Chamber & Piston Thermal Barrier: CR Improvement Equivalent?

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

NewbVetteGuy
Member
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2016 4:11 pm

Chamber & Piston Thermal Barrier: CR Improvement Equivalent?

Post by NewbVetteGuy » Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:28 pm

I've read a good number of the thermal coatings and particularly thermal barrier threads on here and what I'm interested in understanding is if there are any rules-of-thumb for the CR increase equivalent that you gain from coated combustion chambers and pistons?

(Thermal Barrier coatings are increasing the combustion temp, much like a CR increase, it would make sense that the easiest way to understand the change, in terms of torque, HP, mpg, & detonation sensitivity would be to just model your combo with an equivalent increase in static CR.)



Adam

ptuomov
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1542
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:52 am

Re: Chamber & Piston Thermal Barrier: CR Improvement Equivalent?

Post by ptuomov » Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:37 pm

Power gain or knock resistance? Keeping the heat in the chamber can sometimes help one and hurt another.
[b]Paradigms often shift without the clutch[/b] -- [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxn-LxwsrnU[/url]

NewbVetteGuy
Member
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2016 4:11 pm

Re: Chamber & Piston Thermal Barrier: CR Improvement Equivalent?

Post by NewbVetteGuy » Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:45 pm

ptuomov wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:37 pm
Power gain or knock resistance? Keeping the heat in the chamber can sometimes help one and hurt another.
For sure. More heat = more power but brings knock knocking at your door. That's why I'd like to understand HOW MUCH change it makes.


Adam

User avatar
MadBill
Guru
Guru
Posts: 12632
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 10:41 am
Location: The Great White North

Re: Chamber & Piston Thermal Barrier: CR Improvement Equivalent?

Post by MadBill » Wed Nov 01, 2017 5:12 pm

I believe part of the intent of TBCs is to reduce heat transfer from the surrounding surfaces to the mixture during the compression stroke, thereby reducing the likelihood of detonation...
Felix, qui potuit rerum cognscere causas.

Happy is he who can discover the cause of things.

ptuomov
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1542
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:52 am

Re: Chamber & Piston Thermal Barrier: CR Improvement Equivalent?

Post by ptuomov » Wed Nov 01, 2017 5:23 pm

MadBill wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 5:12 pm
I believe part of the intent of TBCs is to reduce heat transfer from the surrounding surfaces to the mixture during the compression stroke, thereby reducing the likelihood of detonation...
The intent or the effect? How far into the compression stroke do you have to be before the charge temperature exceeds the cylinder head temperature? I think someone smarter than me could compute the energy balance there, will less heat transfer lead to higher or lower end gas temperature.
[b]Paradigms often shift without the clutch[/b] -- [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxn-LxwsrnU[/url]

User avatar
MadBill
Guru
Guru
Posts: 12632
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 10:41 am
Location: The Great White North

Re: Chamber & Piston Thermal Barrier: CR Improvement Equivalent?

Post by MadBill » Wed Nov 01, 2017 5:28 pm

Good question; I think there's way more theory than data out there... :-k
Felix, qui potuit rerum cognscere causas.

Happy is he who can discover the cause of things.

ptuomov
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1542
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:52 am

Re: Chamber & Piston Thermal Barrier: CR Improvement Equivalent?

Post by ptuomov » Wed Nov 01, 2017 5:35 pm

MadBill wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 5:28 pm
Good question; I think there's way more theory than data out there... :-k
What I’ve heard is that if you can feed the engine high octane gas and run it rich, the coatings seem to help power. On pump gas and with some limits on enrichment, it’s not so obvious which way it’s going to go. Also, turbo diesels (which don’t have knock issues) by my reading all seem to like coated chambers and pistons without any reservations. No first hand experience personally, the parts we tbc coat are external and the coating is there to protect components in a packed engine bay.
[b]Paradigms often shift without the clutch[/b] -- [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxn-LxwsrnU[/url]

racear2865
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1358
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: tenn

Re: Chamber & Piston Thermal Barrier: CR Improvement Equivalent?

