GT Posted December 31, 2008 Posted December 31, 2008 Most "tuned" engines barely break 100HP. I think that statement needs a little qualification. Most "tuned" engines barely break wind, never mind 100bhp! ;D
GT6 Mike Posted December 31, 2008 Posted December 31, 2008 Putting ARP/COS bolts in standard rods is totally pointless. Really a total waste of money because it's not the bolts that let go, it's the threads in the rods!! Lightening, balancing, polishing them makes no difference whatsoever to a STD rod apart from making them look prettier. Being as they're made of cast iron I wouldn't bother, they stretch like mad at full revs! Rubber crank, rubber rods. : Disagree, standard bolts do stretch, as for the rest of it just because you dont agree, doesnt mean that it wont make a difference, You have quoted in the past of building 2 litre engines that would rev above 8K on standard parts (crank & rods), they cant be that bad. As for the quality of parts from China / Far East, a significant amount of OE and aftermarket parts are already produced out there, dont necessarily argree with it but thats just the way it is. These rods may be total crap, but lets wait and see, if they send sample parts, I'll get them inspected. I am lucky enough to be able to tap into some fairly talented engine people who will soon let me know their opinions, we have nothing to loose.
GT Posted December 31, 2008 Posted December 31, 2008 Disagree, standard bolts do stretch, Really? Did you check? Torqued them and mic'ed them up? I never could find any stretch on any but obviously defective ones. FYI PL's engine dumped its conrods originally at about 100bhp/L because the bolts ripped out the rods, (nothing to do with bolt failure). That equates to almost exactly 205bhp on a 2L engine at about 7600rpm. I don't think I ever saw that on anyone else's 2L. EVER. Usually rod bolts in fact fail because the main line tightens up. That is exactly how it goes on the YB Cosworth, but I'm told that's at 10 000rpm and about 730bhp. As it's highly unlikely for the sloppy main line to come anywhere near tightening on a GT6 (was tested at 400bhp), then frankly I wouldn't worry 2p.
GT Posted December 31, 2008 Posted December 31, 2008 As for the quality of parts from China / Far East, a significant amount of OE and aftermarket parts are already produced out there, dont necessarily argree with it but thats just the way it is. I forgot the 2nd point, Yes in fact I have the addresses and lists of products made by those COs (They're not very far from here by train incidentally). Let's say there's a big difference between a STD GM/Holden standard crank turned out by the zillion and hi tech steel racing engine components. Let's face it, Australia and the Asian motor industry is pretty close to China geographically. Doesn't mean it's any good for motor sport. SORRY!
GT6 Mike Posted January 1, 2009 Posted January 1, 2009 I forgot the 2nd point, Yes in fact I have the addresses and lists of products made by those COs (They're not very far from here by train incidentally). Let's say there's a big difference between a STD GM/Holden standard crank turned out by the zillion and hi tech steel racing engine components. Let's face it, Australia and the Asian motor industry is pretty close to China geographically. Doesn't mean it's any good for motor sport. SORRY! SORRY for what ? I am only interested in building a quick reliable road engine that can be used and abused, I not talking serious motorsport. If these rods are suitable I will build them into an engine, not sure what the problem is, other than a difference of opinion.
GT Posted January 1, 2009 Posted January 1, 2009 I guess it's a difference of attitude. It's of course fine to drop them into your own engine. If it goes bang then it's your own bits in your hands. The problem is, I can't switch off the nag mode : That consists of 1/ "would I fit this in my own engine"? 2/ "would I fit this in a customer's engine"? 3/ "Am I prepared to build it twice because of my own fault"? 4/ "Am I prepared to build it twice because of someone else's fault"? I say NO on all counts. you say YES to 1/ 3/ 4/ That's fine by me, my nag mode is permanently "ON" ;D
webermaniac Posted January 2, 2009 Posted January 2, 2009 Sorry for my ignorance, what is a PL engine?
DaveNotSoSideways Posted January 2, 2009 Posted January 2, 2009 PL is Paul Lucas. A UK racer in the Triumph Series (TSSC), his engine, gearbox, diff etc was built by GT.
