Lotus Europa Community
Lotus Europa Forums => Garage => Topic started by: Ultimaguy476 on Tuesday,March 02, 2021, 01:27:28 PM
-
Here are a few things I figured out while building Renault hemi's for my europa over the years. These are things that I came up with to solve many failures and I now have an engine that has lasted quite a while.....even under autocross and track use.
For what it's worth, my engines are 1796cc (largest you can go without staggering the liners). The last dyno showed 161hp at the wheels.
You would think that it would cost a fortune to build an engine like this but not really. I'll try to estimate costs with the info below, although it has been about ten years so...inflation rules.
1). The stock renault rods are ok, but not great. I use ESP H-beam rods that are intended for a Toyota MR2 turbo. They are lighter and really strong....meant to spin up to 11,000 rpm.....don't try this at home. About $400/set These rods have the same size lower end but a larger wrist pin (and are 1mm longer) so you will have to use custom pistons. Rods about $400/set
2). Custom pistons were around $400/set. Better pistons than are commercially available. Lots of suppliers out there. I am running about 12.5:1 compression and it runs perfectly....just needs a little boostane additive in the gas.
3). Because of my larger bore, I have my sleeves custom made. About $400/set I have Cometic make custom head gaskets for less than $100ea. They don't include the rubber piece so you have to buy a stock head gasket to get the rubber piece.
4). I created a dry sump system because I used a cast aluminum oil pan (with a flat bottom) and kept spinning rod bearing #2 from starving the oil pump in hard cornering. I don't regret it but, in retrospect, probably not necessary. The stock oil pan is a great design with the pump in lower section of the pan. Cost me about $2500 to put in dry sump but, as I said, really not necessary for most of you.
5). Use the high capacity oil pump. They are available but not sure of the cost. They will fit on any of these engines, even the non crossflow. It has a longer rotor and the difference is in the pump itself with a recess to accept the longer rotor. On these pumps, and the lower capacity ones, take out the cotterpin and shim the spring with about the thickness of a dime to increase oil pressure.
6). Have a pro go through your head for porting, spring tensions, etc. I have mine with larger valves. Go big or go home! No down side here....more flow=more power! This is the single most expensive thing easily costing $1000 or more.
7). Every time I build an engine, it is more than the previous version. And they still run flawlessly....idle perfectly, purr like a kitten. I can put my car in fifth gear at 35mph and put my foot on the floor and it doesn't skip a beat. I keep using more lift on my cams to no detriment. I currently have about 290mm cam lift!
8). Some other goodies I have just to make you jealous....aluminum flywheel (currently running a 200mm clutch but am going to have a flywheel modified to accept a small multi-disc tilton clutch...fits right in with the original throwout bearing) Total clutch and flywheel weight around 7 lbs). Also, I made a batch of anodized roller rockers about 15 years ago...sold some, kept two...maybe some of you have them??
That's all I can think of off the top of my head but there is probably more.
Nick
-
:Welcome: Unless I misunderstand what cam lift is, you may wish to edit that. 290mm seems rather a lot! :confused:
Also we like pictures :)
-
I don't have a Renault motor but I found it interesting. Nice writeup about great results! 161hp at the rear wheels is very good! Congratulations! :beerchug:
-
29mm is still rather a lot. 3cm of lift!
Be very interested in details on the custom sleeves, pistons and head gasket.
-
You are correct...I got into my metric cloud. That was meant to be .290 inches of lobe lift.
Thanks for the correction.
And yes, that is around 190 engine hp, I assume.
-
I’m not much of a picture guy. Right now I am in the middle of putting in a dual a-frame rear end to accomodate the 10” rear wheels. I’ll get pics up someday.
-
I’ll go through some receipts when I get a spare second so I can share part numbers. Stay tuned.
-
I was asked to post pics. My car is currently getting some welding done on a dual a-frame rear end modification but I do have a spare engine I built in 2012 while I was building the engine currently in my car.
I am not a professional mechanic...or engine builder...but I have had about 200 renaults. I consider failures to be learning experiences on the way to future successes. After a few spun rods, a valve through a piston, cracked sleeve, I think I have achieved success with an engine that has succeeded for quite some time with me autocrossing and track day instruction.
FYI, I use fuel injection so no distributor. Also dry sump so no stock oil pump.
I'm new to the forums and have never posted pics so I hope this works:
-Top side intake pic shows enlarged ports but the thing that will stand out is the anodized aluminum roller rockers. I had something like 7 sets made about ten years ago....sold five....kept two. Not necessary but nice...and killer looking.
-Top side exhaust....just to see the other side.
-Bottom side shows the my windage tray(note no oil pump hole as mentioned above.
-There are two photos of my aluminum oilpan modified with dry sump pickups. I also have a pickup in the cam galley where the fuel pump used to go.
-The windage tray and oil pan baffles were used with the aluminum oilpan prior to dry sump.
I will post pics of the car with the other engine installed later.
Also, I am going through receipts to get part numbers so I can post more info.
Please bear with me. I won't be a prolific poster but I would like my info out there....I'm 62 and hope to liver forever....but.....
-
Oh....one more thing.... In looking through receipts, it seems my cam lobe lift is .310"....more than I remembered.
-
:Welcome: the roller rockers look fantastic, are they std ratio (which I think is either 1.25:1 or 1.3:1) or 1.5
-
Yes, standard ratio.....which is 1.5
Also, forgot to mention that this engine is also 1796cc
-
Actually, standard ratio is, I think, 1.6. This ratio is based on the standard and my cam lobe lift is .310 and the valve lift ended up at .488 so the ratio came out close, but not exactly stock
-
bronze bush on the shaft or needle rollers ? which don't move that much in terms of degrees so might not be as reliable as a bronze bush
-
Bronze bushing
-
I'll get some drawn out & milled / turned for the Hemi & the Wedge, I have several engines, all 1600, that I want to build.
