When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
The S4 EZ-K routinely retards some cylinders due to knock sensing using the stock timing map and 92 octane fuel. The stock intake is bad enough that cylinder filling isn't the same and the differences occur at different RPMs. That is, some cyls will retard spark at 3800, some at 4500, and some at 5500. Some at 4000 and then again at 5500, etc. You can retard timing enough so that no cylinders knock, but you lose quite a bit of power at those settings. The engine works best to let the EZ-K retard the spark on individual cyls as required.
Of course, what we'd like is if the system, upon sensing a knock event, would pull out some timing and add fuel. The stock configuration cannot do that (no matter how it is chipped or Sharktuned). It is simply a feature the old LH and EZK do not have, especially because they don't communicate with each other. The slowness of their 1984-era chipsets and processors don't help, either.
Given the after-market intake on that motor, it is certainly possible that it had a a leak at high draw, and if it went lean with a stock Engine management, well... Greg (nor I) could not build an engine strong enough to withstand that kind of detonation. Not his fault.
I did want to bring one point to light: the processors on the after-market engine management systems are much more modern and therefore faster, and they CAN add fuel and retard timing together. The best ones can even sense a pre-knock noise and start reacting before the actual knock ever happens. BUT - even with all of that, I have been told by the engine management manufacturer that no EMS at this time is fast enough to react to a detonation event above about 5000 rpm. The time between events exceeds the processor and the knock sensor. So, if you think the EMS will "save you" up there, it will not. But now the good news: the speed of the piston above 5000 rpm becomes so fast that by the time the flame fronts collide, creating the knock, the piston is already on its way back down. This makes the knock much less destructive.
The most damaging knocks are those that occur at relatively low rpm, WOT, and full load. The slower piston speed in the mid-range does allow the creation of the second ignition flame front while the piston is still on its way UP, making it the most destructive knock event you can have. That will really pound a rod!
Greg, you accused me of quite a few things here, yet i have provided evidence to the contrary.
1. I showed the two types of rods, and a picture of the rod that came out of marks and joes last build and it is NOT the same as the rods in my car (as you said)
a. yet, i am " incorrect" and have no "clue"
b. you removed 'A" rods, because you thougth they wouldnt work. and removed them on your "dime" so, were those the same rods that were in the motor for many years of successful racing......I have pictures of the rods used in a prior build , that WERE the same as the rods in my engine now. Please explain.
c. I'm accused of "magic" yet i have actually seen the rod that came out of the blown engine and it is NOT the same rod as my car.
2. The only reason im mentioning it, is to see if we can find a common denominator of the failure. i think we are all on the same page there.
when you take it apart , you will have the answers to some of the questions, but mainly , i hope you come clean on your attack of my informed comments. the ONLY thing you are correct about, is that i dont know the tune of mark or Joes car, other than me driving it some time ago and knowing the rev limit then. It could be different than it was the last weekend it raced. you showed the shark tune rev limit.. is it at alll possible that that rev limit could be selective by a user setting or even ignored (stock or the shark tune rev limit) either way, the rev limit is no guarantee that it ever hit that limit , unless we can hear it on the video, or a there was a miss downshift.. AND, if AM vantage can spin an as high stroke with heavier pistons all day long, why would you worry about a 928 engine spinning that high unless oiling or valve float was a concern?
.
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
Obviously, you have more information about this failure than I do. I built the engine and have the car here....yet I don't have a picture, nor the pieces of the broken rod....but you do.
And you seem to magically know what connecting rods were in Mark's engine, before the rods that were in it when one broke (you don't have a clue and are completely incorrect....it had Carrillo "A" rods that I removed on my own $$$, because I was afraid they were too weak for the task.)
And you can tell how many rpm's an engine is turning by listening to a recording. (I hear that NBC is looking for an "expert" like you for track analysis at Indy....to get rid of all that troublesome telemetry that they run on those cars.....)
Certainly, with your knowledge, you must know exactly what tune was Mark's engine....and Joseph's....and every other car that leaves here.
Like I've been saying, there's absolutely no reason for you to be here, except to try to stir ****....
Of course, what we'd like is if the system, upon sensing a knock event, would pull out some timing and add fuel. The stock configuration cannot do that (no matter how it is chipped or Sharktuned). It is simply a feature the old LH and EZK do not have, especially because they don't communicate with each other. The slowness of their 1984-era chipsets and processors don't help, either.
.....and yet you are still OK with selling a stage 1 kit, pushing 6psi of non intercooled boost, with stock ignition timing relying on this system to save the engine.
Don't give me your BS about the efficiency of the supercharger you are using. These engines knock when they are bone stock & everything is working correctly.
