David_Wallis

Adam.. I realise you are away.. could you call me on my mobile when you have 10mins.. up until 12:00am here is ok

David

Adam M

****,


sorry wallis,

just rang you after miscalculating time there.

My laptop is still in UK time, so I can only apologise.

I will be awake until 3 am probably so you can ring me wednesday morning and I will be up. failing that, text.

Adam

Old_Fart

"The fact that in a lot of cases this bbs seems to have degenerated into factions all back biting (you all know who you are, and don't try and defend it )"
Thats one of the reasons to ignore drivetrain these days. Too many guys taking pop-shots at each other. Who should I chose to listen to? Harvey, Andy, Pat or Mark? We've also got tuning compaines like Nomad? and CTRN( with his bunch of guys starting from scratch and decatting STIPPP's) I have my own opinions, but anyone new to the scene has a whole load of garbage to wade through before chossing a tuner, and it's all very daunting if you don't know how an engine works.
Showing Adams results off and finishing with it breaking, although refreshingly honest, isn't going to put anyones mind at ease.
RGds
Chuck

David_Wallis

LOL @ Adam... You didnt wake me.. did wonder who it was this morning though...

Mail me your number please as I dont have it saved..

David

harvey

iTrader: (48)

Pat: This post has just been drawn to my attention and you make liberal reference to my engine spec and also that of Bob Rawle and Andy Forrest. At Power Engineering I asked you to stick to the facts as far as my engine spec was concerned because you had previosly posted a load of KRAP and you agreed to do so.

Have you forgotten? Have you been at the sauce? Your post is full of **** and you appear to know more about my engine than I do.
Why post things that are totally untrue.
I will post fully when I have time to do so and feel the inclination (if I can be bothered)but you can put right the lies you have told in the meantime if indeed you know what you are talking about.

Adam M

Harvey,

I am alittle confused as to why you and bob appear upset by what pat has written.

I don't see how it is derogatory at all.

He only seems to have made sure that people don't refer to what you have done as merely changing the pistons and/or rods, and in so doing made sure that people give you the credit you deserve for the research and hard work that has gone into your engines and the results they have both achieved.

EvilBevel

Harvey, FWIW that's how I read his post as well. No offense was meant from my part saying he made "good points".

Maybe there are some cunning & veiled motives behind his post, but most people wouldn't see it that way, and won't really know why there is such a big "fight" going on. I certainly don't.

NotoriousREV

Of course the other way to start this post would be: hey did you see Adam's results, he must be very happy. Instead it seems to deliberately encourage the very things it complains about.

Congrats to Adam M and thanks to all the big power usual suspects, if it wasn't for you guys spending your hard earned cash and precious time there'd be no one pushing the limits so that us mere mortals know how far we can push on a lower budget.

And quit fighting you bunch of tarts

CTRnutter

just thought I'd add to the comments above, by saying Mark Emailed me straight away with some advice and was helpful in doing so.

Thankyou again

CTRnutter

TIM W totally agree, there are a few that are great !!! those who have replied to my post will know who they are,

I am as genuine as they come sorry to blow my trumpet, ;-)

but come on is it really that much to just try and get along,

pat

Bob,

I don't recall saying that you did have any of the things that you listed, I was merely stating that you do have non-standard items on the car... if memory serves...

STi VII semi closed deck block
STi forged and precision balanced crankshaft
Arrow conrods
Omega pistons
740cc injectors
SX Fuel pressure regulator
High flow fuel pump
Hybrid turbo (MD321 derivative)
Tubular exhaust manifold (iON ?)
Front mount intercooler (APS ?)
Various ECUs (OEM, Link, MoTeC)

I'm sure there's other stuff, but the real point was that you have spent a fair amount of time and money to get the results. The implication had been that the 2 litre was a signigficantly cheaper option than the 2.5, which is simply not the case. You have to go internal regardless of whether it's 2 litre or 2.5 (or 2.2, 2.33, 3.0, 3.3, etc) if you want to get the results, and once you start down that road, there is little difference between component costs. In either case you can choose to get more involved, do headwork, switch to 8 injectors etc, if you want to, it's not limited to the 2.5, Cosworth YBs have been running 8 injectors on 2 litre engines for years!

My reason for joining in is that people were dismissing the EJ25 option as out of the reach of the "ordinary" owner. Saying that it wasn't relevant. That it's too expensive. But the truth is that it's not much more than a 2 litre. It can be made to be much more by choosing to spend more on other things like the heads, but the short motor, the very thing that makes a 2.5 what it is, has a similar cost.