If you use Turbo rods they are a better bet than STD rods although as Ultimate states the STD rods are ok especially if they are shotpeened after balancing & treated to a new set of bolts, preferably ARP or SPS
-
I might have a trial set kicking around i can send you but I haven’t seen them in a decade. A recent move doesn’t help. I’ll look around.
Also, its Ultima, not Ultimate......as in Ultima Can Am.....my other toy.
-
I found my extra intake and exhaust rocker.
Pretty awesome in blue, don't ya think?
I found out that the offset necessary to align the rocker directly on the valve differs slightly from head to head and rocker shaft to rocker shaft. As my engine has oversized valves that fit inside my 82.5mm sleeves, it's possible that the head work changed the alignment slightly, but I found this discrepancy on stock heads too.
Anyway, as you can see, I had to shave the side of the rocker slightly and enlarge the bearing slot. Or maybe design in a wider bearing?
No harm done, but if I were to do it again, I would enlarge the bearing slot by design as well as shave the side. Then shim to get perfect alignment.
If anyone wants to borrow these with a plan to make some, I will happily lend them out.....but I want them back.
Enjoy,
Nick
-
Nice work Nick, I have a rocker assembly coming from overseas and my next head I will go big.
Right now it’s on the back burner but I’ll keep it in mind.
Did you purchase a stock set and modify or machine from scratch?
Dakazman
-
Add from scratch
-
G'day, Nick,
I read about some roller rockers being available for the 807 many moons ago.
At the time, I think they were produced by Rocker Arms Unlimited.
http://www.rockerarms.com/
Does that sound right?
-
The place that made them for me was called something different.....but they may have changed their name. I didnt know that any more were ever made, but maybe.
I will look for a receipt to see if the address or phone is the same.
Good eye.
-
Those pics are mine....taken by me.
Those are the ones offered ny me.
And you inquired, correct? I recognize your name.
To my knowledge, no one else ever offered them
-
The famed T&D are near to me and could easily make the best version possible but we would need several sets as a group buy to get a price that made any sense outside of NASCAR.
Even their mass market Chevy versions are not cheap.
Are there any CAD files available for those that were made before?
I know some CNC guys, wish I still had my CNC mill and lathe.
-
Those pics are mine....taken by me.
Those are the ones offered ny me.
And you inquired, correct? I recognize your name.
To my knowledge, no one else ever offered them
Well there ya go. I didn't know they were your pics.
Have we interacted previously? . . . and if so, where was that?
Nah, I haven't enquired about them, but always interested.
-
Are there any CAD files available for those that were made before?
G'day Richard,
There's a listing on the Rocker Arms Unlimited site for a Renault 1.6 engine.
Presumably that's the 807 crossflow engine?
Frankly, I expected you local lads to get on the horn and ask them. ;)
-
Calling them now.
-
Here is the story.... which you can read in the 'about' section of rockerarms.com website.
Rocker Arm Specialists was purchased in 2010....just in time to go out of business in 2012. The old owner got together with his employees and got the business back and up and running. As part of that, most of their files got lost...
I just got off the phone with Gary, the ex-owner, who I dealt with in 2011 when I purchased the original 7 sets (sold 5).
Amazingly, I remembered him....and he remembered me.
They still have the drawings...or at least enough to price rockers. Before production, I would send my modified ones to them so they could incorporate the subtle changes into the new rockers.
Two issues:
-They are having a hard time getting 7075 aluminum and the prices have doubled. I'm not sure the cost of raw materials is the issue as it is an insignificant part of the overall process. Oddly, while I was on the phone with him, I found 7075 for sale at online places and mentioned that to him. He took that in stride.....I'm not sure if maybe it was the price that had him flummoxed, not really availability.
He probably isn't getting the discounts he is used to getting....but I'm just guessing.
-The CNC shop likes to make at least 100 units....in this case, around a dozen sets.
After seeing a lot of interest in Camshafts until money was discussed, I have my doubts as to our ability to garner interest for a dozen sets????
I'm 99% sure my order back in 2011 was the only time he ever made these.
I'm equally sure he isn't going to be very keen about giving me the CAD files but I haven't broached the subject...yet.
They are in Redding, California. Anyone near enough to there to pay them a visit, if necessary?
Gary is going to get back to me in a couple days with prices. I have asked for prices on one set, five sets, and ten sets. None of that meets the 100 piece minimum but it will likely be enough info to determine interest.
Updates coming.
Nick
-
at least 10 sets is 80 pieces or is that 200 pieces, 100 of each side, I might want some if they increased the rocker ratio to 1.7 or 1.75:1
-
This one, I would be in on.
-
:beerchug:
I'm in. Now I have a reason to line bore the 821 block.
Dakazman
-
He mentioned 100 pcs....total. I stretched it down to 10 sets to see what he will do.
Even asked him to price individual sets to see what he comes up with....maybe he will, maybe not.
We got along well....let's see what he comes back with.
-
Two things I know about roller rockers.
1. Some folk claim they really are not that effective in increasing HP.
2. Many forms of racing ban them as unfair to those with lesser budgets.
Looking at the bans I would hazard to say that yes they are effective.
I've heard some discussion that their greatest benefit is reduction in oil temps.
If price is not too crazy and mass not too great I might be interested in a set.
Do we have a mass comparison to stock parts?
