JUCNBST wrote:You have to email them your engine and year for the order and they you can do it over the phone or via paypal. Send an email to sales@crank-scrapers.com Or you can call
them @ 727-808-8602. Just ask for Kevin. I sent them my eagle rods a while back so they have a template for the scraper to work with them as well just let them know if your running them or the stock.........
Yeah, I emailed them the info, just never got a response. Maybe I'll try calling next time.
MadJack wrote:OHV notec wrote:I can't help but think that the intake valves may be a little shrouded, and it might be more beneficial to use a standard +1mm valve instead, but still open up the chamber to the gasket on both sides...
Don't forget that the heads afre canted valve design, just like a BBC. The intake valve is angled towards the center of the chamber and unshrouds itself as the lift increases.
Right, but low-lift flow is mucho importante, si?
slowolej wrote:Nominal dimensions for Eagle crs5700sw3d rods for inline six are 5.7" long,2.00 rod brg dia, 1.029" big end width, .927 pin dia, and 680 gram weight. I don't think they're worth buying unless you're planning to get custom pistons. And I've heard the inline six rods are actually fairly strong. I'm going to be asking some of the "old timers" to tell me stories about building power with the I6 back in the day.
Let us know what you find out. I'm going to be having some custom flat tops made down the road for an NA build, so I'd be willing to help split a couple sets.
slowolej wrote:OHV notec wrote:Slow, have you seen the Somender Singh groove design concept? I want to see someone try it on an LN2, and it looks like you may very well be done before me or Jack.
Ehh?? No, that's a new one. I guess I'll be using Google tonight.
I hope you have some time, the reading gets addicting. Make sure to check out whats been done with them on various forums as well. Reports showing more than 30% fuel mileage gain in some cases, 300+degree drops in EGT, massive increases in low-end torque, a faster burn time (so base ignition can be retarded, and negative torque reduced), and people climbing hills in 4th gear on 87 octane and 10:1 SCR with no detonation...
Our stock chamber design makes implementing this very practical, along with an 'edging' concept I found which also aids greatly in flame propagation after maximum cylinder pressure has come and gone.
I've had a lot of free time at work lately, and I've spent at least a dozen hours reading on this, and still going.
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
Hmmm... while i only took about a half hour to peruse the Somender Singh site itself.... I'm still really skeptical. Considering that the dyno results posted on his own site seem to show conflicting gains/losses... One truck made 20 whp more but that was after also milling the heads and doing other headwork, completely negating anything we could have learned from the before and after because there are too many variables. The dodge 360 race engine showed some gains at part throttle, but showed a 1 hp loss at full throttle... But then again, there was no mention of any tuning changes to either and the information does seem to indicate that best power would be made by removing a lot of the stock advance.
Any links in particular that you have to better examples Notec? I mean, its not like I couldn't just do it to a stock head and dyno back to back against another stocker... but just because it does or doesn't make more power on a stock head doesn't necessarily mean it will work once modifications have been done.... It just seems to me that if it really did work that well, considering how ridiculously simple it is to machine a groove like that, that a LOT more people would have picked up on it by now.
Arrival Blue 04 LS Sport
Eco
Turbo
Megasquirt
'Nuff said
There are some engine builders now applying it with great success. While the Singh site does not contain much itself, there are numerous forums out there who have been applying this concept for a while now. There is a link section on the Singh site which leads to many discussions. I spent a while on
this site yesterday, where people seem to be having excellent results.
The groove by itself most likely will not do anything but lower EGTs and decrease emissions, by increasing the amount of fuel which is completely burned before the exhaust valve opens. The gains come when you start upping compression, as the increased burn wards off detonation. I saw someone reportedly running 13:1 on pump gas without problems.
Obviously, the larger the quench area, the more this benefits the motor. Ours is a decent size, but the large dish on the pre-98 (and even 98+, although not to the same extent) pistons doesn't allow much, hence my need for custom pistons.
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
Quote:
One truck made 20 whp more but that was after also milling the heads and doing other headwork, completely negating anything we could have learned from the before and after because there are too many variables.
If you go to that guy's website ( the link is in the article you read) he says things went sour real fast. He's pulled the heads, showed pics of the carbon buildup (looks like the pistons got eaten a bit) and he's trying again. Also, first forum message I read was from motorcycle guy... lotsa work different groove configurations, no real gains.
I'm a bit skeptical, too. I'm still looking around, though. If some have success and other don't the trick might be in identiying the common thread between successes.
