Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: groot Apr 6 2004, 03:36 PM

So, there are some big changes coming in E-production (SCCA) to "equalize" the competition. In 2005, the 914-4 2.0L runs at 1870 pounds with driver.

Is anyone thinking of switching from FP to EP and using a 2.0L now that the 914 has lost 50 pounds?

As you may have guessed, I'm considering it. Since I have 2-2.0L engines and no 1.8s, I'll be starting in EP anyway. But, I'm on the 4-year plan to get competitive , so it really doesn't matter immediately.

I know they used to be competitive in EP.

Anyway, there have been some posts about the horsepower a FP 1.8 can make. Any thoughts on a 2.0L?

Posted by: Jake Raby Apr 6 2004, 06:52 PM

I have actually made more power with teh FP spec engines than EP.... But, I have way more FP experience.

The 2.0 crank has weak rod journals and the bottom ends just are not as tough as the 1.8..

We may swotch our sponsored car over to EP just to do some new R&D work.

The nice thing about EP is that you can legally run 2.0 heads.

Posted by: d914 Apr 6 2004, 08:42 PM

as opposed to illegally????

Posted by: Brett W Apr 6 2004, 08:59 PM

I don't get the problem with the weakness of the 2.0 crank. Honda uses a 1.8 sized rod journal on an engine that turns to 9K, what makes it so much different? I know the Honda has a rod ratio that is much better/worse than what the 2.0 914 has.

A renowned T4 engine builder and 914 racer said the 2.0 was a lot tougher on bearings and needed to be counter weighted. He figured if you didn't run it more than about 7500 you could make it last pretty well but otherwise things could get expensive. I am not sure what the competetion's power levels look like but you would need probably 200-210 to be competetive and if they didn't change the carb sizes, you could be limited as far as power goes.

Posted by: Jake Raby Apr 6 2004, 09:20 PM

I have seen MANY more spun bearing 2.0 engines than 1.7s and 1.8s.

The 800 gr rod with the tiny 2.0 journal and being so short coupled with the less adequate oiling passages makes the issue.

I'm currently playing with a 40(ish)mm rod journal with a trimetal bearing that is currently used in factory engine that revs to 8K stock... the bearing is wider than a stock 2.0 and made from a much better, more modern material.

Posted by: Brett W Apr 6 2004, 10:47 PM

Yeah I was planning on running a Honda rod journal on the GT3 2.0 engine. I really want a shorter rod. I am thinking about running a 1.8 crank with a 96mm cylinder. (yes I know it is not legal) It will P&G smaller than a two litre so I shouldn't get an grief. Besides no way will a T4 powered 914 make it to the run offs and win. SCCA won't let it and the engine can't make competetive HP.

I'll not argue that Porsche/VW went overboard on the connecting rods. Damn 800 grams, what are we running here a 30psi blown motor? Oh yeah, I forgot they should have had the same engineer that designed the rods design the heads, maybe they would be worth a shit.

Honda invested a ton of money into the bearing design for the B18C1 engine, if you can design the crank to run that bearing. Check out this article:

http://dwolsten.tripod.com/articles/sep93a.html

Amazing what a few dedicated engineers can do.

Posted by: Jake Raby Apr 6 2004, 11:08 PM

Thats one of the bearings that I plan on running. The 40mm journal will make it possible to also stuff bigger strokes in with less issues.

I already have Carrillo working on the rods, and when they are done and its all working I plan on having the design made into a standard H beam with a 22mm pin that can be bought for around 275 bucks....

I will be running these rods and journal in my 3.0 engine, I already have the crank made with the 40mm journals...

The VW engineers were high when they made the rod 800 grams with a bolt that won't hold a 400 gram rod at any decent revs. No wonder the stock EFI shuts you down at 5500 like a switch....

I'm thinking that the Honda journal may be a huge key to even a better bottom end in the TIV engine, the crank maker thought I was high when I told them what I was running for a journal on that 86 stroke crank.

The small journal will change the overlap on the crank, but the TIV crank is so tough that I tghink we'll be just fine... For a high revving shorter stroke engine it really would be sweet....and still even stronger.