-
Good job calling them, Nick.
Interesting story.
I very much doubt he'd share the CAD files. I wouldn't ding him for that - he's running a business, after all.
By the same token, are you looking to make a profit, Nick?
Again, I'd not ding you for that, either, for the same reasons, but it makes a difference to the relationship if you are.
Are you looking for another set?
Roller rockers are much more of a known quantity these days and with the cost of CNC coming down, I'll bet there are plenty of small shops willing and able to take on this type of job at quantities we might be able to meet.
Adjusting a CAD file from an existing file by substituting measurements is a well established reverse engineering technique.
Here's a set offered by Paradise Racing for the Toyota 2TC & 3TC engine. The Toyota engine is not altogether dissimilar to the rocker gear on the Renault crossflow.
Perhaps these were also made by Rocker Arms Unlimited?
Here's a set of Titan Roller Rockers (needle rollers optional?) offered by BRD Racing for the same Toyota engine. It's an old pic but the price of US$499.00 isn't all that bad . . and that's for a single set at the retail price.
These ones look to be a little different design to the others.
https://titanspeed.com/content/rocker/
I only point these out only to illustrate that there aren't limitations to one specific manufacturer.
A friend of mine used to make some extraordinary stuff for the drag bike world which was mostly for the US market. I could contact him if needed.
Cheers,
Gavin
-
My CAD skills are a bit rusty now, I need to practice much more often.
These are not terribly complex parts so I could probably draw them if needed.
Would not be fast and would have to wait until around June to begin.
The guy who bought my CNC's might be willing to make them if I supply the CAD files.
EDIT: As many of you probably know the biggest headache for CNC is getting the set-up exactly right, then keeping it.
Even with the best programming and fixtures there WILL be scrap parts.
When I was doing short run CNC it was not uncommon for the set-up and dialing in tool off-sets to take longer than actually producing the parts.
One-hundred parts is a short run, I would expect that to be one hundred of each Int and Ex?
Since it appears no one else offers these I wonder if it might be a good idea to contact some of the folk in Europe about them?
-
I am not looking to make a profit. I am only involved because I happen to have made them previously and thus am the right person to pick up the ball. Until Gavin’s post, i was just about to send my two extras to England for Chris to CAD them.....had them all packed and thel label and customs formed printed....but that is shelved pending the reply from Rockerarms.com.
I might take a set, but only because I’m a hoarder of things I might use......gotta hide that from the significant other.
Please don’t question my motives....I have been GIVING away parts that don’t fit my Europa because I have modified my car to the point that most parts don’t fit. I have two pallets ready to ship in my basement....one with trunk box, headlight covers, NG transmission....the other with most of my old rear suspension parts(two twin link setups, many uprights, bearings, trailing arms.....250 pounds).....all FREE. I am not even charging for the multiple hours to sort the parts and crate them up...including no charge for the NEW plywood and the time and effort to take the pallets to the shipping depot an hour away. Many times I have even paid the shipping cost.
Let’s not include the multitude of hours of texts, phone calls, and FaceTime calls to people as a result of the ads I posted for FREE Europa stuff. Calls to people that can talk Europa ad nauseum.
I have well in excess of 100 hours into giving this stuff away. I could have, or should have thrown it all away.
This isn’t about money as I don’t need it. It’s about making room and getting my unused stuff into the hands of people that will use it.
My engine post and camshaft posts are also the result of me knowing that I have some knowledge that may be of value to others.
Take the knowledge for what it is...just a guy who likes to modify anything....my motto is ‘If it ain’t broke, modify it’.
I intend to spend many hours going through a six inch high stack of receipts to help people with rebuild info. I will post my suppliers, costs, etc.
When I am done, you likely won’t hear from me again unleess I have some info to offer as lurking on forums is not my cup of tea.
-
I was going to get them drawn out & costed for manufacture then produce about 5 sets for my own use & 1 set for Nick, I reckon they are relatively easy to make, howver I'm not sure I will be able to afford them from the US, even if I can I will only take 1 set if they are 1.7 or 1.75:1 ratio, these are what I used on my Cooper S, they worked really well when used with a 649 race cam.
-
:trophy: :trophy: Thanks for all your doing for our Europa community Nick. :trophy: :trophy:
I have received two of three said parcels and appreciate the time you have dedicated to all .
Not to mention your move and snow storms. My jaw dropped when you showed me on of your parcels going out for just shipping cost.
Dakazman
-
Two things I know about roller rockers.
1. Some folk claim they really are not that effective in increasing HP.
2. Many forms of racing ban them as unfair to those with lesser budgets.
Looking at the bans I would hazard to say that yes they are effective.
I've heard some discussion that their greatest benefit is reduction in oil temps.
If price is not too crazy and mass not too great I might be interested in a set.
Do we have a mass comparison to stock parts?
from my own use with a high ratio set for an A series BMC,
1. they appear to improve the mid range torque massively
2. they stop sideways loading on valve guides & so stop wear
3. if you buy a STD set from a Renault dealer in France chances are they will more expensive (as long as the roller rockers are $400 / 500 ac set no more, no reason to be much more, nothing complicated about them) than the roller rockers.
-
Please don’t question my motives....
C'mon, Nick,
I wasn't questioning your motives; I was looking to clarify them.
Re-read what I wrote. I expressly covered this.
-
MRN IJ is talking about changing the rocker ratio to make the valve move further open than stock. A roller rocker in and of itself will not change power output. If you do increase the rocker ratio, make sure you check your piston/valve clearances carefully.
