tried somender's grooves yet?

[sc2dave]

been wanting to try these soon.

[automotivebreath]

sc2dave, what engine are you planning on trying this on?

[sc2dave]

the same ole saturn that i've been contemplating on.

[1bolt]

Someone on Speedtalk Dyno'ed these and found a repeatable small gain in torque at lower RPM's using A/B testing... From what I read I found the tester to be believable, apparently unbiased and the test rigorous. The guy noted that there was a definite small boost in torque but no other measured gains, on a motor that was not necessarily optimized for the grooves... the compression staid the same, and timing was not altered to take advantage of the (claimed) benefits of the grooves. The same head was altered, with the only change being the grooves and runs were averaged.

All that said, there's no apparent scientifically sound methodology to the grooves. There's no rhyme or reason to the placement, number of grooves, size, depth or orientation.

So perhaps the couple foot pounds was an accident of slightly improved quench action, Maybe all less than perfect quench designs could benefit. But perhaps the same sized and oriented grooves in a different chamber design would cause a couple foot pounds loss...

The truth is that no one out there really wants to spend serious (expensive) dyno time thoroughly exploring the possibilities of grooving quench pads because these grooves (and the people using them) seem at face value to be less than scientific.

In my personal opinion if it does what the "inventor" claims, it is probably a complete fluke of the random probability generator

[automotivebreath]

Originally Posted by 1bolt

... these grooves (and the people using them) seem at face value to be less than scientific.

1bolt, I’m totally dejected

[1bolt]

Don't be. my opinion might be negative but I've got no proof either, just an opinion. The simple fact that someone found a couple foot pounds by grooving suggests that if someone actually spent some R&D time on them there might be an optimal groove (size, orientation) that actually adds MORE than a couple pounds and may even allow higher compression and timing advance without detonation, which could amount to a whole lot more than just a couple foot pounds.

[Pinhead]

Originally Posted by 1bolt

Don't be. my opinion might be negative but I've got no proof either, just an opinion. The simple fact that someone found a couple foot pounds by grooving suggests that if someone actually spent some R&D time on them there might be an optimal groove (size, orientation) that actually adds MORE than a couple pounds and may even allow higher compression and timing advance without detonation, which could amount to a whole lot more than just a couple foot pounds.

Don't take this as though I'm pointing the finger at anyone... But Automotivebreath has done extensive testing on the Singh Grooves and has had numerous documented successes. They may not be tested on a before-and-after-dyno-run, but the race track has proven to be almost as accurate. Read through the forum, specifically the topics regarding combustion efficiency, in-cylinder turbulence and burn rate, and a few others... You'll notice that he's gotten way more than a couple foot pounds.

[automotivebreath]

Thanks Pinhead

1bolt,

The testing you refer to, was it done by Jesse Lackman of RevSearch?

If so I'm very familiar with what was done and how the engine performed in the car
after the dyno. Jessie did a great job with the test keeping an open mind and tried
very hard to provide accurate results.

I have my opinion on why the dyno didn't show the same improvements we enjoy at
the race track. I'm thinking the 10% Klotz HiTRATE used to eliminate detonation
had a big impact on combustion. Jessie tells me the owner of the engine is thrilled
with the performance on pump gas with iron heads at 11:1 compression.

revsearch

My opinion is more than just a gut feel. Some of the engines I have done have shown
as much as two tenths improvement at the drag strip and others have won multiple
track championships! Although most people want to know how much more power
an engine will make with the grooves, that's not why we run them. The primary reason
is because the engine runs cleaner. Nothing that requires any scientific testing, just look
at the plugs, exahust, oil etc.

[1bolt]

Yeah I recognize you from hotrodders forum and Speedtalk, Automotivebreath. I agree there's something to them based on that dyno test. As I've said, it's my opinion that the amount of scientific method involved in the grooves is the main thing making them seem like snake oil... And the main thing Keeping someone like David Vizard from investing expensive dyno time and man hours doing ABA testing on identical heads, with full optimization and tuning... Its not enough to just test them on the same engine without any tweaks to take advantage of the supposed benefits (higher CR and timing advance).

[MAP]

Hi Folks,

The matter of , "do they work or don't they?" is really a question of statistical significance. There are precise mathematical tests for this.

Some objective data does exist, and plenty of subjective, anecdotal data as well. Furthermore, there do exist some plausible theories as to how these grooves might work. For these reasons, I wouldn't dismiss them a priori by any means.

1bolt, you said it well that the current lack of data seems to suggest these are in the realm of snake oil. But the fundamental reason for this lingering perception is probably quite simple: the benefits probably aren't large, and the cost to design and carry-out comprehensive experiments on them, is high.

Having said that, however, I'd concede that hobbyists and the aftermarket probably wouldn't touch it. OTOH, if I were a big OEM'er with deep pockets, I'd go after it. If one them does so, however, don't expect to read about the results if you're not an employee of that company. Then again, if they do work and they work well, then watch for any patents! That's how this kind of stuff usually leaks-out to the rest of the world.

Best,
Mark