Well if you can bring it… I done one of the 4x4 red letter days a while back, old diesel landies with the air intake on the roof was awesome! Water halfway up the windscreen and no worries The V8 range rover was prety sweet too!
Once / if I’m ever bored of tarmac then… “It’s ripped! It’s torn! Lets… OFF ROAD!”
Just seen that ahki has got his car back on the road so the supercharged Honda is another variant to add to the lineup - assuming he is willing of course . I will come as the vanilla 177bhp as god intended benchmark
Randy maybe we should get some dates and get something organised…
Matt Cummings elise audi conversion with an IHI turbo and assorted additional mods produces over 300 BHP with 287 lb ft of torque that makes even Bernard’s look wimpish - (Mapping and figures from Dave Walker, of course)
Uldis - re changin gear - in Steve Magg’s car (249bhp elise/audi - std turbo) you have to change gear all the time because it keeps hitting the f***ing limiter !!!
(With two up, and Steve is a big lad)
Simon - of course on a superficial examination the heavier car might be expected to be slightly slower around corners due to the higher centrifugal force its extra weight creates, but if it has extra power as well it can run in a higher downforce configuration and in all probability perhaps go faster ??? Remember that Exiges corner faster than elises, even though they weigh more !!!
I too think this thread is great… but it’s time that some of the professionals started correcting the fallacies…
Simon,
Interested to hear who you are talking to at the flightshed (or is it east works people) as I know a lot of the engineers there and in particular one of the specialist engine engineers who has built some of the fastest inhouse engines ever.
Drop me an email on [email protected]
Simon,
Interested to hear who you are talking to at the flightshed (or is it east works people) as I know a lot of the engineers there and in particular one of the specialist engine engineers who has built some of the fastest inhouse engines ever.
Drop me an email on > [email protected] >
Come on Marky Mark… don’t keep this all to your self…
I too think this thread is great… but it’s time that some of the professionals started correcting the fallacies…
And if they don’t… why might that be…
I absolutely agree it would be good to see them post up here tho’… like Bernard… ain’t nuthin like having some real experience around asking practical questions…
At some stage I hope to have the supercharged 1.8 back up and running with at least 300horses and I would hope 300lbft of torque which I would expect on previous dynoruns to be in from 2000rpm. Such is the nature of an Eaton charger. Now that would be a suitable point of comparison for the Audi, but I wish everybody the best of luck with their Audi conversions.
Simon
Simon
Is that the engine out of the Atom ??
Also could you explain to me a bit more about why welding up the head and machining as per Scholar to support the liners is a fallacy… ??
Thanks Simon
and what about the welding mod to support the liners at cylinder head? why’s that a fallacy?
Thanks for the complement but I�m not an expert on the K series. I know a lot about them but there are many people out there who know much, much more. Unfortunately, because their skills are in great demand they don�t have time to write long thesis about the engine�.
I thought I would make a brief summary to highlight the parts on the K that need changing to make a reliable high performance engine.
Part Reason for change
Cams Too tame
Valves Too small
Cam followers Hydraulic
Valve caps Fall to bits
Valve springs Too weak
Pistons Fall apart
Piston rings Too weak
Liners Everything
Head Ports too small, material too soft, waterways blocked
Crank Balance factor wrong (for 1.8)
Big ends Poor quality
Flywheel Too heavy
Oil pump Falls in half
Rods Press fit small end
Head gasket Who doesn�t know ?
Inlet manifold Need throttle bodies
Exhaust manifold It�s appalling
(please excuse the formatting but you get the gist)
I could go on, but what�s left that you don�t have to change ? The block, and you even have to modify that. I agree there is a lot of potential in the engine but you have to throw an awful lot of bits away to release it. It�s all very well to go on about poor tolerancing being the real problem but we have to deal with what the parts actually are, not what they should be. We don’t start with a great bin load of parts and sift through them to find the ones that go together properly, we start with an engine.
Bernard
Part Reason for change
Cams Too tame
Valves Too small
Cam followers Hydraulic
Valve caps Fall to bits
Valve springs Too weak
Pistons Fall apart
Piston rings Too weak
Liners Everything
Head Ports too small, material too soft, waterways blocked
Crank Balance factor wrong (for 1.8)
Big ends Poor quality
Flywheel Too heavy
Oil pump Falls in half
Rods Press fit small end
Head gasket Who doesn�t know ?
Inlet manifold Need throttle bodies
Exhaust manifold It�s appalling
Bernard, you have converted me back. After hearing about all these really easily rectified problems I am now a Rover convert. What a great engine the K must be… probably the best 4-cylinder engine in the whole world.
Bernard, you have converted me back.