Roller rockers are lighter, enabling higher revs before valve float. Or, it will enable a similar redline with lower valve spring tension, reducing valve train stress and wear. The roller tip is particularly effective at reducing wear at higher rpms. If you don't change the ratio, that's about it.
-
Found some more old pics and my notes but can't find the origin . . drat.
Did you sell some to Australia, Nick?
IIRC, a guy in Sydney, Oz did this.
It's an 807 shoehorned into the back of a Renault-8 . . . with an Eaton supercharge from a Mercedes . . . why not.
-
MRN IJ is talking about changing the rocker ratio to make the valve move further open than stock. A roller rocker in and of itself will not change power output. If you do increase the rocker ratio, make sure you check your piston/valve clearances carefully.
Roller rockers are lighter, enabling higher revs before valve float. Or, it will enable a similar redline with lower valve spring tension, reducing valve train stress and wear. The roller tip is particularly effective at reducing wear at higher rpms. If you don't change the ratio, that's about it.
Why would you run to the expense of Roller Rockers unless there was a large perfomance gain, you can't see them, they will reduce friction a small amount but whether you would notice, better to get a steel lightweight flywheel made because you will feel that aside from the reliability aspect - I broke the centre out of the std flywheel even though Salv said it was safe repeated hard starts with slick tyres & an LSD
-
If you are running mostly at high rpms, the added reliability would be an important factor. Now if we could get roller-followers, that would really improve high rpm running.
-
I can't remember if I sold some to Australia....I think so but I haven't put my fingers on the records to see who I sent them to. I know I sent a set to Japan.
I did communicate with Alexander Stollznow about sending mine to him to CAD a set but that fell through.
These rockers owe me nothing.....they have performed well and I haven't been easy on them. And you are correct, they look COOL!
Now, roller lifters would be great....not sure how that would work with the cam lobes offset from the lifters??
If someone wants to figure that one out....I'm in.
An R8 with a supercharged 807? Awesome. I had an R8 Gordini with 1296cc (about 120hp) that I should have never let go.
-
Cool . . I'll talk to Alexander.
I've asked a mate if he's interested in producing these roller rockers. He used to make all sorts of one-off billet alloy parts for the US drag bike crowd so has the expertise and CNC gear.
Is there anything else he might need?
-
Those look like my rockers on the R8. Who’s car is that? I’m not sure I would recognize the name but I’m guessing i sold them to him. Same color, same design...
-
Yeah, they do look like yours.
I've lost track of who did it. I really only stole the pics and made a few notes for myself.
-
I wonder whether it would also be feasable to make the 5 transverse pillars in alloy aswell, get rid of even more weight.
I will also be using alloy Nikasil coated liners in the 807 engine, I had them made over 30 years ago now for lightness, more even cooling amonst other things.
-
Also, would need less liner projection.
-
alloy liners possibly 12 lbs off engine weight,
that along with alloy front hubs, alloy front calipers, alloy radiator, plastic high performance fan, alloy water pipes, alloy gearchange, alloy sump & baffle (which is heavier) S1 doors & S1 lexan windows, alloy Banks style hinge kits, single skin engine cover, 4 revolution wheels, alloy fuel tank (Banks ones constantly split) & anything else I can discard
on the + side
front oil cooler mounted in the left front wheel arch with 2 full length cooler pipes
all makes for a light car
-
My 82.5mm liners weigh 1.38 lbs each....all four= 5.52lbs.
Kinda hard to justify much weight reduction there.
And the added power more than makes up for all the weight reductions you mentioned.
Even I can't imagine a enough weight being lost in the five transverse valve train mounts to make it worth it.....unless they are fairly cheap....in which case, me wants.
The most noticable weight reduction you mentioned is the wheels, but the revolution wheels don't hold a candle to a spun aluminum wheel. I run 10" wide rears and 9" wide front (13") Bogart racing wheels and I can't imagine a lighter wheel. Along with the Hoosier road racing slicks, they almost float. I'll weigh one and include it in my next post.
It's all about either rotating mass or unsprung weight for speed....total weight for cornering.
I spend my money on power, lowering rotating mass and unsprung weight. Aluminum flywheel with 200mm clutch for now.
Even made titanium push rods once but the guy spun them too thin at the cup and one broke. I should have more made because that was really light.
What I don't really know is how the titanium will either wear or cause wear at the cup and ball interface. Anyone want to chime in on that?
-
Clutch assembly.
On the shelf, I have a semi lightened steel flywheel that weighs 16.9lbs. Add a 200 mm clutch and the weight is just under 30 lbs.
In my car, and also on my shelf, is a fidanza flywheel that weighs in at just over 7 lbs. Already a rotating mass weight reduction of 10 lbs.
A while back, I bought a Tilton 5 1/2" 3 disc clutch assembly on ebay for around $200. Put that on the Fidanza and the total weight is just over 12 lbs.
And the Tilton is much smaller diameter, so all things considered, this will reduce rotating mass dramatically.
I will likely have to spend some money getting discs with the correct splines and having the flywheel modified to take the Tilton hub.
But then I will lose the weight of the 215mm renault steel hub currently on the flywheel....total weight under 12lbs.
And it will go in using the stock throwout bearing setup.
-
Wheels:
Here are some pics of one of my Bogart front wheels on the scale.
I can't imagine a lighter setup.
-
Three piece?
Reminds me of when I used to buy Compomotive for P4's and Ultima's.
Too bad Compomotive is either out of business or no longer doing three piece wheels.
They used to be the only way to get the correct off-set and width.
-
Estey, three piece. Any offset, any width.
