Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk

steve z wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:19 pm simple.........7500$ claim rule

That sounds cool but no one is going to be a dick and claim someone’s motor. In circle track I have seen it once and the guy who got claimed started his engine reved it to the moon and blew it up and said here you go.

David Vizard wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:59 pm What we could do here is have a lift rule based on the intake valve diameter.

Huge problem with that.
If that was the rule, I would put the largest intake valve I could fit in the bore(way over what it needs), and just do the valve job, and seat work to make it act like the proper size valve. Now I've got an engine with the effective valve size that's proper for the engine, running the allowed valve lift of the much larger valve.

You'd be handicapping engines with smaller bores, and heads with smaller valves. For a given CID and RPM, the smaller valve will need more lift, not less, to make the power of the larger valved engine.

CamKing wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:58 am

David Vizard wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:59 pm What we could do here is have a lift rule based on the intake valve diameter.

Huge problem with that.
If that was the rule, I would put the largest intake valve I could fit in the bore(way over what it needs), and just do the valve job, and seat work to make it act like the proper size valve. Now I've got an engine with the effective valve size that's proper for the engine, running the allowed valve lift of the much larger valve.

You'd be handicapping engines with smaller bores, and heads with smaller valves. For a given CID and RPM, the smaller valve will need more lift, not less, to make the power of the larger valved engine.

Mike,

I think you may have over thunk this!!
It is almost impossible to get a valve/port that will work above .35D. Think about this - it does not matter what size valve you choose it still won't work above .35 D. If that does not produce the results it is not because that valve is restricted on lift. It's because the rest of the head and block specs are out of whack!!

(no more rum and coke for you!!!)

DV

David Vizard wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:19 am

CamKing wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:58 am

David Vizard wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:59 pm What we could do here is have a lift rule based on the intake valve diameter.

Huge problem with that.
If that was the rule, I would put the largest intake valve I could fit in the bore(way over what it needs), and just do the valve job, and seat work to make it act like the proper size valve. Now I've got an engine with the effective valve size that's proper for the engine, running the allowed valve lift of the much larger valve.

You'd be handicapping engines with smaller bores, and heads with smaller valves. For a given CID and RPM, the smaller valve will need more lift, not less, to make the power of the larger valved engine.

Mike,

I think you may have over thunk this!!
It is almost impossible to get a valve/port that will work above .35D. Think about this - it does not matter what size valve you choose it still won't work above .35 D. If that does not produce the results it is not because that valve is restricted on lift. It's because the rest of the head and block specs are out of whack!!

(no more rum and coke for you!!!)

DV

I think you're hitting the sauce a little early today.
Here's an example.
Chevy Bow Tie 034, Ported by Meaux Racing
223cc Intake runner
2.085/1.585 valves
4.125" Bore
138/107 @.200"
199/150 @.300"
246/201 @.400"
279/216 @.500"
296/222 @.600"
307/224 @.700"
316/224 @.800"
322/225 @.900"

According to you, with that 2.085" valve, it's almost impossible to get the port to work above .730" lift.
As you can see, you're only .170" off.
It's not uncommon to see a 1.94" valve flow past .800" lift, a 2.15" valve go past .900", or a 2.18" flow to 1.000"

Restricting lift to a % of valve diameter is a horrible rule, that will do nothing but give a large advantage to the guys that can fit the largest intake valves in their bores.

Classic! LOL

BTW, neither David, or I, have a drinking problem.
For those of you that are humor impaired, we were joking.

Off topic, but many yrs. ago I came across some ''shine'' that turned a buddy of mine into a merry go round!

CamKing wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 2:04 pm BTW, neither David, or I, have a drinking problem.
For those of you that are humor impaired, we were joking.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step to getting help.

Rick

Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:44 pm

TexBlackwell wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:01 pm 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.

So, has anybody made some more actual measurements on other different heads to offer as real information...?

Rick360 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 2:37 pm

CamKing wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 2:04 pm BTW, neither David, or I, have a drinking problem.
For those of you that are humor impaired, we were joking.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step to getting help.

Rick

I have never seen drinking as a problem, I have that mastered, it's that whole darn stopping thing that screws me up.

Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 7:06 pm

Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:44 pm

TexBlackwell wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:01 pm 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.

So, has anybody made some more actual measurements on other different heads to offer as real information...?

From the bottom of the head to the bottom of the port on a LS3 is 1.375", a LS7 is 1.75" and a SB2 is 1.80" - 1.95" .
A Gen III Hemi which has a different architetuchure than your other 2V heads is 2.235" for the Apache/Hellcat heads.
What is it for a CHI Cleveland head?

Also, let's stop the one ups man ship and keep things to a technical nature.
Greg Finnican
Charlotte, NC
704 408-7356

The point I was trying to make is, Since these are supposed to represent "top of the line" street/strip engines, that a customer would actually pay for, the rules should reflect that. No one builds an engine for a customer, with the restriction of the valve lift being a percentage of the intake valve. That's not a real world situation.
On the other hand, engine builders are always having to work within a lift they believe will be reliable for the application, or within the usable lift of a given endurance spring they want/need to run.
If a customer comes to you, and wants the engine to run 5,000 miles a year, you're not going to run .900" lift, with 1,100# over the nose. You're going to look at the endurance springs that you believe can handle that mileage,find the ones that have the pressures you feel your lifters can handle, and work within their limits.
My suggestion, is to limit the lift to a lift that is at the top-end, of what can be run reliably in a street/strip engine that has to see a given number of miles a year. Something a paying customer would actually ask for, reliability wise. I'm thinking around .750" net lift. I would also mandate, no dwell cams(this is easily checked).

Thats why I was thinking hyd roller, non min travel and no hollow stem or titanium valves, both would keep cost and valve train in the realm of what is done everyday.

CamKing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:47 am Since these are supposed to represent "top of the line" street/strip engines, that a customer would actually pay for, the rules should reflect that.

This point has been touched on the past, but, the wording here struck me. "What if" this was in fact set up like a claimer series, for say $10k, $15k, $20k (pick a number), and the 'general public' was invited, with their wallets. You as the builder own the R&D and recipe, and you (may) have someone there to purchase your engine right off the pump? Help offset (some of) the costs right there on the spot. The hours certainly would not be recovered, but it would make someone think long and hard about the hours as well as the parts with the possibility that they won't be carting the engine home after the event.

Clearly a lot more to this, but just a thought...

GARY C wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:45 pm Thats why I was thinking hyd roller, non min travel and no hollow stem or titanium valves, both would keep cost and valve train in the realm of what is done everyday.

The problem with the hydr rollers is, they're too easy to cheat, and very hard to tech. You don't want to be having to pull apart the lifters. You'll end up a competition between builders that can figure out how to turn their hydr roller lifters into mechanical roller lifters, and not get caught.