me!
|
| posted on 28/6/13 at 03:25 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scudderfish
No video today. I started doing one and then noticed a lot of vibration on the alternator belt. It transpired that the three bolts holding the
sandwich that is my crank pulley were loose. Getting the crank pulley off to tighten and threadlock them involves dismantling the suspension......
Never a dull moment.
Kit cars ey... who'd have em?
|
|
|
|
|
scudderfish
|
| posted on 4/10/13 at 10:43 AM |
|
|
It's been a while  I've been getting some nasty resets on my ECU so my car is off to Bailey Performance to get that sorted and a full
mapping done. Dale drove down earlier in the week and took it away.
|
|
|
scudderfish
|
| posted on 11/10/13 at 12:15 PM |
|
|
Right, where was I?
Came back from Bailey with a carb hat on. Bonnet doesn't close, but I do have a wide selection of power tools 
I did some brutal surgery on the old bonnet scoop, and ended up with this mess to sort out.
|
|
|
theduck
|
| posted on 11/10/13 at 12:55 PM |
|
|
May be a stupid question, does this enclose the carb or just sit on the inlet? I've always wondered how people enclose the carbs / get linkage
cables in for forced induction applications and this just reminded me of that.
|
|
|
scudderfish
|
| posted on 11/10/13 at 01:00 PM |
|
|
It's effectively a plenum on top of the carb (or 4 barrel TB in my case). My previous paper filter attempt was strangling the engine, so
I've now got this so I can duct in air from a properly sized filter elsewhere.
|
|
|
Andy S
|
| posted on 11/10/13 at 02:23 PM |
|
|
What power did it run on rollers?
|
|
|
scudderfish
|
| posted on 11/10/13 at 02:41 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Andy S
What power did it run on rollers?
223bhp@5400rpm
253lbft@3290rpm
225lbft@1000rpm
When I had the 3.5 in it, it got rollered at 160bhp, but I always suspected that was inflated by the apparent 50bhp transmission losses. Dale
measured my transmission losses as 16bhp which is far more believable and it means I have approximately twice the power at the wheels now than I did
with the 3.5.
|
|
|
MakeEverything
|
| posted on 19/10/13 at 09:57 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scudderfish
quote:
Originally posted by Andy S
What power did it run on rollers?
223bhp@5400rpm
253lbft@3290rpm
225lbft@1000rpm
When I had the 3.5 in it, it got rollered at 160bhp, but I always suspected that was inflated by the apparent 50bhp transmission losses. Dale
measured my transmission losses as 16bhp which is far more believable and it means I have approximately twice the power at the wheels now than I did
with the 3.5.
Happy Days. 250 is plenty.
Kindest Regards,
Richard.
...You can make it foolProof, but youll never make it Idiot Proof!...
|
|
|
Andy S
|
| posted on 19/10/13 at 12:50 PM |
|
|
Are those at the wheel or at the fly figures ?
|
|
|
scudderfish
|
| posted on 19/10/13 at 02:40 PM |
|
|
Flywheel, hence the transmission loss estimations.
|
|
|
Andy S
|
| posted on 19/10/13 at 05:25 PM |
|
|
I think you have a massive restriction in the system somewhere, I suspect the Offy as they strangle 3.5's let alone a 4.3.
To explain this a 3500 Vitesse makes 187BHP providing a BHP/litre of 53.5 ish. As outputs go its pretty lame but its a production two valve pushrod
and still plenty of scope for improvement.
With all the work that your engine has had put into it you are at 52 BHP/Litre - A drop in specific output - not good.
The Vitesse had a volumetric efficiency of 93%
Your engine has a volumetric efficiency of 88%
My engine is a stage 2 standard valve very little porting done 4.0L and it produces 232BHP at 5500 rpm
A volumetric efficiency of - 97%
With the same VE as my stage 2 engine you should be making at least- 250 and to be honest with a decent set of stage 3 heads 100% VE should be easy
and an expected output of 265 BHP @ 5700
No intention to rain on anyone's parade but just highlight that the rustlers have been in your garage and liberated an entire stable of
neddies.
Get saving for some decent inlet and exhaust manifolds
With work Rovers can be made to rev (a comparative term) and a 4.3 with a cam to give output at 6250 rpm and the ability to breath at 100% VE will
produce 293BHP
|
|
|
scudderfish
|
| posted on 19/10/13 at 05:31 PM |
|
|
I'm more than happy for advice I went with the Offy as it was cheap and it would fit under my bonnet. As I now have a big hole in my
bonnet, I'm less concerned about that. What would you recommend?
