The Cal-look Lounge
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 23, 2020, 06:09:27 am

Login with username, password and session length
Thank you for your support!
Search:     Advanced search
343927 Posts in 27416 Topics by 6417 Members
Latest Member: r0ch3lle29
* Home This Year's European Top 20 lists All Time European Top 20 lists Search Login Register
+  The Cal-look Lounge
|-+  Cal-look/High Performance
| |-+  Pure racing
| | |-+  Small powerhouses and old school
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29 Print
Author Topic: Small powerhouses and old school  (Read 381994 times)
BeetleBug
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2835


Snabba grabben...


« on: November 27, 2007, 11:12:11 am »

Inspired by the old school cal look engine thread and after seeing the Kris Klingaman thread I felt like starting a own mouse engine discussion. OK, I asked in the other thread if it is possible to reach the 100hp/l limit without having to spend a fortune and I have received info that this is impossible to reach - especially if you want a true street engine.

IS IT?

It`s quite obvious that Kris Klingaman`s engine was a pure race engine with a compression of 14.5:1 but what else did he do so correct to manage to push a close to stock weight car into the 11`s with a 1750ccm engine? This is just as fast and even faster than most 2,3`s out there today.

WHY WAS A GUY FASTER BACK THEN USING A MOUSE ENGINE THAN MOST GUYS ARE TODAY?

With the WWW, info available everywhere and plenty of shops offering high power stuff we should be going faster, agree? Or has all the info/parts available made us loose the ability to "think out of the box". Or is not "thinking out of the box" the answer? Maybe we`re heading in the wrong direction and is building engines that is not as close to their full potential compared to what they built "back then?"

And what makes a engine old school? Bolting on period correct parts? For me a truly old school engine is a engine that has been built the way they did it back then. When know how was important, the parts where hard to come by and creativity was necessary to be a little bit faster than your competitor.

Best rgs
BB

 

« Last Edit: November 27, 2007, 12:00:54 pm by BeetleBug » Logged

10.41 - 100ci - 1641ccm - 400hp
LGK
Full Member
***
Posts: 142



WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2007, 12:44:31 pm »

WHY WAS A GUY FASTER BACK THEN USING A MOUSE ENGINE THAN MOST GUYS ARE TODAY?[/

What tells you this statement is true and proven?

Watch out for 2008...even before we had 1776cc engines reving to the moon and making at least  180hp AND being reliable ...

I'm sure there will be some other guys chime in on this...

"thinking out of the box" the answer  is INDEED the key to succes  Roll Eyes


Regards Steve
« Last Edit: November 27, 2007, 12:48:57 pm by LGK » Logged

Fastbrit
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4659


Keep smiling...


« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2007, 12:52:04 pm »

WHY WAS A GUY FASTER BACK THEN USING A MOUSE ENGINE THAN MOST GUYS ARE TODAY?
Two words: grenade motors! Talking with many of the 'old guys' (like I'm young... Roll Eyes), we tend to forget that many of the fast mouse-motored cars had engines which lived on (and frequently exceeded) the limit. Catastrophic engine failures were not uncommon.

Don't underestimate the fact that there are far more 11-second true street cars around today than ever before because engine technology has moved on and parts are so readily available. Yes, we could go even faster by building engines that are on the edge all the time, but who wants to be sweeping up parts and rebuilding broken motors every weekend?

One big reason the old motors did produce a lot of horsepower for their size was down to superior head work. When you didn't have a range if aftermarket heads to choose from, there was no option but to extract the maximum from factory 311 castings. Head porters like Fumio Fukaya and Dean Lowry were capable of such work and today there are others, but few people choose to go down that route any more. Why? It's too easy (and far cheaper) to buy some off the shelf heads from someone like CB that will make good hp. I bet if you paid someone like Fumio (or Jeff Denham) the FULL rate (and don't underestimate the number of hours it takes to do a good job) for doing a set of dynamite 311 heads, you'd be amazed at how much you'd get out of a small motor.
Logged

Der Kleiner Panzers VW Club    
So it took some guy 17 years to run 0.31secs quicker and he boasts about it? A case of All Talk and...
BeetleBug
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2835


Snabba grabben...


« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2007, 13:25:33 pm »

Hi Steve,

What tells you this statement is true and proven?

It was meant as a question but that said I have still not heard or read about a small engine going into the 11`s like Klingaman. Looking at certain lists and our All Time Top Racers list I notice that the smallest engine is Ole Endlers 2110ccm with a 11.5 ET.

