Post deleted by Admin5

Steve
Two points;

There is NO way in the world that a heavier crank is going to affect your top end power , and Steve did not say to the things that you are attributing to him.

Secondly you have no right to prescribe my conversations with Honda Mugen ,they were a privelege with such distinguished engineers ,you have no idea what was said, which engines were discussed , or in what state of tune.
Simon

I haven’t looked at this thread for some months. Consequently I didn’t respond to your comment above.

I chatted Steve Smith (Vibration Free) yesterday and mentioned converstations he’d had with regarding what I had posted. He was under the impression that I’d been giving the inserted crank a bad name on the internet.

This is not the case. I’ve done nothing but praise the smoothness of my engine and the improved low and mid range torque. I usually post on a different forum and given the crank consistantly positive comment on that forum.

It appears that there was a misunderstanding regarding the extra weight of the crank being responsible for the engine not making the same peak power as it had previously.

When I spoke to Steve (in April/May) what I took from our conversation was that the extra weight of the crank was responsible for the lower top end power compared to my previous build that use the same head and cams and a stock VHPD crank. I had a subsequent conversation with Bernard who was of the same opinion as yourself, that the crank weight will not limit the power.

Steve confirmed what Bernard and you have said, so it appears a simple misunderstanding that the crank was responsible for a reduction in peak power.

I would recommend anyone building a high spec engine to use an inserted crank.

I would also recommend the use of the Scholar EVO2 block.

After 9.5k miles of use my engine is still producing its 215/161lbft. In my previous experience, engine builds are starting to lose power after this much mileage.

I am currently torn between selling my whole engine and building a 2.0L, or retaining my crank and building a 1.9L.

If I choose a 2L the crank will be inserted.

Regarding my rights to comment on your Mugen Honda conversations. I have every right to post what I like on a public forum and if it is factually correct, justifiable and not liable then all the better.

Throughout this entire thread you have mad many claims and mentioned many conversations to try and show that your comments/opinions are justified. But until you can give us evidence (hopefully Uldis’ engine will give you some) they are of little worth.

I’m not too interested in trawling through paragraph after paragraph of you telling us how X, Y or Z has said something, or proof read this or that. Its not really too relevant until they come on here and post it themselves!

SteveB

Uldis/Steve,
I looked at > www.pipercams.co.uk > but did not find a 1444 cam is it one of these:

ARKBP285M, 2800-7800, 276 deg, 276 deg, 11.18mm, 11.13mm, 108 deg, 110 deg

ARKBP300M, 3200-8000, 280 deg, 280 deg, 11.23mm, 11.18mm, 106 deg, 110 deg

ARKBP320M, 4500-8500, 290 deg, 280 deg, 11.68mm, 11.18mm, 101 deg, 108 deg

ARKBP330M, 5000-9000, 288 deg, 284 deg, 12.32mm, 11.81mm, 101 deg, 108 deg

From what I remember its 276 duration but 12.3 lift - has alift ramp as fast as the 1227 but less duration.

I tested it for Warren (of Piper) and it gave between 3-8lbft across the rev range compared to the 1227 (which I think is sold as the BP300M these days). You’d need to ask him whether its sold as one of the BP range or if you have to order it as a 1444.

SteveB

I tried three different shaw (sp?) hardnesses of bush material, and one where the physical size of the bush was increased. IIRC the softest I tried was 60. And this was sort of acceptable for a car just used to drive to and from competition events, but still too harsh for road use.

The harshest made my chest resonate at 3200rpm to the point that it was uncomfortable to drive at that speed constantly - a bit of an issue on the road, being about 60mph in 6th!

Ok, I was going to start the car with that one and then change it but I will just install the original then before even trying (until I have the softer bush)
The original was modified BTW (also by Stu) by replacing the round bushes with Urethane ones, so only the original central rubber is retained, but the harder bushes in the “linkage” would decrease lateral movement.
He tried it on his car and was happy. Let’s see.

BTW, do you know in the std one what the bit of bit of aluminum that sticks out in the top is for?

I tried three different shaw (sp?) hardnesses of bush material, and one where the physical size of the bush was increased. IIRC the softest I tried was 60. And this was sort of acceptable for a car just used to drive to and from competition events, but still too harsh for road use.