Posted by: campbellcj Apr 6 2004, 11:13 PM

Yikes, that's a wild class weight -- under 1700lbs w/o driver? I am assuming that is with the usual 1/2 tank of gas and otherwise track-ready equipment? Or is it dry weight?

Either way you don't see a lot of 914s that light...hell my POC class weight is 2049 WITHOUT driver and that is still lighter than most race prepped 914's

Sounds like fun. But I agree with Brett that trying to run a Type4 would likely be a very expensive and frustrating way to lose

Posted by: Brett W Apr 6 2004, 11:14 PM

Yeah the key to better engines is to use better technology and who better to look at then Honda. Their stock engines turn some pretty high rpms and they have really long strokes compared to our engines. Be nice to find some cheaper and lighter rods. A narrower journal will allow a bigger radius to be cut on the cheek thus making the stock crank even stronger. Make sure you get your rods so that they yeild a 1.75:1 rod ratio, especially if you come up with some other heads. I am thinking about running a 1.8 crank with a honda journal and a shorter rod to get the engine to make better power up high.

Posted by: Jake Raby Apr 7 2004, 12:03 AM

Once the rods are completed the lengthys are easy to change. The specs of the big end are the most tedious for side clearance and running clearances.... Length is easy to change, but would call for an order to Carrillo if it isn't 5.100, 5.325, 5.400 or 5.500 as those are what we are going to be having made. almost all my combos now use a 5.325 or 5.400 rod length at the present. I'm sure the big daddy heads will change that some.

The Ricardo rule of 1.76:1 rod ratio is great for alot of applications, but I have found some engines to like longer or shorter rods according to the application.

I have already taklked to my crank grinder and we can make the 40mm journals from a 2.0 crank easily, but will have to relocate the oiling passages much like we do when running a chevy journal, or a de stroker down to 62-64mm.

I should have it running in the next month or so, as soon as the rods are done.

with Honda rod journals, and a 4.137 Nascar piston size- this should be interesting...

Posted by: Brad Roberts Apr 7 2004, 12:58 AM

Kevin,

I can think of 8-10 people who have done development on the FP engines and NONE on the EP engines. Pushrod/Air cooled engines have had their ass handed to them EVERY year that a water cooled car entered the big show (Runoffs). I feel that a 2.0 6cyl might get the job done. I also feel that we have MUCH better cooling now with the DTM setup....so who knows.. I asked my guy's if they would persue the 2.0 class with a 4cyl and they all said NO. They didnt want to start all over with gear ratios and engine development.


B

Posted by: Brett W Apr 7 2004, 02:42 AM

Jake, I agree some engine will like a longer or shorter rod ratio. Depending on port size, volumn, runner length, valve size, carb size, etc. Look at what Honda has done on some of their street cars, 1.55-1.60 rod ratios. I am giong with 1.75 based on some info that friend of my got from Kevin Duckworth, of Cosworth fame. When ask what rod ratio he though was best he said 1.75. If you look at some of the worlds best engines they have designed them to work at 1.75 rod ratios. It is the best comprimise in piston speed, acceleration, cylinder wall loading, ring life, etc. One of my heros Smokey used to advocate going as long as possible, which in the case of the stock 1.8-2.0 engines serves well. at 1.954-1.845. That works well with the stock peanut port size. I think you can make a 2270 with a stock 2.0 rod perform better if you have bigger valves and ports to help speed up velocity and to take advantage of the high piston speeds. You are going to make some serious in roads into bad ass street T4s as soon as modern tech is brought into the T4 world. How about some water cooled 4 valve heads, just for shits and giggles.

Brad you are right on. THe 2.0 litre has not had a competetive advantage for a couple of years so the research has not been done and it will be a very expensive learning curve. Finch told me one time if you want to race and not build engines every weekend runa 6 if you want to race and out handle everyone else run a 4. I am going to build a regional GT3 2.0 four just beause I have the stuff laying around and need to get practice before I build a GT2 Boxster, but I will probably build it using a 1.8 crank and 96mm cylinders, so it really doesn't count as a two litre.

Posted by: groot Apr 7 2004, 06:31 AM

Good feedback. Thanks.

I will be running a 2.0L-4cyl for a while, but it won't be built, so I'll be at the back of the pack. I just can't afford to do everything this year......

Posted by: Jake Raby Apr 7 2004, 07:48 AM

FYI,
I'd be willing to cover alot of the R&D if the right car and driver wanted to work with me on it.. I have several FP combos and I think that an EP car would be a great thing to work with.

It don't bother me to totally start from scratch with development, and we don't have to win or even go to the run offs for me to be happy. I would love to put a DTM equipped EP in the class just to piss people off and chase the sixes.

After all, its a tax writeoff for me!

Brett,
Thanks for the words on the new parts I'm working with. I currently have two projects that I'm finishing for customers and after those I'll be taking atleast a year away from motor buildin' to create an emphesis on the development of the heads, creating cam grinds to compliment the heads, perfecting the TI DTM, getting my 911 cooling system up and going and etc...

With more and more guys wanting my "super hero" engines I need to create more combos using them and make them as standard as a 2270...

Posted by: Brett W Apr 7 2004, 10:51 AM

Jake be careful about spreading yourself to thin. I feel I can't make much headway when I am working with half a dozen things at once. If I were you I would stick to street motors as they pay the bills better and leave a little time to play with race motors as a hobby. They can get very very time consuming as you have seen. Once you get into the headwork you will really be hitting it on all fronts. I have a friend who got hit with cancer pretty hard and it took a toll on his engine building. SO much so that he back off and had to breathe for while and then settle back into some what of a more singlular focus. Good luck, if you want some help let me know.

Posted by: Jake Raby Apr 7 2004, 11:04 AM

Brett,
Thanks for the concern..

Thats the whole reason why I won't be doing ay assembly work on customers engines till the heads are done.

The heads will be the turning point for the TIV engine and are definately the biggest thing on my plate now.

Work doesn't bother me at all, Hell if I'm not here working I'm just not happy... Its not a job, its a life and I love it. If I didn't I would be back working on Turbines, its easier work and way better money BUT I can't be my own boss nor can I live 50 yards from work.

I only work on one project at a time when I build an engine...... its the only way to go. Its to the point now that all I do are the mega monsters above 200HP and I have purposely held off on taking any of those on lately, all those guys are waiting on the new heads anxiously!

As for race engines, now that the combos are done, they build almost as easily as the street stuff, the case blueprinting is the only killer..

Posted by: Brett W Apr 7 2004, 12:55 PM

I agree, if I am not working I am wasting my life. Especially if it is something I love like racing. Can't get enough of it. Gotta learn more and more everyday.

Posted by: Brad Roberts Apr 7 2004, 02:12 PM

Good thing the 3 of us dont live close together. I havent watched TV in weeks.. just barely listen to the radio. Always working on something.

I find it VERY hard to get a racer to "start" developing anything. Suspension is a little easier only in the fact that the results are immediate.

I have one local guy who runs a nice car. He may be interested in a 2.0 race engine. I'm right along with Brett on the thinking of 200-210.

I may have access to new valve spring material that the Nascar engines are using. It helped them get over the 8KRPM hump with pushrods.


B

Posted by: groot Apr 7 2004, 06:23 PM

I'm up for it, no question!!!

I've got the patience and time.

Jake, I'd be happy to work on this with you. But I really won't need the engine until next season, to coincide with the transmission. I'm using this year to get the car on the track and work on the suspension. Let me know if this works for you.

Posted by: Jake Raby Apr 7 2004, 07:36 PM

Groot,
That time line sounds perfect. PM me your number and I'll ring you.

Posted by: Thorshammer Apr 7 2004, 08:50 PM

EP HUH?, 2.0 liter you say. T IV you think?.

Last guy that I am aware of actually running a 914 2.0 in SCCA was Michael Cyphert, but it was a GT-3 Car. Back in the good old days (ahem) of SCCA GT-3 was about as restricted as Prod is these days.

I'll take a shot at this being an EP competitor now for 2 years and building a couple cars in the past.

Best Cyphert could manage from a 2.0 was 194 Hp, now who knows on what dyno ........ TA DA? Anyway, I know some FP guys are somewhere about 180, maybe a touch more on a really good one, then again whos dyno? but say you can get 200, 9.2-9.4 LBS/Hp is where the Miata is, so is the RX7, so what is the real problem here.

Read the spec line 42mm Intake, 36 Exhaust, stock valve sizes, can be done, FP has less, but not much, 38MM chokes and 40MM carbs, should be peaky???. You certainly can make enough power at 1850 to be competitive, but the brakes are an issue and the transmission will not shift as quickly as needed, you will have to go to a hewland or have someone stuff some gearshafts into your 901/914 trans. Same track (wheel) as an FP car. But are you willing to spend the dough to get there, or just race. Most front running guys have big dollar shocks, and big dollar this and data system, this is what you must be prepared to do.

At least the chassis is not a mystery, I can think of three to four very competent chassis guys that can build a car to compete. Again I must emphasize at what level are you planning to race?

Next Issue, To make the power necessary, the motor will probably be peaky like I said before. With the Limited Prep philosopy in place. it can be tough to race with them, you can be off cam when they are not, and once the extra power you have/ or really the lower LBS/hp you have comes into play, its time to brake oh so sorry, brakes too small to haul small car down, and you can't change them.

Enough with the gloom and doom or shock and awe, haha LOL. This could be an excellent Platform, but others make a very valid point, are you ready for a little development work? I may be also depending on the 6 cylinder I have choosen for EP. If I ever get it done

Good luck,

Erik Madsen

Post script: If you need any chassis info, I would be glad to pass some along in a private message.

Posted by: Jake Raby Apr 7 2004, 10:06 PM

Please- Never doubt the potential of the MassIVe Type IV!

If I decide to make it happen, I'll die before I will fail.....

The engine will be peaky for sure....... it'll start pulling at 5K and rev to 9 clean and crisp. Peak power at around 8K.

Posted by: dinomium Apr 7 2004, 11:17 PM

I have a 73 road car and dream of racing it! I have put in my time going over the wall. If there is anything I can do on this project ( mostly research or testing) I would be willing, even is it means saving my pennies...
Now we should have an intersted party is each corner of the country!

Posted by: Racer Chris Apr 8 2004, 05:16 AM

If given enough outside funding I would convert to EP 4 cyl specs. It's not going to happen on my current budget. That class is one of the most competetive in SCCA these days. Beating the front running Miatas, Loti, RX-7s, etc. will be a huge challenge in a 914 even with the weight reduction. The minimum weight is attainable though. My car is currently at 2025 or so with 60lb ballast, glass windshield, steel fenders & decklids. A smaller driver would help, as I currently contribute 230 to the total.
If anyone can build a legal 210hp engine that will stay together it's Jake Raby.

Posted by: groot Apr 8 2004, 06:25 AM

Lots of great input!!

Chris-I thought this might tickle your fancy.

I've got access to damper assistance (my brother was the shock technician at Tri-point). I've got shortened re-valved double-adjustable Konis for the front, sweet.

There's no question that the EP fields are competitive. There are some great drivers and great cars out there. This will be challenging, but that's why I'm doing it.

Posted by: synthesisdv Apr 8 2004, 07:00 AM

I have no doubt that jake can make the motor happen and brad or chris could make the chassis happen,

but nobody has mentioned the driver. This is amateur racing and its hard to judge the skills of different drivers with the varied hardware etc., but before this "assault on EP" is committed to, there better be someone with big talent in the left seat.

An extra 10 or even 20 hp and a gaggle of penske shocks isn't going to matter much if you don't have the right driver.

dr

Posted by: Bleyseng Apr 8 2004, 07:29 AM

Maybe we can convince the Fordahl's as they have won the national FP for 2 years in their 914/6. Can is already lightened and the driver beats the shit out of everyone up here driving any car.

Geoff

Posted by: Brett W Apr 8 2004, 07:42 AM

210 is do able but it will be very hard in Production trim. In GT3 trim that is different story. I love Jake's attitude. One benefit with the 914 in EP is that the car runs with unrestricted suspension. This allows some serious suspension development but you are still limited as far as chassis and engine mods go. Jake you probably won't be able to make power much higher than about 8K. I feel that the 40IDFs or Solexes will act kind of like an air restrictor at high rpms because they are on the small side. I also don't think you can get enough compression with out messing up the chamber/combustion dynamics. Valve size will also provide a hurdle.

Now GT3 on the other hand? You can change things like rod ratio and valve size to take advantage of the other engine modifications, plus your not limited by carb size. I think you guys are looking at the wrong numbers in the search for HP. Peak HP numbers are for bench racing.

What happens when you get to your peak HP? You shift and fall back down below that peak. You must concentrate on transient HP. The faster your engine can recover from the shift the faster you can take out the competetion. If I have less HP and still out run you do I necessarilly need all the power at the expense of durability? Just some things to think about when you approach racing.

I have been over this on the GT2 forum, if you want to be a competitve threat to EP/GT you must be running Data Aquisistion, your chassis must be analyzed using something like CATIA, IDEAS, etc and your suspension must be anyalyzed and designed with assistance from something like ADAMS, CATIA, SUSPROG3D, ets otherwise you won't have a chance. You will be running against some very modern cars (Toyota Celicas, Mazda Miatas, Nissan 240s, etc). Some with factory backing. You will have a very hard time being competetive without approaching this from a racecar engineer's perspective. Gone are the days of just running a bigger motor. This is about the whole package.

Posted by: Thorshammer Apr 8 2004, 09:06 AM

I believe in what Jake says, Although I have never done any business with him (build my own) he has an excellent reputation and the shop is run like a business, while others are not. GT-3 is a waste of time for this car. The front running Toyotas all have T atlantic powerplants in them and make well over 255 hp. My info provided before was to indicate what the top guy I have ever known of, racing in SCCA with a 2.0 914 has done. Another good point is the nut in the left seat, how good is he? But the main point of this exercise still remains, can it be competitive and at what level and at what cost? That is truly the question. We all have science projects. Just realize this, spend your money on the stuff that really counts.
Tilton clutches, aluminum flywheels, gundrilled axles etc... are nice but they are the finishing touches not the developmental parts. Also don't forget to look at others peoples cars (if they will let you). Ron Wickers car in CA is very fast, so is Bontempis (FP) Bob Kirby, but he usually won't let you photograph. Chris Foley in New England. Each car has some really interesting things done to it depending on what the perceived problem is. I hope he does not get pissed but Wickers car has this aluminum tray that seals the carbs from the engine heat, now they always get fresh air from the grill, this is a great idea. Probably gets the cooling air from the front headlight like many race 914's. Sorry Ron! Things like this will make a difference,

One passage wich I would like to key in is about air boxes,
The GCR states:
"Air cleaners,Velocity stacks and air supply ducts and boxes are unrestricted provided no modification of the body or chassis of the car is required to accomodate their use".

Now I know this would draw a protest, but, can you picture a formula 5000 style scoop right in the rear window opening on an open car. Unrestricted you say? No modification to the bodywork, HMMM have the air go right through the engine grill, no mods here. Now I am sure someone will type in: The GCR also says "Modifications shall not be made unless specifically authorized herein", Ahh grasshopper, but it does say it is okay. Something to think about, but you will get protested.

Good luck with this, and Jake I love the drive you got.

Erik

Posted by: groot Apr 8 2004, 10:23 AM

All very valid points. Thanks.

I've been running in IT for a number of years and have picked up a few things along the way. I have run the 914 front suspension in a simulation and have opted to relocate the pick-up points to optimize roll center changes throughout the range of motion (it helps that I work at an OEM......). I also plan on making the inboard points moveable so I can change the roll center to aid in development or alter the height of the roll center for wet conditions.

As for driver.... you're right. Eventually, to take this all the way, I may have to yield the seat for the Runoffs. OK by me.

Posted by: Dave_Darling Apr 8 2004, 10:40 AM

Yes, it has that tray. I also thought it was a neat idea! The cooling air is ducted from the headlight buckets, which is legal. I believe the cooling impeller has very few if any blades on it. (See the earlier post about that--reduces the amount of power you need to push the air....) I think he may be using Dells instead of Webers, which fits in with what I have read on the Shoptalk Forums about Dells flowing more air than Webers.

