KG441c
Keith
So hogging out the transfers would decrease velocity and crankcase compression?I feel like velocity is very important.......but that's just my gut feeling.
So hogging out the transfers would decrease velocity and crankcase compression?I feel like velocity is very important.......but that's just my gut feeling.
yea, not even close to being cost effective...yet. The vid about making the 1911s was still pretty cool to watch. The technology is starting to remind me of Star Trek's 'processors'Not with any reasonably affordable machines.
The one we have here at work can print ABS, and I think perhaps nylon with an additional bed adapter. Nylon might be suitable.
I think an insert could be retained by drilling a hole in the insert spout, and running a countersunk screw in from the outside. That way the screw could not enter the intake even if it came loose. Maybe the insert could be formed so as to hook over the intake inlet spout? I don't know what the boot looks like, but it probably fits too closely for that.
Overall a pre-made insert would be a challenge on a port that had been modified, as the shape would have to match very closely. It might be viable on a stock port. Even with a stock port, drawing it would be fun, as it is an obscure shape. I suspect filling it with epoxy and grinding it down would be the best process for low volume mods, but even that is a PITA..
No Andrew, one is with unfinished Devcon, the next is after finishing, then next is a stock port.
The factory port ends up at 85* after machine work. That's not crazy low on a 90cc saw, but I would like to be able to cut more from the squish to get the compression a little higher. At 85*, that's as far as I will lower the jug.
Even then I can't raise the transfers quite as high as I'd like to.
So, I'm at 102/122/85 on the two jugs without epoxy.
The jug with epoxy in the intake is at 100/120/80.
I was joking but I'm sure the 660 jug is a lot easier to get the timing numbers right.Im certainly no expert but i would imagine that would be a step backwards in technology and drop off in power from the stock 661
I'm picking up what you're putting down. I guess I missed the context. Sorry about thatI was joking but I'm sure the 660 jug is a lot easier to get the timing numbers right.
I did just thatRandy, I know how to fix that. Put a 660 cylinder on it! 661/660 Hybrid and add bridges between the transfers.....quad port....lol.
I did just that
[/QU
I knew it would work!
Wow!! Alot of information!! Thanks. What I can gather from all that was the smoothest entry into transfers as possible is needed, least restrictive flow characteristics with velocity taken into consideration, and finally an exit toward the right directions in the combustion chamber would be ideal? Figured Id ask Randy about these ideas in my head and Randys statement that He and Wiggs have talked countless hrs about these saws and the chatacteristics that usually apply to longer stroked motors just dont apply here. I tend to believe Randys theory on 87 octane fuel in these short stroke motors vs longer stroked. Im interested to see what he comes up with on this 661 and if succesful just maybe he might share a few of thoso out of the box discoveries that are successful with us. Thats why I joined AS and everyone here has been helpful and I have bugged Randy days upon end with questions and he has always been there to help. Thanks everyone
Well, I'm sorry Mike but you're getting stuff mixed up. Turbulence in the cylinder is good but turbulence in the intake reduces flow.Keith, be careful with "too smooth", you need turbulence on the intake. Part of what GM did to achieve dramatic results in a traditional design engine in both performance and reduced emissions was to ensure the air/fuel mix was uniform across the entire combustion chamber. That required some built in turbulence.
Well, I'm sorry Mike but you're getting stuff mixed up. Turbulence in the cylinder is good but turbulence in the intake reduces flow.
Oldcat would u mind explaining turbulance inside the cylinder?Well, I'm sorry Mike but you're getting stuff mixed up. Turbulence in the cylinder is good but turbulence in the intake reduces flow.
Enter your email address to join: