Where have all the King K Engines gone?

The Oily Bits S1 Specific Topics
81

I was trying to offer an olive branch, but that seems to have been a waste of time.

FWIW I saw your good will Bernard.
I think both of you have very valid points but sadly it seems that Simon didn’t get your peaceful comments (been attacked a lot in the past).

Also, Simon seems to see it from an “optimized” point of view, and yours seems like a practical point of view.

Thanks for that Uldis. I can see why Simon reacts as he does, but he needs to calm down a bit. Not all other engines in the world are crap.

Bernard

82

bernard - second what Uldis has said, maybe it will take several posts before Simon is able to see the wood for the tress and not read ulterior motives into certain postings.

I for one am more than happy with the return of a more constructive dialogue.

83

Also, Simon seems to see it from an “optimized” point of view, and yours seems like a practical point of view.

To me this is (and has always been) exactly the point. There have always been fundamental differences in the philosophy and these have stemmed very largely from practical Vs theoretical points. Ultimately all the theory in the world doesn’t help if practical evidence isn’t there to substantiate the fact that it is actually possible.

Despite how it sometimes comes across pretty much everyone (even those who have already transplanted) is/are keen on seeing high powered K’s in action. For instance, SteveB’s K is always very well received in discussion and never gets any type of ‘should’ve fitted an Audi/Honda/Ford engine’ because people understand what and why he’s doing it.

SimonS and Bernard and a number of others all spent an awful lot of money attempting to make high powered reliable K’s (after all, theres no point going out of your way to make an unreliable one!) and effectively hit a cost/performance/reliability wall that has made them develop the transplants. I genuinely believe that anyone producing better K’s will get given the respect they deserve but the engines do have to exist before they are amenable to having faults pointed out.

Good luck to Simon E and I look forward to seeing some engines in action.

Chris

84

I’m as interested as anyone to see a reliable K, although I went down the Honda route, I would have dearly loved to have kept the Rover if I could have got the same level of power and reliability from it as a Honda - yes I did destroy one Honda engine but that was more to do with the Prototype conversion than the engine itself.

In fact I still have my Rover engine ready and waiting… But I guess that’s the whole point. I’ve had three years of 200+ hp motoring, as opposed to three years of waiting for a reliable 200hp and trundling around with 120hp. None of us are getting any younger! So Simon hurry up and get these engines out there. Simon S, Bernard and the like have capitalised on the fact that there is NO Rover engine out there that offers the same level of power. price and reliability. If there was a long queue would have formed. Those who have chosen Honda or Audi power have not done so because they dislike Rover, it has simply been because there was no alternative. The faithful keep hearing the same line of �wait and see�, but how many years should they wait? How many track days of watching Honda’s and Audi’s blast by with monotonous regularity and reliability?

This whole saga has run for at least the last couple of years and in that time countless Honda and Audi conversions have been rolled out and continue to do so. I�m surprised that you continue to heap scorn on Dave Andrews, someone who is firmly in the Rover camp and someone I would have thought you would be working closely with. Talk about divide and conquer. I�m only aware of Uldis and MarchHare who have your engines (in the public domain) but neither I guess have cranked up the kind of mileage to get sufficient interest (Uldis is geographically handicapped ). In my experience people sit up and take notice not by talk on forums but by performance and reliability on track, two engines in two years are just not enough, people would rather pay extra to get Honda/Audi power vs. taking a risk on a platform many consider shaky at power levels beyond 200hp which is the sweet spot for an Elise/Exige.

My Rover engine sits here in NZ on an engine stand waiting for an answer; I sincerely hope one day I�ll be able to give it one�

86

I�m only aware of Uldis and MarchHare who have your engines (in the public domain) but neither I guess have cranked up the kind of mileage to get sufficient interest (Uldis is geographically handicapped ).

