25,000 miles and broken piston.
The following 2 users liked this post by Billy@MTI:
John Micheal Henry (02-16-2018),
TEXASRANGER (02-16-2018)
02-17-2018, 09:57 AM
#42
Team Owner
02-20-2018, 12:37 PM
#43
Melting Slicks
If you are using 93 without water, it isn't easy to blame the piston/ring. what can you say? It got too hot? Whos fault is that? Not the piston.
Bent a rod with poor fuel/timing, broken piston with poor timing and high temps, could all be user error.
"while oil pressure/temp is ideal for the life of the engine"
Blow a wristpin, bend a rod with ideal timing and comparable EGT data is more likely twist force failure, if the fuel is slow enough it can be averaged over a wider degree/radians of crankshaft turning during power stroke, the integral of the torque at each instantaneous radian is the result of an expanding combustion reaction (V is wanting to go up) and a moving piston surface which both simultaneously puts up a resistance based on how easy it is to turn the flywheel/crankshaft at the time (which is bolted to a trans,ds,tire and between tire and road a friction modifier is in play) and moves away from an expanding V volume of combustion reaction, both of which are dependent on the rate of change of engine RPM.
So lets see what that can mean example
-if the combustion reaction V is expanding too quickly against piston surface, pressure will continue to rise, always more collisions over an area of air molecules as in a tire. This idea of pressure over and area in mechanical engineering is called stress, it has units of N/m^2 or Lb/squareinch (psi). Engineers ideally would design head gasket failure to alert the owner when stress is too high, to prevent breaking an engine part such as piston ringland when the stress is exceeded. The engineers know how much stress all the surface can support, just like with a building, and calculate the weakest parts and give it safety factor, as much as possible without making it too heavy or somehow worse off. This one example shows a couple possible user mistakes, i.e. an upgraded head gasket that tolerates abusive stress levels, leads to broken parts when a mistake occurs. The second mistake was the first mistake that led to the broken parts, the poor choice of fuel or improper timing. It is fuel or timing until the full area under the curve for stress/radians of crankshaft revolution for each mechanical part uses up all of it's safety factor and the material itself yields. Some yieldings still result with an engine that keeps running, but with issues, like bent rods. Once it yields it becomes plastic and will no longer return to it's proper shape when load is removed.
I have to make some general assumptions to get to the useful bit of online info (what you can take away besides stress is psi) and one of them is this: you wouldn't design an engine with a connecting rod material that yields at 2000psi, and a piston material that yields at 9000psi. It would make more sense that each part yield around approx the same stress, mainly to save weight wherever possible by removing materials to "weaken" the stronger parts in design until they all support the same general loads. Like tapered beams you see on bridges, they remove thickness in certain places to save weight where they know the stress won't be exceeded until the thicker part fails first.
With this in mind there are two options.
1. get the data from the manufacturer about engine design to calculate how much stress is tolerable, then tune the engine fuel/timing/temps to creep up on the safety factor until satisfied (we are assuming only original parts to keep it simple)
2. Experiment.
Take ten or one hundred or one thousand engines, some population, and perform statistical analysis. You can do so blindly or with extreme precision. The more data you can collect, would be better right? Better data analysis is a powerful tool. Something like a combustion analyzer tool ($3k~) would be more cost effective than blowing several engines in a wide range of applications to "get a feel for her". The analyzer would give you pressure readout from combustion, allowing you to tailor timing, rate (fuel and temp) to a pressure that presents itself for the longest duration without exceeding some max stress. You would fail several engines on a dyno or in a car and the data logs will show how much pressure and for how long, and if you are collecting good data you will know piston position and engine rate of change so that the next engine you can adjust for wherever you went wrong last time.
Gears with slower engine rate of change more closely resemble steady state engine dyno where engine rpm is held steady and the engine is run at WOT. This is sort of like a boat application as well, and the engine rpm could even be decreasing sometimes. If we found the best possible timing under this condition it will include a list of necessary ingredients to reproduce results, such as fuel quality, and the temperature of various parts such as piston/valve surface, air and exhaust temps. I would think to design a system which will tolerate higher temps, and poorer fuel quality than what we are planning to run in the field. Depending on the survival situation it might even need to run on the most random thing. In a real racing situation you have fuel and cooling parts provided by 'sponsors' so it isn't a concern and you can let loose with the tuning if you are power limited. Some races are limited more by fuel savings or traction so it isn't always about power either.
