The Cal-look Lounge
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 07, 2022, 09:44:58 am

Login with username, password and session length
Thank you for your support!
Search:     Advanced search
349490 Posts in 28284 Topics by 6693 Members
Latest Member: Rustygreen70
* 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
| | |-+  JPM head/TF1 case build and car mods for Hot rod drag week 2019 in Old cabrio
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 17 Print
Author Topic: JPM head/TF1 case build and car mods for Hot rod drag week 2019 in Old cabrio  (Read 202874 times)
Airspeed
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 591



« Reply #30 on: December 21, 2008, 22:47:48 pm »

picked up these 6inch pauter rods yesterday which i will now use,wanted to try a longer rod ratio to see if it makes any noticable difference so have 5.6s as well,

cheers richie,uk
A different rod length needs all sorts of different other components like pistons and/or cylinders, push rods and even cylinder tin maybe. In short, you need to totally rebuild/re-engineer the engine just to change different rod length.
You would go to all this trouble just to settle (for once and for all) if a different rod ratio makes a noticeble hp difference?  Shocked

Very nice parts BTW, the best there are. Should make a very interesting outcome  Smiley
Any gearbox upgrades as well  Roll Eyes
Logged

"...these cars were preferred by the racers because the strut front suspension results in far superior handling than the regular torsion bar front end..."  - Keith Seume.
11.06 @ 125 mph
58vw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 520



« Reply #31 on: December 21, 2008, 23:25:05 pm »

looking good richie.....nice rods there.....cant wait to see that thing run.... Grin see ya soon
Logged

www.4inbore.com
Angleflows...order them now
richie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5552



« Reply #32 on: December 22, 2008, 00:21:24 am »

A different rod length needs all sorts of different other components like pistons and/or cylinders, push rods and even cylinder tin maybe. In short, you need to totally rebuild/re-engineer the engine just to change different rod length.
You would go to all this trouble just to settle (for once and for all) if a different rod ratio makes a noticeble hp difference?  Shocked


Yes Smiley

cheers richie
Logged

Cars are supposed to be driven, not just talked about!!!   


Good parts might be expensive but good advice is priceless Wink
richie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5552



« Reply #33 on: December 22, 2008, 00:22:15 am »

Wow nice Richie what a fun winter project! heads look killer, Any reason why you went with nail head valves?

Regards,   K-Roc,

Hi darren,thanks
well your technical term lost me Embarrassed Cheesy  so you will have to elaborate more?

cheers richie,uk

Hi Richie and K-Roc

My understanding is the terms 'nailhead' and 'tulip' are used to describe the shape on the back of the head of the valve rather than the chamber side... 'tulip' has a much larger and gentler radius from valve seat face (45deg) to valve stem than seen on 'nailhead' valves.

Tulip shape most easily seen in the valve at far left and 3rd left....



'Nailhead' valve is what most of us are used to seeing... it's more of a 'penny on a stick' design and doesn't have such a large radius on the back of the head.
2nd from right is nailhead style

Well at least that's how I differentiate between 'tulip' and 'nailhead'  Wink

It's not common to see the tulip shape on a stainless valve because of the extra weight (at least I've never seen one!).
Normally only seen on lightweight titanium exhaust valves.

That extra mass on the back of the valve can actually improve flow of the exhaust port by better streamlining flow past the valve head.
Flow tends to improve when the exit side tapers gently (teardrop).
Plus you can afford a little extra weight on the smaller diameter valve anyway - it'll still come in lighter than a nailhead inlet.

The chamber side of the valve head being totally flat improves wet flow charactersistics in the combustion chamber i.e. you achieve a more consistent air/fuel ratio throughout the chamber.
Again this flat face is more likely on titanium valves because of the extra weight compared to the more common concave design seen on stainless valves (done to reduce weight).

Wet flow tests often show up mini 'cyclones' in and around those concave areas, resulting in fuel puddling and therefore inconsistent fuel distribution in the chamber.

Without the luxury of wetflow test equipment, post-combustion analysis (remove head or poke borescope through plug hole) will reveal tell-tale signs of unequal air/fuel distribution in the chamber area... if that's what you've got you'll see clean areas on the piston crown and head after you've run the engine - proof positive something was causing fuel to fall out of suspension in one or more places once it entered the chamber. Equal distribution across the the whole area equals more power at the flywheel.

Lambda sensor gives average AFR... could be seriously lean in some areas and overly rich in others... giving same AFR reading as an engine running equal distribution in the chamber. Guess which one makes more power?   Wink

IMO best combination is tulip exhaust and nailhead inlet, both with totally flat faces on chamber side.
I haven't flow tested an Angle Flow head (yet!) but I'd take a guess the tulip exhaust may be more of an advantage in the AF than a conventional exhaust port due to the less severe turn flow has to make after exiting past the valve head, making for better velocity distribution across the port (more flow). Could be completely wrong though - wouldn't be the first time  Cheesy




Thanks John Smiley

cheers richie
Logged

Cars are supposed to be driven, not just talked about!!!   


Good parts might be expensive but good advice is priceless Wink
K-Roc
Full Member
***
Posts: 194


« Reply #34 on: December 22, 2008, 00:28:09 am »

Thanks John M your reply makes total sense ( and my own terminology is wrong ) I should be referring to the face of the valve in the chamber as flat or Dished,  I have been using a Stainlees steel Tulip back side and dish front, It's a stainless valve so the dish is there to help reduce weight,  For a Ti Valve pretty much all I see are flat face, ( sorry Richie I wasn't aware those were Ti, )
I wonder if your set up is like what John likes, ( Nail head intake and Tulip Exhaust )
John have you ever tried a back to back flow test with a Tulip Vs. Nail head intake?  With the Tulip style say a 25 Deg, 1/2" radius I bet you will find Pressure recovery into the chamber far better with the Tulip.

Picture of a Katech C5R head on Mondello's Wet Flow Bench.  Wink
Logged
John Maher
Full Member
***
Posts: 140



WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 22, 2008, 03:30:57 am »


John have you ever tried a back to back flow test with a Tulip Vs. Nail head intake?  With the Tulip style say a 25 Deg, 1/2" radius I bet you will find Pressure recovery into the chamber far better with the Tulip.


Nope, never flow tested a tulip intake vs nailhead...

In my experience all intakes have been nailhead only, even with large diameter Ti.
Out of curiosity I'll try adding some clay to back of an intake valve next time I'm flow testing.

Concern with intake valves generally tends to be weight reduction.
However different angle backcuts (eg 25, 27, 30, 33deg etc) can make a significant flow difference so having more backcut area to play with may help....??

Flow past intake valve through the seat area isn't air alone (atomised air/fuel mix) so the flowbench (air only) doesn't give all the answers. It appears the distinct breaks between angles on the seat eg 75, 60, 45, 30 etc are advantageous in keeping fuel atomised in the airstream so trying to get super clever with aerodynamics on the inatke side may be counterproductive..... don't even know where to start on that other than to say full radius seats (no distinct separate angles) don't work as good on the intake side on the dyno vs the flowbench as they can on the exhaust. Exhaust is gas only - not air plus fluid.

Tulip intake is always going to reduce min CSA at the valve throat so I'm assuming the loss in flow area would counteract any potential increase against possible gains via larger radius on the back of valve head - or maybe it'd only hurt low lift flow which may not be too much of a concern on a high rpm drag race only motor??

The more teardrop-ish streamlined tulip profile tends to improve flow when the blunt end comes first - not the other way round.
Have you found any gains with tulip intakes? Sounds like it's worth testing but if any gains were found it'd no doubt require custom one-off (i.e. VERY expensive) valves  Shocked

Taking increased valve weight as result of tulip profile into consideration, especially with stainless, I doubt they're a viable option, esp at larger (heavier) valve diameters used in a typical max effort engine.

You find yourself in the usual compromise situation: what's the better choice..... a little more flow in a static test on the flowbench vs less risk of valve float when in a dynamic real world situation i.e. running engine?

Maybe smaller diam valve stuff, where valve float is less of an issue, it could work if the flow figures showed it to be an advantage but I've yet to try it.
Would customer pay additional cost of custom made valves for what would probably be minimal flow increase?? Undecided

I'll let you know if I make a major discovery  Wink

Logged

John Maher

richie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5552



« Reply #36 on: December 22, 2008, 03:54:35 am »

, ( sorry Richie I wasn't aware those were Ti, )

Darren,
I kind of left it out on purpose to see what reaction I would get Wink Cheesy

cheers richie
Logged

Cars are supposed to be driven, not just talked about!!!   


Good parts might be expensive but good advice is priceless Wink
Lids
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3527


show me the chedder


WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 22, 2008, 08:51:52 am »

wouldn't the longer rod move your power band up the rev range?  How would this effect when the turbo kicks in?
Logged

If there's enough horse shit around, there must be a pony!
Buy your ciderberry here.

http://www.thatcherscider.co.uk/
Jon
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3209


12,3@174km/t at Gardermoen 2008


WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 22, 2008, 12:40:09 pm »

I don't know when Richie received his heads, but Johannes has invested in a wetflow system this last year. He told me that his 247 hp 1915 was disastrous in that respect, and that he had since gotten rid of the major wet spots. But he had yet to test it on the dyno.
Logged

Grumpy old men have signatures like this.
Airspeed
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 591



« Reply #39 on: December 22, 2008, 15:59:10 pm »

Was just looking back at that huge turbo and was wondering what your expectations are regarding torque and hp with this engine?

