Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 11 2007, 12:44 AM

This first became a partial solid model 7 years ago. 1.5 years later that solid model was completed by Shad Laws, LN Engineering Co-founder.


Life happened and Shad moved on, leaving with Charles Navarro with a ton of files that were partially completed. After a couple of failed attempts with another billet head design that I began in 2002 (poor exhaust port location) I convinced Charles to allow me a try at getting the "Porkies" head design to a functional state and out of the solid model stages.


Fast forward over two years from that time and you have this MassIVe creation that has been an effort between myself, Tom Digby (The Engineering apprentice currently working with us) and LN Engineering. Charles had already done his part with the development, having assumed all other responsibilities of managing LN Engineering while his (then) partner Shad Laws did NOTHING except the research, design and etc related to these heads and their characteristics, so we have taken things to the next level, but it has been a bumpy road!

These pictures are of Porkies prototype MK-I, it was subject to a machining malfunction and deemed a paper weight about 20 hours into the machining process, but we had the head mostly finished for mock up purposes and to assist with the final rocker arm design before maching the MK-II heads that are 95% finished today, just awaiting pushrod tube bores to be machined and rocker pads to be carved. Of course this particular head has not had the fins cut into it yet- no need as this head will never "run" on an engine. The MK-II heads are fully finned, even fins are cut into the exhaust port OD, and in other areas.

The design needs no intake manifold, the intake flange is designed to accept an IDF Weber patter throttle body DIRECTLY, hence it's shape.

Valve sizes START at 54X46 mm and can go as high as 58.5mm intake and 51mm exhaust on extremely large bore sizes. The MK-II heads, as well as this MK-I prototype are bored for a 106.3mm cylinder, but we'll be testing them with a 105.07mm cylinder from my 3 Liter R/D engine initially and keeping the most conservative valve sizes available. Using this test engine allows direct comparison of this truly MassIVe head against other previous offerings like the German made "Engine Plus" heads, stock big valve TIV heads and the Pauter Super Pro heads, all of which I posess a pair of solely for comparative analysis. The difference is the combustion chamber technology of these heads absolutely supersedes ANYTHING EVER AVAILABLE for pushrod driven aircooled engines. This technology is the only thing we can't picture publicly and thats because of the patent pending processes that Charles is currently exploring.

These heads will have a custom made piston that optimizes the valve angles and combustion chamber characteristics to further optimize the chamber technology. These pistons are completely designed and ready to be machined. We'll also be applying another Nickies cylinder especially made to best suit these heads, designed for Turbo applications to handle insane boost, because these heads are VERY, VERY rigid!

Anyway, here are some pics to make you scratch your head and wonder "Why the hell did they do that.

Yes, they will fit in a 914 engine bay with a custom Tangerine header, since Chris also assisted Shad with the initial research, sizing and exhaust flange characteristics.

Features:
-Porcupine chamber technology (on steroids) with anti detonation features built in allowing up to 11.5:1 CR on PUMP GAS!
-Bores from 100mm up to 111.5mm possible (these are not for something as miniscule as a 2270!)
-OFF THE SHELF Corvette Z06 lightweight valves, springs, seats and retainers are standard (cost effective, latest technology available and readily available anywhere!)
-Standard rocker ratio is 1.6:1, up to 2:1 ratios available on the MK-III race heads
-Rocker arms are billet chromoly steel and "self oilers" for street applications
- Anti-reversion exhaust port design- no stub pipe needed!
- Direct throttle body fitting to the cylinder head for up to 60mm throtle bodies!

The conception of MassIVe performance from a block of billet into the biggest development the Type 4 engine has seen to date.

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 11 2007, 12:51 AM

Top side of business!



No more exhaust port flow challanges!


Tons of fresh real estate in the rocker box- starting from scratch is a true blessing!


Close up of the Anti-reversion exhaust port/stub pipe combo


Yeah, this changes everything in every way possible!

Posted by: McMark Oct 11 2007, 12:53 AM

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 11 2007, 12:55 AM

Mark, now you see why I wanted the "M4" logo so badly!!!

Got any new versions for me??? LOL (damn you did good on that one!)

Posted by: hwgunner Oct 11 2007, 01:01 AM

Ditto

Posted by: McMark Oct 11 2007, 01:03 AM

You saw the latest one from today, right? Tom has that and the T1 one.

Posted by: craig downs Oct 11 2007, 01:08 AM

All I can say is WOW
I wonder why the factory didn't extend the exhaust like that.