3. Research. This isn't really a 'valid option' but it is still powerful enough to be considered. You could technically go online and look on forums for people running the engine in question and do stats analysis from that. There is an "online stock bottom end reliability list " for some LS engine platforms for example. This is exactly what this thread is and it does give us a sense of what to expect. However the true results could be far off, as not everybody posting failures is meeting all of the guidelines for experimentation. for example we do not know the conditions under which the piston failed for the poor fellow above, but it sounds like it may have gotten too hot. Did the incident happen suddenly? And a log of EGT would be helpful. Without this data there is only the random acts of humans which as we know often upgrade head gaskets.
03-17-2018, 12:57 AM
#44
Instructor
Ahh gash dang it anyway! All along after reading your first post on broken piston lands/grooves I thought the sweetspot was 600 hp! If there is regularly pistons popping at “630 rwhp” Im inclined to believe 600 hp with a SC is by no means safe !!!!
Does anybody have data?? What % of failures are at what hp?? I’m a mechanical engineer and by no means can you make a determination without hard repeatable numbers. Has anybody put up a row of engines in run up stands to get at least a number with a degree of reliability.
Knowing now that Billy at MTI has seen this type of failure at 630 plus means you are safe only if you put a sc base install with no, zero, mods or changes..... so the sweet spot is more then likley at about 550 rwhp!
Frig I hate GM! When I finally can afford to buy my own “new” Corvette they put a **** show of a base engine in the base coupe!, wtf! Instead of spending $8k on a sc I should might be saving for a NA upgrade to 550 hp! Anyone know what any forum members paid for 550 to 600 rwhp upgrade with new forged pistons/rods, head/cam, and upgrade?
Does anybody have data?? What % of failures are at what hp?? I’m a mechanical engineer and by no means can you make a determination without hard repeatable numbers. Has anybody put up a row of engines in run up stands to get at least a number with a degree of reliability.
Knowing now that Billy at MTI has seen this type of failure at 630 plus means you are safe only if you put a sc base install with no, zero, mods or changes..... so the sweet spot is more then likley at about 550 rwhp!
Frig I hate GM! When I finally can afford to buy my own “new” Corvette they put a **** show of a base engine in the base coupe!, wtf! Instead of spending $8k on a sc I should might be saving for a NA upgrade to 550 hp! Anyone know what any forum members paid for 550 to 600 rwhp upgrade with new forged pistons/rods, head/cam, and upgrade?
03-17-2018, 01:02 AM
#45
Instructor
Did you have water injection?
If you are using 93 without water, it isn't easy to blame the piston/ring. what can you say? It got too hot? Whos fault is that? Not the piston.
Bent a rod with poor fuel/timing, broken piston with poor timing and high temps, could all be user error.
"while oil pressure/temp is ideal for the life of the engine"
Blow a wristpin, bend a rod with ideal timing and comparable EGT data is more likely twist force failure, if the fuel is slow enough it can be averaged over a wider degree/radians of crankshaft turning during power stroke, the integral of the torque at each instantaneous radian is the result of an expanding combustion reaction (V is wanting to go up) and a moving piston surface which both simultaneously puts up a resistance based on how easy it is to turn the flywheel/crankshaft at the time (which is bolted to a trans,ds,tire and between tire and road a friction modifier is in play) and moves away from an expanding V volume of combustion reaction, both of which are dependent on the rate of change of engine RPM.
So lets see what that can mean example
-if the combustion reaction V is expanding too quickly against piston surface, pressure will continue to rise, always more collisions over an area of air molecules as in a tire. This idea of pressure over and area in mechanical engineering is called stress, it has units of N/m^2 or Lb/squareinch (psi). Engineers ideally would design head gasket failure to alert the owner when stress is too high, to prevent breaking an engine part such as piston ringland when the stress is exceeded. The engineers know how much stress all the surface can support, just like with a building, and calculate the weakest parts and give it safety factor, as much as possible without making it too heavy or somehow worse off. This one example shows a couple possible user mistakes, i.e. an upgraded head gasket that tolerates abusive stress levels, leads to broken parts when a mistake occurs. The second mistake was the first mistake that led to the broken parts, the poor choice of fuel or improper timing. It is fuel or timing until the full area under the curve for stress/radians of crankshaft revolution for each mechanical part uses up all of it's safety factor and the material itself yields. Some yieldings still result with an engine that keeps running, but with issues, like bent rods. Once it yields it becomes plastic and will no longer return to it's proper shape when load is removed.