ETA - The power and torque run reports can be found here https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hoxnpma4iyhq86s/HxC9JHdzjB
[Edited on 19/10/13 by scudderfish]
|
|
|
BaileyPerformance
|
| posted on 19/10/13 at 06:13 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Andy S
I think you have a massive restriction in the system somewhere, I suspect the Offy as they strangle 3.5's let alone a 4.3.
To explain this a 3500 Vitesse makes 187BHP providing a BHP/litre of 53.5 ish. As outputs go its pretty lame but its a production two valve pushrod
and still plenty of scope for improvement.
With all the work that your engine has had put into it you are at 52 BHP/Litre - A drop in specific output - not good.
The Vitesse had a volumetric efficiency of 93%
Your engine has a volumetric efficiency of 88%
My engine is a stage 2 standard valve very little porting done 4.0L and it produces 232BHP at 5500 rpm
A volumetric efficiency of - 97%
With the same VE as my stage 2 engine you should be making at least- 250 and to be honest with a decent set of stage 3 heads 100% VE should be easy
and an expected output of 265 BHP @
Just out of interest how did you arrive at a VE of 100% ? Isn't that F1 territory on NA form? Above 100% is common with forced induction but not
with NA.
Point taken about the fury output power, but it does have a great power curve and bags of low down grunt so I expect it will be quick enough, the best
NA rover I did made 374bhp, but was a 5.5L, the rover v8 is always disappointing in its output per CC due to poor breathing.
We did a twin turbo 4.6 that made 514bhp!!!
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
Andy S
|
| posted on 19/10/13 at 07:36 PM |
|
|
100% VE is quite usual for N/A and not that hard to achieve
F1 territory 755BHP at 19,250 RPM for 2.4 litre is a VE of 149% so that is where those guys are
Turbo territory for F1 - well
A modern 4 valve per cylinder Duratec - 2000cc and 165BHP at 6000 rpm - is a VE of 126%
Trick is to maintain the VE as you increase capacity and RPM
For turbo's - an old 70's design - aircooled
1,100 BHP @ 8000 rpm 5.3 litre - VE 238%
Goodness knows where the new F1 1.6L Turbo's will be 300 - 400%
Torque is all well and good for a 4x4 but in cars like ours you can have a little too much especially with a short wheelbase. I have 250ftlbs
available at 2000RPM and it leaves more black lines on tarmac than Marc Marquez. Its great fun but its not always the quickest way to make progress.
As for getting the most out of that 4.3L - the Wildcat spider / Harcourt is superb / the best to stick a 4 barrel on - next is the eddy performer with
a little porting. The Offy can be fettled - remove the divider and open up the runners but its designed for the purpose of squeezing a engine under a
stock bonnet not for performance but it can be fettled
That and a set of 1 5/8 headers 1 1/2 min
This is a Wildcat spider and reasonable headers to give an idea of height with a 3" filter - which is the minimum for clearance over the Holley
air horns.
|
|
|
Andy S
|
| posted on 19/10/13 at 08:05 PM |
|
|
I use an old Superflow rule for the calculation of VE
VE = 5600 x BHP / (RPMxCID) X 100%
Its a handy calc to have in a spreadsheet to give a quick indication if the figures are what you would expect and engine to be providing.
You can check the VE at any engine RPM and then graph the VE against the power and torque curves very useful for understanding where the engine is
starting to struggle - and if read with a flowbench graph for the head you can tell whats lagging.
|
|
|
BaileyPerformance
|
| posted on 19/10/13 at 08:47 PM |
|
|
Humm..... Not sure your calculation is 100% correct, as i understand it 100% VE would be a complete cylinder charge - meaning the cylinder pressure is
at atmospheric before the compression stroke. Greater than 100% VE can only be achieved by ram charging and exhaust scavenging packing more air into
the cylinders, increasing the cylinder pressure above atmospheric. 120% VE would be a brilliant engine!
If you boosted an engine to 1 bar (assuming the engine was already at 100% VE) you would have achieved close to 200%.
The thing with a rover is that they do not breath very well, even a really well built 4.6 with a decent cam and induction will struggle to make
300bhp, the more you stretch the capacity the less gains per CC you get - all that seems to happen is the torque output goes up.
The only way to really make them go is fit wildcat heads with a decent cam.