He's also got lots of data acquisition stuff--very trick!!

Bontempi's yellow car is similar in many ways, but has lots of detail differences that I have seen. No tray, less data acq... And I'm sure a whole lot of other differences that I didn't notice!!

Chuck Forge is another local EP stalwart. He's a good guy to talk to, but I haven't seen much in the way of details inside his car. (Hmm, that's not a bad way of distracting people from checking your car too closely, is it?? ) I've talked to him about the "sewer pipe" cooling--I think he's only using one headlight bucket for the main cooling air, and the other is used for an oil cooler?? I forget. He has half or two-thirds of the blades gone from his fan, not all of them like Rich has (or had at one point). "I ran with a full fan once, just to see. It felt like I was dragging a parachute around with me!" We also talked brakes; I believe 914-6 front brakes are allowed now, but he told me that he wasn't bothering to switch because he had gotten the stockers working to the point where vented rotors would offer no improvement! BTW, you couldn't see his rotor at all for all the ducting around it... And the caliper also had ducting leading to it.

You can learn an awful lot by simply hanging around with people and talking to them!!


...Oh, and my understanding is that the EP guys routinely run away from the GT3 Sixes (or whichever GT class requires the 2.0 Six motor) due mostly to the weight minimums.

--DD

Posted by: Racer Chris Apr 8 2004, 07:11 PM

I totally agree. Compromises have to be made to achieve the best overall package. Every change affects other parts of the car.
One must determine the priorities in terms of minimizing weaknesses and maximizing strengths.
What are the weaknesses of the 914 in prod trim?
Mostly they are in the engine compartment:
carb and valve size limitations,
exhaust port shape & restriction past the pushrod tubes,
head casting thickness limits CR without using popup pistons, which hurt combustion efficiency,
lack of engine cooling and intake air,
shift linkage/gearbox issues which means slow shifting.

What are the strengths?
The excellent balance of the chassis:
low CG and polar moment of inertia,
low weight which means less tire/grip issues,
generally good brakes.

Examples of compromises are:
Roof on means better air management but more frontal area and higher CG.
Roof/windshield off means turbulence and venturi effect over engine lid hurts performance.
Peaky engine means very close ratio gearbox required.
Therefore more frequent shifting means time off throttle and increased likelyhood of being out of the powerband at some point.
Using the headlight buckets for engine air hurts aerodynamics. EP top speeds are well into the aerodynamic range.

Posted by: Thorshammer Apr 8 2004, 07:19 PM

HA!

Just fond my conversation notes with Mike Cyphert from 1985!

Dave Finch built the motor using 930 turbo 95mm pistons and cylinders, Elgin was the cam manufacturer, Using solexes, and the manifolds were redrilled and moved upward on the heads, that is to Lengthen the inlet tract? or maybe the angle onto the back of the valve, I don't know. Rocker arms magnafluxed every 6 hours of use replace rod bearings every 4 race hours, with mains at every 8. He was not using a dry sump but a wet sump with an extension to the case to hold another 1.5 qrts with an accusump. using a recurved distributor, and a Blue coil?? Yeah thats what I wrote. Typical stuff, flywheel to 7lbs, aluminum PP, solid disc KEP clutch, remove two vanes every four, but that does not seem to calculate to me, so maybe I misunderstood? Exhaust was Finch design 4 into 1, I know Bob kirby has one of these, so does les Handly, But I know this guy Foley, who does a damn nice job, PLUG FOR CFR. That was'nt in my notes. Cyphert has some problems with rocker arm studs breaking, the usual cracking at the spark plug hole. I do not have down what was used for springs or pushrods, but the Finch heads were about 2.5K to reproduce. Hope this helps!

Remember, when history is known, mistakes are seldom repeated.

Erik Madsen

Posted by: Brett W Apr 8 2004, 08:38 PM

Yes Finch and I have talked on occasion and he has shared some of the same info. If you want it to live leave the wet sump for the weekend warriors. Dry sump is the only way you will eak out the last few HP and have goo survivabilty. When Blake meridith was running EP/FP he was changing rod bearings every race weekend. The 2.0 litre is a lot harder on bearings. I also have a picture of the Finch 4-1 header. Good heads are not cheap and are the key to unlocking hidden power.