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 11 2007, 01:13 AM

Same reason they didn't swap to roller cams, Nickies and etc.


Mark, I was welding all day on a Pinzgauer EFI test plenum and only saw the first versions.. Feel free to post the TIV one here :-)

Posted by: McMark Oct 11 2007, 01:15 AM

Okay...


Attached image(s)

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 11 2007, 01:19 AM

Bitchin! EXACTLY what I wanted!
For those that don't know Mcmark was the guy that came up with my current, worldwide recognized "MassIVe" logo like 8 years ago!

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Oct 11 2007, 01:33 AM

You know Jake. I think I am going to look for a great 914 in a little over a year to put one of you newest engines init. I like the fact that I can do everything with a four...hp, cool running, and such... as you can with a six. Not only that, but it is easier to weight balance a four and it is much lighter. I will be in touch soon. I just need to get a 2.4l in my six first

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 11 2007, 01:43 AM

Or find a 356 or 912 or a beetle!

This beast shoved into a 356 would be ungodly!

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Oct 11 2007, 02:05 AM

Yeah, but spend all that money for a 356 and not have it handle like a 914? I need to stick with the 914s. I had a 911, and I just wanted to do more stuff to m 914 and neglected the 911.

Posted by: Rand Oct 11 2007, 02:06 AM

Amazing Jake. Very cool to see this becoming reality.

Is it way too early to estimate any rough ballpark figures for expected cost and power?

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 11 2007, 02:24 AM

356s handle great and they are lighter than a 914 :-)

I have NO IDEA what the potential for the heads really is HP wise. Based on the calculations of the intake cross sections they will easily flow 300CFM and thats generally good for 1HP/CFM N/A.

But with all the other advancements impacting things too its impossible to say.

None of my software has a template for this chamber design and spark plug location, so its really a total crap shoot and thats what I love!

Posted by: grantsfo Oct 11 2007, 02:28 AM

I'd call that "The Frankenhead"

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 11 2007, 02:31 AM

Right now it's referred to as "The money pit"....

Posted by: Blood red 914-6gt Oct 11 2007, 02:49 AM

Okay, I am sure a 356 would kick ass, but I just can't reason spending as much for one as I am thinking I would have to drop. I found a fixer for 25,000 the other day, and I was told that it was a steal. One of my buddies has a speedster, and Iget to drive it on the track soon.

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 11 2007, 03:21 AM

I'm working on a deal for a 64 C sunroof that's a good driver car...

I'm keeping it bone stock except a taller 4th gear and fuel injected TIV power.

914s are definately cheaper, but the 356 is money in the bank-

Posted by: URY914 Oct 11 2007, 07:06 AM

Aluminum as art. Amazing work.

Now are you looking at making cases too? Of course you are why did I ask.

Posted by: lotus_65 Oct 11 2007, 07:17 AM

Ghia?

Beck 904?

Posted by: DNHunt Oct 11 2007, 08:02 AM

Amazing, I'd give my left nut for that. Oh wait, the wife's already got that. Maybe the right nut and I'll just get a script for testosterone.

Posted by: angerosa Oct 11 2007, 08:11 AM

Jake - I'm an engineer myself and the question I hate the most is "When".

So - I'm asking after you compute all the time it will take to get through all the unknowns left in the design process that you can't possibly make a guess at...

When do you see this ready for production? Give it to us in terms of "more than - less than". Even if you say something like more than 1 year - less than 3 years.

Posted by: MJHanna Oct 11 2007, 08:25 AM

Posted by: URY914 Oct 11 2007, 08:34 AM

I can see into the future and I see Jake designing an engine on a clean sheet of paper or CAD file. Case, heads, crank, etc, etc, etc...

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 11 2007, 08:57 AM

I am offering some consulting for a team of guys that are currently doing this, they are a serious bunch in the machine shop but need "combo" assistance and optimization after they are done. Thats all I can say about it..

BUT I will say that I am NOT exploring possibilities for a billet or cast type 4 replacement case- there is no need at all. I believe we'll be making numbers north of 500 HP with the stock case within the next two years. I like to capitalize on the TIV case, and these heads should get us to the level where we finally start breaking them.

I have already been working for months on the items that will be necessary to properly support the power output of Porkie equipped engines. The one thats first up is the crankshaft, so here is our in house design of the MK-I billet TIV crankshaft and a pic of it's 7" chunk of billet 4340 Chromoly being roughed in the manual lathe before going into the NC turning center.