Around $300 each last i bought
-
1 bought 3 sets of Revolution for £450 a set, 30 years ago they were the best period rims available as they started making them in the very early 70s, Image wheels make good 3 piece rims https://www.imagewheels.co.uk/
still too expensive for me.
My 78mm liners weigh 15oz's, if they were a larger bore they would weigh less obviously, although your engine gives good power it give far greater torque than my 1600cc engine will at lower rpm, I got 150 at the flywheel fairly easily with little proper tuning years ago, a Salv race cam, vernier cam sprocket, mild porting, std valves, std valve springs, std pistons & liners,std rods, std crank, std flywheel, std clutch, twin 45 Dellorto's, exhaust manifold & system.
-
I’m confused. Your post said alloy liners possibly 12 lbs off engine weight??
-
I’m confused. Your post said alloy liners possibly 12 lbs off engine weight??
just a guess, however I measured an alloy liner when I made the breakfast this morning, I had 5 made as you never have 4 liners or pistons made, the spare sits in my home office.
I'll go to my storage area next week and weigh a CI liner
-
You have my interest. Can you post a picture of your liner? Cost? Where did you get yours?
I'm not so concerned with the weight as I am with, from my 5 minutes of sleuthing, the heat transfer.
What is the longevity of a alloy liners?
I see they are coated with a material because the aluminum would never hold up to ring abrasion. I was thinking ceramic but it wouldn't seal well. What do you know of the coating material?
-
Motorcycles have used sprayed/coated cylinder bores for decades.....
-
So I'm told.
I wonder if they would be strong enough for my 82.5mm bore? These liners are not suported at the top...other than where they rest against each other.....
In my case, they are fairly thin as you can imagine. Thoughts anyone?
-
Search " Honda cylinder liner support" for some ideas as Honda car engines have a similar setup where they are not supported at the top of the liner.
In the old days they used to "pin" the cylinders on the thrust side of the bore to help support them but this would cause some distortion of the bore that required the bore to machined to make it true again.
-
So I'm told.
I wonder if they would be strong enough for my 82.5mm bore? These liners are not suported at the top...other than where they rest against each other.....
In my case, they are fairly thin as you can imagine. Thoughts anyone?
The company was GKN Squeezeform at Worcester, this was 30+ years ago, the tech/sales guy must have long retired by now as I myself am coming up for my pension, he was older than me, it was largely sold to me as a prototype for testing as they knew I raced on short track events with quick warmup of a few minutes, massive loadings for a couple of minutes then shut down when run in conjunction with my intended engine spec, they have also been used on a DB6 engine with a top flange liner with some success, slightly too large bore to be truly successful.
They are similar to Nikasil coating as per Porsche 928 & later 911's & now many modern VAG & other engines , their customers ran them in several engines at Le Mans aswell as testing on dyno's on full 40+ hr testing.
They fit & look exactly the same as a CI liner except they are alloy, they are supported at the bottom as per oe, for an 82.5mm bore the base would need to be bored bigger in the block.
Having carried a Reliant 850cc engine from the back of a van to my workshop my intention was also to make my Renault engine light enough to carry beside the performance advantages, now I'm well into my sixties I wouldn't want to do it but I still like the idea.
The whole reasoning behind the mods that I envisaged for the car was to race it in 1hr endurance events, so removing weight is always a good idea.
Photo to follow when my phone is charged.
-
I still can't imagine the weight loss would be worth it for me since it is static weight, not rotating mass.
I just weighed a stock connecting rod at 664 grams. An Eagle ESP H-beam rod is 555 grams, good for 900hp, pre-balanced, and available on ebay for $340.43 including shipping. They even come with ARP rod bolts.
It seems that this is a much better place to save weight since it is the definition of rotating mass.
As they are 1mm longer and have a larger wrist pin hole, you would likely have to use custom pistons. You could possibly use a bushing for the wrist pin but you would have to make sure that you still have clearance between the piston and head from that added 1mm..
Here in the US, I think you could likely buy rods, sleeves, and pistons for very close to Slav's Ebay price for pistons and sleeves alone, which is around $1500US. I would think that a 1796cc build, including block bore, rods, sleeves, pistons, head work with porting and bigger valves, cam grind and lifter resurface, gaskets and bearings would run less than $5000. And the result for me was 161hp at the wheels, which I believe is around 190 at the crank.
Every time I step on the throttle, I think that's a really great deal.
-
Search " Honda cylinder liner support" for some ideas as Honda car engines have a similar setup where they are not supported at the top of the liner.
Yes, I've looked at that stuff before and it seems good.
Darton do a Honda 81mm or 84mm kit for the B16A engine which could possibly be adapted to the 807 without too much trouble. It's their (MID Modular Integrated Deck) system.
I'd like to put a calliper on one to see for sure.
Their 81mm (1734cc) kit would be fine by me but I'd be less afraid to go to 82.5mm with the Darton upper liner support. Not very expensive, either.
The old factory rally Alpine A110's complained about barreling and loss of compression which was put down to the thin 82.5mm liners.
Salv's 1800cc kits are steel which are stronger than cast but steel comes with it's own quirks
-
An Eagle ESP H-beam rod is 555 grams, good for 900hp, pre-balanced, and available on ebay for $340.43 including shipping. They even come with ARP rod bolts.
Are those the Toyota rods?
Here are the liner photos
-
Yes, Toyota 3sgte. The eagle site lists two rods, one good for 900hp, the other for 1200hp. Same weight....different price.
https://www.eaglerod.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=40
eBay listing
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Eagle-Connecting-Rods-H-Beam-for-Toyota-3S-GTE-Celica-MR2-SW20-ST185/111138169875?fits=Make%3AToyota&epid=633075521&hash=item19e059e413:g:TcsAAOSwUixe2rcQ
-
Those liners are different than mine as they are flanged on top to accept a standard head gasket. Mine aren’t. I get custom cosmetic gaskets.