It`s indeed interesting to read about the 1776ccm making at least 180hp. This is exactly what I want to discuss in this thread - what has been done SO correct with this engine to make it both powerful and reliable? Questions to you, is it a street engine with cooling and running on pump gas?

Best rgs
BB


 

« Last Edit: November 27, 2007, 13:53:03 pm by BeetleBug » Logged

10.41 - 100ci - 1641ccm - 400hp
Jon
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3205


12,3@174km/t at Gardermoen 2008


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2007, 13:45:12 pm »

[grenade motors! Catastrophic engine failures were not uncommon.

I'm quite sure we can buy parts today that would have blown the Old Guys brains out when it comes to what RPMs they can withstand, Today we can have lighter pistons with lesser drag, stronger and lighter con-rods and so on and the valve train can be lightened like never before. The only thing I can see being the problem with such a engine today is the KNOWHOW, it's hard to come by.. and its the most important ingredients.  Wink 

Don't underestimate the fact that there are far more 11-second true street cars around today than ever before because engine technology has moved on and parts are so readily available.

This is absolutely true... (I guess, I wasn't around Smiley) But the litre effect is way down, not to many engines putting out significantly more than 100 horse pr liter. If Klingaman stretched his mouse to 8000 (I don't know), he is in the same rpm segment as many other street/strip racers...

It's too easy (and far cheaper) to buy some off the shelf heads from someone like CB that will make good hp. I bet if you paid someone like Fumio (or Jeff Denham) the FULL rate (and don't underestimate the number of hours it takes to do a good job) for doing a set of dynamite 311 heads, you'd be amazed at how much you'd get out of a small motor.

If no one supports these guys, we are actually going back in performance step by step as the know-how is lost.
Cal-look/vw tuning has become a spectator sport it seems, thinking inside the box is the norm, and when you think about it, the California look would not have existed if those early boys just copied what guys had done years before. I bet they also heard their fathers saying "don't waste your money boy!"

"The adventure is outside the box!"  Wink
Thats why I like Monkey Boys intiative with his mouse motor quest

 

Logged

Grumpy old men have signatures like this.
richie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5377



« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2007, 15:46:08 pm »

The internet killed it,its too easy to just copy someone elses recipe now to get a reliable engine that will run 12s and with a bit of work 11s.The fact that it was all trial and error back then,you only read about the succesfull cars & combos,I am sure that to every 11second mouse motor there were a 100 broken ones Shocked

There are a few hardy people that I know running 12s with less than 1800cc and driving them to the track and back,always on regular pump gas,no fiberglass panels,real steel cars,so it can be done.But i am sure they will keep the specs to themselves as its takes time & effort to achieve this.


cheers richie,uk

"If your not breaking parts your not trying hard enough"
Logged

Good parts might be expensive but good advice is priceless Wink
stealth67vw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2255



« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2007, 16:12:42 pm »

Another thing that helps is the gear box. Kris Klingaman and Mike Smith both used 4.86 ring and pinions and something like 1.70 3rd and 1.31 4th.
Logged

John Bates
JB Machining Services
The Ideaman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 622



« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2007, 17:44:08 pm »

This is absolutely true... (I guess, I wasn't around Smiley) But the litre effect is way down, not to many engines putting out significantly more than 100 horse pr liter. If Klingaman stretched his mouse to 8000 (I don't know), he is in the same rpm segment as many other street/strip racers...
More like 9500 rpm.  4.86x1.31x26" tire at 9500rpm is about 115mph.  These weren't street cars, but highly strung race motors in full weight cars.  I remember A/MC and B/MC cars at englishtown as a kid.

I know it isn't a VW, but does anybody remember this car competing?
Logged

It is the soldier,
Who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped in the flag,
Who allows the protestor to burn the flag.
Jim Ratto
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7113



« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2007, 18:05:27 pm »

The internet killed it,its too easy to just copy someone elses recipe now to get a reliable engine that will run 12s and with a bit of work 11s.The fact that it was all trial and error back then,you only read about the succesfull cars & combos,I am sure that to every 11second mouse motor there were a 100 broken ones Shocked

There are a few hardy people that I know running 12s with less than 1800cc and driving them to the track and back,always on regular pump gas,no fiberglass panels,real steel cars,so it can be done.But i am sure they will keep the specs to themselves as its takes time & effort to achieve this.


cheers richie,uk

"If your not breaking parts your not trying hard enough"


I agree richie....thank you for posting this. Every "hot rod" VW featured in the mags seems to have the "internet motor" recipe...94 x 82 or 94 x 84, FK8, CB CNC heads, 48IDAs, MSD everything...etc.

