50 replies to this topic

[MatsNorway]

Found this a interesting peek into drifting and engine building. Hope to hear some comments on it.

http://www.motoiq.co...ota-Engine.aspx

 

Edited by MatsNorway, 27 December 2013 - 18:17.

[malbear]

looks like the gudgeon pin protrudes into the oil scraper groove . If so how do they get a scraper into that groove without it bewing in two pieces?

Edited by malbear, 27 December 2013 - 19:10.

[Magoo]

With a longer rod and a shorter deck height, that's part of the deal. Couple of ways around it: a button that fits in both ends of the pin bore or a little stamped sheet metal support piece to bridge the pin bore and support the oil rails. The support is dimpled to hold it in place so it doesn't rotate with the oil rail. 

 

 

 

[indigoid]

Non-metric things OK, I can accept it for bearing clearance... Even Toyota engine manuals seem to specify those in American units. But a mix of metric/non-metric fasteners? Aaaiiieeee

Edited by indigoid, 28 December 2013 - 00:48.

[Lee Nicolle]

Non-metric things OK, I can accept it for bearing clearance... Even Toyota engine manuals seem to specify those in American units. But a mix of metric/non-metric fasteners? Aaaiiieeee

What is the problem? It is a pure race engine and a 1/2 stud is far stronger than an 11mm. With only 4 bolts per cyl I suspect the gaskets will still be suspect. Or they only use 600hp most of the time. Probably the truth.
While this does not seem to be a huge dollar engine the main reason that drifters went to V8s is because they are cheap. And generally use stock, or near stock engines. Plus the v8s sound good unlike the hiss bang pop drone of hairdryer engines.
Remember this is drifting, not racing. A turbo engine will always make plenty of power, though very often only for half a race.
I have heard of the 800hp RB30 Nissans, Mitsubishis and Toymota engines. For a couple of decades, they seem to go pretty well for a while. And go sour as they get hot. And I have driven by them too with under 600hp of Chevy. That was in the car for 3 years and around 2500 racing km. This in real racing, not skilfull hooning which is all drifting is.

[Magoo]

It would appear that the dual measures result from building a Japanese engine with specialty parts sourced from the American aftermarket. Less than optimal if you are distributing the engine to customers... but if it's built for one's own use and you know what you have, I don't see a big problem. The parts don't know what dimensional system they are. 

[Lee Nicolle]

Many race engines use a mix of fasteners. As on occasion back in the 80s some production ones too. Or metric heads on imperial bolts. Weird sh*t like that!

Sometimes too you wonder what manufacturers are thinking. A turbo engine with 11mm head bolts. Weird size and not enough. 1/2" is far superior, 14mm would even be better but quite possibly there is not enough room. Even a fairly generic 12mm would have been better. And studs not bolts. though I doubt you will ever see studs on a production engine ever again. They went out in the early 60s.
But from personal experience studs will usually solve head gasket problems on a proper performance engine. Saves ripping the threads out of the block too winding them in and out regualarly.
Only hassle ofcourse is on almost all cars you have to pull the engine to pull the head/s off.

Talking to a dyno operator yesterday he too does not believe 800hp 3 litre turbos. Yet alone 2.5 stroked 4s. Or at least not on pump unleaded or anything except pure drag engines with HUGE boost.
They do have the kiddy car Pro Stockers going really quick these days. But they smash engines very regularly,, though most serious drag racing does that.

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 30 December 2013 - 07:29.

[MatsNorway]

Lots of 800hp 3litre out there. Not all are as durable as this one mind you.

Edited by MatsNorway, 30 December 2013 - 16:41.

[Lee Nicolle]

Lots of 800hp 3litre out there. Not all are as durable as this one mind you.

Where? Real horsepower or dream horsepower. Or the head flows 800hp. I like that one, everyone thinks they have 800 when the probably have half.

[indigoid]

http://i1200.photobu...56ff24c75b4.jpg

 

 

Not quite a drag racer but 19-odd second standing 1km at the Snowy Mountains 1000 this year. Aussie car, from Wodonga area.  4L-ish Lexus V8 and AWD. 400-odd kg lighter than a R32/33/34 GTR. Legally street-driven, too, not a track precious.

Edited by indigoid, 31 December 2013 - 01:02.

