Hi Neil, you mention thet your engine is a turbo.
Are you keeping the original displacement?
What kind of power are you shooting for?
And keep us updated on your progress. It’s good to see another K believer (or at least giving it another chance to prove itself with a good build)
Hi,
Uldis,
Yes the capacity is still the same as original, the stroke is the same as standard but the rod length is slightly shorter, I know the rod to stroke ratio is poor on the 1.8 to start with, but I believe it’s the lesser of two evil’s to get my piston design more suitable for a turbo engine.
I wouldn’t want to specify any aim’s as to power output at this stage as I believe in the prove it before saying it philosophy
Simon,
in the main, I agree with your comments in the document, I don’t 100% agree with the liner location issues, I think that was probably evident through me going down the Evo 4 route though I’m not saying you are wrong, I just feel more comfortable with this approach for our application, although I have to say, I would not be going down the route of closing the deck up if it where not for the car being turboed.
Your concerns with my build partly mirror some of my own, I have spoken to Steve about the flywheel and as it is mainly going to be used by Clare as a daily driver and ocassionally used on the drag strip I wanted to avoid putting too light a flywheel on so that we can use the inertia in the flywheel to keep the car nice mannered for driving in traffic and also didn’t see an issue with it when drag racing, speaking to some knowledgeable friends a heavier flywheel can be a benefit in launching down the 1/4. I do note your point about the resonance though and it would be interesting to see what the effects may be.
The long bolts, initially I had no intention of changing the bolts, however these bolts are a thicker diameter along the shank only, stepping down smoothly to the thread which is the original size. I figured that this would assist in making sure that the bolts would initially tighten correctly as the majority of the stretch would be in the threaded section but then resist stretch across the rest of the length of the bolt, I’m currently thinking this through and by my reckoning I may well end up just concentrating the forces in a small area of the bolts instead of distributing it along the entire length of the bolt, I think some more research is in order on my behalf.
The block, again not overly scientific reasons for this one, I’ve got a good friend who turbo’s Honda engines and after discussing some things with him, it appears that the Honda’s have problems with the liners moving with the combination of boost and high revs, resulting in HGF, they quite often use braces around the liners to try and stop this happening, whether or not this is the right thing to do I’m not 100% sure, but it appears to work for them. I did consider that we would be interfering with the cooling but as the car’s not going to be driven at full throttle much I don’t see this as a great cause for concern and I know the EVO 4 has been sucessfully used in circuit racing, etc. so thought I would take the gamble. I do agree that the liner material is not the ultimate and did consider going down another route with Perfect Bore, but went with the Scholar conversion in the end as it ‘feels right’ to me.
I really look forward to any comments or input anyone has and I look forward to reading your new document when it is publicly released Simon.
Many Thanks
Neil
Good luck with the book Simon.
Although I suspect it’s going to have to go on next year’s Christmas list.
Ian
I was on the phone with Simon.
He was telling me that this guy Nick Beere has built a few “potent” turbo K’s.
His own one: 370BHP, hillclimb single seater,
The land speed record holder (don’t know where or which class) MGF: 340BHP,
Somebody’s single seater turbo K in Australia: 400BHP
Funny thing is that these were all 1.4’s !
He was telling me how Nick tested one of them: 24 hrs on a dyno, at full throttle, full load.
Didn’t go bang, opened it afterwards and found no problems.
That… must have been a hard test!.
Finally it should interest people to know that the EDL 2.0L Ks are running around faultlessly, putting out 293BHP and 194lbft of torque with standard Rover gaskets and longbolts, only nonOE bottom end parts are stroked crank , pistons , liners and rods. Stan Hall had my article some time ago and is quite convinced all the problems have been down to bad engine building - they havn’t seen a single failure. One engine recently suffered a header tank leak in a BTCC race which left the engine completely dry but it still didn’t break! -so he tells me his engine builders have cristened the K -TUB - tough little bugger! Just shows what a proper engine build will achieve. Of course that engine is expensive, retail, partly because of the conversion requiring new reciprocating bits but a lot of it is just profit. I calculate that it should be possible to do it for about $6-7000 and then everthing is proper steel bits, including the liners, crank , rods etc - unlike the Honda conversions and for less money to boot, 50% more power as well!
