Extracting power without extracting the rods from the block

GrimJack

Administrator
Dec 31, 1969
12,377
3
38
56
Richmond, BC, Canada
idriders.com
Wayne G.;1012003 said:
Grim, yes may be - but compaired to what type of valve train? Pushrods with
roller rockers and roller lifters? Don't think I have seen "roller" setup on a dual
over head cam setup motorcycle or car?? Just asking what would be better?
lol - I don't have a solution, I'm just pointing out the problem!

The best method I can think of to get rid of it would likely mean eliminating most of the head... certainly the cams would go. I'd move to a pneumatic air driven valve system, dropping the cams, buckets, shims, and valvesprings. Then the only drag on the engine would be from the crank / rod bearings and the rings.
 

Doward

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
4,245
0
36
Alachua, FL
Keros;1012016 said:
At the mention of exhaust manifolds, I recal a discussion I had on the topic with a friend; cast manifold vs long runner welded tube...

My knowledge of the subject was that cast manifolds with [really] short runners was good for spool time/throttle response, and lower boost thresholds (rpm where you start making boost) because of the short run from the cylinder to the turbine... more heat would enter the turbine and less in the engine bay. Cast iron is also known for not only being heavy (disadvantage), but handling heat very very well (advantage).

Welded long runners provide time for the exhaust gas to cool slightly (more prevalant in cheap/uncoated manifolds), which can result in less throttle response on boost and slightly higher boost threshold. But assuming they're pefectly equal length, align the exhaust pulses so that exhaust gases gather at the collector at different times, thus entering the turbine housing more efficiently at high rpm.

Any truth to this? I had always intended on keeping the stock 7M manifold.

Heat isn't what is important with spooling a turbo - exhaust velocity is.

Generally speaking, the stock manifold has some tiny ports, resulting in very high velocity at a low rpm - hence, quick spool.

A well set up tubular manifold has larger ports, so less velocity vs the stocker @ a given RPM, but when the stocker starts having trouble simply FLOWING the amount of exhaust required (at say, 6500rpm+) the tubular (with larger runners) is shining.
 

northwestsupra

New Member
Sep 19, 2006
1,166
0
0
Washington, Marysville
ok you know what guys, im going to share with you my class notes, and you can review them. ill just be putting in what i have learned for my high performance class, there is more but its still being typed up :p

to make it easier and maby be a future sticky though im going to just post a new thread
 

89turbotoy

2 89 supras 2jzgte/single
Jul 30, 2006
309
0
0
38
cincinnati
Doward;1012139 said:
Heat isn't what is important with spooling a turbo - exhaust velocity is.

Generally speaking, the stock manifold has some tiny ports, resulting in very high velocity at a low rpm - hence, quick spool.

A well set up tubular manifold has larger ports, so less velocity vs the stocker @ a given RPM, but when the stocker starts having trouble simply FLOWING the amount of exhaust required (at say, 6500rpm+) the tubular (with larger runners) is shining.

what about a ported stock manifold? it still has smaller ports but flows better and should be happy compromise, correct? i.e should spol relitively quick but flow better in the higher rpm range.

-Zac
 

GrimJack

Administrator
Dec 31, 1969
12,377
3
38
56
Richmond, BC, Canada
idriders.com
89turbotoy;1012326 said:
Nice! I've heard this idea thrown about a lot of times, but never seen it actually done.

pic06.jpg
 

89turbotoy

2 89 supras 2jzgte/single
Jul 30, 2006
309
0
0
38
cincinnati
coates acctually uses these valves in industrial deisel engines and also has motorcycles and a transam amung others. he used to offer to build rorotry valve systems for any car but i can't find any info on his sight now so i don't think he does it anymore. there are other options like solenoid operated valve scheduled to go int production vehicles w/ 24 volt power supllies by 2010 but i think the rotory valve system coates has is the best way ever.
 

Insidious Surmiser

Formerly 89jdm7m
May 12, 2006
2,172
0
0
Oceanfront
hrm how about swirling (think rifling in a barrel) the intake port? I've heard of this being done on f1 race cars, but don't they use cnc heads? Anyhow, the effect would be a most efficiently filled combustion chamber. (similar results can be achieved w/ cam choice and timing, but only in a certain rpm range)

Now, I'm sure doing this by hand would take FOREVER, and the costs would be extreme... if you could even find anyone capable of doing it (correctly).

I've only heard of this, never have I seen any real information or pictures.

any input?
 

chevyeater

wastegate hose is pulled
Mar 30, 2005
530
0
0
82
Long Island, NY
"Extracting power without extracting the rods from the block"

Not sure what your interest is from that. Other than nitrous, bigger turbos, more boost and more octane with all of the supporting (strength, fuel, i/c and control) mods, there aren't any cost effective ways to make significantly more power on a 7M.

A crankcase evacuation pump can provide a nice power benefit on an otherwise maxed out setup. It isn't cheap though.
 

Doward

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
4,245
0
36
Alachua, FL
I'm not applying this specifically to the 7M - ANY engine will benefit from lowered internal friction, lowered windage losses, tuned intake/exhaust, etc.
 