The harshest made my chest resonate at 3200rpm to the point that it was uncomfortable to drive at that speed constantly - a bit of an issue on the road, being about 60mph in 6th!

Ok, I was going to start the car with that one and then change it but I will just install the original then before even trying (until I have the softer bush)
The original was modified BTW (also by Stu) by replacing the round bushes with Urethane ones, so only the original central rubber is retained, but the harder bushes in the “linkage” would decrease lateral movement.
He tried it on his car and was happy. Let’s see.

BTW, do you know in the std one what the bit of bit of aluminum that sticks out in the top is for?

The softest one I tried was polyerethane in its entirety.

Not sure what the extra part of ali on the stock mount is for, but I guess it could be there to help the compenent’s resonance as explained above.

Be very wary of using an alernative to the stock mount - using an alterantive design may not be good for the block at all. I didn’t do many miles with mine and got away with it and am happy to have returned to the standard one.

Why do you want to use an alternative?

SteveB

The lump sticking out of the standard mount is for gripping hold of the mount when you need to manoeuvre it to get the engine bolts back in when changing the cam belt.

You should know that Steve, you’ve changed enough of them

Bernard

Why do you want to use an alternative?

SteveB

Because the satndard one is… hidous?

There is as we speak a K20A block stood in Simon Joyce’s office at Jenvey - original cast in iron liners not cracked but gone oval causing massive blow by

remind me to have a look at this when I am there on friday.

Drove past the Ring today on the A61 and its snowing

Andy

Bummer… big time… there has been talk of snow on S_E (we have a few off on the SELOC trip)… apparently this is the forst snow there at this time of year for quite a number of years… Forecast was rain tommorrow…

must admit trekking to the ring to find snow there would make me feel good about going to Cadwell to find fog…

the temperature is going up so while it will be wet I guess the snow should have gone for tommorow …

steve

Well if that’s the best for falsly quoting Steve and the nearest that you’re going to get to an apology for misquoting Steve on a point that anybody who knew anything about engines would understand I suppose we will have to be grateful. However it is such claims that put people like Steve and Gavin off from contributing and I get very close to that attitude sometimes, it’s cost me well over 250 quid using the internet cafe wrestling with the damned machines forever asking the staff for help in order to help other people with their engines.

I am correcting a posting I made - which I am more than happy to do. I only posted what I thought I had been told - have you never made an error or misunderstood something?

Get off your high horse.

Your internet cafe costs are irrelevant - for that money you could hav bought an old PC and done it from home!

And so Steve B who gave you my article at autosport? who introduced you to Steve? so how did you come to benefit from all our work on balancing and counterweighting, whose idea with Warren was the 1444 cam when your 1721/1736 didn’t work??

Time for some real facts now.

  • You gave me the article after introducing yourself to me - I never once asked for it.
  • I met you at the end of the Autosport show.
  • I was introduced to Steve Smith by Geary Powel who was sharing the Autosport stand with him.
  • I met Steve before I met you.
  • I met you purely by chance, not by design.
  • I chose the counter balancing after converstations with Steve Smith. You had no influence over my choice.
  • I take my engine building decisions based on advice from experts in the field. Now if I wanted opinions of art/sculpting/etc I would perhaps come to you.
  • The 1721/1736 cams - these are NOT my cams. They are ones used by Scholar.
  • Dave Walker and Warren came up with the 1444 to help my engine and Christian Jones’ engine - Christian had an engine built by Scholar using the 1721/1736 and it wasn’t making the power, my engine made more power using the 1227 than the 1721/1736.
  • I have tried many cam combinations for Warren over the years and this was simply another test.

For the record the whole point of 100%F1+50%F2 counterweighting is to keep the crank straight and trherefore reduce friction which will tend to help top end power but will have ABSOLUTELY no effect on low/mid range torque. Undoubtably the difference between your engine and Mick Smith 233bhp 158lbft [butts 215bhp 159lbft according to the graph] - both dry sumped [ worth an additional 10 - 12 bhp] is the induction system. unless of course its the liner because everyone I know with a Scholar block is down on power to other similarly speced engines - but at least they are lasting better than the K20 liners which begin to drop power after 4-5000 miles of hard use

Its amazing how you miss the point. A major difference between all Elises and Caterhams is the exhaust system. No Elise/Exige/340R has ever come close to matching the same spec of engine (including induction) when installed in a Caterham on the Emerald rolling road.

