Post deleted by Admin5

The Oily Bits S1 Specific Topics
61

Ah… I now have the necessary equipment to measure the bore diameters on David Wards engine.

Bore 1 82.025 by 81.985
Bore 2 81.99 by 81.985
Bore 3 81.99 by 81.985
Bore 4 81.99 by 82.01

The consistency of the bores looks quite good to me and they appear to be from 0.5 thou undersize to 1 thou oversize (taking into account ovality), bore one appears to be around .7 thou larger on average.

The measurements may be the odd .2 of a thou out but the consistency should be good. And of course… they were double checked.

Dave

I don’t believe you any more Dave

Bernard

62

Fascinating all these posts.

I would ask only one thing… was this the engine that you (Dave) mentioned was a similar build to mine?

Disregard this if it’s another one we’re talking about.

63

Uldis,

It’s similar/the same in respect of cams, valve sizes and capacity, the main difference is that it was a shorter stroke and 82mm Scholar blocked 1800 (1766) and that it made 245BHP. I think if it had suffered badly with any bore sealing issues caused by liner ovality I doubt that it would have produced the output that it did.

All I have done is to measure the block/liners and see if things have changed since it was originally scoped before the build, things seem much the same as they were.

Bernard…

Dave

64

Ahh, I see, it is the same one I was thinking.
So, cams and inlet valve size. And the fact that it’s a K.

Otherwise completely different!

65

Completely different in respect of bore and stroke, and of course David’s engine is a smaller capacity and has smaller TBs. Otherwise remakably similar, ported big valve VHPD heads, TBs, 1444 cams, Emerald ECU etc.

Dave

66

Some people paiy to change the originals to go to Jenveys.

The fact that the ECU is an Emerald or Radio Shack is no different, as long as it’s mapped correctly.

Sorry Dave, but your insistance is misleading. With the crank/pistons size/shape/relation is different, the engines are as different as they can be.
No better/worse, you just can’t compare.

67

uldis,

I open my statement by saying that the engines differ in bore and stroke, what is misleading about that?

I then go on to say the things that are similar, what is misleading about that?

And you can compare…

Dave

68

Uldis,

I have to say… maybe it’s the beer in me but your post makes no sense to me whatsoever. I can’t tell if you’re saying it’s a different engine totally or if you’re saying it’s very similar.

69

[image]http://www.tubeguy.org/other_stuff/Offer%20Me%20a%20Beer.jpg[/image]

it happens to everyone when they start talking about the K!

70

nice one Steve

71

A quote from Simon Erlands criticism of the Scholar block he ‘measured’

"and the out of round - between 34micron and 87micron, thats 3 1/2 thou to 8 1/2 thou "

34 microns is actually 1.3 thou not 3.5 thou
87 microns is actually 3.4 thou not 8.5 thou

For your information since you don’t appear to know a micron is one millionth of a metre or .001mm, in imperial this equates to .00003937" or .039 thousands of an inch, it takes approximately 25.4 microns to make 1 thou. The magnitude of your error means that you have exaggerated the measurement to around 2.54 times the actual.

micron (�) [1]

A metric unit of distance equal to one millionth of a meter. “Micron” is simply a shorter name for the micrometer. In 1968 the CGPM decided to drop the micron as an approved unit and recommend that micrometers be used instead. Microns, however, are still in common use.

source: dictionary of units of measurement

First rule of engine bulding Simon, measure everything
Second rule of engine building Simon, know what you are doing
Third rule of engine building Simon, know what units you are expressing your measurement in.

If your measurements are not in microns, please let us know what they are in. If they are in microns please correct this elementary error in your post and apologise. You really should be more careful when publishing information about other peoples products. A copy of your postings has been sent to Scholar Engines for their comments.

Dave

72

A quote from Simon Erlands criticism of the Scholar block he ‘measured’

"and the out of round - between 34micron and 87micron, thats 3 1/2 thou to 8 1/2 thou "

34 microns is actually 1.3 thou not 3.5 thou
87 microns is actually 3.4 thou not 8.5 thou

Many years ago, in some engineering circles thou’s were called microns for some obscure reason, maybe that’s where the cock up came from.

I must admit when I looked at the figures (in thou) I was amazed the engine ran at all, I thought it must have had horrendous blow-by. I didn’t think to check the conversion.

Bernard

73

Another quote from Simon Erlands post about Scholar blocks

“, not least because I was always aware that Scholar blocks are down on power - always - with an equivalent engine but with a standard Rover bottom end”

I presume that you have data to back up this bold statement Simon.?

For the record I know of two Scholar blocked 1800cc engines that have made 238BHP and 245BHP. One of these is virtually identical in spec. to Uldis’ engine.

Perhaps you would like to post comparative figures for 1800 engines using standard Rover liners that beat these figures by a significant margin?

Bernard,

I’ve seen thou called ‘mil’ before but never micron, some of the uninformed believe a micron is 1/100th or even a tenth of a thou. If Simon’s ‘microns’ are actually thou then the bores were out of round between 35 thou and 87, that’s getting on for a tenth of an inch which stretches credulity a bit, …even for Simon.

Dave

74

Beer Brian, beer.


Maybe it’s the fact that english is not my first language, but my perception of Dave’s message was that the engine in question is similar to mine, therefore they should have similar outputs. Hence, mine could be better.

Misleading.

BTW, Dave could also mention another DVA engine, Jony Walkers’. That one would be a very similar build to mine (it was just mentioned here).
Less than 200 BHP and same pistons/crank/TB’s/Emerald, etc, <195 BHP


Am I the only one seeing this?

Minus one point for this one.

75

Bernard,

I’ve seen thou called ‘mil’ before but never micron, some of the uninformed believe a micron is 1/100th or even a tenth of a thou. If Simon’s ‘microns’ are actually thou then the bores were out of round between 35 thou and 87, that’s getting on for a tenth of an inch which stretches credulity a bit, …even for Simon.

Dave

Ooops ! I stand corrected, yes, it was “mils” I can vaguely remember my dad talking about them.

Bernard

76

Sorry Uldis,

What point are you making? The purpose of posting here is not to score points.

For goodness sake… You asked me about the engine, I responded with the facts, no more, no less. There is nothing even remotely misleading about that, once the facts are layed out please credit the readers with enough intelligence to form their own views.

Your engine makes a creditable amount of power and I have not criticised it although I could, nor have I suggested that your power should be the same I have simply posted the facts at your request. My postings were in no way an attack, you simply made it that way. I would not have mentioned your engine had you not done so first, I think your paranoia is showing.

FWIW I have another 1800cc virtually identical to yours in every respect except for the Scholar block (which according to Simon should make it lower on power), same pistons, rods and crank, head , valves, cams, TBs, except it makes 238BHP and I believe 158lb/ft.

It is not my intention to turn these postings into a bun-fight over who’s engine has more power because it is a foregone conclusion. You are happy with your engine and that is good enough for me.

I dont know about John’s engine because I have never dealt with him directly, I don’t known which RR his power was measured on or whether it is at the wheels or flywheel and I’d suggest from the scant information, neither do you. So to claim it as some sort of obscure victory might be a bit premature. By all means ask him for details, I think his description of the cams is probably wrong, they are either 1444s or 1227s. I also have no idea of the head spec. It could be a Q&D port or it could be a full big-valve one. It could be on the stock ECU or it could be on a non programmable MEMs, who knows?

Dave

77

Ok, point taken, your posts were never meant in the way I perceived them.
No paranoia here, just what I read.

Hmm, maybe there’s a correlation here, in the way Simon’s posts are perceived as well. Food for thougt.

The points thing is a little score I keep in my head.


That clarified, let’s continue with a healthy debate.

78

Uldis,

I’m all for straightforward debate and have always tried to keep things factual.

May I suggest that your in head score is probably best kept just there, since it has the potential to make the threads adversarial and that is not for the greater good.

I understand your sense of loyalty towards Simon, but any sane human being reading Simon’s post will be in no doubt whatsoever about their purpose, there is no subtle lack of understanding or misreading there. If you are honest with yourself you will see that this is true, you have criticised him in the past for his manner and approach on this very BBS.

Dave

79

Nope, I’ll let you know when I see a plus or a minus point, it’s my form of feedback.

And even now, I have told Simon that he should tone down his approach. I’d like an educated debate and it’s still borderline (except from your last post on the other thread).

And loyalty… you’d be surprised. I am on the side of the K. Aginst the Honda just because the way it’s been marketed and (unfortunately) how easy it’s for people to pay.

But you’re on the K side, so that’s all well.
You have one point of view and Simon has another, and at the time I needed a rebuild I believed in you, and then made a choice.

And not out of loyalty, but if I was in for another rebuild I would still go with Simon.

Why?

Because I can see only two versions, and I still have to make a choice, and his sounds more logical.

After all, saying things like �t’s possible to get too hng up on balancing" doesn’t do you any favours.
Have a thoretically perfectly balanced engine and then change the clutch without checking the balance.
It is not anymore perfectly balanced, doesn’t matter if it was perfect yesterday.

And you say that’s ok? At least he is making sure it’s done.
Not too hung up. Just that this and the engine out to fic liner heights needs to be done. Things that (by the nature of your business) you can’t control but that certainly don’t help on the K’s reliability point.

So, if I have to criticize him is for being overly enthusiast, but then so are meny here. And?
If he made a mistake or not (on the measurement side) I have no idea. Didn’t go through the calculations myself, will do it probably sometime later. I’d like to see him reply on that.

For the time being, I only see there are some people very loyal to you, not willing to consider any other thing it’s said. That’s wrong. Much of the bad K history is from the people that were building engines years ago. And you were there, but your position is mistake-free.
Sorry, don’t buy that.

And Simon no doubt has made or will make errors, and I will expect him to acknowledge them as well.


For the time being, I have an engine made by him, it runs well and I really like it.
It could have been made by you, but I chose him. And looking back, I believe it was the right choice.
Sorry Dave, you may be a good guy, just a different supplier, and will have a different version.

I for one want to see how this develops.

80

Uldis,

Where have I said it is OK to change the clutch and not rebalance the engine? Often it is simply the friction plate that is changed, its pointless balancing that.

And also where have I said that what I do is mistake free? If I make an error I acknowledge it and attempt to put it right, to say otherwise is incorrect and you should not be posting to the contrary unless you know for a fact that I have never acknowleged a mistake.

Of course it is possible to get too hung up on balancing, as far as I am concerned it is a service perfomed by an expert, provided the service is known to be good and you use it there is no need to go further in that direction unless your interest lies there. As already demonstrated I do send engine sets for balancing to Steve and I always recommend him, but due to customer preferences and sometimes price not all engine sets go there.

This really is old ground and I cannot fathom what point you are trying to make, but most of your statements run contrary to information already supplied and published on this BBS.

I could be wrong but I suspect that you are currently allowing Simon’s postings to be made by proxy.

Dave