ALWAYS check an unknown engine build.
Re: ALWAYS check an unknown engine build.
O.K. have to add my two bits. A lot of engine builders do not recommend linishing/polishing stock rods as they're more likely to fail. The theory used to be that a polished rod is "de-stressed" but the removal of material does nothing more than remove material. Only go option 2 if you're prepared to spend big$$$, and that's billet alloy rods. Another thing (but not really relevant) is detailing inlet manifolds. Guys who build hi-po NA engines don't recommend polishing inlet manifolds, it somehow robs the engine of torque. And no, I don't know why...
- cheaterparts
- Posts: 660
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:06 pm
- Location: Cranbourne Vic
Re: ALWAYS check an unknown engine build.
I must say I haven't met one engine builder that doesn't recommend preping rods - unless they are being replaced by after market rodsgeezer101 wrote: O.K. have to add my two bits. A lot of engine builders do not recommend linishing/polishing stock rods as they're more likely to fail. The theory used to be that a polished rod is "de-stressed" but the removal of material does nothing more than remove material. Only go option 2 if you're prepared to spend big$$$, and that's billet alloy rods. Another thing (but not really relevant) is detailing inlet manifolds. Guys who build hi-po NA engines don't recommend polishing inlet manifolds, it somehow robs the engine of torque. And no, I don't know why...
the theory was and still is that by removing stress points on a rod will reduce failure - so polishing the beams does this
however after cleaning up the rod they must be shot peaned to put back a toughened skin on the beam
after market rods are mainly billet or forgings that are fully machined from steels like 4340 and are also shot peaned as the end process for the same purpose
as for aluminium rods they arn't much good for steet use or circuit cars as they have a very limited life span
as for polishing the inlet track ( manifolds and inlet ports ) yes it does rob power from reduced air flow
a polished surface has more drag than a matt finish so flows less air
if possable polish the exhuast ports though it slows down the build up of carbon
cheater
-
- Sigma-Galant Police (Global Mod)
- Posts: 1356
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: Hobart Tasmania
Re: ALWAYS check an unknown engine build.
i was taught that polishing inlet ports dosent let the fuel atomise and forms droplets instead of being a mist going into the cylinder.
BUILT NOT BROUGHT BY ALGIE.
Re: ALWAYS check an unknown engine build.
Sorry I did a typo on my last entry- forgot the "/" between the billet and alloy. The polished manifold was actually relating to the external surfaces. It is to do with increased surface area of cast aluminium? Heat sink effect maybe... Saw a guy doing 8 cyl engines saying every time he dyno'd a motor, he got a constant 4-6lb drop in torque if the same motor was fitted with an identical but dressed inlet manifold. Weird.
-
- Posts: 1689
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:12 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: ALWAYS check an unknown engine build.
Well, I took the car out yesterday with Matt for a quick check on the 40-110. The time was around 12 seconds. Not very happy with that. I was running the engine a bit lean at the time so I decided to fatten up the AFR a bit.
It made a bit of a difference.
This is a 15 second log from the run.
110kph in 3rd gear is 4200rpm (the white vertical line), I checked it via GPS on the way home.
Much better, down to 8.3 seconds, and over 1 second quicker than my best time before the engine rebuild.
Cheers.
It made a bit of a difference.
This is a 15 second log from the run.
110kph in 3rd gear is 4200rpm (the white vertical line), I checked it via GPS on the way home.
Much better, down to 8.3 seconds, and over 1 second quicker than my best time before the engine rebuild.
Cheers.
- Rally_2.6LC
- Posts: 954
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:59 am
- Location: Either under a car, on the computer or in bed...around Ryde
Re: ALWAYS check an unknown engine build.
So do we need to go testing again????
Cheers Matt
Cheers Matt
'75 GC daily (slowly dying)
'80 LC 2.6L rally car (generally something broken until 2 weeks before an event)
'71 GA 2.6 Turbo project (i only wanted the diff and got another project)
^This side up^
Formely "Matt"
'80 LC 2.6L rally car (generally something broken until 2 weeks before an event)
'71 GA 2.6 Turbo project (i only wanted the diff and got another project)
^This side up^
Formely "Matt"
-
- Posts: 1689
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:12 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: ALWAYS check an unknown engine build.
Matt, just for a comparison
The top graph was using 1.48mm main jets (your run) and the bottom graph was using 1.55mm jets (my run).
At 6.90 seconds, on your run, the engine close to 5700rpm whereas I was at 6000rpm.
With a .07mm increase in jet size there was a 0.6 of a second difference to reach 6000rpm (in 2nd gear).
Looking at the AFR on my graph, I could probably go to 1.57mm.
Probably should dial the cam in properly before doing too much more, seeing I just set it by guess.
Hmm.
Cheers.
The top graph was using 1.48mm main jets (your run) and the bottom graph was using 1.55mm jets (my run).
At 6.90 seconds, on your run, the engine close to 5700rpm whereas I was at 6000rpm.
With a .07mm increase in jet size there was a 0.6 of a second difference to reach 6000rpm (in 2nd gear).
Looking at the AFR on my graph, I could probably go to 1.57mm.
Probably should dial the cam in properly before doing too much more, seeing I just set it by guess.
Hmm.
Cheers.
-
- Posts: 1689
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:12 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: ALWAYS check an unknown engine build.
After a few minor changes, the latest Dyno run netted nearly 100kw at the wheels..
Hopefully there is still a little bit more but not willing to push it too much further. It was built as a daily, not for big power...
Cheers.
Hopefully there is still a little bit more but not willing to push it too much further. It was built as a daily, not for big power...
Cheers.