I have to make some general assumptions to get to the useful bit of online info (what you can take away besides stress is psi) and one of them is this: you wouldn't design an engine with a connecting rod material that yields at 2000psi, and a piston material that yields at 9000psi. It would make more sense that each part yield around approx the same stress, mainly to save weight wherever possible by removing materials to "weaken" the stronger parts in design until they all support the same general loads. Like tapered beams you see on bridges, they remove thickness in certain places to save weight where they know the stress won't be exceeded until the thicker part fails first.
With this in mind there are two options.
1. get the data from the manufacturer about engine design to calculate how much stress is tolerable, then tune the engine fuel/timing/temps to creep up on the safety factor until satisfied (we are assuming only original parts to keep it simple)
2. Experiment.
Take ten or one hundred or one thousand engines, some population, and perform statistical analysis. You can do so blindly or with extreme precision. The more data you can collect, would be better right? Better data analysis is a powerful tool. Something like a combustion analyzer tool ($3k~) would be more cost effective than blowing several engines in a wide range of applications to "get a feel for her". The analyzer would give you pressure readout from combustion, allowing you to tailor timing, rate (fuel and temp) to a pressure that presents itself for the longest duration without exceeding some max stress. You would fail several engines on a dyno or in a car and the data logs will show how much pressure and for how long, and if you are collecting good data you will know piston position and engine rate of change so that the next engine you can adjust for wherever you went wrong last time.
Gears with slower engine rate of change more closely resemble steady state engine dyno where engine rpm is held steady and the engine is run at WOT. This is sort of like a boat application as well, and the engine rpm could even be decreasing sometimes. If we found the best possible timing under this condition it will include a list of necessary ingredients to reproduce results, such as fuel quality, and the temperature of various parts such as piston/valve surface, air and exhaust temps. I would think to design a system which will tolerate higher temps, and poorer fuel quality than what we are planning to run in the field. Depending on the survival situation it might even need to run on the most random thing. In a real racing situation you have fuel and cooling parts provided by 'sponsors' so it isn't a concern and you can let loose with the tuning if you are power limited. Some races are limited more by fuel savings or traction so it isn't always about power either.
3. Research. This isn't really a 'valid option' but it is still powerful enough to be considered. You could technically go online and look on forums for people running the engine in question and do stats analysis from that. There is an "online stock bottom end reliability list " for some LS engine platforms for example. This is exactly what this thread is and it does give us a sense of what to expect. However the true results could be far off, as not everybody posting failures is meeting all of the guidelines for experimentation. for example we do not know the conditions under which the piston failed for the poor fellow above, but it sounds like it may have gotten too hot. Did the incident happen suddenly? And a log of EGT would be helpful. Without this data there is only the random acts of humans which as we know often upgrade head gaskets.
If you are using 93 without water, it isn't easy to blame the piston/ring. what can you say? It got too hot? Whos fault is that? Not the piston.
Bent a rod with poor fuel/timing, broken piston with poor timing and high temps, could all be user error.
"while oil pressure/temp is ideal for the life of the engine"
Blow a wristpin, bend a rod with ideal timing and comparable EGT data is more likely twist force failure, if the fuel is slow enough it can be averaged over a wider degree/radians of crankshaft turning during power stroke, the integral of the torque at each instantaneous radian is the result of an expanding combustion reaction (V is wanting to go up) and a moving piston surface which both simultaneously puts up a resistance based on how easy it is to turn the flywheel/crankshaft at the time (which is bolted to a trans,ds,tire and between tire and road a friction modifier is in play) and moves away from an expanding V volume of combustion reaction, both of which are dependent on the rate of change of engine RPM.
