Do you foresee any issues with air pockets in the cooler frayz ?

 

To be honest Dunc, no I don't. I've seen enough coolers on cars fed from the bottom now that I don't think it will be an issue.
Fais for example is the same orientation as mine.

 

You have some minerals to cut holes in the bonnet for the catches and the roof for the flap! Top marks and looking super!

You should have seen my face when my friend was trying to remove the rear spoiler from mine - I was ordered to go inside and not look! Can't imagine I'd be like cutting holes....

 

Lol, im no stranger to cutting holes in cars mate.
Theyre a royal pain in the *** to fit but by no means impossible. id much rather fit a roof vent than the catches. Just ask Dave (DC)

want some fitted Ross?

 

lol, deffo a pain to fit, and I was just watching

 

Duncan can you explain that question please (context: my cooler is in a similar location)?

Apologies for the hijack Frayz.

 

It is tempting... I have had a look on japan parts for the v limited roof vent but they do not list my colour, will get round to ringing them up for an order one day.

You would need to lock me in another room until it is finished though.

 

Poof!

Ian, Duncan is refering to having the fittings entering the cooler at the bottom and not the top. The issue with this is not trapped air.. its the oil draining back after engine shut off.

 

Ahh OK, thanks for that...mine should be OK then as the fittings are on the side

Ross; *ahem* http://www.japperformanceparts.co.uk...p?ID=100869154

 

Only real way to combat the drainback issue is an Accusump.

 

Showing my novice status again but what is an Accusump?

Harsh . I will be inquiring about your expertise when the time does come to cut a hole in my roof

I was looking here http://www.japanparts.com/db/partsli...volkey=&page=3

Seriously though, I'm trying to save some money to have my bootlid painted but not going well with insurance and other payments due this month . Looks like I'm going to have to stay carbon wrapped (or matt black wrapped as my friend has suggested - he does it all at zero cost so can't compain really) for the time being.

Back to topic... have you selected a weekend to start building up the the bottom end?

 

Accusump is a pressurised oil accumulator that keep oil pressure in the engine. Inc when its not running. Basic description but thats basically it.

Roof vent will be no probs chap.

As for building, i want to start ASAP but im banged out with other private jobs on at the moment. As soon as i can get on it i will.

 

have no idea about most things you are talking about Frayz, but can appreciate the work you are putting into this and cant wait to see it finally up and running

 

Cheers Paul. I don't think many people realise the budget and detail required to undertake a build of 550bhp level. Admittedly I can be done much cheaper than I have done it. But I'm trying as always to over engineer and optimise everything as much as possible.
When the build started, I had a 450bhp target, that became 500bhp and now its looking nearer to 550bhp.
On the road, 450 would probably be optimum but I've always said right from the beginning I wanted the car to excite me the way the cossie used to.
Realistically anything above 500 will be a bonus, I'm not chasing a specific level based on numbers alone. At the end of the day the entire thing has been built and specced by me.
The icing on the cake for me will be when I can say to people "I built that".
Looking back there is almost none of the engine spec that I started with. I've changed almost everything.
If only I'd gone 2.35ltr

Ho hum, lol

 

Still talking about it, rather than doing it?

C'mon do it.

 

de-stroked 2.5 like mine...all you need to do is change your rods

 

Another novice question... (apologies Frayz for thread hijack - thinking a special 'Frayz Technical Help' thread would be ideal )..

But what are the benefits of de-stroking a semi cdb 2.5 to 2.35 as opposed to stroking a cdb 2.2 to 2.35 like mine?

Are there any? I imagine there would be a difference in revving characteristics...

 

I really don't see any benefit of the destroked option. Especially in a road car. You're still using the limited EJ257 SCD block.
People say that the 2.5 won't rev but that's crap. The 2.5 can be made to rev past 8k no problem. The only way to build a 2.35 is using a 2.2CDB.
That is if you really want to exploit the power potential. Destrokings only benefit is cost. Its cheap to use the 257 block and they are easily available.
If you really want a strong cheap build then 2.1 is hard to beat.
I really wish I had gone with the 22B block and done it properly. Instead I have pinned my 257 block to try and hold the power.
This method has been used and taken over 700bhp but with what reliability is yet to be seen.
I don't like linered motors either. But if you really have to go the liners route then so be it.
In a road car I'd always say that the 2.5 is the most exploitable. Especially for spooling a big turbo.

Ian, what exactly are you hoping to achieve over the stock stroke 2.5 with the destroked option?

 

I wasn't suggesting the 2.5 won't rev, I was thinking a de-stroked one would rev less than a 2.5?? Destroking seems to go against the grain at the moment as well hence the questions.... In essence, I'm clueless!

I've heard stories about liners slipping and requiring rebuilds are so many many miles etc. Not sure how true these are or another SN myth.

TBH, the 2.5 is the tried, tested and proven package for what you're after. She'll be a beastie

Just pleased mine is the 'right' way for the 2.35

 

What about a 2.5cdb?

 

I do not think there is factory 2.5 cdb.

I think all the big power 2.5 are the SDB and then 'pinned' like Frayz where they effectively have inserts in the open sections to strengthen the block.

 

Maybe but there is somewhere doing a cdb 2.5 I'd have thought Frayz would have a comment about it.

 

The only CDB 2.5s Chris are linered CDB that have been linered to 2.5.
Ross I wasn't saying you said it wouldn't rev, its just a common misconception. The shorter stroke of the 75mm crank in the 2ltr makes it feel more free reving due to less rotating mass and the obvious shorter crank throw.
The piston speed of the 2.5 is higher @ 8krpm than it is on the smaller throw crank of the 2l. That's why people don't like to rev them.

You imo have the best setup available with the 2.2 CDB. We shall see how my pinned 257 holds on.

 

The only CDB 2.5s Chris are linered CDB that have been linered to 2.5.
Ross I wasn't saying you said it wouldn't rev, its just a common misconception. The shorter stroke of the 75mm crank in the 2ltr makes it feel more free reving due to less rotating mass and the obvious shorter crank throw.
The piston speed of the 2.5 is higher @ 8krpm than it is on the smaller throw crank of the 2l. That's why people don't like to rev them.

You imo have the best setup available with the 2.2 CDB. We shall see how my pinned 257 holds on.

 

lol, seems this is an emotive subject! I don't know enough about how free revving 2.5's are...or not as the case may be so I can't and won't comment...I've ended up with my current build because I was lucky and picked up a bargain

I was unwilling to spend the kind of money EJ22's were going for so I brought a second hand SMG linered bottom end from Mikee...mine's not a linered 257 either its a bored and lined CDB with under piston squirters. Purchasing new rods to up the capacity when I have perfectly good Cossie items would be plain silly.

However last year Mr Blamire penned an interesting update you might find this interesting (even to a mechanical-tard like me this made sense); http://team-zen.co.uk/blog/?p=682

 

Your build makes perfect financial sense Ian I wasn't knocking that at all. I was refering to a destroked 257 block

 

I'm not bright enough to answer that but Paul's article reassures me it's not a bad decision

 

I'm not knocking either Ian, I was just wondering if there were benefits (like being stronger, can take more boost, different characteristics etc) to de-stroking. If it is just because you already have perfectly good rods then that is as good as any other reason

 

surely you two should know by now I'm far too thick skinned to take offence over the interweb...well as a rule anyway

 

Rod ratio is the only plus I see of any benefit making the engine more square.
Its an improvement in that respect but such a small percentage increase that I can't see the benefit of losing 200cc of displacement worth while.
All this good stuff and not even mentioned combustion chamber design yet