I remember how "amazed" some naysayers were about a few of the smaller motors I helped out with. SODA's pump gas, stock-valved 1679, 14.70 on radials, full stock weight car, stock gears raised some eyebrows. Motor ran 40IDFs with 32mm vents. Roger's guys @ Heads Up did the stock valve heads, very conservative porting, SS valves, Bryan ran tall CB manifolds. Cam was like Engle 120 with 1.25's. If we would have gone something like 125, and 48IDAs and half a point more compression, I think it would have gone 13's. I helped screw together a 1776 built with mostly used extras that were collecting spiders and dust, old FI case, Engle 125, 1.25 rockers, Fred Simpson 40 x 35 heads, 48IDAs, old 1-3/4 header. Went 13.01 off trailer in lightened '66 with slicks. Same car with 1914, FK10, 42 x 37 welded 10.5:1 went 12.81.

As far as motors today, if guys wanted to build 149 cu in motors (2.3+L) on the ragged edge for the street, built to the same tune level as KK's motor...personally I think you'd need much larger valves to squeeze 100hp+/liter, meaning moving valves in VW heads or going route of aftermarket castings and having them modified accordingly. Big 560cc+ cylinders are going to want a lot more mixture than 440cc cylinders to run 8000rpm and make 100/liter. Or go the way some guys have and put a turbo on. No offense to anybody, but to me some guys bolt turbos on instead of finding a way to get air into motor on its own. Please don't kick me off the Lounge!!! Grin

I think KS is right too. Without going to an experienced expert and settling for some mass produced heads for monkiboys idea of a 88 x 69, you'd most likely fall way short of making the power, especially across the powerband. SODA's motor was completely driveable, even though it would go 7 thou. Sure, it was cammy, and needed to be spun to 4K to get the most out of it, but it was crisp off idle, no flat spots or garbling or coughing. I think most of that had to do with heads and not being overcammed.

I think a "ragged edge" car/motor would be fun, but its limited use ability would turn me off. I'm still of the "sports car motor" ilk. Get in it after a few hours of detailing, turn key, go scare yourself for hours.
Logged

DER KLEINER PANZERS

Who was fitted with collar and chain?
Udo
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2050



« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2007, 20:01:44 pm »

What i know is that Klingaman had nitrous on the 1776 engine ! I remember the hot VW's articel , i think so . It was the time when Mike Smith did 11 passes with his red 67 street car and 1776 nitrous engine .

Udo
« Last Edit: November 27, 2007, 20:06:52 pm by Udo » Logged

SOB/RFH
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 329


Have fun!!


« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2007, 20:41:10 pm »

Mike Smith used N2O while street racing back in the pre sanctioned body days...I remeber someone  (I think Dyno Don) telling about the first time he got down to Nabisco and did beat the heavy hitter V8:s with that stock looking VW.........That was the white car.....and then there was the red car and that was more of a street car (I presume)...........Anyway how can it be that Kris Klingamans car weighted 1770 lbs in race trim and 2020 in street trim....more gasoline?.....It took me years to beat the 12.40 of Chris with my car and it was driven to and back from the track.......true 2020 lbs weight and GUESS WHAT!!! I SHIFTED AT 6500 RPM!!!!! AND WENT THRUE LIGHT UNDER 6K!!! That is what I think is the diffrence between today and yesterday.....The low rpm:s power is made at and the longivty that comes from that!!!!
Logged
BeetleBug
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2835


Snabba grabben...


« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2007, 20:53:35 pm »

After looking closer at Klingamans 1751ccm engine it`s clear he did not use nitrous. Having punched the numbers in three different ET/HP calculators they all came up with between 186 and 188hp - cool number from a such a small engine. But with a mandatory tear down after 10 passes it was pretty hard core. So that`s the limit using some heavily ported heads from some of the big names in the industry - a little bit over 100hp/litre?

Why? is the old fashion design of our engine the main reason why it`s not possible to get more or is it the way we build them?

BB

Logged

10.41 - 100ci - 1641ccm - 400hp
louisb
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3277


Runs with Scissors


« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2007, 20:59:25 pm »

After looking closer at Klingamans 1751ccm engine it`s clear he did not use nitrous. Having punched the numbers in three different ET/HP calculators they all came up with between 186 and 188hp - cool number from a such a small engine. But with a mandatory tear down after 10 passes it was pretty hard core. So that`s the limit using some heavily ported heads from some of the big names in the industry - a little bit over 100hp/litre?

