2180 engine combo UPDATE

[fish]

Hi all, just been toying with the idea of building an engine with the below now going into a Manxter

CB super race case 3.5mm deck
CB 82mm crank 8 dowel
AA lightweight flywheel
AA 92mm thick walls
DRD hand oval ports 58cc 42x37
1.25 rockers
FK43 to be TCS20
CB Ultralight lifters
CroMo studs and push rods
CB Throttle bodies
Microtech ECU
Twin IHI VF14 turbochargers with custom intake and exhaust

[modnrod]

Hi all, just been toying with the idea of building an engine with the below combination for use in a rally beetle weighing roughly 1000 kg.

CB case
CB 82mm crank 8 dowel
Stock weight flywheel
AA 92mm thick walls
DRD hand oval ports 58cc 42x37
1:1.4 rockers usual mods
GB 315 or Pauter V9E0 cam heli gears
CroMo studs and push rods
44 IDF or 45 DRLA

1000kg?!?!?!?! I know cages/bracing/chassis beams aren't light, but I'd try to knock at least 100kg off this to start. That will automatically give you an extra 20-25HP before you've picked up a spanner.

I'd run a lighter flywheel, not too much, around 6kg, but that depends on how you drive the car. If you clutch it in and out to help balance the back coming into corners then the faster response will help a lot, but also just on/off a lot will be easier, a heavier flywheel will turn the tyres an extra once or twice before letting the drive go.

Be nice to see this thing scaring all the little hatchbacks! 

[fish]

Building it for a friend that runs in the charity rallies so mixed Tarmac and dirt and fully loaded for the long trips they make across the big red island of ours.
I've never used GB315 anyone got some info or a cam card, I'm starting to think the V9E0 would be my preferred option

[modnrod]

Sorry mate, I thought you meant something like a comp clubman car.

I rekn if that thing spins up to 6000 they'll put the fear of god into everyone within miles, especially out bush. 

The heavy flywheel would make it a bit smoother, and for that sort of rev range, what about a Web 163? Dunno bout the Berg grinds, never had one.

[Bruce]

You need the lightest flywheel you can find.

[ALB]

Building it for a friend that runs in the charity rallies so mixed Tarmac and dirt and fully loaded for the long trips they make across the big red island of ours.
I've never used GB315 anyone got some info or a cam card, I'm starting to think the V9E0 would be my preferred option

If everything is right the GB315 (FK87) should rev to 7500+, with the powerband starting at 4000-4500rpm. Is this where you want the powerband to be?

[richie]

I would look at a FK8 or similar,if that berg cam is like a fk87 it would make it much harder work to keep on the power band and wear the valve train out alot quicker,the heads and carbs dont justify that cam either I think

cheers Richie

[Torben Alstrup]

I would look at a FK8 or similar,if that berg cam is like a fk87 it would make it much harder work to keep on the power band and wear the valve train out alot quicker,the heads and carbs dont justify that cam either I think

cheers Richie

X2

Plus I would take the Tims stage 2 instead. Those have a basis for very good torque across the board.

WRT cam. Pauter makes really good cams for power. But since this is more of an endurance type of engine, I for one, would look at some of the newer and more modern grinds that makes just as good power, but dont heat up the heads so bad and needs less spring pressure. Raptor cam is the first that comes to mind. I forgot the cam number, but i have it on the shelf, so I can double check, but Johannes has a split cam that is designed for a fast street car with better than average torque. It is awesome. I would suspect that is what he would recommend.

T

[fish]

Thanks for your input guys just wasn't sure cause I haven't used it before and got told its milder than FK87

I have the option of using GB311/FK10, anyone have a cam card for GB315 I would love to know valve timing for future reference.

here are some pics of the heads.

[matberry]

x2 on less cam, even a GB310 is an awesome cam, very smooth and good power.

The JPM cam mentioned above is what I'm putting in my 2007cc IDA type 1. My mate Col has a GB310 in his 2332

We'll both hopefully have our cars in Sydney in a fortnight and you can come for a drive if your there Fish

[Dougy Dee]

My info on GB315 show IO 30 and IC 66.
These are calculated numbers based on an .050 duration of 276.