And I have to ask again: will you use your current gearbox? (what do you have at the moment?)
Logged

"...these cars were preferred by the racers because the strut front suspension results in far superior handling than the regular torsion bar front end..."  - Keith Seume.
11.06 @ 125 mph
richie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5552



« Reply #40 on: December 22, 2008, 19:07:08 pm »

Was just looking back at that huge turbo and was wondering what your expectations are regarding torque and hp with this engine?

And I have to ask again: will you use your current gearbox? (what do you have at the moment?)

No idea on hp& torque,as nearly everything is changed from my last engine its the unknown Smiley 

and presently have a 091 bus box with all aftermarket parts inside

cheers richie
Logged

Cars are supposed to be driven, not just talked about!!!   


Good parts might be expensive but good advice is priceless Wink
richie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5552



« Reply #41 on: December 22, 2008, 19:14:27 pm »

I don't know when Richie received his heads, but Johannes has invested in a wetflow system this last year. He told me that his 247 hp 1915 was disastrous in that respect, and that he had since gotten rid of the major wet spots. But he had yet to test it on the dyno.

I recieved them from Johannes at SCC this year so maybe he did have a chance to test them this way



Heres the figures that johannes supplied me as he is happy with them being posted here Smiley


Flow no at 25" H2O.
Lift(mm)                     Intake (49mm)                     exhaust(39mm)
2                               46,7                         36,2
4                               96,1                         77,26                             
6                              142,0                        108,0
8                              183,2                        129,1
10                            209,3                        148,6
12                            234,1                        163,0
14                            250,5                        175,1
16                            260,3                        190,9

The velocity in the intake port in the largest cross sectional area is 309ft/s and the ex velocity at the center of the flange is 334ft/s

cheers richie
Logged

Cars are supposed to be driven, not just talked about!!!   


Good parts might be expensive but good advice is priceless Wink
richie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5552



« Reply #42 on: December 22, 2008, 19:16:45 pm »

wouldn't the longer rod move your power band up the rev range?  How would this effect when the turbo kicks in?

Thats the reason for me to want to try it,its all just theory,as I dont know a power band yet I wont know which is better for my car until I try Smiley In a perfect world everything would work together but we will see Wink

cheers richie
Logged

Cars are supposed to be driven, not just talked about!!!   


Good parts might be expensive but good advice is priceless Wink
vwcab
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1901


peter


« Reply #43 on: December 22, 2008, 19:32:28 pm »

That's gone be a "GREAT" engine,like to see your 'cab 'running with that motor,the "old" engine was all
really that fast.  Shocked 
So good luck with the build up.  Wink
BTW Richie,who bought your "2332"?
Grtz,Peter
Logged

'72 standard käfer
'74 cal-look project
'78 1303 cabrio
'12 Triumph street triple

ESCARABAJO's CALIENTEs
71CALRIPPER
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1529



« Reply #44 on: December 22, 2008, 19:39:45 pm »


BTW Richie,who bought your "2332"?
Grtz,Peter


I lucky bugger is all i know  Shocked
Logged
Roman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 656



« Reply #45 on: December 22, 2008, 20:05:03 pm »

Interesting! Here's a comparsion between yours and mine. Hairdryer vs N/A, but both are JPM 4".

Flow no at 25" H2O.     Richie                       Richie                        Roman            Roman
Lift(mm)                     Intake (49mm)          exhaust(39mm)          Intake (51mm)  Exhaust (38 mm)
2                               46,7                         36,2                         49,1               35,4
4                               96,1                         77,26                       99,3               82,8                              
6                              142,0                        108,0                       144,6             101,8               
8                              183,2                        129,1                       183,6             126,3             
10                            209,3                        148,6                       215                145,5             
12                            234,1                        163,0                       236,4              161,1             
14                            250,5                        175,1                        258,7              172               
16                            260,3                        190,9                       276,1               180,2               

Richie: The velocity in the intake port in the largest cross sectional area is 309ft/s and the ex velocity at the center of the flange is 334ft/s
Roman: The velocity in the intake port in the largest cross sectional area is 310ft/s and the ex velocity at the center of the flange is 320ft/s

My heads are at JPM now and he is going to make some smaller updates.
Logged
richie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5552



« Reply #46 on: December 22, 2008, 20:38:45 pm »

Interesting! Here's a comparsion between yours and mine. Hairdryer vs N/A, but both are JPM 4".

