 | |
Old car, new engine. Spanking...
Cars Modifications Aspects of car modifications (tuning, styling) (uk.rec.cars.modifications)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#21
 
| ||||||
| ||||||
|
Re: Old car, new engine. Spanking... -
04-23-2007
, 07:52 AM
|
In article <lXZWh.3030$C75.1387 (AT) newsfe2-gui (DOT) ntli.net>, burgerman (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com says... / on 17/1 on drag engines. Yes but they do not run semi-standard or racing fuel. They run nitro- methane or alcohol blended with rather high portions of toluene. |
No they are superstreet bikes. They belonged to both my freinds and
customers. From 2 valve kawas to 4 valve suzukis. And they run fine on C14
or 16 vp Its just like avgas, petrol with high octane.
Quote:
|
Further more: a drag engine cannot be compared to an engine which must deliver its full power longer than 1 minute. |
long as pump fuel is avoided.
Quote:
| Compression over 13/1 and such RPM impose a very big overlap on the camshafts, resulting in a very narrow powerband high up. No way that such an engine, the more on TB's, idles lower than 5000 RMP. Big compression alone helps pumping efficiency. Large overlap as you sugest need not be as large as you think. And while the idle may be rather lumpy and uneven it wouldnt be anyhing like 5k. 2.5 maybe. I modified several engines for endurance racing where top power and reliability over 24 hrs were the top specs. Normal engines carry an overlap around 240 degrees, we used up to 310 degrees. The high idle is there to prevent spit-back. It wouldn't idle under 5000 RPM. Powerband was 2 k RPM. |
But with improved scavenging caused by the lack of "dead space" above the
pistons and consequential improved cylinder filling and emptying less
overlap is required or wanted.
Big bikes idle rough but stable at 2k or less with no problems at such high
compression ratios.
Quote:
| Look at the rad: standard MK2 Escort item, impossible that even on short runs that dissipates 1000-1200 HP in heat. 1200 Hp heat at low speed on such a radiator (a rallye-car lives below 100 mph) is called a grenade. that sentence made no sense. Overall efficiency of a Otto-engine is around 25%. If his engine pumps 400 Hp , he must cool 3 times that amount = 1200 Hp. No way that the radiator is capable to dissipate such amounts, even more because the speed (and thus cooling) stays low. Most bikes engines (we race the Yamaha R6 in a 4-wheel spaceframe) need 5 to 8 times the cooling capacity of the bike because the power is used all the time, this at fairly low speed and for heats no longer than 10 minutes. Once a year we drive an "endurance" (2 Hr): the only thing we change is doubling the cooling. Moneywise now: 4 pistons (3000 UKP), new rods (those are not Carillo's nor titanium, 1000 UKP), billet crankshaft (7000 UKP), specific camshafts (1000 UK), headwork and valves (3000 UKP), ecu (2000 UKP). Getting everything first time right won't be a problem for our Greek, but still it stays an engine worth a lot of cash with an estimated lifetime of 40 hours... and that fits as a glove in a oldtimer-rallye car worth 2 kUPD? Of course, Sir, they all do that around there, the trofee is worth that kind of money (every racer has his caves filled with those) BTCC 2l (like the Williams Laguna's, TWR Volvo's) on TB's were at 300 HP with serious budgets. Stock smooth running quiet civilised production bikes are doing 170bhp per litre remember. And 147 rear wheel... Thats 300 from 2 litres prodution and emmision controlled.AT THE WHEEL. As you once said - and what I agree upon-: a production bike engine is fucking state-of-the-art racing-engine you can buy and drive on the street. Reliabilty, cooling and material tension however are not at par with car engines. The ECU of the new R6 gives headaches: 8 injectors, valves in exhaust, etc. All good wished to Cosworth but that engine is miles from the technical refinements of bike-engine producing over 150 Hp/l. |
Hes probably got most of the extra power purely from daft compression
ratios. Try it it works! But you need higher octane fuels to stop it eating
itself.
We all used this stuff:
C16
Used in turbocharged engines, blown engines and nitrous applications with
CRs up to 17:1.
(Thats 17 to one WITH a turbo! I kid you not.)
