TCCoA Forums banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,862 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Anybody ever heard of cutting multiple rings on the back of your intake valves for increased performance? I guess it's called "Powre Ringz" and the theory is that it assists flow/fuel mixing especially at lower flow rates.

Personally, it doesn't sound like a good idea to me; what do y'all think?

I've found little reading up on it (others don't think it sounds like a good idea either, apparently):
http://www.allpar.com/fix/holler/valve-prepping.html
http://www.opelgt.com/forums/performance-articles/27412-intake-valve-power-ringz.html
http://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/archive/index.php/t-25612.html
http://www.thirdgen.org/techboard/tech-general-engine/341360-modifying-valves-performance.html

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
Without spending a lot of time on the dyno testing these, i cant give you a definitive answer. That said however, the theory is sound to a point.

What it is supposed to do is create a turbulent area right behind the intake valve to force the air and fuel to tumble, thus getting in that last bit of mixing before entering the combustion chamber. However, it seems to me that this would create an aerodynamic wall decreasing air flow, thus actually harming power output. The difference though is going to be rather small, with in the margin of error i should think, which means no real change would be noticeable.

This theory goes back to the old days when it was found that a rough surface on intake port walls actually made power, 5 HP on small engines like those found in the old mini Cooper, to as much as 15hp on a full out race engine.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,577 Posts
Hydrodynamics is all about boundary layers, and where they form. :)

In an intake, you want the fluid to move in a laminar flow pattern when it's moving into the head, but mix well with the charge.

The non-polished surface inside the port keeps a thin shin of air stuck to it; the less air that hits the port wall, the faster it moves.

Knowing where the turbulent vortex areas actually form, and making little structures to pin them in place, is the hard part. That takes an engineer a lot of modelling time. :)


If you have a huge turbulent area covering the entire backside of the valve, and say, 1/8" above it, it will not flow well at all. That's a plugged port, fwiw.

If there is a thin skin of air stuck to the backside of the valve, in just the proper shape, it would help a lot.

I would think that "proper shape" would not be symmetric, and wouldn't work as the valve rotated, but if it works, hey, WTF do I know. :)

I think that the "tuliped" valve shape is pretty well proven to flow better than stock, that basic mod has been around since the 50's, IIRC. These would have to flow pretty well... :)

The really sharp edge on the inside curve of the intake ports are one of these 'turbulence' things, but also one of the first things to go in a porting job; What works for gas mileage and emissions does not always help raw HP...
:D

Why don't you buy a set, put them in, and we'll see how well it works? :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,148 Posts
The crux of the ringz is to cause surface turbulence to pull liquefied fuel away from the port walls so that it may again become atomized. Raw fuel inhibits combustion causing lower fuel mileage, and hydrocarbons. An emissions pollutant. Moreover, if the fuel is not being burned; it's not being used for power.

In a laminar flow( think smooth) everything moves along peachy from the centerline of the runners/ports until the fluid (air is a fluid) meets the i.d. of the "tube". There, momentum diffusion causes a thin boundary layer to form, and the fluid stops moving within this thin layer just a smooch from the hard surface wall. A type of dead spot to use some bench flow terminology. The faster the flow, the greater the diffusion, and the thicker the boundary layer. This is where liquefied fuel, and carbon will accumulate.

Surface turbulence will decrease to nil the boundary layer. Thus, less accumulation of raw fuel. Also the reason golf balls have dimples, and airfoils, and even Evos, on the roof, have those little angled blades sticking up on their smooth surfaces.

The only engines I can think of off hand that have similar "rings" are some Mercedes Benz engines. But Daimler put the grooves in the valve seat bowl just below the valve seat. Perhaps because turbulence upstream would cause a decrease in volumetric efficiency. Like When the intake valve closes the added turbulence would increase the shock wave (this occurs on all poppet valved engines) that propagates upstream hampering the next air/fuel charge moving in. Think water hammer in a plumbing system. But this is mire conjecture.

The only way to be reasonable assured something like ringz, or any part, configuration, build formula, would work are things like mathematics and computer simulation, bench flowing, and trial and error.

In closing I hope that my comment is viewed as a compliment to what has already been written. It is my sincere belief that one of the cornerstones of TCCoA forum is to share knowledge. Thanx to the o.p. for the topic. I find it very interesting, and fun to discuss.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
The issue I see for our application is the fuel is injected directly into the cylinder and not the intake tract.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,148 Posts
The issue I see for our application is the fuel is injected directly into the cylinder and not the intake tract.

I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly. Are you saying that our engines are direct injection? Or that they would be better if they were direct injection?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,862 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Why did you delete the image link, Ron? Hard to discuss it without seeing what it looks like!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,309 Posts
I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly. Are you saying that our engines are direct injection? Or that they would be better if they were direct injection?
They are injected into the intake tract, just above the valves .. not direct injection. Unlike a carbed setup where the fuel goes through the whole intake tract. Direct injection would be good, but I have heard of massive carbon buildup problems (ie. Lexus, the engines with direct injection only are needing the piston rings replaced at less than 30k miles on a brand new engine - the engines with both Direct and port injection dont have this issue ). If its not a compound injection system, then direct only works great in diesel where you can get multiple injections during the power stroke.
 