All I have on the Pauter V9E0 is .367 cam lift with 315 advertised.
The Berg shows .390 lift and 320 advertised.
Either one will scare the shite out of the unaware and would really like a close ratio gearbox...

[fish]

I just did the calculations on using either GB311 or V9E0, coming up with good static comp but not enough dynamic for my liking.

FK7 sounds promising max FK8/GB310. Ideally I need IC of 55 and under.

Matt, I will be at WSID, was supposed to have a tits out 1300 twin port ready but a couple of engine builds for mates have set me back, would love to have drive in your car.

Cheers

[matberry]

Cool mate, make yourself known.

[hotrodsurplus]

Out of curiosity, why do the heads still have the step in them?

I vote for a slightly lighter flywheel. Remember, the counterweights increase the mass.

I also vote for less duration. Those aren't big heads/carburetors and that car weighs a ton (literally). In fact I say you should call Laurie Dunlap at Web Cam and have her grind a cam specifically for your combination. There's no reason to run 40-year-old generic profiles anymore unless you're going for convenience, don't know, or just don't care.

[fish]

Have made the decision of going with FK43.
Apparently the FK10 has some harmonics issues so I'm willing to experiment with the newer design FK43 with comp of around 9.2:1. Lifters are CB Ultralight 28mm 2 piece.
Got all the necessary parts balanced and almost ready to start assembly although the CB crank does not like the AA lightened flywheel so a bit of machining persuasion will be required.

[fish]

Did a dry mock up last night and had to clearance a lot off the CB case as there was cam thrust and cheek to case issues.
Using the below combination netted a healthy 0.005" deck which combined with the 0.020" step in the head totalled 0.025"
3.5mm hi deck case
82 stroke
5.5 rods
92 B pistons

Today we had a change of plan, now going ............blown, twin turbos are on their way and its going in a Manxter.
Cam will be TCS 20, 1.25 rockers, deck will be adjusted to suit boost but I wouldn't mind staying with 8:1 static and run 8psi to begin with.

[hotrodsurplus]

Today we had a change of plan, now going ............blown, twin turbos are on their way and its going in a Manxter.
Cam will be TCS 20, 1.25 rockers, deck will be adjusted to suit boost but I wouldn't mind staying with 8:1 static and run 8psi to begin with.

And now for something completely different. Wow.

In my experience, moving the slug down the hole to reduce CR sufficiently for boost applications will make the engine far more detonation sensitive.
I'd feel more comfortable with a bit more deck--about .035" to .040"--but not enough to really drop the CR for boost.

You didn't mention it but I wouldn't be so inclined to carve out the chambers either. Big bathtub chambers burn slowly and tend to be more detonation sensitive as well.

Before I ran a fat deck or sloppy chambers I'd invest in custom dished pistons. Then you get your tight deck and chamber for turbulence, fast burn, and detonation resistance AND low static CR to run gobs of boost safely.

You won't need a ton of off-boost response with such a large engine in such a light car. I would be inclined to drop the static even lower and compensate with more boost. That gives you even more displacement when you're on boost. Then it might be sorta fast. 

[fish]

Yeah its funny how plans change overnight, literarily.
You are right, there won't be any chamber changes but maybe an introduction of copper head gasket with piano wire mod on the cylinders keeping boost under control.
I would like to build an efficient engine with modest compression and boost, being twin VF14 turbos they should spool up fairly early in the rpm range and make full boost @ 4500rpm.

[andy198712]

piano wire mod?

or have a small turbo feeding a large turbo...? 

[richie]

piano wire mod?

I know it as a Wills ring

a groove is cut into the top of the cylinder and the head,the wire is inserted into the head,then creates a really good seal when the gasket is crushed between the head and cylinder

cheers Richie

[hotrodsurplus]

You are right, there won't be any chamber changes but maybe an introduction of copper head gasket with piano wire mod on the cylinders keeping boost under control.
I would like to build an efficient engine with modest compression and boost, being twin VF14 turbos they should spool up fairly early in the rpm range and make full boost @ 4500rpm.

Okay, in the interests of full disclosure I'm not a turbo guru. However, I do know people who are and based on my conversations with them a copper head gasket is not necessary on a moderately boosted engine. Maybe when you get up to the 20-plus PSI range the gaskets can help but based on your modest boost/compression objective I think copper head gaskets would be money and effort wasted. Again, I'm no expert...

I still maintain that .025" is a bit too tight. How about shimming the cylinders .020" instead to get .045"? That would still preserve your quench band.  

I just ran the numbers in my calculator and I'm wondering how you're going to get the static CR lower with your current combo. You say your chambers are 58ccs, and that includes a .020" step. You have .005" deck already so let's say you add .020" cylinder shims. That would give you .025" between the piston crown and the cylinder top. That's 4.2ccs.

On a 2180 a 4.2cc deck volume and a 58cc chamber volume comes out to 9.76:1 static CR. I know your cam is going to bring your effective CR down a bit but it won't come down near enough to throw any boost at that combination if you intend to run pump gas.

Even if you did intend to run high-octane fuel that combination would not take much advantage of a blower. Remember, boost is displacement. A blower works by increasing the engine's displacement by cramming air into it. A blown engine with high effective CR will have great off-boost response but it will not tolerate very much extra displacement (boost). Conversely, a blown engine with very low effective CR (like 6:1) will have terrible off-boost response but it will tolerate a TON of extra displacement. The key is to find the sweet spot of high enough effective CR to maintain tolerable off-boost response and low enough effective CR to accommodate the additional displacement and on-boost compression.

Based on my admittedly limited exposure to blown engines I hazard to guess that you'll have to reduce the engine's static CR. I do know a bit about altering static CR. We have four basic ways to reduce it:  
1.   increase the chamber width and height (at the cost of a larger chamber surface area and combustion duration, both of which transfer more heat to the piston crown and chamber)
2.   increase the chamber depth (at the cost of shrouding the valves and hindering flow)
2.   increase the deck height (at the cost of fuel efficiency and detonation resistance, the latter a death sentence for a supercharged engine)
3.   relocate some of the chamber volume to the piston crown (at the cost of money)  

Well, we can also alter the engine's effective CR by delaying the intake valve's closing event but that increases duration and moves the power band to a faster range. Or we can inhibit the cylinders from filling fully, i.e. don't open the throttle fully. But what fun would that be?

[fish]

Hotrodsurplus, you are correct on all accounts, I should have been clearer in explaining the up to date events, I based the below statement purely on the Dry mock up when the engine was N/A configured and as reference for those thinking of using the same bunch of parts that I have, giving people an idea where the deck would come in at.

"Did a dry mock up last night and had to clearance a lot off the CB case as there was cam thrust and cheek to case issues.
Using the below combination netted a healthy 0.005" deck which combined with the 0.020" step in the head totalled 0.025"
3.5mm hi deck case
82 stroke
5.5 rods
92 B pistons"

N/A I would have left the deck total @ 0.025 and compression @ 9.767 static, 7.463 dynamic as its calculated using the FK43 even with 1.4 rockers as I have plenty of clearance between valve @ full lift and top of piston.

However, now that its turbo my plans are as follows:

Compression 8:1 static, I'm yet to calculate dynamic as I don't have the cam cards for TCS-10, TCS-20, CB 2234..........can anyone help with this?

Boost 8psi Twin parallel turbos, the wire groove can be fabricated once Scott is used to the boost and wants to up the ante which I now will start getting out of control.

Being a fully programable EFI system and blow through, I am confident in making this engine work super efficiently on and off boost.

[hotrodsurplus]

Compression 8:1 static

I assumed that you were going to reduce the static CR. My question was/is...how?

As for the copper head gasket and wire ring...why? That seems quite unnecessary.