Recommended by the top nitrous oxide companies. Spec Fuel for NHRA Comp
Eliminator.
.. Color: Blue
.. Motor Octane: 117
.. Specific gravity: .735 at 60° F
THIS STUFF IS GOOD PETROL! Trust me you can run turbos without lowering the
compression.
You CAN run 17 to one perfectly safely with huge power increases and no need
for big overlaps because the pumping efficiency is vastly improved. So you
get low down power as well.
Copied from VP fuels website.
Have a read near the bottom C16
http://www.vpracingfuels.com/vp_01_fuels.html#leaded
I used to race and run the things. Smells good too!
Quote:
| Now a Greek with no budget (see the rest of the car) will surpass specialised manufacturers on that scale? Yeah, in your wildest Greek dreams. aGREED. With all respect to the NA Cosworth's: most struggle to break the 300 Hp-barrier. yep, with bigger bores than the 1 litre bike engines 150 bhp per litre is about the best they can be expected to do. Realistic view about the engine and if the top-RPM is correct: 280-300 HP at the crank and below 7000 RPM nada (okay: 50 Hp) I dont believe it does those revs. I suspect "calculated or grabbed" rpm on the dyno and no proper electrical hookup. The revs are possible, the power isn't but then it might be that in Greece power units are defined somewhat otherwise. |
It might be that the correction factor was bull, the car was shaking on the
dyno hence the artificial peak/trough during the run giving artificially
high peak figures. But the revs are too high by about 10 percent to be
believable. Obviously not realtime measured rpm on the dyno. When doing
dyno shootouts at a racetrack for eg we did "grabbed" rpm because its faster
and theres a big que. Its never right though...
Quote:
|
I've just been in Italy for work: they have special way of thinking. Me: there is no warm water. Hotel-owner: there is, Sir, but it's broken. Me: There is no wireless-internet! Hotel-owner: Yes Sir there is, but we have not paid the fee. So it doesn't work. Me: Where is the roomservice and the bar? Hotel-owner: Room service is sick, the bar is there and working. The bugger "forgot" to tell that indeed there was a mini-bar but it was empty... I have seen more things broken in 3 days than in my whole life, nothing was straight. Best thing, second morning: "Sir: tha warm water issa made". Yeah: if I had thrown in a lobster, it was instantely boiled... And this was a "excellent" hotel, charging 185 Eur per night for a single room 3m x 4m and a small bathroom (not working shower and toilet)! If one is a good swimmer, you cross the sea ant it's Greece on the other side ;-)! Tom De Moor |
#22
| |||
| |||
|
|
Ah. The V10s have all gone now haven't they? I thought for the new 'engine sealed for the next two years' rule or whatever it is to stop development, they all had to be limited? I may be talking cock though. |
#23
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Apr 23, 12:51 pm, "Iridium" <iridium... (AT) googlemail (DOT) com> wrote: Ah. The V10s have all gone now haven't they? I thought for the new 'engine sealed for the next two years' rule or whatever it is to stop development, they all had to be limited? I may be talking cock though. Why would they want to stop development? |
Safety nazis.
Or cost.
#24
| |||
| |||
|
|
Elder wrote: http://retrorides.proboards86.com/index.cgi? board=general&action=display&thread=1177001426 Crazy mad fucking greek fucker. Shouldn't the power and torque lines cross around 5252? |
#25
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Apr 23, 12:51 pm, "Iridium" <iridium... (AT) googlemail (DOT) com> wrote: Ah. The V10s have all gone now haven't they? I thought for the new 'engine sealed for the next two years' rule or whatever it is to stop development, they all had to be limited? I may be talking cock though. Why would they want to stop development? |
--
Dan
#26
| |||
| |||
|
|
Iridium <iridiumdan (AT) googlemail (DOT) com> wrote: "Steve Firth" <usenet-urcm (AT) malloc (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message news:1hx02ls.118hd6u1jgx7qgN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk. .. Iridium <iridiumdan (AT) googlemail (DOT) com> wrote: 2.5l V8s aren't they now? 2.4L 90 degree V8. And isn't 19krpm the max the rules allow? Last season some of them were going over 20krpm... AFAIR only 3.0 V10s have to have a rev limiter, and they can only be used if the team can prove they don't have a V8 available. Ah. The V10s have all gone now haven't they? I thought for the new 'engine sealed for the next two years' rule or whatever it is to stop development, they all had to be limited? I may be talking cock though. Dunno, I think the rule I quoted is current - that a team may use a V10 but it has to be rev limited and the team has to prove that it had no V8 alternative available. No such limit applies to the V8. It's all a bit sad in many ways. In my day F1 engines had got up to 750bhp/litre. I don't think we'll see those days back again. |
in qualy trim?
--
Dan
#27
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Steve Firth" <usenet-urcm (AT) malloc (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message news:1hx133w.11qxy27opu4opN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk.. . Iridium <iridiumdan (AT) googlemail (DOT) com> wrote: "Steve Firth" <usenet-urcm (AT) malloc (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message news:1hx02ls.118hd6u1jgx7qgN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk. .. Iridium <iridiumdan (AT) googlemail (DOT) com> wrote: 2.5l V8s aren't they now? 2.4L 90 degree V8. And isn't 19krpm the max the rules allow? Last season some of them were going over 20krpm... AFAIR only 3.0 V10s have to have a rev limiter, and they can only be used if the team can prove they don't have a V8 available. Ah. The V10s have all gone now haven't they? I thought for the new 'engine sealed for the next two years' rule or whatever it is to stop development, they all had to be limited? I may be talking cock though. Dunno, I think the rule I quoted is current - that a team may use a V10 but it has to be rev limited and the team has to prove that it had no V8 alternative available. No such limit applies to the V8. It's all a bit sad in many ways. In my day F1 engines had got up to 750bhp/litre. I don't think we'll see those days back again. Didn't they used to run 1.5l Turbo motors that were reputed to make 1500bhp in qualy trim? -- Dan |
#28
| |||
| |||
|
|
ThePunisher wrote: Elder wrote: http://retrorides.proboards86.com/index.cgi? board=general&action=display&thread=1177001426 Crazy mad fucking greek fucker. Shouldn't the power and torque lines cross around 5252? Nah, he isn't using lb.ft for the torque - he's using kg.m |
--
ThePunisher
#29
| |||
| |||
|
| Hes probably got most of the extra power purely from daft compression ratios. Try it it works! But you need higher octane fuels to stop it eating itself. Sorry but that is provable wrong: the extra compression raises the |
The formula is n = 1- 1 /(L^(k-1))
L= compression ratio
k is a ration which defines if the burning goes on under constant
pressure (=piston moving down) compared to burning under constant
volume (piston in TDP)
IRL k equals around 1.4.
The *theoretical* efficiency for L = 10 is 60% , for L =17 it is 67.8%
So if you take an engine and you change nothing but the compression and
supposing that the mixture doesn't detonate unwanted, the gain is power
would be 13% ( 67,8 /60)
Petrol engines are not build for the extra stresses that the compression
raise that high introduces, diesels are. NA-engines can not
"intercool" or liquidate the heat interduced by the compression.
IRL our Greek will get close to nothing on raising the compression ratio
that high because ignition will have to be retarded too. He has a nice
engine which in the escort Mk2 will be a blast to drive but it hasn't
400 Hp not by a long way.
Hp-figures sell, just like topspeed-figures and "race"-parts anodised in
fancy colors but weaker then OEM-parts. How often have we passed a
competitor who claimed he was above 200 kph when our datalogging showed
170 kph... Most of the time they went on complaining that our engine was
modified beyond the rules "cause he was over 200 kph"...
Tom De Moor
Tom De Moor
#30
| |||
| |||
|
|
Albert T Cone wrote: ThePunisher wrote: Elder wrote: http://retrorides.proboards86.com/index.cgi? board=general&action=display&thread=1177001426 Crazy mad fucking greek fucker. Shouldn't the power and torque lines cross around 5252? Nah, he isn't using lb.ft for the torque - he's using kg.m 5180 for metric, whatever he's using it should cross near the 5000rpm line. Also, he's using separate axes for the power and torque plots - they can |
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.