[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by dci

To get this subject back on track. I think we should break the four cycles down into their own categories. Intake, Compression, Ignition(combustion), Exhaust. All four of these events have a bearing on Torque / Horsepower out put. How do all the different events effect each other if at all? How can we make each of them better? How can one help the other? Can a normally aspirated engine consume more more air than it's actual cubic inch? These are just a few questions we need to ponder.

Let's start with the induction cycle. Ask questions even if you think they stupid. In my opinion there are no stupid questions. Some of us may be at different knowledge and skill levels than others and that's okay. My objective is to educate everyone and someone out of left field may have an idea that no one else has thought of yet. Our brains are amazing computers and if challenged will find a solution. Some times it just takes a different perspective.

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

[dci]

I agree that no one including myself is going to share hard earned info on how to get max power. All I'm asking is that we try and help bring some of the guy's at the lower level up to speed a little. I think that it will help guy's like myself, and other engine builders when it comes to explaining to a customer that may have a little better understanding why we need to do what we do. I spend almost as much time educating a guy on why a big port and big tube header will make more power as I do actually building the engine. I used to hold a class once a month in my old shop on engine theory and basics back when I had more time. When I first started the class I only had 3-5 guys a month until the word starting getting out.Then it started to grow every month until I couldn't hold the classes any more. I had about 100 guys coming a month and it was standing room only. My rent went up in that location and I had to move to a smaller building and didn't have the room any more to do it. What I found from having those classes was the complete opposite of what I anticipated. I thought that the guy's would get the knowledge to do their own thing and possibly buy parts or have machine work done by my shop. Instead I had guys dropping off engines to be built, cars to be tuned, and everything in between. So educating these guy's didn't create competition it created more higher end work. The reason was, they wanted it done right and were willing to pay me to do it for them even though I showed them how to do it themselves. So I guess the moral of the story here is educating is good, knowledge is great, and people are willing to pay to do it right. Kind of reminds me of a country song LOL.

[dci]

I'm not sure if JSPONT is saying does or does not make a difference, but I can tell you first hand it does. I have a Super Stock racer that picked up all through the rpm range with a certain texture in a simple place. I cannot divulge who it is and what he picked up, but it was very substantial.

[johnta1]

I agree 100%, but then you'll get the naysayers that say it won't work.

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by johnta1

I agree 100%, but then you'll get the naysayers that say it won't work.

You retard you are the naysayer. You think what you think is just as smart as what everybody actually does that actually does things.

Jeezzzz!!!!!!!!

Real world data is your damn coatings aren't worth anything. even the people that own coating companies don't coat their own pro stock and NASCAR engines. But it's physics right? Because you said so

[johnta1]

Real world data is your damn coatings aren't worth anything. even the people that own coding companies don't coat their own pro stock and NASCAR engines. But it's physics right? Because you said so

Got your panties in an uproar still?



Just because you can't make it work, doesn't mean it doesn't work?

[JSPONT]

Originally Posted by dci

I'm not sure if JSPONT is saying does or does not make a difference, but I can tell you first hand it does. I have a Super Stock racer that picked up all through the rpm range with a certain texture in a simple place. I cannot divulge who it is and what he picked up, but it was very substantial.

It does work but it is a catch 22, there seem to be a threshold. My friends wet flow bench helped me but also confused me. It would be to long to explain and he might get upset. LOL the point being physics is helpful but real world is the best case after you get a good base. Then throw in a power adder and really make your head spin. I wish I was smarter or had a ton of money to test and tune all the time!!!!!!!

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by JSPONT

It does work but it is a catch 22, there seem to be a threshold. My friends wet flow bench helped me but also confused me. It would be to long to explain and he might get upset. LOL the point being physics is helpful but real world is the best case after you get a good base. Then throw in a power adder and really make your head spin. I wish I was smarter or had a ton of money to test and tune all the time!!!!!!!

You're on the right path.

[johnta1]

My friends wet flow bench helped me but also confused me. It would be to long to explain and he might get upset.

Does this mean no one ever put one on an engine and dyno'd or ran it to see if the results supported his views of it not working?

[JSPONT]

Originally Posted by johnta1

Does this mean no one ever put one on an engine and dyno'd or ran it to see if the results supported his views of it not working?

No they have and that's what's confusing. There have been nascar engineers that have been let go for a head redesign that was based on "physics" was supposed to be 12.5 cfm more per cylinder. The porter did as told, after many many hrs of work, the motor made 40 less h.p.

I know its a good base, but if physics was perfect there would be no reason to jet a carb. Yet there has not been 1 carb that I bolted on a motor that I could not get to run better. And that's just a small parts of the equation.

The next problem is, a guy try's something and it works, then they keep going and hit a wall, everyone bust there balls and says you failed....but guys like this (dci, langer,fulton, leech...) are gather real good info weather it works or not, sometimes they don't say anything after that. It is like going to college, they school themselves. It takes time and money. A bunch of those guys should get together and have a convention once a year and share there findings, it would better the hobby.

[mike leech]

Lol

[dci]

Please keep in mind that dyno's, flow benches, and wet flow flow are only a tool. Talk to any of the Pro's and they will tell you that any one of those tools can and will lead you down the wrong path. If the data is analyzed and interpreted correctly meaning from real world analysis these tools can help you. I can remember not so long ago everyone thought that 320 fps for intake port speed was gospel. Now we are finding out that it's application specific and not one size fits all. I'm not saying slower is better or faster is better. Just saying it all depends on the combo and application. Texturing in my opinion is a great tool for certain area's of the intake track. Texturing is also good for other area's like race car body's, wings, golf balls, etc. Texturing can also hurt in some area's if you need the air to cling to the surface. Engine science is advancing rapidly right now because of the tools available to us now as amateur racers. Not so long ago most bracket racers didn't even care what their heads flowed or if they had the correct header for their application. Now these same guy's are starting to realize the importance of the complete combo from carb to tail pipe. We are in an advanced stage of technology in everything we do in life right now. Some of it is advancing so fast that we cannot even learn today what we need to know before it changes tomorrow. I still like the saying: Lead , Follow, or Get the Heck out of the way !!! PG version LOL.

[John Langer]

That can't be his, correction factor way too high.

[John Langer]

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

[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?

[John Langer]

Originally Posted by mike leech

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

I have no idea what your intake looks like. A few posts up you said it was all hacked up and welded???

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by John Langer

I have no idea what your intake looks like. A few posts up you said it was all hacked up and welded???

Originally Posted by mike leech

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

Was using talk to text. It should have read isn't not is an

Originally Posted by mike leech

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

Is three times clear enough? If I didn't know better I would think you were trying to give me weight..... And maybe you were even caring a little. :-) I think you might have a picture of it on your phone

[John Langer]

Only intake pic I have on my phone is of my new billet intake...

[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 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

Congratulations you found someone else to discuss ideas with and not do anything.