FWIW I’m up to 10K miles with lots of trackdays and hard runs in the west of scotland.
Just finished the Mexi Towers event last week: three days thrashing the car starting at Knockhill and continuing through the west side of Scotland and then through to Aberdeen to go down to central Scotland.
3 days and about an average of 1K miles on wonderful, open, dusty, clean, bumpy, smooth, roller coaster-like… everything. About 1K miles more and my only eventuality was 1 tyre.
People that saw the car on track can vouch for how smooth and quick the engine felt (or surprised liek a Skyline when I outdragged him).

One thing that cannot be good (we’ll see if I damaged it) was that the airbox came off in one of the bumpy sections. I heard the engine note changing but couldn’t think of what it was, until we stopped for lunch, checked the oil and noticed the airbox and filter were hanging
My fault, I had made a bracket that was only glued, not riveted.
So the engine sucked in dusty air for about 60 miles. Will see if I didn’t scratch the bores. We’ll see.

My engine is not the best spec from Simon, since I was one of the early ones, it’s pretty basic, with only std parts except from the 1mm over intake valves and the 1444 cams. Simon wouldn’t make the same spec anymore.

BTW, the only cars that failed on the trip were a Honda Elise and a 111R.

I don’t say mine is better, just saying it’s not worse. Same power as the Honda but lighter. And yes, with me driving it was quicker than anything on track -ok, except for that 620 BHP Porsche GT2…

87

Uldis,

Nice report. Do you know why the Honda Elise & 111R failed?

Tim.

88

The Honda’s fuel pump (the Lotus original) failed.

The verdict is out on the 111R, but it was major engine woes (knackered bottom end by the sounds of it) He had been having recurring MIL issues with the car, with the local dealer having been over it with a fine tooth comb on about 5 occasions.

89

The Honda’s fuel pump (the Lotus original) failed.

The verdict is out on the 111R, but it was major engine woes (knackered bottom end by the sounds of it) He had been having recurring MIL issues with the car, with the local dealer having been over it with a fine tooth comb on about 5 occasions.

Tim, as Shug says, the Honda seems to have been the old pump. Something electrical enyway. The bad thing is that the owner had done an engine conversion hoping not to have any other problems.

The 'yota who knows, but it seems it was hardware. Bad.

90

My argument with dva is his practice, and the consequences, does so much to ferment the honda argument. Building engines so badly they fail, can only breed frustration in the owners, frankly he is the Ks wost enemy - scuffham is an angel by comparison - whilst his inability to take on anything that he might have learnt and at the same time to try and discredit me and any of my findings - for instance the appalling standard of machining on the scholar blocks [and I really am ready to go to court with you over that one dva - please make my day, let alone your efforts to discredit me over the heavy metalling work] shows me that whatever I present in a book will be wasted on him. Not only is that a huge disappointment but extremely frustrating - what do I do with all the new parts when I have finished??? It was my firm resolve to give them to dva, scholar etc etc for them to capitalise on, make money from, now I realise they are much more interested in their "guru " status as infallable fonts of wisdom for all things K, than to actually step back and learn to do it better for everyone’s benefit. I find that very defeating, and lord knows what I am going to do about it.

Well, I am bored of these accusations and seeing you guys attacking to each other. Isn�t there a better way to solve your problems?
Simon, with all due respect, why don�t you show us some facts of your work? I mean is there an engine of yours, which makes you really proud? If yes, which one is that? Can you post the power graph? How much does it cost? How many miles has it done without re-building it?

I have another question for both (DVA and Simon).
Lets suppose I give you my VVC engine, a set of 340R throttle bodies, Emerald ECU and a QED Oil Dry sump kit. What can you do in respect of Power and Torque with:

  1. �3k
  2. �4.5k
  3. �6k
  4. �8k
  5. �10k

In all cases, the engine has to be durable, and able to be ready in less than 3 months!
Although it is a theoretical question at the moment, it could easily happen in the next few months. Also, I think most of us here will find such a comparison quite interesting.