With regard to the Cossie pistons, I've not known them to eat oil. Neither Danny's (EJ20G, Iss 4 Cossie pistons) nor my own (EJ22E Iss 3 Cossie pistons) had an oil consumption issue. I'de suggest that the problem doesn't lie with the pistons, but somewhere else.

Cheers,

Pat.

pat

Harvey,

I was using both your engine spec and Bob's as examples to illustrate the point that it takes considerable amounts of time and money to achieve high horsepower goals. I don't recall making reference to Andy's engine.

I am not aware that I have posted anything that is incorrect with regard to your engine spec. The facts as I see them that I have stated are as follows :

You're not running standard engine management (on Link at the mo?), you're not running a standard turbo (iON Garrett GT series in an IHI exhaust housing), you're not running standard headers (iON tubular headers), you're running a front mount intercooler (APS ?), you're not running standard injectors (740cc?), last I heard you were still running non standard pistons (Cossie) and non-standard rods (Arrow). I'm sure there are other differences, but that's not the point, it was merely that you've had to do a lot of work, and these were just some examples of what you've done.

Perhaps it wasn't obvious but the section about having to go to the extra expense of doing the heads etc, was a reference to the work that Adam had done over and above what you and Bob have done.

Your engine has been apart since it was built originally to change the compression ratio. Obviously this was by choice and not by necessity, but it doesn't alter the fact that it has been apart. My definition of reliability requires the engine to remain in the car from the time it is built to the time it is retired. Take my completely bog standard MY97 UK engine as an example, it ran in my car for about 60,000 miles (plus another 45,000 before I got it), during which time it saw numerous track days, ran antilag, managed to break a dog box, ran over 1.5 bar on occasions, but I still drove it into the workshop where I extracted it to retire it.

Please feel free to point out anything that I have stated which is untrue.

The only thing I know about your engine that you don't is why it's using so much oil (forget about the Cossie pistons, they're not the issue). Other than that I know very much less about your engine than you do.

Cheers,

Pat.

C

Its the same old people banging the same old drum trying to put the same people down as usual

I sincerley hope that one day these people will end up with an "egg on face" scenario

Some of you lot are 40 plus years old - but you act like pre-pubescent teenagers

Hows this for a suggestion - if you dont have anything new to say (that you havent said 100 times before) to say just dont waste the energy typing it!

tweenierob

well said again!!!!!!!!!!

Especially as my car is faster and harder than all of yours!!!!!

Rob

This is what a great thread becomes on this BBS, and as time goes on it will get worse..

Rob.

Stig

Tim's post (the same one I might add) fell on pretty deaf ears on Pistonheads too.

500bhp/500ft/lbs of torque are great - but at what cost?

But don't go getting all upset until you've read the rest of my post. Firstly, great work from the chaps for squeezing those ponies out of a Scoob.

However, Adam at least has his eyes wide open to the fact that these sort of power outputs from a 2.0 4-pot engine are not condusive to reliabililty.

Big power comes from big engines, big internals and usually a big bill. Besides which, it becomes the law of diminishing returns as all that power means uprating almost the whole of the car so that you can make use of it. Brakes, suspension, chassis etc. The list is never ending.

Trust me, I know of what I speak

tweenierob

It is no different to Andy posting on the GTR register about his 1000bhp R34, it is a very good acheivement and has cost a lot of money..
As skylines go it is a high power car, like Adams car is within the scoob community..

Spot the difference??

Yeah... Andy doesnt get slagged off for achieving it!!
I think this car, Adam and the people involved deserve some respect for publicising this engine (failure inc) and producing the beast (even if it blows up).

As i said at the start of this thread, the people who are really interested in stuff like this know where to look..

Rob

Adam M

thanks for the comments guys, but until people started defending me, I didn't know I was being attacked.

Leslie

You weren't Adam. Just the rest of us.

Les

fivepint

OFF TOPIC

@ Pat: hi Pat any chance you could post your maintenance schedule, preferred parts/fluids etc for your standard engine UK MY97, and any bolt on mods too, if u dont want to post, any chance of an email: fivepint@hotmail.com

cheers

ON TOPIC

Good luck with the car Adam, I' ve enjoyed reading about its development, its just a shame these threads end up being an outlet for other peoples issues

steve_nairn_sti

Tim,

I'm a relative new comer (compared to yourself and many others!!) and I have seen that some guys on here are falling over themselves to be helpful.

