Detonation or pre-ignition?

Lazy JW

5K+
Staff member
VIP
Ok, I'm going to drag this subject back up to see if we can get more discussion. I really am curious. Let's hear it


Gentlemen,
I understand your angst about pinging engines and whilst my post was about the availability of Elf Oils in Perth I will offer something that may help to solve your problem of ‘pinging’. I agree that any uncontrolled detonation is destructive to engine components and needs to be eradicated, hence my effort to assist you. This discussion is intended only as a primer about these combustion processes since whole books have been devoted to the subject. Whilst generally the higher octane ratings equate to the reduction in the tendency for a given engine to ‘ping’, which you have explored, you have omitted one important avenue in the search for a solution ( as it seems you do not have the diagnostics available to you to explore the ECU programming / sensor malfunctions). Therefore I will suggest you explore spark plugs and heat ranges thereof to reach a solution to your problem.

DETONATION & PRE-IGNITION
( two are completely different and abnormal phenomenon.)
All high output engines are prone to destructive tendencies as a result of over boost, mis-fueling, mis-tuning and inadequate cooling. As engine makers push ever nearer to the limits of power output, they often come close to the margins where cylinder chamber combustion processes can quickly gravitate to engine failure. In a globalised, market mass manufacturing of these engines must attempt to address many variables in the local conditions so their products can adapt. Poor fuel quality, a range of driving conditions and unfortunately mass production tolerances are some factors. I will attempt define two types of engine failures, detonation and pre-ignition, that are as insidious in nature to users as they are hard to recognize and detect. There is NO repeat NO such thing as pre-detonation, only the mistaken slang that misnames pre-ignition and confuses the general layman.
First, let us review normal combustion. It is the burning of a fuel and air mixture charge in the combustion chamber. It should burn in a steady, even fashion across the chamber, originating at the spark plug and progressing across the chamber in a three dimensional fashion. This flame front is similar to dropping a pebble in a glass smooth pond with the ripples spreading out, the front should progress in an orderly fashion. The burn moves all the way across the chamber and, quenches against the walls and the piston crown. The burn should be complete with no remaining fuel-air mixture. I repeat the mixture does not "explode" but burns in an orderly controlled fashion.
I introduce location of peak pressure (LPP) now to illustrate that there is a characteristic pressure build up (compression and combustion) and decay (piston downward movement and exhaust valve opening) during the combustion process that can be considered "normal" if it is smooth, controlled and its peak occurs at 14 degrees After Top Dead Centre. Depending on the chamber design and the burn rate, if one would initiate the spark at its optimum timing (20 degrees BTDC, for example) the burn would progress through the chamber and reach LPP, or peak pressure at 14 degrees after top dead center. LPP is a mechanical factor just as an engine is a mechanical device. The piston can only go up and down so fast. If you peak the pressure too soon or too late in the cycle, you won't have optimum work. Therefore, LPP is always 14 degrees ATDC for any engine.
SUMMARY
Our enlarged definition of normal combustion now says that the charge/bum is initiated with the spark plug, a nice even burn moves across the chamber, combustion is completed and peak pressure occurs at 14 ATDC. Pre-detonation does not exist.