[Canuck]

A pretty bog-standard BMW M30'turbo build on the 3.5L sees 350ish at the wheels. We're talking studs, stock head gasket, stock long block, reasonable intercooled turbo with proper fuel support. Not custom cams, not variable anything, stock bottom end, stock valves, stock almost everything. About as zero-effort as it comes. I don't see why in the hands of monied professionals with a BFTurbo behind them they can't pull of something close to the claim. BMEP factors out as awfully large.

What did we figure the last of the non-turbo F1 engines were producing? Mid 600s from <3L naturally aspirated? (At more than twice the engine speed granted).

I don't recall what this engine runs for fuel. Perhaps it's running a meth/nitro mix?

[kikiturbo2]

Talking to a dyno operator yesterday he too does not believe 800hp 3 litre turbos. Yet alone 2.5 stroked 4s. Or at least not on pump unleaded or anything except pure drag engines with HUGE boost.
They do have the kiddy car Pro Stockers going really quick these days. But they smash engines very regularly,, though most serious drag racing does that.

 

how about a 2.2 litre I4 ? 790 whp

 

http://forums.evolut...-hp-inside.html

 

 

not something you'd want to run on 24h of sebring.... but with E85 being "pump" fuel these days some real funky numbers are available...

[kikiturbo2]

A pretty bog-standard BMW M30'turbo build on the 3.5L sees 350ish at the wheels. We're talking studs, stock head gasket, stock long block, reasonable intercooled turbo with proper fuel support. Not custom cams, not variable anything, stock bottom end, stock valves, stock almost everything. About as zero-effort as it comes. I don't see why in the hands of monied professionals with a BFTurbo behind them they can't pull of something close to the claim. BMEP factors out as awfully large.
 

 

a full stock 2.0 litre mitsubishi 4g63T from an evo 9 with a exhaust and fuel pump upgrade will do those numbers... on european 98/100 octane (probably similar to 93 octane in the US).... run it on E85 and even higher numbers are available..

[Lee Nicolle]

how about a 2.2 litre I4 ? 790 whp
 
http://forums.evolut...-hp-inside.html
 

 
not something you'd want to run on 24h of sebring.... but with E85 being "pump" fuel these days some real funky numbers are available...

Dyno Queen with ,,, 35lb boost. Over twice of any practibility.Even for drag racing.
It is like the 1000hp SBC for dyno shows. Absolutely useless to drive but huge numbers, for very short periods. There is dozens of You Tube clips of those engines exploding.

The 800hp drift engine, lets put it in a Sprintcar [or a Nascar] and let it play with 800hp engines. It would be so embarrassing! That is before it explodes all over the track after about 3 laps.

I have road raced against these supposedly huge HP turbos, and drove past them with a LOT less real HP.
Half the capacity maybe but F1 turbos made 800hp for 1 lap engines,, probably more truthfully a dyno engine. So these engines are more powerfull? I don't think so! And the F1 engine would have been slower than less HP V8s of a couple of years later because of the driveability factor.

E85 is a very interesting fuel. You will never buy the good stuff from a roadside servo, it comes in drums from a few specialist suppliers. And like methanol engine life is not very long either as the bores and pistons especially wear out. And commercial E85 would NEVER cop 35lb boost. Ok for maybe 15lb for short runs or about 12-1 on a 23 deg Chev. Where it does not out perform Avgas 100. And E85 carbs are more roadcar orientated. With EFI it is harder to atomise. Viable fuel but loses some driveability in all engines. Though it burns cooler so suits turbos more.

Methanol too is ok for higher RPM. Any dirt tracker where the RPM is over 5000 and less driveability is required it makes good power, and more importantly cooling and fire safety. And you can use more compression too, which makes the HP. Though I don't want to do 1000km enduros on it. Like Indy cars,[what 90min races?] a lot more fuel stops. That a safety hazard itself.

[kikiturbo2]

I agree with you completely.. in fact a LS would be my first choice for a drift machine or any type of race build where I could fit one rules permitting.. However small capacity turbo engines do exsist and are succesfull, budget permitting.. What is interesting in this toyota build is that is a really light engine for its size and power.. (even if it is 600 and not 800 hp)

 

here is one 3.2 875 hp and if the dyno measurements are to be believed it really does produce almost 900 hp at some 6000 ft altitude...

http://www.popularme...record-breaker/

[MatsNorway]

If you get the balance you want with a bigger engine you ofc should pick that if its also proven to be reliable and has a wider powerband.. No one is disagreeing on this..