·
50 years of Mercury Cougar 1967/2017
Joined
·
1,262 Posts
The intake valve alone creats enough turbulence.

The valve should be smooth, polished almost.
(for racing, high rpm)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,246 Posts
Why did you delete the image link, Ron? Hard to discuss it without seeing what it looks like!
It wasn't working. THIS image was coming up because they don't want hotlinking. You were probably seeing it because you had already downloaded the image into your browser's cache.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
The issue I see for our application is the fuel is injected directly into the cylinder and not the intake tract.
They are injected into the intake tract, just above the valves .. not direct injection. Unlike a carbed setup where the fuel goes through the whole intake tract. Direct injection would be good, but I have heard of massive carbon buildup problems (ie. Lexus, the engines with direct injection only are needing the piston rings replaced at less than 30k miles on a brand new engine - the engines with both Direct and port injection dont have this issue ). If its not a compound injection system, then direct only works great in diesel where you can get multiple injections during the power stroke.
what sct said. the design of the fuel injection on these engines is right at the back side of the intake valve. ford does have engines used today that are in fact direct injection engines, the eco boost engines come to mind, but the V6 and V8 engine in the tbirds are all indirect injection engines.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,862 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
It wasn't working. THIS image was coming up because they don't want hotlinking. You were probably seeing it because you had already downloaded the image into your browser's cache.
Oh, ok. Well, I fixed it and restored the pic! Sorry, y'all!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
I did not mean to imply direct injection, but that IF this does have any benefit I would think it would be only for TBI, Carbs and maybe Port Injection but not Sequential.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,577 Posts
I think this is snake oil, personally.

The reason you don't want to mirror the ports is because the airflow will run along the metal; the slightly rough surface pins a static layer to the metal, with a turbulent layer above it, and a laminar area above that.

You want the diameter of the laminar flow area to be a large as possible, tapering smaller as it gets toward the valve. (getting smaller increases velocity of the air, soon to be air charge, when the injectors fire.)

Our injectors shoot a pressurized blast of fuel into this airstream (stock), and the mixing takes place both from the atomization of the spray, and the trip into the cylinder.

The density goes up considerably from having the fuel stuffed in there, so you want the trip into the cylinders to be as smooth as possible, and as large as possible.

Adding "features" to the rear of the valve, instead of getting the valve metal out the way is just not going to perform as well, IMHO.

YMMV. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,148 Posts
They are injected into the intake tract, just above the valves .
Do EEC-IV MN-12 engine injectors batch fire, and EEC-V engine injectors fire sequentially? Or is there a variation overlap between when the systems became sequential?

I'm wondering about the effects an air/fuel charge has on the topic of discussion as it sits, and it waits for the valve to open in a batch firing system.




r429460 said:
The intake valve alone creats enough turbulence. The valve should be smooth, polished almost. (for racing, high rpm)
Yes, the intake valve certainly does. Especially downstream. It's called vortex shedding.



At the strip, as you know, you want to get it in and out as fast as possible. Who cares about liquefied fuel? Let flames shot out the late pipes! It's all about ET's and speed.

Chewing on this whole thing today I was thinking maybe the ringz don't pull raw fuel from that boundary layer I wrote about so much, as actually when the fuel hits the ringz, because it isn't smooth, it breaks the molecules apart causing them to re-atomize. And like someone in the links provided wrote, there may be some benefit to this at low rpm's.


Groog6 said:
You want the diameter of the laminar flow area to be as large as possible, tapering smaller as it gets toward the valve.
I concur. Here's a good example.



Groog6 said:
Adding "features" to the rear of the valve, instead of getting the valve metal out of the way is just not going to perform as well, IMHO.
This is perhaps one of the reasons, if not thee reason, you don't find many tulip intake valves.






Oh, and I thought you might find this graph interesting on laminar flow on rough to smooth surfaces.:)





To the readers what the graph shows is that laminar flows change to turbulent flows. The time, and distance the laminar flow changes to a turbulent flow is dependent on the roughness/smoothness of the surface that they travel.

In a smooth surface the laminar flow remains for a longer time, and travels farther before it changes to a turbulent flow. And vise-versa. I know rather intuitive really.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,148 Posts
They're sequential. Ford only used batch firing on the earliest multiport setups in the mid 80s and possibly some lopo apps a bit longer. All EEC-IV MN12s are sequentially fired though.

Thank you for that info'. I wasn't sure, and that's good to know.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,021 Posts
Why did you delete the image link, Ron? Hard to discuss it without seeing what it looks like!

It wasn't working. THIS image was coming up because they don't want hotlinking. You were probably seeing it because you had already downloaded the image into your browser's cache.
Thanks for clearing that up Brandon. I really do try to take a hands off approach to moderation. Only making subtle changes here and there like merging chain posts and formatting long posts so that they're easier to read (and running spell check and correcting punctuation while I'm at it because I'm a grammar Nazi) :tongue:, etc.

Thanks for your understanding.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,246 Posts
[...] I'm a grammar Nazi) :tongue:, etc.
Wait, I'm not the only one!? :eek:

I usually catch a lot of stuff most everyone else misses. Its/it's, your/you're mixups and overusing the apostrophe (in plurals) are always at the top of the charts. I even catch myself on occasion. :tongue:
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top