WHAT GOES WRONG
Pre-Ignition ( not repeat not pre-detonation)
The definition of pre-ignition is the ignition of the fuel/air charge prior to the spark plug firing. Pre-ignition caused by some other ignition source such as an overheated spark plug tip, carbon deposits in the combustion chamber and, rarely, a burned exhaust valve; all act as a glow plug to ignite the charge.
Keep in mind the following sequence when analyzing pre-ignition. The charge enters the combustion chamber as the piston reaches BDC for intake; the piston next reverses direction and starts to compress the charge. Since the spark voltage requirements to light the charge increase in proportion with the amount of charge compression; almost anything can ignite the proper fuel/air mixture at BDC!! BDC or before is the easiest time to light that mixture. It becomes progressively more difficult as the pressure starts to build.
A glowing spot somewhere in the chamber is the most likely point for pre-ignition to occur. It is very conceivable that if you have something glowing, like a spark plug tip or a carbon ember, it could ignite the charge while the piston is very early in the compression stoke. The result is understandable; for the entire compression stroke, or a great portion of it, the engine is trying to compress a hot mass of expanded gas. That obviously puts tremendous load on the engine and adds tremendous heat into its parts. Substantial damage occurs very quickly. You can't hear it because there is no rapid pressure rise. This all occurs well before the spark plug fires. (Hence why I believe that you are not experiencing pre-ignition due to the sound that you have described)
Remember, the spark plug ignites the mixture and a sharp pressure spike occurs after that, when the detonation occurs. That's what you hear. With pre-ignition, the ignition of the charge happens far ahead of the spark plug firing, in my example, very, very far ahead of it when the compression stroke just starts. There is no very rapid pressure spike like with detonation. Instead, it is a tremendous amount of pressure which is present for a very long dwell time, i.e., the entire compression stroke. That's what puts such large loads on the parts. There is no sharp pressure spike to resonate the block and the head to cause any noise. So you never hear it, the engine just blows up! That's why pre-ignition is so insidious. It is hardly detectable before it occurs. When it occurs you only know about it after the fact. It causes a catastrophic failure very quickly because the heat and pressures are so intense. An engine can live with detonation occurring for considerable periods of time, relatively speaking. There are no engines that will live for any period of time when pre-ignition occurs. When people see broken ring lands they mistakenly blame it on pre-ignition and overlook the hammering from detonation that caused the problem. A hole in the middle of the piston, particularly a melted hole in the middle of a piston, is due to the extreme heat and pressure of pre-ignition. Other signs of pre-ignition are melted spark plugs showing splattered, melted, fused looking porcelain. Many times a "pre-ignited plug" will melt away the ground electrode. What's left will look all spattered and fuzzy looking. The center electrode will be melted and gone and its porcelain will be spattered and melted. This is a typical sign of incipient pre-ignition. The plug may be getting hot, melting and "getting ready" to act as a pre-ignition source. The plug can actually melt without pre-ignition occurring. However, the melted plug can cause pre-ignition the next time around.
SUMMARY
Pre-ignition is defined as the ignition of the mixture prior to the spark plug firing. Anytime something causes the mixture in the chamber to ignite prior to the spark plug event it is classified as pre-ignition. Substantial damage occurs very quickly, you can't hear it except for the terminal event

Detonation
Unburned end gas, under increasing pressure and heat (from the normal progressive burning process and hot combustion chamber metals) spontaneously combusts, ignited solely by the intense heat and pressure. The remaining fuel in the end gas simply lacks sufficient octane rating to withstand this combination of heat and pressure.
Detonation causes a very high, very sharp pressure spike in the combustion chamber but it is of a very short duration. If you look at a pressure trace of the combustion chamber process, you would see the normal burn as a normal pressure rise, and then all of a sudden you would see a very sharp spike when the detonation occurred. That spike always occurs after the spark plug fires. The sharp spike in pressure creates a force in the combustion chamber. It causes the structure of the engine to ring, or resonate, much as if it were hit by a hammer. Resonance, which is characteristic of combustion detonation, occurs at about 6400 Hertz. So the pinging you hear is actually the structure of the engine reacting to the pressure spikes. This noise of detonation is commonly called spark knock. This noise changes only slightly between iron and aluminium. This noise or vibration is what a knock sensor picks up. The knock sensors are tuned to 6400 hertz and they will pick up that spark knock. Incidentally, the knocking or pinging sound is not the result of "two flame fronts meeting" as is often stated. Although this clash does generate a spike the noise you sense comes from the vibration of the engine structure reacting to the pressure spike. One thing to understand is that detonation is not necessarily destructive. Many engines run under light levels of detonation, even moderate levels. Some engines can sustain very long periods of heavy detonation without incurring any damage. If you've driven a car that has a lot of spark advance on the freeway, you'll hear it pinging. It can run that way for thousands and thousands of kilometres. It's not an optimum situation but it is not a guaranteed instant failure. The higher the specific output of the engine, the greater the sensitivity to detonation. Engines that are detonating will tend to overheat, because the boundary layer of gas gets interrupted against the cylinder head and heat gets transferred from the combustion chamber into the cylinder head and into the coolant. So it starts to overheat. The more it overheats, the hotter the engine, the hotter the end gas, the more it wants to detonate, the more it wants to overheat. It's a snowball effect. That's why an overheating engine wants to detonate and that's why engine detonation tends to cause overheating.
Detonation is influenced by chamber design (shape, size, geometry, plug location), compression ratio, engine timing, air/fuel mixture, fuel mixture, temperature, cylinder pressure and fuel octane rating. Too much spark advance ignites the burn too soon so that it increases the pressure too greatly and the end gas spontaneously combusts. Backing off the spark timing will stop the detonation. The octane rating of the fuel is really nothing magic. Octane is the ability to resist detonation. It is determined empirically in a special running test engine where you run the fuel, determine the compression ratio that it detonates at and compare that to a standard fuel. I want to reinforce the fact that the detonation pressure spike is very brief and that it occurs after the spark plug normally fires. In most cases that will be well after ATDC, when the piston is moving down pushing the piston like it's supposed to, and superimposed on that you get a brief spike that rings the engine.

