why my gov surged and I couldnt win 1st place

here is a nice link to poke around in that darrin morgan suggested.

A 2.2 rod ratio is  unheard of . well 2 is figured the best which the 14000 rpm formula 1 boys run for 500 miles. A man with that rod ratio would have to make his cam slow down so his valve timming events at low rpms would be with the crank angle if he didnt they would be  way out of whack to say the least .Half of 4.125 is  2.062+9.1+1.1=12.262 blocks i have measured have been 12.656-12.262=.394 now then if you had .042 for a normal head gasket =.436 gives a deck volume of 6.93 that equals 9.5 .1 static cr not counting the spark plug hole area or the valve reliefs wich you dont need being that far down in the hole. Your flow velocity wouldnt be much below 5000 rpms and it wouldnt lug at all wouldnt be any pay backs from advancing the cam either. turn it 7000 and it should breath well . I agree to well design . if I can only produce 1/2 a horsepower per cubic inch then you with that smaller engine have to produce 1 hp per cubic inch to be as good and with all the nascar testing on rod ratios I dont think your 9.1 rod with the max cr being 9.5 static with measurements you stated having that much advantage.  If your cam is bleeding it off like you state your dynamic cr would probably let you run tractor fuel the best. Since your a header man heres a article from Jerr Stahl he makes a living producing headers.

Edited by mlpankey - 27 Oct 2010 at 1:49pm

the beauty of building a engine yourself is ts like burger king . you get it your way . Everyone overthinks a certain part and the underthinks another.  The great debate for rod length is reduces cylinder wall side loading. Just what is the coefecient drag on a forged aluminum piston against a oil film on a ductile iron  sleeve beats the dickens out of me but it doesnt show to be enough to ever so slightly mark up a piston  skirt.  our cam , headwork, etc works well with large stroke big bore combinations.The buda rods just take a pounding.

Now I would be interested in a aluminum cross flow cylinder head built like a 426 hemi  head . As far as valve location and ports . I really dont care if it had a combustion chamber or not . probably rather it not .

Edited by mlpankey - 27 Oct 2010 at 3:03pm

DaveKamp wrote: mlpankey wrote: Hey Brian go to wikipedia and search nitromethane top fuel . Dave you really should give credit to all printed resources. As in college plagiarism is not good. What are you insinuating here, Mitch?

  I thought your article and theres were word for word the same but at a  closer examination they are some differences in wording . I guess I jumped in haste.

One thing to take in to account on all the information we have available is that most of this testing is done with engines designed with much better cylinder heads to start with.  Our old Allis heads are pretty poor in comparison, so I have to wonder how much is valid for us. 

I alwayse wanted to build an overhead cam head, one issue for the crossflow is that by the time one gets around the pushrods and head bolts, it may be better to have all the ports on one side.  Look at the Staab Machine billet heads for the Deere prostocks designed this way.

 

I have not seen it for a few years now but there was a fella up here that ran a 16hp Kohler,  it was the heavy aftermarket block to start with.  There was a deck plate made and a 2.3L Ford cylinder head cut off for 1 cylinder put on the deck plate.  It wasn't legal to run in the "pro stock" garden tractor classes but instead ran against the snomobile, 2 stroke and 4 stroke rocket engine tractors, mini mods, or whatever one wishes to call them.  The single cylinder did it's fair share of winning.

 

In my Allis head, it was set at 6 or 7 degrees in the mill and we bored the intake runners out of it, made larger tubes at an upward angle to the valves allong with some other modifications. The exhaust is adequate to start with so it didn't require much work from the start, but the intakes in these Allis heads really suck.  Nothing is impossiable but, some things just take a long time.  The old short wc heads probably have more potential in common form, the ones we sonic tested were able to have the stock intake runners bored larger than the later heads.   If I ever get handy with a camera and computer I'll figure out how to post some pictures of the project.  The block and head were built, pistons bought, than it was just a matter of figureing out the crank and rod combo, hence the short stroke hopeing to keep it togather. 

Edited by wi50 - 28 Oct 2010 at 4:00pm

DaveKamp - I really enjoy your discussion.  The load cell on the drawbar is a fantastic idea.

mlpankey wrote: I agree with velocity thats why I run the piston speed at 3 to 5 grand that the same cubic inch small block would at 8500 rpm . I thought with the rod being thicker from I to I than a sbc stock rod even though the i width are the same would have been enough but when the piston speed  hit 10,000 fpm . It wasnt . As for port velocity mine runs 400 at the low and 721 at peak.

http://www.allischalmers.com/new/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20289&title=rod-subjects-up-again-on-yt-pulling-forum

Looks like a handy calculator app... but it didn't post quite like you intended.

Hedrick's point (and well proven) was that port velocity is incredibly important when mining for horsepower... while having a low-restriction port is important for drag, high velocity not only takes advantage of the flow's mass and inertia, to generate greatest pressure differentials.  By getting those differentials, the engine's characteristics go from naturally-aspirated (and limited to basic airflow principles) to supercharged-by-nature from tuning.

And Jim's engines proved it.  Sissel's improvement to the Chev head was substantial, but combine Hedrick, and you've really got airflow concepts down.

The Allis motor, though, is a very unique bird.  The cylinder head was designed to be flat, and I'd be willing to bed they made it that way KNOWING that no matter WHAT went wrong in the foundry, or on the assembly line, the chambers would all have the same volume, the mating surfaces would be flat, and the valves would fit properly.  They got good swirl and remaining chamber consistency by making simple dished pistons... of course, that led to inherently consistent cylinder displacement- no need to 'cc' a head that is totally flat, and three pistons coming out of the same pattern-lathe, on the same day, were very likely to be the same.

It's actually pretty impressive... if you compare the two-cylinder Deere's numbers at Nebraska, you'll see that the big thumpers beat everybody in the hp/hr/gallon tests... they were above the W-series by a couple of HP, and several more for everyone else...  which stands to reason why many farmers bought the old poppers.

But something my grandfather told me years ago... when I was not more than 10 years old... when I asked him why he ran Allis machines...  was that although the Deere motors appeared to be much more fuel efficient in the tests, they couldn't beat the Allis motor's ability to be efficient at PART LOAD.  And there's quite a bit of reality here... when you're pulling a serious draft load, having the power on tap is important, but when you're cultivating, pulling a planter, or some other task where the governor is NOT at WFO, it's best to have an engine that doesn't draw down so much fuel.  Grandpa ran a two-cylinder Deere, and said that it WOULD get good economy under full load, but it was 'too thirsty' running lighter loads, while the W-series engines would use way less.

I'm thinkin' that the head/piston design, as well as other factors of the four-cylinder had alot to do with it.  Turning these things up for maximum horsepower puts those chambers in a totally different mode.  The engineering those guys did, however, is worthy of a good chunk'a respect.