Why? is the old fashion design of our engine the main reason why it`s not possible to get more or is it the way we build them?

BB



I would say it is due to the lack of and unwillings to adopt, newer technologies such as roller cams, aftermarket heads and blocks, cams, light valve trains, FI. and yes even turbos. There is also the limitation of the trans to deal with.

--louis
Logged

Louis Brooks

The Beatings Will Continue Until Moral Improves!
Bewitched666
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 863


Bewitched


« Reply #13 on: November 27, 2007, 21:27:33 pm »

Boy i like this thread,reminds me of my first 1679cc engine.
My stock heads came from Dave Kawell witt ss valves and dual springs.
With a w130 cam and IDA's the engine made some 100 hp.

When i switched to kawells 40x35.5 heads fully ported and polished
en raised compression (12:1) i ran in the 13's with a 4.86 gearbox with superdiff Grin
Logged

Fast vw beetle's rule
BeetleBug
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2835


Snabba grabben...


« Reply #14 on: November 27, 2007, 21:38:21 pm »

I would say it is due to the lack of and unwillings to adopt newer technologies

Now that is a statement I find very interesting! So you think there is potential for more power by trying out new technology and know how? How much more do you think is possible?

Best rgs
BB

Logged

10.41 - 100ci - 1641ccm - 400hp
Jim Ratto
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7113



« Reply #15 on: November 28, 2007, 00:15:46 am »

I still say guys are not willing to build ticking time bombs.

I don't think guys (on this forum at least  Grin) are interested in going to 52 x 40mm valves and 62mm carbs and so on...to make the big guns spin 9000+

it would be cool to build a sub 1800cc flashbulb motor...somebody do it!

Logged

DER KLEINER PANZERS

Who was fitted with collar and chain?
Jon
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3205


12,3@174km/t at Gardermoen 2008


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 28, 2007, 00:34:39 am »

This
I would say it is due to the lack of and unwillings to adopt, newer technologies such as roller cams, aftermarket heads and blocks, cams, light valve trains, FI. and yes even turbos. There is also the limitation of the trans to deal with.
--louis

You are ofcourse so right you can be.

If you hand over a VW type1 engine to for example a Kawasaki engine designer what could he do with just two valves? With their fancy equipment and sophisticated math, well over 100 horses pr lliter could be expected, but at a lower rpm than you would think... And how about a Nascar engine designer?

But I donít know anyone like that, but I DO know a road racing tuner that made the front page of a international Road racing Magazine. He took a fully factory race tuned Kawa and got it do deliver more torque and hp than the factory did, still within the class rules...! He is a welder during the daytime and works on these bikes in the evenings... his only weapon is a old Norwegian textbook from the fifties and a casio calculator...  the book is called "CarTuning"

I think if these textbooks were more common place in the days before the "internet" deigns... Could this be a way to go back in time? Or is this what everybody does and Iím just in the dark??  Grin
Logged

Grumpy old men have signatures like this.
Jim Ratto
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7113



« Reply #17 on: November 28, 2007, 00:39:19 am »

maybe I am PUI-ing but we need heads with swappable intake port inserts, like carb venturies.  Grin
Logged

DER KLEINER PANZERS

Who was fitted with collar and chain?
Zach Gomulka
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7003


Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.


« Reply #18 on: November 28, 2007, 02:15:44 am »

I think 100hp per liter with this old architecture is asking a lot- especially if you want to drive it often! What I think makes a good powerful street engine is one that makes 1hp and 1 ft/lb of torque per cubic inch of displacement. Like a 1679 that makes 102hp and 102ft/lbs of torque. If you want a little more, try getting that 102hp/102tq to the rollers. Sounds like fun to me Roll Eyes
Logged

Born in the '80s, stuck in the '70s.
Udo
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2050



« Reply #19 on: November 28, 2007, 06:45:59 am »

WHY WAS A GUY FASTER BACK THEN USING A MOUSE ENGINE THAN MOST GUYS ARE TODAY?

One big reason the old motors did produce a lot of horsepower for their size was down to superior head work. When you didn't have a range if aftermarket heads to choose from, there was no option but to extract the maximum from factory 311 castings.

Hi Keith

This is why i still gather 311 heads .  Smiley

Udo
« Last Edit: November 28, 2007, 07:01:11 am by Udo » Logged

BeetleBug
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2835


Snabba grabben...


