Fourtitude.com - Progress report from those with Grooves on the cylinder head
Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    Fourtitude.com


    Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
    Results 1 to 25 of 48
    1. 12-13-2006 08:26 PM #1
      Know few had tried these and had good results with similar list of mods. I wanted to provide an update and look for some new options to fine tune things.
      After driving the car for a season with the list of mods and changed including the grooves in the cylinder head, I'm please with the power increase, but the dyno chart shows I'm running lean 14:1 from 2k to 6k then goes rich. I suspect an air leak ?
      My list of mods made at the same time the grooves where done:
      * Self ported head, polished chambers ( but didn't get a valve job at this time)
      * Adjustable cam gear
      *Kent Gs2 cam (based on the lift measurements and the internet user claiming to have the same cam with the same markings)
      *Increased compression to 9.5:1
      *All out ported A1 intake manifold ( flows %25 more than stock)
      * A2 throttle body
      * custom intake air tube
      * new Mercedes brass 190E injectors

      Few things i have noticed:
      1) the engine runs cool(er) lower oil temp etc then last year..
      2) been running with US spec cheap gas with out destroying the engine
      3) The engine wants to idle at 500 rpms, It seems that the engine would benefit from a different ignition curve, like less initial. ??
      4) I don't know about mileage, I don't keep track- I don't think I'm getting worse mileage than before all my performance upgrades. So lots more power for the same mileage is good.
      5) Power increase is noticeable
      About Grooves: http://scientificrabbit.com/in...id=14

      My Setup info in the signature..
      Winter tare down plans are to fix the grooves length and up the compression to 10:1.
      I need to do a compression test too before I tare things apart.
      Cheers


      Modified by ny_fam at 1:28 AM 12-14-2006

      Modified by ny_fam at 1:30 AM 12-14-2006


      Modified by ny_fam at 3:42 PM 12-24-2006

    2. Remove Advertisements
      Fourtitude.com
      Advertisements
    3. Member
      Join Date
      Aug 20th, 2005
      Location
      Temecula CA 92592
      Posts
      4,436
      Cars
      MK3 VR Jetta
      12-13-2006 09:02 PM #2
      cool [IMG]http://*****************.com/smile/emthup.gif[/IMG]

    4. 12-15-2006 08:05 AM #3
      Anyone else running grooves have experience to share ?
      Cheers

    5. 12-15-2006 08:45 AM #4
      Based almost completely on the threads on this forum I decided I would do this to my race engine when it comes out this winter for some other upgrades. The other upgrades are aimed at improving intake airflow and I will probably switch to a tube exhaust header from the dual outlet cast manifold I have now. Since some of the changes reported from adding the grooves are similar to improving engine breathing it may be difficult for me to isolate the improvements from the grooves alone. However I am expecting mostly improved high RPM power from the intake and exhaust changes and anything else I see I will probably attribute to the grooving.

    6. 12-18-2006 12:41 PM #5
      wclark,
      When you get around to putting the grooves on please take some pictures and share them on the web here.
      Cheers

    7. 12-19-2006 05:38 AM #6
      anyone know of a place that does this in the PNW?

    8. 12-19-2006 09:39 AM #7
      I don't know of any place anywhere the specializes in putting grooves in. The people who paid someone to do the work have paid the mechanic who did the head work for them to cut the grooves.
      I'd check out the inventor's website out, you should be able to connect with someone there.
      http://somender-singh.com/
      Cheers

    9. 12-19-2006 12:41 PM #8
      Quote, originally posted by ny_fam »
      wclark,
      When you get around to putting the grooves on please take some pictures and share them on the web here.
      Cheers

      I will be happy to.

    10. 12-19-2006 04:25 PM #9
      I am interested in a picture as well.. im slightly confused about where to put the grooves.. and what length/depth. I've got a high compression 8v that I know would love to idle at 500 rpms and I just moved into a place with a garage.
      if you show me yours, I'll show you mine

    11. Member
      Join Date
      Apr 3rd, 2001
      Location
      Vancouver Island, BC
      Posts
      2,746
      Cars
      84 GLI 2.0L 8v
      12-19-2006 11:46 PM #10
      It's on my long list for the next fun engine.

