The "Super 2 liter plus" outline revealed!

dstar · Post by **dstar** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:56 pm

Pile, you can make it *stick* to the piston better by *roughing up* the surface of the piston with dimples.

Take a well used piston and the two spots where the carbon is the
thickest, is where it needs to be *rougher*.

Don

HAM Inc · Post by **HAM Inc** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:50 pm

Grooves, notches, dimples, "speed-bumps", and various methods of speeding flame propagation or improving wet-flow characteristics have been around for generations. I'm amazed this guy managed to get a patent. Perhaps no one ever tried before.

I have played around with various methods myself, but could never draw any conclusions, which isn't to say there isn't value to such attempts, but rather that measuring effects of such subtle mods requires serious testing. Would anyone out there to care to fund that sort of thing? Probably not in our circle, where the benefits would probably not be as valuble as in others.

I have been able to make some wet-flow gains, but, while the method I use is not all that new, I would rather not disclose the technique as I have yet to see it used on aircoold heads.

Santas Brother · Post by **Santas Brother** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:14 pm

I'm guessing it would be easy to optimize these sorts of ideas
in a stationary engine,that runs at a constant,relatively low,speed.

Like Len says,how many people have the testing equipment PLUS time/energy/motivation resources to actually do a realistic test ?

If it works,the results will be measureable.If not,there is no hiding.

Plastermaster · Post by **Plastermaster** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 5:52 pm

Santas Brother wrote:I'm guessing it would be easy to optimize these sorts of ideas
in a stationary engine,that runs at a constant,relatively low,speed.

Like Len says,how many people have the testing equipment PLUS time/energy/motivation resources to actually do a realistic test ?

If it works,the results will be measureable.If not,there is no hiding.

According to the article I read, the groves made a big improvement in the performance and economy. That is not a quantifiable measurement, nor is the testing up to laboratory snuff, but with Indias cars and gasoline, it was a qualifiable if not quantifiable improvement. What kind of testing do the SS pistons have? Yet it is obvious they can work if applied properly. He just needs a Dyno.

Ron

Post by **Piledriver** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:21 pm

Don't make too much popcorn, they'll only be a few seconds long

I'll work on making a few this weekend, same parameters and view angles, jus different plug locations.(full runs take ~12 hrs on an Athlon 2800+ Barton)

Don, with the std center/top plug location, the flame kernel in the sim never reaches the piston before it heads off, so there's nothing to "stick" to.
(BTW, the "stick" was meant figuratively-- The flame front is well developed on that run, and is simply able to keep up as the piston accellerates away from TDC, I suspect surface finish as little effect in the sim, altho it IS something you can alter... Hmmm.)

The top/center plug setup simply appears to need much more timing vs the one next to the squish pad, will check peak pressure timing in logs.

It's supposedly a well developed model, referenced and validated on some real well instrumented lab test engine, so the data should be at least somewhat realistic, or at least educational in a comparative manner, between test runs of the simulation.
(does assume perfectly premixed air/fuel mix tho at the moment )

I can see how the grooves might work from 2 different angles---
They MAY or may NOT shoot a directed jet of the contents of the squish area right at the plug//flame kernel, accellerating the burn.

They also may act as a sort of fuse/burn path or such, allowing the flame kernel to spread to the remotest reaches of the combustion chamber, faster, while still maintainig a good squish area..

Or both.

Only testing will tell us anything for some definition of "sure".

dstar · Post by **dstar** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:49 am

Plastermaster wrote:------------
What kind of testing do the SS pistons have? Yet it is obvious
they can work if applied properly. He just needs a Dyno.

Ron

BUWAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA!
And again.......
BUWAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA!

Larry was testing on the dyno when Jake was still shitting green in his diapers!

No offense Jake......

He uses testing machines that even Len would salivate over!

As was stated, Larry found that in a constantly changing rpm engine,
the trench isn't worth it.

Go read his site, better yet, send him an email or get on his forum
and start asking questions. That's what John, who commisioned the
VW SS pistons did.

BTW, the basis for the SS idea came from a PORSCHE mech/tuner,
Michael something or other. Larry just did YEARS of testing on the dyno
and his products were tested IRL (track).

SS pistons DO work, but most folks don't understand what they do,
how they do it, or why even bother! They do NOT make more HP on
the dyno than an engine with similar CR. They make more TORQUE,
over a wider RPM band because the CP is utilized over more optimized crank angles.

