Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Technical Discussion & Questions
  300WHP Supernatural 3.XX Coming Soon! (Page 8)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version

This topic is 8 pages long:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8 
Previous Page | Next Page
next newest topic | next oldest topic
300WHP Supernatural 3.XX Coming Soon! by La fiera
Started on: 01-01-2018 09:47 PM
Replies: 297 (8544 views)
Last post by: La fiera on 11-27-2020 07:12 PM
La fiera
Member
Posts: 1615
From: Mooresville, NC
Registered: Jun 2008


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post11-21-2020 07:02 PM Click Here to See the Profile for La fieraSend a Private Message to La fieraEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
https://youtu.be/yhUBSUyTT9k

Assembling the Longblock.
IP: Logged
Blacktree
Member
Posts: 20507
From: Central Florida
Registered: Dec 2001


Feedback score:    (11)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 350
Rate this member

Report this Post11-22-2020 12:11 PM Click Here to See the Profile for BlacktreeClick Here to visit Blacktree's HomePageClick Here to Email BlacktreeSend a Private Message to BlacktreeEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Nice
IP: Logged
pmbrunelle
Member
Posts: 3705
From: Grand-Mère, Québec
Registered: Sep 2008


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 55
Rate this member

Report this Post11-22-2020 03:35 PM Click Here to See the Profile for pmbrunelleClick Here to Email pmbrunelleSend a Private Message to pmbrunelleEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Your videos are getting better, but it is hard to hear you speak. I had to make the volume very high, then when the music came on, it was blasting.

What does it mean when you say you calculate the camshaft duration based on the rod/stroke ratio?

Is this a La Fiera secret-sauce calculation, determined over years of finding what works?
IP: Logged
La fiera
Member
Posts: 1615
From: Mooresville, NC
Registered: Jun 2008


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post11-22-2020 08:29 PM Click Here to See the Profile for La fieraSend a Private Message to La fieraEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by pmbrunelle:

Your videos are getting better, but it is hard to hear you speak. I had to make the volume very high, then when the music came on, it was blasting.

What does it mean when you say you calculate the camshaft duration based on the rod/stroke ratio?

Is this a La Fiera secret-sauce calculation, determined over years of finding what works?


I know, sorry you couldn't hear me properly. That is everyone's complaint. As far as the secret sauce I can say it is something like that.
I take EVERYTHING into consideration when designing a cam. People say camshaft designing is a black art, not for me. It is just common sense.
I don't built my engines to make HP, I build them to make torque. And since HP is a mathematical calculation of how fast that torque is delivered, the HP would find its place if you build engines to produce the highest torque per cubic inch. That would also give you an idea of how efficient and effective the engine is using the air/fuel mixture to make power.
You got a PM. Read it and I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. I did that approach year ago on an engine without knowing (by mistake) and after doing a lot of research on why that engine was so powerful I came across this.
IP: Logged
sourmash
Member
Posts: 1106
From:
Registered: Jul 2016


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post11-22-2020 09:06 PM Click Here to See the Profile for sourmashClick Here to Email sourmashSend a Private Message to sourmashEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
I turned on the close caption and it said something about a lobster and a celebration. Was it a Rock Lobster?

I think it turned 6 degrees of extra duration into a six year celebration. I'm not sure what a "narrow lobster handle" might be though.

[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 11-22-2020).]

IP: Logged
La fiera
Member
Posts: 1615
From: Mooresville, NC
Registered: Jun 2008


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post11-23-2020 07:39 AM Click Here to See the Profile for La fieraSend a Private Message to La fieraEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by sourmash:

I turned on the close caption and it said something about a lobster and a celebration. Was it a Rock Lobster?

I think it turned 6 degrees of extra duration into a six year celebration. I'm not sure what a "narrow lobster handle" might be though.



LOL!! Narrower lobe center angle is what I said. I know, it's all my fault! I'll see if can find a microphone that works with my Iphone.