    12. Member speedtek40's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 8th, 2005
      Location
      Saskatchewan
      Posts
      1,762
      Cars
      1998 Audi A6 avant (last of the C4's)
      12-20-2006 12:26 AM #11
      These are the pics ny_fam sent me


      Change is inevitable......progress is optional

    13. Member The Quinner's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 10th, 2001
      Location
      PDX, OR
      Posts
      898
      12-20-2006 09:32 PM #12
      More power to you for trying "new" things and trying to expand your understanding of things...and, I can agree that there might be more turbulence on compression...
      But...what happens on the firing stroke? Wouldn't the grooves allow the "bang" to dissipate instead of being concentrated? What about the intake stroke? The exhaust stroke?
      A four stroke has just that...four strokes. There is a LOT of science missing from this story.
      BTW...and, I don't mean to pick you or your ideas apart...but, increasing compression does not increase turbulence. The science is that compressing any fuel/air mixture makes it burn faster and with more energy...turbulence helps to distribute the fuel more evenly within the air...ALLOWING a higher compression ratio which gives the faster burn.
      In the 70s, there were a bunch of "vortex" intake manifolds and carb spigots...the idea was to more thoroughly mix the air fuel mixture...which they did. But, it was upstream of the intake valve...and, turbulence there is undesireable. Concentrating on a single point of an engine and ignoring the rest...

    14. 12-20-2006 10:55 PM #13
      Quote, originally posted by The Quinner »
      More power to you for trying "new" things and trying to expand your understanding of things...and, I can agree that there might be more turbulence on compression...

      OK
      Quote, originally posted by The Quinner »
      But...what happens on the firing stroke? Wouldn't the grooves allow the "bang" to dissipate instead of being concentrated? What about the intake stroke? The exhaust stroke?

      The idea for the firing stroke is the same, a turbulante mixture burns more complete. The Grooves allow for the flame front to reach areas of the chamber(between squish pads) quicker and burn quicker. my understanding is that a quicker, cleaner burn is not as hot? Thus less hot spots - reduce the pre-ignition.
      I really don;t know how the intake stroke or exhaust would benefit or be harmed by the grooves.. Any ideas here?

      A four stroke has just that...four strokes. There is a LOT of science missing from this story.
      FYI - See the inventors website for more of the story. And better answers.
      Quote, originally posted by The Quinner »
      BTW...and, I don't mean to pick you or your ideas apart...but, increasing compression does not increase turbulence.

      Hey the ideas are here to be picked apart and filled in ..
      Higher compression may or may not increase turbulence - it does increase the thermal efficiency.
      Quote, originally posted by The Quinner »
      The science is that compressing any fuel/air mixture makes it burn faster and with more energy...turbulence helps to distribute the fuel more evenly within the air...ALLOWING a higher compression ratio which gives the faster burn.

      True - with the higher compression is higher heat. Faster burn possibly, not necesarly complete. With the heat comes the quicker to ignite fact, thus high octane gass(slower burn).
      Quote, originally posted by The Quinner »
      In the 70s, there were a bunch of "vortex" intake manifolds and carb spigots...the idea was to more thoroughly mix the air fuel mixture...which they did. But, it was upstream of the intake valve...and, turbulence there is undesireable. Concentrating on a single point of an engine and ignoring the rest...