« Reply #20 on: November 28, 2007, 09:20:21 am »

I still say guys are not willing to build ticking time bombs. I don't think guys (on this forum at least  Grin) are interested in going to 52 x 40mm valves and 62mm carbs and so on...to make the big guns spin 9000+

it would be cool to build a sub 1800cc flashbulb motor...somebody do it!

If I understand your reply correctly you`re saying that we would probably need to rev the engine to the extreme, use big valves and high dollar parts to be able to reach the "next" level? And the engine would still be a ticking bomb due to "stretching the limits"?

JHU and Louisb is in a way turning this thread in the direction I was hoping for; what will happen if we are willing to adapt to newer technologies and use the theories available today? Will we still end up with the same results we see today? If the answer to that question is YES then we know we`re doing something right and has been doing so for many years. But if the answer is NO and we reach the "next level"......well, then we have learnt something new.

Yes - it would be cool to build a small engine with the above in mind and see the result.

Best rgs
BB
« Last Edit: November 28, 2007, 09:35:16 am by BeetleBug » Logged

10.41 - 100ci - 1641ccm - 400hp
folkevogn
Full Member
***
Posts: 154



« Reply #21 on: November 28, 2007, 10:25:55 am »

Whats your defenition of "the next level"??

In my opinion going for bigger carbs,valves,displacment...etc is NOT the next level, its just pushing the limits of whats possible to put on a type 1 engine. I think this is one of the main reason why we aren`t reaching the next level. Most people just go bigger and hope for the best, bigger isn`t always better as we all know.

To me "the next level" is FINESSE! F.ex take a 2007ccm that produces 183 hp at 7500rpm, if you can make the same engine produce 239 hp at 7500rpm then your taking it to the next level in my opinion. And I dont mean that you should slap on a turbo or EFI, because to me thats not TRUE cal-look.(but that another discussion  Wink)
Logged

11.96 @ 180kmh - SCC 2013 Grin
Jon
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3205


12,3@174km/t at Gardermoen 2008


WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 28, 2007, 12:14:51 pm »

The bigger better route is the racers route I feel, they donít mind having huge valves, changing springs after one event and so on. That path left on that route is rather short when it comes to the type1 platform, due to the dimensions of the poor thing.

But surely thatís NOT what we are talking about, is it??
I thought we were talking about getting the most out of a mouse engine, sure you could use the same approach to a bigger lump and get more, but that is for the racers.
The reason I was curious about Klingaman was because he must have had super nice heads, and he got high Volumetric Efficiency out of that engine. Sure he used a race cam and high revs, but I think that engine with a lesser cam would STILL be a efficient thing. ?
Logged

Grumpy old men have signatures like this.
BeetleBug
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2835


Snabba grabben...


« Reply #23 on: November 28, 2007, 13:09:15 pm »

Thank you for keeping the focus JHU.

Are you saying that you believe it is possible to build a effiecent little thing without adding race thinking in the mix? And by efficient I mean 100hp/litre.

Logged

10.41 - 100ci - 1641ccm - 400hp
The Ideaman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 622



« Reply #24 on: November 28, 2007, 15:46:30 pm »

Taylor Walton is building a motor for NHRA ss/fs.  It will be a rollercammed 94x60 motor with Heads Up! heads and a dry sump oiling system.  He's hoping for mid 11's and the record.  They have many hours of flowbench work done.  I sold him the 67 shell he's using to base the project on.
Logged

It is the soldier,
Who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped in the flag,
Who allows the protestor to burn the flag.
Jim Ratto
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7113



« Reply #25 on: November 28, 2007, 18:00:21 pm »

I still say guys are not willing to build ticking time bombs. I don't think guys (on this forum at least  Grin) are interested in going to 52 x 40mm valves and 62mm carbs and so on...to make the big guns spin 9000+

it would be cool to build a sub 1800cc flashbulb motor...somebody do it!

If I understand your reply correctly you`re saying that we would probably need to rev the engine to the extreme, use big valves and high dollar parts to be able to reach the "next" level? And the engine would still be a ticking bomb due to "stretching the limits"?

JHU and Louisb is in a way turning this thread in the direction I was hoping for; what will happen if we are willing to adapt to newer technologies and use the theories available today? Will we still end up with the same results we see today? If the answer to that question is YES then we know we`re doing something right and has been doing so for many years. But if the answer is NO and we reach the "next level"......well, then we have learnt something new.

