Landracing Forum
Tech Information => EFI Questions => Topic started by: GH on November 07, 2008, 10:38:38 AM
-
Mike Collison and myself is changing the #1950 Buick to EFI instead of carbeurated. We had installed the MegaSquirt ECU last year for datalogging only. We will retain the carb and use it as a throttle body, we will have an injector in each of the intake ports and 2 injectors above the new 6-71 blower. Have new Venolia flat top blower pistons, will have the block "O" ringed with stainless steel wire and having a cam ground for the blower. Also modifing the block for a full flow oil filter system.
-
pictures--- man ----pictures :-D :cheers:
-
I know the 4bbl will work as an air valve, but it seems to me that with all the throttle bodies laying around junk yards these days. And the clean unobstructed flow through them that It might be worthwile to use one. I have a number of 65mm throttle bodies I have no real use for and one brand new 90mm throttle body that is worth around $25 and shipping to me.
-
Sparky, don't know how to do photos, sorry, I mean I am real sorry. Rich, Mike wants to keep the old look by using the carb as the throttle body. I think in the future he will go to turbo charged with efi, but for now he wants it this way.
-
Gary----that is not an acceptable excuse- :evil:-----you could give us all a nice Christmas present :lol:by learning to post picts.---you are just working on too much neat stuff!!!!!!!!!! and we all knoiw how we feel about STUFF---lol :cheers:
-
Sparky, don't know how to do photos, sorry, I mean I am real sorry. Rich, Mike wants to keep the old look by using the carb as the throttle body. I think in the future he will go to turbo charged with efi, but for now he wants it this way.
I've seen late model electric Q-Jets used as a throttle body and they have a TPS built into them. I think they machine off the air horn on top and all of the choke stuff. I don't know what they do about the secondaries as they are vacuum and not mechanical. I saw this some time ago, but didn't follow up as like Rich said just get a throttle body if you don't care about the look,
Sum
-
What is the port configuration on the straight 8? It's been years since I've seen one.
-
The intake ports (4), each one feed 2 cylinders, very poor design. Sum, we already have the TPS on the carb, no choke and mechanical secondaries. We are going with 55 pph injectors in the ports and 95 pph injectors above the blower.
-
So are the 2-3, 4-5, and 6-7 exhaust ports siamesed, too?
-
1-2-2-2-1
-
1-2-2-2-1
Thanks, Panic.
Wish I had something that technologically advanced to start with! :-D
-
Each cylinder has its own exhaust port. Unlike the Chevrolet & GMC 6 bangers which have a total of 4 ports.
-
The intake ports (4), each one feed 2 cylinders, very poor design. Sum, we already have the TPS on the carb, no choke and mechanical secondaries. We are going with 55 pph injectors in the ports and 95 pph injectors above the blower.
Will you use 8 port injectors or 4? Problem with shared intake runners is the valve timing. . . . for example . . . cylinder one intake opens, then 180° later cylinder two intake opens, then 540° later cylinder 2 opens. You must inject only on the open valve. Otherwise cylinder one will run rich and cylinder two will run lean. I'm using a 1-6-2-5-8-3-7-4 firing order.
I'm not sure I'm explaining the concept well, but imagine a constant flow injection system as an extreme example. #2 intake opens 180° after #1 intake opens . . . there will still be some flow into #1 as #2 begins opening. After #1 is fully closed, all the fuel flows into #2 until it closes . . . then it begins to puddle behind the closed valves. When #1 opens, that puddle dumps into #1 along with the fuel from the injector while the valve is open. Since cylinder #2 starts to open while #1 is still partially open, there is no puddle of fuel . . . so cylinder #2 receives less than half as much fuel as #1.
Assuming a redline of 6000 rpm, you'll have about 4 msec to inject your fuel but will require sequential injection . . . not currently available on the MegaSquirt. There is a router board under development for the MegaSquirt II that may become available next year.
http://www.megamanual.com/ms2/ (http://www.megamanual.com/ms2/)
Jim
-
You must inject only on the open valve.
Sorry, but that's not true at all. There's no such thing as any port EFI system injecting only when the valve is open. Think about it, an intake valve is open *at most* during 25 % of the combustion cycle, meanwhile at WOT most EFI injectors are running 80-100% duty cycle at WOT. 3/4 of the time an injector is open, the intake valve is closed and on OEM applications, it's even worse than that (conservative cams for torque and emissions).
Emissions at idle and warmup are really the only reason sequential EFI exists... if what you are saying is true, then how would a batch fire system work on *any* port injected engine? or TBI injection? that's how EFI cars were run for a decade until emissions laws began dictating "warmup" emissions be improved, and that is where sequential EFI shines - at lowest duty cycles, during idle warmup.
-scott
-
GH --
Are the exhaust ports separated, but siamesed in the stock exhaust manifold (looks like it in the picture Panic posted)?
Stan
-
That casting does look like it's got a dimple separating the pairs, but...?
I couldn't find one of the bare gasket surface.
-
The firing order is 1-6-2-5-8-3-7-4, yes? So, the separation between any pair of intake cycles is only 180°.
If the exhausts are joined in 2 groups (front & rear), as common the separation looks like:
Front 1 - 180° - 2 - 270° - 3 - 180° - 4 - 90° - 1 (total 720°)
Rear 5 - 90° - 8 - 180° - 7 - 270° - 6 - 180° - 5 (total 720°)
Both as bad as a bank-separated V8 (in fact, may help with a turbo by increasing the pulse effect).
You could join them for equal intervals:
#1 = 1 - 2 - 8 - 7, and #2 = 6 - 5 - 3 - 4 (all 180°)
but I don't see it as worth the trouble considering the primary length is huge.
Again, I would turn to Vizard's work on th Mini for how cam timing can compensate for irregular and overlapping intake strokes sharing a port.
-
You must inject only on the open valve.
Sorry, but that's not true at all. There's no such thing as any port EFI system injecting only when the valve is open. Think about it, an intake valve is open *at most* during 25 % of the combustion cycle, meanwhile at WOT most EFI injectors are running 80-100% duty cycle at WOT. 3/4 of the time an injector is open, the intake valve is closed and on OEM applications, it's even worse than that (conservative cams for torque and emissions).
Emissions at idle and warmup are really the only reason sequential EFI exists... if what you are saying is true, then how would a batch fire system work on *any* port injected engine? or TBI injection? that's how EFI cars were run for a decade until emissions laws began dictating "warmup" emissions be improved, and that is where sequential EFI shines - at lowest duty cycles, during idle warmup.
-scott
You're right . . . there are no production port EFI systems injecting only on an open valve . . . but there are no siamese port EFI engines. My point is that injecting on an open valve is the only port injection that's possible on this straight 8 engine . . . even more restricting is injecting only when there is no overlap between the two intake valves in one port.
Jim
-
You're right . . . there are no production port EFI systems injecting only on an open valve . . . but there are no siamese port EFI engines. My point is that injecting on an open valve is the only port injection that's possible on this straight 8 engine . . . even more restricting is injecting only when there is no overlap between the two intake valves in one port.
Jim
I see your point. You're concerned that all the fuel for one "squirt" intended for 2 cylinders' quantity of intake air, would get sucked into one cylinder. Wouldn't running "4-squirts alternating" or "2-squirts simultaneous" cover this? (megasquirt gives you the option of configuring the number of injection events per engine cycle) and on top of that, only half of his fuel will be supplied by the port injectors. THe other half of the fuel is supplied by upstream injectors, squirting through the blower... add to that, it depends how far upstream his injectors are from the intake valve too.
-
I see your point. You're concerned that all the fuel for one "squirt" intended for 2 cylinders' quantity of intake air, would get sucked into one cylinder. Wouldn't running "4-squirts alternating" or "2-squirts simultaneous" cover this? (megasquirt gives you the option of configuring the number of injection events per engine cycle) and on top of that, only half of his fuel will be supplied by the port injectors. THe other half of the fuel is supplied by upstream injectors, squirting through the blower... add to that, it depends how far upstream his injectors are from the intake valve too.
Ignoring for the moment, the upstream injectors, the squirts still have to happen on an open valve or they will accumulate and all go into one cylinder. I did a little searching and found an article that explains the problem fairly well . . . citing one production :-o example . . . British of course.
http://www.starchak.ca/efi/siamese.htm (http://www.starchak.ca/efi/siamese.htm)
Jim
-
I read the link - twice - and I am confused. What was his result? the guy discusses what he theorizes will be a problem, in a different application... the post is 8 years old - are there updates?
I can see some unbalance at idle and low RPM. But at high throttle openings, high duty cycle on the injector, wouldn't the fuel suplpy in the incoming air be the same as with a carburetor?
Pardon me for not understanding, but so far I am of the opinion that this is an "over-engineering" discussion. My money is still on the engine running happily, especially since 50% of the fuel is coming from injectors upstream of the port injector...
Guess we'll have to see, eh?
-
A lot of Siamese intake port engines have run in race cars both injected and carbureted. V4 engines like mine. Stock head GMC engines like mine. And such. Doesn't really make much difference if they are carbureted or injected except for the larger plenum. The lead cylinder 2 and 5 will get a better charge then 1 and 6. But people have been living with it for 100 years now.
-
Like some of the LMP cars and some of the modern road cars, could you solve this with a direct port injection right into the chamber? That is if its not going into a vintage body.
-
I read the link - twice - and I am confused. Pardon me for not understanding, but so far I am of the opinion that this is an "over-engineering" discussion. My money is still on the engine running happily, especially since 50% of the fuel is coming from injectors upstream of the port injector...