 

There is huge variance in low budget turbo engines and high budget builds..

 

Here is a fairly high budget BMW with a 2JZ and too much power.. Notice how it catches a Porsche GT2 on the straights. It also appears street legal with Norwegian plates

 

8.34 at nurgburgring in this video, wonder what it would do in the hands of a professional.

Dyno pull if you want the grafs

8.94 on the dragstrip

 

You think you are going to keep up with it on the straights?

Edited by MatsNorway, 31 December 2013 - 12:56.

[gruntguru]

I watched some of the 'ring footage.That is a scary ride. At least 30 seconds quicker without the traffic and with the right pilot.

[indigoid]

What is interesting in this toyota build is that is a really light engine for its size and power

 

This. I'm thinking a completely unmodified 2AR would be brilliant in my Corolla someday if I can find a cheap RWD gearbox arrangement for it. It'd probably end up at around 800-850kg wet and, according to Wikipedia the 2AR is good for around 130kW-odd. Huge upgrade from the trusty old 1200 pushrod unit, but not over the top or unreliable. I have some reading to do...

[Lee Nicolle]

If you get the balance you want with a bigger engine you ofc should pick that if its also proven to be reliable and has a wider powerband.. No one is disagreeing on this..
 
There is huge variance in low budget turbo engines and high budget builds..
 
Here is a fairly high budget BMW with a 2JZ and too much power.. Notice how it catches a Porsche GT2 on the straights. It also appears street legal with Norwegian plates
 
8.34 at nurgburgring in this video, wonder what it would do in the hands of a professional.
Dyno pull if you want the grafs

8.94 on the dragstrip

 
You think you are going to keep up with it on the straights?

That was an 1/8 mile!
On the Ring it was an accident waiting to happen. Like all turbos the power is a lightswitch, useless and undriveable. The car would be far faster with half the power. Look at the incar with Sabine Schmidt. Road car with 4 people and way faster everywhere. I suspect she may be faster in the Transit van!

[indigoid]

That was an 1/8 mile!
On the Ring it was an accident waiting to happen. Like all turbos the power is a lightswitch, useless and undriveable. The car would be far faster with half the power. Look at the incar with Sabine Schmidt. Road car with 4 people and way faster everywhere. I suspect she may be faster in the Transit van!

 

Re: turbos - you don't really believe that, do you?

 

I agree with you re: the Toyota-powered BMW (incidentally before they went silly modifying it that was a fantastically well-tuned turbo engine, very smooth and progressive power delivery!), but I don't think it's fair to compare most folks' driving there vs. Sabine's. There can't be many people at all (any?) who have driven as many laps of the green hell as she has. I think she said in an interview somewhere that she estimated the total at 28000 ish, and that was some years ago

[MatsNorway]

It was an Quarter mile. http://www.trackinva...-straight-line/

 

Im not disagreeing on it having potential to go faster without that nuclearpowered anchor up front. But your claim is that it is undrivable.. I just think you underestimate modern turbo engines, the power potential and their main advantages such as size and lightness.

 

This i guess is more your type of car. But probably a bit bigger budget http://www.speedhunt...verage_skyline/

Seems to be able to outrun a Group A RS500 with 750hp+ Probably because it can put the power down better with the layout it has.

Edited by MatsNorway, 01 January 2014 - 13:05.

[carlt]

That is a very impressive bit of kit 

nice insight into modern turbo engine building

 using 10.5:1 compression and what looks like cam timing with 62deg overlap - that would have been considered ridiculous a few years ago 

[Lee Nicolle]

It was an Quarter mile. http://www.trackinva...-straight-line/
 
Im not disagreeing on it having potential to go faster without that nuclearpowered anchor up front. But your claim is that it is undrivable.. I just think you underestimate modern turbo engines, the power potential and their main advantages such as size and lightness.
 
This i guess is more your type of car. But probably a bit bigger budget http://www.speedhunt...verage_skyline/
Seems to be able to outrun a Group A RS500 with 750hp+ Probably because it can put the power down better with the layout it has.

