Cam/Lifter uh-oh Part II

Bored&Stroked said:
Hey Gary: Was wondering what type of dyno you're running and what type of controls you have on it? (Instrumentation and Software). Can you post a video of one of your better flatheads on the dyno - would love to see one in action!

D
Click to expand...

Ans: Hi Dale, couple things, I don't own a video camera, I wouldn't be able to film anything, I do give the customer who owns the motor the option to do this, can't remember one taking us up on it though! Filming anything aside, I really want each and every customer to be there during the testing. This keeps everything on the "up and up" to show there are no "hidden" issues. Most do come and my partner runs the dyno, this is one aspect of the business I consider "boring", like running the CNC mill. Hate it, but it comes with the territory!

The dyno is a "Stuska" with the original "Depac" software and still uses the old-fashioned "one-arm-bandit" (we're comfortable with this setup, thought often about updating it but haven't so far). It will handle I believe 1600 HP which is really more than we normally need.

I have no idea tonight when the next Flathead will be run, probably not in the very near future??

Tim Ayers said:
No, what I meant was selling the set to get the set made for the metric rings pack
Click to expand...

Ans: Hi Tim, gotcha?

I'll add a little "funny" here for what it's worth, I got a real "kick" when my partner called me at my home (on my "land-line" by the way). I wasn't able to be in the dyno room the day that unit in my signature got tested. My partner stated, "we have a little problem with this Flathead motor (I immediately think to myself "uh-oh", now what)?? He states:"the dyno don't read this low, can't get an acccurate number"? Then he says, "just kiddin". We have 150+ HP @ 4300 and 250+ Torque @ 2200. I said "OK", we're good to go!

For the very, very "sharp" guys up here if you look closely at ALL the photos in the group I placed above you'll see a "contradiction" so to speak. I'll give you a few days to see if you pick up on it? I'll then explain what it's about. A few minutes ago I just had a discussion with a member up here and I explained it to him what I'm saying! (A "tip", the finished unit on the stand is the same one in that Merc). This is ONLY for a little fun, is not a "trick" question!

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. I know everyone won't believe this, but I don't even own a cell phone, can't stand them (my wife has one only for emergencies), rarely gets used. Took a very long time to figure out this computer stuff. This I have down fairly well now!
 
As I explained in my book there can be significant differences from dyno to dyno and the power readings should never be used as a form of advertising, boasting, external comparison, or any use other than internal comparisons for the purpose of performance evaluation. UNLESS you own a research laboratory from which to collect data your numbers are basically meaningless in the outside world. A given dyno might have the capability to measure within 1% of itself but not when compared to other dynos. There are also different correction factors which can be utilized when massaging the raw dyno numbers. For those who want to have a better understanding I suggest you read my book where I took the time to discuss this issue.

Similarly, collecting torque wrench readings on a static crankshaft will have limited value in assessing frictional losses within a given engine. Again, if you read my book in the chapter covering piston gas porting and ring discussions you will get a better understanding of the job the pistons and rings have. Frankly, a 20% power gain from changing pistons and rings should raise considerable questioning about what was wrong with the original equipment installation.
 
20%...thats about the total friction and pumping losses in a combustion engine if im not totally wrong ??
If you manage to reduce 10% gaining 20hp on a fully built flathead you did a good job in my opinion.
 
Gary... you weren't the first I have heard say the metric ring packs gain power but I never heard a number associated to it. I had assumed a low single digit difference... 20hp definitely makes me wonder. We run small bore long stroke motors with fairly low compression it makes sense that ring losses are significant. If machined properly there is no reason a flathead needs the same 1.5x1.5x3mm rings as a 4.125" bore LS engine. I did a little digging from some piston manufacturers and found that Mahle (owner of total seal) has been offering all of their larger volume powerpak piston kits with 1x1x2mm rings as a low drag option. Unfortunately this does not translate over to the flathead pistons they make. I emailed them to inquire and they only offer the standard ring pack.. but may consider a metric pack when they redesign the piston... which is not in the works anytime in the near future... so a custom piston would have to be tried. wonder if anyone already has in a bonneville motor??
 
revkev6 said:
Gary... you weren't the first I have heard say the metric ring packs gain power but I never heard a number associated to it. I had assumed a low single digit difference... 20hp definitely makes me wonder. We run small bore long stroke motors with fairly low compression it makes sense that ring losses are significant. If machined properly there is no reason a flathead needs the same 1.5x1.5x3mm rings as a 4.125" bore LS engine. I did a little digging from some piston manufacturers and found that Mahle (owner of total seal) has been offering all of their larger volume powerpak piston kits with 1x1x2mm rings as a low drag option. Unfortunately this does not translate over to the flathead pistons they make. I emailed them to inquire and they only offer the standard ring pack.. but may consider a metric pack when they redesign the piston... which is not in the works anytime in the near future... so a custom piston would have to be tried. wonder if anyone already has in a bonneville motor??
Click to expand...


Hi Kev, we feel strongly about the 20 HP number gained. It would be somewhat difficult to actually prove it without a bunch of free time on the dyno, this can't happen here now, we are "drop-dead" busy.