IP: Logged
sourmash
Member
Posts: 1106
From:
Registered: Jul 2016


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post11-23-2020 08:22 AM Click Here to See the Profile for sourmashClick Here to Email sourmashSend a Private Message to sourmashEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Ok, lol, I should've gotten that. It's looking ver-nice.
IP: Logged
Blacktree
Member
Posts: 20507
From: Central Florida
Registered: Dec 2001


Feedback score:    (11)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 350
Rate this member

Report this Post11-23-2020 02:09 PM Click Here to See the Profile for BlacktreeClick Here to visit Blacktree's HomePageClick Here to Email BlacktreeSend a Private Message to BlacktreeEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by pmbrunelle: Your videos are getting better, but it is hard to hear you speak. I had to make the volume very high, then when the music came on, it was blasting.

I had the same problem, when I started making videos. To balance the audio, I had to crank up the microphone gain quite a bit. There should be a setting for that in the voice recording app. I also had to turn down the volume on the music. You can do that in the video editing app.
IP: Logged
pmbrunelle
Member
Posts: 3705
From: Grand-Mère, Québec
Registered: Sep 2008


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 55
Rate this member

Report this Post11-23-2020 08:29 PM Click Here to See the Profile for pmbrunelleClick Here to Email pmbrunelleSend a Private Message to pmbrunelleEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
You did publish the title of the paper in your video, so you could share it here for other folks to read.

********************************************************************************

So there are perhaps four aspects to consider with the quick-return:

1. With a certain amount of air/fuel mixture in the cylinder, how can the most work be performed on the piston face? The is is called the indicated work. The study you refer to only analyses this aspect of the engine performance, so it's a bit incomplete (not the big picture). Also, it's only computer simulations, so who knows how good those are? The paper did not mention if they adjusted the (simulated) spark advance for different values of offset; I think that optimum spark advance could change.

My personal feeling is that quick-return is not good to maximize indicated work on the piston.

Ideally, to reduce the load on the crankshaft during the compression stroke, the spark should be delayed as late as possible. Then, at TDC, the spark should light the mixture, and the mixture should completely burn, causing the pressure to rise. Then, the piston should move down from TDC, ideally once combustion is complete. This is the ideal. In practice, we seek to have the mixture burn fast, and the spark is advanced relative to TDC; this gives a compromise between negative work on the compression stroke, and positive work on the power stroke.

With quick-return, could the piston start moving down prematurely, preventing the pressure from getting high and pushing down hard on the piston?

2. At the start of the intake stroke, as the piston moves down, this movement kick-starts the movement of the slug of air inside the intake runner. In your engine builds, this seems to be a key factor to success. The quick-return could have a large payoff due to this.

3. Side load on the piston is affected by offset. Since this is for racing, if the engine wears out a bit faster, I don't think you have to worry about that. This doesn't look like a 100 000 km 5-year warranty kind of project.

Side load can cause friction. Friction in the engine is why power available at the flywheel is less than indicated power.

4. Assuming that your racing class limits the displacement, you cannot verify compliance with the normal formula:
number_cylinders * crank_stroke * bore * bore * pi / 4

You can use the formulas in the paper to find your true displacement.

********************************************************************************

General remark: On the big-bore 60° V6 models such as LZ9, the piston bores are offset (away from the camshaft) by 1.5 mm (I think that's the number). I don't know if the piston pin is centered in the piston. Anyway, if the ECM uses the same tune for both banks, then that means that 1.5 mm shift is not significant.

The piston motion is the same for these two scenarios:
Pin centered in piston, bore offset
Bore centered, pin offset in piston
IP: Logged
ericjon262
Member
Posts: 2686
From: everywhere.
Registered: Jan 2010


Feedback score:    (10)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 64
Rate this member

Report this Post11-24-2020 01:44 AM Click Here to See the Profile for ericjon262Send a Private Message to ericjon262Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
OEM's have been offsetting piston pins for years to better balance the thrust loads on the cylinder walls.
IP: Logged
La fiera
Member
Posts: 1615
From: Mooresville, NC
Registered: Jun 2008


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post11-24-2020 08:16 AM Click Here to See the Profile for La fieraSend a Private Message to La fieraEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by ericjon262:

OEM's have been offsetting piston pins for years to better balance the thrust loads on the cylinder walls.