As for fitting a rover into a light weight car, I agree bags of torque is not required but all you need to do Is fit a higher final drive to make use
of the grunt, this is often better and nicer to drive than a lower geared 16v screamer.
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
Andy S
|
| posted on 19/10/13 at 10:05 PM |
|
|
The calc is an old Superflow calculation and even though its not totally correct in establishing the actual "true" VE for a engine - what
it is good at is providing a measure of that efficiency as a comparison. Same as any work on a Dyno or a Flowbench - it's all about
comparisons.
So call it an indication of VE rather than the actual VE
It is probably better to use a BMEP calculation as an accurate measure of an engines potential but this is quick an easy calculation to make a gauge
on whether an engine is doing what it should.
Anyway using that old Superflow measure of VE a really good Rover gets to around 110%
|
|
|
BaileyPerformance
|
| posted on 19/10/13 at 10:28 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Andy S
The calc is an old Superflow calculation and even though its not totally correct in establishing the actual "true" VE for a engine - what
it is good at is providing a measure of that efficiency as a comparison. Same as any work on a Dyno or a Flowbench - it's all about
comparisons.
So call it an indication of VE rather than the actual VE
It is probably better to use a BMEP calculation as an accurate measure of an engines potential but this is quick an easy calculation to make a gauge
on whether an engine is doing what it should.
Anyway using that old Superflow measure of VE a really good Rover gets to around 110%
Agreed, the actual number is not that important, it's the improvements on it that matter.
I look for bhp per litre, bench mark been 100bhp/litre.
4.3 making 220bhp would have a VE of 51%
A 3.5 making 180bhp would also be 51%
So, to get a 4.3 rover to match a good 2.0 zetec it would be making 430bhp, no chance using rover heads!
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
BaileyPerformance
|
| posted on 19/10/13 at 10:43 PM |
|
|
Just a further comment about rover v8 quoted power outputs, a good stock high compression on carbs will make 140bhp, 3.5 Efi 150bhp, 3.9 Efi
160bhp.
For example we had a stock p5 rover 3.5 (10.5cr) on the dyno recently, sweat engine, made 105bhp at the wheels (auto) max transmission loss 40bhp. I
think these engines where rated at 180bhp.
Generally speaking the stock motor does not make its rated power output, this goes for a lot if British cars, the worst if the lot been old jaguars,
4.2L E type rated at 265bhp struggle to make 200bhp.
The only manufacturer to be accurate with the printed power is Ford, normally within 5bhp of what it's supposed to be.
Praise the Ford!!! :-)
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
scudderfish
|
| posted on 20/10/13 at 07:31 AM |
|
|
The way I see it, my car scares the crap out of me as it is. In Rolls Royce terminology, power levels are 'sufficient'. If I ever get
bored with it, there appear to be some mods I can make to get more power out of it, but right now keeping it facing the way I want to travel is enough
for me
|
|
|
Andy S
|
| posted on 20/10/13 at 12:55 PM |
|
|
The P6 10.5 was rated at the OLD SAE power rating - that excluded all the power to run the water pump, oil pump, etc. and the engine frictional losses
- The head had smaller valves and was generally less powerful than the SD1 by a good few BHP.
A good SD1 would make its rated 155 and they do regularly on a set of rollers even with a few miles under the belt - the Vittesse seldom make the 190
they are rated at (apart from the TP versions which maybe where that number came from) but most make around 175.
After all the work and effort the OP has put into the installation I just felt it worth pointing out that there is a restriction in the system as its
well down on where it should be. The torque being produced will make it monstrously quick and the 3rd and 4th gear accelerations will be monumental if
has a beneficial axle ratio.
I will freely admit that asking for the power figure was a leading question having seen it was fitted with a Offy manifold as I have only ever seen
them rob an engine of horsepower. Seeing as he could potential add 30+BHP for a £200 manifold (£7 per horsepower) and a decent increase in torque as
well it seemed the right thing to do to stick my head above the parapit.
If climbing this far up the mountain it seems a shame to stop short of the summit. And would be a pity to change the bonnet around a lame manifold
only to find the one that really works does not fit and you have to cur holes again. Now prizes for guessing how I know.
Nice project - great cars - I am IVA' ing my lightweight Duratec Fury at the start of November. And collecting all the right parts for a 4.5L V8
build.
