The Only 3300 lb. Buick V6 in the 8s using...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't know how cold and dense the air is being that it is compressed, but I do agree that the air can be pushed through a small port easier on a turbo engine. Still, when you reach that mach number, it's all over.

Valve shrouding. Good point.
Matching engine size to the flow capabilities of the heads. Another good point. Let's carry this point further.

Think about this. What affect does crankshaft stroke have on piston speed at a given engine rpm?

Mach number......I'm forgetting my Fluid Dynamics......I remember about laminar flow and Reynolds numbers having to be less than 2300 or bad things happen to flow rates..... alot of the rest of it is gone from my memory....LOL It all is about velocites and cross sectional area at the smallest point. I assume this will be in the bowl area.....as air passes the valve seat. How do you increase flow without increasing the velocity to the point where the flow goes turbulent and drops off????? Easy..... increase the pressure. Ideal gas law right??

Shorter strokes decrease piston speed as compared to longer stroke engines at the same RPM. I would suspect that means a longer dwell at TDC compared to longer stroke combos at the same RPM. I assume this plays into pulse scavenging......
 
Mach number......I'm forgetting my Fluid Dynamics......I remember about laminar flow and Reynolds numbers having to be less than 2300 or bad things happen to flow rates..... alot of the rest of it is gone from my memory....LOL It all is about velocites and cross sectional area at the smallest point. I assume this will be in the bowl area.....as air passes the valve seat. How do you increase flow without increasing the velocity to the point where the flow goes turbulent and drops off????? Easy..... increase the pressure. Ideal gas law right??

Shorter strokes decrease piston speed as compared to longer stroke engines at the same RPM. I would suspect that means a longer dwell at TDC compared to longer stroke combos at the same RPM. I assume this plays into pulse scavenging......
I'm going to work on a long reply for the mach number question. It's a very important point and I want to do it justice, if I'm able.
For the stroke question, a shorter stroke slows piston speed for a given rpm. What this also does is slow flow velocity through the intake port. The slower piston slows down the draw of air and fuel past the intake valve and through the intake port. What this does when a person is restricted by a certain valve size or port size is to allow an engine to run up to a higher rpm ceiling before the intake port velocity reaches that undesireable mach number or choke point.
 
With stroke and a given small port or valve, you have 2 choices. Increase stroke and have the port choke earlier in the rpm band, or decrease stroke and have the port choke at a higher rpm. Of course, there are trade offs in both situations. Engines optimized for each stroke scenario, but using the same intake valve and port would end up being very closely matched as far as 1/4 mile performance.
 
In my case, I chose to go with a shorter stroke. Along with moving the rpm ceiling of the engine higher for my given port and valve size, what else did I accomplish in the way of increased durability? Clue. It has to do with the crankshaft.
 
Mach index. This is largely taken from Performance Trends EAP manual.
Engine airflow potential per cycle (VE) depends on its average intake flow coefficient, intake valve flow area, cylinder size, speed of sound in the air, and RPM. These five terms are combined into one value called the Mach Index, or Mach #. In simple terms Mach # relates the average velocity of the intake charge past the valve to the speed of sound. The speed of sound is theoretically the maximum velocity possible past the valve, which would give a Mach # of 1.0. A Mach # of .4 states the average velocity is only 40% of the maximum possible velocity.
 
In the 1940s, C. F. Taylor and co-workers from MIT found a good correlation between volumetric efficiency and Mach # for several engines with conservative cam timing. The correlation showed that volumetric efficiency (and therefore power) would start to drop sharply when Mach # increased above approximately .55. However recent studies show poor correlation if intake cam duration increases significantly. The 1979 paper includes a correction for intake duration; the higher the intake duration, the lower the Mach #, and the higher the RPM for peak volumetric efficiency.

General "rules of thumb" concerning the Mach # include:

Peak volumetric efficiency should occur in the range of .3 to .5 Mach # with no tuning effects.
Volumetric efficiency drops rapidly in the range of .6-.8 Mach #.

The Mach # is calculated based on the static intake valve flow area, not the dynamic flow area which can be different due to valve train bending and tossing.
 
I guess I'm starting to loose some with the intangible stuff.
This has got to be what is making the difference with my combination. With everything appearing to be so wrong where it comes to the components I've picked for my combination, the intangibles has got to be what is allowing me to be the only person performing 8s with a heavy car and 1.835" intake, 1.50" exhaust valves. It's the only explanation.

Here is another interesting story about my combination.
I eluded to the fact that I used an engine analyzer computer program to come up with the specs of this combination. The engine analyzer I use is the same that many other well known engine builders use to study engine combinations. Kenny D. and Mike at TA Performance are just a couple that use this same program. I recall a story from Mike where he was putting together an engine for a dyno pull challenge. The program ended up predicting within 5 hp of what the engine actually ended up producing on the dyno. The engine builder who turned me onto the program also had similar stories.
When I was first putting this present combination together I had just blown up my first V6 build that was using typical add-ons and specs that were very popular at the time. The only difference was that I was using methanol for fuel. I went through a learning curve with the fuel that taught me some very important lessons. Lessons that were responsible for the blowup of my first and second build. Anyway, the second build is where I really got into the engine analyzer to come up with the best specs to use for the next build. The whole combination would revolve around the heads. The M&A heads with the small valves. I concentrated mainly on camshaft specs and the manifolding specs, particularly matching the exhaust manifolding to the camshaft specs, to hopefully make up for the obvious shortcomings of the heads.
I wanted a higher rev point than what was typical in the Buick crowd, but not so high to make valvetrain durability an issue and maintenance a pain. Hence, the shorter stroke that I picked for the engine. I picked 7800 rpm as the redline.
After completing the build and doing some testing, it became obvious that the real world numbers were far off of what the engine analyzer predicted. Remember, I had only expected around 600-700 bhp to be the maximum I would be able to pump out of these heads. The sim is what gave me this assumption.
Today, I calculate that the engine is producing around 1130 bhp. A far cry to what the sim originally promised me.

to be cont.
 