Guess we'll have to see, eh?
I made a timing chart and discovered that the straight 8 will only need 4 injectors if they are timed 90° apart . . . but the timing and length of the pulse is critical. I ignored the upstream injectors in the analysis because they work more like a carburetor, supply an A/F mixture of basically equal strength to each valve. The port injectors need to deliver equal amounts of fuel to each cylinder for the engine to run properly.
The first two charts show intake air flow and fuel flow for a properly timed engine . . . first at low power, then the second showing a longer pulse width.
The third shows what happens when the pulse width gets too long . . . the #2 valve closes before all the fuel is delivered. The fuel puddles and enters cylinder #1 along with all the fuel from the next injection pulse.
In the fourth example, the pulse width is okay but starts at the wrong time. All the fuel from the port injector enters cylinder #1 and none into cylinder #2.
(http://www.autocomponenti.com/bonneville_photos/siamese_port_inj.jpg)
-
The port injectors need to deliver equal amounts of fuel to each cylinder for the engine to run properly.
Good homework, but it raises a question -
Given the limitations of the design, wouldn't you want your intake charge fully atomized before it actually enters the port?
I don't think you want equal amounts of fuel per cylinder, but equal air-fuel ratio per cylinder.
Even with a scatter pattern cam, it's a tall order getting equal cylinder filling between two cylinders sharing an intake port. The best you can hope for is maximizing each cylinder individually. Port injection would just exasperate the problem.
I think Dieselgeek might have the right idea in moving the injector a little further upstream, but maybe just running TBI might be the simplest solution.
Chris
-
Given the limitations of the design, wouldn't you want your intake charge fully atomized before it actually enters the port?
The fuel will atomize sufficiently as it enters the cylinder . . . it has been warmed by sitting on the hot intake valve, and has to pass through a narrow opening as the valve cracks open.
I don't think you want equal amounts of fuel per cylinder, but equal air-fuel ratio per cylinder.
Even with a scatter pattern cam, it's a tall order getting equal cylinder filling between two cylinders sharing an intake port. The best you can hope for is maximizing each cylinder individually. Port injection would just exasperate the problem.
I think Dieselgeek might have the right idea in moving the injector a little further upstream, but maybe just running TBI might be the simplest solution.
Chris
Of course, equal A/F ratios is the goal. In the case of siamese ports, the normal batch-fire scheme (with no attention to injection timing) has little chance of success. TBI is a simple solution, but will give only approximately equal A/F ratios because of fuel drop-out due to differences in runner lengths and bends . . . and that will vary with throttle position and RPM.
Port fuel injection has the potential to provide a better distribution of A/F ratios to the various cylinders, but it will take some serious development. Fortunately for us, only a narrow RPM range at wide open throttle is really important. That makes the job a lot easier.
Jim
-
Boy, that's a lot of engineering. Just put it all together, make 8-10 psi boost, WOT to 5500 rpm, I'll bet it will run better than before, 144 mph. We'll see this winter when we run it on the chassis dyno. Cya
-
Boy, that's a lot of engineering. Just put it all together, make 8-10 psi boost, WOT to 5500 rpm, I'll bet it will run better than before, 144 mph. We'll see this winter when we run it on the chassis dyno. Cya
And for sure when you put it on the big white dyno... good luck with your project, have fun,
See ya on the salt 8-)
-
Stan Back, when I bought the 320 ci engine from the salvage yard it didn't have the manifolds on it, so I can't help you on the exhaust manifold design. The engine was out of a 1948 Buick Roadmaster, paid $85.00 for it in 1999.
-
4s fed, what are your thoughts on multiple -squirts per engine cycle? (not sure if you've read all the megamanual) but one thing that might help us here is, since this engine only runs to ~5000rpm, we have enough time to get "2 squirts" per cycle.
or it's possible we could just feed all the fuel upstream of the blower, since the manifold is a wet design anyways.
comments/thoughts?
-
4s fed, what are your thoughts on multiple -squirts per engine cycle? (not sure if you've read all the megamanual) but one thing that might help us here is, since this engine only runs to ~5000rpm, we have enough time to get "2 squirts" per cycle.
I wouldn't expect the timing or number of "squirts" to make much difference as long as the A/F ratio comes out right. When VW came out with the first production EFI we installed one of them on a six cylinder Opel engine . . . just adding an additional injector to each driver (two drivers) for a total of 6 injectors . . . no change in injector timing. There was only a 1% improvement in hp when we finally built a three-driver system and timed the pulses 240° apart instead of 180°.
or it's possible we could just feed all the fuel upstream of the blower, since the manifold is a wet design anyways.
comments/thoughts?
You can always inject upstream, but manifolding will play a more important part in even fuel distribution. I'll look for you guys next year.
Jim
-
Gary Hart, The Salt Cat is on the same road. It should be ready for road testing in about three weeks.[The red-neck chassis dyno]. We'll let you know how it went after the test.[Or when I get out of jail]. By then we should have snow to simulate the salt. :evil:
-
Buickguy3, you said you are on the same road. Did you mean you were injecting fuel in the intake ports like we are talking about?
-
Yes, At this point we are leaving the ports siamesed and using two injectors close to the cyl. head. We understand the problems, but will reserve modifications to the manifold and electronics until we run it and see what problems we encounter. There's a lot of Budweiser engineering to be done this Winter. [I hear it's going to be long and cold]. Good luck with your project, it sounds like you have some engineering to do also. DG.
-
JD Tone, are you reading any of this? Have you mechanically injected any of your JIMMY 6s, by injecting directly into the ports, near the head?
-
GH, Not mechanically injected. We are using TEC3R system.
-
I think we have a fix if it becomes necessary. We'll definitely report our progress!
-
I mechanicaly injected my Plymouth 4 near and far from the ports. ran 113.75 with the long tube big plenum intake, ran 113.75 with the short intake. The plugs looked pretty much the same all the way through. #1 exhaust valve would start leaking first so I guess it was running leaner.
-
GH, I have run mechanical injectors with my stock head. Because of "theory" I choose not to stay with them on gasoline. On the GMC cylinders 3 and 4 are the only 2 with even pulses between firings ie: the fuel "puddles" the same amount of time between those 2. The others 1, 2, 5, & 6 all have either more or less pulses between firings. In theory with a constant flow mechanical injection this mean you have 2 cylinders lean, 2 cylinders rich and 2 cylinders with the correct mixture. Odds are not good enough for me I still need all 6.
This can be masked with multiple nozzles and butterflies and is currently being done with quite a bit of success by a few racers just not yet by me.
The Buick is far worse in my opinion for constant flow mechanical fuel injection. Just look back at the message with the firing order and you will see what I mean. The shared intakes are separated by 1 pulse, then by 6. A lot of flowing fuel to puddle while 6 other cylinders fire.
I run vintage classes only so EFI is not an option. If it ever becomes one on vintage engines you won't see me any more. I kinda like Pro Stock and Nascar for these reasons.
I personally believe the placement of the nozzle on injected engine is dictated by the type of fuel. Methanol and nitro low and gasoline higher. EFI seems to be low on all my modern cars.....Good Luck
-
Here goes, I shrunk a photo of the Buick engine in question.
-
Here is a photo of the aluminum rods that are used in the straight 8 Buick. I just learned how to make photos small enough to post on here.
-
Looks like a pretty stout con-rod. Does this monster have 9 main bearings? The reason I ask is that I'm wondering why you're limiting your RPM to ~5000. Cast crank? Head design?
Chris
-
Could it be the 10-inch rod?
-
Don't know about GH's rod, but we stretched ours to 9 inchs so that we could shorten up the 4 ring piston. As a result, we took 1 pound 3 ounces off of each throw. The crank is forged. Hope the attachments come through. DG
-
Doug, our rods are actually 8.875" long, center to center, Venolia had them made for us in 1999, we think GRP made them.
-
GH, The problem that we had, was that we went through 3 different companies and eight months getting anybody to commit to make them. Then, none would make them as thick as needed to be able to set the side clearance, so we had to have all of the journals welded up [1/4 on a side] to close the gap. Grodin did them for us, but the beam was so wide that we had to grind a notch at the base of each side of each cylinders foe clearance. In the end, they are a beautiful piece of work as are the CP pistons, and have held up very well to the abuse that we have subjected them to. In the end they were probably worth the wait. Doug :-D
-
.
-
Doug, I had to grind a notch on each side of the lower end of each cylinder for rod clearance. Had to do the same with the GMC.
-
This will give everybody an idea of what the old stuff looks like next to the new stuff. On the left, is an original piston, on the right is a 1951 Nascar straight 8 piston, and in the middle is the one that CP Pistons made for us.[img][img] Hope it shows up.
-
Doug, here is a photo of the Venolia pistons. The left one with the dome and a hole in it is the old one. The right one is the new one, flat top blower piston. The other photo is the rework on the intake manifold for changing blower size from 4-71 to a 6-71.
-
G.H. , In retrospect, the next pistons we get will probably be domed similar to the one you show with the hole in it. The ones that we are currently using don't have any squish area. Buick wasn't wrong on a lot of things in their 1939 design. We are currently holding the compression at 8.0/1 for obvious reasons. The crank and bearings looked pretty good, given the abuse we subjected them to in our rookie outing. Mostly because we are limiting our RPM to 5000. D.G.
-
The domed Venolia - what's with that big valve-relief-looking cut out?