91
  1. �3k

3K will buy you a maintainance free 700hp. It’s just not finished yet…

:wink:

In all seriousness it depends what you define as ‘reliable’ and what you want out of the engine. For instance, SteveB has a reliable 251hp from his K series, and it’s done a fair few thousand road miles/sprints etc. I wouldn’t want to race it in a 24 hour though and I don’t think it’d stand up to my 30,000 mile/year commute…

92

Cheers Uldis & Shug.

That 'yota problem sounds a bit of a worry I can speak with confidence to say I know for sure they ain’t bullet proof

Tim.

93

Well, we’ve read about the crunching box here, and one of them did go, right?

But then, as I said, [censored] happens. All engines will fail eventually.

94

The yota engines seem to have been particularly susceptible to being buzzed - ie go over the rev limiter by messing up a downchange.

A friend of mine lunched his 111r after about 3000 miles (1st in europe iirc) Buzzed top 9200 and bigends etc were gone within 50 miles.

Several more have had the same fate both here and in the US. Reliable within the rev range, but don’t seem to survive buzzing even as well as the k series.

96

Surely the piston speeds at 20,000 rpm would be absurd… ?

97

Give over Simon, I’ve pretty much given you the benefit of the doubt up to now, but you’re pushing your luck now.

I’m sorry but no conventional lubricated crank can live past about 14,000rpm. The centrifugal forces are too high and the oil will just (pseudo) cavitate in the drillings. Your conrods will kick be spat out of the block before you get past 10,000rpm on a long stroke K. High speed engines will need nose fed lubrication.

And what are coated bearings? I’ll drink from the holy grail before I believe that. Are you talking about sputter bearings? Keep it real man.

99

Simon,

You should take a chill pill

“for instance the appalling standard of machining on the scholar blocks [and I really am ready to go to court with you over that one dva - please make my day, let alone your efforts to discredit me over the heavy metalling work”

I have made no efforts to ‘discredit’ asnyone over heavy metalling work, your dispute was with Steve Butts, not me and Steve at Vibration Free confirmed Steve Butts’s version of events in his own words.

You discredited yourself by making unsubstantiated claims.

Prove me wrong… show me any postings that I have made that have not been substantiated by Steve Smith’s post in response. As far as I know I have supported Steve Butts’s version of events in one posting, simply because I knew him to be telling the truth.

If you can’t do this then kindly stop trying to make mileage out of an inexactitude.

I suggest you take up any problems that you may have with Scholar blocks with Scholar, they have invited you to do so and you have so far declined.

I have pointed out schoolboy errors in your statements about the bore tolerances which led you to make false statements about the ovality of the bores.

I have taken ovality and taper readings from blocks I have/had here after you requested them which showed that the ovality and taper on the blocks I have here to be well within tolerance.

I have shown that your assertion that all Scholar blocked engines are down on power compared to Rover linered equivalents to be unsubstantiated.

I will make it clear, if you have issues with Scholar blocks you have there, take them up with the originators… Scholar.

Much as you would like to drag my name into the frame, I do not produce the Sholar EVO2 conversion, I merely use it. I routinely measure the ovality and taper on Scholar blocks under the influence of a torque plate, if any of the tolerances proved to be a problem then I would return the block to Scholar.

If any of my customers have a problem with any work that I have done I invite them to contact me to discuss them.

So far I am unaware of any that have problems that they have discussed with me which are unresolved. I cannot comment on any such problems which may exist unless I am aware of them.

It’s that simple.

Dave

100

Give over Simon, I’ve pretty much given you the benefit of the doubt up to now, but you’re pushing your luck now.

I’m sorry but no conventional lubricated crank can live past about 14,000rpm. The centrifugal forces are too high and the oil will just (pseudo) cavitate in the drillings. Your conrods will kick be spat out of the block before you get past 10,000rpm on a long stroke K. High speed engines will need nose fed lubrication.

And what are coated bearings? I’ll drink from the holy grail before I believe that. Are you talking about sputter bearings? Keep it real man.

I think (hope) that Simon just means that the crank (nothing else) will survice spinning at 20,000. I suppose it might. But there is no chance anything even loosely based on a K will survive actually running at 14,000. It’s just laughable to think it will.

Bernard