Unusual Sweep the Floor 2234 Build (With Dyno Video)

[jpaull]

[Bad bug]

[jpaull]

Dan, Thank you. Hopefully I can get a few more mph with some fuel system upgrades.

Badbug, the close 3rd is helpful but man, the close 4th is killing me.

Wreck, you bring up a interesting point. Would be interesting to upgrade the line first, and see if that fixes it. The only frustrating thing is, I wont find out till I hit 88mph and see if I go back in time or not.

You captured the essence of why I post the details, and dyno, flow bench, and track times. carefully chosen parts, and work, rather then lots of many can give great results. You did the same thing with your type 4.

[Wreck]

Great results , try just upgrading to an 8mm fuel line first . I haven't run on a 1/4 but have no issues on the 1/8 with my 2.6 type 4 with 48mm tri jet dells .
I just use a facet clacker 4psi pump with no regulator .

I love it when someone takes the time to put together a great combination from parts under the bench , spends the time on the details and then does similar or better times than someone that has spent a lot but hasn't done or understand the little things . Well done .

[Bad bug]

[Dan Ruddock]

The tw 92’s or the 94’s. Impressive trap speed.

[jpaull]

Just to update this thread with some 1/4 mile runs with this engine, even with no-no's like polished intake runners, polished chambers, poor I/E ratio in non-race MOFOCO heads, still managed a 13.0 @102mph on street tires in a regular street driven bug.

At the 1,000ft mark the little holley clicker fuel pump, and the stock fuel line cant keep up, and the engine is starving of fuel like clockwork each run for the last 200-320ft of track. One run was 13.2@97mph when it struggled the worst. Once in 4th gear, the longest stretch with no more gear changes and high rpms's runs the bowls low and the engine stops pulling. The trans has a weddle 3rd and 4th that are close, and this doesn't help, as the gearing was set up for high strung 7k+ shifts, not 6k shifts. This engine has so much torque, it would like a normal 3rd/4th much better. Never the less, a larger fuel pump and larger fuel line I could at least finish the full 1/4 mile and get 12.85's as is.
Video of runs with this engine here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiRQBmgKknY

[fivelugshortaxle]

[mark tucker]

I can see what pat was saying, as the dimpling creates a "eddy" effectivly making the port smaller even though it is bigger. I wood think if you ahd enough time and testing equip you could figure where to dimple and get the flow direction you want somewhat.....and a lot of wasted tyme. dimples are not a "rough serface" it's just dimpled.

[modok]

I think Pat's going by velocity probe. He confused me the same way with the exhaust ports. How can enlarging the gasket area make the airspeed higher? well, enlarging the gasket size probably would increase velocity in the middle of the port...so, ok Although I'd rather he left them small so I can decide what size to make it.

I tried polished VS blasted pistons 10 years ago.
Indeed a rough surface finish seems to have greater resistance to knock, and tolerates leaner jetting. In a steady state condition there may not be any gain, maybe it's not for trucks, but HIGH powered vehicle far from steady state.

Honda was using as-cast piston tops clear back in the 80's.
Not that that proves anything, but just always amazed how well the Honda engineers had their priorities TUNED-in, they knew what was effective, and rarely wasted any effort on things that where not.
While many other engines you can see they FOCUSED on one area and neglected another. The squeaky wheel getting the grease probably, while Honda was just a well oiled machine.

But, some of these things are hard to set back to back, because one thing lets you do another which lets you do another and THAT's the gain. Can't see the advantage right away. Like you would not see the gain using a steeper top angle on the valve seat unless you use more duration, or won't see the advantage of a STRAIGHT exhaust port unless you design a step header. So on, so forth.

[KROC]

This is my understanding, as well. Here's what Pat over at CB Perf had to say on the subject:

[Wreck]

I think it would be neat to compare our two engines on one dyno. Kind of similar size, but completely different builds. Although I dont have a dyno, I do have an accurate calibrated flow bench, and two different simulator programs that have been proved to be quite accurate industry wide when based on accurate flow numbers, which I have.