With respect to the vacuum pump (on a typical hi-perf Chevy here) I mentioned earlier this was easily confirmed on the dyno, we would test with the pump functioning and see about a 15/20 HP loss when we disconnected it. This is with pulling around 10/12 inches of vacuum in the pan. This is directly related to the rings. It happens to be the same number as we feel we gain on the Flathead ring pack, just coincidence. Not sure how this vacuum setup would work on the Flatheads?? Totally different block design?

The "windage" issue mentioned above is a definite area to keep an eye on?

With trying to go any further for HP gains specifically in the piston ring area we feel it would be simply like "beating-a-dead-horse". Here's what I mean. If there were any noticeable HP gains in the rings as we use them today (1.5, 1.5, 3.0/4.0) with a total change in design (e.g. 1.0, 1.0. 1.5 metric) it would be so expensive (for pistons/rings) the cost would far outweigh the benefits. If you were to pick a few HP numbers it really wouldn't be cost-effective unless you were doing some type record-holder??

(Add) With the new "Napier" 2nd rings now on the scene we know this is "plus" in the HP race, but again, it all needs to be kept in perspective! (Do a "google" on "piston rings vs. power", some interesting reads)

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. Not sure where you got the ownership info on Total-Seal?? but I believe they are still a family-owned business? Things change so fast today I could be wrong though! (Kev, we did the machine work on that racecar I mentioned, probably in the later '60's/very early '70's)
 
Dyno numbers are similar to Baskin-Robbins find one you like and enjoy it.
As for 20 hp from a ring change done with only one dyno and one engine family for pulls isn't enough info collected to support some hp gains. JWL's book covers that very well. Just my 2¢


As for total seal ask them it they produce their own oil rings you may be surprised. :)

R
 
mahle bought perfect circle not total seal. sorry..

the vacuum pumps help with seating the rings on the pistons... aka ring flutter... nice side benefit is lack of oil leaks! I like the rings because they are a hidden high tech... adding a smog pump onto a flathead may make power but it would also make me puke a little I think lol
 
FYI Egge makes a .020/.030 3 5/16 piston. The .020 I bought to repair an old street engine last year had a set of Volvo Metric rings. Havent got many miles on the truck yet, but it pulls like an ox. Might be something to it.
 
When I built my 290 engine, much like B&S, I used the metric ring pack from Total Seal.
Before I did this I researched some Super Stock racers in hopes of determining frictional issues.
Two of them mentioned using digital fish scales to determine piston/ring drag.
The amount of reduction was determined to be in excess of 60% less drag as opposed to conventional ring packs (Note: they do a lot more work than just changing rings. They will actually make sure that all pistons are equal in # pulled).

As far as a Bonneville flathead using the metric rings, Ken Kloth's record holding Mercury
used Chevrolet VEGA pistons & the metric ring pack, back in 1989.
He's a huge believer in friction reduction, with roller lifters, etc.
Re windage- I tried feverishly to install a windage screen into a 59 type pan. I never could get it to work without some sort of very slight interference. I did, however, make a
tray that would not allow so much oil to splash about.
Whether it helped or not, who knows
 
Very easy to measure ring drag/friction with an old piston and small fishing scale.
Cheapest horsepower tool you can buy or engineer:

http://www.academy.com/webapp/wcs/s...c-plaid^250383064158-sku^024294860-adType^PLA
Game Winner® Big Game Scale


$14.99



10278236.jpg
 
Tim, you are not weighing the piston and rings. I would insert a piston with rings installed in a cylinder properly prepped and then using the scale gauge the breakaway force to get the piston moving , along with the amount needed to keep it going out the cylinder. Comparing a cast iron set to one moly filled will show a difference as will the thinner metric rings. Less friction, less force needed.
 
Back to knurling pistons: I had Harry at Automotive Industrial Supplies knurl pistons in the '50s, '60s, and early '70s. Great oil holding, and 'refit'.
My 274s all had knurled pistons, used and new. Easy way to fit.

Also great fan of the Fish Scale trick: Thought we at Mayfield's Garage (Santa Clara, CA) were the only ones using it!
 
Tim,
You can also take an old piston, drill a hole in the top center, attach utility hook screw/bolt so you have something the fish scale can pull against.

Cylinder Bore finish, ring type and the associated drag will vary tremendously.
 
Here we go again--I discuss the value and operation of a vacuum pump on our Flatheads in my book. I also explain that 14" is considered optimum.

The scale and piston pull test is of limited value when accessing dynamic frictional losses in a engine which has been broken-in.
 
JWL said:
Here we go again--I discuss the value and operation of a vacuum pump on our Flatheads in my book. I also explain that 14" is considered optimum.

The scale and piston pull test is of limited value when accessing dynamic frictional losses in a engine which has been broken-in.
Click to expand...


I was thinking the same reading the fish scale... you would have people polishing there bores to a perfect shine... only thing the scale will tell is if one cylinder varies from others... let you know if there's something to look at.

I plan to pick up a copy of your book!
 
Where do you guys get that the cylinder friction is of no value when working to reduce friction? HUH?
All you have to do is compare a std set of rings to the newer stuff. ANY change is beneficial!!
And, good luck with a vacuum pump. Sheesh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top