Dave Walker plans to run up a ~220+bhp K on his dyno and will run the same engine with the caterham supersport full manifold/exhaust system and then remove it and run the manifold/exhaust system that I use. He will also swap over the induction systems so there will be four combinations to try. Then we will know for sure. When his dyno room is finished he will have more than enough space to run the full exhaust system - most third party tuners don’t have the space in their dyno rooms and their results are compromised by having to run a “dyno manifold”.


How or where are you going to get hold of a heavy metalled 2.0L crank? The only one I know of is the one I have commissioned with Steve. The crank in the Judd is a Kiddie but I don’t think they will sell componants, and the other is PTP’s Stroked Chambron crank, but you will still have to ask Steve to do a single piston test for the new piston weight - and pay for it as well as ask ptp to get you a single throw elment from the crank unless you buy 2 and cut one up ??

Steve Smith has already offered to counter balance a 2.0L crank for me. Scholar sell 2L cranks. And I imagine that any crank manufacturer will make a crank to a specification given to them.

You are not the ONLY person able to organise or commission this sort of work - take a step into the real world please.

It’s nice to feel so ap[preciated

simon

I’ve never asked for your help - but it is good that you share your experiences.

I wanted to bring a balance to the thread. I have real experience of building 220bhp/160lbft engines and have had success.

Whilst its good and interesting that you pass on the results of your gathering of K series tuning information, you put a certain spin into your writing which suggests that much of the work is your idea - when perhaps it isn’t. As demonstrated above.

You also push your beliefs without any evidence to back them up - by evidence I mean real running engines making 220bhp/160lbft - not the 160bhp that you have given a couple of examples of. And those 220bhp engines that have had track abuse and many miles put on them, and are still running.

It would also help if you put up itemised build costs to back up your claims of cheap tuning. I’ve read post after post asking for evidence of your cheap 220bhp/160lbft K series. And don’t try to use Mick Smith’s as an example- he has hade a powerful K fo several years, and like me he built it himself with much help and advice from Dave Walker, Dave Andrews and possibly others too.

If you had already done all the work and had a multitude of running engines to the specs that you recommend then your comments would be justified.

How many people are running a heavy metal inserted crank in a K series? I’ve been running one from Steve’s first batch of three and have been doing so since March for 9.5K miles.

Given the involvement you claim in the crank I would have assumed that you would have been using one of the other cranks Steve did and would have aleady built an engine demonstrating its worth.

It looks like I’m the only person to have done this - and I would recommend using one to anyone building a high powered K.

SteveB

Why do you want to use an alternative?

SteveB

Because the satndard one is… hidous?

It may not look the part, but you can’t see that from the outside

From an engineering point of view it does an excellent job, and replacing is a very expensive weight saving!

SteveB

steve

Well if that’s the best for falsly quoting Steve and the nearest that you’re going to get to an apology for misquoting Steve on a point that anybody who knew anything about engines would understand I suppose we will have to be grateful. However it is such claims that put people like Steve and Gavin off from contributing and I get very close to that attitude sometimes, it’s cost me well over 250 quid using the internet cafe wrestling with the damned machines forever asking the staff for help in order to help other people with their engines.

I am correcting a posting I made - which I am more than happy to do. I only posted what I thought I had been told - have you never made an error or misunderstood something?

Get off your high horse.

I would not worry Steve - this is the guy that can’t tell the difference between the FC20 and K20 and still doesn’t seem to even know the technical spec of either.

“original cast in iron liners[k20]” snigger.

The one huge advantage the k series has id the large, fairly open, community of enthusiasts and profs doing lots of practical work out in the open and sharing the results - something you have been doing for years now and have the sucsesses (and distasters ) to back it up and are not in it to slag anyone off or make money out of them.