Can I please buy your Honda, then?
OK, you can have the Honda as soon as I have had my brain properly toleranced…
OK, you can have the Honda as soon as I have had my brain properly toleranced…
I’m in for a long wait then
<To make the VHPD reliable with it’s existing cam you need first of all to ditch the termostat and use a remote thermostat on the output of the coolant>
Simon,
I am not sure Rover will approve this statement (if you really want to publish it), as they (together with other “respectable” engine maifacturer) put a lot of effort in keeping the thermostat on the return pipe, also in the revised plumbing as fitted in new cars.
To have a better idea of my (and, to a certain extent, also Rover one) point, please have a look at HGF and remote thermostat
HTH
Carlo
My goodness. This thread is fun.
OK, the Duratec in standard form, fully dressed WITH electrics, injection, throttle bodies, flywheel and clutch (I think, might not have had a clutch) is around 98kg. I’ve weighed it. Thats with std pistons etc. So unless your STANDARD K, fully dressed is 68kg, your claims of 30kg lighter are cobblers.
As for these 220hp/160lb.ft K engines… WHO is running them? Names? Where were they measured?
As far as I know, there’s only one K series Elise thats managed that @ Emerald (which I assume we’re using as a benchmark) and you had no part in that engine I can assure you.
Perhaps with your background as a sculptor, you’re using your artistic license with all these ‘facts’
I find this thread hard to believe - it is suggesting that the K is a great engine. But out of the box as (Bernard describes its only really suitable for 160bhp and then you’re still likely to get head gasket problems. Even in VHPD form its still only good for 180ishbhp and 140ishlbft, and a little more in a caterham. But the rebuild intervals are very low as I will show below from my own experience.
Regarding the power - its not easy to get 220bhp/160lbft. Outside of dyno rooms (that don’t use the full exhaust system of the car) 240bhp hasn’t been seen in an Elise/Exige with tranverse mount (measured at the rolling road I believe - Emerald). But has on the odd occasion in Caterhams that seem to fair better because of the exhaust system. And on the new rollers at Emerald at Watton AFAIK the most a Caterham has made so far is 236bhp/160lbft, and 220ishbhp for a 340R but that had poor torque, and I’m currently on 215bhp/159lbft.
My engine doesn’t get the caning that a track car does but it doens’t exactly get an easy life either!
Its done just over 4k on my new build of Scholar bottom end, VHPD rods (small ends bushed to be fully floating), Omega pistons and heavy metal inserted standard crank. The tell tale in my ECU shows that I’ve managed to rev it 8921 (even though the limiter is set to 8750 soft cut 8850 hard cut!) but mostly don’t rev much over 8 since the power was falling off then, but now its strong until 8500 with the different cams I’m using.
Mr Erland is claiming that the engine is bullet proof, but he doesn’t mention the following. Things that do have to be changed regularly on a high tune of K that does stay together are valve springs (30k road miles since they are doubles), cam belt (15k miles due to double valve springs), liners/rings (10-15k miles since they ovalise and you loose power), pistons (30-40K miles due to ring land and gudgeon pin wear), crank bearings (50k miles).
So not the 100k that you might get from a Honda/Audi/Duratec but then those engine may well have service intervals for some components too, but since they left the factories in a much stronger state of health the servicing is likely to be less than I’ve listed above for a tuned K.
So mine might last well - I’ve done three builds and got 30k before the first one was needed then 15k before the 2nd, 10k before the 3rd, and then gave up with that block after 2k since the crank seal kept leaking and built a new bottom end described above.
My esitmates for change of components above is in miles that are 90% road, and 10% track/competition. So those number will come down with more track use.
I’m not going to track day my car until the end of the Gurston championship since I built it for that and have a good chance of winning it this year. Come September I’ll do some track days and see how well it lasts.
I’m hoping that the thicker liners and better balanced crank will mean the bottom end lasts mush longer and all I will need to do from the list above is the valve springs in about 20k and the cam belt in 10K.
As for the costs. To start from sctratch to build the same engine as I have (without the dry sump) is over 6k (and that means you have to build it and install it yourself - the cost does include all the head porting, supply of head/cams/valves etc), and you will then need an ECU and full exhaust system…I was lucky and started with a VHPD.
And to make it “proper quick” you need a closer gearbox than the Lotus CR box. I use the quaife syncro six speed since I like to use the car on the road, but for less money you can get a 5 speed quaife with straight cut (noisey)gears.
The K series may well be a good design, but it is riddled woth flaws and faults that mean you have to replace nearly every component to get a reliable-ish 200+bhp engine.
My choice would be the Audi opion having driven a couple of them!
SteveB