Group A Sierras never had 750hp. Reputedly they had 600 though 450-500 in race trim was closer to the truth. And they were near undriveable as anyone who has seen in car footage of them. With their power to weight they should have been unbeatable but were regularly beaten by Commodores,M3s and very occasionally the Mustangs too. And early on the Ovlovs too.
The Nissan Patrols were huge dollar but were quite finicky. In the end reputedly Gibsons were mapping them every 100 rpm. Before that it was every 250. That is huge money, not something for you average hotrodder.
And after all that they did not have 800 either, though they were a decent package,, and very heavy.

As for the Skyline I doubt the Nascar engine would be a great asset as a road racer. Very tightly wound. Power from 7500-9000. Hence 800hp. but useless in most enviroments except fast ovals. Even useless on dirt ovals,, a friend used one [from a supplier] for a short period and it was bloody hopeless. A well sorted car was slow and out of control. Put his own under 500hp engine back in and could win again! Though a few have arrived here and are being used in boats, both race boats and ski race. Seem ok for that though most are detuning them a bit too make them more driveable.losing 50-80hp but they are faster on the water.
I have said this before but HP numbers mean very little, how useable and suitable is the power for the application. And most turbo engines are a long way off there.
A normally aspirated engine generally makes far more useable power than a turbo. I used to love baulking them off slow corners. Get em off boost, or they would just light the tyres up and go nowhere. You would not see them again for a while and by that time they had fried the tyres and were no longer a challenge.

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 02 January 2014 - 03:04.

[Canuck]

These aren't your Oldsmobile Lee. Today's turbo technology and technology in general have all but eliminated the oh-****-thats-the-ditch turbo lag. Time marches on.

[Lee Nicolle]

Bloody hell. We are talking about supposed 800hp MODIFIED engines. Not standard road car engines. Road car engines are sometimes ok. Actually mostly asthmatic until you get them turning. Hot rod engines are still VERY lightswitch and always will be without huge development costs.
Like the Supra engine in the Bimmer!

[Canuck]

I disagree. Granted the 800hp 3L might be a handful outside of the drift track, but well-sorted hot rod turbo engines aren't black magic any more than a well-mannered naturally aspirated hot rod. Today's back-yard engines make considerably more power on pump gas and have genuinely streetable manners compared to what I built as a kid. A 500 hp build today is a budget build.

On a different but similar technology-marches-on note, I recently replaced my wife's Previa(*) with an RX 400h - what an eye-opener. It's no rocket by any means, but it will outrun my old 535i without breaking a sweat, the electric motors provide instant go at any rpm point and even with a very lead foot, it gets better mileage than the Beemer. The mix of electric motors for instant-on acceleration and low-speed cruising combined with the practicality of a gas engine is infinitely more fun than I'd imagined.

*you may recall the endless search for a frugal, 7-passenger, manual-trans, trailer towing not-minivan that she had me on. She settled for a frugalish 5-passenger CVT instead.

[carlt]

The advancement is in being able to prevent the whole lot going bang - primarily being  the advancement in electronic control of everything , being able to optimise every aspect of combustion to the very edge of detonation at all points in the rev range 

 

The turbo on the Toyota 2ar is a completely different beast to that used in the old RS500 and then they spool it up with nitrous 

 

Would be interesting to guess at what that particular spec would do optimised as a NA engine [ie induction/exhaust /mapping]

[MatsNorway]

Group A Sierras never had 750hp.

This one is not "stock" and it is 750+

 

Slight of topic as i remembered one of my favorite engines buildt by this guy.

http://www.hilmersso...dibuild/page/3/

Edited by MatsNorway, 02 January 2014 - 14:22.

[Fondles]

Like all turbos the power is a lightswitch, useless and undriveable. 

 

Very much not the case.

There are a few tricks you can perform in the ECU software to make them quite a lot more like an N/A engine.

Another example is my 2.5 litre WRX; It has an STi turbo but the main thing that makes the most difference is the 4.5 kg flywheel. From low revs in any gear it can be given full throttle and it will accelerate very smoothly and you cannot pick when the boost starts to climb. It's like it has a good ~4 litre N/A engine.

 

 

 

And commercial E85 would NEVER cop 35lb boost. Ok for maybe 15lb for short runs or about 12-1 on a 23 deg Chev. Where it does not out perform Avgas 100. 

 

Again very much not the case. I have several dyno tuner friends back in Australia and they are successful in running two bar boost and sometimes more with pump E85. The ethanol content does vary from as low as about 70% in winter though, but it seems to make very little difference to the power output.