Also flanged on the bottom, which mine are not.
I wonder if that is to address a strength issue but I haven’t had any problems with mine.
-
they were copied off an OE liner
-
Search " Honda cylinder liner support" for some ideas as Honda car engines have a similar setup where they are not supported at the top of the liner.
Yes, I've looked at that stuff before and it seems good.
Darton do a Honda 81mm or 84mm kit for the B16A engine which could possibly be adapted to the 807 without too much trouble. It's their (MID Modular Integrated Deck) system.
I'd like to put a calliper on one to see for sure.
Their 81mm (1734cc) kit would be fine by me but I'd be less afraid to go to 82.5mm with the Darton upper liner support. Not very expensive, either.
The old factory rally Alpine A110's complained about barreling and loss of compression which was put down to the thin 82.5mm liners.
Salv's 1800cc kits are steel which are stronger than cast but steel comes with it's own quirks
We had the same problems with our 50s Aston engines when running 84mm from OE 83mm which is why I havent used them since 1978, very important consideration, in Bell's book he gives a minmum cylinder wall thickness of 0.180", over 4.5mm
-
These cylinder discussions are very similar to what Alfa Romeo guys go through.
In the Alfa world those seeking ultimate power levels (A turbo land speed car for example) resort to a mono-sleeve.
It is a single piece machined to replace the individual cylinders and eliminates the flex/sealing issues of the open deck design.
Not cheap but very successful.
-
These cylinder discussions are very similar to what Alfa Romeo guys go through.
In the Alfa world those seeking ultimate power levels (A turbo land speed car for example) resort to a mono-sleeve.
It is a single piece machined to replace the individual cylinders and eliminates the flex/sealing issues of the open deck design.
Not cheap but very successful.
from Cast Iron or?
-
from Cast Iron or?
Cast iron I think.
Pretty fancy for the time . . and with an eye watering price.
Here's a pic from a local racer's car back then.
-
Wow, nice part!
-
We had the same problems with our 50s Aston engines when running 84mm from OE 83mm which is why I havent used them since 1978, very important consideration, in Bell's book he gives a minmum cylinder wall thickness of 0.180", over 4.5mm
Yes . . for the Alpine rally cars using 82.5mm bores, the wall thickness works out to around 0.130"
Darton list some MID sleeves with 0.188" but specify for "Drag only" which I presume is code "no warranty".
There's a couple listed at 0.213" and 0.217" wall thickness while most are above the 0.230" range.
The thickest is only 0.285", though, so it's interesting to see what manufactures consider is OK and what isn't.
For the 807, it seems more sensible to re-space the cylinders as Ferry did for the 84mm, 1860cc kit.
-
from Cast Iron or?
Cast iron I think.
Pretty fancy for the time . . and with an eye watering price.
Here's a pic from a local racer's car back then.
Easier to buy a block of cast iron & machine from solid with a 5 axis, however the machining would need to be good, if its wrong it will scrap the block or just sieze the engine. Our shop could do it but would ££££s
-
looking at the photo again there are no coolant slots between the liners which suprises me
-
It looks like mine break all the rules.
The center two have flats on both sides and the other two only have flats on toward the middle.
Mine are.265 at the top, except where they meet where they measure .130.
They taper down from there to .100, allowing coolant to pass between the liners.
This is about half of the .180 rule, and they have worked perfectly for me.
I wonder if metal technology has changed enough to make the .180 rule obsolete? Or am I just lucky?
-
Don't think of it as breaking the rules; it's really breaking new ground.
Colin would surely approve. ;D
-
It looks like mine break all the rules.
The center two have flats on both sides and the other two only have flats on toward the middle.
Mine are.265 at the top, except where they meet where they measure .130.
They taper down from there to .100, allowing coolant to pass between the liners.
This is about half of the .180 rule, and they have worked perfectly for me.
I wonder if metal technology has changed enough to make the .180 rule obsolete? Or am I just lucky?
Steel liners or CI ?
-
Both LA sleeve and Advanced sleeve use ductile iron....a form of cast iron.
The LA sleeve site says that it uses three standard wall thicknesses....1/16, 3/32, and 1/8”.
Their most common thickness is 3/32......093.
It sounds like the advances in metal make the ,180 rule obsolete, but i am not in any position to say.
I can say that my sleeves have been fine.
I haven’t gone through my receipts yet but I remember contacting both companies and I think I remember getting mine from Advanced.
When I do go through my receipts, i will post a spread sheet of my suppliers, cost, part numbers, and date of purchase.
I’m guessing that current prices as they relate to my dated prices will sometimes be more, sometimes less based on inflation, advances in manufacturing processes, and competition.
For example, i believe that custom rocker arms, especially if I (or eomeone) can get access to a CAD file, will be cheaper today than they were ten years ago.
-
Measured an OE Alpine A110 82.5mm sleeve and a stock Renault 77mm sleeve.
The liners were clean but not scrupulously buffed to eliminate the well adhered black surface deposit common to both.
Both are measured at the flat where they abut the adjacent liner.
Alpine sleeve measured across flats: 89.15mm
Renault sleeve measured across flats: 88.84mm
Wall thickness (Alpine): 0.125" & 0.130"
Wall thickness (Renault): 0.231" & 0.243"
I took care with the measurements but only with a digital calliper. They won't be dead nuts on but should be sufficient for general discussion.