These cranks are being machined in the same machine shop as the Porkies head and they are being whittled out literally as I type this post.

As for "When" all I can answer is ASAP! We have already worked through all the hurdles created by Shad's "Engineering" as this particular head was in the 4th and 5th axis machines and thats been 4 months of solid pain in the asss because each challenge created another- we used common sense to overcome the issues and now the programming is 100% completed that will be needed to complete the MK-II heads.

The rocker arms are now being designed as a collaborativeeffort between my team, Len Hoffman and the machine shop and we are attacking the issues with a vengence as it's our only hurdle at this point to overcome. The differing valve angles of the head make this rocker design much more involved- you won't believe how wild they are going to look.

The good thing about billet and CNC is we can modify each pair of heads to make updates without having to change molds and etc. Originally these heads were going to be small run cast and we fully intend to do this IF they are effective and worth their price tag. We'l wait to get a final version tested before taking the casting possibilities further.

This head will be going to Len tonight for seats, guides and initial flow work to tell us where we stand!

Give me 4 months to have the MK-II heads on a running engine, 30 minutes to break that engine and another year to work out the details.

Posted by: ChrisNPDrider Oct 11 2007, 10:33 AM

I see 5 bolts on that...I'm guessing it will mate with a 914 flywheel.
One 4 vs. 6 debate item is our 901 transaxle, which is not up to handling MassIVe torque. Perhaps you have plans to use other transaxles in the near future, or I guess that is probably up to the buyer to figure out. Conversion flywheels can be made....just wondering out loud what the target transaxle for this project is or if it will be built as a dyno queen first.
Keep up the good work

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 11 2007, 10:39 AM

I have no intentions of installing one of these into a 914 for my test work, most of it will be done in the 356 and TI platforms.

I can only hope we create the power to snap the 901 transaxle in half- thats a great problem to have!

Anything can be made for flywheels. The crank I pictured is just one model that is set up to accept the stock TIV/914 flywheel as a bolt on, another model is also being built that has a large flange to spread the load of the flywheel over a greater cross section of the crank attachment point.

I never leave things "for the buyer to figure out". My specialty is creating fully optimized engine/transaxle packages with fully developed sub systems.

We'll cross the tranny bridge when we come to it, more than liklely these creations may never make it into the 914 application, but creating alternatives is what makes it fun for me..

Posted by: brer Oct 11 2007, 10:41 AM

Thats a nice bit of modelling Jake.
Port modelling is infinitely complex, and those are looking pretty hot.

Did you pull the shape from a handmade model or create it totally in the computer?

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 11 2007, 11:00 AM

It was 100% scratch modeled, nothing was CMMd or digitized.

Posted by: thomasotten Oct 11 2007, 11:46 AM

From listening to the radio shows and reading posts, I have learned to never start a conversation with Jake with those words...

Posted by: Brian Mifsud Oct 11 2007, 12:03 PM

Hemi Combustion Chambers like PUCH and Moto Guzzi?

Posted by: cnavarro Oct 11 2007, 12:08 PM

Not a compact wedge or a hemi. :-)

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 11 2007, 12:17 PM

Hemi is yesterdays news compared to this chamber design.

Here is a teaser for ya.
Its a model of the chamber/piston crown relationships.



And now for the throttle body.


We have been busting our asses!!!

Posted by: Brian Mifsud Oct 11 2007, 12:18 PM

How many buyers for a $15-20,000 engine?

Posted by: rhodyguy Oct 11 2007, 12:26 PM

my guess is the euro guys running t-4s in their tricked out super beetles would be all over them. they spend silly money.

k

Posted by: Brian Mifsud Oct 11 2007, 12:32 PM

So the "target market" is professional racers with substantial engine budgets?

The reason I ask is the premise of this post is this new engine will be competitive with a 6 cylinder. Competitive to me includes the issue of cost, reliability, etc, not just performance.

Posted by: grantsfo Oct 11 2007, 12:47 PM

I think this is trick enough that we can thow out all the conventional 6 verses 4 stuff. It is about as relevant as having a 4 verses 8 argument. This is just cool regardless of price, reliability etc. I dont think this is any thing that will make it into mass production so comparisons to a production like six motor really dont make sense. Having said that a trick 3.6 six would probably be up to the task of keeping up with any motor built with these heads.

If Jakes smart he'll keep production of this to very exclusive and limited market of crazy enthusiasts who have very deep pockets for their toys.