-->Slow
OHV notec wrote:The groove by itself most likely will not do anything but lower EGTs and decrease emissions, by increasing the amount of fuel which is completely burned before the exhaust valve opens. The gains come when you start upping compression, as the increased burn wards off detonation. I saw someone reportedly running 13:1 on pump gas without problems.
Obviously, the larger the quench area, the more this benefits the motor. Ours is a decent size, but the large dish on the pre-98 (and even 98+, although not to the same extent) pistons doesn't allow much, hence my need for custom pistons.
Ah, but kemosabi, if you're burning more fuel/getting more complete combustion, you
should be seeing more power, no? After all, that is how an internal combustion engine makes power, the more fuel it can actually burn in one power stroke, the more energy is being released. But I get what your saying. I still need to read through that one forum, but I'm still only seeing a lot of people saying "oh, it works great" without any quantifiable evidence to back it up. Show me a before/after datalog and/or dyno where the only changes were adding the grooves and re-tuning to suit them, and I'll be a believer, but all i'm seeing is, "well we added the grooves and changed this and that, and then our E/T dropped by .03 seconds so it must have worked", or most times, even less than that. Like I said I still have reading to do but I'm a little "eh" about the whole thing so far. Part of that I guess is because this is a very low-cost change that's promising big results with little to no downside... and you know what they say about things sounding "too good to be true".
Arrival Blue 04 LS Sport
Eco
Turbo
Megasquirt
'Nuff said
Scarab (Jersey Jay 1.8T) wrote:OHV notec wrote:The groove by itself most likely will not do anything but lower EGTs and decrease emissions, by increasing the amount of fuel which is completely burned before the exhaust valve opens. The gains come when you start upping compression, as the increased burn wards off detonation. I saw someone reportedly running 13:1 on pump gas without problems.
Obviously, the larger the quench area, the more this benefits the motor. Ours is a decent size, but the large dish on the pre-98 (and even 98+, although not to the same extent) pistons doesn't allow much, hence my need for custom pistons.
Ah, but kemosabi, if you're burning more fuel/getting more complete combustion, you should be seeing more power, no? After all, that is how an internal combustion engine makes power, the more fuel it can actually burn in one power stroke, the more energy is being released. But I get what your saying. I still need to read through that one forum, but I'm still only seeing a lot of people saying "oh, it works great" without any quantifiable evidence to back it up. Show me a before/after datalog and/or dyno where the only changes were adding the grooves and re-tuning to suit them, and I'll be a believer, but all i'm seeing is, "well we added the grooves and changed this and that, and then our E/T dropped by .03 seconds so it must have worked", or most times, even less than that. Like I said I still have reading to do but I'm a little "eh" about the whole thing so far. Part of that I guess is because this is a very low-cost change that's promising big results with little to no downside... and you know what they say about things sounding "too good to be true".
Ah, young grasshopper, how much power the fuel burn makes is dependent on where the piston is in its stroke. In this case, most of the extra burn comes from under the quench pads (see pics) late in the cycle. There is not much cylinder pressure at this point. If the extra fuel burn was happening more towards maximum cylinder pressure (approx 12-degrees ATDC optimal), you would get more power as you said. Now, there is a little more fuel burning at the beginning due to the faster flame propagation (and possibly an increased quantity of flame fronts, but without any other mods your compression ratio drops as well. The main power gain will come from the faster burn requiring less timing, which results in less negative torque, as well as the ability to raise compression due to the faster burn preventing detonation.
I'm not sure where the .03s came from, I've seen a good number of people knocking a tenth or more off, and those are 10 second cars, so a tenth is a lot.
Quote:
BEFORE Mod
timing = 45 deg
idle = 1100 rpm
AFTER Mod
timing = 5 deg less
idle = 600 rpm
temp = 20 deg F. less
jets = 4 sizes smaller
1/4 mile = 0.3 sec faster
4 mph faster
Quote:
The benefits of the groove were immediate.
Reduced fuel consumption
Improved idle quality
Lower ET and more MPH
"The one thing that impressed me the most is how the oil runs clean. I'm changing it because it's time, but it looks like the day I put it in!"
Quote:
Quote:
I have recently modified six engines to Somender's specifications. Results have been interesting to say the least. Testing continues on various different combinations. Don't draw conclusions until you try it or talk to someone that has.
