have to be smarter than all the automotive engineers in the world combined. He just had to have one little idea that none of them had. That he may have done so is hardly a stretch.



pssnmn1

Post #44 by pssnmn1 » Fri May 04, 2007 6:30 pm

i have a b&s 5.5hp laying in the garage i am willing to test the groove
thing if anyone want to come up with a sutable no dyno test i'll do it
water pump or something on a fresh rebuild before and after grooving.


any takers?



User avatar
shmoozo
Registered User
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:56 pm
Location: Rivervale, Central Antonica

Post #45 by shmoozo » Fri May 04, 2007 8:10 pm

It sounds like this little change would allow a fellow to take an engine that currently requires, say, premium fuel, and run it on super or even regular with all the fuel delivery systems and ignition timing at the same settings.

If it works, that is.

That wouldn't be such a bad thing.

If it works, that is.

Count me among the skeptics until at least one major engine manufacturer adopts the idea.



Harte3
VIP Member
Posts: 2500
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:17 pm
Location: Spokane, WA

Post #46 by Harte3 » Fri May 04, 2007 9:52 pm

There are a lot of mods posted on this Forum and others that the factory engineers did not incorporate in to stock engines. That is why they are called "mods". And there is a lot of anecdotal evidence posted about the tremendous performance gains made from some mods with no before and after dyno test or A/F ratio tests, etc. to back up the claims.

One I just heard of recently from a friend of mine who used to work on NASCAR and drag wagons is to drill very small holes around the head of a piston into the backside of the compression ring groove so that pressure from combustion would force the compression ring tight against the cylinder bore for a better seal. Has anyone seen such a piston in a factory issued car or dyno stats that support this modification?

Having said all that, I don't think I'll go to the expense of taking the head off my engine and having it grooved along with before and after dyno tests...yet.


'83 F150 300, 0.030 over, Offy DP, Holley 4160/1848-1 465 cfm, Comp Cam 260H. P/P head, EFI exhaust manifolds, Walker Y Pipe, Super Cat, Turbo muffler, Recurved DSII, Mallory HyFire 6a, ACCEL Super Stock Coil, Taylor 8mm Wires, EFI plugs.

User avatar
StrangeRanger
VIP Member
Posts: 5789
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: Copley, OH

Post #47 by StrangeRanger » Fri May 04, 2007 10:16 pm

Harte3 wrote:There are a lot of mods posted on this Forum and others that the factory engineers did not incorporate in to stock engines. That is why they are called "mods".


True enough but most of them have not been incorporated because they add undue expense, increase emissions, affect drivability, increase NVH, increase maintenance, or do other things which violate the design parameters which constrain the project.

The example you cited of holes drilled through the piston into the ring groove is a perfect example. The holes are fine on a race engine that lives maybe 12 hours between rebuilds. On a street engine they would allow an incredible amount of crud to accumulate behind and around the rings. Over time this could reduce the very small amount of freeplay that the rings require and decrease ring performance and/or increase cylinder wear, exactly the opposite of the short term performance of the same mod..

Singh's magic grooves are being touted by Pinhead as doing everything but cure the common cold. They would add virtually nothing to manufacturing cost. Licensure costs are obviously unknown, but Singh surely isn't making anything off his idea by not licensing it. So here you have an idea that costs nearly nothing, allegedly improves fuel economy, improves drivability and adds power. It gives any manufacturer who adopts it a huge marketing edge over the competition and regulatory relief on CAFE standards...but no one's interested.

That leaves only two conclusions (See above)


1996 F-150 (tow missile)
1993 Mustang 5.0 (hot rod and auto-x monster)
1982 Tiga Formula Ford (SCCA racecar)
2013 Hyundai Elantra Coupe (daily driver)

Lazy JW
FSP Moderator
Posts: 5385
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:25 pm
Location: Careywood, Idaho

Post #48 by Lazy JW » Sat May 05, 2007 3:27 pm

StrangeRanger wrote:... Show me that Dr. Singh is smarter than the collective engineering talent of Ford, GM, DCX, BMW, VW/Porsche/Audi, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Fiat, PSA et al...


This is one of those things sorta like Sasquatch; i.e. the believers have no definitive proof but the naysayers can't disprove it :?

I want to believe there is indeed something to it, at least maybe for an 'old tech' engine like a Ford Six that really doesn't have the best combustion chamber design nowadays. I do suspect that the gains will be small though, and I get REALLY skeptical when the Ricardo-style flatheads with their already massive turbulence are allegedly 'improved'.

I also suspect that it won't hurt a thing in a 300, and it just 'may' help. Gonna have to ponderize on this some more.
Joe


74 F-350 300-6, EFI manifolds into single exhaust, Carter YF, T-18B, Dana70 w/4.11, Flatbed dually w/dump bed. Great farm truck!

Image

Harte3
VIP Member
Posts: 2500
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:17 pm
Location: Spokane, WA

Post #49 by Harte3 » Sat May 05, 2007 10:55 pm

http://www.herningg.com/projects/groovyheads.html

Link to dyno test before and after on grooved engine.


'83 F150 300, 0.030 over, Offy DP, Holley 4160/1848-1 465 cfm, Comp Cam 260H. P/P head, EFI exhaust manifolds, Walker Y Pipe, Super Cat, Turbo muffler, Recurved DSII, Mallory HyFire 6a, ACCEL Super Stock Coil, Taylor 8mm Wires, EFI plugs.

66 E100 Pickup
Registered User
Posts: 732
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:38 pm
Location: Fresno, CA.

Post #50 by 66 E100 Pickup » Sun May 06, 2007 2:05 am

I dunno what to think about that.

Looks like he honked up two sets of heads trying to figure it out. Sounds like the third rebuild has some issues.

That's some ugly carbon and fouling everywhere from the first set.

Hmm, I am thinking I like my 240 too much to experiment with it like that.

This is very interesting though.

John



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests