EP, anyone? Options

[groot]

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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smilie_flagge24.gif) , 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?

[Jake Raby]

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.

[d914]

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

as opposed to illegally????

[Brett W]

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.

[Jake Raby]

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.

[Brett W]

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.

[Jake Raby]

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.

[campbellcj]

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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/happy11.gif)

[Brett W]

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.

[Jake Raby]

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...

[Brad Roberts]

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

[Brett W]

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.

[groot]

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......

[Jake Raby]

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...

[Brett W]

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.

[Jake Raby]

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..

[Brett W]

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.

[Brad Roberts]

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

[groot]

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.

[Jake Raby]

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