A friend and I have done just this , same same but different . his motor built for his panel bus . 4.040"x78mm ,
46mm and 38mm valves ,
hydraulic cam 235 @ 0.050 , pauter 1.48 rockers . 10.8 comp
48 IDF's 40mm vents
1 5/8 primary header , 2.5 inch exhaust .

my Ghia 4.055(103mm) X78
47mm and 40mm valves
265 @ .050 cam with stock 1.3 rockers . 10.5 comp .
48 DRLA's 42mm vents
Stepped Header 1 5/8 to 1 7/8 , 2.5 inch exhaust

Both have done our own porting and stayed conservative in CSA( you can take it out but you can't easily put it back ) . Both engines produce almost the same HP within 2WHP ( same gearing, 091 boxes) on back to back runs on the same Dynos. But the engines are totally different in how they put that power out . The Bus engine is a torque monster that doesn't rev over 6000 but pulls from just off idle and the Ghia engine is happy to stooge around below 3000 but comes alive over 3000 and holds power to 7000.
The bus engine is getting 1 3/4 primaries soon to see if it helps continue the power for further and I'm planning on going injection with 50mm ITB's in the future to see if that picks up the power at bit . (173WHP on a happy dyno) .

I was always under the impression that a 80 grit rough port was good and a polished chamber and exhaust port are good to slow down carbon built up and hot spots that can promote pinging .
What I want for Christmas , a flow bench and engine dyno

[HotStreetVw]

[Floating VW]

[Brian_e]

The intake centerline length is only needed to calculate the average port velocity. I have found this to be a pretty good way to compare different cylinder heads because it takes into account port volume, and airflow both. From my notes and different heads I have built, I have a pretty good idea what numbers are needed to make a good running head.

I missed your flow numbers and volume on the other page.

I am I no way trying to say your engine sucks. I like to see the results of other peoples thinking and different ideas.

I think it would be neat to compare our two engines on one dyno. Kind of similar size, but completely different builds. Although I dont have a dyno, I do have an accurate calibrated flow bench, and two different simulator programs that have been proved to be quite accurate industry wide when based on accurate flow numbers, which I have.

Here are my head specs.

AA500 40x35
65cc intake port volume. Super rough finish.

.200 101cfm
.300 141cfm
.400 165cfm
.500 180cfm
.550 185cfm

All measured @28" with a ported straight manifold and radius on the inlet.

Here are the torque numbers from EA Pro and Pipemax. Both programs were within a couple ft.lbs of each other for peak numbers.

2000 89ftlbs
2500 130ftlbs
3000 145ftlbs
3500 145ftlbs
4000 153ftlbs
4500 163ftlbs
5000 159ftlbs
5500 145ftlbs

Pretty similar peak at the same RPM.

I am running a 242deg. @ .050" cam, .460" lift, 44IDF's w/ 36mm vents, and 9.3cr.

I see why you like driving your engine. It looks as though they would both be similar to drive, but yet have very different build specs. Mine was built strictly to push a baywindow all over the country. Flat torque curve, no need to rev it, and peak torque just over highway cruising speed.

Like I said, it would be neat to see the two of them on the same dyno. Two different ways to get to a similar outcome.

Brian
_________________
So more or less the lazier and stupider you want to be, the nicer quality parts you need to buy.
-Modok

Narrowed beams, Drop adjustable spring plates, Bus disk brake and IRS kits.
www.type-emotorsports.com

Type E Engine Parts and Supplies
https://type-emotorsports.com/collections/engine-parts

[jpaull]

[Brian_e]

I didn't have any reason to think my 2332cc was down on power. I have seen what quite a few different engines will do on the long hill behind my house, and this one is one of the more impressive of the 15 or so big strokers and 15-20 smaller engines I have driven up the hill.