Posted by: Brian Mifsud Oct 11 2007, 12:59 PM

That makes sense. I eat-drink-and-sleep "productizing", i.e. take a design and make is manufacturable. I can't help but think these questions when I see Billet. Right now, I see "massive" man/machining hours, and retail pricing accordingly. The target market dictates how many you will build, and that of course influences how you go about producing ie. chiseling out of a billet, rough cast and machine, or die cast and "clean up".

I think that there is an element of "Underdog" in the "4 vs 6 debate". But that kind of gets nuked when you build from scratch????

I can't imagine having 'crazy money', so I can't imagine myself ever owning this product. The Manufacturing Engineer in me want to immediately "redesign" for cost....

Certainly it is got it's cool factor and I appreciate the work to get there.

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 11 2007, 01:02 PM

You'd be supriseed. Very suprised because that is being spent today for 1/2 the potential output these heads bring to the table. The heads will only add 4-5K to an engine build, but DOUBLE the power output!

Professional racers, or racers in general are not who will buy these heads and they are NOT being developed for racing purposes.

It has been my experience that developments and results create their own target markets. EVERY time I have taken the time to create something there has been a buyer for that, but it did take time to get the results.

This car is first in line for a set..

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 11 2007, 01:12 PM

Brian,
Right now it is imperative that we have the capability to make changes to EVERY pair of heads as we move through development. Billet is more expensive to do right now, but ALL that matters is results to me, not cost and not productivity.

I worry about all that bullshit after I get my results.

Thats because when you are doing what you love, every day, all day long and you have loved being the under dog for as long as I have money don't make a difference at all.

Posted by: rhodyguy Oct 11 2007, 01:12 PM

no brian, you asked who and i replied. not ness just racers. guy's with their street/autobahn machines. some guys want all the latest bells and whistles, and are willing to pay for the experience. look at the guys who build the RSR replicas we read about in excellence. then there's the 365 folks. WOW!!! wacky...

k

Posted by: Brian Mifsud Oct 11 2007, 01:12 PM

Innovative way of fitting and hiding oil coolers. So I'm guessing there is no longer a well under the rear seat to house the battery and accumulate old french fries (that still smell surprisingly good??)

What is that scoop feeding air to?

Movie Car??

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 11 2007, 01:15 PM

The car has air conditioning, dry sump oiling, EFI/direct fire, full fire system and next he is adding a pneumatic jacking system..

Under the rear seat is all the audio components, behind the back seat is the oil tank and etc...

Posted by: rhodyguy Oct 11 2007, 01:17 PM

the muffler support on that pictured car is slick.

k

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 11 2007, 01:20 PM

Racer Chris' handy work.......

Posted by: Brian Mifsud Oct 11 2007, 01:24 PM

I ride herd on designers all day who want unlimited freedom in getting their product designed. Unlimited freedom in design usually means maximum development cost. I understand you are only a couple steps up from the "Brainstorming" end of the development cycle. You've got to get all the geometry worked out as first priority.

The "Bullshit" end has kept me gainfully employed for 15 years now... (I guess that makes me a farmer....)

..... but.. keeping in mind how you are going to go about building in quantity as you develop the design is very valuable, as you overcome most of the hurdles of productizing on the fly, rather then burning many months redesigning to meet the limitations/capabilities of a manufacturing process. If the guy who is going to crank these out for you is involved in the development process, he can point out where he'd like a tooling feature, or how some close tolerance is gonna cost you big in time and scrap rate, etc....

For onsy-twosy, this is all irrelevant....

Posted by: grantsfo Oct 11 2007, 04:47 PM

Dang am I arguing for Jake now? Im clearly confused. Have to say this about some of the coolest concept stuff I have seen. I dont care if it gets put in a glass case and is displayed as car art. It is just very cool work! I could see an outrageous 3.0 motor with these heads easily commanding $25K to $30K from the radical VW fringe crowd. You know guys who own mansions on Muai and want that ultlmate beach buggy.

Posted by: Rand Oct 11 2007, 05:01 PM

I would just love a mild MKII build... You know, 280 hp & torque, naturally aspirated, good for 200k miles.

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 11 2007, 05:06 PM

Actually a 3.2L engine going into a shortened VW split window bus- used only to haul his surf boards down to the beach... But this guy lives on the big island.