-
G.H. Check out the little article in the little Laurel Mt. paper this week. They heard about the old straight 8 SaltCat, but got more interested in Frank's other straight 8 powered hotrod. They did a pretty good piece, but unfortunately, the pics. of the SaltCat don't come up on-line. The editor of the paper drove 20 miles to Columbus on a Friday nite to do the article. Frank spent 5 years putting the twin turbo car together and when he got the running chassis together he put the front bumper and grille on the chassis and drove it on the trailer and took it to car shows and ran it on the trailer. It runs no mufflers and 3 inch exhausts people were so impressed with the chassis, he actually won People' Choice twice awards. Anyway, check it out at www.laureloutlook.com . [after this week it will be archived at Nov. 26] :cheers:
-
Nice story. Neat car.
-
GH
We fired the straight 8 today for the first time with the EFI. Surprised the hell out of ourselves. It runs and sounds good. We can see that it's a good thing that we got on it right away when we got home, as there are many hours of tuning to do before August. Right now our test track had a foot of snow on it and it's supposed to be -20 tomorrow. Indoors, we can last about an hour before we have to quit the CO and switch to Bud. Then all progress stops. This is a shot of the engine before we got the radiator in yesterday. At least, we know it works. DG :cheers:
-
GH
We fired the straight 8 today for the first time with the EFI. Surprised the hell out of ourselves. It runs and sounds good. This is a shot of the engine before we got the radiator in yesterday. At least, we know it works. DG
Congratulations :cheers:. . . now how about a couple shots from the intake side?
Jim
-
Outstanding! Shared ports are tricky to dial, but you've got enough time to make it right.
That big Beauford has gotta sound sweet.
:cheers:
Chris
-
After some months of planning, that was a big relief. We had to set it up as an SFI [sequential] system as a batch fire system it had some really weird mixtures from cyl. to cyl. Now we have to wait 'til the snow on the test track melts to get started on the set-up. [In Montana, the nearest reliable dyno is about 200 miles away]. Wish we were closer to the Electromotive people. I'll post a couple of intake shots, but it will take a couple of posts, as it only lets me do one at a time. DG :-)
-
I'll see if this is better. DG
P.S. Didn't mean to take over Gary's thread.
-
Too late. :-D :-D It's ok, the latest on my build is Gary and Sumner talking about their spoilers. :cheers:
-
Doug, lookin good. Does the return fuel line from the pressure regulator go all the way to the tank at the rear? Who makes those screw in injecters? Mike and myself are waiting on the cam and he had heart trouble and I had knee surgury, but both doing good, will get back to work on the Buick shortly. You are going to love the efi and datalogging.
-
GH,
Don't rush getting well, either of you. The car can wait a little while. Yes. the return line runs all of the way back to the tank. Actually there are two of them. They are the two lines [feed/return] that we used with the carb. [one is not used]. We ran a new #10 feed line for the new system. Injectors arent screw-in, just clamp-down like the Bosch ones. We fab'ed the feed fittings and the bungs from Aero-quip 90 degree els #10x#6, and #10x#6 bushings.
-
I think I've figured out how you get the valve cover off . . .
-
Three pieces! :wink: [This pic is before we found out we had to take off both ends]
-
Doug, has the snow melted off the test track yet?
-
Do you have a shot down the Int. port or is that top secret? :wink:
-
GH,
Test track is dry, but had a software glitch[ain't technology great?]. Had to send the CPU back to Electro-motive. Will be on the road when they get it back to us.
JAnderson,
There are two posts previously that get as close to the shot that you asked for as I have. The top of the manifold was tacked on before I got there with the camera to get a shot. The runners are about 6" long and tapered from about 2 1/2 wide at the top to 1 3/4 at the base. They are, as you can see in the last post, flared at the top. The domed ends just happen to be the bases of two 57 nailhead oil filter cans [hey, in Montana you have to use what's handy].
-
I meant a picture down the Int. port of the head.
That previous post of the Int. manifold correct? I am wondering what you did at the "brick wall" where the port splits to the valve bowls. I have been playing around with putting a vane in this area to try and help the air make the turn, or even splitting the siamesed port into 2 ports with a separator. I suppose with boost pressure you aren't as concerned with this, but I am working with a NA engine.
-
JAnderson,
Sorry, I misunderstood. We used a full sequential system, that the Electro-motive TecIIIr system allows as an option. By doing that, each cylinder gets to use the whole port, and doesn't neccessitate splitting the port. It works great. On the old twin turbo street car, Frank used the older Tech II design and on that one, he had to put a splitter vane on the manifold that went in and was profiled to seperate the port into two halves. That meant that each cyl. saw only a little tiny 1/2 size port. Worked, but not very efficient. That system was very cumbersome and is over 10 years old now. I'm afraid you could try porting to regain some area, but you'd probably strike water. You are right, boost does offer an advantage. Doug
-
GH
How's the healing process going for you and Mike? Any pics yet of the new EFI on the Buick? I meant to ask before, how many inches is the GMC, and what kind of compression can you run on those?
Doug
-
Stan, look at the post just a couple of posts previous. GH
-
Buick Guy,
Does your EFI system use an O2 sensor? A friend of my that is a flat head nut has installed the threaded bung for a Bosch O2 sensor in each of his header tubes right at the flange and he bought a small hand held "electronic gizmo" that looks at the O2 and give you the A/F ratio. Something like this might be handy when you or out on your "dyno" as it would allow you to look at the A/F for each cylinder.
Just a thought.
Looking forward to seeing you guys at the salt! Neat project!
Rex
-
I meant a picture down the Int. port of the head.
That previous post of the Int. manifold correct? I am wondering what you did at the "brick wall" where the port splits to the valve bowls. I have been playing around with putting a vane in this area to try and help the air make the turn, or even splitting the siamesed port into 2 ports with a separator. I suppose with boost pressure you aren't as concerned with this, but I am working with a NA engine.
I'd be cautious about what at first glance seems a logical idea. I'm going back to David Vizard's book on the A series engines, which deals with the Austin/Mini/Midget engines - they also have siamesed intake ports. A knife edge at the beak of siamesed ports between the valve bowls can act as an obstruction, and any other division of the port would probably restrict flow, although you might pick up velocity (Tuning the A-Series Engine, 3rd edition, page 195).
Panic has also read this book cover to cover, and probably has a better understanding of the issues than I do. I'm not sure what you're building, but I know it's not recommended for my engine.
-
Rex,
Thanks for your post. You are correct that there is a somewhat blunt division where the two bowls come together. The thing that helps this is the two cylinders. don't fire together. That lets one cyl. get all of the airflow for it's intake cycle, and the other cyl. on that port gets it all as it's intake cycle comes around. They don't fire next to each other or at the same time. That is why you need to run a full sequential system. This is just like spark advance in the ignition. Just before the intake valve opens, the injector fires for the next cylinder to go through intake ,then compression, then ignition. You could split the ports, and have a very similar setup, but you then would be restricting each port to a 1/2 size port. Unless you build a new head , you have to live with this setup. [could happen if this doesn't pan out]
Doug
-
Doug, the healing is going good. Mike received the cam from Donnie Johansen yesterday. The guy that is cutting the O ring grooves and installing the O rings is going to do that this weekend, we hope. Still thinking where to put the injecters. The GMC is 311 ci and the comp. ratio is around 8.3 to 1, has flat top blower pistons.
-
Here is a photo of some of the Buick parts. We are going to start screwing this thing together after some of the ice, sleet, and snow melts. We have decided to put the injectors above the blower.
-
That should simplify the EFI tuning. More air, more fuel, more power. Doug
-
We sure hope so, we were afraid to squirt it into the intake runners because of the symese (sp) ports. Here is some photos of the injectors.
-
I assume you're cooling the intake charge?
-
Negatory on the intake charge cooling, too costly, adds to much height to the blower. Will probably go turbos in the future.
-
My bad - I thought you were side-winding the blower. I gotta start paying attention.
-
Four posts above this one is some photos of the injectors. I couldn't get them to post here, so I modified that post. We put some play-dough on the piston and checked valve to piston clearance, had plenty. Installed the head and sent the engine home with Mike.
-
We've been working on the Buick pretty hard. We have been plumbing the efi pump, filters and injectors. We have a machinist making us an adaptor to mount a EDIS wheel on our balancer, it will be sandwiched in between the v-belt pulley and blower pulley. We are going to take it to Ohmaha Nebraska when we get it running and tune it on the chassis dyno.
-
Sweet.
I'm trying to imagine how far this blower is going to protrude through the hood. I remember the hood as being pretty tall all the way to the front, and with the blower sitting as low as it is with the respect to the body line, are you going to be able to clearance the snout?
A big thumb's up on this. :cheers:
-
Here is a photo of the EDIS wheel on the Buick. When the hood is on the car, all of the carb and injectors protrude through the hood. I am trying to talk Mike into putting a scoop on it to cover some of that stuff up, but he is balking.
-
GH,
Looking good. Hope all of the Winter's work pays off for you and Mike. Just got the new trans for the SaltCat yesterday, and now have to get a different t/o bearing. The TKO 600 uses a larger clutch shaft bearing than the T5 so we have to wait for any further "road dyno" work. There's always something new. When do you plan to take the Buick to the dyno? Wish there was one closer to home for us. Oh well, the road dyno will have to do for now. Take care, Doug
-
Doug, our plan is to take the Buick to the dyno before the end of May.