Very true Eric.
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
La fiera
Member
Posts: 1615
From: Mooresville, NC
Registered: Jun 2008


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post11-24-2020 08:41 AM Click Here to See the Profile for La fieraSend a Private Message to La fieraEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by pmbrunelle:

You did publish the title of the paper in your video, so you could share it here for other folks to read.

********************************************************************************

So there are perhaps four aspects to consider with the quick-return:

1. With a certain amount of air/fuel mixture in the cylinder, how can the most work be performed on the piston face? The is is called the indicated work. The study you refer to only analyses this aspect of the engine performance, so it's a bit incomplete (not the big picture). Also, it's only computer simulations, so who knows how good those are? The paper did not mention if they adjusted the (simulated) spark advance for different values of offset; I think that optimum spark advance could change.

My personal feeling is that quick-return is not good to maximize indicated work on the piston.

Ideally, to reduce the load on the crankshaft during the compression stroke, the spark should be delayed as late as possible. Then, at TDC, the spark should light the mixture, and the mixture should completely burn, causing the pressure to rise. Then, the piston should move down from TDC, ideally once combustion is complete. This is the ideal. In practice, we seek to have the mixture burn fast, and the spark is advanced relative to TDC; this gives a compromise between negative work on the compression stroke, and positive work on the power stroke.

With quick-return, could the piston start moving down prematurely, preventing the pressure from getting high and pushing down hard on the piston?

2. At the start of the intake stroke, as the piston moves down, this movement kick-starts the movement of the slug of air inside the intake runner. In your engine builds, this seems to be a key factor to success. The quick-return could have a large payoff due to this.

3. Side load on the piston is affected by offset. Since this is for racing, if the engine wears out a bit faster, I don't think you have to worry about that. This doesn't look like a 100 000 km 5-year warranty kind of project.

Side load can cause friction. Friction in the engine is why power available at the flywheel is less than indicated power.

4. Assuming that your racing class limits the displacement, you cannot verify compliance with the normal formula:
number_cylinders * crank_stroke * bore * bore * pi / 4

You can use the formulas in the paper to find your true displacement.

********************************************************************************

General remark: On the big-bore 60° V6 models such as LZ9, the piston bores are offset (away from the camshaft) by 1.5 mm (I think that's the number). I don't know if the piston pin is centered in the piston. Anyway, if the ECM uses the same tune for both banks, then that means that 1.5 mm shift is not significant.

The piston motion is the same for these two scenarios:
Pin centered in piston, bore offset
Bore centered, pin offset in piston


The reason I sent it to you was because since you are an engineer and an analytical person, I wanted to hear your input on the matter.
This is only one of the reference material I used to do my research.
I also read a paper from an Italian kart engine manufacturer where the shorter ratio engine was much faster on the short and twisty tracks.
On the tracks that had long straights the long ratio engine was king.
I've been working on this rotating assembly and everything that comprises the engine for 2 years and after I was satisfied then I made it a reality.
The only custom parts on it are the pistons.
As far as the increase of wear and friction I don't think is going to be a problem. the 3.4L has a rod ratio of 1.72, My 3.7L has a rod ratio of 1.63; same rod ratio found in the 5.7L Chevy smalblock and I have personally seen cars and trucks with those engines hit 200,000 miles on the odometer.


IP: Logged
ericjon262
Member
Posts: 2686
From: everywhere.
Registered: Jan 2010


Feedback score:    (10)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 64
Rate this member

Report this Post11-24-2020 09:00 AM Click Here to See the Profile for ericjon262Send a Private Message to ericjon262Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
I'm not sold that rod ratio is worth much of anything as long as you aren't at some kind of crazy extreme.
IP: Logged
Will
Member
Posts: 13501
From: Where you least expect me
Registered: Jun 2000


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 234
Rate this member

Report this Post11-24-2020 09:27 AM Click Here to See the Profile for WillClick Here to Email WillSend a Private Message to WillEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by ericjon262:

I'm not sold that rod ratio is worth much of anything as long as you aren't at some kind of crazy extreme.