IHI-RHC7

"The Boss"
Apr 1, 2005
1,310
0
0
40
Oregon
Let's further discuss flame front velocity in relation to charge density.
Doward said:
See, that air/fuel mixture will burn at a certain, steady rate. As you increase the density of the air/fuel mixture, the burn takes longer to complete, and the slower the flame front. This is why you get so much torque - the air/fuel mixture burns longer Think for a moment on that.

OK, according to this, you would need to ignite a more dense charge earlier, to maintain MTBT. (because the burn will take longer, you need max cyl pressure to occur at the right geometric piston location) The problem I have with that is that in fact you need to retard the timing as density increases. That is why when you lean out the mixture by scaling the afm, and the TCCS thinks that the density is less than it really is, it advances the timing and results in detonation and ultimately rod extraction...

So, what's correct?

I'll do some digging and see if I can't be beneficial, rather than a baseless naysayer.

Also,
Doward said:
IIRC, optimum mechanical force from the piston to the crankshaft occurs 20 degrees AFTER TDC (which means you want the highest cylinder pressure at this point)

That said, you want to ignite the mixture at the point that gives you the highest pressure around 20 degrees ATDC. Keep in mind, when we say we are 'advancing' timing, we are actually firing the plugs further before TDC!

So does advancing the ignition help power? If before you advanced the timing, you were achieving the highest pressure after 20º ATDC, then yes - you should see some small torque gaines.

This optimum mechanical force occurs at an angle determined by the rod/stroke ratio. (which is funny, because I remember reading in SCC mag that rod/stroke ratio was one of the least important things to consider when building an engine) Peak torque transfer from the piston to the crank occurs when the crank and connecting rod are at 90 degree angles. Cylinder pressure is force per area, when you multiply by the surface area of the piston, you get a vertical force directed straight down the bore, transfered through the wrist pin, into the rod. Where this force meets the crank, it becomes a force times a moment arm, which we all know as torque. When the rod is perpendicular to the stroke of the crankshaft, the torque Force X Lever Arm (stroke of crank/2) X sin (angle between force and lever arm) is maximized, since sin(90) = 1.
This image depicts this well
mmfp_0711_06_s+ford_small_block_stroker_engine_build+rod_to_stroke_ratio.jpg

As you can see, the crank angle that results in a 90 degree rod-stroke angle is a triangle problem with the two legs being the stroke of the crank and the length of the rod. That being said, peak torque may occur at 20 degrees ATDC for some engines, but certainly not for all. in fact it's closer to 70 degrees in most engines. I could do the math for a supra, but that would be trivial since all we know how to do is alter the factory settings, and we actually don't know when the peak cylinder pressures are occurring in the cylinder. Also, since sin(0) = 0, you can see that if peak pressure occurs at TDC, no torque at all is made, and instead, the rod bearings support the full force applied from the combustion pressure and that is what kills bearings. (That and the fact that average cyl pressures are 1,200 PSI or so and detonation pressures are closer to 12,000 PSI, so it's not hard to see why 10X the force on a bearing might cause some unforeseen damage...)
Anyway, lets linger on this for a bit and see what we can figure out...
Here's a great read about rod/stroke ratio that helps clarify anything I've missed rod ratio
-Jake
 
Last edited:

cordoba

New Member
May 14, 2007
11
0
0
Tempe, AZ
Camless valving in conjunction with direct fuel injection can take care of the majority of the charge density issues, especially with forced induction.

some "gdi" motors continue spraying fuel into the combustion chamber while the power stroke is occurring ... this actually adds an element of "timing" to the charge itself.

I just figured if you're gonna start re-designing the valvetrain, you might as well bore some holes in the cylinderhead for some of the new piezo injectors that are available in some european cars already.


Also check out solenoid operated valvetrain:
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6430005.html
(I used to have a better link of a guy who actually created this setup on some RC boats and got close to 2x the power out of one experiment IIRC)

just food 4 thought
 

turbojuiced

New Member
Apr 5, 2008
343
0
0
San Diego/Fairfield
Doward;1008662 said:
Come on, let's discuss it all here - reducing internal friction, optimizing flow through the head, increasing quench area, timing vs flame travel speed.

How to extract more power from an engine, without extracting the rods from the block!

Well most of what I thought of has already been discussed. The only thing I havent seen but it may possibly be up here already I just missed it is decking the head or block to increase compression. Use better lubricants to extract the most hp. I also didnt see this but anyone here know anything about valve angling on our heads and how it performs? I know it does wonders for the evo community the only thing is if you have mivec you have to get a retune, but on the non-mivec heads no retune is necassary. We do see gains of 1-3% depending on application.

Now of course there are many bolt-on mods however, I am assuming by the thread opening statement you only want internal mods.
 

IHI-RHC7

"The Boss"
Apr 1, 2005
1,310
0
0
40
Oregon
Let's discuss everything. Let's talk about why an FCD will blow up your car, why a short runner intake makes more top end power, etc... I'd still like to discuss timing and what and how it is that density has such a profound affect on the propagation of the flame front.

I think the best way for us to enjoy our cars without destroying them is to understand why it is that certain things increase horsepower, certain things increase reliability, certain things do both, and certain things increase one and decrease the other...

-Jake