Lots to look forward to, I hope the best days are just about to start for the K
Simon
You always have a great ability to make me chuckle Simon. Love the comparisons. Ever heard the expression ‘apples and pears’??
I was on the phone with Simon.
He was telling me how Nick tested one of them: 24 hrs on a dyno, at full throttle, full load.
Didn’t go bang, opened it afterwards and found no problems.That… must have been a hard test!.
I’ve heard of this before, apparently it’s not a very hard test as the oil is flowing, everything is up to temp, there no reason what so ever why it shouldn’t carry on until the end of the world
The damage always occurs at start up, and people raggin the arse off a cold engine
But I’m sure you’d agree that a 1.4 making 400 horses and put through that test would mean the engine’s not so weak as some are claiming…
Ever heard the expression ‘apples and pears’??
Err, why?
VHPD versus EDL ???
Or might he be referring to a BTCC engine that is perhaps rebuilt completely after every race ??
As far as I understand, there’s not a lot about the design, but the build quality.
After all, if only 200cc would give you all that extra power.
And then again, the engine is warranted for 3500 miles of TRACK use, that means races.
They would rebuild it after every race at the beginning just to see how it’s going, and if something is about to break, but for clients, there’s a warranty.
As far as I see it, if they can do it, with no F1 type of technology in it, it proves the basic design is not a bad one.
Ever heard the expression ‘apples and pears’??
Err, why?
Because the 2litre K is a full blown BTCC engine and the Honda comes straight out of a bog standard road car.
And saying that it can all be done for 7K or something is a bit silly. If there is someone out there who I could hand my car to and get it back with a beutifully engineered and reliable 270bhp Rover engine complete with a year Warentee, for 7K, I won’t be able to pick my chin off the floor.
Well, just wait and see Randy, because that’s what this will all lead to.
That BTCC engine is not a miracle in engineering, but a closely assembled engine.
The extra 200cc came through
-upper block and pistons (can get that on it own, in fact it’s next years option)
-bespoke crank (no problem to get)
The head and rest are common knowledge. It is just very well assembled together.
and that’s been Simon’s message in this thread: good assembling, attention to detail.
Whatever power my engine ends up turning, I would expect it to be more reliable than originally, so there you go, if there is anything to be gained is that.
But I’m sure you’d agree that a 1.4 making 400 horses and put through that test would mean the engine’s not so weak as some are claiming…
True
But then in the turbo heydays of F1 the Megatron engine was the BMW 1.5 with 1500 bhp!!! But that’s the fun of a turbo
So regardless of actuall CC, it’ll be changed by the turbo IYSWIM (of course you do)… But I’d imagine the 1.4 to be a lot stronger as it’s not been bored and stroked to capacity
I see what you mean.
And yes, the 1.4 would rev higher because the stroke is shorter.
But a bigger bore would give you more torque…
I’m sure there must be an ideal balance somewhere.
The head and rest are common knowledge. It is just very well assembled together.
and that’s been Simon’s message in this thread: good assembling, attention to detail.
Which is the appeal of the japanese stuff, you know it’s been built to stupid tolerancies unlike our good old VHPD’s
Hence why the conversion to Audi (German engineering) and Honduh (Japs and their precision Just look at their swords )…
So the same could be done with a model-T engine with the right parts and enough care and consideration
longer stroke gives you more torque (oo-er!) Short stroke/big bore for higher revs and more power. For me/road car, torque every time!
Well, yes, that’s what I meant to say, shorter stroke, the more ability to extract more power by revving the thing higher.
Bigger bore and it gives you more torque at those high RPM’s, therefore, more power.
And… you are?
Is that Jim?
Hmmmm. Once gain I ask, has anybody ever seen a power curve for one of these miracle 2l K’s ? Last one I heard of made just over 220 BHP and about 160 ft lbs. No doubt they can make more than this but 193 ft lbs ? They must be running 14:1 CR and special fuel to get anywhere near that. The BTCC engines are rebuilt after every race at a cost of �4000. They dare not run them for more than a few hours.
Apples and pears again.
Bernard
Yes! Hi Uldis, just skimming b4 I go to work (nights at the mo) W/end off, so may pay you a visit?