I have also seen how bitchy, pathetic and ridiculous some people can be!

I like to learn new things and I like to pass my knowledge on to others but I'm being put off by stupid comments by some members.

I probably will continue to post, in the meantime at least but I wanted to let you know that I fully understand where you're coming frrom and sympathise completely.

Take it easy.

Bob Rawle

Pat I totally agree that, like for like, the 2.5 option would probably be similar in cost to the 2 litre albeit with some minor increases in a couple of areas. However its not true to say you can have a 2.5 for the price of a 2.0, I chose to use the block and crank I have as I wanted to see how the combination performed as I have half an eye on a new age project, the extra cost is considerable, take that away, however, and the 2.0 litre option is cheaper, Harveys car proves that as he has, so far reliably from an engine point of view, had no problems using a std 2/0 litre crank and a std 2.0 litre phase 2 block. So for the relatively limited budget that gives an upgrade route to 400 plus cost effectively. Fuel pumps, regs, injectors, all that goes with the territory, you have to have it if you are at this sort of level so the cost is a given.

Since the 2.5 has 25% more capacity then one should expect to get better figs, lets see my 465 (as was) times 1.25 (assume capacity is in proportion) then that engine running similar spec in all other respects should get ... 581bhp, clearly other factors involved but, if a well modded 2.5 isn't in the mid 500's then something is not right, I will certainly be expecting that when I get to do mine (if ever

So a bigger engine will make more power ... of course, my personal challenge was to achieve as much as possible from the 2.0 litre mainly because it had been said you had to have a 2.5 to get to those levels, we've certainly proven that to be a myth and I include all those involved in the "big power" activities currently, its not that long ago we all cheered at 350 bhp.

So there are two choices if you like plus all those in between, and a sliding scale of cost. Dependant on budget and objective there is then something to suit most people.

I definately have to take issue with you over the piston comment though, if you have a suggestion about it then be glad to hear but ... never in all the cars I have run in have I had any oil consumption problems ever, I also thought about other reasons, it didn't take too long to find that almost everyone I spoke to reported higher than normal oil consumption, I was changing to the Omegas when available in any case, Cossies were only in to mark time, once removed it was obvious that the rings had allowed oil vapour past, and it was not going into the catch tank to blow by was not an issue on boost, interestingly it did not use hardly anything if I boosted it hard, it only used on relatively fast motorway cruise when egt and cylinder temps are high. You have experience of two cars, due respect but neither has been used as a consistant daily drive over a long period, short runs no problem, do 400 miles of sustained m-way driving and then check it.

So in go the Omegas, nothing else touched ... problem solved, that was the additional proof positive. The Cosworths are not designed for road car use but competition. I'll remember to put the Cosworths in the car for the 3rd Aug, assuming I go that is, and you are welcome to take a look.

cheers

bob

pat

Stig,

500 BHP is gonna be expensive regardless of what you do. If it's 2 litre Subaru, 2.5 litre Subaru, 2 litre Cosworth, 2 litre Toyota, I could go on and on and on.... of course if we start talking about 3 litre or above it gets a little better, for example the 3 litre Toyota will tolerate 500 BHP without going iunternal.

As I've stated before, 2.5 litre internals cost roughly the same as 2 litre, so you don't suddenly get a big bill just because you've gone for big displacement.

People need to separate the knock on effects... if you go 2 litre it's harder to make the torque and power and hence you may not need to upgrade as much of the rest of the car. I think Bob and Harvey are running standard gearboxes, for example. If you choose to go 2.5 then you have the option of making more power and torque, and that may mandate an upgrade where it may not have been necessary on a 2 litre, It's your choice though. Just because you can make over 550 lb/ft doesn't mean that you have to! If you built a 2.5, for similar cost to a 2 litre, and you restrict it to the power and torque that the 2 litre would have made, your overall cost is similar and your torque will start lower down the rev range,.

As I've stated before I'm not advocating either over the other, I'm merely trying to dispell the myth that 2.5 is inherently expensive. It isn't! 500 BHP, on the other hand, may well be inherently expensive in a Subaru regardless of how you choose to achieve it.

Cheers,

Pat.

pat

fivepint,

maintenance schedule was a little "loose", basically when I thought it could do with a change, it got one. The trouble with "change oil at X miles" doesn't take into account how the car has been used during those miles. It's always good to do an oil change before and after a track day, for example, but you can get away with leaving it in there for ages if all you ever do is cruise along the road at 60... would still change at 6000 miles though.

