Small powerhouses and old school

[Trond Dahl]

Don't ask why I didn't do this before, but the info and result on this thread is worth a lot! but the least I can do is make this thread a sticky.
Congratulations Johannes with the result (so far)

Trond:-)

[n2o]

Some years back, I read in HotVW about an engine builder contest. This was won by Pat Downs from CB-Performance.

I do not recal the numbers from that contest, but with 117hp/liter (1603ccm) I would imagine that this mouse motor would have been noticed.


Would we see 120hp/liter when the chokes is optimized??

[Project_X]

Id love to have a motor like this but I dont think my budget would allow it.MMMM... could you imagin taking that motor in a bug to the strip and beating  a v8 LOL or some japanese car?
So Johannes how long would this motor last?Also when are the 86mm pistons going to be available in America for us to use 

[Jim Ratto]

Johannes, congratulations on your accomplishment, it is great to see somebody achieve such a high specific output from a VW, especially one that accomodates so many factory-style parts (like the cylinder heads). I was enrolled in a camshaft-theory class back in 2000, and was working on a project of 2332cc to make 100hp/liter and run on street, but never achieved my goal (I think 100hp/liter with large single cylinder displacement would be too difficult to do with VW-style heads, etc, maybe things have changed...)
If you don't mind sharing, when you se the intake centerline on your motor, where did you set it to? On street motors with 260' + @.050" I have been setting them @ 104 ATDC, because I was taught this increases throttle response and build cylinder pressure faster. I don't have hard data saying this is what to do, only what I was taught. Do you mind sharing your thoughts on the cam in your engine, and where you set it up at?

Again, congratulations. 

Jim Ratto

[Johannes Persson]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/9868ihgGVk8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/9868ihgGVk8</a>
The dyno pull is from 2500rpm to 8500rpm in fourth gear (60-190km/h or 37,5mph-118,75mph).



Today I just had to finish the "Mouse Motor" project and changed the main venturies from 37 to 39mm.
The engine responded really good with an improvement from 138,8-143,3kW or 188,7-194,9hp the torque increased from 191-195Nm (138-141lbs).
The attiude of this engine is really something, nice and smoth at idle and kicks really hard if you want it to.

There would probably be some more improvements with bigger venturies but as it is now there is no bog or hassitation between low and high circuit and as this engine is to be used on the street I prefere to have it like this.When using too big venturies you often notice a hassitation between low and high circuit even sometimes with the third progression hole modification.

The purple curve is engine power and the green curve is wheel power.

Thank you guys for all possitive input and if you have questions do not hassitate to ask.

We are lucky to have an outstanding forum like this.

Regards
Johannes

[Rasser]

IMFUCKINGPRESSIVE!!!!

Amazing numbers Johannes, congrats.

[Kiel]

Super..................

[JS]

Looking forward to see this one on SCC!!!   

[dirk zeyen]

restpect!!!

you are the "head-guru" so much flow with small valves! i think the right combination of all the engineparts makes the "little difference".

dirk zeyen

[Jim Ratto]

hi Again, Johannes....

also, aside from your thoughts on cam timing, what did you select for emulsion tubes and jets for this last dyno session?

Thanks,

Jim

[Lee.C]

I knew these little "mouse motors" could make the BIG numbers 

[eugene]

How goes the old saying about displacement? 

I have a question for Johannes (or others) if you don't mind to share. How do you determine the intake and exhaust tuning length (second and third order)? I have tried to use a equation from an engineering book but the numbers you gave in some other post didn't wont to fall out.  I know that the the variables are the cam intake/exhaust duration, rpm-time, gas velocity and speed of sound but i apparently i'm missing something.

Congrats Johannes on the results. Outstanding work!

[Project_X]

Awesome just awesome...I love it.Any idea what this baby would do at the track just for kicks?

[n2o]

.....121.58hp/liter...

[folkevogn]

Awesome just awesome...I love it.Any idea what this baby would do at the track just for kicks?

JHU told me that JPM had done some calculations with the number he had from the first dyno pull where it "only" made 188hp  and with a 730kg car(included driver) the calculation said 11.97 on the 1/4 mile. Thats pretty fast with a 1603ccm!But thats just theory, the only way to find out is to race it

[folkevogn]

Once again Johannes, just awsome!
Looking at the photo of the power graph, it seems to be two small bumps in the curve. Is this where the rpm is between 1th and 2nd order, 2nd and 3th order? or is there another reason?

[Johannes Persson]

Hi Jim,
The camshaft is a fk45@108 and I dailed it 105deg intake centerline, too much advance will hurt the the overall performance because the exhaust changes too in a negative way and at a point the intakevalve will close too early and you lose a lot of top end power.I use to look at the closing point for the intake valve regarding to how good the heads are and the displacement of the engine, too late closing point will hurt the all over performance.If your heads are good you can close the intake valve earlier without losing top end power because the heads will still keep the VE high as the rpm goes up and your midrange will be superior.So from my experience the hardest part in chosing a cam is to determine when the intake valve should close, when you have desided the closing point chose duration so the intake valve does not hit the piston at tdc including the depth of your valvepockets.
Hopefully you see my point.

With the 39mm venturies the mains are 160,air180 and still F7 E-tubes, at low and midrange the A/F is too fat that is why there are small bumps around 4-5k rpm, maybe with F-16 or F-9 E-tubes I can get rid of those.The F-7 E-tube is a very fat tube at low and mid range the F-16 or 9 is a lot leaner.