The only other advice for making the RV8 and epic engine is a lightweight fltwheel - cant remember what you are using but a lightweight steel one is
worth its weight and transform the way the engine reacts to the throttle.
|
|
|
BaileyPerformance
|
| posted on 20/10/13 at 01:12 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Andy S
The P6 10.5 was rated at the OLD SAE power rating - that excluded all the power to run the water pump, oil pump, etc. and the engine frictional losses
- The head had smaller valves and was generally less powerful than the SD1 by a good few BHP.
A good SD1 would make its rated 155 and they do regularly on a set of rollers even with a few miles under the belt - the Vittesse seldom make the 190
they are rated at (apart from the TP versions which maybe where that number came from) but most make around 175.
After all the work and effort the OP has put into the installation I just felt it worth pointing out that there is a restriction in the system as its
well down on where it should be. The torque being produced will make it monstrously quick and the 3rd and 4th gear accelerations will be monumental if
has a beneficial axle ratio.
I will freely admit that asking for the power figure was a leading question having seen it was fitted with a Offy manifold as I have only ever seen
them rob an engine of horsepower. Seeing as he could potential add 30+BHP for a £200 manifold (£7 per horsepower) and a decent increase in torque as
well it seemed the right thing to do to stick my head above the parapit.
If climbing this far up the mountain it seems a shame to stop short of the summit. And would be a pity to change the bonnet around a lame manifold
only to find the one that really works does not fit and you have to cur holes again. Now prizes for guessing how I know.
Nice project - great cars - I am IVA' ing my lightweight Duratec Fury at the start of November. And collecting all the right parts for a 4.5L V8
build.
The only other advice for making the RV8 and epic engine is a lightweight fltwheel - cant remember what you are using but a lightweight steel one is
worth its weight and transform the way the engine reacts to the throttle.
Agree with all the above :-)
a better manifold may help top end power, as for throttle response the thing revs up like a chainsaw as it is, the down side of a light flywheel is
added engine braking - not always a good thing in a light car.
i'm been nosy now, but why build a 4.5L? why not just use a 4.6L bottom end? Mine was £1400 fully assembled and top hat linered from V8
developments.
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
Andy S
|
| posted on 20/10/13 at 02:20 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaileyPerformance
Agree with all the above :-)
a better manifold may help top end power, as for throttle response the thing revs up like a chainsaw as it is, the down side of a light flywheel is
added engine braking - not always a good thing in a light car.
i'm been nosy now, but why build a 4.5L? why not just use a 4.6L bottom end? Mine was £1400 fully assembled and top hat linered from V8
developments.
Sounds like it may have a lightweight already - I have a half weight steel fly in mine and its mad - indeed the revs drop as quick as they rise - and
it can catch you out if you dont have a good pedal set up and a nice progressive clutch. I guess the OP would need to get an handle on heel toe to get
around that one - That's a bonus with also having bikes you just learn to match things to keep in the seat especially with Ducati's - not
sure I have seen a slipper for an RV8.
4.5L .... I got given a brand new small journal stroked crank and it would rude not to use it 
|
|
|
scudderfish
|
| posted on 20/10/13 at 02:27 PM |
|
|
The flywheel is whatever TVR used, which I guess is whatever they got from Range Rover. Don't worry about putting your head up, as I've
said a number of times on this thread, I really didn't know what I was doing and will happily hold my hand up to probably getting several things
wrong and any advice on how to make things less wrong is always welcome.
So for the time when I think the risk of the car killing me is not enough, what £200 manifold should I be looking for?
|
|
|
Andy S
|
| posted on 20/10/13 at 02:43 PM |
|
|
The Eddelbrock Performer is a good compromise and you should get one for around the £200 mark
You will only get a Harcourt S/H - The Wildcat (which is what I use) is rare and expensive. - The Eddy's come up regularly. Plenty of people
want the Offy 360 as they know no better or cannot be cutting holes in thier classic and are prepared to a) get the work done to make it flow or b)
its on a 3.5 and 225 from a 3.5 is bloody good going - so you could probably sell it and it would only cost you the difference.
quote:
Originally posted by scudderfish
The flywheel is whatever TVR used, which I guess is whatever they got from Range Rover. Don't worry about putting your head up, as I've
said a number of times on this thread, I really didn't know what I was doing and will happily hold my hand up to probably getting several things
wrong and any advice on how to make things less wrong is always welcome.
So for the time when I think the risk of the car killing me is not enough, what £200 manifold should I be looking for?
|
|
|