GT Posted January 2, 2009 Posted January 2, 2009 I never did Paul's engine. That was a top job by Ken Riley, who has been doing them for him for 20+ years (with a brief interlude of detuning by Looney Done), before retiring for ill health etc. Ken's engines have won many many seasons, and Paul's engines were known for doing 2 race winning series on ONE rebuild, which is something of a record. One must also hand it to the ruthless driving skills also. Ken had a (overworked) apprentice who now runs the business (Stuart) who is rather good, but as I said "overworked". Ken had the nice but difficult way of doing biz. You like it or lump it! Having said that his mini engines were some of the fastest in the biz. (Howz about 120+ bhp from 1000cc) I have a lot of praise for Ken the bolshey! I used to do Paul's transmissions in the big winning years, then things got a bit diluted, moving over to stuff which didn't work as well (Quaife, Looney's useless CR boxes). Moving back to plate type axles, and decent gearboxes is nice, but then a lot of us know how the car was completely totalled .....and there for now the story awaits a big burst of new motivation for probably the most successful race Spitfires of all time. : It's a pity, we keep talking about the thing (MASSIVE JOB) and how it should be back some day, and how it can easily find another 2-3 secs a lap over previous times. The car/driver combo holds many lap records to this day, some of them 10+ years old. (Here's an excerpt from Oulton,- Sporting Cars Road-Golng Sports Cars race (10 laps) - overall: 1, Grahame Bryant (3.5 Morgan + 8 ), 17m06.0s, 82.66mph; 2, Jeff York (2.3 Porsche 911S), 17m11.2s; 3, Tim Exeter (4.2 TVR), 17m17.4s; 4, Fergus Oakley (1.6 Caterham 7), 17m20.8s. Up to 1330cc: 1, Paul Lucas (1.3 Triumph Spitfire), 17m23.4s, 81.28mph;) TBH when you saw how Bryant's car went (MAD straight line speeds), it's unbelievable that a 1300cc Spitfire is even finishing in the same lap, never mind only about 1.5mph average speed slower, and within a whisker of that ultra fast caterham!!!) 'nuff said! ;D
toofast2race Posted January 2, 2009 Posted January 2, 2009 My dads old 2500S had a Ken Riley head (original TT valves) NOS S-head but exhausts taken out to 32mm. Also had a NOS PI cam etc etc, went really nicely. Pity my dad never wanted to inject it!
GT Posted January 2, 2009 Posted January 2, 2009 Topic drift again, but I guess it's no suprise Bolshey Ken did my heads in the 80s. Getting something done, on time, with any discrete improvements was always a problem. Drove us all mad! I don't like getting involved in quarrels with suppliers on the lines of "don't know why you bothering with it"! life's too short to be miserable when customers bring you work after all...etc etc. Things alter a bit when he started buying pistons tho. Ken did most of my crankshaft balancing and machining during the late 80s, inc the steel flywheel (that took a yr to get made too!!) I never had a single thing go wrong, but I can't face having to fight with suppliers in the UK, it drives me nuts! I'm pretty happy to get rid of the aggro of dealing with such people TBH, v good or tip-top, at the end of the day it's not worth the hassle! > People like that in the end destroyed the UK as a motorsport destination, that's why the chinese reckon they can do better. :'(
PeteClan Posted January 2, 2009 Posted January 2, 2009 As the class for Spitfires in Road-Going Sportscars was 1300cc that explains the speed. Whilst PL did still hold a few lap records it was mainly due to changes in circuit configurations and the circuits not being visited anymore. At the end of the series others cars in the series were just a quick and probably a lot more legal in respect of the regulations. Pete Richards
Gerard Posted January 2, 2009 Posted January 2, 2009 Canleys is the dogs bollocks Does that mean Canleys is hairy, regularly licked and under an arsehole?
Nick Jones Posted January 2, 2009 Posted January 2, 2009 Does that mean Canleys is hairy, regularly licked and under an arsehole? You can't say that...... (ban) Nick
Jony Posted January 2, 2009 Posted January 2, 2009 You can't say that...... (ban) Nick hehe Id best be carefull, i hear there are some new moderators on the Market Dave is thinking about recruiting.
GT Posted January 2, 2009 Posted January 2, 2009 As the class for Spitfires in Road-Going Sportscars was 1300cc that explains the speed. Whilst PL did still hold a few lap records it was mainly due to changes in circuit configurations and the circuits not being visited anymore. At the end of the series others cars in the series were just a quick and probably a lot more legal in respect of the regulations. You reckon? Did you ever see the Bryant V8 Morgan go? Those times were from Oulton park which is as well known as you can get! I remember being lapped by the damn thing, seeing the headlights wizzing up in my mirror and watch the thing just VANISH! That was at quarry!! I wasn't going particularly slowly myself, but to see a Spitfire lapping at less than 2mph off his pace is indescribably quick! It may be said as a caveat, there was a leap sideways (like that!) when all those Spitfires had to discard Mk11 suspension in the late 80s/early 90s cos it was outlawed, then tyre technology leapt forwards. TBH I would still LOVE to see a proper Spitfire running slicks. Between driving road tyres with loads of camber change/swung axles and a dual wishbone car on slicks is let's say a "night and day" experience! ;D
GT6 Mike Posted January 2, 2009 Posted January 2, 2009 Sample rod has arrived as promised, did'nt expect it till next week. I'll get this trial fitted into a block over the next week.
