The Singh Slash

[automotivebreath]

Hi turbovanman,

I have been using the grooves in drag race engines for about
2 1/2 years. They don't cause any of the problems you mention,
actually I have never had any problems at all; the modified
engines run much better.

As for placement the inventor claims a radial placement extending
from the spark plug outward like the rays of the sun.

[ssheen]

AB and Mike will have better ideas on placement. Guys on turbobricks seem to have run them for a while ok. I have run mine since June. 2 different heads/styles though. No issues that I noticed. Did turn down the timing a bit, to 10. Want to dyno to see where the best timing is.

[Frank]

No offense to AB or Mike, but I would like to say the following.... How can anyone make statements on best placements of grooves when nobody had done a REAL back to back test with the only change being grooves? I have expressed things like this in the past and it drives me whacky.

[automotivebreath]

Frank,
I hope we are able to discuss this with out a argument, that's not my desire.
I'm not here to prove anything but rather communicate my experiences.

I don't know what the "ideal" groove placement is, that's why I posted the
inventors claim. He has been doing this a lot longer than I.

I have done back to back tests with race cars. Take a consistent bracket
car, remove heads and groove, reassemble and run. Some engines respond
better than others, it depends on the in cylinder conditions before the
modification. To someone reading this it may not mean much, to the owners
of the cars it was impressive.

[BadAssPerformance]

No need for any arguing.

I think the concern is just that it needs to be proven on a turbo mopar with detailed back to back dyno results before people will beleive it.

Needs to be the same exact head cut between dyno runs.

Maybe even for a better back to back, the volume of aluminum in the CC that will be removed during the slashing should be removed for the 'pre' test and then filled in for the slash test to make the CC volume the same for both tests.

After this is done, if it makes more power or torque than allowed within the dyno error, then you will have beleivers.

[Frank]

Sorry that came out a little rough and did sound like too much of an attack on you and Mike. Not my intent. I am just VERY scepticle, as you are finding, on the grooves because of the lack of good testing and the lack of proper "reasoning" behind the theory by the original inventor.

To backfill you on our past discussions, all current back to back testing had the head shaved in addition to the grooves. That was at the very list. Most have their heads cleaned up too. That doesnt lend itself to people as being very viable to people like me.


Frank

[Tony Hanna]

From what I understand of the claimed effect of the groove, you can run higher compression on the same octane fuel without detonation right?
If that's the case then doing a back to back test on a turbo engine would be perfect.
Here's how I'd do it. Start with a stock head and do a series of pulls on the dyno increasing boost between each pull and monitoring the knock sensor output. Make a note of the knock sensor output vs. boost pressure.
Then, pull the head, groove, and perform the same test. If the grooves really do anything you should see less knock for the same ammount of boost compared to the ungrooved head.
Make sense?

[automotivebreath]

If improved torque and HP, measured on a dyno are the primary objectives;
improvements in VE would be a better modification to test.

One of the reason that others have not been able to document the
improvements of the grooves on a dyno is because they don't understand
what this modification provides. This is about improving the quality of
combustion. Improvements in combustion can appear rather vague,
especially if the testing is done at high RPM, this is normally the case.

Frank, I am a cylinder head porter, thats how I pay for my racing expenses.
Therefore many of the heads that I have grooved include porting and
cleaning up the combustion chambers. For me these are not a test at all,
merely giving the customer an improved running engine. The benefit to me
is word of mouth advertisement, some of the best there is.

[automotivebreath]

... Start with a stock head and do a series of pulls on the dyno increasing boost between each pull and monitoring the knock sensor output. Make a note of the knock sensor output vs. boost pressure.
Then, pull the head, groove, and perform the same test. If the grooves really do anything you should see less knock for the same amount of boost compared to the ungrooved head.
Make sense?

Tony, This makes good sense to me. The tune up may need adjustment after
the modification but then we are getting away from a "grooves only" test.

[Tony Hanna]

If improved torque and HP, measured on a dyno are the primary objectives;
improvements in VE would be a better modification to test.

One of the reason that others have not been able to document the
improvements of the grooves on a dyno is because they don't understand
what this modification provides. This is about improving the quality of
combustion. Improvements in combustion can appear rather vague,
especially if the testing is done at high RPM, this is normally the case.
<snip>

Just seeing a difference in boost pressure vs. knock sensor output between a grooved head and an ungrooved head (that being the only difference) would be enough to convince me provided the testing was done under identical conditions. A favorable result from a test like that would support the claim of improved quality of combustion.

Comparing a grooved head that's also been shaved or had port work done to a stock head is kind of like a maricle diet pill. You can see that the person lost weight, but did they lose the weight because of the pill or because of the 1200 calorie diet and exercise program that they were on while taking it?

[Tony Hanna]

Tony, This makes good sense to me. The tune up may need adjustment after
the modification but then we are getting away from a "grooves only" test.