SUMMARY
Detonation is the spontaneous combustion of the end-gas (remaining fuel/air mixture) in the chamber. It always occurs after normal combustion is initiated by the spark plug. The initial combustion at the spark plug is followed by a normal combustion burn. For some reason, likely heat and pressure, the end gas in the chamber spontaneously combusts. The key point here is that detonation occurs after you have initiated the normal combustion with the spark plug. Damage occurs very slowly if at all, you can hear it as a ping.


:unsure:
Joe
Edit: I tried to copy & paste this but it came out as though I wrote the above article, which I did not. I brought it over from the 300 Six page.
 
Thanks L6,
I just read through the longer version. Seems as though myself and a few others have been a bit confused for lo, these 40+ years :unsure: Trouble is, I really can't refute any of what he writes. He does make a pretty strong case for his theories. I still will continue to attempt to avoid both pre-ignition AND detonation ;)
Joe
 
I have just finished reading an article that seems to cover alot of the current ideas on the prevention of detonation. According to the writer, the primary objective in detonation prevention is in reducing the time required to complete the combustion event.

He points out that detroit has now picked up on many ideas born in the racing community and has used them to advantage. We have all heard of "fast burn technology" from automakers. Out of these new ideas has come the Ls1, hemi, and 4.6 ford engines. Even the 300 ford six had this feature. These developments, like fast burn chambers, swirl ports, tumble chambers, twin plugs, and high quench chambers along with efi, aluminum heads, longer rods, smaller bores and higher compression have increased hp to a level only found in racing applications in the past.On pump gas no less.
Every one of these developments create a faster or more uniform burn rate which inturn reduces detonation(with the acception of higher compression ratios). Last time I looked, the covette delivered over 400 hp with 11:1 compression on pump gas. Where will it end? He went on to discuss how each of the above developements contribute to a faster burning combustion event and how this prevents detonation and allows these higher compression ratios or even super charging. Really neat stuff.

It would take alot of space to cover each of the above features if anyone is interested? Then you can compare his analysis with the previusly referenced article. The term he uses is " abnormal combustion" rather than pre ignition or detonation. He also discusses why efi systems seem to run out of rpm and how to improve the problem on a street engine.
 
Well, I am interested, can't speak for anyone else, but know that I am a long way from knowing it all ;)
Joe
 
I apologies in advance for appearing to capture this topic, but I have an intense interest unlike yours in the subject of detonation and preignition, octane tolerance, or abnormal combustion. The author of the quoted information is the duo of Bob and Craig Wise of Racecrafters who were challenged to develop an efi engine for street use. They first point out the disadvantages of the currently produced efi systems and then how to overcome these enherent problems.

The first problem for the efi user is the longer, smallish intake manifold runners. The runners are designed to develop low rpm torque, which they do quite well. But at the same time these runners produce high air speed friction which limits high rpm torque (what we foundly call horsepower) which wins our hearts over. A comparison of a tpi manifold with a Victor caburated manifold reveals the Victor has a larger cross section and shorter runner length from plenum to valve seat. These two manifolds are designed for two different objectives and require different tuned length and volume. Like a church organ, different notes need different tube lengthes and diameters. The second problem is high ingested air temperatures due to all the surface area provided by the longer runners. And finally all this low rpm tuning provides high volumetric efficency at low rpms where detination usually occures adding to an allready detonation prone situation.

This pretty well describes the problems that have to be delt with when modifying the efi engine for high performance street use. Please fell free to object, add to, or refute the above discussion. Talking to yourself is no fun.
 
I liked this article. learn somthing every day.

