Race Engine Challenge II

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

Post Reply
WeingartnerRacing
Expert
Expert
Posts: 560
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 8:37 pm
Location: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Contact:

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by WeingartnerRacing » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:24 am

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.
Eric Weingartner
Weingartner Racing LLC
918-520-3480
www.wengines.com

User avatar
CamKing
Guru
Guru
Posts: 8229
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:05 pm
Location: Denver, NC
Contact:

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by CamKing » 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 Jones
Jones Cam Designs
Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
(704)489-2449

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

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by David Vizard » 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
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.

User avatar
CamKing
Guru
Guru
Posts: 8229
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:05 pm
Location: Denver, NC
Contact:

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by CamKing » Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:54 am

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.
Mike Jones
Jones Cam Designs
Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
(704)489-2449

Warp Speed
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2062
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: NC

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by Warp Speed » Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:50 pm

Classic! LOL

User avatar
CamKing
Guru
Guru
Posts: 8229
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:05 pm
Location: Denver, NC
Contact:

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by CamKing » 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. :lol:
Mike Jones
Jones Cam Designs
Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
(704)489-2449

BigBlocksOnTop2
Pro
Pro
Posts: 385
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Chancellorsville Battle Field, Chancellorsville, Virginia

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by BigBlocksOnTop2 » Fri Oct 27, 2017 2:15 pm

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

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

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by Rick360 » 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. :lol:
Admitting you have a problem is the first step to getting help. :lol:

Rick

Walter R. Malik
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3409
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 » 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...?
http://www.rmcompetition.com
Specialty engine building at its finest.

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3378
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by GARY C » Sat Oct 28, 2017 12:37 am

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

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

Gregory
Member
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:01 am
Location: Charlotte

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by Gregory » Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:54 pm

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

User avatar
CamKing
Guru
Guru
Posts: 8229
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:05 pm
Location: Denver, NC
Contact:

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by CamKing » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:47 am

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).
Mike Jones
Jones Cam Designs
Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
(704)489-2449

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3378
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by GARY C » 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.

Curtis Mc
New Member
New Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:32 am
Location: Fort Collins, CO

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by Curtis Mc » Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:02 pm

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...

User avatar
CamKing
Guru
Guru
Posts: 8229
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:05 pm
Location: Denver, NC
Contact:

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by CamKing » Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:06 pm

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.
Mike Jones
Jones Cam Designs
Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
(704)489-2449

Post Reply