GT Posted January 2, 2009 Posted January 2, 2009 Sounds like you decided to be the guinea pig! ;D (beta)
GT6 Mike Posted January 2, 2009 Posted January 2, 2009 If getting something for free is being a guinea pig, then I guess I am :
DaveNotSoSideways Posted January 2, 2009 Posted January 2, 2009 new moderators on the Market You shit stirring little bastid ;D
GT Posted January 2, 2009 Posted January 2, 2009 Completely OT & OTT Dunno about you lot but I've been stirring the christmas pudding! (upyours) Russian's LOVE the stuff, lucky I smuggled 2 of them in! (nuke)(santa) (tank)
PeteClan Posted January 3, 2009 Posted January 3, 2009 GT, I don't reckon I know . Yes the Bryant Morgan was quick but not as quick as the Morgans that took it's place i.e Keith Ahlers and then there was the Lotus Esprit Turbo's and the Nobles. A pity the majority of the Triumphs decided to leave the series when the rules were enforced unlike Kevin Ginger who proved a Spitfire could still be quick an comply with the rules. Anyway we should'nt hijack this thread as I'm interested in the rods as a friend in the States has spoken to the Chinese on gettting the same for the Imp engine having had good results using them in a Volvo. Pete Richards
GT Posted January 3, 2009 Posted January 3, 2009 A pity the majority of the Triumphs decided to leave the series when the rules were enforced unlike Kevin Ginger who proved a Spitfire could still be quick an comply with the rules. As I understood it with my ltd understanding. "rules enforced" meant that a large number of cars which were technically interesting could no longer race. That strikes me as totally stupid, because it meant the eventual death of all racing for those cars, and exit a lot of enthusiastic drivers. I liked Ginger's driving and we did an awful lot of work/loads of hrs working together. I could never understand how such a racing enthusiast could eventually get bogged down racing a Spitfire (when clearly talented), but there you go, each to their own. Back to rods again. A good stir helps reveal what's under the surface. I checked out some data today and got bearing dimension to;- Bearing thickness .07225" (1.83515mm) for mk111 mains. Big ends are very probably the same. So to fit down a STD bore (75mm) the big end journal size is 47.625mm So plenty of margin On the 6 cyl I didn't check the rod bore size but Pauter says it's 2.021" (51.3334). That leaves 23.6666mm of material to fit 2 fasteners in. If you leave a wall thickness of 1mm on each internal bearing wall (absolute minimal to avoid distortion), that leaves 21.6666. If you leave 1mm on the outside of each rod (also minimal), then it leaves 19.6666 which clearly leaves a max fastener size of 9mm or say 5/8". I'm curious to see what fastener they use in there, and if it's rolled thread or forged and what specs they quote. If a rod is "limit" on wall thicknesses it's the fastener holds it together. In which case the fastener had better be pretty damn good quality esp if the engine starts producing any serious torque! :
spitNL Posted January 3, 2009 Posted January 3, 2009 I'm curious to see what fastener they use in there, and if it's rolled thread or forged and what specs they quote. If a rod is "limit" on wall thicknesses it's the fastener holds it together. In which case the fastener had better be pretty damn good quality esp if the engine starts producing any serious torque! : I think the fasteners are pretty good. As you say, the thin wall would explain why they had to use an expensive bolt in a "cheap"rod. Below some quates from their website: ARP2000�: An exclusive, hybrid-alloy developed to deliver superior strength and better fatigue properties. While 8740 and ARP2000 share similar characteristics � ARP2000 is capable of achieving clamp loads in the 215,000-220,000 psi range. ARP2000 is used widely in short track and drag racing as an up-grade from 8740 chrome moly in both steel and aluminum rods. Stress corrosion and hydrogen embrittlement are typically not a problem, providing care is taken during installation. Transforming raw material into a fastener begins with “hot†and “cold†heading processes. Material is fed into powerful devices and cold forged, or induction-heated and formed under tons of pressure. The thread rolling operation (to MIL-S-8879A specs) is done after heat-treat, which accounts for a fatigue strength up to ten times higher than fasteners which are threaded prior to heat-treat. Out of curiosity; GT you said earlier that the problem was not the bolts letting go, but the rodthreads being stripped. If that is the case why doesn.t anyone wake a rod bolt that goes all the way through the connecting rod and fit a nut on the other side? Also because of space problems? I know it is possible as some other engines have this configuration. Mike, from the picture the surface look a bit orangy, is this tru? Frederick
Recommended Posts