I remember driving a couple of polce cruisersthat pinged a lot. A 93 and a 94 and both pinged like hell between 80-100Mph. It was loud, I mean it was heard over the wind noise by a wide margin. Never did hurt them one bit , they got more than a few miles on them like that. :roll:
 
When the flame begines in the chamber, its travel is very slow untill a region called a reaction zone is established. Once the reaction zone is created the flame speed accerates. As the piston sweeps toward the bottom of the bore the flame nears the cold far-side cylinderwall and the flame speed again decreases. Flame speeds are measured in meters per second and usually recorded from 5 to 95%, since the starting and finishing 5% is quite slow. The engine designer will consentrate on increases burn rates to limit detenation due to the tpi engines typical long runners and elivated air temperature.The writer then proposes the use of advanced chamber design,good flow potential and a longer rod dwell period. In the case of the 300 ford six were talking about using the 240 six rods (6.794 in long) with the 3.980 in stroke to provide a 1.707 rod stroke ratio.

The longer connecting rod will cause the piston to dwell at the TDC vacinity for a longer period of time. When dwelling, the rod will hold the combustion chamber small even though the expanding flame will be trying to move the rod and piston out of the way. This produces many benifites. The smaller region will allow the reaction zone to start sooner, improving flame speeds, and limiting a chance for abnormal combustion.Another benifit is since cylinder bressures are higher at the point of the rod being purpendicular to the crank arm, The energy transmitted to the crankshaft is higher than with the shorter rod. Also the longer rod will reduce piston frictional loses with reduced angularity as the crankshaft spins.

There is a downside to the long rod deal however. With less rod angularity pistons speeds are lower which is good to reduce friction, but the pistons ability to create a vaccum to suck intake air has been reduced. Not all is lost however since with the efi's long small ports, high speed air friction in these ports has been reduced. If a highflow racing head and manifold had been installed the shorter rod would have been used.

Think about what this guy is saying.I dont know about you, but the above rod length dicussion has put allot of mythology to rest in my mind. There has got to be some objections and explanations to this concept. Lets hear it.
 
I am of the opinion that long rod engines (high rod length to stroke ratio) are much more detonation resistant than short rod engines (low rod length to stroke ratio).

I am at odds to the philiosphy that

"long rod engines with long residence dwell time will create more detonation".

(An example of high residence time engine was suggested back in late 2003 by Floridaphatman or 54 Ford. This was thrshed about in an excellent post by XT500

One of the gentlemen above cited the Jaguar 2.8 DOHC engine as a reason agaisnt long rod engines. This 1968 t0 1973 Jaguar XJ -6 ran a close-to-zero deck engine, which in practice had very real issues with poor long term durability becasue of carbon build up. Floridaphatman or 54 Ford felt that this was an indication that this long rod, short stroke, high resisdence time engine was more detonation prone.

Over the paast 2 years, I'vew often thought about this from both a prothseis and antithesis point of view.

Since then, iv'e formed a poiunt of view. In my case, I assert that a hemi engine is a low swirl, rather stagnant, poor flame speed propogation engine, and my experience with Japanese Mitsubishi and Mazda's with Hemi engines is that they form coke buildup in execess of the old bathtub or wedge engines). I push the idea that the 2.8 XK engine was not fundamentally a high resistence engine as much as it was a stangant flow engine with a very close deck to cylinder top register which all Hemi engines require to get a higher compression ratio they needed in the early pre emission engine era.


The idea I have is that a dwell period allows the Brake Mean Effective pressure to be driven up without hurting relaible spark propogation. I think prudent engineers know long rod engines are better at making the same power with less detonation, but they then look at other issues, and get over-ruled


In my opinion, the spark misfire of the denegaration of spark is not really observed by the tuning engineer, it is something he works around so the chief engineers ass doesn't get roasted by warranty claims against his car company.

The result is people scoot around the issues which a really dillegnent combustion engineer would like to fund further invetigation into. Consequntly, near enough has been good enough, and since most rod to stroke ratios are locked in due to
cost,
package,
production engineering
and weight issues,

engineers are unable to force the boss to release a few extra million to turn a 1.5:1 rod ratio engine into a 2:1 engine.

The accountant doing his job would over rule any rod ratio improvemtn, espeically if it resulted in adding say, 1.6" to the block deck, then needing 77 pounds to the engine, and having to force the designer to accomodated a taller hood.

