SWR
- 30 comments
- 2 likes given
- 6 likes received
Bio not provided
Sean, you never seen an Koenigsegg in person before this..?? There were 2 of them at Gatebil when you guys were over here...
@chris7opher "That was well said and in line with what I have been told and read from various experienced engine tuner and designers."
Thank you, I hope so or else I would have to quit this engine building business and get a new day job.. :D I'm a fan of two opposites, I like small turbocharged ones like my GSX-R1342 Turbo or turbocharged ones in general really, and old aircraft engines, Merlins, Allisons, Griffons, you name it. But now we're MILES away from topic of this thread, so maybe we should shut up before they bring the Ban Hammer down on us? :)
I talk about most any 2-valve head, really. You can only stuff "that big" of a valve in there for a given bore size before the bore itself - or the fact you need an exhaust valve to share the room with it - becomes the masking of the flow curtain. 53.5-54% of the bore area is what we work with these days. Any more and you're on the path of diminishing results as the achitecture itself becomes the limiing factor.
And the lifts you need to make that valve really flow some when you can't stuff a bigger valve in there is easily outpaced in cfm's by a moderate sized 4-valve head (using maybe just 50% of the bore area) with a much gentler peak lift value. Most ALL single-intake engines are valve limited flow-wise, that's the stick in the spokes that holds the design back. Not dissing the Cup guys in any way, they do an awesome job with what they got.
Sure, you CAN make a maxed out 2-valve flow the same as a 4-valve one if you spend enough hours and cubic dollars at it, but the latter has an easier time by far. As for the engine, it just knows what flow it's getting at that point in the cycle, it has no idea if it has 1, 2, 3 or 4 intake valves and you can open up a considerably bigger window sooner with twin intakes. Neither does the engine know the valve angles, the port shape, or anything. All that comes down to how much flow is available to fill the "piston demand" when the cylinder asks for it and a 4-valve can deliver that a lot easier.
Then again, BIG flow is not the most needed (any idiot can make a big hole that flows like a drain pipe IF he can physically fit the valve, which is the REAL showstopper, not the port) at all, screw up the port areas, shape and velocity and you can have all the flow on the bench you want, it will be a dog until you're far up in midrange, then it will just rocket off (if it ever gets on song before it hits the limiter). The tricky thing about porting not making the cfm, but making the most efficient shape to manage the velocity (priority 1!) and then make it flow enough through that shape. :)
As for the stroke being a limitation to the rpm you make power at, it isn't as long as long as it's strong enough to hold together. A Pro Stock engine has about 95mm stroke and make NA power at about 10500 rpm these days. Boost it or drop 4-valve heads on it and it would go further. It's all about airflow capability, a 2-valve head within the PS rules just can't breathe to much more. I have seen 100+mm (that's 4" stroke) rev 14 000 rpm in a 4-valve turbo import drag application and no, they did not tear it down after every run, so it did have decent life for such an extreme application, 25 passes or so. :)
I have just a modest skill level in aero and I see enough drag there to need more than 1100 hp for 400... Wide wheels, exposed at the rear instead of controlling airflow after that round thingy? No vortex generator strips at the end of the roof to make sure air stays attached to the rear window? A million holes in the front and anything that makes the general shape wider - more frontal area - than stock...? I'd say 370km/h, tops. Unless they have 400 additional hp of nitrous planned..
Anyone that haven't seen a Fueler (TF) take off in real life haven't lived yet. The noise is like a bat hitting you in the chest, the nitro exhaust makes acid that burns your eyes and if it's in the evening the 10-foot nitro-fueled flames they make make it a visual experience you will NOT forget... It's an ASSAULT on all your senses if you're close enough. :)
@Chris Besset Considering you as a spectator can walk ANYWHERE except out on track during driving, I would say it's the most spectator-friendly event you'll ever go to.
Drifting is all about looks? Ah. I thought drifting was all about angle, car control, lots of smoke and speed. We'll just make a showcar with 24" wheels being hellaflush while having 45º camber next time then, might get us somewhere.
Maybe, but it would look sillier if it could not drift due to us being overly concerned by looks.
Choice is to go for looks and tuck the wheels in and lose 20 degrees of wheel angle AND have the tires bind when they hit the frame rails.. or run offset. Easy choice is easy. :)
Don't need beer to approach us.. :) We're friendly, so just come on over next time and have a chat. We're busy, not antisocial.
It was all about getting the entire package ready for gatebil for us.. It's not my opinion, it's fact. To me there's no "they" who built this car, it's US as I am part of the team. I'm not the one guy saying you can skip the engineering part and just design by style. Form follows function, if it looks good / cool / Badass it's an added bonus. The "thousands of development hours" of the 86 is not done for drifting, it's for a good handling road car. We are in a different league. It's an untested platform for drifting as stock, yes, but with most everything related to the front wheels and steering moved, changed or custom made... what does the stock 86 road car platform's front end even have to do with Fredde's car? Nil. Nada. Zero. We did what we knew worked before and would again.. :)
Just a slight reconfiguration of the head's deck for some water channels to match the block and you are good to go.. ;)
Modding the fenders don't make the car more effective. And one-off fenders on a drift car will last about 3 minutes in the hands of Fredric, so spending time and money we did not have for something so silly as one-off parts that would not last anyways just wasn't in the budget. You can only do so much in 4 weeks. Car is what it is, a purpose built drift machine and anything that doesn't make the car better on track isn't worthy spending our time... Besides, it does look less compromising now, just like proper race machinery. :)
Sorry Robin, that I have NO clue about. Unless some of the other guys can tell I'll have to check it next week..
I have proof, being one of the guys that built it in the 30-some days. It NEEDS the offset, without it the wheels hit the frame rails at full lock. Being a Boxer engine as stock the frame rails of the GT86 are considerably further apart than in the Supra, so if we wanted stock lock we could fit it under the flares. But we can't, atleast for now running damn near to 70 degrees I think. Simple as that. :)
I'd wager that you welded a running car's exhaust once and looked at it on the inside after..?
When I did the mounts, we eyed it up at first, then fabbed all the main bits, i.e. the plate attaching to the block itself and the one to the engine mount. Then we drilled and attached the block plates either side before measuring up that the engine was square in the chassis, then supporting it just where we wanted it with wood. Then marking up the angle and height to weld the engine-mount plate to the block plate is easy. Take em out, spotweld enough for them to be sturdy and then replace on engine to check fit. If all is fine, weld them up and then attach reinforcement gussets. Using an empty block while doing this helps a ton. :)