Split: Why doesnt drunkenalan's car make more power!!! little bump

Get back on the japcr$p forum you!.... the 8v proved too much for you!

 

I rebuilt a RE1900 a few months back and the dowel hole in the crank pulley was elongated like you wouldn't believe....so when I tried to locate on the crank gear it had nearly 10deg of movement clearly as we all know the pulley is bolted to the gear with 4 off M8 cap head bolts but the holes in the pulley are a clearance fit so I can assure you that that pulley will never line up with timing marks on the front cover

As I have come across this issue on many occasions I always use a TDC physical stop tool I made years ago....this is basically an old spark plug that I removed centre out of and then welded a rod in, when inserted in a plug hole and when crank is turned (slowly) this then contacts the piston as it rises either side of 'true' TDC, split the difference and you have 'true' TDC

Just my tuppence worth......

 

tool >

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGv02ZJjkyU&feature=share

 

Alan your link didn't work for me until I edited it to:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/drunkenalan/utf-8BVklERU8wMDAyLjNncA.mp4

too many http//http// etc

On a side note isn't a trader simply an enthusiast who sells things and/or services

 

I completely agree with this.
And to ensure an objective solution is delivered, comments and ideas need to be directed or channelled to the information and facts as tested or shared.
Respecting each others experience and judgement is important if this level of team participation is to work.
One risk of suggesting ideas is many of those ideas may have been taken into account due to the method of validation from the originator.
I do still stick to my initial analysis. There is fundamental issue regarding this powerplant and this must be rectified first before deep diving into cam timing optimisation, or even exhaust system changes.
We are all agreed the engine is down on power and torque.
I really do not understand why there is a disagreement, when I have already said the issue, as I have shared with this forum, on Alan's engine is being worked on.

It would be good if mr hillclimber ( Jason) gets in contact via PM or otheriwse to sort any greviences that has occurred in this thread by my report style way of writing. I am quite approachable.

Let us keep an eye on this thread and see what is the outcome as Alan's engine develops. I am quite determined to get this engine to achieve the level of performance that was suggested by myself at GS in the near future.

Kind regards

Toyotecwerke.

 

Just been doing some cad, cardboard assisted modeling, ( its actually paper but pad doesn't have the same ring to it )

 

Quality modelling skills. Don't forget to check for bonnet clearance!

 

Is it going to be a short runner or a long runner? The ABF long runner seems to work well on tweaked engines, and the only short runner I have seen dyno'd was Steve r's which seemed to not have as healthy torque profile as the standard ABF plenums.

 

It's a bit big but I wanted to make the fabrication easy so it was more to understand the theory.

I'm going to cut the plenum off a pb manifold and weld a plenum similar to the above to it

 

Okay. Changing the plenum shape will have an effect on things, there is a lot if info around on the shapes and their ability to equalise the flow to each runner. Having the back of the plenum slopping will have different effects on the pulse in the track to a flat back. ie it makes it a shorter distance for the pulse wave to travel on cylinder one to the distance on cylinder four. Having a flat back would equal the distance for all cylinders and if the track length is correct bounce the wave back at the correct time to aid cylinder filling ( or maybe in you case with the OEM mani hamper that) Or so the theory goes. You often see the shaped manifold you have mocked up on boosted applications, it may be because the wave tuning has less effect but the plenum fills the tracks more evenly when boosted? Then again ferrari use something similar but with ITB's. It seems for every plus in a design there are often drawbacks, and every rule there are exceptions.

Have you calculated any inlet track lengths for the rpm and BHP of the engine? It's a bit like pulse tunning an exhaust mani I guess?

 

I have done the maths yet, I'm waiting to get one to cut up and measure. I have found some calculators on the net.

 

I've got a bit of an idea for an inlet manifold project over the winter... based on an AGG manifold. Will update you as and when I get going on it. The manifold is still in Herr Doktor Danster's shed at the minute.

 

didnt you get one from me a while ago?

any idea how to display autoCAD files on here?

 

Taking smudges comments into account with regard to pulse plates would a design with a plate paralle to the trumpets be better? i'm sure there is a science to the distance the plate is from trumpets, any suggestions?

something like this.... (please excuse the quality, Autocad into paint then upto photobucket does that)

 

Get Screen Thief or similar to grab the image.

Yes, I think it's the same inlet. I left it with Danster as he had a possible ally welder contact, but it didn't work out. Now I know an ally welder, and it's at the other end of the country

 

Just for reference, the 2E and AGG both being 2.0 8v tallblocks, have different styles of inlet manifold. Plenum volume looks substantially different.

 

interesting Danster... taken from the inlet design thread.

 

Further data analysis 2.1 8v 288 Cam ap_06-11-11

Further to the data shared in the first post I have taken the time to make some comparisons which demonstrate,

• How the vehicle compares to a smaller modified engine,
• How the car feels on the road
• What is predicted, pending key hardware changes.

The engine performance was compared to Mike H's engine that was developed on road/trackdays and had some brief dyno optimisation in the past 8v vs 16v exercise.,



Here we see Mike's engine, in its current state gets to a similar peak torque, a tad later than Alan's but maintains a gradual decay to the rev limit. The torque is also consistent based on the calibration settings. Because Mike's vehicle decays torque slowly, it s capable to achieve high axle torque in top gear as the vehicle can overcome rolling, aero and drivetrain loss thus attaining higher vehicle speeds.


To demonstrate the feel of the vehicle numerically, an acceleration pull in 2nd gear was performed and the Gs logged.



As seen above the G trace matched the Dyno plot with the drop in torque/Gs at 4500rpm.
Max Gs are similar to a MK2 with an OE ABF Digifant ( "Red Correlation car"), in a good state of tune, running the same gearset and FDR and having peak torque of ~142lbft

What I expect the engine to achieve once the hardware is fully optimised i.e. wobble fixed and calibration to match, cam setting, inlet plenum and possible exhaust cold end change.

.


This will create an extremely responsive and strong pulling 8v, worthy of certain 2.0 16v beating performance!

Regards.
Toyotecwerke.

 

Thats interesting as "problem area" aside, Alan's does the same profile with first peak, dip, then main torque peak.. just that all of that appears to be @ 500 rpm lower points than Mike's

 

Could this not be a factor of the larger dispacement of Alan's engine compared to Mikes?