Whenthe rod ratio is improved, the more moderate pressure spike allows the gradual propagation of the so-called spark by allow the 'nebulae of spark' to occur. And a 'nebulae' is what a sprak is. It is not a flame or anything like we observe on earth, it is like an ionized commet tail, simply because the oxygen level is below the critical mass to quickly errupt into a spark form as it is on earth.

In a short rod engine, the pressure spike is severe, and sudden. I think that the so-called spark needs a more friendly environment to grow.

Taken to the extreme, purpose built race engines like F1, (not Drag or NASCAR, which are still stuck to old rules on engine configuration) These run very long rods with short strokes, and I'm certain it's not just becasue of the desire to reduce side loads, but to allow the spark event as much time as possible to be supbect to the shape of the intruding piston, to form the right kind of squish zone which allows the flame cloud to form.

I think spark development and flame travel are better defined by an alternative cosmology theories which have been laid down by scientists who are forced to create modles which follow observations. The conditions which create spark growth are a no different to space. It's easy to have an understanding of something that happens on a grader scale. Everything has 'stuff' in it, but how the spark ingition engines propogates so called flame travel is still not well understood.

My thinking is that a short rod engine is a severe environ to a spark. I can cite many examples of spark misfire happening in short rod drag race engines, and the best exampleis the twin spark Hemi engine under extreme race conditons burning nitro or alchol blends. They are stuck with short rods to create enough displacement. You'll never make 2.3:1 rod ratio engines reving to 20 000 rpm and package that in a stock block engine unless you trade of capacity. And every drag racer knows, for straight line power, go for more cubic inches! Its therefore not possible to rank a 1.5:1 rod ratio 600 cuber with a 183 cubic inch 2.3:1 rod ratio, and see which one works best regards knock resistance.

What I am saying is that if a drag racer uses a 600 cube, 3500 hp, nitro methane, 1.5:1 rod ratio engine that literally poor fuel in like a water fall, when it miss-fires, it hydraulics.

If that engine was an all else being equal 2:1 rod ratio engine, I'm certain the misfire would be less even if it were to hydraulic, and that the load at where the detonation sets in would be greater. In other words, the longer rod ratio, the better the detoantion resistance. The shorter the rod, the more detonation prone it is. All else being equal.

In my obersavtion on Australian Touring car racing, short rod engines with even the best cylinder heads, are much more detonation prone in the heat of battle than long rod engines. In the Aussie case, they still used EFI versions of the Trans Am style Ford 302 Boss engine verses the 302 Z-28 engines. The Ford had better heads, the Chev had a poorer heads but a better rod ratio by 10% (1.9 verses 1.72 as a production engine), Ford was so reifddled by engine DNF's that the current Auroa~Chevy engines have been hobbled back to the stock Ford block height, rod ratio, and head configurations. Now they have equal durability.

I can't prove it using physics, but my instincts tell me the rod ratio is a pivotal possitive factor in generating detonation resitance, all else being equal.

A simple solution is to build three 200 cube engines, with all else equal, and with the level at there incipent knock triggers a sensor is clearly pegged .

I've given some thought to this. The ideal combo is our little 200 cube I6.

Engine 1: A short deck, 1.505:1 ratio engine with stock US block. Rods 4.71", stroke 3.126"

Engine 2: An intermediate 200 using a the 188 Argie /Aussie block, but a US 200 crank and a rod ratio of 1.7:1 using the 188 Argie /Aussie conrod. Rods resized from stock 5.37" to 5.33", and stock 3.126" crank

Engine 3: A long rod Aussie 200 engine with 2.01:1 rod ratio. 6.27" rods, 3.126" crank,

I propse seven simple calibrated piezo electric knock sensors are placed on all the exposed 7 head bolts on the manifold side. Ford Austrlai used these, and they are cheep. Hook them up to an engine of each type which has a control piston, head, gasket, cam, ignition and block to head. Dial in 42 degrees advance with a 9:1 compression ratio on 89 octane fuel. The key is to see what load (throttle postion or maniold vaccumm) results in incipeint knock being registered by the sensors. You can isolate what cylinder it happens in, but you can collect all the data easily without blowing up your engine.

This could be loaded using a

control dyno
heavy load road
or
or track test cycle .

Run at varying operational loads and temperatures. The degree of advance is locked to 42 degrees, and the amount of incipient knock is measured and logged electronically.