So lets see what that can mean example
-if the combustion reaction V is expanding too quickly against piston surface, pressure will continue to rise, always more collisions over an area of air molecules as in a tire. This idea of pressure over and area in mechanical engineering is called stress, it has units of N/m^2 or Lb/squareinch (psi). Engineers ideally would design head gasket failure to alert the owner when stress is too high, to prevent breaking an engine part such as piston ringland when the stress is exceeded. The engineers know how much stress all the surface can support, just like with a building, and calculate the weakest parts and give it safety factor, as much as possible without making it too heavy or somehow worse off. This one example shows a couple possible user mistakes, i.e. an upgraded head gasket that tolerates abusive stress levels, leads to broken parts when a mistake occurs. The second mistake was the first mistake that led to the broken parts, the poor choice of fuel or improper timing. It is fuel or timing until the full area under the curve for stress/radians of crankshaft revolution for each mechanical part uses up all of it's safety factor and the material itself yields. Some yieldings still result with an engine that keeps running, but with issues, like bent rods. Once it yields it becomes plastic and will no longer return to it's proper shape when load is removed.
I have to make some general assumptions to get to the useful bit of online info (what you can take away besides stress is psi) and one of them is this: you wouldn't design an engine with a connecting rod material that yields at 2000psi, and a piston material that yields at 9000psi. It would make more sense that each part yield around approx the same stress, mainly to save weight wherever possible by removing materials to "weaken" the stronger parts in design until they all support the same general loads. Like tapered beams you see on bridges, they remove thickness in certain places to save weight where they know the stress won't be exceeded until the thicker part fails first.
With this in mind there are two options.
1. get the data from the manufacturer about engine design to calculate how much stress is tolerable, then tune the engine fuel/timing/temps to creep up on the safety factor until satisfied (we are assuming only original parts to keep it simple)
2. Experiment.
Take ten or one hundred or one thousand engines, some population, and perform statistical analysis. You can do so blindly or with extreme precision. The more data you can collect, would be better right? Better data analysis is a powerful tool. Something like a combustion analyzer tool ($3k~) would be more cost effective than blowing several engines in a wide range of applications to "get a feel for her". The analyzer would give you pressure readout from combustion, allowing you to tailor timing, rate (fuel and temp) to a pressure that presents itself for the longest duration without exceeding some max stress. You would fail several engines on a dyno or in a car and the data logs will show how much pressure and for how long, and if you are collecting good data you will know piston position and engine rate of change so that the next engine you can adjust for wherever you went wrong last time.
Gears with slower engine rate of change more closely resemble steady state engine dyno where engine rpm is held steady and the engine is run at WOT. This is sort of like a boat application as well, and the engine rpm could even be decreasing sometimes. If we found the best possible timing under this condition it will include a list of necessary ingredients to reproduce results, such as fuel quality, and the temperature of various parts such as piston/valve surface, air and exhaust temps. I would think to design a system which will tolerate higher temps, and poorer fuel quality than what we are planning to run in the field. Depending on the survival situation it might even need to run on the most random thing. In a real racing situation you have fuel and cooling parts provided by 'sponsors' so it isn't a concern and you can let loose with the tuning if you are power limited. Some races are limited more by fuel savings or traction so it isn't always about power either.
3. Research. This isn't really a 'valid option' but it is still powerful enough to be considered. You could technically go online and look on forums for people running the engine in question and do stats analysis from that. There is an "online stock bottom end reliability list " for some LS engine platforms for example. This is exactly what this thread is and it does give us a sense of what to expect. However the true results could be far off, as not everybody posting failures is meeting all of the guidelines for experimentation. for example we do not know the conditions under which the piston failed for the poor fellow above, but it sounds like it may have gotten too hot. Did the incident happen suddenly? And a log of EGT would be helpful. Without this data there is only the random acts of humans which as we know often upgrade head gaskets.
This is all BS!!! If its happening at a higher then reasonable rate then why in the frack isnt gm listening? Or are we not screaming loud enough to be heard! Has GM not always before put out base engines in the corvette that can handle a substantial bolt on power gain? Why has GM screwed us over this time.??
What happens if GM carries the same non tolerance of modding into the next gen ?
