Advanced Engine Theory and Design

More oil info

The last time there was a big change in oil formulation was mid-2005. Anything with the starburst on the bottle and 30w or less (0-30, 5-30, 10-30)is the new formulation (GF4 rating). That includes petroleum, blends and syns. The GF3 rating is the old formulation. Some OLD bottles may have the starburst and be the GF3 rating. Those have most likely been circulated out of stock by now. New law states that if the oil does not meet GF4, no starburst allowed. The heavier weight oils maintain higher levels of the old additives. The new formulations are not void of EP additives. New, more expensive EP additives were developed and are in the new formulations. There effectiveness is still up for debate.

Racing oils are heavy in EP additives, but in some brands detergent additives are non-existant. It is assumed racing oil will be changed often so the need for detergents is not important.
 
Are the cam lobe wear problems all because of recent changes to the oils? No. It seems metallurgy is playing a big role too.
 
Within the last five years or so there was some testing done with the aim to see how the new oil formulations would affect flat tappet camshafts. OEM camshafts were used in the tests. The results were inconsistent. Cam lobes would go flat every so often. And different lobes would fail from one camshaft to the next. While some camshafts would go through the test with no lobe wear problems. The camshafts were put through hardness testing and the results were disheartening. Hardness ratings bounced all over the place. Not only from camshaft to camshaft, but also from lobe to lobe on the same camshaft. To finish the testing, camshafts were sourced from the aftermarket and batches were hardness tested and grouped before they were run through the wear test. Interesting, isn't it. The lesson to be learned from this is to find the best cam breakin lubes, best oils for cam breakin, best procedures for cam breakin, and most importantly, cross your fingers. :confused:
 
Most interesting and thanks for reminding me.

Several years back my employer at the time was looking for a process oven.
Crane Cams had a few ovens for sale. Coast cutting was a major concern for them and Crane and Co decided to switch from natural gas to electric. I also discovered several of the other cam producers were doing the same for the exact same reason. All of this happened in the late 80's if memory serves me. Anyway, here in Houston, one of the outfits (a heat treat Co) we did work for had refired there old gas units and flipped the switch off on their new electric systems. Seems natural gas did the trick and electrics didn't.
I was told by the QC rep at the heat treat co that the time factor in the process was causing premature wear problems.:eek: Seems the stability of the process was (sometimes) comprised by the use of elecriticy. The temp
maps looked OK but the real life results sometime were less than acceptable.

I wonder if Crane and the other cam producers are still using electrically fired processors? My guess is they are...
Gary
 
Donnie,
Did you request help with a ASME (bell-mouth) inlet on a turbo? I have some experience designing industrial duct systems and probably can help. Tell me what you are looking at and I will offer some suggestions and the anticipated power gain.
Conrad
 
Donnie,
Did you request help with a ASME (bell-mouth) inlet on a turbo? I have some experience designing industrial duct systems and probably can help. Tell me what you are looking at and I will offer some suggestions and the anticipated power gain.
Conrad

Conrad. I greatly appreciate the offer. After the engine is back in the car, I'll be able to see how much room I have to possibly install a bell mouth. I want to have the bell mouth inside a housing that will be fed by an air filter. I do not want to run without an air filter. When it's together I'll post a picture and maybe you can give me some ideas. I've studied old formula turbo inlets that incorporated a bell inside the intake plumbing with a filter at the entrance to the plumbing. I think that is the direction I'd like to go.

Again, thanks for the hand.
 
The rules are completely open in this class other than displacement and the fact we have to run a carburetor. .


Ya know, you should give Lou Czarnota a call. He played/built/ran insanly fast times with turbo'ed carb'ed motors from all throughout the 70's until our GN's came around now thats mainly his cup of tea. I bet he could explain a lot and be of GRAVE HELP to you and your BONI EVENT. I remember actually seeing him in a few old issues of HOT ROD with his turbo carb'ed motors. Call him up he knows about that first hand! A serious Grand National Bonneville event car/ converted to turbo'ed carb'ed/ LOU THAT WOULD BE SICK hop on it! LET ME VIDEO THAT and make a dvd. Give him a call Goodluck.

His screenname, turbolou
His public profile, http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/members/turbolou.html
His website Lou's Auto
Lou Czarnota
26212 Dimension Way
Unit 140
Lake Forest, CA 92630
(949) 378-1590
 
Hey Don, I finally found someone who runs your wastegate. Its a little scary though, but sure is cool. here ya go.