I feel if the engine can make more power while requiring less fuel, it is obviously more efficient.

I agree with Torben's comment on rough port texture helping low and midrange torque the most. I have been building my engines different for the last few years now. I focus on highest average torque across the board, and I don't even care what the peak HP number is. I have found engines that make a pile of torque before 4000rpm are usually quicker up the hill, more fun to drive around town, much more pleasant to drive on twisty mountain roads, etc. This is the area I am focused on, and the increased fuel mix far outweighs high RPM heat retention in my mind.

Remember everyone...torque pulls trailers, climbs mountains and wins races....HP sells cars to those who don't know any better.

Here is a really good article from a very very experienced engine builder who has been building engines longer then most here have been alive. Myself included. The port texture stuff is down toward the bottom, but the whole thing is a good read. He has done real life A-B-A dyno testing more then once on this topic.
https://hotrodenginetech.com/pipemax-creator-larry-meaux-on-race-engine-head-porting/

Jeff, while your heads are off can you measure a few things for me? I would like to compare a few things on your heads with others I have bought or built myself, and run on different engines.

-Intake port centerline. I use a piece of solder with the valve installed. On the long side wall, go from the back of the valve to the intake flange. bend the solder so it conforms nicely to the port wall. Make a mark on the solder. Next do the same thing on the short side port wall. Flatten the solder back out and add the two marked lengths of solder together and divide by 2. This will be the "average" intake port centerline length. You can also do this with pinstripe tape.

-Intake port volume. I like to use washer fluid, and I have a small piece of plexi with a hole to cover the port flange. Just like measuring chambers.

-Intake flow from .250"-.550" @ 28" with the intake on and a radius at the top of the manifold.

Brian
_________________
So more or less the lazier and stupider you want to be, the nicer quality parts you need to buy.
-Modok

Narrowed beams, Drop adjustable spring plates, Bus disk brake and IRS kits.
www.type-emotorsports.com

Type E Engine Parts and Supplies
https://type-emotorsports.com/collections/engine-parts

[Alstrup]

Ohhh, dimpelled intake surfaces. That´s another one of those cans of worms. The first time (that I know of) this was up was in the late 60íes when BMW was working with the 2002 Tii. The exersize was of course to gain power, but what they found, with the porting techiniques and knowledge they had the time, was that it did not improve hp., but it helped the engine to improve fuel mix and torque in the lower to mid rpms. As injectors and injector position became better the need for this costly surface treat became not nessessary to get the same end result. In recent years this has surfaced again. I think it was Edelweis tuning that brought it up again in an effort to stand out from the crowd in the BMW and motorcycle world, also claiming 5% improved flow over smooth surface ports. Some Honda tuners claim the same. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6v2wpk4mjo But do they make more power (?)

Now, in a carburetted engine some of it begins to make a little sense, because "we" have the issue of a fuel mix that is not especially good atomized in the lower rpms. If you want to take advantage of that you should keep the port rough in the low speed areas and smooth in the high speed areas. That requires a little knowledge about how the mix behaves in an intake port, but this is actually beneficial. In fact when I build my Std plus engines I leave the surfaces raw almost all over to get a better mix and power in the lower rpms.

Raw or smooth surfaces in the combustion chamber. I for one really don´t know. There can be pro´s and con´s to both. On a freshly built engine I can see that there may be differences. On an engine that has seen some miles I doubt you will be able to measure much of a difference due to carbon build up. I think it is more beneficial to both power, temperature and fuel consumption to get the combo right and to have a good chamber shape to get a good mix and a burn that does not require a lot of ignition timing. That reduces the need for fuel due to simple efficiency and reduced pumping losses.

Here is a couple of articles discussing why they left it out in Formula1 years back.
http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/dimpled_surface_finish.html
http://speed.academy/10-myths-of-cylinder-head-porting/

[jpaull]

[jpaull]