The vital answers are the loads at which incipient happens for each three sets of L/R ratio. You end up with the critical load verses rod ratio data. This tells you how the engine responds only to rod length verses stroke ratios.


I am adamant that the load/knock curve on long rod engines is shallower than short rod engines, and that the exact level of knock to load is a linear relationship with the rod ratio.

1.5:1, poor incipient knock to load ratio

1.7:1 moderate incipent knock to load ratio

2.0:1, good incipent knock to load ratio.
 
Seems to make sense in terms of basic physics, to me.

Throw an orange against a brick wall.

If you throw it hard, it splats. That's a short rod engine, where the motion changes suddenly.

If you throw it more gently, it bounces back undamaged. Long rod motor, if you wish.

I know we're supposed to compare apples with apples, but citrus suited the analogy better...
 
Now that we all seem agree that the use of long rods seems to be logical way to get a stronger efi street engine, what about the nhra pro stock type engine? This may come as a suprise but Bob and Craig Wise of Racecrafters build both street and prostock power plants and prefere just the opposite for competition drag mills. Large bores for good valve flow, shorter strokes for less friction and crank enertia with shorter rods for higher intake stroke suction pulse. With mega air flow intake systems the additional air velocity is not a big consideration.The the added piston friction is handled with coatings that they apply on piston skirts, and they use the racing fuel to prevent detination. The rule of thumb for some racing engine builders is that rod length is calculated at 2 inches longer that the stroke used. Thats calls for a 5.98 inch rod for a 3.98" stroke 4.9 ford inliner, shorter than the stock rod at 6.21 inches. Thats a rod/ stroke ratio of 1.5, not at all what I expected for a competition engine.

The only exception I know of is the AA fuel motors that use small bore, long strokes, and long rods for detonation resistance and torque. These guys live on a diferent planet anyway. It should be noted that both AA fuel and pro stock classes have the same cubic inch limit of 500 ci. Different strokes for different folks, different rods too. Next we will discuss head selection for the street efi engine with more surprises.
 
Well, I'm just a dumb welder, and I don't get it, Dean. Why should your "pressure spike" be any higher in a short-rod engine? I'm assuming you're describing an ignition and flame-travel event, not just the "compression spike" of the sort-rod piston whapping in and out of TDC in a hurry. I thought one of the several reasons Detroit likes short rods is that they make an engine more tolerant of ignition timing being just a little off . . . which it is likely to be for some of the cylinders. In other words, short rods allow more latitude for wide-tolerance (sloppy?) manufacturing, whereas with your own blueprinted engine you can use the advantages of long rods without it being so touchy about spark-lead. Or so I thought, but I was wrong once or twice. So why the difference in pressure spikes?
 
The first consideration the Wise brothers discuss is whether to use aluminum or cast iron head. Their opinion is that either can be used with success if it has the correct features and the correct compression ratio. The aluminum heads require one point increase in ratio to equal the hp of the cast iron ones. The additional compression is required to increase the thermal efficiency to a level equal to that of the cast iron heads. Of course the cost of the aluminum head is not that attractive, and the cast iron head will win the cost argument unless weight is the over riding consideration.

Which ever alloy is used there are several requirement that the street performance head must have. First, the chamber must have external charge motion induced by the passage if mixture thru the intake valves into the cylinder bore during the intake cycle. Inline valves must have swirl motion and hemi (or 4 valve ) heads must have tumble motion. The second requirement is called internal charge motion and is caused by the use of squish pads on the peremiter of the chamber. The newer fast burn chambers have a heart shaped chamber that extends the squish pad into the area between the intake and exhaust valves with very close head to piston clearances in an effort to inhance this internal charge motion toward the spark plug area. Higher levels of both internal or external charge motion dramatically increases burn speeds(thus reducing burn time) and limit the posibility of abnormal combustion. The last requirement our street performance head must have is a centrally located spark plug to minimise the distance the flame front must travel across the chamber. A central position is desired but not physically possible in an inline valve head. Unfortunately, the inliner fords were not produced with heads that have fast burn chambers with the exception of the later model 4.9l engines. Someone needs to experiment with this head to increase its swirl, port bias and airflow for high performance street use. Maybe a spark plug relocation and milling for compression would be desirable also.

I hope this discussion has helped to explain the relationships between flame travel, rod lengths, compression ratios, detonation, preignition, swirl, efi, swirl, tumble, and orange smashing. It certainly has for me.
 