Interesting side to side discrepancy for the Renault sleeve.
Not sure what all this says.
One could argue the Alpine sleeves are well under the .180 rule so it's no wonder they suffered from barrelling and loss of compression. Though looking at the Alpine pistons, they have some serious domes going on so the compression must have been through the roof - perhaps 'special' fuel was used?
Alternatively, one could argue the Alpines decisively won the world rally championship, so the .180 rule is a little conservative!
Ha . . I dunno.
I put a file on both liners and they react like cast iron of some sort, to me.
I'm wondering if that large flange on the upper deck of the Darton sleeves might contribute some decent stiffness to the whole block/liners assembly.
-
from AA Bells book Four Stroke Performance Tuning https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=OTOYHRSX_XcC&q=CYLINDER+WALL+THICKNESS#v=snippet&q=CYLINDER%20WALL%20THICKNESS&f=false page 219, Bell is a weel respected tuner with modern British & European touring car knowledge of engines producing over 150bhp per ltr
in a cast iron block with usual dubious quality not high quality liners where the quality is strictly controlled, the top half of the cylinder is listed as
65/70hp per liner 0.095" / 0.105"
75hp per ltr 0.110"/0.130"
85hp per ltr 0.150"/.0180"
100hp per ltr 0.220"/0.250"
the latter 2 are for max rpm race engines, around 8500rpm +
This book is really the bible for a lot of engine builders
we keep our 1950s Aston 6 cylinder engines quite thick as 40 years ago we a lot of head gasket issues, eventually solved by very close liner protrusion setting & very special head studs, we are stuck on race engines at 93 bhp per ltr except for one road car engine which also had 93 bhp per ltr but a large redesign on how we do things, should make 100 hp per ltr with race cams & 45s, not triple SUs
-
If I read his article correctly, he is referring to a cast iron block 'of dubious quality', not a lined block. Part, if not most of his concern, is that a cast iron block is often bored as much as .040 off center, meaning that the original wall thickness is compromised. When reboring, it can then create a weak, thin area that you wouldn't even notice until it was too late.
With liners, the wall thickness is carefully machined to a very consistent thickness, eliminating a weak spot that encourages failure.
As he says in his article, the most important part of the bore is the upper part as that is the combustion chamber that has most all of the pressures. He states that the lower part of the bore can be as little as much as .020 thinner safely.
The Renault liner has a thick area at the top that accomplishes two things....(1) It gives a bigger land for the head gasket....(2) It strengthens the top of the sleeve.
Any crack in the sleeve will more than likely start at the top and work it's way down as it would take a lot of stress to start a crack in the middle of a sleeve.
I am by no means an expert engine builder, but when I had my liners made, there was no concern on the manufacturers part as to the thickness of the liners. As I said, they usually make their liners in three thicknesses, the thickest of which is .125.
How thick are Salv's 1796 liners? Anyone know?
-
Thats what I stated
I dont know how thick Salv's liners are, 30 years ago he had tried CI liners (presumably nodular CI), then he went over the steel liners, not that it bother me as i'm sticking to around 1605cc's for at least one engine because I dont have to lie to event organisers
-
I think your first line was a misprint. It says:
65/70hp per liner 0.095" / 0.105"
I believe it was intended to say ‘per litre’ (or liter for those of us on the other side of the pond).
That is why I thought there might be some confusion about bored blocks versus liners.
-
Some insight here on the metallurgy differences between cast iron, ductile iron and steel sleeves.
https://www.enginebuildermag.com/2018/02/sleeves-liners-metallurgic-magic/
The 807 bore spacing is 89mm.
With a bore of 82.5mm, the wall thickness must be 3.25mm (0.128").
I believe Salv retains the stock bore spacing as does Meca for their 82.5mm sleeves.
-
thats the max thickness not allowing for coolant flow around the liner which only need be 0.050" / 2 = 0.025" so a realistic wall thickness of 0.100" or so at that point, the liners could have 2 flats across the wrist pin axis, the flange could be extended down to 3/4" or even 1".
I think Salv's liners are 77 or 79mm at the very top & he uses the rim as a squish band as he uses a std head gasket, the pistons are stepped.
-
Yes, I'd have instinctively thought coolant flow might be an issue too, but looking again at the Darton stuff, perhaps not.
Did Salv recently change his liner design?
I seem to recall that both he and Meca offered clearing liners. Did I get that wrong?
Ferry did the 1860cc kit with blind liners as you describe.
-
Salv's pistons look to have a rim machined into them, he uses STD head gasket
-
Got a quote from our machineshop for x flow roller rockers for 15 sets, just finalising & will post price shortly, to get a larger ratio rocker in we might have to make the 5 supports & move the inlet rocker shaft back towards the plug tubes, modifying the rocker to avoid the plug tube, exhaust side is easy & rocker shaft would remain in the same place.
will possibly make roller rockers for wedge head aswell which are quite easy to get to work with more ratio.
-
One of our members in Australia, Willa, had two sets of roller rockers made for the wedge head in 2019
http://www.lotuseuropa.org/LotusForum/index.php?topic=1053.msg36061#msg36061
I just thought I'd cross reference this in case there's any chance of sharing design information or anything like that.
-
I am wondering what the advantage is to changing the rocker ratio instead of changing the cam grind?
It seems a tradeoff:
-With higher rocker ratio, the push rods and lifters move less. Does this translate into something good, like higher achievable rev limits?
-Higher rocker ratio would put more pressure on the rockers and shaft.
In the end, the idea is to get more movement out of the valve. Seems that changing the cam grind achieves this.