I'm yet to calculate dynamic as I don't have the cam cards for TCS-10, TCS-20, CB 2234..........can anyone help with this?

I might be able to. The TCS-series cams have the same intake lobes as the corresponding W-series cams, so the TCS-10 is the same intake as a W-110 and the TCS-20 is the same as the W-120. The exhaust lobes and LSA angles differ on the TCS cams, though. The W-series cams have 108 LSA but the TCS have 112 LSA. I highly doubt that Engle would advance or retard the lobes independently so you can likely derive the intake-valve closing event of the TCS cams by adding 2 degrees to the W-110 cams' intake-valve closing events.

The W-110 intake-closing event is 51.5 degrees ABDC (so likely 53.5 degrees on the TCS-10)
The W-120 intake-closing event is 51 degrees ABDC (so likely 53 degrees on the TCS-10)
Don't have specs on the CB 2234 but it has the same specs as the FAT FC400 (274adv/234@.050) but with a 108LSA (the FAT has a 107). So if anyone knows the FAT specs you can at least derive the CB specs from it.

I'm not saying this is accurate but at least you can fiddle with those numbers until Monday when you can actually call them. 

Being a fully programable EFI system and blow through, I am confident in making this engine work super efficiently on and off boost.

Well the EFI will let you better control the air/fuel ratio and spark timing but that does not translate to efficiency. Efficiency indicates how completely the air-fuel mixture burns. Super-huge chambers are usually not efficient because it's near impossible to propagate a flame across a large area in sufficient time to burn the complete mixture. And a super-loose deck will not purge the latent fuel from the boundary layers in the quench area. That latent fuel will leave the chamber unburned.

[fish]

Thanks for the timing events, now I can calculate the dynamic compression which will be a factor in the engine's efficiency both on and off boost which is why I'm not enlarging the chambers.

I hope to achieve a nice balance of efficiency, clean burn and heat dissipation by using a combination of cylinder shims and the existing step in the head, I will not be dishing the piston tops as it may not be affordable.

The EFI does help efficiency because of the AFR and timing control combined with hi velocity intake charge, small chamber, small cam, small turbos. I know it wont be a HP monster but if I build it around an efficient/effective N/A formula, theres no reason why this engine won't make 200+ HP.

As the 92 thick walls are the thickest out of the box cylinder, we will not be needing the wire groove with 8psi, but knowing the owner I can guarantee we will need it for the near future, its just a matter of turning up the boost.

Using TCS-20 and total 0.100" (0.080" deck + 0.020" step without copper and wire mod) needing 0.075" shim.
8.3:1 static
6.5:1 dynamic

A bit too much deck for my liking but very happy with the compression.

[hotrodsurplus]

...which will be a factor in the engine's efficiency both on and off boost which is why I'm not enlarging the chambers.

Well the super-fat deck you intend to run will impair efficiency maybe even worse than a super-large chamber; however, to be fair I haven't taken the increased turbulence and combustion pressure into consideration. Jamming air into the cylinders at high velocity generates a lot of tumble--the reason that Chrysler Hemi engines suck when NA but come to life under boost.

I know it wont be a HP monster but if I build it around an efficient/effective N/A formula, theres no reason why this engine won't make 200+ HP.

I dunno. 200 horsepower from a windmill qualifies as a HP monster to me. Some people are jaded but if you stand back and look at it 100hp/liter is pretty respectable on pump from a compromised design.

we will not be needing the wire groove with 8psi, but knowing the owner I can guarantee we will need it for the near future, its just a matter of turning up the boost.

Using TCS-20 and total 0.100" (0.080" deck + 0.020" step without copper and wire mod) needing 0.075" shim.

A side note. In the early '90s I built a 2110 with a W-110 cam. Berg made everyone pussies about CR so I split the difference and ran 8.4. I think I had to run .100" deck to get that (cringe). Despite that, the engine ran really well and quite cool. So that combo should run just fine. I later reduced the deck and it ran harder and even cooler but in retrospect it ran surprisingly well with the fat deck.