03-17-2018, 02:10 AM
#46
Melting Slicks
This is all BS!!! If its happening at a higher then reasonable rate then why in the frack isnt gm listening? Or are we not screaming loud enough to be heard! Has GM not always before put out base engines in the corvette that can handle a substantial bolt on power gain? Why has GM screwed us over this time.??
What happens if GM carries the same non tolerance of modding into the next gen ?
What happens if GM carries the same non tolerance of modding into the next gen ?
So what you are really saying is, why can't they design a next generation? and a next one? and a next one? because each generation increases in expectations and it is never enough. In 1975 they did not have 500 horsepower corvettes and people still had narrow minded issues with what was being produced...
03-17-2018, 02:53 AM
#47
Instructor
You misundrrstood! I spent part of my career in mobile equipment design. Anyways Im only commenting on the fact that the LT1 block was very robust in the past!
03-17-2018, 09:31 AM
#48
I'm Batman..
Pro Mechanic
Member Since: Apr 2014
Location: Lehigh Acres FL
Posts: 6,131
Received 908 Likes
on
561 Posts
Tech Contributor
There are still plenty of 700+ stock bottom end LT1 C7’s out there, but depending on how they were built and tuned they may be on borrowed time. Knowing the components pop around that mark, if you were a tuner or builder, would you want to set someone up on the ragged edge? No. If you did and they popped the motor, they’d blame you since you tuned it. You’d want to dial it back a few notches to be safe.
Ant
03-17-2018, 10:07 AM
#49
Team Owner
03-17-2018, 10:11 AM
#50
Team Owner
Did you have water injection?
If you are using 93 without water, it isn't easy to blame the piston/ring. what can you say? It got too hot? Whos fault is that? Not the piston.
Bent a rod with poor fuel/timing, broken piston with poor timing and high temps, could all be user error.
"while oil pressure/temp is ideal for the life of the engine"
Blow a wristpin, bend a rod with ideal timing and comparable EGT data is more likely twist force failure, if the fuel is slow enough it can be averaged over a wider degree/radians of crankshaft turning during power stroke, the integral of the torque at each instantaneous radian is the result of an expanding combustion reaction (V is wanting to go up) and a moving piston surface which both simultaneously puts up a resistance based on how easy it is to turn the flywheel/crankshaft at the time (which is bolted to a trans,ds,tire and between tire and road a friction modifier is in play) and moves away from an expanding V volume of combustion reaction, both of which are dependent on the rate of change of engine RPM.
So lets see what that can mean example
-if the combustion reaction V is expanding too quickly against piston surface, pressure will continue to rise, always more collisions over an area of air molecules as in a tire. This idea of pressure over and area in mechanical engineering is called stress, it has units of N/m^2 or Lb/squareinch (psi). Engineers ideally would design head gasket failure to alert the owner when stress is too high, to prevent breaking an engine part such as piston ringland when the stress is exceeded. The engineers know how much stress all the surface can support, just like with a building, and calculate the weakest parts and give it safety factor, as much as possible without making it too heavy or somehow worse off. This one example shows a couple possible user mistakes, i.e. an upgraded head gasket that tolerates abusive stress levels, leads to broken parts when a mistake occurs. The second mistake was the first mistake that led to the broken parts, the poor choice of fuel or improper timing. It is fuel or timing until the full area under the curve for stress/radians of crankshaft revolution for each mechanical part uses up all of it's safety factor and the material itself yields. Some yieldings still result with an engine that keeps running, but with issues, like bent rods. Once it yields it becomes plastic and will no longer return to it's proper shape when load is removed.
I have to make some general assumptions to get to the useful bit of online info (what you can take away besides stress is psi) and one of them is this: you wouldn't design an engine with a connecting rod material that yields at 2000psi, and a piston material that yields at 9000psi. It would make more sense that each part yield around approx the same stress, mainly to save weight wherever possible by removing materials to "weaken" the stronger parts in design until they all support the same general loads. Like tapered beams you see on bridges, they remove thickness in certain places to save weight where they know the stress won't be exceeded until the thicker part fails first.
With this in mind there are two options.