Flow no at 25" H2O.     Richie                       Richie                        Roman            Roman
Lift(mm)                     Intake (49mm)          exhaust(39mm)          Intake (51mm)  Exhaust (38 mm)
2                               46,7                         36,2                         49,1               35,4
4                               96,1                         77,26                       99,3               82,8                              
6                              142,0                        108,0                       144,6             101,8               
8                              183,2                        129,1                       183,6             126,3             
10                            209,3                        148,6                       215                145,5             
12                            234,1                        163,0                       236,4              161,1             
14                            250,5                        175,1                        258,7              172               
16                            260,3                        190,9                       276,1               180,2               

Richie: The velocity in the intake port in the largest cross sectional area is 309ft/s and the ex velocity at the center of the flange is 334ft/s
Roman: The velocity in the intake port in the largest cross sectional area is 310ft/s and the ex velocity at the center of the flange is 320ft/s

My heads are at JPM now and he is going to make some smaller updates.
hi roman,
thats interesting reading,I pressume the real differences are due to the valve sizes?

i am going to try get them flowed here to see the comparision between european and american numbers Wink

cheers richie
Logged

Cars are supposed to be driven, not just talked about!!!   


Good parts might be expensive but good advice is priceless Wink
Jon
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3209


12,3@174km/t at Gardermoen 2008


WWW
« Reply #47 on: December 22, 2008, 20:50:40 pm »

Please use the same flow bench my CB CNC competition eliminators was measured on... that should add about 70 cfm.
Logged

Grumpy old men have signatures like this.
Airspeed
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 591



« Reply #48 on: December 22, 2008, 21:00:36 pm »

Thanks for answering all questions in such detail Richard! Very much appriciated.

Just a guess, but with heads flowing 250-260 (guesstimating you will be running a little over 14mm lift), you would make 275 hp n/a in normal high-output tune (whatever that is), so 550 hp at 1 bar boost should be possible with them. Then on 22 psi (1.5 bar) 650-700 hp should be possible. Not even thinking about 30 psi here... (825-ish)  Shocked Shocked I know, I know, the law of deminishing returns and all that, but still.
Just doing stupidly oversimplyfied calculations, but I can't help thinking that you haven't done something similar yourself... Grin

Double injectors, bigger or double fuel pumps?
Any upgrades for intercooling or WI planned?
« Last Edit: December 22, 2008, 21:03:29 pm by Airspeed » Logged

"...these cars were preferred by the racers because the strut front suspension results in far superior handling than the regular torsion bar front end..."  - Keith Seume.
11.06 @ 125 mph
John Maher
Full Member
***
Posts: 140



WWW
« Reply #49 on: December 22, 2008, 21:17:08 pm »

Please use the same flow bench my CB CNC competition eliminators was measured on... that should add about 70 cfm.

 Grin Grin Grin
Logged

John Maher

Roman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 656



« Reply #50 on: December 22, 2008, 21:41:06 pm »



hi roman,
thats interesting reading,I pressume the real differences are due to the valve sizes?

i am going to try get them flowed here to see the comparision between european and american numbers Wink

cheers richie

Yes, I think so. I also have 7 mm valve stem and that increases the flow 3-4 cfm or so.
Logged
dangerous
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 269


« Reply #51 on: December 22, 2008, 22:48:20 pm »

Some time ago we did some comparisons with the different backs on the valves.
It was some time ago and we were only looking at the flow number, so nothing conclusive.
the engine WAS dynoed but since many different improvements were made, nothing was conclusive regarding the valve shape.

What I can say was that I recall there were some measurable flow gains in the mid to low lift area,
and so , since this was our area of interest, we tended to go for the tuliped valve from that time onward.

It should be obvious that this may not have been an improvement at all, when trying the same valve in the various different ports,
when you see how different the Autocraft/CD, Pauter, and AF/CE/SF ports-entry are.

Most V8 off-the-shelf Ti valves had the tulip shape(well...fatter back anyhow) so that was normally what we had.
And because of the large margin available, we even cut the valve some more to excentuate(sp?) this feature.
But it should be added that we were trying to improve the low to mid lift flow,
and in hind-sight this may not have been for the best, track OR dyno wise.

Interesting is the CB CE head, had SS tulip inlet(well fat backed anyhow),
yet their own Ti valves had a much thinner back compared with the SS
and so it took some work to 'get back' the losses that were found in the low to mid area.

