It looks like it might be an Audi… rant 26, inaccuracy 47, insult 22, lie 17…
Dave
Yup, it’s an Audi.
Bernard
Wow, I would love to hear Sean’s views on how the Audi compares to his K. I am only interested in the handling side as this seems to be the main argument against the honda/audi conversions. That would make very interesting reading …
Has Sean sold his 1.8, if not how much does he want for it ?
That is what makes me laugh Simon, you make all of these judgements without even seeing the engine, or knowing what happened. As far as I am aware only one picture has been posted up on SELOC and you can’t really see what has happened in that picture.
I had heard from several people that you wanted to buy the engine back from me, so come on then make me an offer.
It looks like it might be an Audi… rant 26, inaccuracy 47, insult 22, lie 17…
Dave
Yup, it’s an Audi.
Bernard
Wow, I would love to hear Sean’s views on how the Audi compares to his K. I am only interested in the handling side as this seems to be the main argument against the honda/audi conversions. That would make very interesting reading …
Has Sean sold his 1.8, if not how much does he want for it ?
Maybe Sean will comment here. But what he told me was that the extra weight was nothing like the big issue it’s made out to be.
Bernard
I refuse to get dragged into this stuff, but in the post above mine you state and I quote “The minimum that has happened to Sean’s engine is trashed valves and pistons” How is that statement anything other than a judgement on what is wrong with my engine???
Good points well made. Welcome
… in fact there are many ways to help torque, not least the ecu and systems it drives - one of the routes I was trying so hard to develop in lot this year, but we never got there.
How does the ECU help torque ? Assuming the fueling is right to start with and you don’t have variable valve timing ?
Bernard
Snake oil…
reply 17 c
comment 4b
to quote your own criticism of me… You do sound childish.
Dave
Snake oil…
reply 17 c
comment 4bto quote your own criticism of me… You do sound childish.
Dave
I thought that was a funny repost
never mind he can work it out or read the book…
I thought mine was too…
I doubt he’ll live that long…
Dave
The difference between the new 2L block and the 1.4/1.8L block that was in production is that the new engine had a completely new block - it was a linerless closed top all ally block with a nickasil type coating on the bores, avoiding the issue of siamised bores though this is not an issue at 83mm bore.
Well guess this type of nikasil coating was better resistant against high sulphur fuel than BMW’s then. I mean I can image the sulphur content in the Chinese fuel might not always be as low as in Europe or Japan, otherwise that might be a problem for Shanghai (Porsche never seemed to have a problem with there’s though).
I assume the exterior dimensions of this new design were the same, so basically it could be mounted the same way as any previous K-series? Any significant impact on engine weight from this new linerless block design?
The longbridge quality was constantly improving with the continouous investment, chinese quality ~ another mtter but I am sure they will get there with the huge investment in energy they are making.
Hope so, if it doesn’t it’s usefulness for the Lotus community would be limited.
As far as torque is concerned - don’t forget that the Rover engine had the same crank at 2Ls and 1.8L so there is no extra throw to help, in fact there are many ways to help torque, not least the ecu and systems it drives - one of the routes I was trying so hard to develop in lot this year, but we never got there.
Ah, didn’t know that. So what you’re saying is these 2L blocks weren’t actually full 2L but rather 1933cc (83x89.3 bore x stroke). Using the same bore and stroke on a 6-cylinder gives 2899cc as in 2.9 KV6.
About the torque, well afaik an engined designed for a 83mm bore will always have more torque than one designed for a 80mm bore on the same crank. Of course there are other ways to increase torque, but that goes for a “2L” as well, right?
Anyway, thanks for answering all these questions. Every answer you’ll give will probably spawn more questions from me, so I won’t hold it against ya if you leave it at this.
PS It’s an interesting thread on Seloc, & you certainly enjoy in depth research - nice one
Thanks, better to have thourough conjecture than messy conjecture, right?
Thanks, better to have thourough conjecture than messy conjecture, right?
Oi, Belgians are *not supposed to have a sense of humour!
*edited as missed out in original post
I wouldnt set too much store on the coating being Nicasil…
Overall the block will be lighter I expect since it doesnt have chunks of iron inserted…
Dave
I must admit, I’ve not seen any evidence of ECU’s developing more steady state torque/power IF they have the correct functionality, i.e. they can run the coils correctly (correct number, correct dwell times etc) and can run the injectors correctly (e.g saturation or peak-and-hold functionality) and to the correct engine speed. If the ECU is spec’ed to run the coil and injector hardware then, in steady state running, I’ve seen no difference. Dynamic functionality (transient fuelling in particular) and additional functionality such as closed loop fuelling, traction and launch control etc are all different matters but these don’t affect power curves.
The only other problems I’ve seen are where very long wiring routes cause appreciable voltage drops, which some ECU’s compensate for better than others. Either way, this isn’t a direct fault of the ECU and can be resolved if the loom is sensibly designed in the first place.
I must admit, I’ve not seen any evidence of ECU’s developing more steady state torque/power IF they have the correct functionality, i.e. they can run the coils correctly (correct number, correct dwell times etc) and can run the injectors correctly (e.g saturation or peak-and-hold functionality) and to the correct engine speed. If the ECU is spec’ed to run the coil and injector hardware then, in steady state running, I’ve seen no difference. Dynamic functionality (transient fuelling in particular) and additional functionality such as closed loop fuelling, traction and launch control etc are all different matters but these don’t affect power curves.
The only other problems I’ve seen are where very long wiring routes cause appreciable voltage drops, which some ECU’s compensate for better than others. Either way, this isn’t a direct fault of the ECU and can be resolved if the loom is sensibly designed in the first place.
Believe him Simon, he knows what he is talking about.
Bernard
Oi, Belgians are *not supposed to have a sense of humour!
They don’t, that why people from Maastricht are Dutch, well sorta.
*edited as missed out in original post
Yeah, you had me scratching my head there for a moment.
So what you’re saying is these 2L blocks weren’t actually full 2L but rather 1933cc (83x89.3 bore x stroke).
Nevermind this one, read an older thread (which prolly should better be left to rest) which seems to indicate this is the case.
I wouldnt set too much store on the coating being Nicasil…
Overall the block will be lighter I expect since it doesnt have chunks of iron inserted…
Ok, thanks. Would make it even more attractive for use in an Elise/Exige then. Too bad those Chinese don’t seem able to settle it.
P.S. I’ve read that the Petronas E01 engine now being built by the Chinese is actually a cast iron block, much cheaper to produce than the original alloy one (P98?). I don’t know if this is true, but if it is it’s weight would render it useless for the Exige/Elise.