-
GH,
Looking good. Hope all of the Winter's work pays off for you and Mike. Just got the new trans for the SaltCat yesterday, and now have to get a different t/o bearing. The TKO 600 uses a larger clutch shaft bearing than the T5 so we have to wait for any further "road dyno" work. There's always something new. When do you plan to take the Buick to the dyno? Wish there was one closer to home for us. Oh well, the road dyno will have to do for now. Take care, Doug
Buickguy, there's a nice dyno in Billings. The Mustang Dyno website lists this place as having an eddy current chassis dyno: http://www.gjdiesel.com/
Might give them a call and see if they'll give you a deal on an hour or two.
-scott
-
Scott,
Been there. It's worn out, needs much work, and we had to use the EGT guage on the car because the one on the shop dyno wasn't picking up a signal. The guy that owns it is getting ready to retire and I don't think he's willing to do what is needed to upgrade the system. I like the guy who owns it and this is not a put down on him, but we would like to find a place that's kept up with the technology. Thanks for the tip, however, Doug
-
Scott,
Been there. It's worn out, needs much work, and we had to use the EGT guage on the car because the one on the shop dyno wasn't picking up a signal. The guy that owns it is getting ready to retire and I don't think he's willing to do what is needed to upgrade the system. I like the guy who owns it and this is not a put down on him, but we would like to find a place that's kept up with the technology. Thanks for the tip, however, Doug
In our case, we're not using much - if any - of the instrumentation on the dyno. The important part is if he has a working Eddy Current motor that can provide you with similar resistance to a real pass on the salt. We use our own onboard Air:Fuel and EGT monitoring, both of these are entry level / inexpensive units... it depends on what you're looking for I guess.
There were about 5 dynos listed on the www.mustangdyne.com website in your state, the rest of them looked to be pretty far off though.
-scott
-
Scott,
In Montana, "Far off" is only a day's drive. Thanks for the link. I think we'll try to get to one of them whem we get the tranny back in the SaltCat. Doug :cheers:
-
We're loading the Buick on the trailer tomarrow morning and heading to Omaha for the dyno tuning session. We had some issues earlier this week with the ignition and or ECU, will sort it out Friday evening or Saturday.
-
Have a safe trip.
Are we placing bets on the output? :roll:
Good luck!
-
Are we placing bets on the output? :roll:
We didn't get to WOT tuning just yet. We spent most of the weekend sorting through ignition, crankshaft trigger, and EFI stuff. We had to move injectors around in order to achieve better fuel distribution, and Mike & Gary decided they want to rework the injector locations a little bit before we let it fly on the dyno.
The new cam is, to say the least, "aggressive" - the old Buick has a whole new attitude. My wife got some videos of us running it in my shop, I'll try to get something up on Youtube in the next couple days.
The good news is, we got the crankshaft triggering working with the EFI, which is a mix of junkyard parts but a very accurate/high tech setup: uses a Hall sensor (from DigiKey) mounted over a Ford EDIS wheel (35 tooth, one missing) that feeds signal into the Engine Management computer, which then triggers spark through the MSD and old distributor. I.e. there's no need for points or pertronix in the old distributor and the new ignition is very accurate with the high resolution trigger wheel (computer gets a position update from the crankshaft every 10 degrees, or 36 times per revolution - makes for very accurate spark timing). The EFI is also tuned for a good start and idle, the datalogging is working and everything seems good.
We had some trouble with the noisy old cap & rotor and it's hard to find replacements locally. Mike and Gary are considering going with 8 LS1 coilpacks, as the new trigger setup allows them to go Coil-per-plug (wasted spark) and ditch the old cap, rotor, wires etc (everything but the oil pump drive). We saw a lot of noise on the scope, that will disappear if they go this route. How awesome would it be to see 8 coils on the old inliner?!? :-o (man I hope they do this)
So, there should be an update in a few weeks after they do some reconfiguration work,
-scott
-
What a masterful,"word? ", mix of old tech and new!! Cant wait to see it run again. :cheers:
-
Have you ever been able to measure the twist of the 44-inch crank at high RPM? I understand it is substantial, but that could just be an old wives' tail.
Stan
-
When we got back from Omaha, we had 4 pistons too lean, rings gone bad from too much cranking, scored cylinder walls. We are waiting on new pistons and rings. We have added 2 injectors in the plenom for the two front intake ports. Will try and go to the chassis dyno again late June or early July if time permits.
-
Ouch - that hurts.
Sounds like you have a plan of attack.
Good luck!
Chris
-
Got the Buick together and running yesterday. We started it on the carb. by using a high tech fuel pump and fuel tank running on lawnmower gas.
-
I like that nice subtle 90 you've got in the hose. The engine ran with that "restrictor"?
-
SSS, it ran great as long as I held the button down on the remote starter switch which we were using as a pigtail to the fuel pump. That inline pump was one I had carried in the tool box as a spare since the days I raced the A/GS Willys, was surprised it still worked. We first tryed to adjust the efi regulator down to 5-7 lbs pressure for the carb, but it would not go that low. We've got a fellow from Foxsomething that is going to donate a hat with 8 efi injectors to go on top of the blower. We had major problems with the homemade efi injectors above the blower. It sure has been fun..............
-
Here is a photo of the coil packs we are installing on the Buick.
-
Here is a midway through shot at a low tech Buick injector. Since they started out as EFI throttle bodies I guess a smart guy could continue to use them as such. But that leaves me out.
-
Rich --
Dammed if I don't like your inventiveness! Can you remember the Slant-6 Fuel Roadster of Team Fercockta that held the F(?)/FR record for 30 years or so with the butterfly-less injectors? How'd it work?
Stan Back
-
We both got back from family vacations. Yesterday we did some prewiring and prefuel lines so when we receive the efi hat we can get it running quicker. We are scheduled for the chassis dyno in Ohmaha on the 11th. of July, boy we're sure cutting it close this year....
-
They told me that it worked fine when it didn't catch fire. This is pretty much the same deal as my Plymouth times two.
-
Here is a couple of photos of the efi hat assembly less the scoop.
-
GH,
Very neat, and clean. Are you running a set of secondary injectors down in the manifold also?
Doug
-
Hi Doug, we installed two injecters in the plenom pointed toward the front two intake ports, just incase we need them.
-
We got the Buick running on the new throttle body injection, then changed the ignition over to the coil packs. We are cleaning up all the wiring now, we are going to drain all the gas out of the car and switch over to E-85, and do some tuning. Tomorrow we go to the chassis dyno for the final tuning.
-
Gary what type of gas are you going to run on the dyno with?
-
Troy, We have a barrel that is 2 years old, SACCO 118. I think, I am not at home, don't know for sure.
-
BAD NEWS ON THE BUICK. It has a hole in the drivers side of the block with the #2 rod sticking out of it. The Buick project is over for this year.
-
Gary what type of gas are you going to run on the dyno with?
we ended up running both e85 and the 118 from ERC.
We started to run out of injector on the e85, so we switched to the 118 and made a few pulls up to 4800rpm. The engine was making about 300whp and 360wtq, or right about 400hp at the flywheel.
On the "last pull" I rolled into the throttle at 2500rpm and that's when it felt like an ice cube in a blender. The datalogs show the crank position sensor stopped in about .08 seconds from 2800rpm, but the back half of the engine took a little more time to slow down (as seen in the video). I am pretty sure we broke the crankshaft, not sure if it was the crank or the rod that broke first however. We'll know when they tear it down sometime soon. I'm working on the video, other than the breakage the engine was running very good!! made about 12psi of manifold pressure at 4800rpm. Had no problems with fuel distribution (as seen on the plugs and EGTs). We don't think we were detonating or running lean and it felt "happy" right up to the point she let go.
Hopefully I'll have some video up today. We got 3 hours of footage!
-
GH and guys----so sad to hear the news--- :-(
-
Really sorry to hear that. You'll get 'um next year.
-
BAD NEWS ON THE BUICK. It has a hole in the drivers side of the block with the #2 rod sticking out of it. The Buick project is over for this year.
Thats a real bummer, I was looking forward to seeing what the straight 8 would do. Do you have any ideas what HP range you might expect of see out of it.
-
I love your statement:" other than the breakage the engine was running very good!!"
That is kind of like the question to Abe Lincoln's wife as she walked out of the Ford Theater, "Other than that how was the play?"!!!
Like everone else I am really sad to hear that she "blowed up" and we will not be able to see your efforts next month.
What are your plans now?
Rex
-
GH,
Sorry to hear that. We put the SaltCat away 'til August. We don't know how many full pass' the 1936 technology will stand until the 4 foot crank unwinds itself. We've been in contact with the people at Murphy's Machine about a crank for next year. [Maybe they'd give us a package deal]. They deal with those pulling tractors that spit the blocks and heads out of the tractors and the crank stays in one piece in the chassis. I don't know if that's a testament to the crank strength or just the dynamics of the whole thing. Looks pretty impressive when it happens. I contacted a couple of other companies, and nobody has called or answered back after two months. Anyway, sorry about the disaster, but hope we'll see you on the Salt. Doug :-(
-
This is heartbreaking. You've put so much effort into this, and you haven't cut any corners.
Keep us posted, and don't give up.
Chris
-
Thanks guys, for all the condolences (sp). We are going to start tearing it apart this morning. Then we can formulate a plan. We have a spare 1950, 320 ci short block if we need a block or crank. The rods are going to be the problem, we think we have GRP aluminum rods. Venolia had them made for us in 2000, that's why we're not sure who made them. We may send GRP one rod and see if they can copy a new set.