Well, I could understand the need for that. As long as the engine is tuned properly to begin with, needing an adjustment would signify that the groove is doing something.
In order to be a fair test though, you'd have to apply the changes in tune to the ungrooved head and compare the results for both along with the same test with no changes in tune.

[turbovanman²]

If improved torque and HP, measured on a dyno are the primary objectives;
improvements in VE would be a better modification to test.

One of the reason that others have not been able to document the
improvements of the grooves on a dyno is because they don't understand
what this modification provides. This is about improving the quality of
combustion. Improvements in combustion can appear rather vague,
especially if the testing is done at high RPM, this is normally the case.

Frank, I am a cylinder head porter, thats how I pay for my racing expenses.
Therefore many of the heads that I have grooved include porting and
cleaning up the combustion chambers. For me these are not a test at all,
merely giving the customer an improved running engine. The benefit to me
is word of mouth advertisement, some of the best there is.

My issue is that theres always something else being changed so you never get a true back to back test. You port the head, change this, add that so you never know what did what.

[Tony Hanna]

My issue is that theres always something else being changed so you never get a true back to back test. You port the head, change this, add that so you never know what did what.

Simon,
That's why I was suggesting a scientific method type of test.
Taking into account the need for adjusting the tune post groove, here's how I'd set it up.

Test 1: Stock head. Raise boost and compare boost to knock.

Test 2: Stock head. Apply changes in tune necessary for grooved head. Raise boost and
compare boost to knock.

Test 3: Grooved head. Raise boost and compare boost to knock.

Test 4: Grooved head. Apply the same changes in tune as test 2. Raise boost and
compare boost to knock.

Comparing the results from test 1 to test 3 and test 2 to test 4 should give you a really good idea of what kind of difference the groove makes as long as you can keep all the other variables that might affect knock under control like IAT, coolant temp, etc.

[automotivebreath]

...In order to be a fair test though, you'd have to apply the changes in tune to the ungrooved head and compare the results for both along with the same test with no changes in tune.

Yes, lean out the un-grooved engine and run the ignition advance both
too far retarded and advanced. Then do the same for the grooved engine.

turbovanman,
I do my testing with my own cars so that I can control the variables.
I have done several "groove only" tests.

That's not saying that I don't learn from other people's engines. Many
times they run a very different combination than my own so every
engine can be a learning experience.

[Tony Hanna]

Yes, lean out the un-grooved engine and run the ignition advance both
too far retarded and advanced. Then do the same for the grooved engine.

Exactly.
That way no one could claim that the results were skewed one way or the other due to state of tune. The results of a test like that would be proof positive one way or the other.

Thinking about this, a person could really pull off the tests on the cheap without a dyno as long as they drove the same stretch of road under the same conditions and were set up to datalog.

[Koreth]

I'd sooner see the tests on an engine dyno, then all variables that could possibly affect or be affected by what you are testing (in this case, the grooves) could be measured and controlled. Water temperature, intake charge temp, spark advance, A:F ratio, EGTs, etc. Of 'course, that would take some money. I know I've never heard of engine dyno hours being inexpensive. However in such a situation you could see just how much of what kind of effect the grooves have, and there would be no ambiguity about it if the tests were properly done.

So, who has an engine dyno handy?

[turbovanman²]

So, who has an engine dyno handy?

Me, I have access to one but I am sure it won't be cheap.

[Terry Again]

I think this is the kind of talk the sailors of Columbus's time had a lot? Then the first boat came back and so on. Go ahead and get the back to back dyno pulls done with stock heads grooved and ungrooved with no tuning!!! And then back to backs with tuning and see where that leads And then we all can agree to disagree and stop using band width or what ever on this subject!! I don't have the grooves yet,only because I don't have the money to have it done!! Not because I can't find a book to support it!!!!!
Now I feel better!
Terry
I'm brain damaged,what's your excuse?!

[turbovanman²]

Ok guys, I have been contacted thru a PM and someone wants me to do it, not sure how much money he is fronting but if anyone wants to chip in, that would help.

I will baseline my van, use a wideband and I guess advance and retard the ignition timing.

If anyone has the exact placement for the grooves on a G-head and post them up, that would be great.

Any other idea's on the dyno would be great. Keep it in point form please.

[Frank]

ummm.... my thoughts?


must be an engine dyno. need 2 heads. need to be swirl since they have max quench area compared to a g-head.

first head needs to be stock. second head needs to shaved slightly to raise compression.

engine dyno stock head and tune for proper fuel which 2-3 pulls to achieve this. perform 2 more pulls with timing advances approaching knock limit and then the 2nd being with timing backed off slightly.

pull off the head and put the milled head and repeat the test. repeat the steps above.

your at 10 pulls now. goove both heads and repeat. that is 20 pulls to get all data needed. they all need to be done on the same day.

that is the only way to do this that you can control the methods, not get fustrated with the car, have weird results with an automatic, and get the best fidelity of acceptable data.


frank