1. Clean oil like I have never seen before
2. Idle quality much improved
3. Less likely to have detonation, run more compression or boost
4. More torque and power
5. Total clean burn
6. Reduced fuel consumption
Quote:
After the modification running a .070" quench clearance the engine ran clean with 40 degrees total advance with no signs of detonation. I am slowly coming down on the total advance and I have not lost bottom end and I have been rewarded with a stronger midrange and top end charge. Presently I'm running 36 degrees total, I plan on going to 34 degrees total to see if it responds.
Quote:
The fuel consumption measured at the drag strip has been reduced near 35%
Quote:
It pulled like crazy when we tried it...never been anything even like it...then it promtly snapped the gearbox chain and totalled the 'box
Quote:
Just received April issue of Popular Hot Rodding which is the publication that sponsors the "Engine Masters Challange". Starting on page 25 is a teardown of the current winner of this years challange. The 508 cu in BBC built by Tony Bischoff and team at BES Racing Engines made 838 HP on 91 octane pump gas. On pages 26 and 28 there are clear pictures of the grooved piston with five slots, three on one squish pad, two on the spark plug side pad. (There are no grooves on the head.)
I think the fact that everyone's coolant temps are dropping 20-degrees F (EVERYONE's lol) says something at least.
The only back to back dyno I can find is the Mopar motor, where grooves were the only modification. There were slight lower RPM gains, even with the slight decrease in compression. If anyone finds some sort of quantitative 'detonation prevention' testing, let me know, as that's my main interest with these.
I also found
this concept which is interesting. The valve idea is being called "power valvz" elsewhere it seems.
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
actually, the power valvz thing refers to Powre Haus' valves which actually have a flapper to prevent intake reversion when used with wild cams... it looks like a cool idea, but i can't imagine how much weight you'd add to the valvetrain by using them...
And like I said man, people SAYING that they're getting 35% more fuel efficiency or whatever is just that, something they say. There are too many variables in the way they are calculating these figures to give them too much stock. In street car, even if you fill up your tank when your gauge reaches the "E" line, depending on the size and shape of the tank, condition of the sending unit, angle of incline/decline that the car is traveling on, you could potentially have 1 or two more gallons in the tank than you might when you see that "E" reading while parked in your driveway. Then when you calculate based on that, you get a false result. Now if someone with a fuel cell setup were to purge the fuel lines by starting the engine with an empty cell, put in a perfectly measured amount of fuel, then drive X miles, then purge the lines again, fill with the exact same amount, and then drive X miles again and compare the amounts of fuel left, that would be something I could consider a lot more accurate. Just by seeing the way the gas gauges in every car i've owned have had a tendency to move by almost 16th of a tank increments up OR down within five minute spans of driving is enough for me to give ZERO stock in a factory sending unit as an instrument of measurement.
I mean, I want to believe in this groove thing, but since most of these people seem to be utilizing this on carbureted or otherwise older vehicles with no actual datalogging to see knock, IAT, a/f ratio, etc... i mean, its just like people in here who say they put on an intake and got 10 mpg more. I've never liked this old school method of "listening for ping" for tuning timing either lol... Like I said i'm not shooting anything down, but all I've seen so far is buzz, and not actual data. I've seen enough times on here and other car forums where people are so deep in denial about a mod not working, or making things worse, that just to justify doing it or make themselves feel better they continue to swear up and down that it works great, which is what makes me weary. If any of these people had back to back logging of knock activity compared to IAT, A/F, EGT, etc... then at least that would be something. For instance if someone with a 2200 graphed their total timing versus all those other factors tried grooving the heads and then would log again , and then maybe try lower octane gas or whatever, and different loading, and actually had graphed results from an actual semi-scientific instrument rather than seat of the pants impressions I could much more readily accept this. As it is, I'm hopeful, but remain skeptical until someone actually manages to provide that kind of evidence.
Arrival Blue 04 LS Sport
Eco
Turbo
Megasquirt
'Nuff said
Back to the job at hand...
Found a set of rods and kept with the OHV tradition. 215, 230, and 250 ci I6 Chevy rods are 1.029" wide at the big end, 5.7" center to center, and larger all over. I'm going to try and take pictures and measurements today.
-->Slow
slowolej wrote:Back to the job at hand...
Found a set of rods and kept with the OHV tradition. 215, 230, and 250 ci I6 Chevy rods are 1.029" wide at the big end, 5.7" center to center, and larger all over. I'm going to try and take pictures and measurements today.
-->Slow
So, how is this going?
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
Good timing. I god the head back from the machine shop Friday and spent a little time last night making some measurements.
Stock head = 35cc chambers
My head = 28cc chambers
Calculated cylinder volume (minus chamber) for 94-96 stock engine = 274.75 cc based on 8.875 comp ratio
Calculated compression ratio if I bolted my head on a stock engine: 10.8:1
Stock intake port volume: 167cc
Stock exhaust port volume: 67cc
Current springs are "Z28 Springs" and specs can be found in GM Performance Parts book. IIRC it's 110# @ 1.70" installed height and 382# / inch rate. Springs are installed at 1.70" and machinist says "no problem" to machine .090" out of spring pockets.
I Still can't find my postage scale to weight the rods. Simple obswervations about the 6 cyl rods are they're heavier, bigger, and have better balance between small and big rod ends. 2.2 rod on lh side
I'm hoping to meet up with someone with a flow bench on Friday.
-->Slow
Well, someone is making progress...
10.8:1 + turbo =
stock Z28 springs? which motor? I know my stock LS1 springs are conical, and use stock LN2 retainers...
And wow, those rods are massive...we could have some fun with those
Just out of curiosity, what is the piston diameter on those motors?
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
Quote:
10.8:1 + turbo
Gads no! I couldn't afford the fuel for that monster.
Quote:
stock Z28 springs? which motor?
lol on me. The "ole" is showing in Slowolej. Springs were used with "Duntov 30-30" cam in '67 - '69 302.
Quote:
Just out of curiosity, what is the piston diameter on those motors?
Bore is 3.875" for the 230 / 250 engines. The pistons are huge (v. heavy). The I6 rods are used in Ford 2.3l racing engines so should have plenty of strength.
-->Slow
MadJack wrote:Slowolej, I too, am glad to see someone making some progress. Don't feel bad your not the only one remembering the Z28 springs! I didn't think there would be a problem with machining .090" from the spring seats.
I'm starting to look into the LS6 valve springs. The installed high and overall rate seem to be fine, but I can't seem to find the seat pressure, anyone have this info? If not that, how about the free height?
I think I have the LS6 info at home. IIRC, they allow less total lift than the LS1 springs.
(note: there are two versions of LS6 springs, they are different colors)
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
wow thats amazing would those work on a 2200 head or just the 97- 2.2l? this is great stuff another option for valve springs
Ah, I thought you meant stock LS6 springs, as dual springs are awfully pricey...
OHV CAV - for the most part, any spring you can use on a 2.2L can also be used on a 2200, but you will have to turn the spring seats down an extra .110". We have not verified seat thickness yet, so it's risky as of now.
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
Whew! What a roundabout way to find this.
For the 3800 there are a few choices of valve springs:
Stock –tested at ~70# pounds seat pressure @ install height of 1.72
LS1 –tested at ~70# seat pressure @ install height of 1.80
LS6 blue –tested at ~90# seat pressure @ install height of 1.80
LS6 yellow –tested at ~90# seat pressure @ install height of 1.80 *
Comp 105 –tested at ~108# seat pressure @ install height of 1.80
Comp 130 –tested at ~135# seat pressure @ install height of 1.80
Comp dual spring-tested at ~135# seat pressure @ install height of 1.80
Comp 150 -tested at 155# seat pressure @ install height of 1.90
From
http://www.zzperformance.com/grand_prix/articles1.php?id=53
*This spring appears to have been used after some breakage issues with the "blue" spring. This spring is part no 12586484 (individual) or 12499224 (set of 16). They appear to be manufactured by Mubea.
From
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=1669083&page=2&highlight=valve+springs
Didja see the lightweight "race" lifter part no 88958689? About $240 for a set of 16? I've got to wonder how close the internals are to the LT1 lifters.
And speaking of lifters, I've heard form a gentleman who is using the LT1 / LN2 hybrid lifters in a 2.2 powered roundy-round car making 235 wheel hp N/A. He tells me the lifters are run to 7k rpm every week with no problems. So, Notec, does that meet your standards for testing?
-->Slow
Uh, could someone please fill me in on this LT1/LN2 hybrid lifter deal? It sounds like the way to go, period.
