The point I was trying to make - for the benifit of others is that engines reciprocating/valvetrains work up to the point that they were designed for. K20s will fail beyond 8500, so you can improve the part quality and tolerances, sure but you are always left with a big clumsy engine, because that’s the base design.
And you cannot get away from it…
for the record - none of my engines are limited to a mere 8500 rpm, even the stock crank and rods are good for 9500rpm, so you see the honda is not the paragon of reliability you claim.
simon
Yawn - you put up a picture of an engine thats had its brains buzzed out and try and make some spurious points about reliablity.
the Linkup kits have a limit set at 8600 and with 250 cars out there none have suffered because of it. Its set there because its nice and safe and the curve makes it pointless to carry on anyway - 220+ bhp and 100% reliable with a proper curve, unlike your attempts. All from �1500 of engine, now thats what you call publically proven reliablity. Lol at none of my engines, what is the rev limit set to on Angelos engine thats the difference between your imaginings and the real world.
I rev mine to 9000 as the power is still there on my particular setup, has it gone bang? Strangly not.
I know - lets buzz one of your engines well beyond its design and when it goes bang claim it has something to say about the rover k series reliability.
Sorry if you feel “victimised” (my word) by my comment, but my views apply to anyone who is being genuinely rude to other posters. I have no problems with a bit of banter, or disagreement, but personal attacks (on other posters or their engines etc) are out of order in my opinion. Of late, I think everyone has tried to tone down their posts (compared to the past!), your goodself included, but I just felt that your particular post had gone over the top. I also accept, on reflection, that my post was perhaps a little too strongly worded - apologies.
I do hope that everyone maintains some civility (we’re all grown ups & know how to behave!), even though there are obviously some fundamental differences, which quite rightly, deserve to be aired.
I dont intend to get into another pointless thread of contradiction and ranting, like I have said so many times before, if you have a problem with Scholar’s products take it up with Scholar instead of boring everyone to death with it…
I’ve already made it crystal clear that I have never used nor will I ever use an EVO4 welded closed deck block, now go and nag Scholar and those that do use them, I’m sick of hearing it.
The heads (3 of them of around 400 I have prepared) were welded by a company that knows more about heat treated alloys than you will ever know, they specialise in heat treatment to alloys and in repairs to heat treated alloys, I took their advice and will continue to do so. When you discover something new you cant help but ram it donw peoples throats and assume that nobody else could possibly know about it/understand it and that they have acted without thought. Wake up to yourself.
Two of the heads that you suggest were ruined by welding are still going strong many thousands of miles later in engines that dont have low liners.
Now how many times are you going to rant on and on and on about the same old rubbish? by the way please lift your finger off the exclamation mark key, it just looks daft.
Judging by what I have seen and heard, you have a lot to put right in your own camp.
“when I first posted about scholar blocks being diabolically badly machined, the worst out of round I HAD PERSONALLY measured was 117 microns”
Why is it then that your post says that the worst you had seen was 89 microns?
You are making it up as you go along. If you are going to spin garbage then you need to have a good memory.
Engines with bores 9 thou out of round, horrendous blow-by and ‘poor’ porting do not produce power and torque like this Scholar EVO2 based engine here ,(250BHP-181lb/ft) one of many I have built recently and on relatively soft cams.
Another 1800 Scholar EVO2 blocked engine built by me and with my head work has recently made 257BHP and 169lb/ft on similar cams and headwork.
If Scholar’s work were as horrendous as you would have us believe then they simply would not produce that sort of output.
I know Sean, real nice guy. But last I heard was that Skeggsy’s DVA car laid waste to it down the straight
Bernard
I didn’t think you were one for gossip Bernard. I’m sure this didn’t come from Skeggsy as it isn’t true. I never saw Skeggsy out on track at all, and if I’m being honest I was looking for him. lol.
The last session my car ran in, it was being driven by Russ for the first tim, so I wouldn’t expect to much from that.
My car ran surprisingly well at Brands. I had recently fitted the 2Bular exhaust, but hadn’t managed to get it mapped before the Brands test. The car felt a bit crap low down but was pulling OK at the top end.
I recently had the engine mapped again for the new exhaust and got them to do a quick power run before they touched anything. It was 30BHP down on power from the Elise Parts exhaust as the fueling was all over the place. The fueling is now spot on again and a recent test at Oulton proved the engine was very much on song. Well it was until the clutch broke. lol.
So if I had of met Skeggsy on track at Brands I wouldn’t of been suprised if his car would have been quicker than mine, due to its dodgy map on that day, but as we didn’t meet on track and no one came past me all day its all a load of tush!!!