 

 

On-topic, that 2AR engine is interesting but I would have used a 3RZ Toyota engine instead. A much nicer head and they have already been well proven to be able to make the same power reliably.

[Lee Nicolle]

This one is not "stock" and it is 750+
 
Slight of topic as i remembered one of my favorite engines buildt by this guy.
http://www.hilmersso...dibuild/page/3/

Gee, a backyarder can get 150 plus more horsepower from the same engine than pro teams can. really I don't think so.

[Lee Nicolle]

Very much not the case.
There are a few tricks you can perform in the ECU software to make them quite a lot more like an N/A engine.
Another example is my 2.5 litre WRX; It has an STi turbo but the main thing that makes the most difference is the 4.5 kg flywheel. From low revs in any gear it can be given full throttle and it will accelerate very smoothly and you cannot pick when the boost starts to climb. It's like it has a good ~4 litre N/A engine.
 
 
 

 
Again very much not the case. I have several dyno tuner friends back in Australia and they are successful in running two bar boost and sometimes more with pump E85. The ethanol content does vary from as low as about 70% in winter though, but it seems to make very little difference to the power output.
 
 
On-topic, that 2AR engine is interesting but I would have used a 3RZ Toyota engine instead. A much nicer head and they have already been well proven to be able to make the same power reliably.

2bar is 28lb! Or about the equivilant to 16-1 compression Which no one can use with any reliability. Knock about 10lb off of that and it may be usefull on a very cold day. And realistically not many turbos will even pump 20lb, it has top be damned big one and usually much modified to pump 28lb

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 03 January 2014 - 02:28.

[Fondles]

2bar is 28lb! Or about the equivilant to 16-1 compression Which no one can use with any reliability. Knock about 10lb off of that and it may be usefull on a very cold day. And realistically not many turbos will even pump 20lb, it has top be damned big one and usually much modified to pump 28lb

 

A friend of mine used 30 psi boost on his 2JZGTE Supra for about six years, never had a problem even though the engine was stock internally. Every 2JZ can do that quite reliably and no doubt many other engines with suitable preparation.

[indigoid]

2bar is 28lb! Or about the equivilant to 16-1 compression Which no one can use with any reliability. Knock about 10lb off of that and it may be usefull on a very cold day. And realistically not many turbos will even pump 20lb, it has top be damned big one and usually much modified to pump 28lb

 

Isn't measured boost (ie. an air line connected somewhere between turbo and intake port, to a boost pressure gauge) more or less an indication of intake restriction vs. airflow? ie. same turbo, different heads (or even just different cams) => different measured boost

 

My friend's Isuzu 4BD1 Defender (which I posted a pic of here once) is running a fairly small turbo and easily spools up to 24psi on the gauge, but does that even mean anything, really?

[gruntguru]

Half the capacity maybe but F1 turbos made 800hp for 1 lap engines,, probably more truthfully a dyno engine. So these engines are more powerfull? I don't think so!

 

Race trim.

Honda RA165E. 1985. 800 hp

Honda RA166E. 1986. 900 hp

Honda RA167E. 1987. 870+ hp. Mandatory boost limit 44 psi.

Honda RA165E. 1988. 680 hp. Mandatory boost limit 22 psi.

 

All that was 28 years ago.

[gruntguru]

Look at the incar with Sabine Schmidt. Road car with 4 people and way faster everywhere. I suspect she may be faster in the Transit van!

8:34 with an amatuer driver and lots of traffic is a serious car. Sabine in the Transit was 10 minutes.

[kikiturbo2]

Isn't measured boost (ie. an air line connected somewhere between turbo and intake port, to a boost pressure gauge) more or less an indication of intake restriction vs. airflow? ie. same turbo, different heads (or even just different cams) => different measured boost

 

Yes, and that fact is often frogotten. Also, boost talk is never ever clear, because people quote peak boost which usually occurs somewhere down the rev range at peak torque, and properly sized turbos never have the ability to run as much boost up top..

[carlt]

going back to the 2ar engine 

I assume from brief search that as fitted production/ stock this is a NA engine 

So ,If the intake ports/valves are capable of flowing enough air for 800bhp [even if this is only a promotional dyno pull] , surely they are too large for good gas speed in their NA application - 

[one assumes that Toyota know far more about what they are doing in head design , but historically this hasn't always been the case with OEM design?]