What was the program not accounting for? It's pretty hard to put incorrect numbers into the program for cold hard specs such as bore, stroke, valve lift, etc. Specifications that can be hard measured are hard to screw up when they get entered into the program. I have checked the program over a multitude of times to see if maybe a spec was falling into a grey area that I may have entered wrong. There's only one area that is grey that I ended up playing with to get the program to match the real world results.
 
What was the program not accounting for? It's pretty hard to put incorrect numbers into the program for cold hard specs such as bore, stroke, valve lift, etc. Specifications that can be hard measured are hard to screw up when they get entered into the program. I have checked the program over a multitude of times to see if maybe a spec was falling into a grey area that I may have entered wrong. There's only one area that is grey that I ended up playing with to get the program to match the real world results.

VE or BSFC
 
VE or BSFC
BSFC was not making that much difference. VE on the other hand, in the form of head flow numbers certainly did.
The head flow numbers I originally entered into the program were taken right off the sheet that my head man handed me after he flowed the heads after his port work. Like I already stated, the number for the intake side was maxed at 210 cfm. From what others have reported so far, that is not out of the realm of what a ported M&A head should be doing without extensive modification.
 
I want to see what it does when you put some boost to it..... the top TSO guys are running north of 40 psi......

You never commented on my comment of wanting to see what you could do with the same attention to detail and testing on a 274 ci S2 or a LSX turbo motor......
 
I figured, OK, my head guy just got the flow numbers off a little bit. I'll just start pushing the flow numbers up a little bit at a time until I start getting some numbers that are close to matching the real world results.
I stepped it up 5 cfm at a time for countless times. Power slowly creeped up. I ended up with an intake flow curve that topped out at 312 cfm! :eek:

What does my combination have that the software isn't accounting for that would make me have to enter head flow numbers that are more akin to a Stage II head to get sim and real world results to match?
 
I want to see what it does when you put some boost to it..... the top TSO guys are running north of 40 psi......

You never commented on my comment of wanting to see what you could do with the same attention to detail and testing on a 274 ci S2 or a LSX turbo motor......
:biggrin: That would be interesting, wouldn't it.
 
40 psi. Wow. I haven't even dared go past 31 psi, just because my car is barely holding onto my home track. I'm predicting though, that I'm going to see very little gains past 31 psi due to these heads starting to hit that Mach #. I'm looking forward to getting a new set of heads on the car. Of course, they're going to get some special DRW attention before they go on the car. My intake will need to go through some extensive modification to match the changes I plan with the heads.
 
40 psi. Wow. I haven't even dared go past 31 psi, just because my car is barely holding onto my home track. I'm predicting though, that I'm going to see very little gains past 31 psi due to these heads starting to hit that Mach #. I'm looking forward to getting a new set of heads on the car. Of course, they're going to get some special DRW attention before they go on the car. My intake will need to go through some extensive modification to match the changes I plan with the heads.

There is probably several classes running big boost.... heck... some of the pump gas alky boys go north of 30 psi...... I can only wonder what kind of boost it takes to make 8445's trap in the mid 140's on an even heavier car.....with a little 70 turbo....
 
Don the way your car dances on your home track .. I guessing you got an easy 7.5 on a track that will hook .. Keep up the hard work .. Get that exit stage left under control ..
 
I'm already noticing diminishing returns past about 24 psi with these heads. There might be 33 maybe 35 psi in her, but nothing past that, I'm sure.
One of the plans before I put the car down for O/H will be to ramp in some higher boosts numbers at the end of some passes to see if there is anything up there. Check the fueling, too.
 
I'm already noticing diminishing returns past about 24 psi with these heads. There might be 33 maybe 35 psi in her, but nothing past that, I'm sure.
One of the plans before I put the car down for O/H will be to ramp in some higher boosts numbers at the end of some passes to see if there is anything up there. Check the fueling, too.

Got to have some big valve springs.... IMHO that is very important on most turbo motors running big boost.

What kind of spring pressure do you run now?
 
Does the sim take into account the backpressure?

You may not realize how much effect the backpressure has on hp.

The new line of pro-mod turbo's from precision focus on this, as well as some compressor improvements.

A good friend of mine has some nice data from a 94mm with the old design G-trim to the new HP series. The car picked up .2 and 10mph in the 1/8 from a turbo change alone. It's running faster than cars with 106's were running just 5 years ago.

Since you seem to think it's not backpressure helping the combo make this power with your heads, what do you think it is?
 
Got to have some big valve springs.... IMHO that is very important on most turbo motors running big boost.

What kind of spring pressure do you run now?
180-190 on the seat. The spring rate is 620 lb/in.
You're right about the spring pressure. Even the sim is showing that I'm on the edge of exhaust valve float at 31 psi.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top