[Half-Inch Stud]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

The laws of physics show them self in many ways. Next time you talk with your local air flow expert. Ask him if he has ever changed a ports design because it did not sound right? Stan

Well seems we've gone on in a proper direction.

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by Half-Inch Stud

Yes. Ahem, well when a 1st CYL fires and commences the POWER stroke, no other CYL shall fire u til That 1st CYL has opened the exhaust valve. This is a rule for multi-CYL engnes trying tomattian > 2.3 HP/CYL.

Next, When a CYL inhales to make max POWER, the air in motion ( momentum) shal be used to feed THAT CYL's next inhale. Therefore a tuned runner length.

Next, No such thing as a shared PLENUM. Each CYL will have perfectly timed inhale momentum individually, or with it's " POWER-BALANCED" other CYL. Too tough to do with the V8, so individual.

Next, no such thing as raw fuel washing the runners and walls. Therefore get the runner to be a straight shot.

Time for comment/concurrance before I goes on.

What no mention of scavaging effect and how overlap effects the fill? Oh wait we dont think of such things.....only calculatards can think......we just get lucky and have to ask others to think for us.... And explain how we got lucky.

Not refering to you mark

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by johnta1

Read the gawd damn question?



I want the Cd of the wagon and the GP.

I already knew the truck thing is better, in fact I use one.
If you don't know the answer, just shut up.
Don't go spewing really off-topic BS to try and muddle the topic.



PS, I do have the data for them and you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

John, since you have never done the job and can't possibly understand the data, why would I wish to confuse you any further. If you have the data, why are you asking me for the data? Why would I waste my time with your childish wants. Your posts are gibberish and make no sense. Your calculators are all copies of other people's work. Most are not correct to the degree that they are worth using.

How about some data on your Twin Turbo Dragster that you said you were going to build?
Still trying to sell the parts that you never used?

In the same time frame, I have been working on every generation of ECOBOOST and there are now 1,000,000 Ecoboost engines out there on the road. I do things, you talk and ask for data that means nothings. I wasted my time with you once, never again.

Tom V.

ps keep after them Mike, about the coatings, dyno corrections, etc.

[johnta1]

Speaking of gibberish?

Nothing you wrote makes sense.

Original reference:

Replying to Glenn.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnta1

I know your GP is big, but the wagon aero is probably not that good either?

You spouted off:

For the same frontal area, a wagon will go thru the air with less aero drag vs a regular body as the longer body keeps the air straight for a longer period of time and less aero effect at the rear of the vehicle.

You said it was wrong, so you show the proof.

I never said anything about trucks, or the other crap you keep changing the subject with.

[JSPONT]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

The laws of physics show them self in many ways. Next time you talk with your local air flow expert. Ask him if he has ever changed a ports design because it did not sound right?

Stan

Stan the guy I am referring to has raised ceilings, port angles, filled combustion chambers, taken cc away, changed shapes took 18 degree heads make them 10 degree all in the name of testing and seeing what these changes do. He finds out what works and what does not, even how texture effects intakes, and heads..

Sitting behind a keyboard and guessing or getting close does not count, only in horseshoes and hand grenades.

I might have him join the Pontiac community and shake things up a bit. I don't think he would bother thought. He does hands on stuff 12 hrs per day.

[JSPONT]

By the way I am done with this because I just noticed the thread title. Lets bring it back on track, sorry.

[Half-Inch Stud]

Originally Posted by mike leech

What no mention of scavaging effect and how overlap effects the fill? Oh wait we dont think of such things.....only calculatards can think......we just get lucky and have to ask others to think for us.... And explain how we got lucky.

Not refering to you mark

Yea I know. Ya know that getting back to topic would be cool though. Obvious your engine series didn't rely on 3 blind squirrels.

I'm fortunate to know an engine designer that has no respects for the V8 engine configuration to attain the 2.3 HP goals. As the fella has attained such HP/CID merit (higher) in the 70's with other engine configs. So, yea if folks are getting NA V8s past 2.3 then they are doing so with a poor intake and exhaust layout simply due to the VEE. In other words:

We need to throw the intake manifold out, and think out of the box for feeding per CYL. Same goes with the exhaust.

