"Singh Grooves"

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Yep.

That's right. I dug this one up.


In this installment of me asking questions about crap that probably doesn't work, I'm rehashing the topic of Singh Grooves.

For those unfamiliar, I remember reading this exact article when I was in my teens:

Vehicles Archives

See the latest Vehicles stories from Popular Science. See news, trends, tips, reviews and more at Popular Science.

www.popsci.com

Anyone out there with any experience? Second cousins third ex brother in law did it and got eleventy billion gofasts and his engine started making its own fuel?



Principal seems simple enough: cut a groove(s) in your combustion chamber to (theoretically) create an air jet during the compression stroke. This supposedly created air jet increases fuel and air mixing and atomization.

Sounds plausible at best to me.

Dunno. Let's talk some sh*t on the whole principle.

 

[Curious Hound]

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Right??

 

[bobbywalter]

We fire slot heads.....real effective on old Harley's....but uhhhhh.....it's so we can use MORE GO JUICE.... fo mo powah

 

[Curious Hound]

We fire slot heads....

I thought you were referring to some kind of idiots at work.

 

[8thTon]

I can't watch it without turning off my add blocker, but it sounds like the things that was discussed some years ago where they made grooves in the squish band to create turbulence & mixing in the combustion chamber. It probably helps some older combustion chamber designs, at the cost of having a small volume that doesn't burn well in that groove. I remember some years ago Ford eliminated a small piston orientation pit the size of half a grain of rice, as it trapped fuel that didn't burn, and was responsible for a significant amount of remaining pollution. Modern engines are probably all designed with flow analysis tools to have good mixing.

 

[don4331]

If you want the Holy Grail, buy an F1 engine* - they are currently over 50% efficient! If you can't afford that a PowerStroke Diesel might be more in your price range; Ecoboost isn't bad 2nd.

Historical example which would work great with Singh Grooves:

When Ford modified the 390 FE to work with lower octane unleaded fuel in '70s, the quick and dirty solution was to install "low compression pistons". But rather than design a piston with a "bowl" which mirrored the combustion chamber in the head, but would have required redesign of pistons($), durability testing ($$), modification to manufacturing equipment ($$), they pulled 410 pistons out of the parts bin. And 410 pistons on 390 crank/rod, dropped compression from 10:1 to 8:1 and it basically ran fine with 87 octane unleaded. But there was issue - under heavy load/fuel throttle/hot day the engine would "ping". But the projected warranty failure rate was way less than new pistons, so the bean counter made the technical decision - use the 410 pistons.

But a 390 FE with 410 pistons, has a large area which isn't properly "quishing" A/F mixture into the combustion bowl, and it is comparatively cool, so the fuel isn't completely burning before it is exhausted (where on your '70s engine, they injected air) and cast iron manifolds would glow red. And you need larger throttle openings to supply more A/F to make the desired power.

So, if you add Singh Grooves to your 390 heads, you more completely burn the fuel and see the improvements quoted.

But a much better solution is to manufacture proper pistons with a reverse bowl. But Ford wanted to retire the FE so engine design was blamed.

Neither solution results in perpetual energy though.

*Actually, if cost/rules weren't in the way, engine efficiency can probably be increased ~5%, but beyond that becomes extremely difficult. (100% efficiency isn't possible as we are 273° K/491° R above absolute zero).