I can't seem to find anyone who has used the squishies in a type 4. There have been numerous type 1 applications. I know that Jake tried them without much success but that sounds like it was a cam related issue.

One big thing that keeps the type 4 from being a modern 2-valve pushrod engine is the chamber design. It would seem that the super squish piston, if it works as advertised, would address that. I'd love to have an engine that runs on 87 octane California gas but reliably makes 1HP per cubic inch in a daily driver.

I could be wrong... but I don't think Jake tried them on the T4 on purpose.
I believe he was not willing to sign the agreement that John (aircooled.net) wanted signed as to not copying the design. Not that Jake would outright copy the design, but I believe the wording was just too vague and would interfere with him experimenting with any domed type piston.

Like I said I could be wrong, but I think that was at least part of the issue.

Maybe try a search over on the STF.

I know for a fact that Nickies have been paired with John's Super Squishes and they work excellently together. The type 1 engine that Jake built did have lots of torque vs. flat tops with the SS pistons and did have improved BSFC, but he did have some tuning issues with the cam he chose as was previously mentioned. The engine ended up having the SS pistons replaced with flat top mahle's and retained the Nickies and was sold to one of my customers. That said, 1hp per cu/in is attainable, but at what price?

QUOTE (cnavarro @ Feb 6 2006, 03:38 PM)

That said, 1hp per cu/in is attainable, but at what price?

that seems like a no-brainer and not too expenisive...it's the 100hp/liter which is pricey for our motors

1hp per cc baby... I want to see that!

ok,ok, .5 hp per cc...

.25?

anyone?

This is the piston he is using.

Brett, is that a type 4 super squish piston?

Yes I believe it is a T4.

LOL, I wasn't thinking. 1, er, 100hp/litre is what I was thinking... Nevermind me. It's been a long day. The H beams are kicking our ass. I beams are a piece of cake.

Their is no such thing as a "Type 4 Super squish Piston"......

I never tried them on a TIV engine, only a TI.

They need *much* more development before they are optimized IMHO.

I p[ersonally did not care for them, I tuned on the engine for 3 days with them and when they were replaced with flat tops the engine made 15HP more and 10 lb/ft more torque on the first pull with default settings.... I then tuned it in only two more pulls..

BUT the cam was non conventional that I was using... Read here for more www.aircooledtechnology.com/research.htmR&D section Read the "Nickies and squishies shootout"

They REALLY do weird things to the engine- good luck.

There are type 4 super squish pistons listed at aircooled.net. Are these actually the same as the type 1 squishies and happen to have some advantages with the type 4 head? From my understanding for this technology to work to best advantage the piston top must be designed for the particular head shape. John (at aircooled.net) has indicated in an email that the pistons will work with all type 4 heads but work best with 1.8 and 2.0 versions.

The ability to run higher compression than stock (9-10:1) without raising the chamber temperature would be a good thing. That is one of the claimed advantages of the technology. By ensuring a quick and complete burn the exhaust gas temps are reduced. The papers at Endyn (theoldone.com) talk about it at length. It is rumored over at the Shoptalk forums that Endyn did the work on the super squish pistons.

Just as a lot of folks go with Euro pistons and a Webcam 73 grind for a slightly better than stock rebuild one could, in theory at least, use the squishies with it's associated optimum cam (whatever that might be) and get a significant increase in performance. One hp/cu in or 1 ft/lb per cu in is benchmark for street performance pushrod V8s. I assume stock FI harware with PEFI and no headers. This is a daily driver.

Larry at Endyn did all of John's developement work. He was producing the pistons for a little while and got fed up with it. He sold the rights to John. Now John deals directly with Wiseco. Larry found the aircooled engines very frustrating as far as quality control goes. Everyone of the pistons had to be hand massaged to fit the individuals engine. Unlike modern engines that have a much tighter level of quality control.
The NASCAR boys used a similar technology in the past and found it effective but they have moved on to something better. Smaller chambers with a flat top piston. It works much better as far as airflow is concerned.

I have a motor right now with Endyn's rollerwave pistons in it and when I was tuning it, you see some really interesting things. It is not running very much timing. The engine actually likes much less timing than the stock motor and in somre regions it doesn't use near as much fuel.

Just get a set of KB 96mm pistons and a good cam. 86a/86a+5 or 86b/163 or 86b163+2.5 make great street cams. TOss that stock garbage and put a decent fuel injection system on it and watch it really wake up. You can make 140 with very little work.

Brett has said some wise words....and if Jake hasn't had good results with them I'd listen.
Jake is a horsepower whore If these puppies made 2-5% more hp, with no ill effects, they would be in a lot of his engines.

BTW...if they are Wiseco pistons I'd rather run stock bus slugs.

Brett- Thanks for sharing your esperience. When I suggested stock EFI hardware I was referring to the TB, runners, injectors, etc not the controller. I assume some modern, programmable EFI controller i.e. Megasquirt. That being the case do you still suggest ditching it? I'm not interested in high peak horsepower, the flat broad torque curve of the stock motor just raised by a significant amount is the goal.

It sounds like your experience with the roller wave pistons is as described by Larry (at Endyn). It sure seems that less timing and less fuel are a good thing! Jake's less than satisfying experience with the squishies would appear to be, by his own admssion, due, at least in part, by his cam choice. The fact that a technology does not respond conventionally doesn't mean that it doesn't work.

Are the Keith Black pistons are flat top? Jake has great praise for these and I don't doubt they work well. From what you describe the performance gains are due mostly to cam timing and induction. (The increase in displacement is about 4%.) Still run low grade pump gas? That was a given at the start of this thread.

My hope in starting this topic was to stimulate discussion of the super squish (or roller wave) piston technology. It has the potential for serious performance gains and/or fuel ecomomy with reliability through reduced combustion chamber temperatures. Unfortunately the offering at aircooled.net is the only game in town right now and there isn't a lot of experience with it in the type 4 arena.

For reference my engine is a honda 1.6 engine. I am getting 29MPG in the city with my foot in it and 37-42 on the highway running 80+. This engine was built as a turbo motor but I don't have boost yet. As soon as I get in my shop I am going to finish bolting the turbo parts on. When I checked it last with a compression test it blew 230psi on each cylinder. I run premium fuel, but it should be good for 10-15psi daily. I have a huge front mount intercooler.

Larry knows his shit. I would put him as one of the best engine builders in the world.

The KB are flat tops. Using the stock FI parts with a better controller is a decent way to go. ITBS are a better way to go.

It's hard to argue with modern technology. If I were to start all over again I'd seriously consider a Honda. As it is I've made my choice and I'm not in a position to have a second play car. Besides, front wheel drive just isn't the same fun!

You have obviously gotten good results with Larry's technology as applied to your Honda (by the way, for those that aren't familiar with Larry Widmer and his company Endyn, they specialize in performance Honda parts, among other things). Why don't you recommend the squishies for type 4 applications? Coupled with the right cam it they would seem to offer a lot of benefits.

In theory it could work for the T4 but it would require developemental work that no one here is interested in proving. I am out of T4s because of the limitations. I really want to build a 2.0 Honda motor for my street car. I figure I can get close to 300 NA. They are such strong motors. Too bad they drive the wrong wheels. I wouldn't mind playing with an Ariel Atom though.

I my self am not into the "purity" of aircooled engines so I will put something in a little more technologically advanced. Can anyone say Nuclear Turbine engine.

For the open minded ones out there check out this article on one of LArry's 2.0 street motors.

http://www.theoldone.com/articles/Larrysci...arrys_Civic.htm