-
Here is a video from Scott and Dorothy Clark they took at the chassis dyno Sunday.http://www.youtube.com/drunez (http://www.youtube.com/drunez)
-
some other video clips:
Installing the coilpacks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLBf4S4oLo4
Checking timing after installing the coilpacks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcfY2dabbSs
dyno pull and breakage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnn6-QPoN3A
-
Got the engine out and apart yesterday. Here is a couple of photos of the damage.
-
Did your cam survive? Is there just a window in the block or is it gone. It really sucks when something with this much work goes away.
-
Rich, the cam looks to be ok, will be able to tell more about it's condition after we get it out of the block, I had the harmonic balancer pulling tool at my shop and we were working at Mikes shop. We are thinking about our options at this point.
-
Sorry to hear and see the damage. When you get your red hat this year you will forget all about the window and the rod. See ya at speed week. :cheers:
-
Sorry for you guys all that hard work,time and money, it was looking good, did the piston or the rod seize? It seems the WW11 12 cyl aero engines had oil delivery problems with the long engines and solved it by feeding from both ends don't know if thats your problem though.
Good luck JL222
-
Hey Mike and Gary ,
Very sorry for your troubles.
She sounded strong.
I have a standard block and crank if you need it .
Thanks for your help with my I-8 ... I'm still pushing to make it.
Hope to meet you folks at the salt .
Jeff Brock
-
Hey, Mike, Gary -
Just curious if you pinpointed the cause of the problem yet.
Regards.
Chris
-
Buick Straight 8 Guys,
There is a place in Nevada, IA that can repair cast iron by welding with cast iron rod. Place does some spiffy work on blocks, heads and the like. Place is called Midwest Cylinder Head and the guy to talk to is Rich Albright 515-382-2791. 8-)
Hope that might help you. Shame it popped after so much work. :cry:
Regards,
HB2 :-)
-
FWIW: http://www.webrodder.com/article.php?AID=531&SID=60 (http://www.webrodder.com/article.php?AID=531&SID=60)
Mike
-
Here is a photo of the patch we made to cover the window in the block.
-
GH,
Got enough time and new pieces to get it back together by next week? That would be great to see it make it for Speed Week. At least for World of Speed. We're packed and loaded and pacing a hole in the ground. Doug
-
I don't think Mike has ruled out World Finals. He is driving his RV out for Speedweek to help us with the Studebaker. Do you know if the rod bearing for the 263 engine is the same width as the 320??? We are thinking about turning the shaft down to the 263 rod diameter if they are the same width and order new rods from GRP.
-
GH,
None of the old Buick books list any bearing widths until the 1953 manual, and then only the V-8 at .881. Glad to see it's coming together. Did the rod stop on the crank and break, or did the piston stop in the cyl and fold up the rod? From the pics, I couldn't tell if there were score marks on the piston.
Doug
-
Glad to hear it's not worse than it is. I don't mind blowing one up on the salt. I would hate it on the dyno.
-
We think it was an oiling problem. We added an oil filter and the fittings going to and from the filter was 3/8" pipe threads, pretty small on the ID, quite smaller than the main oil galley. It looks like the rod bearing seized on the crank and pulled the rod bolts out. Rich, we think it was better to have happened on the dyno than running across the salt and have it lock up, no telling what would have happened. On the data logs the rpm went from 2200 to 0 in less than a second.
-
Let's hope that's the fix. Hate to be a pest, but we love your pics.
I remember commenting on those rods - They looked pretty stout, and I didn't think you were winding it tight enough on the dyno for a rod to let go on its own accord.
Best wishes.
Chris
-
[. Rich, we think it was better to have happened on the dyno than running across the salt and have it lock up, no telling what would have happened. On the data logs the rpm went from 2200 to 0 in less than a second.
[/quote]On the vido I thought the rear wheels kept spinning being pushed by the roller. I saw the blower stop. I blew one Plymouth way worse than that at El Mirage, and it kept running until the crank snout wiggled around enough that the fuel pump drive belt came off.
-
On the vido I thought the rear wheels kept spinning being pushed by the roller. I saw the blower stop.
I was off the gas, in gear when it started to let go (so yes, being pushed by the rollers) but as soon as I heard the sound of "ice going through a giant blender" I clutched it. was too late by then, of course.
-
Just found out Friday that the rod bearings are the same width for all 3 sizes of the Buick straight eights. Now we can find out if the crank will clean up at one of the bearing diameters, then we can order the rods. The rods might beat us home from speedweek, hope hope....
-
Mike just received the new rods from GRP, now we can get back to putting the engine together. We still have to figure out the induction problems we had. Too much area by using the throttle body we had, just crack it open and the rpm went way up, it would be very hard to drive.
-
Glad you got the parts in, but it is regrettable that they didn't arrive in time to sort it all out for WF. Thanks for keeping us posted on this, and good luck with the induction - you're certainly not taking the the path of least resistance. :cheers:
-
.
-
Good article on creating start up/base line set ups for EFI systems in the latest [Fall] Engine Masters magazine. Might find some information in it that would help you.
Available in my area off the rack at local supermarkets or Barnes and Noble. My copy is currently out on loan and probably won't be back for a week or so otherwise I would look into it again as it might apply to your problem.
Ed Purinton
-
MIke took all the pieces out to be balanced yesterday. On the throttle body problem, we had thought about using an Enderle hat on top of the blower with the efi injecters in it. A bug catcher would have smaller openings than the throttle body we now have. Ours have an area of 30 square inches.
-
Good article on creating start up/base line set ups for EFI systems in the latest [Fall] Engine Masters magazine. Might find some information in it that would help you.
Available in my area off the rack at local supermarkets or Barnes and Noble. My copy is currently out on loan and probably won't be back for a week or so otherwise I would look into it again as it might apply to your problem.
Ed Purinton
we're pretty sure there wasn't any issue with the EFI.
-
ALBIQUQU---we loved your car on the SALT
-
Well, a lot of time has past since the last post on the Buick rebuild. Mike has been extra busy (he still works), but we are getting ready to start the assembly. I think we have finalized what we are going to do with the induction. Purchase an Enderle bug catcher and set it on top of the other throttle body we used last year that has the injectors in it and remove the two rectangle butterflys.
-
I've been wondering what was up with you guys. Looking forward to the rebuild, and wishing you much success. Did the crank clean up okay, or did you have to source another one?
Chris
-
MM, the crank was ok but if we needed another one, we have a spare engine I bought some time ago.
-
I don't know if I'm on the rite track with the problem your having with the throttle bodies, but if it is that you can't control the throttle actuation well enough due to the large area of the throttle bodies then what you can do to help with this problem is make a cammed throttle linkage. This allows much smaller throttle increments to be feed in by your foot instead of uncontrollable throttle activation.
-
Yes, we have talked about that solution to our problem.
-
We started the engine assembly yesterday, got the short block alltogether.
-
More photos. The third photo is the patch we made to cover the hole where the rod went through last summer.
-
Good luck with that rebuild Gary!! Looking forward to seeing you on the salt...Barney says hi! :-D
Lynda
-
This is great news, and great pics. Man, oh man - that is one L O N G crank. What are you using for a vibration damper on the front?
Best of luck, Gary.
Chris
-
MM, we are using the ATI Super Damper. They don't make one to fit the straight 8 Buick, so we bought a shell only and had a hub machined to fit.
-
By the way ATI will machine a hub for you at a reasonable price. Just give them a drawing of what you want.
-
Mike came out this AM, we installed the oil pump, pan, bellhousing, flywheel, clutch and head and he took it home. Probably next week we will put the engine in the car and finish assemblying everything. He ordered an Enderle bug catcher to put on top of the 6-71 blower.
-
Yesterday we put the engine in the Buick and started hooking everything up. Today we did some more and are real close to starting it up.
-
We got the Buick started today. Started right up after we rapped on the electric fuel pump, it had been sitting for a year. Sounds great, we have a few things to do before we go to the dyno.
-
Excellent news, guys. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
-
The Enderle Bug Catcher is working real good, it will be a lot easier to drive than it was with the two rectanglular butterflys in the old injector housing.
-
How cool is that :-D It would be intresting :? if one could slow motion what was going on inside of the intake manifold :-o
-
Mike called me yesterday and said he drove the Buick down the road and everything worked great. He said it runs real smooth up to 3000 rpm, then it gets a little ragged. We are going to Omaha Nebraska this coming Friday to run it on the dyno, Dieselgeek will tune it.
-
BEST of luck on the dyno---hope you get some great numbers
-
Mike called me yesterday and said he drove the Buick down the road and everything worked great. He said it runs real smooth up to 3000 rpm, then it gets a little ragged. We are going to Omaha Nebraska this coming Friday to run it on the dyno, Dieselgeek will tune it.
that makes sense. Last time we ran it, we were tuning it on gasoline and I made it up to about 2700rpm before she let go. Should only need 1 or 2 pulls to sort it out this time... can't wait for you guys to get up here, dyno visits from Gary and Mike have become a good vacation for me. Mainly because they're the only "car guys" that my wife likes!! :-D
-
Good luck this weekend. No more heartaches - only big numbers!
Another video, perhaps?
Chris
-
We'll take video for sure,
-Scott
-
The dyno session went fairly well. We are still having fuel distribution issues. We made 300 hp and 420 ft lbs of torque @ 4000 rpm. This is the highest rpm we were able to tune due to the fuel issues. The good news is, we brought it home all in one piece.