      Agreed turbulence in the intake tract reduces the VE of the entire engine.
      Hope this thread doesn't indicate that Grooves solve all problems. But provides grounds for some power gains, with not all the trade offs. Note the power gains from the Grooves are not unique, you get the gains with or with out the grooves by increasing the compression.
      But the advantage seen by many who have done this mod is 10:1 compression without 91 octane gas or a knock sensor ignition.
      And a more smooth idle with large cam engines.
      Guys on with 240 Turbo volvos are using the grooves to up the boost on the same octane gas.
      Would be great if we could understand the true advantages and the reasons why. But since we can't see inside the IC engine its all an educated guess.
      Cheers
      ny_fam

    15. Member The Quinner's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 10th, 2001
      Location
      PDX, OR
      Posts
      898
      12-20-2006 11:22 PM #14
      Quote, originally posted by ny_fam »
      Would be great if we could understand the true advantages and the reasons why. But since we can't see inside the IC engine its all an educated guess.
      Cheers
      ny_fam

      Not at all true. Combustion engineers have been looking at (and, more importantly high-speed filming) the inner workings of internal combustion engines for quite a few years now.
      The problem is when someone has a theory based on a narrow set of assumptions. But...along with those assumptions and parameters, they change almost everything else. Then, they attribute any and all results to the narrow assumptions and parameters.
      A complete cylinder head rebuild with a mild P&P alone...without any grooves...will do most of what is claimed. That is, a great deal of work is done to restore the components to specification (a "stageI" or mild P&P is really nothing more than removing the flaws that are a by product of the manufacturing process). But...this restoration is ignored and all gains are attributed to the "outside the box" thinking.
      I did read the inventor's info...this time and at least once before when you posted the links. As a scientist, I see all sorts of flaws in the process which make me skeptical. A more methodological approach would go a long way to legitimizing the proposal and arguments made. The "scientific method" is missing from this science. There are too many variables that are not controlled in the experimental phase...so, the conclusions are suspect.

    16. 12-21-2006 06:07 PM #15
      If you are worried about it, do the science thing and publish your results.

    17. Member The Quinner's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 10th, 2001
      Location
      PDX, OR
      Posts
      898
      12-23-2006 05:16 PM #16
      Quote, originally posted by wclark »
      If you are worried about it, do the science thing and publish your results.

      I'm sorry if I said something to make you defensive...
      No...I'm certainly not worried about this subject...other than the fact that it represents many of the classic pseudo-science traits...vague experimental processes with sharp conclusions. This is exactly why "new" things are published and presented to peers...so the processes and conclusions can be critiqued and, possibly duplicated.
      I don't have any wedge-head engines...almost everything I am working on is a semi-hemi design...and, one pent-roof design. In both of those cases, I can ask myself: what are the design goals? In the hemi design, it's swirl...the pent-roof, it's tumble. Both are age-old methods of accomplishing the numerous (and, sometimes conflicting) goals of internal combustion. It's not JUST turbulence...it's also the ability to charge the system - to evacuate the system - and, to make reasonable power in between. Compromising any of this is counter to MY goals...and, I can argue that grooves will affect most of those things...certain designs will be affected more than others.
      In the past few days, out of curiosity, I've done a lot of googling on the issue. I still can't find anyone who has done controlled before/after empirical testing. Even Somender-Singh has not done **good** controlled testing.

    18. 12-23-2006 08:38 PM #17
      I agree Quinner. I am a mechanical engineer that owned watercooled VWs for 25 years. The internet is full of info that is skewed or incomplete with no scientific testing. Seat of pants and it sounds better. Again not knockning the combusion chamber grooves. You are in the right path. About 10 years ago a company (BMVW?)working with BMW car engines, had an article in European car magazine about this subject. I don't remember there name, but will find it in my old magazines and post. They lathe cut grooves on the back side of the intake valves and also cnc large deap arching grooves in the combustion chanmber...not two small grooves. The results were documented and impressive. Emmisions lower, power was up, detination down, cooler running, etc. I will try and find the article..
      I have tried many things over the years, some worked for certain things.
      The Tornado (bent sheet metal like a vortex in the air induction tube between the air sensor and the throttle body) gave better throttle resonse (torque) and gas mileage 2.0 mpg ave. but worse full throttle power.
      Raising the compression improves almost every engine response, including ping/detination. power, thermal efficiency, fuel eff., lower emissions (except nitrogen oxides if temps soar).
      Water/alcohol injection works well for this (not the cheap simple kind working only off engine vacuum (little vacuum at full throttle), but the high pressure type.
      I have found a small simple pulse valve (on intake manifold)(Ecotek) from England that works well for part throttle (idle is unaffected, good idle and emmisions)and full throttle unaffected. 1.5 mpg increase and better part throttle response, same idle and full throttle.
      MSD ignition helped. Multiple sparks at low rpm...idle emissions dropped drastically, rev limit (for safety, adjustable timing from the dash (with a module), crisper throttle response, better full throttle. Gas mileage + 1.5 mpg. tested