Go beyond the "bolt-on".
slowolej wrote:And speaking of lifters, I've heard form a gentleman who is using the LT1 / LN2 hybrid lifters in a 2.2 powered roundy-round car making 235 wheel hp N/A. He tells me the lifters are run to 7k rpm every week with no problems. So, Notec, does that meet your standards for testing?
it's about time you proved your theory lol. I already have put together two sets of 8, and was working on two more sets until I found it impossible to seperate the LT1 lifters from this batch for some reason
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
Quote:
impossible to seperate the LT1 lifters from this batch for some reason
Eh?? As in, the snap ring comes out but plunger and other parts will not release? Are they new lifters? Often the assembly lube is strong enough to keep parts together. Warming the lifters or soaking them in solvent such as acetone or laquer thinner often helps. If you can get the plunger to turn in the lifter body that might also help.
You're building quite a few lifters. Are you planning to run 2 engines? The OHV answer to the twin cam, maybe?
-->Slow
slowolej wrote:
And speaking of lifters, I've heard form a gentleman who is using the LT1 / LN2 hybrid lifters in a 2.2 powered roundy-round car making 235 wheel hp N/A. He tells me the lifters are run to 7k rpm every week with no problems. So, Notec, does that meet your standards for testing?
-->Slow
is there anyway to get more info about that car. Is he a member here?
slowolej wrote:Eh?? As in, the snap ring comes out but plunger and other parts will not release? Are they new lifters? Often the assembly lube is strong enough to keep parts together. Warming the lifters or soaking them in solvent such as acetone or laquer thinner often helps. If you can get the plunger to turn in the lifter body that might also help.
You're building quite a few lifters. Are you planning to run 2 engines? The OHV answer to the twin cam, maybe?
Yeah, got the snap rings out, and the plunger will spin, just won't come out. Lifters had ~40k on them. I'm going to try to feed some pressurized air through the plunger and check valve, see if that might pop them out. I don't want to heat them too much for fear of affecting the springs, but I may try some thinner.
As of now, I'm just planning on building a couple extra motors to try some diffierent things out, but dual motors has crossed my mind lol.
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
Quote:
I don't want to heat them too much for fear of affecting the springs, but I may try some thinner.
I'm only talking about a tiny amount of heat, like to about 200 deg or so. Enough to affect the oil viscosity. Put the lifters on your engine after running it or drop them in a pan of boiling water. If you use air be sure to watch for high velocity parts.
-->Slow
Ok, here's some more information and a small progress report. I've disassembled the '97 "core"
engine. It's not in bad shape. It's very clean inside. Bearings and cylinders look beautiful, the
timing chain and tensioner are in great shape, and it even came with a fairly newly reman cyl
head. I left the block and crank at the machine shop and brought the rest home for parts. Block
will be measured next week to ensure that standard bore will be ok. I talked with the shop owner
about finding a torque plate, and he thought the only way to get one would be to manufacture it.
Yikes. They've been so helpful to me, I really don't feel right asking them to take time to build one
of these for a single engine. Does anyone know where I might beg, borrow, or steal one of these?
During disassembly I was able to get some measurements. First were of the cam. I compared
the numbers from my engine to those published in a Clevite camshaft book (
http://www.clevite.com/publications/EXWO-300.pdf ) and found what I consider very minor
discrepancies. Here's the published numbers:
Lobe Lift: Duration @.006" Duration @.050" Lobe Center
I .287" 265 198 116
E .287" 265 198 110
Valve events @.050"
Intake Opens 18 ATDC Intake Closes 36 ABDC
Exhaust Opens 28 BBDC Exhaust Closes 10 BTDC
I measured valve events to be 1 degree retarded from the above values. Measured lobe lift
was actually .291" on both lobes, making valve lift .437" vs .431" published. .006" difference is
barely worth a mention. I did measure valve events @.002" for anyone curious (great for some
versions of dyno software). Remember, these are probably 1 deg retarded from OE intentions.
Valve events @.002"
Intake Opens 13 BTDC Intake Closes 84 ABDC
Exhaust Opens 59 BBDC Exhaust Closes 38 ATDC
I was also able to measure the compressed thickness of the Fel-Pro replacement head gasket as
.062" thick and the ID of the compressed gasket @ the cylinder as 3.56". My block deck height
measured out to 8.535, within the spec of 8.46" + / - .13", and the piston measured out to .018"
below the deck, yielding a quench distance of .080" which is somewhat large. If I choose to use
a Fel-Pro gasket I could actually end up with positive deck height to get quench nice and tight.
If I have time I'll gather a few numbers on the con-rods tomorrow. I've found my postage scale.
-->Slow