Reher-Morrison peeps have said it's just not important to maximum power... but they're into Pro-Stock, which is neither roundy-round nor road course action.

That doesn't mean rod ratio is not important to getting the combination to run at its best... meaning that there's probably some cam optimization that works better with long rods than with short rods, as well as some level of voodoo with regard to vacuum pulses at the venturi for those running calibrated lea--errr... carburettors.
IP: Logged
sourmash
Member
Posts: 1106
From:
Registered: Jul 2016


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post11-24-2020 09:37 AM Click Here to See the Profile for sourmashClick Here to Email sourmashSend a Private Message to sourmashEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by ericjon262:

I'm not sold that rod ratio is worth much of anything as long as you aren't at some kind of crazy extreme.


All racing is to an extreme.
IP: Logged
ericjon262
Member
Posts: 2686
From: everywhere.
Registered: Jan 2010


Feedback score:    (10)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 64
Rate this member

Report this Post11-24-2020 10:10 AM Click Here to See the Profile for ericjon262Send a Private Message to ericjon262Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Will:


Reher-Morrison peeps have said it's just not important to maximum power... but they're into Pro-Stock, which is neither roundy-round nor road course action.

That doesn't mean rod ratio is not important to getting the combination to run at its best... meaning that there's probably some cam optimization that works better with long rods than with short rods, as well as some level of voodoo with regard to vacuum pulses at the venturi for those running calibrated lea--errr... carburettors.


True, my statement wasn't meant to imply that it should be brushed aside and forgotten about, but more that for most people operating on the level at which we are probably won't notice a difference between a short and a long rod, as long as the rod isn't ridiculously out of normal range.
 
quote
Originally posted by sourmash:
All racing is to an extreme.


My point isn't that racing isn't extreme, my point is that the ratio would have to be off by a massive value to have a noteworthy difference. IE, you probably won't see a difference going from a 1.65:1 to a 1.72:1, OTOH, if you were to go from a 1:1 ratio to a 1.72:1 ratio, there would potentially be a pronounced difference in performance.


IP: Logged
La fiera
Member
Posts: 1615
From: Mooresville, NC
Registered: Jun 2008


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post11-25-2020 08:58 AM Click Here to See the Profile for La fieraSend a Private Message to La fieraEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by ericjon262:

I'm not sold that rod ratio is worth much of anything as long as you aren't at some kind of crazy extreme.


Here where I live there's a lot of short oval races and the advantage of the short rod ratio (SRR) engine can clearly be seen on those short tracks.
The SRR car leaps and accelerates like a Cheetah off the corners, pulling away from the LRR car. By the time the LRR car stretches its legs and gets close to the SRR car, it is time to hit the brakes. The same process repeats lap after lap. In 20 laps the SRR car almost puts a lap on the LRR car. Now, on a longer track it would be a different story.
I've also heard from local 1/8 mile drag racers that the LRR engine makes more power on the dyno but the SRR is faster on the track. Then again, there has to be an advantage.
I can see where the LRR engine would shine; 1/2 mile drag race, 1 mile oval track, road race at Daytona, Lemans, etc.
In my case I opted for the SRR because the tracks I frequent are short, have tight turns and there's not much straights.
IP: Logged
La fiera
Member
Posts: 1615
From: Mooresville, NC
Registered: Jun 2008


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post11-27-2020 07:12 PM Click Here to See the Profile for La fieraSend a Private Message to La fieraEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post


So, got the trans together this evening. Does anybody know what is the torque spec for that bolt?

Thank!
IP: Logged
Previous Page | Next Page

This topic is 8 pages long:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8 
next newest topic | next oldest topic

All times are ET (US)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery | Ogre's Cave
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock