I know Uldis does not really frequent Seloc much - his current engine spec has just been mentioned and apparently "despite everything his engine is not that far behind butts’s ".
There have been some significant changes made by Jim and Erland - Can you let us know any details? Is there a current power curve avaliable?
Just to add to the mix…
Two recent 1800s on 1444 cams, same valve sizes, identical or similar induction to Uldis’s, one on stock VHPD bottom end , the other on Scholar bottom end… out of the box, no repeat RR sessions with different induction manifolding etc. Just the one session
i) 245BHP 166lb/ft
ii) 243BHP 170lb/ft
I won’t be naming these two since the owners don’t want to become embroiled, nor do they want unsolicited underhand emails / phone calls from anyone. They just want to enjoy their engines. Their curves are at Emerald.
Steve Butts’s engine is currently over 250BHP.
Dave
Have you tried a search? I think he’s shared in the passed.
Ian
Just to add to the mix…
Two recent 1800s on 1444 cams, same valve sizes, identical or similar induction to Uldis’s, one on stock VHPD bottom end , the other on Scholar bottom end… out of the box, no repeat RR sessions with different induction manifolding etc. Just the one session
i) 245BHP 166lb/ft
ii) 243BHP 170lb/ftI won’t be naming these two since the owners don’t want to become embroiled, nor do they want unsolicited underhand emails / phone calls from anyone. They just want to enjoy their engines. Their curves are at Emerald.
Steve Butts’s engine is currently over 250BHP.
Dave
Dave
Did you mean 1900’s?
Mark
Nope, those are 1800s… previous bests had been 238 and 239 respectively.
Dave
No- but they will be caterhams…that for some reason usually outperfrom the exact same pec in an Elise.
Even if the Elise/Exige/340R matches the peak values, the low and mid range is dire in comparison.
My engine is the only exception to that rule that I know of - I’ve discovered a magic working combination of cams, timing, exhaust and trumpet configuration that gives the results across the entire rev range.
And I could better the 251bhp with the addition of a dry sump and 45mm throttle bodies. Both have shown to give gains back to back on my engine, of 7bhp and 5bhp. Used collectively they may push my engine over 260bhp.
I’ve removed the dry sump and replaced it with a baffled wet sump to save 15kg and retained the 42mm TBs because the gains were only over 7500rpm and some torque (but not really much mind) was lost below that. Overall I decided that the expense of the 45mm TBs and the gains verses the loses made them not worth using.
However the gains in torque across the range from the dry sump would offset the low and mid range torque loss from the larger TBs so would work together quite nicely.
However I’ve now sold the sump and invested the money in new tyres that are worth far more in competitive advantage than 7bhp!
Ayup Steve,
Your enthusiasm shines through…
Dave
Dave,
What does that work out to in HP to the wheels?
HP at the wheels is near impossible to say, it depends on how you measure it and of course what gear you are in since wheel speed seriously affects the losses thru the tyres. The losses on the road are a lot lower because you have one large contact patch of infinite radius causing minimal tyre compression, whereas on the rollers you have two small diameter rollers pressing in producing unnatural tyre compression. This absorbs a lot more power than the normal rolling resistance on the road. So what you see ‘at the rollers’ is very diffetent than what you would see ‘at the wheels’ on the road if you could measure it.
Some RRs can measure the losses thru the rollers / transmission / tyres and add this to the measured ‘at the wheels’ figure to derive flywheel horsepower. As an average in 4th gear the losses on an Elise with correct tyre pressures is around 30-35BHP and on a Caterham around 5 less. So you could say that on average the at the wheels figure in 4th gear would be around 205-210BHP.
Dave
Thanks Dave,
That’s what I figured the loss would be through the drive train.
I’m running 1444’s, larger valves and a slightly ported head on a stock VHPD bottom end and I’ve only got 172 hp to the wheels. So I guess that would be equal to about 200-210hp.
I’m still running the stock air box(single cone filter), trumpets and throttle bodies. Is there much to be gained with a different air box arrangement or is the rest of my missing power all in the head porting?
I know it’s a complicated question to answer with many variables but I guess what I want to know is what kind of hp do you think could be gained on a 200hp VHPD with an optimized air box/trumpet setup?
What sort of induction/exhaust system is Uldis using?
The stock VHPD TBs, these have been shown to be good for over 260BHP…
If your head is only lightly ported there may be plenty to come from a proper reworking.
Dave
Maybe I will be sending you a package this winter?
I think the readers of this thread know very well the history of that particular engine and in detail the reason for it’s failure which as we all know since you have brought it up at least a dozen times was due to lack of suitable big-end bearings. They also know how utterly obsessed you are over it, even claiming to know all about the engine when you have never even clapped eyes on it. At least it made it past the RR session… unlike another engine I could mention.
I’m not really concerned whether my engines beat yours for power, but you seem to be, claiming all sorts of things which prove unsubstantiated or just plain wishful thinking.
So, why not simply post Uldis’s results so we can see for ourselves how well it’s doing compared to ‘butts’ engine and the two examples I have posted here which are pretty much identical in spec. After all that’s what the thread is about. And you have cited Uldis’s engine as an example.
From your rhetoric it should be streets ahead of the ‘poor’ Scholar blocked engine shown above, so lets see for ourselves…
Or is it easier to rake up some old cr*p and then hide.
It is precisely because of the botched efforts of the likes of you that the whole honda phenomennon has happened at all
Christ, you clearly have become seriously unhinged, now please tell me how I am also responsible for nuclear weapon proliferation, third world debt, the Iraqi war, world hunger and global warming.
I would go see a trick cyclist and tell him all about your problems.
What a …
The K series killed Rover without any help from me.
Dave
I know Uldis does not really frequent Seloc much - his current engine spec has just been mentioned and apparently "despite everything his engine is not that far behind Butts’s ".
There have been some significant changes made by Jim and Erland - Can you let us know any details? Is there a current power curve available?
Seems like a genuine post, but I would have to decline the notion that my engine is not far from Butts, it is far.
After all, apart from the 1mm over intake valves and 1444 cams it is built with exactly the same standard pieces as any other VHPD.
With the last manifold design (JV5) we got lots of usable mid range from 5K to 8K but very flat, so a previous peak of 156# is now only 153 but spread out much flatter.
My current power is 220/153# but have to go to another mapping session as the manifold has changed and now is really quiet. Feels like the torque curve has moved slightly as well.
There is also this very nice airbox to try, but need to have some adaptors made.
And Dave, you seem to be very quick to mention that those engines are “almost identical to mine”. Please, you said the same out of that engine that blew, when there was nothing even similar apart from the 1444’s. Completely different engine concept if you change the bore and stroke.
We (Joe public) cannot confirm your claims and sorry, just believing your word doesn’t cut it. Posting an excellent plot would not help, as we don’t know how those engines are built.
But if they are over 240BHP and they are almost the same spec as mine, they’re in a different league totally.
Can you PM me their details so I can contact and ask them what’s their spec?
Uldis,
The engine we spoke of was identical in terms of spec., same head, valves, guides, cams, followers, springs, caps, induction etc. The difference was it was a slightly shorter stroke and slighty larger bore (Scholar of course which should have made it down on power according to Simon E), oh and smaller in capacity than yours. However it made 25BHP more.
The 243BHP engine above is a VHPD exactly like yours, big inlet valves, ported VHPD head, 1444 cams, absolutely stock bottom end. There is another too at 238BHP and 164lb/ft again identical to yours, big inlet valves, ported VHPD head, 1444 cams, stock bottom end except Scholar rather than Rover liners.
I am not going to embroil the onwers in an argmument that they have no interest in. With respect Uldis, I believe that you are too close to Simon to trust that you wont pass on details and involve the owners is endless 'phone calls, badgering emails etc. they have stated for the record that they do not want any contact with the protragonists on this or other BBSs.
Dave Walker has seen the engines and knows the spec.
Both of these are approximately 20BHP ahead and are also ahead on torque.
Dave
high 220s low 230s on Emerald rr now. Add the dry sump that I have done that similarly the Caterhams enjoy, and I would expect another 10/12bhp. Even just the scrapers that all but
You have posted recently about the terrible windage and 80% aeration caused by the awful Caterham dry sump system, how exactly does that tally with the 10-12BHP increase that you suppose it gives? According to your postings it is worse than with the wet sump so accordingly must be costing the engine power, we’d better add some to my figures then to take them up to the wet sump equivalent, 10-12BHP would seem fair. Then we can add another 10-12BHP for a decent dry sump system, then we can add 5-10% with a set of dual injectors… See how ridiculous it all sounds?
Perahps we should add ‘Splitfire plugs’ - 5BHP, ‘Nology leads’- 8BHP, ‘Broquet’ fuel catalyser - 10BHP, Ebay special ‘air temp sensor resistor’ - 10BHP etc.etc… pretty soon we’ll all be up to 1000BHP.
Get real Simon, you are living in a fantasy world, the RR Uldis uses is considered generous compared to Dave Walkers rather than the other way round. We’ve already played that one out.
The fact is that despite your claims Uldis’s engine is a country mile away from ‘Butts’ engine in terms of power torque and spread of torque, similarly it’s a country mile away from the last few 1800s of mine that have been to Emerald and are of almost identical spec. That is depsite countless trips to the RR and a large number of exhaust manifolds who’s pipework would probably span the globe if laid end to end.
Get over it.
I hope that your engines do produce good power, and I don’t have the slightest interest in a BHP war, you started the debate by falsely claiming that Uldis’s engine was close to Steve Butts, it isnt. Right now the published figures just dont support your case.
I’m sure that further development of the engines I have mentioned in various areas would take then even further away from the current crop of your engines, it just comes down to the cost/performance benefit for the owners.
In all the cases the engines have been to the RR once, no plethora of manifolds, induction systems etc. with multiple RR runs, just one run, out of the box.
Dave