tweenierob

Sounds like we should all head up to yours for an AP22 session

I think if these graphs and Harvey's are anything to go by it is going to be an interesting year for the publicised results.

Rob

Andy.F

harvey

iTrader: (48)

No race fuel Mark but if Bob Rawle was to re-map the car I recon we would be on for 600 bhp. Not bad eh? Remember this engine has been in my car (for the last 20mths) with well over 400bhp (for the last 14mths) while some of you guys have been talking about it. Dream on.

R19KET

Harvey,

Congratulations, yes your figures are very impressive,

Would you object if I posted some graph overlays, using info from your web site ?

Mark.

Andy.F

Mark

You're not about to compare fixed speed dyno outputs with dynamic roller outputs are you ?

Andy

PS Do you know which dyno Simon Norris uses ?

tweenierob

Gforce

Rob

harvey

iTrader: (48)

Yes I would. See the post on S/Net General.
I do not want to waste a lot of time on here and would rather go back into hibernation as far as the board is concerned.

[Edited by harvey - 11/26/2003 5:06:22 PM]

Andy.F

I meant which engine dyno Rob

tweenierob

PMSL!!!!!!!

'Rob runs away and hides in shame'

R.

R19KET

Andy,

Have no idea which dyno SN uses, but it's not DTW.

Yes they would be fixed dyno, but you can take that into account.

It would be purely for comparison, because I'm sure both cars will be very different on the road.

Mark.

C

Simon Norris has his own engine dyno

Previously he used G Force

R19KET

Harvey,

No problem, I expected you to refuse. They would have been reproduced in Excel, and not infringed anything, but I'll respect your wishes.

Good luck with the 600bhp. It looks like you'll be the first one to have a 10 sec' 1/4.

Mark.

T-uk

Rannoch
Scooby Regular
Posts: 1438
From: one car to another and back again!
Registered: 21-01-1999
[ADD TO MY VIP LIST]

posted Saturday, August 23, 2003 23:55


Engine:

Short block identical to David Wallis and John Banks - EJ20 CDB, relinered with custom liners and fitted with custom pistons and rods; modified EJ25 crank, uprated bearings, uprated ARP head studs, custom (but not 'special' ) steel head gaskets, higher compression ratio than Wallis as no NOS plans


can someone confirm that the engine was built by SMG or has this changed since that post?.

[Edited by T-uk - 11/26/2003 8:27:40 PM]

R19KET

John,

SMG re-linered the block, balancing, and did the heads/cams. The engine was actually put together by DTW, who also have the bench dyno, but Rannoch has already posted this ?

The short engine components are identical in all three engines, apart from David Wallis runs lower compression.

Mark.

David_Wallis

Mark..

Please dont mention my compression.

David

Edited as I forgot please

[Edited by David_Wallis - 11/26/2003 8:47:06 PM]

R19KET

David,

Wasn't going to. That info isn't my place to post !

Mark.

Andy.F

7.5:1 at a guess

T-uk

Rannoch
Scooby Regular
Posts: 1438
From: one car to another and back again!
Registered: 21-01-1999
[ADD TO MY VIP LIST]

posted Monday, September 08, 2003 22:32

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvey,

the engine is being built by Steve at SMG.

As Steve does it alongside a full time job, and a build takes a little longer than the 20 hours being suggested elsewhere due to significant detail work being carried out - the engine - now all the components are in one place is taking some time.

This includes being pushed back in the queue as JBs engine had to be stripped and checked for valve and piston damage due to the failed cam tensioner that was fitted post-build.

mark,

have you had issues with SMG in that case?

I am asking out-right as if jb's failures are not with the materials but the builder then my opinions(for what it is worth may be changed).

if I am reading between the lines sorry but I am sure that you will understand my interest in why some 2.33's have worked and others have not.

as much as I like jb's US2.5, I suspect he will find the limits of the block getting his 450/400 , something which would not have been an issue with the 2.33.

edit- computers playing silly buggers and bolding my bit to mark.edited to correct and lost post

[Edited by T-uk - 11/26/2003 9:11:44 PM]

[Edited by T-uk - 11/26/2003 9:13:15 PM]

[Edited by T-uk - 11/26/2003 10:39:54 PM]

David_Wallis

john,

whats your opinions of the limit of a 2.33 and a 2.5??

my head says one thing, wallet says another..

T-uk

can't correct post above, hopefully this will not be in bold

DW,

I think the main issue is the box and diffs. my own feelings is that the US block will not be high boost friendly. it is just a gut feeling though that if jb wanted to run high boost , really he needed what was originally planned.

Andy.F

I think we will be in a better position to answer that in a years time David. Think back a year, did we think 500+ was going to be reliable on a built ODB 2.0 !! or 400+ on std internals.......

David_Wallis

thoughts on the strength of a phase 1 crank?

David

R19KET

John,

No issues with SMG, Rannoch just wanted things to move more quickly. For obvious reasons, it was getting more, and more delayed because of the issues with JB's.

JB's short engine has since been stripped, and inspected by DTW, because I felt it needed someone not involved to have a look.

All of the tolerances are in spec', and I've asked them to check the block, because I'm wondering if there's something going on there.

At the moment, everyones at a loss to the cause.

I need to get to the bottom of it, because at the moment, I think I have the most expensive re-linered EJ20 CDB in the world !