And then someone comes along claiming everybody else is a muppet and only he has the one true way (for a fee) yet can’t quite get the techy details right, and can’t quite, just at the moment, point at any real world examples.

Sigh.

John, I know nothing about Honda engines, but AFAIU Simon meant that for racing they installed liners anyway and that those didn’t live without problems…

I seem to recall that from one of his early posts, or a talk with him or something.
Anyway, your post reads just a little negative. The engine is out there, mine, Simon put lots of effort into something that will back up his opinions.
Give him a break, just wait some days and we’ll know all the reaults.

BTW, I did a few searches on the K20 and they all mention that it has cast in iron liners…

Engine Block/Crankshaft
The powerplant has a compact aluminum block with cast-in iron liners - a design known for its light weight, high rigidity and excellent durability. The block has a one-piece aluminum crankshaft carrier that has ferrous-carbon inserts in the bearing caps for additional strength.

and another :

2.2L S2000:

16-Valve DOHC VTEC Inline-4
Block Material/ Aluminum Alloy w/Fiber-Reinforced (FRM) Cylinder Walls
Bore & Stroke (mm/in.) / 87.0x90.7/3.43x3.57
Displacement (cc)/ 2157
Horsepower @ rpm/ 240@7800
Torque (lbs/ft) @ rpm/ 161@6500
Compression Ratio/ 11.1:1
Crankcase Vol/ 5.8 U.S. qt. (5.5L)

With the mention of the new “motor cover”, makes you wonder what all they’ve done. Here’s the newer stuff found in the F20C(original S2000 engine) minus the fact that is of course an entirely different block&head.

-Lightweight MIM (Metal-Injection Molded) Sintered-Steel Rocker Arms
-Low-Fricition Roller-Bearing Cam Followers
-Compact, 2-Stage Cam-Drive with Silent Chain, Scissors Gears and Fully Automatic Tensioner
-Lightweight forged-aluminum pistons and heat-treated (carburized), forged-steel connecting rods add durability
-Hollow camshafts function as lubrication path for VTEC valvetrain

Just for K-series comparison…

RSX-S K20A2:
16-valve, DOHC, 2.0-liter, i-VTEC 4-cylinder
Block Material/ > Aluminum alloy with cast-in iron liners >
Bore & Stroke 3.39 in. x 3.39 in. (86 mm x 86 mm)
Displacement (cc)/ 1998
Horsepower @ rpm/ 200@7400
Torque (lbs/ft) @ rpm/ 142@6000
Compression Ratio/ 11.0:1
Crankcase Vol/ 4.7 U.S. qt. (4.5 L)
(I’m pretty sure this motor features Roller-Bearing Cam Followers as well as silent chain and auto tensioner)

and another (midpage)

The K20 again uses an open-deck, die-cast aluminum block with cast-in iron cylinder liners,…

I repeat, I’m a total numpty on Honda engines…

I repeat, I’m a total numpty on Honda engines…

you are not the only one

You have to ask yourself how you might manage to “cast in” iron liners to an ali block.

Honda have been using MMC liners for years.

I know for good reason how hard (and feckin expensive) trying to get a K20 block bored out is.

You have to ask yourself how you might manage to “cast in” iron liners to an ali block.

Objectively, I couldn’t care less how they put the things there.
But if I read everywhere they’re called cast-in iron liners, that’s what I would call them as well.
So, my point is there is no need to slag Simon for calling them cast iron liners, agree?

And AFAIK, however expensive it is, racing engines still have the cast iron liners bored out and some stronger ones installed (read about it somewhere while searching for the previous info).
And I think this what Simon is saying.

I take it you’d agree on this one at least.

MMC is not iron. sigh.

Uldis,

A ‘cast iron liner’ is very different to a ‘cast in liner’… tis all in the wording.

i.e. BMW blocks use ‘cast in liners’… efectively it’s a solid block of ally with holes for the pistons with a coating. (Nikasil… caused BMW problems). There’s no liners as such… if you get bore wear you’re stuffed (well… you can bore the hole and fit a thin liner).

Johnboys point was, an ‘iron’ liner in an ‘ally’ block cannot be cast in as err… it’s not the same bit of metal.

Of course, I may be (and probably am) talking complete Horlicks.

Bri