    19. 12-23-2006 09:04 PM #18
      checking in

    20. 12-23-2006 10:28 PM #19
      In otherwords you have nothing to contribute but your personal doubt.
      By the way, I am not defensive. If someone wants to carefully isolate this variable from all others and conduct controlled tests of the effect, if any, more power to them. I would be happy to see the results.
      Lacking that, you wait, I will act.

    21. 12-23-2006 10:34 PM #20
      so you're saying that since no one has conducted 100% correct scientific experiments that even if people say there is a gain there isnt? I guess I just dont understand what you guys are arguing about.. people that have used the grooves have reported back the changes, and many people have used the grooves. So if all these people have used them in success why do you have to be so skepticle? Looks like a duck, sounds like a duck.. it's a duck
      edit:
      I asked my cousin, he said it was a duck too

    22. Member The Quinner's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 10th, 2001
      Location
      PDX, OR
      Posts
      898
      12-23-2006 11:35 PM #21
      Quote, originally posted by Clint VW VW wood »
      so you're saying that since no one has conducted 100% correct scientific experiments that even if people say there is a gain there isnt? I guess I just dont understand what you guys are arguing about.. people that have used the grooves have reported back the changes, and many people have used the grooves. So if all these people have used them in success why do you have to be so skepticle? Looks like a duck, sounds like a duck.. it's a duck
      edit:
      I asked my cousin, he said it was a duck too

      Did your cousin read it on the Internet? If so, it must be a duck
      No...I guess I haven't been clear. I can see how grooves can accomplish some things. BUT...just what is a result of what is very unclear. I have read things like: it's hard to quantify the results of the grooves because they seem to work best with other modifications. And...I've seen examples where the "before" picture is a gunked up, carbon'd cylinder head with oil dripping all over it...and the "after" photo is of a fully ported cylinder head with a fresh valve job. Hardly an apples to apples comparison.
      I've experienced amazing things just by freshening a top end...detonation went down, mileage went up, oil consumption disappeared, etc. That was just from new guides and machined valves/seats (and new rings). Was any of this a miracle? No...I replaced worn out components with fresh ones.
      Now...add grooves to the totally fresh top end...can I jump to the conclusion that the above mentioned gains are no longer due to the fresh top end...but, are now due to the grooves?
      The reality is that keeping oil out of the combustion chamber will increase power and mileage and decrease detonation.
      Many of the testimonials seem to ignore the "other" work and suggest that the grooves are miracles. Or, that grooves work best with other modifications that are, by themselves, already proven to be beneficial to making power and increasing mileage (bumping compression, sealing valves, freshening rings, etc.).
      So...lacking good science means that we lack the ability to quantify whether the grooves contribute to the gains, or not. They might...they might not. Keep in mind that the original poster is on a quest to discuss modifications from a scientific perspective...his website is pretty good and he seems to be open to discussion about these things.
      I guess Detroit, et.al. are hiding this one along with that 150mpg carb. they've had since the 50s...

    23. Member The Quinner's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 10th, 2001
      Location
      PDX, OR
      Posts
      898
      12-23-2006 11:42 PM #22
      Quote, originally posted by wclark »
      In otherwords you have nothing to contribute but your personal doubt.
      By the way, I am not defensive. If someone wants to carefully isolate this variable from all others and conduct controlled tests of the effect, if any, more power to them. I would be happy to see the results.
      Lacking that, you wait, I will act.