I'll post the results, when we get to the bottom of it.

Mark.

Andy.F

I think the cranks are a very strong design, I've never heard of one break anyway!! My reservations are that with the narrow bearing width that the oil film becomes overloaded and breaks down at high torque outputs.
I recently discussed this with someone who had put a few thousand miles on a 470lb-ft torque engine and he said the bottom end didn't look too good when they stripped it. He now runs around 430lb-ft (on a 2.2 75mm stroke)
Pat, Adam and I also discussed the oil film strength issue some time age and by Pats calcs at the time the oil film should have failed before 500lb-ft
That's the sole issue thats stopping me going with a big power EJ2xx
I know there are engines with more torque than this but they tend to be race only units which have frequent builds. I'd like to see the bearings from a high torque engine with some hard mileage behind it.

As I said earlier, time will tell, next year I may well eat my words

Andy

Fuzz

T-UK
try the forward slash in front of the B instead of behind it.

Apologies for having nothing relevant to add.


Andy

edit to add : why the secrecy David ? it's only one part of a bigger picture. (but your choice none the less )

[Edited by Fuzz - 11/26/2003 10:37:49 PM]

T-uk

cheers fuzz

next year I may well eat my words

would that be a first

just to be a bit clearer on my post above I think anything over 1.25 bar is high on jb's US block. his goal is 450/400 and has not hidden the fact that he is willing to run more boost to get it.

the boost to get 450/400 from the 2,33 , would have been a walk in the park for it's CDB and internals , with loads of headroom.

DW,

all I would say , is go by what you feel is what you can afford to risk. jb's always at me to run more boost at the top end on my car but I don't want to , at least this way if it goes **** up I only have my self to blame.

I'll post the results, when we get to the bottom of it.

fair enough , I will try and resist anymore comments on the subject of jb's. the tensioner getting blamed was frustrating as it was fine on fitting and we knew the noises where more serious .

don't leave it too long though



[Edited by T-uk - 11/26/2003 11:03:11 PM]

R19KET

John,

I really don't mind discussing things, but I DON'T want to get involved in a slanging match.

The tensioner WAS faulty, and what made things worse, was that "piston slap" had often been mistaken for what turned out to be a "faulty tensioner". JB actually found several threads where this had been identified.

So, when the covers were first removed, the cam belt was flapping around, and the tensioner could be pushed in, and out with two fingers, what would you think ?

I wanted to remove the heads, because I wanted to make sure the valves hadn't been damaged, and because Andy F, and JB said they thought it was piston slap, I took the decision to strip the engine down, to be absolutely certain.

The bore clearances were checked, and correct. I told Steve that if he had ANY doubt that they were causing a problem, to scrap them, and I would use a suitable replacement.

Now, while this was going on, David Wallis's engine was being built, with identical pistons. One of the main reasons for the delay in rebuilding JB's engine, was that JB, and I decided to wait until it had been finished, to see if the problem replicated itself. This would imply there was a problem with the pistons, even though they were running without problem in another engine.

David W's engine was fine, so it confirmed the pistons weren't the cause.

Rannochs engine has since been built, and is fine !!!

Currently, I have no idea why JB's has been such a problem. On the last build we used a different piston, with a different taper, and .5mm over, so even the bores were re-done. I also gave Steve a brand new set of rods to use, to eliminate them.

Something is obviously being missed, but so far, two VERY experienced engine builders can't identify it.

I had already agreed to refund JB in full, when he decided to go for the STi 2.5lt conversion. I'm very pleased he's happy with it, but you have know idea how dismayed I am, over the 2.33lt, espcially after Rannoch's results.

Mark.

dowser

Are the pistons and rods the same as I'm using in mine Mark (albeit for the ej25, of course)?

Richard

R19KET

Richard,

The 2.33 pistons are made by Wiseco, and the 2.5's by JE, the rods are the same make.

Overall, I've sold about 30 sets of Wiseco (5 x 2.33) and only had this one problem, that we don't believe is piston related.

The rods were changed purely because it was quicker that getting them measured, and to eliminate them as a posible cause.

Subject to bore clearance, the JE's are very quiet.

Mark.

Adam M

Andy,

I think this torque issue is a valid one.

Not too keen on pats calculations but sadly they do seem to hold water.

All I know is that three days on the dyno holding continuous bouts of approaching 600lbft for over 10 seconds at a time and the engine on strip down has so far showed no signs of big end wear related issues.

I know we are all aware that the load on the dyno is likely to be far more than that experienced on the road, and for more sustained periods.

I have to say that I would like to achieve some incredible figures ont he dyno, but there is no question of being able to contain that kind of torque on the road in a car of the weight of ours.

I think iw ill be droping the boost profile the minute it leaves the dyno. I will be happy with a nice 450lbft and similar bhp for usability.

I am not entirely sure anyone could call a 600bhp and 600lbft engine in 1200kg car as usable everyday.

With regard to the oil film integrity, I am sure that there are other cars with a narrower bearing surface producing greater figures, although I am unsure for how long.

if you consider the group N cars are now rumoured to be in the region of 450plus lbft, and they are rebuilt at over 1500 stage miles. I have no doubt in my mind that one stage mile = well over 10 road miles.

I would like to hear from an engine oil expert about potential ways to increase the survival rate of the oil, perhaps initially by increasing the oil capacity of the car.