When I & O piping are done then "we" can sort out the cam requirements. Then...onto coatings!? HIS

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by Half-Inch Stud

Yea I know. Ya know that getting back to topic would be cool though. Obvious your engine series didn't rely on 3 blind squirrels.

I'm fortunate to know an engine designer that has no respects for the V8 engine configuration to attain the 2.3 HP goals. As the fella has attained such HP/CID merit (higher) in the 70's with other engine configs. So, yea if folks are getting NA V8s past 2.3 then they are doing so with a poor intake and exhaust layout simply due to the VEE. In other words:

We need to throw the intake manifold out, and think out of the box for feeding per CYL. Same goes with the exhaust.

When I & O piping are done then "we" can sort out the cam requirements. Then...onto coatings!? HIS

I would love to go sheet metal and dual 4s but no class for it but top sportsman. As close as i would get to individual intakes. Just my opinion.

We are on track for 2.2 with silly old edlebrock rpm heads and a cast single 4.

Coatings.....as soon as they are worth power I'll be all in

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by mike leech

What no mention of scavaging effect and how overlap effects the fill? Oh wait we dont think of such things.....only calculatards can think......we just get lucky and have to ask others to think for us.... And explain how we got lucky.

Not refering to you mark

Post #385

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Don,
I know it is a 4 cycle engine and you want to look at each of these cycles, but some of the important things happen during the overlap of cycles.

Stan

Stan

[pastry_chef]

Some say the ticket for well beyond 2.3 HP / cube of Pontiac have been sitting on a crate for 4 plus years.

Originally Posted by NHRASuperStock455SD

The new RAV engine being done must be 2.9HP per cubic inch to be on top 2.7 to be competitive. With our existing ports 2.7 for this engine is very capable, we must work very hard to get 2.9. We will post this project as it happens.

I think a mild set of RAV heads on a stock block 400 is worth 2HP per cubic inch.

[bpenrod]

Originally Posted by johnta1

Speaking of gibberish?

Nothing you wrote makes sense.

Original reference:

Replying to Glenn.


You spouted off:


You said it was wrong, so you show the proof.

I never said anything about trucks, or the other crap you keep changing the subject with.

The 1Gary of PY

[GTO Dan]

Originally Posted by bpenrod

The 1Gary of PY

Wow...that is harsh.

[John Langer]

Originally Posted by mike leech

I would love to go sheet metal and dual 4s but no class for it but top sportsman. As close as i would get to individual intakes. Just my opinion.

We are on track for 2.2 with silly old edlebrock rpm heads and a cast single 4.

Coatings.....as soon as they are worth power I'll be all in

Nmca na 10.5 allows 2x4's and any intake.

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by John Langer

Nmca na 10.5 allows 2x4's and any intake.

Yeah but you have to carry 20% of cubic inch in extra weight. A little over 100 pounds is hard to justify versus the increase to be had.

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by GTO Dan

Wow...that is harsh.

Not really.

[John Langer]

Originally Posted by mike leech

Yeah but you have to carry 20% of cubic inch in extra weight. A little over 100 pounds is hard to justify versus the increase to be had.

Well it is worth it for a single fo'. If a cast intake is hacked up enough and welded on it gets hit with weight for a fabricated one any way. Can always have 2 tops made and put dual 4's on for Mir???

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by John Langer

Well it is worth it for a single fo'. If a cast intake is hacked up enough and welded on it gets hit with weight for a fabricated one any way. Can always have 2 tops made and put dual 4's on for Mir???

Yeah but my intake is an all hacked up and welded to death so i'm good there

[John Langer]

If you going to take the hit for a fabricated intake ya may as well have one.

[Stan Weiss]

Actually this past weekend I was talking to a friend of mine (former aerospace engineer) about this. I will not go into detail as physics is not welcome here. But we were talking about the unsexist of all of the cycles the power stroke.

Stan

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by John Langer

If you going to take the hit for a fabricated intake ya may as well have one.

Right but you understand mine is not all fabricated and welded up right?