Yes - it would be cool to build a small engine with the above in mind and see the result.

Best rgs
BB

Hi BB!
Yeah, I got off topic, sorry. I kind of misunderstood what guys were getting at. Seems everything today is BIG CC, no matter if it is race or hot street. Which is ok. Not knocking that.
I would be VERY impressed to see a smaller displacement street engine (i.e. 1679, 1776, 1835...) tuned to the level that would get it into the 12 sec slot.....but still be "streetable" (no need to get into a "discussion about what streetable" is....my god, has THAT been over-argued!!!!), however a guy would go about it...it would take brains and patience. I think it comes down to reducing weight of reciprocating parts, reducing drag and windage, and making heads (and matching cam to) that have airspeed and flow characteristics to match bore x stroke and rpm needed (remember hp is a product of rpm). As you all know, you need extreme valve timing to get rpms into stratosphere, along with light stuff, and high CR to get most of cam timing. I keep threatening to build something like this, I have my old 94mm German case, and some other junk laying around..... Roll Eyes

I know a 1914 isn't a mouse motor, it is more like a squirrel.. but how about a 1914 with 14:1, FK87, 1.5 rockers, 44 x 37 Super Flows and rest of the usual crap. 6lb Crown flywheel, aftermarket 5.352 rods, lightweight wrist pins, manicured skirts on 'A' pistons, relieved case webs....bla bla bla... I'd have to PUI to think of more stuff.  Grin

Key point is: matching head flow and airspeed and cam profile to get to the rpms you need, without making a slug. And keeping stuff as light and as free spinning as possible.

Bye for now

Logged

DER KLEINER PANZERS

Who was fitted with collar and chain?
Jim Ratto
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7113



« Reply #26 on: November 28, 2007, 22:01:16 pm »

here's a question for the opinionated and technically minded....

if you HAD to choose one scenario (I know they're neither ideal), which would it be?

"over"-ported heads (ports too large and lazy for cc and use of motor), but with conservative cam timing (like FK8?)

"conservatively" ported heads (maybe cross section is too small for top rpm for cc), but with much hotter cam...like FK87 (275-280' @ .050")?

Which one would you choose?
Logged

DER KLEINER PANZERS

Who was fitted with collar and chain?
louisb
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3277


Runs with Scissors


« Reply #27 on: November 28, 2007, 22:23:52 pm »


"conservatively" ported heads (maybe cross section is too small for top rpm for cc), but with much hotter cam...like FK87 (275-280' @ .050")?

You could always tune the engine to be liveable at some rpm through cam advance, timing, induction and exhaust. Not much you can do about port velocity on heads that are too big.


JHU and Louisb is in a way turning this thread in the direction


I have obviously failed somehow.  Wink

Just my thoughs,

--louis
Logged

Louis Brooks

The Beatings Will Continue Until Moral Improves!
Lee.C
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6460


I might be an Idiot but I'm not an Arsehole!


« Reply #28 on: November 30, 2007, 01:23:12 am »

"The adventure is outside the box!"  Wink
Thats why I like Monkey Boys intiative with his mouse motor quest

Thanks for the props JHU  Wink Smiley

I am not too sure about 100bhp per litre cos thats 167.9bhp for my planned mouse motor  Shocked BUT I do think we need to start
 "thinking outside the box" a perfect example was Richies idea about narrowing the Cam/crank gear - Now thats what I'm talking about  Wink Smiley

Too many people these days listen to those people who say "what you wanna do is........."   or "what you need is......" and copy other  peoples combo's  but never REALLY know how the whole engine is working together - this is just my 2 cents guys  Wink Smiley

Its all about going back to the true basics of "Blueprinting"  Smiley 
Logged

You either "Get It" or you don't......
BeetleBug
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2835


Snabba grabben...


« Reply #29 on: November 30, 2007, 09:33:45 am »

here's a question for the opinionated and technically minded....

if you HAD to choose one scenario (I know they're neither ideal), which would it be?

"over"-ported heads (ports too large and lazy for cc and use of motor), but with conservative cam timing (like FK8?)

"conservatively" ported heads (maybe cross section is too small for top rpm for cc), but with much hotter cam...like FK87 (275-280' @ .050")?

Which one would you choose?


Mr Ratto,
Why choose between pest and cholera? And how do you know your heads are "over" ported.

Best rgs
BB
Logged

10.41 - 100ci - 1641ccm - 400hp
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!