      I wouldn't call it doubt as much as healthy skepticism. When somebody wants me to accept their conclusions, they better be able to tell me how they came to those conclusions. If it smells funny, something might not be right.
      I honestly DO hope that you will act. I'd love to see **long term** gains from such a simple mod...hell, I'm building a race bike and would take any advantage I can find. But...based on the FACTS that I know, I have many questions. Hot spots...carbon build-up...dissipating the energy of combustion...etc.

    24. 12-24-2006 02:59 AM #23
      I still agree with Quinner. I looked at the web-site, which a lot of hard work went into. But many scientific principals and common sense was left out. The combution chambers were very polished, which is great and helps many factors discussed...but was this testing done controlled with the grooves an isolated variable...probably not. Milling the head will help with power and throttle resonse as I have done many times.
      All were saying is; why didn't you install the rebuilt, cleaned, polished head, then get a baseline of performance parameters. In gear acceleration times with an accelerometer (G-Tech, G-tech Pro) after the point of wheel spin (which negates wheel spin) and no shifts...say second gear from 20 -50 mph, which tests a broad range of the powerband, or 40-70 in third. All tests should be done on the same road, same direction, and similar outside temps, same amount of weight in the car, etc. This is how I test and many performance magazines. Then pull off the same head, groove it, then retest. this is much more scientific and controlled.
      If you can't see this then you've got a lot to learn about automotive performance and engineering. Good luck on your quest...

    25. 12-24-2006 03:47 AM #24
      The same test method goes for gas mileage, idle smoothness, ping resistance, etc.

    26. 12-24-2006 07:39 AM #25
      Quote, originally posted by Ben B (Bengineer) »
      I still agree with Quinner. I looked at the web-site, which a lot of hard work went into. But many scientific principals and common sense was left out. The combution chambers were very polished, which is great and helps many factors discussed...but was this testing done controlled with the grooves an isolated variable...probably not. Milling the head will help with power and throttle resonse as I have done many times.
      All were saying is; why didn't you install the rebuilt, cleaned, polished head, then get a baseline of performance parameters. In gear acceleration times with an accelerometer (G-Tech, G-tech Pro) after the point of wheel spin (which negates wheel spin) and no shifts...say second gear from 20 -50 mph, which tests a broad range of the powerband, or 40-70 in third. All tests should be done on the same road, same direction, and similar outside temps, same amount of weight in the car, etc. This is how I test and many performance magazines. Then pull off the same head, groove it, then retest. this is much more scientific and controlled.
      If you can't see this then you've got a lot to learn about automotive performance and engineering. Good luck on your quest...

      I can tell you why I will not do it. Time and cost. I need to pull the drievtrain this winter to replace a few things, clean up the chambers, match the intake ports to the new manifold and add new intale manifold and exhaust headers. Removing then installing the engine, plus removing and reinstalling the head is a lot of work, plus there is the cost of the one-time-use materials. I dont plan to do it twice for someone elses amusement on my dime. Also, dyno time isnt cheap and I dont plan to pay twice for it, again for someone elses amusement. I find all the data I need with my Innovate LM-1 and hillclimb results but in that envrionment there are too many external variables to come to any valid conclusions that would satisfy a scientific claim, even if the grooves were the ONLY change to the engine. I do not have any intention of trying to produce killer 20 year old 1.8 litre 8v counter flow head CIS-E engines for profit. Just one copy that kicks some SP4 butt at Ascutney, Okemo, Burke and Philo on a budget that includes only one set of dry race tires per season.
      I will leave the proof to the better funded academics. However as I can think of no reason on earth how someone could make a business case for funding a controlled study of these grooves on one of these engines, I dont plan to hold my breath for the results.


      Modified by wclark at 10:06 AM 12-24-2006

    Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •