beaver34
|
| posted on 7/5/14 at 12:52 PM |
|
|
also for the engine bits, bellhousing, and the clutch bits jon@shawspeed.com is your man drop me a email, tell him al sent you
|
|
|
|
|
Ugg10
|
| posted on 7/5/14 at 01:05 PM |
|
|
Beaver - cheers for that, agreed the 1.7 is a stange beast and different to all other Ford engines in the spigot bearing department ???? any reason
for machinging the crank end rather than the gearbox shaft ? Is it easier i.e. can be done in situ or is there a structureal/strength issues as I have
read of both being done.
Sent Shawspeed an email a couple of weeks ago with no reply, guess I will have to find time to call them but will also send and email to the address
above as I just used their general one.
Do you know what the differences are between the Shawspeed, Tiger Racing and RWD Motorsport bell housings - weights, size etc. ?
]
[Edited on 7/5/14 by Ugg10]
|
|
|
beaver34
|
| posted on 7/5/14 at 02:36 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ugg10
Beaver - cheers for that, agreed the 1.7 is a stange beast and different to all other Ford engines in the spigot bearing department ???? any reason
for machinging the crank end rather than the gearbox shaft ? Is it easier i.e. can be done in situ or is there a structureal/strength issues as I have
read of both being done.
Sent Shawspeed an email a couple of weeks ago with no reply, guess I will have to find time to call them but will also send and email to the address
above as I just used their general one.
Do you know what the differences are between the Shawspeed, Tiger Racing and RWD Motorsport bell housings - weights, size etc. ?
]
[Edited on 7/5/14 by Ugg10]
just because i think having the input shaft machined means that it will not work with any other setup if at sometime you wish to sell or change the
engine or box, if you machine the crank then you can fit a proper spigot bearing like the standard sierra item which will be better
the engine is FWD normally so if its sold and goes back in a puma have the crank bored out will not be an issue as FWD cars dont use them
just thinking of the future really or what might happen
i will speak to jon and get him to sort your mail, his house was burnt out 6 months ago and he is just moving back in so is very busy
he will be able to tell you the differences in bellhousings etc...
|
|
|
Ugg10
|
| posted on 7/5/14 at 03:29 PM |
|
|
Cheers, thanks again for the useful info,
I'll give a couple of machine shops a call and see what their views are on ease/cost, do you know whether the crank bore can be done in situ
(i.e. lock the flywheel and bolt the whole engine to a mill ?) or do I need to take the crank out, I guess the same goes for grinding the gearbox
shaft ? 21mm is the size I assume.
I'll drop Jon another email at his jon@ address when I get home tonight.
Looking at the bellhousings the Tiger seems the chunkiest, the RWD one looks the most tapered/smallest but needs a plate fitting underneath (may be
useful for inspections) and I can't find a picture of the Shawspeed one at the moment as I have an old version of IE on this machine and the SS
website doesn't load well. The Westie and Caterham ones seem to be top money for the same. Will keep digging for info.
|
|
|
beaver34
|
| posted on 7/5/14 at 03:51 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ugg10
Cheers, thanks again for the useful info,
I'll give a couple of machine shops a call and see what their views are on ease/cost, do you know whether the crank bore can be done in situ
(i.e. lock the flywheel and bolt the whole engine to a mill ?) or do I need to take the crank out, I guess the same goes for grinding the gearbox
shaft ? 21mm is the size I assume.
I'll drop Jon another email at his jon@ address when I get home tonight.
Looking at the bellhousings the Tiger seems the chunkiest, the RWD one looks the most tapered/smallest but needs a plate fitting underneath (may be
useful for inspections) and I can't find a picture of the Shawspeed one at the moment as I have an old version of IE on this machine and the SS
website doesn't load well. The Westie and Caterham ones seem to be top money for the same. Will keep digging for info.
shawspeed had two types, when i fitted my 1600 one was too wide and i had to use the other item
i have emailed jon and told him to sort your email hopefully he will get back to you soon
although i suppect he may tell you to junk the 1.7 for a 1.6 as there less hassle and cheaper 
|
|
|
Ugg10
|
| posted on 7/5/14 at 04:07 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by beaver34
quote:
Originally posted by Ugg10
although i suppect he may tell you to junk the 1.7 for a 1.6 as there less hassle and cheaper
Thanks for that !!!