And he already owns another massIVe engine too :-)



Thats why we don't count beans around here... It cost power and possibilities. If all I worried about was money and sales I'd have 30 illegal aliens bolting shit together out back importing crap in from China not giving a damn about anything but how much I take to the bank every day.

We'd have to sell 500 pair of these heads to ever get a dollar out of them profit wise....
These are our versions of the Porsche 959 and what it's about it creating, developing and manipulating something that no one else has.

It's called spanking their asses.

Posted by: Brett W Oct 12 2007, 12:05 AM

Look good. Hope you are going to be using some sort of Shaft Rocker system like the jesel stuff. Very high quality and easy to get.

The stock engine block is good for 600+hp. No need for another one. Flywheels will be an issue in drag racing but it should be OK for everything else.

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 12 2007, 05:16 AM

The machine shop that whittled these out will be making a shaft system similar to Jesel from scratch.

This part of the developmet is the part I expect to be the most challenging and thats because Shad got to this point with the heads and then stopped. The opposing angles for the intake and exhaust valves further complicate things.

Posted by: Brett W Oct 12 2007, 08:57 AM

These shouldn't be much different than the SB2 or splayed valve heads from Chevy back in the 90s. The location of the rockers will be the biggest issue. I bet you could call Jesel and ask them their thoughts. They could probably lend their experience for a small few. Sometimes it is easier to talk to guys that have already done exactly what you are trying to do, to get the benefit of their failures.

Might even save you some money in the long run.

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 12 2007, 10:23 AM

Brett,
The issue with the SB2 splayed set up for rockers is the rocker length to meet our valve tips and pushrod tube positions...

Alot of whats used in these heads came from the SB2 and Cosworth designs..

Posted by: alpha434 Oct 12 2007, 05:10 PM

Yeah. Jake is going to have to use some funny length rockers to hit each valve.

It's just "finding" the right spot for the pivot. And calculating for a 2:1 ratio. Yee. Sweet.

Posted by: Brett W Oct 12 2007, 07:44 PM

You raise a good point. I forgot how far away from the valves the pushrods are in these engines. They are really wide compared to the SBC style heads. SB2 is a good head. Makes great power. The new RO7 heads should be even better.

Posted by: Dr Evil Oct 12 2007, 09:24 PM

Over head cam would kick ass

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 13 2007, 09:09 AM

BUT it wouldn't fit into the unaltered engine bay of any of the cars we work with. With these cars being worth more and m,ore money daily the amount of people that are willing to compromise the car just to fit cylinder heads is pretty minimal.

The guys I am working with, that are creating their own scratch built HO 4 cylinder air cooled engine do plan on making a an OHC head for those engines in the future and myself and LN Engineering will be assisting them with development and testing.

These are the same guys that whittled out the pictured Porkies head- They are from New Zealand.

Posted by: Brett W Oct 13 2007, 09:53 AM

Don't need OHC heads. You can make plenty of power with pushrods. The LS7 engine is killing anything else on the market right now with some pushrods. They aren't bad they just aren't F1 cool.

Good heads have always been the bane of the T4 engine. Once that is overcome, things could really start getting interesting in VW land.

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 15 2007, 06:10 AM

I agree.

Posted by: Brian Mifsud Oct 15 2007, 11:51 AM

Overhead cam does not (necessarily) = high rpms (compared to pushrod)


those nuts in NASCAR are spinning all day a 9000-10000 RPM.. and on the other extreme..

my SOHC Ford 4.6 V8 is gasping for breath at 5800 RPM

Posted by: Jake Raby Oct 15 2007, 01:13 PM

It's all in the combo....

Posted by: Mid_Engine_914 Oct 15 2007, 02:00 PM

I've been learning about late model BMW motorcycle boxer "oilhead" engines and they use a compromise design consisting of two cams in the head operating the rocker arms using short push rods.


From Wikipedia:

"By this time the benefits of overhead cams were known; higher revs could be obtained before the onset of valve float. However, the basic boxer design did not lend itself to overhead cams. To obtain the benefits of overhead cams without overly increasing the engine width, BMW incorporated a system that was so advanced for its racing bikes that it resurrected it many decades later in the R 1100 RS oilhead. The system was two cams in the head operating rocker arms via short push rods."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_motorcycles#BMW_Motorcycle_History

Posted by: Mid_Engine_914 Oct 16 2007, 02:53 PM

BMW just introduced a new flat twin motor with proper overhead cam heads. I wonder if they could be adapted to work with the Type IV motor?