Regards
Johannes

[Jon]

There is something very appealing with these small capacity engines. This might be optimised far beyond what you can buy of the shelf today, but still I think it opens our minds to see the possibilities out there. First of all the Weber 48 is a HUGE performance carburator to this engine, also the "mandatory" counterweighted crank is stiffer. I bet there is a golden halfway between, cost physical size, performance and COOLNESS, and this engine can't be very far from it.

40x35,5 valves and 195 horses from 1603 cc?!  I want more of these threads!!     

[Project_X]

195hp...very impressive, how much more are gonna go? LOL

For the pistons, if one was to build one similar to this motor or close could the Porsche 356 86mm pistons be used?Also since a 7lb flywheel cost 700.00 here where I'm at, could a 11-12.5lb lightened flywheel be used?
And could any head porter do a 043 head like this with the welds, and the FK45 cam, you have is a engle cam or was it a modified one.I seen on the first page you have a cam with 2 profiles I guess, if I understand that, not sure.
Thanks

[Johannes Persson]

Hi Eugene,
I use to tune on third order up to 8000rpm and then the second above 8000rpm.
Using the second order on low rpm gives you very long manifolds which many times decreases the total flow of the intake system.

Third order:2460000/rpm=total intake length(mm).
Second order:3350000/rpm=total intake length(mm).

The length on the "Mouse Motor"s manifold are about 15mm too long from calculation that is one reason it peaks at lower rpm.

Regards
Johannes

[Zach Gomulka]

Holy crap!

So let me get this straight... is this 195 wheel horsepower??? or is it corrected flywheel horsepower??

And also, whats the compression???

Good work!

[Roman]

Impressive to say the least.
It is corrected flywheel horsepower. The rear wheel horsepower is "only" 180.5!

[Rune]

And also, whats the compression???

The original spec list on page two says a compression of 12,0:1. Not sure if this is what it ended up with.

[BeetleBug]

"We are lucky to have an outstanding forum like this.

Regards
Johannes"

No - we`re lucky to have you around sharing you knowlegde with the rest of us. Truly amazing and insipiring - thanks Johannes!

Best rgs
Kalle

[Johannes Persson]

Hi Zack,
The comp ratio ended up at 12,32:1 and the power is corrected(DIN) at flywheel(as Roman said) about 1% less than the late SAE hp.
It is thanks to welded chambers otherwise it would be really hard to achive.

Regards
Johannes

[Harry/FDK]

"We are lucky to have an outstanding forum like this.

Regards
Johannes"

No - we`re lucky to have you around sharing you knowlegde with the rest of us. Truly amazing and insipiring - thanks Johannes!

Best rgs
Kalle

ABSOLUTELY!

[Airspeed]

if you have questions do not hassitate to ask.

Johannes,
I am very curieus about the small (gearbox and driveline) loss you have over the flywheel hp: Only 11.4 kW on a total of 143.3 kW! Thats just 8%
The 132.4 is at the rear wheel, so with a 'normal' loss of about 15-18% the FWhp would have been (is) even (much) more...

Do you have extremely good gearbox oil or something that explains this?

Tnx,
Walter

[Jim Ratto]

Hi Jim,
The camshaft is a fk45@108 and I dailed it 105deg intake centerline, too much advance will hurt the the overall performance because the exhaust changes too in a negative way and at a point the intakevalve will close too early and you lose a lot of top end power.I use to look at the closing point for the intake valve regarding to how good the heads are and the displacement of the engine, too late closing point will hurt the all over performance.If your heads are good you can close the intake valve earlier without losing top end power because the heads will still keep the VE high as the rpm goes up and your midrange will be superior.So from my experience the hardest part in chosing a cam is to determine when the intake valve should close, when you have desided the closing point chose duration so the intake valve does not hit the piston at tdc including the depth of your valvepockets.
Hopefully you see my point.

With the 39mm venturies the mains are 160,air180 and still F7 E-tubes, at low and midrange the A/F is too fat that is why there are small bumps around 4-5k rpm, maybe with F-16 or F-9 E-tubes I can get rid of those.The F-7 E-tube is a very fat tube at low and mid range the F-16 or 9 is a lot leaner.

Regards
Johannes

Thanks Johannes, interesting way to look at cam timing. I forget the lesson I was taught about cams, but there was a hierarchy of valve timing events that related to the 4 strokes of the motor.... I think # 1 event considered, according to class was exhaust opening, for "blowdown" but I don't remember, so obviously, I don't use that lesson for cam decision. The thoughts behind the intake center @ 104 was to get valve full open at piston position of fastest acceleration. I have noticed something with FK45 (I run same cam in my 94mm x 78mm, 541cc per cyl) that I haven't experienced with other cams, in engine response, and I don't know if it is my timing of cam or the cam itself.

A topic for another thread.  

Jim

[nicolas]

very nice accomplishment. hats off for you!

[Trond Dahl]

"We are lucky to have an outstanding forum like this.

Regards
Johannes"

No - we`re lucky to have you around sharing you knowlegde with the rest of us. Truly amazing and insipiring - thanks Johannes!

Best rgs
Kalle

I second that, the forum is just the facilitator... Its the people that make it what it is... so thank YOU guys