Race Engine Challenge II

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

Post Reply
Walter R. Malik
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3411
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:15 am
Location: Roseville, Michigan (just north of Detroit)
Contact:

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by Walter R. Malik » Sun Oct 22, 2017 12:24 pm

GARY C wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:11 pm
WeingartnerRacing wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:13 am
A true race engine does not have hydraulic rollers.
True race engines also are not allowed in EMC and most of what I have seen discussed here would not be considered a true race engine either.
Although that would simplify the rules...Set a cubic inch limit and may the best man win!
Just not sure how many would enter.
From what Greg has actually said here, this contest is NOT about true race engines but, about high end, advanced, street/strip engines similar to what was the Extreme Street type engines of a couple past EMC contests.

Finding a way to keep the "all out" race stuff out yet still allow the entrants to use progressive components which are not generally used with any "run of the mill" high performance street/strip engines is not an easy concept.
I believe it will become an equitable contest which will do exactly that.
http://www.rmcompetition.com
Specialty engine building at its finest.

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3380
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by GARY C » Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:51 pm

I understand that and I agree with his direction, thats why I thought using a non minimal travel hyd roller could be a good compromise between the two and keep the valve train from getting over aggressive as well as within budget.

Rick360
Expert
Expert
Posts: 891
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2004 9:55 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by Rick360 » Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:21 pm

GARY C wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:51 pm
I understand that and I agree with his direction, thats why I thought using a non minimal travel hyd roller could be a good compromise between the two and keep the valve train from getting over aggressive as well as within budget.
Hydraulic Roller rule is a waste of time. It is a rule with no way to enforce it.

Rick

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3380
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by GARY C » Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:25 pm

Rick360 wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:21 pm
GARY C wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:51 pm
I understand that and I agree with his direction, thats why I thought using a non minimal travel hyd roller could be a good compromise between the two and keep the valve train from getting over aggressive as well as within budget.
Hydraulic Roller rule is a waste of time. It is a rule with no way to enforce it.

Rick
It was a thought, I thought maybe it would have some limiting factor while still allowing the performance you guys are capable of.

Keith Morganstein
Guru
Guru
Posts: 5028
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:19 am
Location: MA

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by Keith Morganstein » Sun Oct 22, 2017 4:50 pm

GARY C wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:25 pm
Rick360 wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:21 pm
GARY C wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:51 pm
I understand that and I agree with his direction, thats why I thought using a non minimal travel hyd roller could be a good compromise between the two and keep the valve train from getting over aggressive as well as within budget.
Hydraulic Roller rule is a waste of time. It is a rule with no way to enforce it.

Rick
It was a thought, I thought maybe it would have some limiting factor while still allowing the performance you guys are capable of.
Gary, I think your idea of using "racing rules" (an earlier post) is
good baseline. Use that concept, adjust for the different makes and availible parts. Maybe set a cost limit on total build cost. R&D and other labor doesn't figure into it, but the prize money might. At least it may keep the contest competitive, where creative thinking can compete with money.

I wonder if Kasse or the other team that won (Randy 331, Rick360 and team) really spent the most money, or was it their ideas, experience, creativity and dedication, that earned their results.

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3380
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by GARY C » Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:03 pm

Yeah I always liked the idea of minimum rules or a known rule structure and let the guys be innovative, I am not sure that allowing welding would be good but epoxy would open up what a guy could do but limit how far he could go...I think.
99% of the time a guy/team is going to spend what ever he has in order to win regardless of the rules.
Maybe Rick or Randy will chime in on if they could have made more power if they were allowed to spent more money?
I am guessing a roller would have made more power but would it have cost that much more.

plovett
Expert
Expert
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 3:49 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by plovett » Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:36 pm

Policing total build cost seems almost impossible to me.

Rick360
Expert
Expert
Posts: 891
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2004 9:55 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by Rick360 » Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:19 pm

GARY C wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:03 pm
Maybe Rick or Randy will chime in on if they could have made more power if they were allowed to spent more money?
I am guessing a roller would have made more power but would it have cost that much more.
More money would help, but only if you had more time to go with it. Then you could try more parts, but modifying them takes time. If I could only have either more money to spend on it or more time to work on it I think the more time would gain the most. Having a lot of Torque/Cubic Inch and a broad TQ curve is what has always mattered in EMC. You can't buy that.

This years EMC Traditional Muscle rules weren't bad. The tappet/cam rule is the main rule I didn't like. Roller cams would be less expensive. Of course you could go crazy with that and spintron everything to get the max from that rule too. Having a broad scoring rpm range may negate some of the benefits of spintron.

Rick

Keith Morganstein
Guru
Guru
Posts: 5028
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:19 am
Location: MA

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by Keith Morganstein » Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:45 pm

It might be helpful to look at the 24HRs of Lemons rules. They do a good job of policing the cost of entries in competition. However, the orginisers take a no BS approach to it.

Walter R. Malik
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3411
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:15 am
Location: Roseville, Michigan (just north of Detroit)
Contact:

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by Walter R. Malik » Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:36 pm

Rick360 wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:19 pm

More money would help, but only if you had more time to go with it. Then you could try more parts, but modifying them takes time. If I could only have either more money to spend on it or more time to work on it I think the more time would gain the most. Having a lot of Torque/Cubic Inch and a broad TQ curve is what has always mattered in EMC. You can't buy that.