-
That's a gob of torque! Have you any idea of the amount of twist from end to end of that super-long crank at 3000 RPM? I've heard some crazy figures.
Stan
-
I vote for Injectors in the individual intake tubes to "trim" each cyl. might be easy to boost register them.
-
I vote for Injectors in the individual intake tubes to "trim" each cyl. might be easy to boost register them.
There's the rub - trimming each cylinder on shared intake ports. But looking back at this build, maybe that might be an approach - use the TB injectors as the "main course" and tweak the intakes to keep the burn consistent between cylinders. O2 sensors on each exhaust for feedback to the ECU? :roll: Kinda thinking out loud . . .
What are your spark plugs looking like after this excursion?
Either way, great progress, guys.
-
That's a gob of torque! Have you any idea of the amount of twist from end to end of that super-long crank at 3000 RPM? I've heard some crazy figures.
Stan
Our mustang dyno is "LOTS" lower reading than all the non-SAE dynos out there. To give you an idea, on a superflow engine dyno this engine would show to 500+ ft-lbs of torque. It's definitely making big power for what it is!!
Back 4 cylinders showed average AFR exactly 2 points leaner than the front 4. Once we figured out what was happening, it was easy to make it run clean - just a little concerned about the back four jugs being in the 14s AFR at WOT and 12psi though.
-
Mike purchased an LM-2, wideband oxygen sensor with 2 sensors. We have the air-fuel ratio pretty close through about 3000 rpm. So, we are headed back to Ohmaha this Sunday to put the finish tune on it.
-
Gary
Good luck this weekend. Don't use it all up on the dyno - save some for the salt!
Of course, we'd all LOVE to see some video from the dyno - if you can make the time.
Chris
-
I vote for Injectors in the individual intake tubes to "trim" each cyl. might be easy to boost register them.
Sparky, we're grouping the injectors into two "banks" then tuning each individually. His megasquirt allows dual VE table tuning so, two separate sets of tables for each bank.
He needs maybe 10% more fuel in one bank than the other. So, not individual cylinder trim but, close. Hopefully it works! At least for this year, so we can get the boys started on that Turbo setup for next season... :-D
-
Mission accomplished!! The guys are on their way home this morning with a tuned and running XXO !
All 8 plugs come out looking the same too. Mike's "supplemental injector" idea worked out pretty good. Be sure to take a look at it on the salt this year - coilpacks, custom crank trigger, upgraded blower making 12psi, and runs like a champ!
-
Congratulations for success on a very interesting application and thanks to everyone for sharing all the good and bad moments. :-) Diesel, are you going to be at SW this year?
-
Our mustang dyno is "LOTS" lower reading than all the non-SAE dynos out there. To give you an idea, on a superflow engine dyno this engine would show to 500+ ft-lbs of torque. It's definitely making big power for what it is!!
I have heard that before about various brand dynos. I can't imagine any one of them having an inaccurate dimension on the arm or bad geometry from the arm applying load. So what is the variable among dynos that causes all the inaccuracy? Is it inaccurate load cells or something else? Since some brands seem to be consistently one way or the other is that inherent to their design or the accuracy of the load cell they buy?
-
NUMBERS! NUMBERS!
Happy for your success. This has been an Odyssey build, with a lot of peculiar bends in the road, and we're all wishing you great success in August.
-
pictures :? of the "batch fire" injector instalitions
-
NUMBERS! NUMBERS!
Happy for your success. This has been an Odyssey build, with a lot of peculiar bends in the road, and we're all wishing you great success in August.
I know I will be a disappointment but... we spent enough time figuring out the injector arrangement and tune, that we didn't make any power pulls. We ran it up to 4500rpm once, just making sure it would make clean pulls.
Based on some of the earlier data, I know that it's making around 380-400hp and around 500 ft-lbs at the flywheel (if you were to put it on a typical engine dyno).
Saltfever, the reason for chassis dyno differences are many - and could fill up many pages - it's a discussion probably better saved for another topic!
-
Saltfever, the reason for chassis dyno differences are many - and could fill up many pages - it's a discussion probably better saved for another topic!
Good point, it should be another thread. I was worried I might be accused of thread-jacking. When you get the time how about starting that thread. :-D
-
Dieselgeek, you didn't tell them about the thrash in the parking lot, repairing the broken heim joints on the ladder bars.
-
Dieselgeek, you didn't tell them about the thrash in the parking lot, repairing the broken heim joints on the ladder bars.
I figured I'd leave the fun parts for you to tell!! I got pictures of said thrashing though. :-D
-
FUN????????
-
I was really looking forward to seeing the pictures,or video
of the DYNO run. But now there are rumors of even better parking lot pics? We MUST see those!
And as I recall,,,,,,,,,,this was not your first experience with failed (overpowered) ladder bar (4-link) components.
Now post those pictures, Rick
-
I'm beginning to wonder about that dyno. First it causes you to throw a rod and window a block, NOW it's breaking suspension pieces? :-o
I think the sooner you get that poor Beauford to Bonneville, the longer it's going to live! :-D
-
Rick, your memory is too good. Don't be spreading rumors about my ladder bars. MM, these broke even before we got the car on the dyno or in the dyno building and just barely off the trailer. Bonneville rust is great, this car has been on the salt since 2000.
-
Mike and myself took both cars to the local Discovery Center last Sturday for a special event that featured the engine cutaway exibit I did for them. My clutch linkage had gotten so rusted that the pedal would not come back up. So, yesterday I spent about 5 hours reworking the linkage, now it works better than when I first built it. I have to put new plugs in and bolt on the push bar and I think thats all that I have to do before Bonneville.
-
GH, This is a real cool and informative build thread. I just read every post!
Good luck this year!
-
Hey, guys -
If you get a few moments, tell us about Bonneville. I see you got some runs in, and I was cheering you on. Looks like you had decent runs on Saturday and Wednesday, but some issues on Monday and Tuesday?
Post when you can, and wishing you a safe trip home.
Chris
-
Chris, we are in Moab Utah visiting some friends. The Buick now has a large hole in the left side of the block and a smaller one on the right side. It appears that the number 2 rod is gone. We had issues with it running not so good. The last run it went 142 in the 1/4 but didn't make it too much farther. My car lost the left turbo at the 4-1/4 mile on my one and only run. Not too good of a Speedweek for the hillybillies from Missouri.
-
Gary, Mike, we had really high hopes for you and the Buick - as I'm sure you did, also. I can't remember who has it as their tag line, but I think it goes, "Records, hearts or parts - something always gets broken".
So this is the # 2 rod again - not sure if that's significant. It's such a tough combination - long crank, long block, long rods, 5 mains, heavy reciprocating mass, fuel balance on shared ports. And it's not like you're using dainty parts. Not a lot of development on this combination - you're breaking a lot of new ground.
Thinking out loud, I'm wondering if there's a stiffness issue with the block, and perhaps girdling it might help. Speculation at this point.
I hope you continue with this and figure it out. Let us know what the tear down tells you, and have a safe trip home.
Hope to meet you on the salt in August, 2011. :cheers:
Chris
-
Jane McMeekin got a XO/GALT record at 167.4 in Don's Buick straight eight. No EFI, had two carbs. Don said he wants to sell the motor. Car number 280.
-
Well, it's back together and we'll load it next week for World Of Speed. The smoke is from the header wrap. We'll try to keep the other smoke on the inside this time. Enjoy,
Doug Short video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-8JwyoFh6E
-
Doug, looks good, I don't have any sound in my laptop so I can't hear it. I wish you good luck back on the salt, go real fast and have a great time.
-
I have a buick straight eight engine, 320 ci, in my garage. Unfortunately, it is completely disassembled
because the aluminum pistons were siezed up in the block, and I had to remove the crank to pound them
through---and they did not come out easy.
I am working overseas now, and if I could, I would put it together to test my theories on the subject of
siamese port EFI. My gut feeling is that something is wrong with peoples reasoning that Siamese ports can't be fuel injected.
All engines that have EVEN numbers of cylinders, should have cylinder "Pairs". So if I take cylinder #1 for example at top dead center = 0 degrees, there should be another cylinder paired with it (which I will call it's "brother cylinder"), which is also at TDC = 0 degrees.
And if cylider # 1 is at the top of its compression stroke, beginning its power stroke at TDC = 0, then its paired "brother" cylinder will be at TDC = 0 degrees, but at the top of it's exhaust stroke, just beginning it's intake stroke.
If you have an eight cylinder engine, then there should be 4 paired brothers, and these pairs should be 90 degrees appart----so that pair 1 is at TDC = 0 degrees, Pair 2 will be at 90 degrees, Pair 3 will be at 180 degrees, and Pair 4 will be at 270 degrees.
If you have a six cylinder engine, then there are only 3 pairs---with pair 1 at TDC = 0 degrees, Pair 2 at 1/3 of a 360 degree rotation, and the third pair at 2/3rds of 360 degree rotation.
On my Jeep 6 cyl 258 engine, even though each cylinder has its own intake port, (and if I remember correctly when I was rebuilding it), the "brother" pistons were not adjacent to each other.
At this point I want to make it clear that although "brother" piston pairs are in sync with one another, but because we are talking about a 4 stroke engine, which completes a 1/2 of its mechanical cycle in 360 degrees, and completes its full mechanical cycle in 720 degrees, the two pistons are mechanically 360 degrees out of sync with each other. So while piston 1 is at TDC 0 degrees, at the end of its compression stroke and beginning its power stroke, the "brother" piston is at TDC 0 degrees ending its exhaust stroke and beginning its intake stroke.