Lots of good stuff here.
Not many folks have done as much actual dyno testing followed by extensive street use as the late Gene Berg did on air-cooled Volkswagens. He did careful, back-to-back dyno runs many times trying to find what worked best. He concluded that putting longer rods in definitely killed the lower rpm torque that is so important for street use. BUT.... for absolute max horsepower at top rpm the longer rods are the way to go. The real problem is that in order to gain the full benefits of the longer rods you need to have headwork/porting/camshaft that will support the high rpm necessary to ever see the improvement from the long rods. Then you don't really have a streetable engine. This is all from actual practical dyno runs, race track, and street testing. Remember, I am talking VW's here, but the basic principles should still apply. Also, not many engines are as sensitive to detonation as the air-cooled Volkswagens. When the lead was taken out of gasoline and lower octane fuel became the norm, many stock VW's self destructed from the detonation-induced overheating that resulted from 7.5-1 compression and 87 octane unleaded. Stock VW's running at freeway speeds in southern California have dramatically shortened engine life unless the compression is reduced to about 6.6-1 ratio.

It has been observed by knowledgeable folks on this board that the heart-shaped EFI chambers on the 300 six don't flow so very well at high speeds. Also that if you open them up very much to improve flow then the fast-burn capability is lost. I suspect that putting long rods in this engine with the EFI head would result in loss of low end torque and the head will never flow enough to gain the high rpm benefits of the long rods, just like a VW. Somebody wanna prove me wrong? Naturally aspirated, of course.

BUT! I think I see a bright spot here :D Reckon how much compression could I get away with on an EFI headed 240? Burning 87 octane low-life fuel, of course :roll: In my never-ending quest for better fuel economy and the betterment of mankind, it seems that this comination just may have some real merit.
#1. Keep the rpm low.
#2. Very mild port work around the valves.
#3. Do NOT remove the casting roughness from the ports.
#4. Use stock intake/exhaust for best fuel vaporization.
#5. Zero-deck the block for best quench
#6. Stock cam or maybe custom grind with low overlap
#7. Manley Street Flow stainless steel valves
#8. Water injection, (hence the stainless valves)

What pistons would be suitable for use in a 240/EFI to match the EFI chamber?
Joe
 
Lazy JW":uo0fcffh said:
What pistons would be suitable for use in a 240/EFI to match the EFI chamber?
Joe

piston25001.jpg
 
Those are custom stampings from Omega. They make custom pistons for F1 and the like. (Lookit all those purdy pistons: http://www.omegapistons.com )

My point in throwing up that bit o' piston porn was to illustrate the possibility of matching up the quench area of the head with a similar shape on the piston. Combine that with a piston crown (or dome if you like that crackly sound :LOL: ) that you can mill/shape to whatever configuration that suits you.

Whatever you do in that area will probably be a custom effort; I haven't seen anything for the 240/300 that approximates the illustration. Hell, I haven't even been able to find flattops; all the listings I've seen for off-the-shelf performance pistons for the 240/300 are discontinued...
 
The closest piston with flat tops I found for the 300 with the 240 rod is the piston used for the 350 cheby with 6" rods. The tops need trimming about .010 to .015 which can be avoided by off-setting the wrist pin hole when enlarging to the cheby size pin. Use the early 240 rods with the smaller pin. My interest for the fast- burn chambers came with my ls1 head conversion on my 300 ford engine. The 240 is an extreem case for the long rod aplication (2.137 l/s ratio)in stock form, but the piston to fit with the efi head should have about a 1.615" compression distance. This is close to a 289 or 302 ford v8 which are 1.605" cd. Might work really well after a block deck clean up cut.
 
6bangerbill":1pzov66y said:
.... The 240 is an extreem case for the long rod aplication (2.137 l/s ratio)in stock form, but the piston to fit with the efi head should have about a 1.615" compression distance. This is close to a 289 or 302 ford Vee-Eight which are 1.605" cd. Might work really well after a block deck clean up cut.

Hmmm.....flatops in a 240 with EFI head 8) Reckon would that live on 87 octane? I'm not talking high rpm screamer here, just daily driver for best fuel economy.
Joe
 
If your hauling a load of hay in your truck, maybe you'd be better off with the torque of a long rod 300. Maybe propane would be a better fuel, octane wise. If you can stand the stink,I mean propane really stinks bad.
 
Back
Top