Parts wise, I generally used genuine Subaru where it was appropriate and still fitted... eg cam belt was always genuine Subaru. Where things didn't fit anymore I used whatever was available and did fit... for example the alternator belt, since the alternator was where the AC was and the manifold was reversed, the stock belt was way too short. I got one from Halfords that fitted fine. Fluid wise I used Silkolene oils / hydraulic fluids, and just normal bluecol type antifreeze.

Bolt on mods included... equal length tubular steel headers, external wastegate, TD05H-18G hybrid turbo, full stainless straight through exhaust system, custom front mount intercooler, custom radiator, reversed intake manifold, 550cc injectors, uprated fuel pressure reg, motorsport fuel pump in the bay and uprated in tank pump, custom air box with twin K&N panel filters (Supra RZ spec) fed from scoop, Petcel T6 engine management system. There's shedloads more stuff to do with the drivetrain but that's most of the important engine bolt-ons.

Cheers,

Pat.

pat

Bob,

I maintain that you can build a 2.5 for the same price as a 2 litre, but the 2.5 has the potential to make more power. If you choose not to make the extra power then you don't need to spend money in areas that you wouldn't on a 2 litre. If you do choose to get the most out of it, there may be knock on effects that may require extra expenditure.

You chose to get an uprated block and crank in (obviously not quite as strong as a full closed deck and billet steel crank) and incurred additional cost as a result. The stock crank should be fine up to 450 lb/ft, beyond that I'de recommend a billet item.

Whether you choose to go for 2 litre or 2.5 litre, you still have the choice of running a standard block and crank. Both 2 litre and 2.5 litre are forged steel cranks out of the factory, equally strong. In both instances the main limit will probably be the open deck block, and it's possible to get a 2.5 litre closed deck block for similar money to the STi VII semi-closed deck block, so if you choose to upgrade the block, it's gonna cost roughly the same regardless of displacement.

Sadly we never saw what Adam's engine would have made because the liner gave up before it got to peak power. Indications were that it would have made 600 BHP, so your calcs seem failry reasonable. You have an advantage over Adam in so far as your heads flow significantly better than the earlier ones, and someone starting with an early car would need to spend a fair amount of money to get heads that flow as well as yours, never mind exceed them.

I don't recall anyone ever saying that you need a 2.5 to make a lot of power, indeed I think I posted a while ago that Prodrive got 600 BHP out of a 2 litre (admittedly it doesn't last very long, but it proves the point that it is possible). I think the important thing that you've proven is that (bar the piston swap) it is possible to get over 450 BHP from a 2 litre and have it last a sensible amount of time

I would suggest that a 2.5 short engine will cost you the same as a 2 litre, and that it will easily make the same power as a 2 litre if you leave everything else identical, the difference would be that it can pull in a bit lower down the rev range. If you want to go wild and get every least horsepower, then you may need bits for the 2.5 that you don't for a 2 litre. But that's a bit like saying that you need to spend more money on tyres on an Impreza than you do on a 1 litre Micra...

With regard to the Cossie pistons, I was using my car to commute to work, which put 180 miles on *per day*, and I wasn't having an oil consumption issue with mine. Would suggest that re-honing and a new set of rings would have cured your problem.

While I was happy with the Cossie pistons for mine, I would suggest a different type of piston for very high output applications. Personally I like JE, and if they're good enough for nine thousand horsepower engines then I'm sure they'll be OK for mine

Cheers,

Pat.

fivepint

thanks for that Pat

Stringpants

Please wake me up if this thread gets interesting.

Bob Rawle

Lol Pat, we will have to disagree on the pistons then, maybe some other users would like to post their experiences. I'm sure J & E pistons are fine, I thought then a little on the heavy side though, we all have our preferences, my comments are based on my experience, yours are on yours. So, for the record I agree that we disagree ... hmm now this is getting boring.

I have no axe to grind on engine size, i do think customers want reliable power, (as you do), so whilst Prodrives effort is commendable I don't think anyone would be that interested in 600 bhp for 5 mins.

Since I have no desire to wake anyone up if they are asleep I will call it a day in this thread.

cheers

bob

harvey

iTrader: (48)

I have read this thread again and fail to understand why Pat should choose to make reference, out of the blue to Bob`s engine and mine and then go on to make reference to mega specs and unreliability (ie. engine out) which certainly do not apply to my engine.