Larry has been testing longer than a lot of you out there have even
been alive.....

Don

HAM Inc · Post by **HAM Inc** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:55 am

There is always some sort of compromise (aka downside) when throwing any variation at an ICE. It may not be obvious, but it is there.

Direct an over abundance of fuel charge at the plug at once and it may foul, which would lead to a hotter plug.

Why have the squishies (so far) not lived up to there promise in Jakes testing. I suspect there is some dynamic that is difficult or maybe even (gasp!) impossible for an engineer to model.

Just a thought.

dstar · Post by **dstar** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 7:37 am

Because every one of the squishies utilized in VWs(that I know of)
haven't used a cam optimized for it, they just change the cam timing
of a regular, *off the shelf" cam.

The SS design ALLOWS extremely high CR, but most that I have
heard about haven't even gone over 14:1.

You can do that without SS pistons.....

Now, where SS REALLY shines, is when you bump it up to 16-20 CR.

No detonation, and the benefit of 20:1 CR AND the higher CP spread
out over more favorable crank angles!

As far as Jake's testing, what Jake needs is to have someone that
understands all this and can fine tune a cam profile to optimize the
SS pistons.

I might be moving to either Koyota, Japan or back to Frankfurt,
Germany in the next few months, so................

Don

MASSIVE TYPE IV · Post by **MASSIVE TYPE IV** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 7:39 am

I have enough on my plate! Someone else can play with this one!

dstar · Post by **dstar** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 7:47 am

MASSIVE TYPE IV wrote:I have enough on my plate! Someone else can play with this one!

I unerstand(probably more than MOST!) that you are up to your eyeballs!

What I'm saying is that SS works, but none that I know of had a cam
ground specifically for them, nor have they been used in applications
where they were DESIGNED to be used in, ultra high CR RACING engines.

Anyone can run 14:1, START at 16:1 and go up wit hthe testing, THEN
you'll see increases.

How about a BFCS of 37 Jake? Now THAT is efficiency!

Don

MASSIVE TYPE IV · Post by **MASSIVE TYPE IV** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 7:58 am

Best BSFC I have gotten is a 49 on pump gas...

HAM Inc · Post by **HAM Inc** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:14 am

20:1 on pump gas? On an engine turning streetable RPM's?
I'll believe it when I see it. And I'll have to see it to believe it. I'll have to cc the heads myself and then see them installed and run.

Methanol burning sprints and midgets are at the threshold at 20:1 and they turn 9,000RPM's.

Santas Brother · Post by **Santas Brother** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:20 am

Don:
The last I saw,Larry's forum,and forum archives,had been discontinued.
Too bad,'cause there was some good ideas there.

Any idea what he's up to lately ?

dstar wrote: He uses testing machines that even Len would salivate over!

Go read his site, better yet, send him an email or get on his forum
and start asking questions. That's what John, who commisioned the
VW SS pistons did.
Larry has been testing longer than a lot of you out there have even
been alive.....

Don

MASSIVE TYPE IV · Post by **MASSIVE TYPE IV** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:23 am

He probably got pissed at all the friggin "Book worms" that questioned his findings.

Those guys have a real way of pissing you off!

dstar · Post by **dstar** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:42 pm

MASSIVE TYPE IV wrote:He probably got pissed at all the friggin "Book worms" that questioned his findings.

Those guys have a real way of pissing you off!

Amen Jake, that is what all the hubbub was about in 85.

See, LEN doesn't even believe!

Len, he now builds Honduh engines with his own blower mods and
doesn't EVER calculate CR. He says he wouldn't be able to start the
engines on the dyno if he did!

He estimates that they are OVER 23:1.

Ian, go here:
http://www.theoldone.com/articles/

Start at the bottom SET, then read each SET upwards.

I.E. The Soft Head part 1, The Soft Head part 2. The Soft Head part 3.
THEN read Swirl Power part 1, then Swirl Power part 2, yadda yadda, yadda. TEHN Talking Heads part 1 through 7.

Remember, I started talking to him 12 years earlier than when
he PUBLISHED anything. He only PUBLISHED it because of the
controversy and now EVERY automobile engine has his designs
utilized in it.

BTW, the original SS pistons were made for the Ford LIMA 429 engines
with HEMI heads. They were designed to complement the HEMI chamber
and provide detonation resistance.

Nowadays, the *dome* is the dish in the piston ,and the swirl is built
into the head's CC.

Don