Post by racear2865 » Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:14 pm

Played with this a couple years ago. coated piston top, combustion chamber and face of valves. Was a SBC. Found it to be sensitive to timing to control detonation. Had a 6 inch rod. Changed to 5.7 to try to keep piston from being on top dead center too long. Finally decided that would do just like any motor to control detonation. Closed deck clearance from .041 to .o35. All worked to help but had a customer that wanted engine so couldnt play any more. Hope one day to try again and make more changes. Oh I also was going to change to Ceramic coated headers but didnt get to try. One thing I did notice was that oil temp droped but did not get to run any a/b/a test,. Wanted to coat intake bottom and top and wanted to insulate carb but------
reed

jsgarage
Expert
Expert
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:54 pm

Re: Chamber & Piston Thermal Barrier: CR Improvement Equivalent?

Post by jsgarage » Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:38 pm

I remember a write-up of Smokey Yunick playing with ceramic coatings eons ago. He managed to coat a set of pistons so well, the underlying aluminum melted from retained combustion heat. So the unsupported coating eventually cracked. Maybe the melting point of aluminum is one limit?

User avatar
4sfed
Pro
Pro
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: Chamber & Piston Thermal Barrier: CR Improvement Equivalent?

Post by 4sfed » Wed Nov 01, 2017 9:24 pm

jsgarage wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:38 pm
I remember a write-up of Smokey Yunick playing with ceramic coatings eons ago. He managed to coat a set of pistons so well, the underlying aluminum melted from retained combustion heat. So the unsupported coating eventually cracked. Maybe the melting point of aluminum is one limit?
That doesn't make sense ... the combustion chamber is the only heat source capable of melting aluminum. Unless the bottom of the pistons were also coated, the coating could only reduce the temperature of the pistons.

CharlieB53
Member
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:44 pm
Location: Wright City, Missouri

Re: Chamber & Piston Thermal Barrier: CR Improvement Equivalent?

Post by CharlieB53 » Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:20 am

The coating will only reduce the speed of the heat transfer from combustion into the piston.

It may be argued the incoming mixture does provide a % of piston cooling prior to the next combustion cycle. However, I seriously doubt that any insulation could function as a one-way heat valve, allowing the piston to accumulate temps and melt without other contributing factors causing elevated combustion temps.

I suspect if the underlying piston material was melting that Smokey was playing with leaning out the mixture on the big end, increasing power. The rise in combustion temps and the sustained heat transfer through the coating finally melted the underlying aluminum. This could easily have been prevented watching exhaust temp or possibly O2.

User avatar
John Wallace
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1281
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 10:20 am
Location: was Central Illinois - Now in Sunny Florida!
Contact:

Re: Chamber & Piston Thermal Barrier: CR Improvement Equivalent?

Post by John Wallace » Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:26 am

He managed to coat a set of pistons so well, the underlying aluminum melted from retained combustion heat. So the unsupported coating eventually cracked.
If it let heat get to the piston, it wasn't really a heat barrier?
John Wallace
Pontiac Power RULES !
www.wallaceracing.com

In-Tech
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1510
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:35 am

Re: Chamber & Piston Thermal Barrier: CR Improvement Equivalent?

Post by In-Tech » Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:43 am

In the mid 90's I was spraying and baking my own piston tops and never did an a-b-a test but also never noticed any gains. What dawned on me one day is how do I know I have the EXACT same thickness barrier on the top of the piston and if it isn't exact isn't the thinner part of the barrier going to have to take the most abuse just like the thinnest part of the piston and/or the exhaust side? So I quit doing it :?
Heat is energy, energy is horsepower...but you gotta control the heat.
-Carl

User avatar
MadBill
Guru
Guru
Posts: 12632
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 10:41 am
Location: The Great White North

Re: Chamber & Piston Thermal Barrier: CR Improvement Equivalent?

Post by MadBill » Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:21 pm

CharlieB53 wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:20 am
.. I seriously doubt that any insulation could function as a one-way heat valve, allowing the piston to accumulate temps and melt without other contributing factors causing elevated combustion temps...
A heat diode! The ramifications are huge... :-k
Felix, qui potuit rerum cognscere causas.

Happy is he who can discover the cause of things.

User avatar
modok
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1323
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 1:50 am

Re: Chamber & Piston Thermal Barrier: CR Improvement Equivalent?

Post by modok » Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:32 pm

I have not seen any real evidence coating pistons reduces or promotes knock.
I have seen evidence a rough surface on the piston may reduce tendency to knock.

There have read a few back to back tests but they test plain piston VS blasted and coated.
They need to test blasted VS blasted and coated.
Glen Urban

Post Reply