After all that rambling, it is important to know that anything found in one type of port,
may not be a 'rule of thumb' in a different style of head,
when speaking about gains from the shape of the valve back side. 
Logged
richie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5552



« Reply #52 on: December 23, 2008, 02:04:38 am »

Thanks for answering all questions in such detail Richard! Very much appriciated.

Just a guess, but with heads flowing 250-260 (guesstimating you will be running a little over 14mm lift), you would make 275 hp n/a in normal high-output tune (whatever that is), so 550 hp at 1 bar boost should be possible with them. Then on 22 psi (1.5 bar) 650-700 hp should be possible. Not even thinking about 30 psi here... (825-ish)  Shocked Shocked I know, I know, the law of deminishing returns and all that, but still.
Just doing stupidly oversimplyfied calculations, but I can't help thinking that you haven't done something similar yourself... Grin

Double injectors, bigger or double fuel pumps?
Any upgrades for intercooling or WI planned?

 Wink Cheesy  Something like that Shocked

car already has 8 injectors,will swap them out to 8 1500cc ones,pump is also already overkill,the only upgrade should be the header and possibly the chargecooler,I did most stuff already over the last 2 years for this engine

cheers richie
Logged

Cars are supposed to be driven, not just talked about!!!   


Good parts might be expensive but good advice is priceless Wink
richie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5552



« Reply #53 on: December 24, 2008, 21:44:10 pm »

Well have been making some progress,slowly but surely its coming together.The short motor went together easily,getting the USA made cylinders to go together with Swedish heads was more of a task,thanks to Donny at DK engineering for cutting the cylinders to length and to size,and AJ sims for opening up the heads to suit,and Rick Sadler from Bugpack who opend the doors to me even though they were already closed for the holidays so we could mix and match the head stud lengths,I now have the heads on so I can do the geometry next.
Heres some pics of what I did so far

cheers richie
Logged

Cars are supposed to be driven, not just talked about!!!   


Good parts might be expensive but good advice is priceless Wink
richie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5552



« Reply #54 on: December 24, 2008, 21:46:07 pm »

And more
« Last Edit: December 24, 2008, 21:48:39 pm by richie,uk » Logged

Cars are supposed to be driven, not just talked about!!!   


Good parts might be expensive but good advice is priceless Wink
Tekken
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 307


www.proturbovw.com


« Reply #55 on: December 25, 2008, 00:35:17 am »

Looking good buddy! Wink
Logged

Airspeed
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 591



« Reply #56 on: December 25, 2008, 00:47:42 am »

It all looks so neat and simple almost...
Will that be the worlds strongest Auto-linea cased engine yet?  Roll Eyes
Very curieus if the casting will hold that much torque.

What is your crank-flywheel connection? Wedgemate, flanged?
« Last Edit: December 25, 2008, 00:50:11 am by Airspeed » Logged

"...these cars were preferred by the racers because the strut front suspension results in far superior handling than the regular torsion bar front end..."  - Keith Seume.
11.06 @ 125 mph
richie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5552



« Reply #57 on: December 25, 2008, 01:46:50 am »

It all looks so neat and simple almost...
Will that be the worlds strongest Auto-linea cased engine yet?  Roll Eyes
Very curieus if the casting will hold that much torque.

What is your crank-flywheel connection? Wedgemate, flanged?

The case is the CB version which is filled in alot more behind the stud/case saver area,I have cracked the regular raised roof auto linea case by no1 top head stud[nr flywheel] but the CB case has held up well for 2 years in my 2332,Jeff set the case savers deeper to help with this as well.

Its a wedged crank/flywheel as again i have had no issues for the past 7 years with the crank/flywheel in the old engine,but i do have a new 86mm Scat flanged crank incase I have issues Smiley

cheers richie,uk
Logged

Cars are supposed to be driven, not just talked about!!!   


Good parts might be expensive but good advice is priceless Wink
richie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5552



« Reply #58 on: December 25, 2008, 01:48:18 am »

Looking good buddy! Wink

Thanks Stian,maybe a roller in there next time Wink

 Seasons greetings to you and Barbro[hope I got the spelling correct? ]

cheers richie
Logged

Cars are supposed to be driven, not just talked about!!!   


Good parts might be expensive but good advice is priceless Wink
bilboa2
Full Member
***
Posts: 240


« Reply #59 on: December 25, 2008, 02:01:26 am »

riichie, awesome motor,getting pretty 'teknical" here...., just finished my first motor here in nevada, let me know if your need any help..bill
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 17 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!