1. get the data from the manufacturer about engine design to calculate how much stress is tolerable, then tune the engine fuel/timing/temps to creep up on the safety factor until satisfied (we are assuming only original parts to keep it simple)
2. Experiment.
Take ten or one hundred or one thousand engines, some population, and perform statistical analysis. You can do so blindly or with extreme precision. The more data you can collect, would be better right? Better data analysis is a powerful tool. Something like a combustion analyzer tool ($3k~) would be more cost effective than blowing several engines in a wide range of applications to "get a feel for her". The analyzer would give you pressure readout from combustion, allowing you to tailor timing, rate (fuel and temp) to a pressure that presents itself for the longest duration without exceeding some max stress. You would fail several engines on a dyno or in a car and the data logs will show how much pressure and for how long, and if you are collecting good data you will know piston position and engine rate of change so that the next engine you can adjust for wherever you went wrong last time.
Gears with slower engine rate of change more closely resemble steady state engine dyno where engine rpm is held steady and the engine is run at WOT. This is sort of like a boat application as well, and the engine rpm could even be decreasing sometimes. If we found the best possible timing under this condition it will include a list of necessary ingredients to reproduce results, such as fuel quality, and the temperature of various parts such as piston/valve surface, air and exhaust temps. I would think to design a system which will tolerate higher temps, and poorer fuel quality than what we are planning to run in the field. Depending on the survival situation it might even need to run on the most random thing. In a real racing situation you have fuel and cooling parts provided by 'sponsors' so it isn't a concern and you can let loose with the tuning if you are power limited. Some races are limited more by fuel savings or traction so it isn't always about power either.
3. Research. This isn't really a 'valid option' but it is still powerful enough to be considered. You could technically go online and look on forums for people running the engine in question and do stats analysis from that. There is an "online stock bottom end reliability list " for some LS engine platforms for example. This is exactly what this thread is and it does give us a sense of what to expect. However the true results could be far off, as not everybody posting failures is meeting all of the guidelines for experimentation. for example we do not know the conditions under which the piston failed for the poor fellow above, but it sounds like it may have gotten too hot. Did the incident happen suddenly? And a log of EGT would be helpful. Without this data there is only the random acts of humans which as we know often upgrade head gaskets.
If you are using 93 without water, it isn't easy to blame the piston/ring. what can you say? It got too hot? Whos fault is that? Not the piston.
Bent a rod with poor fuel/timing, broken piston with poor timing and high temps, could all be user error.
"while oil pressure/temp is ideal for the life of the engine"
Blow a wristpin, bend a rod with ideal timing and comparable EGT data is more likely twist force failure, if the fuel is slow enough it can be averaged over a wider degree/radians of crankshaft turning during power stroke, the integral of the torque at each instantaneous radian is the result of an expanding combustion reaction (V is wanting to go up) and a moving piston surface which both simultaneously puts up a resistance based on how easy it is to turn the flywheel/crankshaft at the time (which is bolted to a trans,ds,tire and between tire and road a friction modifier is in play) and moves away from an expanding V volume of combustion reaction, both of which are dependent on the rate of change of engine RPM.
So lets see what that can mean example
-if the combustion reaction V is expanding too quickly against piston surface, pressure will continue to rise, always more collisions over an area of air molecules as in a tire. This idea of pressure over and area in mechanical engineering is called stress, it has units of N/m^2 or Lb/squareinch (psi). Engineers ideally would design head gasket failure to alert the owner when stress is too high, to prevent breaking an engine part such as piston ringland when the stress is exceeded. The engineers know how much stress all the surface can support, just like with a building, and calculate the weakest parts and give it safety factor, as much as possible without making it too heavy or somehow worse off. This one example shows a couple possible user mistakes, i.e. an upgraded head gasket that tolerates abusive stress levels, leads to broken parts when a mistake occurs. The second mistake was the first mistake that led to the broken parts, the poor choice of fuel or improper timing. It is fuel or timing until the full area under the curve for stress/radians of crankshaft revolution for each mechanical part uses up all of it's safety factor and the material itself yields. Some yieldings still result with an engine that keeps running, but with issues, like bent rods. Once it yields it becomes plastic and will no longer return to it's proper shape when load is removed.