From Pat`s first post : "you name it, it has probably been changed." Totally untrue.

"You don't HAVE to go to the extreme of getting a billet steel crank, huge amounts of headwork, different cams, replaced valves, followers springs, new fuel rails, 8 injectors, I could go on for ages but I won't presume to bore everyone to death". Correct. My engine has none of these things. The cylinder head havn`t even been ported.

"With regard to reliability, perhaps it is worth noting that BOTH Bob's and Harvey's engines have been apart since their full build for various reasons." What a load of KRAP. Matt Clark put the sump on my engine in March `02 and it has not been off since. In August `02 when John Pye removed the gearbox to rectify the damage caused by Pete Croney fitting different differentials front and rear, I grabbed the opportunity to pull the engine, remove the heads have them skimmed by 20 thou, back on and engine back into the car same day. This has nothing to do with reliability as I simply took advantage of a situation to end up with 8.3:1 approx C.R. There have been no other reliability issues with the engine or gearbox but I did have a problem relating to the turbo but not a turbo problem as such as it was relevant to the manner in which I had fitted it. I am also on my second clutch. I rived the centre out of the previous one despite the fact that the friction material was relevantly unworn after 20,000 miles.

So after 25,000 miles the engine has been reliable to date although Pats post gives a different impression.

There are no secrets about my spec and it is available for all to see here : www.geocities.com/harveysmith3000

If I have omitted anything it is an honest mistake and I am happy to amend. I understand why Adam, who may have gone for a mega spec, is reticent to share the knowledge of his failed build and I remember how Mark tried to prevent photographs of his engine bay at TOTB 1 but my interest in building this engine is simply to see what is possible from a well thought out specification and I believe the key is ensuring that everything is complementary, uncomplicated and done properly.

I do not think I have taken anything out of context, I have simply read the written word.

Pat : "The only thing I know about your engine that you don't is why it's using so much oil (forget about the Cossie pistons, they're not the issue). Other than that I know very much less about your engine than you do."

My engine is using about 1 litre per thousand miles or marginally less. I am happy to live with this but I am very interested to know why you think it is using this amount of oil and I have no doubt the wider audience are also very interested, so please let us know.

Adam : I am glad you got your engine together and it showed the prospect of reasonable power before it blew but there is a big difference between the power output you will get on a dynomometer and that achieved under road conditions. With 2 litre engines, now regularly in the 400 - 500 bhp bracket, the time to get excited on a 2.5 engine has to be when it reliably produces big figures by comparison and not just a few hours on the test bed.
Incidentally, I am not sure what block you intend to use for your re-build but I do not think a 2.2 CDB will give adequate integrity for a 2.5.

Tim W : I guess you must be going blind and we all know what makes you go blind !

The 2 litre is a proven route and generally most of us will have a donor engine, whereas with a 2.5 build the donor engine will be an extra cost and the route to success in the UK has yet to be proven.
In the short term I considered another 2 litre was the best route for me but I was torn with the attraction of extra torque and driveability which are a natural consequence from another 500cc`s. Another consideration is that you are likely to need a better gearbox and hence significantly increased expenditure.






[Edited by harvey - 7/24/2003 9:15:13 PM]

Adam M

Harvey,

I dont think pat was saying there was a reliability issue with yours, perhaps he was referring to the removal of the engine to skim the heads and hence alter compression ratio.

I don't know what you mean about me being reticent about the nature of my engine failure. All the details of it have been disclosed on the 22B thread. At least as much as I know has been. Am open to questions if anyone wants to know why we think it failed.

There is one detail I don't want to publish yet, but am happy to talk about it offline. That is because I am hoping that the supplier will consider reimbursing me for the failed item, which may not be so forthcoming if I publically insult the reputation of that company.

harvey

iTrader: (48)

Adam : I did not say you were reticent regards the nature of your engine failure (although I would suspect there is more to it than just a split liner otherwise the engine would be re-built by now, but that is your business). What I commented on was the fact that there are no secrets regards my spec but you and others do not wish to share your specs at this time. That is your choice and I respect your decision even if it is not the course I choose.

Pat is your friend and I understand your wish to defend him but do not let it confuse your ability to read and understand plain English. "With regards to reliability, perhaps it is worth noting that BOTH Bob`s and Harvey`s engines have been apart since their full re-build for various reasons". These are Pat`s words and for those of us who can read and write the meaning is clear.

I hope you have taken on board what I said about using a 2.2 CDB for a 2.5 litre engine.