So if, a piston pair, were co-located adjacently to one another, and were to share a "Siamese" exhaust port and share a "siamese" intake port, The ports would be in theory, 100% dedicated to one piston at a time, and there would be no valve interference dispute about EFI and "siamese" ports. In theory, if this were the case, the valves on one piston are completely closed, while its "brother" piston goes through the opening and closing of both valves.
So if you look at a crank shaft of the Buick 320 CI straight eight, I think I remember that you can visually see that "Brother" pistons are not co-located together adjacently. And I have heard that the reason they
are never adjacent to one another in sequence is because it causes severe harmonic vibrations.
However, in a straight 4 cylinder car, If I see only 2 siamese intake ports, I think that may be proof enought that the cyliders are indeed paired adjacently in sequence. And if I see 3 ports, (one siamese, and two dedicated), then I can assume that the pairs are not adjacently in sequence.
I wish that I could examine that crank shaft of my straight eight sitting in my garage.
-
If you want to know which cylinders are paired you need only to look at the firing order 1625 8374 to see that 1 and 8 would be up at the same time as well as 6 and 3 and so on. Cylinders sharing an intake port are obvious 1 and 2 3 and 4 5 and 6 and 7 & 8. None share an exhaust. So what is your theory and will it require a billet crank? Normal 4 cylinder firing order is 1342. 1 and 4 are up togeather and 3 and 2. Straight sixs are 153624. You may be trying to reinvent the Winfield 2 up 2 down crankshaft.
-
The problem with siamesed ports (for a Model B at least) is the "dead" time between intake cycles. During this dead time fuel is continuing to be deposited into the shared port and the intake valve that opens first gets a very large mass of fuel and then the intake valve that opens second only gets about half the fuel that the first cylinder got. So obviously one cylinder will run lean and the other will run rich.
What it comes down to is very precise injection events. For EFI to work properly on a siamesed port engine the injector timing and advance must be spot on. We're outfitting our latest Model B with an AEM EFI system and we're going to use one pyrometer and o2 sensor per cylinder in order to correctly tune the system to deliver an even amount of fuel to all cylinders up to 6000 rpm.
I should be able to let you know how it works out early next year.
-
I remember you talking about five main bearing cranks. If you were having a crank made it wouldn't cost anymore to get a two up two down crank so that the timing events would be equal for each cylinder. Did you think about doing this. I did think about it for the Dodge but just couldn't go for it. If it worked for Winfield why wouldn't it work now?
-
Nathan,
What are you using for the trigger pickup?
I was thinking about using a Haltech full sequencial setup on one. (4 injectors, 2 ports, independent FP adjustment per inj).
John
-
If it worked for Winfield why wouldn't it work now?
Winfield made a billet crank (for the Model T) with numbers one and two up and numbers three and four down. He also redesigned the camshaft so that the firing order was 1-3-2-4, and this separated each intake puls so that all cylinders were fueled equally. It did, however, create balancing problems and Winfield admitted "it had a little vibration."
But did it go!....Winfield beat a field of overhead valve and overhead cam engines, including Frontenac and Miller at Ascot Speedway in January 1928.
Dean Batchelor, The American Hot Rod, 1995, page 37.
Mike
-
If it worked for Winfield why wouldn't it work now?
Winfield made a billet crank (for the Model T) with numbers one and two up and numbers three and four down. He also redesigned the camshaft so that the firing order was 1-3-2-4, and this separated each intake puls so that all cylinders were fueled equally. It did, however, create balancing problems and Winfield admitted "it had a little vibration."
But did it go!....Winfield beat a field of overhead valve and overhead cam engines, including Frontenac and Miller at Ascot Speedway in January 1928.
Dean Batchelor, The American Hot Rod, 1995, page 37.
Mike
I know what he did. My question is why don't any of us have the nerve to try it now?
-
Always happy to help.
-
have the nerve to try it now
Nerve is spelled $$$$$
-
Yeah, Rich, I know. I put the info up for others. :mrgreen:
Creel had a batch of billet cranks made, and I don't think they were terribly expensive, or, at least, Pete Richardson didn't think so when he bought one. Those were 5-main cranks, I think.
Mike
-
One of my friends that was a crank designer for Bryant did the analysis for another friend of mine building a V4F and found nothing wrong with it. But in the final analysis they decided to add the extra intake ports and tilt the valves a bit. Tony
-
The crank for my Dodge Bros. cost about $2600. I really would have had to step up for a billet crank in any instance. I needed the journals at a size that worked with bearings that fit the bores and I needed counterweights. Drilled for oil and destroked to make the class. So price was not the issue. Fear of the unknown must have been it. I think somebody else should try it and report back.
-
Didn't someone in Top Fuel try 180º crankshafts?
Had to go to the Dentist to have the fillings replaced.
I think Velasco wants about $3300 for a billet crank in the B motor.
J
-
Mine came from Crower. The 180 degree crank in a V8 is a totally different animal than a two up two down banger crank. Different purpose different idea. In fact the only advantage I can see in a 180 V8 crank is it's easier to make. The V4 idea is to even out the intake pulses on siamese ports
-
Rich, I think you are correct on the v8 180 crank.
So for the V4, is the only problem with siamesed ports fuel distribution? Or is there also an issue with VE?
My question comes from running Miata motors quite a bit, the intake port configuration feed two valves simultainiously (oval port shape).
Not the same application, but much easier to reshape the V$ ports than to plug and add.
The fuel distribution could be fixed with a sequencial injection setup, VE is another issue.
J
-
Yeah, intercylinder robbing, especially with a big overlap cam. VE suffers on the second cylinder of the shared pairs. You can time the fuel, but the air is going to take it's own best path.
With a Winfield design, you get an intake pulse every 360 degrees per intake port, whereas in a 1342, the second cylinder of the shared port gets short changed, 180 - 540, which is compounded by a long duration, big overlap cam.
If you have separate exhaust ports for each cylinder, the Winfield design is pretty hip, but it does require extra care in balancing. I'd thought about it for the 970, but with only 3 exhaust ports, I'd wind up with scavenging and reversion issues on the 2-3 exhaust strokes - the two cylinders which tend to run warmer, anyway.
-
Nathan,
What are you using for the trigger pickup?
I was thinking about using a Haltech full sequencial setup on one. (4 injectors, 2 ports, independent FP adjustment per inj).
John
AEM makes a great hall effect 24/1 crank/cam engine position module. We just adapted one to our Model B and we're driving it off the front of the cam.
-
I remember you talking about five main bearing cranks. If you were having a crank made it wouldn't cost anymore to get a two up two down crank so that the timing events would be equal for each cylinder. Did you think about doing this. I did think about it for the Dodge but just couldn't go for it. If it worked for Winfield why wouldn't it work now?
EFI will be many times cheaper and easier in the end. Also, from our research, the two-up-two-down engine didn't just have a little vibration. I think it about jumped out of the car the first time it ran.
-
If it's that bad, and that much of an advantage, I'd consider an external (chain-driven?) balancer. The usual is 2 counter-rotating weights at 2 × engine speed; is this still correct for this firing order?
-
Yeah, intercylinder robbing, especially with a big overlap cam. VE suffers on the second cylinder of the shared pairs. You can time the fuel, but the air is going to take it's own best path.
With a Winfield design, you get an intake pulse every 360 degrees per intake port, whereas in a 1342, the second cylinder of the shared port gets short changed, 180 - 540, which is compounded by a long duration, big overlap cam.
If you have separate exhaust ports for each cylinder, the Winfield design is pretty hip, but it does require extra care in balancing. I'd thought about it for the 970, but with only 3 exhaust ports, I'd wind up with scavenging and reversion issues on the 2-3 exhaust strokes - the two cylinders which tend to run warmer, anyway.
I was afraid this was the situation. I was thinking about ovaling the port and building a semi divider into the intake port with seperate injectors per cyl.
So, what is the preferred method to fill the existing port-waterjacket inorder to make 4 ports? aluminium?
Is there any information available on doing the 4 port mods?
Thanks, J
Nathan, sounds like a good piece.
-
I was thinking about ovaling the port and building a semi divider into the intake port with seperate injectors per cyl.
So, what is the preferred method to fill the existing port-waterjacket inorder to make 4 ports? aluminium?
Intuitively, one would think that dividing the port, or making a knife edge to direct the air/fuel mixture would work, but from what I've read in David Vizard's book, "Tuning the A Series Engine" (the BMC A-Series engine, not the Ford), it actually creates obstruction. Panic and I have dogeared copies of this book, and perhaps he can chime in with a more technically detailed assessment of my general statement, but I've got to believe that the fundamentals apply to just about any engine.
I'm not sure what engine you're working on, John, but another consideration is the distance between the push-rods or valves and the ports. Does the class you're running permit anything other than a stock port configuration? Be careful not to open up the port into your valve train.
If you can open 'em up, I'd think bronze might be a good choice for reconstructing a new port.
One last thought - again, the A series book - you're not trying to equalize power output per cylinder, you're looking to maximize each cylinder's output.
Cheers! :cheers:
Chris
-
Chris, All,
Sorry to hijack this thread, maybe we should start a new one.
Back to point, Chris, the motor(s) I am looking at are A's and B's Ford.
I have seen a couple of motors that have been modified to a 4 port design, much work to close off the existing port and water jackets must have been filled.