I have a semi legal way to get better airflow with the windsheild removed, but I am not really open to sharing since I am going to use it on my car and can't share all of my secrets. It only works with the windsheild removed though.

Everyone tells me the Solexs flow the best but they have a "huge hole" off idle. At least in GT you can run FI.

Yes i know the 914-4 will never, ever be competetive in GT3 Nationally. Hard to run against a Toyota Atlantic motor turning 10k. I will though be agreaet car for me to get my license in and mess around with regionally. It can win here regionally.

Kevin email me off line as I would like to discuss your modeling of the suspension. Did you use CATIA? Since that is what your company uses right? (guessing on which company you work for).

Yes the driver will be key here. Even if you have to yeild the seat to a better driver at least the 914 is back where it belongs, IN THE WINNERS CIRCLE.

Posted by: Racer Chris Apr 10 2004, 02:29 AM

I think I have demonstrated the talent and the balls.
I would challenge anyone to outdrive me in equally prepared 914-4 equipment -
either between cones in a parking lot or on the race track!
You may consider the gauntlet thrown down.

Posted by: Racer Chris Apr 10 2004, 02:35 AM

I'm only interested in defensible modifications anyway, these days. "Semi legal" is only legal if you are racing semis.
I go to the track prepared to be protested, and win.

Posted by: Jake Raby Apr 10 2004, 11:39 AM

In the last few years alot of new things have been discovered that will make the EP engine a bit more reliable. I have one FP that has been alive on the same rod bearings for over a solid season of use. I have a few tricks to utilize in Groots engine if we end up doing the project, and I'm sure the benefits will be noticeable.

From what I have seen most people build race engines too tight, and that is simply why they don't last. I open every tolerance that I can except rod tolerances on the big end, but I do give another .0005 of running clearance on the crankshaft, and that tends to help rod bearings as long as you keep them lubed.

The only way to go with an engine like this is dry sump, but I have modified wet sumps to work really well...

BTW, I just found a new Tri-metal rod bearing for the 2.0 journal size... Should be alot heavier duty than the standard Kolbenschmidts or Mahles..

The only way to know if it can be done is to try, and I'm more than willing to do that.

Posted by: groot Aug 16 2004, 02:34 PM

Somewhere buried in this thread someone asked about making the 2005 GCR weight in EP trim or 1870 pounds, with driver (after a session).

Well, here's an update. Car is prepared open-top.

My car weighs 1700 pounds dry with driver. I weighed it yesterday. I finally got it together enough to weigh (fuel cell, seat, suspension, powertrain installed, battery sitting in place, etc). I probably have another 50 pounds of stuff to add (oil, plumbing and stuff..... conservative guess) and would like to shoot to end a race with 50 pounds of fuel.

So, I'll need to add more than 70 pounds of ballast to make weight.

And that's with the stock hood, rear bumper and trunk lid.

Posted by: Jake Raby Aug 16 2004, 02:41 PM

We are smack dab in the middle of the engine build as well....

Gonna be NICE.. Kevin, we need to talk about clutch set ups, how does a chromoly 5.5 flywheel and IRL clutch sound???

This sucker is getting every trick in my book thrown at it!

Posted by: groot Aug 16 2004, 06:06 PM

Jake,

I'll be at my desk tomorrow. Give me a call when you have a minute.

Unfortunately, the flywheel has to be stock diameter per the rules.

Posted by: Jake Raby Aug 16 2004, 07:18 PM

Kevin, It is stock diameter....

Its is legal in FP, been to the runoffs 5-6 times already...

Posted by: Brad Roberts Aug 16 2004, 07:53 PM

Ha ha.. they only tear down the top 3 finishers (last time I checked).. you can run whatever you want... just dont place in the top 3.


B

Posted by: seanery Aug 16 2004, 08:05 PM

dont they do a randtom car from the top 10, too?

Posted by: groot Aug 17 2004, 06:19 AM

Stock diameter? Sweet, let's do it!

Jake,

I'll be available after 2 today if you have time to call.