This years EMC Traditional Muscle rules weren't bad. The tappet/cam rule is the main rule I didn't like. Roller cams would be less expensive. Of course you could go crazy with that and spintron everything to get the max from that rule too. Having a broad scoring rpm range may negate some of the benefits of spintron.

Rick
Those very reasons are mainly why I am in favor of a realistic valve lift rule not requiring $600.00 valve springs along with expensive valve trains not becoming absolutely necessary. Then allow any cam type you want; if someone wants to spend all their time paying for Spintron testing, then go for it because the rest of the build will most probably suffer.
TIME ... to get the particular engine to the point of "all it can be" is what it is all about.
http://www.rmcompetition.com
Specialty engine building at its finest.

David Vizard
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1158
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:19 pm

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by David Vizard » Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:00 pm

Walter R. Malik wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:36 pm
Rick360 wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:19 pm

More money would help, but only if you had more time to go with it. Then you could try more parts, but modifying them takes time. If I could only have either more money to spend on it or more time to work on it I think the more time would gain the most. Having a lot of Torque/Cubic Inch and a broad TQ curve is what has always mattered in EMC. You can't buy that.

This years EMC Traditional Muscle rules weren't bad. The tappet/cam rule is the main rule I didn't like. Roller cams would be less expensive. Of course you could go crazy with that and spintron everything to get the max from that rule too. Having a broad scoring rpm range may negate some of the benefits of spintron.

Rick
Those very reasons are mainly why I am in favor of a realistic valve lift rule not requiring $600.00 valve springs along with expensive valve trains not becoming absolutely necessary. Then allow any cam type you want; if someone wants to spend all their time paying for Spintron testing, then go for it because the rest of the build will most probably suffer.
TIME ... to get the particular engine to the point of "all it can be" is what it is all about.
You have scored again Walter.

DV
David Vizard Small Group Performance Seminars - held about every 4 weeks. My shop or your shop. Contact seminar organizer at marvingvx@gmail.com for details.

TexBlackwell
New Member
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 1:50 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by TexBlackwell » Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:01 pm

Walter R. Malik wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:02 pm
Walter R. Malik wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:49 pm
Gregory wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:17 am
It's been suggested that there be a limit on the distance from the deck to the bottom of the intake port. Go ahead and throw out some numbers
and/or some 2V heads that you know of that would be over the top.
Greg Finnican
Charlotte, NC
704 408-7356
That leaves the roof to be unlimited so, I would limit the ROOF height or use a "middle of the port height" center-line figure.

Under 2 1/4" from the deck to the port center seems pretty normal for a raised runner, street type head on the ones I've measured ...somewhere around there would probably be good for a center-line measurement or under 3 1/2" for a roof limitation.
That group would include:
18 degree Chevrolet small Block
Yates type Ford small block
A460 type Ford big block
Most Chevrolet Big Block
Raised runner Buicks
Every small block Mopar other than the all out race stuff
Some Ford Clevelands
Some raised runner Pontiacs and Oldsmobiles
AMC's
AND ... a lot more ...

Only the all out race heads would be eliminated.
On this list of engines you left off today's most popular engine: The LS. As far as port height from the deck to the top of the port on a stock LS3 is 3 7/8" and the LS7 is 4 1/16". In the year 2018 these engines are going to part of the contest.

Walter R. Malik
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3411
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:15 am
Location: Roseville, Michigan (just north of Detroit)
Contact:

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by Walter R. Malik » Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:44 pm

TexBlackwell wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:01 pm
Walter R. Malik wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:02 pm
Walter R. Malik wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:49 pm


That leaves the roof to be unlimited so, I would limit the ROOF height or use a "middle of the port height" center-line figure.

Under 2 1/4" from the deck to the port center seems pretty normal for a raised runner, street type head on the ones I've measured ...somewhere around there would probably be good for a center-line measurement or under 3 1/2" for a roof limitation.
That group would include:
18 degree Chevrolet small Block
Yates type Ford small block
A460 type Ford big block
Most Chevrolet Big Block
Raised runner Buicks
Every small block Mopar other than the all out race stuff
Some Ford Clevelands
Some raised runner Pontiacs and Oldsmobiles
AMC's
AND ... a lot more ...

Only the all out race heads would be eliminated.
On this list of engines you left off today's most popular engine: The LS. As far as port height from the deck to the top of the port on a stock LS3 is 3 7/8" and the LS7 is 4 1/16". In the year 2018 these engines are going to part of the contest.

OK ... if those are the actual measurements then do whatever it requires to also allow them to compete.
The LS3 measurement given to me was 3.400".

My figures were merely suggestions ... definitely not hard numbers.
I sure hoped some other people involved would take some measurements and let those be known.
http://www.rmcompetition.com
Specialty engine building at its finest.

steve z
Member
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 11:08 pm
Location: charlton.MA
Contact:

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by steve z » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:19 pm

simple.........7500$ claim rule

Warp Speed
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2065
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: NC

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by Warp Speed » Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:29 am

I thought this is a "Race Engine Challenge"?!? Lol

Post Reply