I have to make some general assumptions to get to the useful bit of online info (what you can take away besides stress is psi) and one of them is this: you wouldn't design an engine with a connecting rod material that yields at 2000psi, and a piston material that yields at 9000psi. It would make more sense that each part yield around approx the same stress, mainly to save weight wherever possible by removing materials to "weaken" the stronger parts in design until they all support the same general loads. Like tapered beams you see on bridges, they remove thickness in certain places to save weight where they know the stress won't be exceeded until the thicker part fails first.
With this in mind there are two options.
1. get the data from the manufacturer about engine design to calculate how much stress is tolerable, then tune the engine fuel/timing/temps to creep up on the safety factor until satisfied (we are assuming only original parts to keep it simple)
2. Experiment.
Take ten or one hundred or one thousand engines, some population, and perform statistical analysis. You can do so blindly or with extreme precision. The more data you can collect, would be better right? Better data analysis is a powerful tool. Something like a combustion analyzer tool ($3k~) would be more cost effective than blowing several engines in a wide range of applications to "get a feel for her". The analyzer would give you pressure readout from combustion, allowing you to tailor timing, rate (fuel and temp) to a pressure that presents itself for the longest duration without exceeding some max stress. You would fail several engines on a dyno or in a car and the data logs will show how much pressure and for how long, and if you are collecting good data you will know piston position and engine rate of change so that the next engine you can adjust for wherever you went wrong last time.
Gears with slower engine rate of change more closely resemble steady state engine dyno where engine rpm is held steady and the engine is run at WOT. This is sort of like a boat application as well, and the engine rpm could even be decreasing sometimes. If we found the best possible timing under this condition it will include a list of necessary ingredients to reproduce results, such as fuel quality, and the temperature of various parts such as piston/valve surface, air and exhaust temps. I would think to design a system which will tolerate higher temps, and poorer fuel quality than what we are planning to run in the field. Depending on the survival situation it might even need to run on the most random thing. In a real racing situation you have fuel and cooling parts provided by 'sponsors' so it isn't a concern and you can let loose with the tuning if you are power limited. Some races are limited more by fuel savings or traction so it isn't always about power either.
3. Research. This isn't really a 'valid option' but it is still powerful enough to be considered. You could technically go online and look on forums for people running the engine in question and do stats analysis from that. There is an "online stock bottom end reliability list " for some LS engine platforms for example. This is exactly what this thread is and it does give us a sense of what to expect. However the true results could be far off, as not everybody posting failures is meeting all of the guidelines for experimentation. for example we do not know the conditions under which the piston failed for the poor fellow above, but it sounds like it may have gotten too hot. Did the incident happen suddenly? And a log of EGT would be helpful. Without this data there is only the random acts of humans which as we know often upgrade head gaskets.
No water injection! 
03-17-2018, 01:03 PM
#51
HOOK-EM HORNS
Thread Starter
Member Since: Aug 2006
Location: Port Aransas, Texas Tx
Posts: 3,448
Received 696 Likes
on
172 Posts
St. Jude Donor '08
I broke my car...not GM. I modified it and ran the dog crap out of it. It’s a daily driver and I pounded it daily numerous times. I lost my total warranty at 1000 miles and one month old.
I’m a big boy and knew at some point it would break. I’m still kicking ZO6 asses and lots others at lots less cost.
It would run forever non modified.
I’m a big boy and knew at some point it would break. I’m still kicking ZO6 asses and lots others at lots less cost.
It would run forever non modified.
03-17-2018, 09:32 PM
#52
Team Owner
Member Since: Jan 2007
Location: cookeville tennessee
Posts: 28,846
Received 1,762 Likes
on
1,529 Posts
I broke my car...not GM. I modified it and ran the dog crap out of it. It’s a daily driver and I pounded it daily numerous times. I lost my total warranty at 1000 miles and one month old.
I’m a big boy and knew at some point it would break. I’m still kicking ZO6 asses and lots others at lots less cost.
It would run forever non modified.
I’m a big boy and knew at some point it would break. I’m still kicking ZO6 asses and lots others at lots less cost.
It would run forever non modified.
I agree buddy no cry baby here at all. Just build it better & go faster also.
Buddy still think that color on your car is one of the best. Man have fun in the new set up & keep it safe..Robert