You share HKS wastegates with a fully carbon fiber evo, which currently holds many lap records at famous Jap tracks.


Here is a close engine bay picture.





Enjoy your day Don, keep up this good thread!
 
Food for Power... Food for thought!

Has anyone given consideration to a laminar flow insert at the Turbo Inlet?
My past research indicated the improvement was only noticed at higher RPM.
Only thing I wasn't able to play with was the runner length (didn't have any room to play.. it was on a MC). With fuel injection used a base line, I'd guess somewhere around 9/11" would be place to start if you were interested in playing with the ram air theory, per the cu. in. of a S2 (274"). My findings were all courtesy of Physics Graduate friend that years back was a design man for an irragition Co. that designed the Toro Popup Sprinkler (back in the 60's and still in use today BTW).
The insert would be described as a honeycomb looking affair, that would be fit in the inlet of the turbo.
I've got one on my Cummins but I don't notice much in the way of an improvement. I'd guess the reason being the inlet air velocity is typically less than 160 mph which is the speed needed for the device to start to work.
Gary :cool:
 
No, the thing you are thinking of isn't working for laminar flow. In fact it's theory is 180 deg. the other way. As in the difference between a fine spray vs. a clean stream via your typical garden hose twist nozzle.
Gary
 
No, the thing you are thinking of isn't working for laminar flow. In fact it's theory is 180 deg. the other way. As in the difference between a fine spray vs. a clean stream via your typical garden hose twist nozzle.
Gary

Got it. So it "straightens out" the airflow??
 
Correct, cut the end off the hose. Would there be a better way of
getting more water from the hose? Flow is now @ max with no tubulent flow.
 
Great that you guys brought this subject up. I've been heavily laden with brain f rt lately and couldn't think of anything to bring up for discussion.

This happens to be the only area in the gas flow of my engine that I have not explored yet. The turbo inlet airflow.

I have some ideas and Conrad's put on his thinking cap on the subject too. I'll get those dimensions to you tonight.

I'll present my vision of an idea and you guys can throw in some .02 into the hat, if you care too.

First off, I feel the best way to maximize turbo inlet gas volume is to use a carefully radiused bellmouth entry. That seems to be a widely accepted idea among the top turbo racers. You see bellmouths everywhere. Problem. What about all the trash that's being picked up by the engine? I for one can't afford to ignore my cylinder walls and rings. I will always run a filter.
What about housing the bell mouth in a larger housing that is very large in diameter just behind the back of the bellmouth, then carries forward of the bellmouth with only a slight decrease in cross section. As the distance increases from the front of the bellmouth, the cross section tapers down to a reasonable inlet tube with enough diameter to supply the needed airflow demanded by the engine. The tube could even squish down to an oval shape inorder to clear other components. The tube can then extend to a filter or filter box of any dimension that will house the required size and type of filter element(s). For example. The inlet tube could lead to a filter box shaped like a Pro Stock hood scoop. Inside the scoop would be a geometry of filter shapes to best use the space available inside the scoop and to get the most filtration surface area from the box shape. This follows very closely to what F1 was doing with their cars during the glorious turbo era years. Old tech now, but I just haven't been able to figure out a better system.

What do you guys think? You guys hit a nerve with me. If I could squeeze just a little more airflow from this T76. I really don't want to have to go to a bigger frame turbo. Can't wait to see what we can brain storm up.
 
Book reference

I just turned Conrad onto an important book in my life. I highly recommend it to every Turbo Buick V6 enthusiast or anyone with turbocharged blood in their veins. It is the one book that inspired me most with my engine configuration. A lot of mornings were spent looking through 1 or 2 pages at a time while on the mighty thinking thrown. By the way, not a recommended way to read books, according to doctors. Ahhh. They don't know what their talking about.

Formula 1
THE TURBO ERA
by Alan Henry
Published by Hazleton Publishing Limited, 1998.
ISBN 1-874557-97-7

I should have made this book required reading at the start of this thread. Well, now you have my most powerful weapon. Enjoy.
 
Not for the "faint of heart"

Ian Bamseys' "1000 BHP Grand Prix Cars" is my pick for being THE in depth look at the F1 design. This little puppy costs way too much and is about as easy as finding a Au nugget in your toilet. :eek:
Gary
 
Damn, I hope you are kiddin'

Atomic # 79
Atomic weight based on carbon atom 196.967
Above are all the hints i can think of...Oh Yea! periodic something or other...!
Gary
 
Top