Edited by carlt, 03 January 2014 - 10:55.

[MatsNorway]

It got a serious port job. The valves is allways nice to have big? just run less lift meaning less wear, less resistance and so on?

[carlt]

Mats , this  2AR has stock inlet port and valve sizes and big valve lift 

[MatsNorway]

Your right. They have only done something to the bowl.. whatever that is. so that is some serius ports in stock form. Only ported lightly in the exhaust side. I was then asking "well given your abovementioned point what is the compression?"

I thought that would be a way to take back some of that power.

9.8:1 for 2007-2010. Is that much by modern standard? it is a 2.4L. The compression does not sound like much. But i only paid attention to R bikes who steadily climbed and is at 12:1 or more. But if i am to guess they can do that because of the big bore/stroke ratio. Please tell me.

Edited by MatsNorway, 04 January 2014 - 12:02.

[indigoid]

9.8:1 seems pretty low to me for a modern engine, but then I do ride bikes (11.5:1, 13.1:1 and 11.5:1 for the most recent three), and the quoted figure is of course the static compression, which assumes the valves are all closed? Cam profile/timing is as important with turbo engines as NA

 

Based on the size of that digit intruding on the frame I'd estimate that the exhaust ports aren't actually much bigger than an unmodified "bigport" Toyota 4A-GE from the 1980s. The 4A "smallport" heads that came later were quite a bit more grunty (100kW vs. ~86kW), for what that's worth.

 

Yes, Toyota know what they are doing with engines. Though to be fair they've had a lot of help from Yamaha over the years with the more serious models

[carlt]

Your right. They have only done something to the bowl.. whatever that is. so that is some serius ports in stock form. Only ported lightly in the exhaust side. I was then asking "well given your abovementioned point what is the compression?"

I thought that would be a way to take back some of that power.

9.8:1 for 2007-2010. Is that much by modern standard? it is a 2.4L. The compression does not sound like much. But i only paid attention to R bikes who steadily climbed and is at 12:1 or more. But if i am to guess they can do that because of the big bore/stroke ratio. Please tell me.

maybe you should go back and read your own link in more depth , there is a lot of information - 10.5:1 compression - the cam timings/duration and lift figures etc 

Get a copy of this book -

http://www.amazon.co...=dp_ob_title_bk

 it gives very good broad understanding of the basics of tuning in understandable language with lots of clear drawings and photos [ even shows/explains about what they did similar to the bowl/ports in this 2ar engine]

Edited by carlt, 04 January 2014 - 17:50.

[MatsNorway]

maybe you should go back and read your own link in more depth , there is a lot of information - 10.5:1 compression - the cam timings/duration and lift figures etc 

Get a copy of this book -

http://www.amazon.co...=dp_ob_title_bk

 it gives very good broad understanding of the basics of tuning in understandable language with lots of clear drawings and photos [ even shows/explains about what they did similar to the bowl/ports in this 2ar engine]

We where talking about the stock engine.. The article does not say stock comp is 10.5:1 compression. But since you mentioned it. Surely that is low for a ethanol engine? Is it all due to the E85 mix and not running pure ethanol/methanol

Edited by MatsNorway, 04 January 2014 - 21:58.

[Lee Nicolle]

8:34 with an amatuer driver and lots of traffic is a serious car. Sabine in the Transit was 10 minutes.

End of story that Bimmer did not do 8 min 34 sec. That would be a serious time. The drag run was on a 1/8 mile too Not a slow time for the eighth but no end of strong streeters do that.

[MatsNorway]

Now your either embarrassing yourself or trolling. And i do not think your trolling. I doubt you know what that truly is.

[kikiturbo2]

End of story that Bimmer did not do 8 min 34 sec. That would be a serious time. The drag run was on a 1/8 mile too Not a slow time for the eighth but no end of strong streeters do that.

 

8:34 for a BTG time is not serious in any case.. it is slow..  in pro hands fastest hatchback does 8:08 for a FULL lap of the old circuit (without traffic mind you).. and BTG is some way off a full lap...