What am I missing?
-
I am wondering what the advantage is to changing the rocker ratio instead of changing the cam grind?
It seems a tradeoff:
-With higher rocker ratio, the push rods and lifters move less. Does this translate into something good, like higher achievable rev limits?
-Higher rocker ratio would put more pressure on the rockers and shaft.
In the end, the idea is to get more movement out of the valve. Seems that changing the cam grind achieves this.
What am I missing?
With either method, there will be increased mechanical losses. I expect that the problem with just fattening the cam lobe is the interface dynamics between the lobe and the follower. At some point, any small increase in ramp angle and height of the lobe will have a significant increase in shear stress of the lubrication film separating the two. These stresses will increase as well with a greater rocker ratio, but less dramatically so than by a big, hairy re-grind. And, as you mentioned, less overall travel of the reciprocating valve train components will enhance valve train stability at speed.
-
Only original cams to regrind unless we put in an order for 50 or 100 chilled cast blanks from India which is the best place to get cam blanks made.
As Bainford states there are limits on cam dynamics whatever blank you use, you can lessen the problems by increasing the diameter of the cam follower when the new blanks are made, read Bell's Four Stroke Performance Tuning book for more info.
Roller rockers with more ratio are an easy solution (wont say cheap) the friction would be less than the std rockers which puts huge strain on the valves & guides.
-
MRN...I believe you meant the diameter of the cam lobe, not follower?
I agree that a larger cam lobe is preferable, although I'm not sure I am following the reasoning that says that higher ratio rockers is better than a more aggressive cam, assuming that the cam lobes are reasonable size.
I got no interest when I posted about getting a group buy of cams. I was hoping that we could either get them with unground lobes to be ground to preferrence or get them with different profiles as not everyone wants the same profile.
CATCAMS sells 6 different cam profiles....unfortunately we would have to give up offspring to afford them at $550/ea.
I am currrently getting just under .500 valve lift with my current roller rockers and reground cam.
-
MRN...I believe you meant the diameter of the cam lobe, not follower?
I agree that a larger cam lobe is preferable, although I'm not sure I am following the reasoning that says that higher ratio rockers is better than a more aggressive cam, assuming that the cam lobes are reasonable size.
I got no interest when I posted about getting a group buy of cams. I was hoping that we could either get them with unground lobes to be ground to preferrence or get them with different profiles as not everyone wants the same profile.
CATCAMS sells 6 different cam profiles....unfortunately we would have to give up offspring to afford them at $550/ea.
I am currrently getting just under .500 valve lift with my current roller rockers and reground cam.
there is a direct relationship between cam lobe height / cam base circle & follower diameter.
Are CATCAMS grinding on new blanks
-
looks like they are grinding on steel billets only, not chilled cast blanks as metalurgically correct. I'll get a price in chilled cast blanks
-
I would love a good blank so I can get full size lobes again. Keep me posted.
BTW...any news on the roller rockers?
-
I think some of the appeal re higher ratio rockers has to do with convenience and marketing, too.
It's a lot easier to install a new set of rockers than take the whole engine apart to change the cam. Higher ratio rockers effectively increase valve acceleration for a similar pseudo overlap gain. I don't know how these high ratio kits handle the geometry changes.
But stock ratio roller rockers also come with a few quirks. They rigidly maintain a static dimension between rocker fulcrum & valve stem whereas a stock rocker changes as it moves through it's arc. I'd want a cam that takes the differences into account.
Also, a roller rocker introduces an additional potential point of failure - the roller tip.
There's no doubt roller rockers add some bling . . expensive and unseen but other than that?
That's a lot of dollars for zero HP.
I see them more as an enabling mod.
Given they reduce side loading of the valve stem, perhaps the obvious next step for a racer is to move to 7mm valve stems, titanium valve retainers and remove any valve guide remaining in the port.
Anyone cross drilled their lifters?
-
As it is so very pertinent to my current build I am bringing this back from the dead.
In my recent searches new original TS rockers are extinct, I have not been able to find a source anywhere at any price.
That leaves reproductions and if you are going to that much effort they may as well be roller tip.
Lots of CNC shops around but few foundries or shops that want to use castings.
I see that I commented on this thread in the past, it is one of the threads I could not find using search.
The thread drifted hard into cylinders and the roller rockers were left unresolved.
I am currently pursuing a couple of leads for them.
This thread shows that one of those is the company that did them for Ultima Guy.
A couple more are in the UK, they may have more Renault customers there?
If all else fails I know a shop that would probably do them, but as noted the good alloy is being difficult to source at a decent price.
Any metallurgist here to offer an alternative and heat treat?
Is the offer of loan for reverse engineering still open?
I still have a couple of CAD programs on the PC.
These should not be too difficult as it seems they are largely strait lines.
For my own use I would retain the original ratio but if most of the program may remain intact an alternate version should not be difficult.
-
Spoke with Rockers Unlimited.
They are not keen on making more.
I have asked if they would sell me the CAD files.
Should have an answer tomorrow.
-
No luck at Rockers Unlimited, they are backed up with work and no longer have the CAD files.
There are two more companies I am trying to get quotes from.
One in the UK and another in the US.
Last resort may be to make them myself with help from a machinist I sometimes work for.
Question becomes is 7075 really necessary or can we find another alloy?
-
Roller rockers may be moving forward again.
I've submitted some pics to a willing company.
Waiting for a rough quote and minimum quantity.
-
:deadhorse: Ugh, $10K tooling cost for a die cast version.
I am sure they would be great but I've asked for a quote on CNC milled aluminum, reasoning that fixtures would be less expensive.