Don't suppose you can do a "simple" 1.6 head swap so you get a 1.7 capacity/higher compression ratio non vvc engine that would be
too easy ?
I'll think I will try and get it running on the standard ECU but with TBs and a "plenum" for the MAF (will not be pretty but will be
air tight, probably made from some plumbing parts ) and then go from there, nothing an expensive ECU and a lot of rolling road time will not fix I am
sure !!!
I'll post up some pictures of the differnt bell housings if I get time tonight for reference.
[Edited on 7/5/14 by Ugg10]
|
|
|
owelly
|
| posted on 7/5/14 at 04:22 PM |
|
|
I drilled out the end of an Alfa crankshaft to accept a standard spigot bearing by using a mag-mounted drill (Motabroach) and stuck it on the flat
face of the flywheel. I did it with the engine hanging from an engine crane. I used a tapered centre to locate the drill then took out the centre and
replaced it with the correct sized drill bit. It worked a treat.
http://www.ppcmag.co.uk
|
|
|
Ugg10
|
| posted on 7/5/14 at 05:51 PM |
|
|
Cheers owelly, that gives me something to benchmark any quotes I get - Magdrill hire seems to be about £50 per day + bit hire.
|
|
|
beaver34
|
| posted on 7/5/14 at 05:54 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ugg10
quote:
Originally posted by beaver34
quote:
Originally posted by Ugg10
although i suppect he may tell you to junk the 1.7 for a 1.6 as there less hassle and cheaper
Thanks for that !!!
Don't suppose you can do a "simple" 1.6 head swap so you get a 1.7 capacity/higher compression ratio non vvc engine that would be
too easy ?
I'll think I will try and get it running on the standard ECU but with TBs and a "plenum" for the MAF (will not be pretty but will be
air tight, probably made from some plumbing parts ) and then go from there, nothing an expensive ECU and a lot of rolling road time will not fix I am
sure !!!
I'll post up some pictures of the differnt bell housings if I get time tonight for reference.
[Edited on 7/5/14 by Ugg10]
nope head oil gallery's dont line up, re the crank is forged and very strong so its not a easy job
i would run the stock inlet dont bother with the tb's it dont see it working on the oem ecu with them, unless the tps signal will be the same
|
|
|
Ugg10
|
| posted on 7/5/14 at 06:12 PM |
|
|
Ok, thought that would be too good to be true.
I am planning on measuring the impedence of the bike throttlebody tps and the ford one. If they are different I an sure it will be possible to swap
them over with a bet of planning and a Bracket. I will report back when I have done it.
|
|
|
beaver34
|
| posted on 7/5/14 at 06:57 PM |
|
|
Wish you all the best
Keep us informed
|
|
|
Ugg10
|
| posted on 7/5/14 at 08:11 PM |
|
|
OK, so I have just popped out to the garage an measured the impedance of the TPS on the bike throttle bodies and puma inlet. And it looks like I have
a result !
The scores on the doors are -
Puma TPS throttle closed (in k ohms)
Pins 1-2 > 3.47
Pins 1-3 > 3.91
Pins 2-3 > 0.82
Puma TPS throttle fully open (in k ohms)
Pins 1-2 > 0.28
Pins 1-3 > 3.92
Pins 2-3 > 3.81
Bike TBs TPS throttle closed (in k ohms)
Pins 1-2 > 3.47
Pins 1-3 > 3.85
Pins 2-3 > 0.54
Bike TBs TPS throttle fully open (in k ohms)
Pins 1-2 > 0.51
Pins 1-3 > 3.84
Pins 2-3 > 3.56
So, they look pretty close to me at both fully open and fully closed so when I get round to wiring it up I will splice the TB connector in to the loom
so I can use both.
One small step ........
|
|
|
beaver34
|
| posted on 7/5/14 at 08:44 PM |
|
|
I'm no expert but fairly close but not the same will they not end up in different results?
Or is close enough good enough not to affect the mapping
|
|
|
Ugg10
|
| posted on 7/5/14 at 09:34 PM |
|
|
I would have thought that the ecu should learn where the end stops are otherwise it could not take into account any assembly/manufacture tollerances.