[gruntguru]

going back to the 2ar engine 

I assume from brief search that as fitted production/ stock this is a NA engine 

So ,If the intake ports/valves are capable of flowing enough air for 800bhp [even if this is only a promotional dyno pull] , surely they are too large for good gas speed in their NA application - 

Quoting flow bench results in HP units is dodgy at best and this is a perfect example of how it can be misinterpreted.

 

- A flow bench measures volumetric air flow rate (in L/s say) at a particular pressure drop (pressure difference from port entry to combustion chamber.

- If the air density is known, that volume flow can be converted to mass flow (in kg/s)

- From mass flow we can estimate power, based on calorific value of the oxygen flowed by the head and burned with the fuel being used. The thermal efficiency of the engine must also be estimated in order to quote the power potential of the head.

 

If the engine is supercharged, the power number goes out the window because the density of the air flowing through the head will be different. With one atmosphere of boost (2 atm absolute) and intercooling back to ambient temperature, the mass flow of the port will double as will the "power potential" number.

 

Another way to look at it. At a given rpm the gas speed through the port will be roughly the same - regardless of boost pressure (or vacuum if at part throttle). The thing that changes is gas density.

[Lee Nicolle]

Now your either embarrassing yourself or trolling. And i do not think your trolling. I doubt you know what that truly is.

Mats,, 45 years around motorsport of most persuasions. As well as building my own and a few others race engines for near as long.And talking with many other who do it too. Picking the brains of more experienced and better funded. And money often does not nesecarily breed good engines.Or cars. As I have seen countless times over the years
As well as being a better than average race driver gives me more than a fair idea of the real and bullshit.Even watching a piece of TV footage I can have a fair idea what a car is doing wrong or right. I have done it so I know.

I have heard the crap with these mega powered engines, engines of all styles that seldom ever deliver the goods on the track, quite often deposit all over the track. Horsepower numbers are only a small part of the equation. Useable power is the key. A normally aspirated one will generally make better useable power, as well as being far cheaper and often lighter. And always with more reliability.

As has been quoted for decades a good big engine is always better than a small one.And some small ones with all the ancillarys[especially turbo engines] are not so little these days
Small ones can be very fast but for a budget operator very expensive.

And as for numbers 500hp on the dyno is 650 in the pub!! I have heard it countless times

[carlt]

Quoting flow bench results in HP units is dodgy at best and this is a perfect example of how it can be misinterpreted.

 

 

If the engine is supercharged, the power number goes out the window because the density of the air flowing through the head will be different. With one atmosphere of boost (2 atm absolute) and intercooling back to ambient temperature, the mass flow of the port will double as will the "power potential" number.

 

Another way to look at it. At a given rpm the gas speed through the port will be roughly the same - regardless of boost pressure (or vacuum if at part throttle). The thing that changes is gas density.

 

Thanks for that - sort of guessed/knew that [without the figures and the intercooling logic]

Wasn't really what I was getting at with my question regarding gas speed though , I think I am still a bit stuck in the age of carburetors and tuning [regarding gas speed and good mixture homogenisation]  

Looking again at the 2AR head , the intake ports Are humungus [ good technical term ! ] but I'm guessing the injector position spraying into the venturi area just before the valves and modern injection design combined with fuel pressure delivery , has moved the whole 'NA intake gas speed' into a new ball park - [all completely beyond my experience or practical application] 

[MatsNorway]

Mats,, 45 years around motorsport of most persuasions. As well as building my own and a few others race engines for near as long.And talking with many other who do it too. Picking the brains of more experienced and better funded. And money often does not nesecarily breed good engines.Or cars. As I have seen countless times over the years
As well as being a better than average race driver gives me more than a fair idea of the real and bullshit.Even watching a piece of TV footage I can have a fair idea what a car is doing wrong or right. I have done it so I know.

I have heard the crap with these mega powered engines, engines of all styles that seldom ever deliver the goods on the track, quite often deposit all over the track. Horsepower numbers are only a small part of the equation. Useable power is the key. A normally aspirated one will generally make better useable power, as well as being far cheaper and often lighter. And always with more reliability.

As has been quoted for decades a good big engine is always better than a small one.And some small ones with all the ancillarys[especially turbo engines] are not so little these days
Small ones can be very fast but for a budget operator very expensive.

And as for numbers 500hp on the dyno is 650 in the pub!! I have heard it countless times

Did he do a high 8 on the Quarter mile?

 

You and your racer buddies should attend Global Time Attack series. Rules are quite liberal.