I have been mulling the design over for some time now, and looking for some ideas, or better yet, who has tried what and why.
First things first, I need to concentrate on the car/chassis and get a rolling platform to test with.
Thanks, John
-
John, your thoughtfulness about “Thread Jacking” is greatly appreciated but it seems this thread is “on-track”. GH wisely listed the original post under Technical Information/EFI Questions and that theme has been carried throughout the 15 pages.
There have been some extremely valuable and thought provoking postings! I would hate to see the subject drift to another category or a new post and we loose track of the collective wisdom so far.
-
We tore the Buick down yesterday, here is some photos of the damage.
-
Your not supposed to do that.
-
We tore the Buick down yesterday, here is some photos of the damage.
Don't you mean CARNAGE !
-
:-o uuuuuughlllllyyyy :cry: bad Buford---shame on you :x
-
Looks like you might be able to save the bottom end of the rod! The piston will take a little re machining. :evil: :evil: :evil:
Pete
-
Gary, I've watched this build closely, and was gratified to see you were able to make some passes with the combination.
Have you been able to pinpoint the cause? Coincidence that it was the 2 slug both times? Oiling issue? Block flex? Bad rod? None of the above? I'm just guessing - I'm curious as to what you think.
Chris
-
Be careful not to open up the port into your valve train
I agree that a leak here is a bad idea, but IMHO safer than other locations, meaning if you have to guess wrong about the new port CL moving it up is safer than elsewhere.
There's almost no external pressure (inside the valve cover), so any transfer will be limited to the intake press/vac at WOT, as opposed to a leak to the chamber or even the water jacket.
Yes, it will lean out and pull oil, but if it's almost invisible the damage may be slight.
Some "oops" errors into the cover interior only require a primitive roof made of thin tube as a mask, sometimes epoxy is enough of a seal. Add a permanent riser to the valve cover rail for more room.
The repair is easily tested with air: pressurize the port to 60 psi, slosh 6 oz. of colored alcohol (low surface tension + low viscosity + visibility + no rust) around the seal, watch for bubbles. If it passes, re-fill and leave it overnight - look for stains in the port.
-
GH,
The damage looks similar to ours at World Finals. Two windows, and a piston and a pulverized rod small end. Lots of schrapnel in the pan, but the crank and bearings look good.
-
GH,
The damage looks similar to ours at World Finals. Two windows, and a piston and a pulverized rod small end. Lots of schrapnel in the pan, but the crank and bearings look good.
How long are those rods and do you think the rpm weight and length of piston rod assembly has any thing to do with failures?
I know the aero engines limited there rpm to 2800---3200 but they had 6'' strokes and 6'' pistons, some more some less.
JL222
-
In our case, we just got greedy and bored the block out .290 and sleeved it down to a .200 overbore using spun silicon steel sleeves. They won't handle the pressures without more wall behind them to support them. The top of #7 cly. let go and caught the piston edge on the way up and jammed the piston sidways and proceeded to remove all of the cyl. wall and turn the piston into a ball and beat the small end of the rod to death. In the process it punched two holes in the block. Surprisingly the rod bearing still looks good and the crack spins free. As they say, "Run what 'ya bring, Break what 'ya brought". We'll run a small motor next year.
-
Great photo, Doug. How'd you get it so clear? And as for the ex-piston -- well, if you decide to save it for your shelf of race-broken parts -- make sure you tag it so that all will be able to figure out what it used to be.
-
Slim,
When you see the piston piece up close, you can see the rings still embedded in the side. We're now trying to decide how to make a useful coffee table or rolling workbench out of the block with the windows.
There are way too many hours of work in it to make a yard ornament out of it. I'll see if I can get a picture of the altar to the Gods Of Speed that we have in the shop. Lots of sacrificial offerings there already. I'm sure my daughter doesn't understand when I tell her that's going to be her inheritance. It's a snapshot of the micro-second we're here. :cheers: :evil:
-
How about converting the exhaust ports into intake ports ?
Worked pretty good for Bobby Green in his Lakester.
Of course you would need a different cam,
but it gets away from the Siamese intake ports.
-
What is the port configuration on the straight 8? It's been years since I've seen one.
Dam spam!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Here is the port configuration EIEEIEEIEEIE
-
Didn't they put that to song -- "Old Mac Donald . . .
-
Didn't they put that to song -- "Old Mac Donald . . .
That would be for the 5 port Sprite/Mini head - E I E I O shit, I just ground through into the water jacket. :-o
-
The latest on the #1950 Buick is, the new block has been bored and sonic tested for wall thickness. Mike is waiting to get the block O ringed. He told me the other day that he is probably done salt flat racing. Jerry Hoffman that has DIYAUTOTUNE is building a car and if he gets it done by SW, I will go out and help him. He has helped me for quite a few years. He sells Mega Squirt. I met Bruce Bowling at the Engine Masters Challenge in October. He is one of the founders of the Mega Squirt system of engine management. He is coming to town this weekend and I will take him for a ride in the GMC. I am using the VE Analize Live which is a feature that tunes the engine as you drive it, it reads the 02 sensor and make corrections to the VE table, seams to be working pretty good, much better than I can tune it.
-
The problem with siamesed ports (for a Model B at least) is the "dead" time between intake cycles. During this dead time fuel is continuing to be deposited into the shared port and the intake valve that opens first gets a very large mass of fuel and then the intake valve that opens second only gets about half the fuel that the first cylinder got. So obviously one cylinder will run lean and the other will run rich.
What it comes down to is very precise injection events. For EFI to work properly on a siamesed port engine the injector timing and advance must be spot on. We're outfitting our latest Model B with an AEM EFI system and we're going to use one pyrometer and o2 sensor per cylinder in order to correctly tune the system to deliver an even amount of fuel to all cylinders up to 6000 rpm.
I should be able to let you know how it works out early next year.
Just a little update.... I finally got our Model B running on EFI last weekend. Plans are to tune it over Father's Day weekend and have everything ready for Speed Week. Guesstimated power levels on the old Hilborn injection were 120-130hp n/a and 150-160hp boosted. Target power levels with the EFI will be 150hp n/a and 300hp boosted. All the testing/tuning is being done on a 3 main block with stock crank and worked over stock rods and original cast iron Winfield head with cracks and all. It's our mule motor and if it dies we won't be too terribly upset 'cause we've killed so many of them already. The real race motor will have a 5 main girdle, billet crank, billet rods, etc. We're hoping that one takes us to 200+.
Wish us luck.
-
:cheers:
-
Sounds cool Nate!
-
Just a comment regarding your two port configuration, this is the reason that Ed Windfield made the 2 up/2 down crank for the killer T he built. No EFI at the time so he made it work with carbs, he built those also.
Do you have two injectors into each port? What head are you running? 6000 with a three main crank is aggressive to say the least, but that is how you make horse power.
Rex
-
Nate, I won't wish you luck, I will assume you have mastered it. :cheers:
It's already bolted together, so this is probably too late, but on the BMC blocks - shared intake ports - there's been good success by spreading the intake timing between the 1-2, and 3-4 cylinders, which limits the cylinder robbing between intake valves on shared ports during an intake stroke. I would think such a cam with an appropriately splayed, timed and positioned pair of injectors on each port in a banger would be a killer combination.
-
Just a comment regarding your two port configuration, this is the reason that Ed Windfield made the 2 up/2 down crank for the killer T he built. No EFI at the time so he made it work with carbs, he built those also.
yup, very aware of the winfield 2 up 2 down motor. thought about doing that for about two seconds but decided not too after reading that it nearly jumped out of the car the first time he ran it.
we used to run a pair of winfield down drafts on both our cragar ohv motor and our winfield headed flatty motor. actually been doing this for 15 years now and have ran a whole bunch of different combos; a cook cross flow head, a sohc rutherford, babbit, insert bearings, 5 main cranks, stock cranks, hilborn injection, turbo, gas, fuel, etc.
Do you have two injectors into each port? What head are you running? 6000 with a three main crank is aggressive to say the least, but that is how you make horse power.
yes, two injectors per port. each one points right up towards the back side of the intake valve. like i mentioned before, running an original cast iron winfield head now while we're still naturally aspirated. once we go turbo we'll go with a new aluminum winfield head and modify it for an extra head stud per cylinder.
6000 rpm is the last rpm breakpoint in the fuel map and all my fuel delivery calcs were based on this max rpm. we've run stock cranks to 5500 rpm many times. the only problem with stock cranks IMO are the flanges (well and the fact that they're not counterweighted but we take care of that). 5000 rpm or 5500 rpm or maybe even 6000 rpm isn't really limited by the crank... the motor just doesn't flow any more air at that point or make any more power. even when we do switch over to the billet 5 main crank i doubt we'll rev it any harder than we already are.
fwiw, the best one way pass we ever had with the turbo was 155 and change and that was totally blind... no real tune, no o2 monitoring, no knock monitoring, not even a boost enrichment fuel system. in fact, not even a gauge in the car... just a shift light. we just had our old n/a setup with a turbo hung on the motor making maybe 5 psi boost and a few pill sizes smaller in the bypass. this time we have an o2 sensor per cylinder pre-turbo, an egt sensor per cylinder, and exhaust back pressure sensor and a knock sensor. we're going to spend multiple days on the dyno getting this thing dialed in.
on ethanol we're shooting for 300hp which is about how much power it takes to push the lakester we run to 200mph. actually, with any hope, the streamliner we're building will be the one that breaks 200.