On the emerald/megajolt I have had on a previou car setting the end stops was part of the set up. Will have to look into how the ecu does the
learning, if it is running closed loop (likely from just above tick over) then it should not matter anyway as for each load site it just tries to get
back to target afr by altering the injector duration.
Thats the theiry anyway????
P.S. Sent shawspeed another email quoting your name as suggested.
[Edited on 7/5/14 by Ugg10]
|
|
|
Jenko
|
| posted on 8/5/14 at 10:02 AM |
|
|
I agree with Beaver......Close is not really good enough.....the TPS needs calibrating to the ECU, this is usually done by setting it at closed and
wide open throttle. The ECU learns it, but you need to tell it to (probably not possible with standard ECU).
You won't know where the tick over point is set to. The cell in the ignition and fuel table will be different. In fact, I think having
TB's on a standard ECU is going to cause some headaches. The map sensor will not read as is should. Sorry to be a bit negative....but I would
really do what I could to go for an after merket ECU.
[Edited on 8/5/14 by Jenko]
MY BLOG - http://westfieldv8.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
Ugg10
|
| posted on 8/5/14 at 03:38 PM |
|
|
Cheers Jenko.
Just a couple of point that hoopefully you can calarify, I thought the engine did not have a MAP sensor as it worked out load by the MAF and the TPS ?
Am I correct ? How does the Standard ECU take into account a change of TPS in the event of a failure where it may not be in exactly the same place as
the original ?
I have had quotes for a 3rd party ECU that can run either VTEC type on/off VVC or full PDM VVC and does not break the bank, this will also be easier
to plumb in to a new loom that I need to sort out. This was my original plan but the comments about being able to run the standard ECU with TBs so
longs as the MAF is connected got me going down that route. The 3rd party ECU is a route I am possibly happier to go down as I have installed an
Emerald and a Megajolt in my Fury in the past, but I will have to make quite a few decisions in the electrics departmet so I can specify the
loom/instruments/lights/switched etc. in one go.
Thanks for all of the comments everyone, very helpful and sorry for all of the numpty questions.
|
|
|
Jenko
|
| posted on 8/5/14 at 04:28 PM |
|
|
Im trying my hardest to think back to when I removed the engine from my Puma. In fact, you have a pic of your engine on a pallet on your website, and
sat on the top looks something suspiciously like a map sensor. A fair few manufactures use tps and MAP, and blend them depending on throttle load and
revs. When using ITB's the 'norm' is to use TPS although MAP still can be used. The GSXR 750 TB's I am using came with both
TPS and MAP sensor.
With regard to the VCT function, there is plenty of mixed views, and thats good, but at the end of the day, I'm yet to see evidence that the VCT
off / on technique with a 'correctly' mapped engine does not work well. The likes of omex can turn the system on and off again at higher
rpm, and this I have heard works well........Again, I've heard, not seen. The good news is....in a few weeks time you should have a true
comparisson, as I'm planning to get my car on the rollers using Omex 600, and ITB's with TPS only (bog standard engine), I will of course
publish the results good or bad, we should then get a much better idea if this system does work. May be worth hanging on and letting me go throught
the expense of trying it :-) could turn out to be a crock of course!.
MY BLOG - http://westfieldv8.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
Ugg10
|
| posted on 8/5/14 at 07:09 PM |
|
|
Jenko, most excellent, many thanks, nothing like real and relevant experience. Looking forward to seeing how it turns out.
Thanks for the map info and I bow to your superior knowledge, there is a map sensor as well as a tps and maf, a few years ago you would have had to
use a cray to combine all of those sensors.
I think I need to clear an evening to read through your blog!
P.S. Got a decent quote for a local company to bore the crank spigot cavity, decision made on that one.
[Edited on 8/5/14 by Ugg10]
|
|
|
johnH20
|
| posted on 9/5/14 at 08:46 PM |
|
|
I think you will have a problem finding a MAP sensor on a Puma engine. I have 3 and have not found one yet. I plan to add one for use with throttle
bodies some time in the future. In the meantime I am using the standard ECU as worked out by Madinventions, Blackfingernail and others on here. Well
done chaps!
|
|
|