On one hand you are pushing your stage 3 kit with an aftermarket ECU by disparaging the stock computers. But if we are talking about your stage 1 kit....the stock system is just fine.
Make up you mind.
What's really sad is you are not responsible enough to at least tweak the stock maps to be better suited for boost. With the invention of the Shark Tuner, no boosted application should ever be sold with an FMU. You say the pre-84 chip are too slow.....but you are OK with using a method of increasing fuel that is even more outdated.
WOW. Hacker - you are more than a little off-topic.
I was just trying to be helpful as a couple members had discussed the possibility of detonation causing the failure.
Happy to discuss superchargers in a PM or on a separate thread. What you have posted above is only partial data, and inaccurate.
Last edited by Carl Fausett; 05-15-2018 at 12:16 PM.
Greg, you accused me of quite a few things here, yet i have provided evidence to the contrary.
1. I showed the two types of rods, and a picture of the rod that came out of marks and joes last build and it is NOT the same as the rods in my car (as you said)
a. yet, i am " incorrect" and have no "clue"
b. you removed 'A" rods, because you thougth they wouldnt work. and removed them on your "dime" so, were those the same rods that were in the motor for many years of successful racing......I have pictures of the rods used in a prior build , that WERE the same as the rods in my engine now. Please explain.
c. I'm accused of "magic" yet i have actually seen the rod that came out of the blown engine and it is NOT the same rod as my car.
2. The only reason im mentioning it, is to see if we can find a common denominator of the failure. i think we are all on the same page there.
when you take it apart , you will have the answers to some of the questions, but mainly , i hope you come clean on your attack of my informed comments. the ONLY thing you are correct about, is that i dont know the tune of mark or Joes car, other than me driving it some time ago and knowing the rev limit then. It could be different than it was the last weekend it raced. you showed the shark tune rev limit.. is it at alll possible that that rev limit could be selective by a user setting or even ignored (stock or the shark tune rev limit) either way, the rev limit is no guarantee that it ever hit that limit , unless we can hear it on the video, or a there was a miss downshift.. AND, if AM vantage can spin an as high stroke with heavier pistons all day long, why would you worry about a 928 engine spinning that high unless oiling or valve float was a concern?
.
In reality, I have absolutely no idea of what exact rod you have in your engine.....since I did not pick out the parts nor assemble it.
I had assumed that Todd had used a rod designed for use in a 928 engine, which if he had done, should look like all the current rods Carrillo makes for this application. My mistake to make this assumption and confuse you.
If, indeed, the rod pictured (which is in a Carrillo box of a vintage I do not recognize) is what is in your engine, it is obviously different....(and weaker at the bottom of the beam, than the current 928 design rod.)
Regardless, all of the Carrillo "H" beam rods are extremely robust....we are not dealing with "second rate" manufacturing, "offshore" materials, or a company without massive technical abilities gained from years of experience.
To be clear, to date, I only know three things for certain....and will not comment on anything else:
1. A connecting rod broke.
2. The spark plugs exhibit "textbook" detonation.
3. Your only goal, in this thread, is to stir ****.
Semi-retired, as of Feb 1, 2023.
The days of free technical advice are over.
Free consultations will no longer be available.
Will still be in the shop, isolated and exclusively working on project cars, developmental work and products, engines and transmissions.
Have fun with your 928's people!
Greg, this gets messy because you cant get your story straight. you said>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Originally Posted by GregBBRD The Carrillo connecting rods that are in Kibort's engine, that our helpful, independentmoderator has provided pictures of, show that these rods are of the same EXACT design that Carrillo now uses on all 928 connecting rods.....including the ones I have made.
Now, i showed you the rods i have in my engine. i put the engine together inthe car and saw the rods. the ones that Hacker showed, are the rods in my car's engine . the rod that broke was a change that you made to a different style rod... (shown in the picture.) it is also different than the rod that came out of mark and Joes earlier engines that lasted for so long.
so you can see why im asking the question. not stir things up, but to wonder why the change and what , if any , risk could be introduced in to the engine capabilities. it seems like a natural question. i know that the rod , either one, is probably a lot better than stock in many ways, but what if it introduced a weakness that we found in both engines that blew after 4 hours of racing.
when you pull the rod out of the engine, you will see that those rods match the picture of the rod NOT in my car as you have assured as to being the "EXACT" same as my rods.
again, I'm not trying to stir up things, i just want to understand and others have made the same observation too. can you just be straight on the answer please?
I think we all agree:
1. a rod broke on both motors in the same fashion
2. the plugs look like there was detonation,
3. BUT, my goal is NOT to stir up anything . only to learn of the causes or more about what can be the causes of engine failure.
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
In reality, I have absolutely no idea of what exact rod you have in your engine.....since I did not pick out the parts nor assemble it.
I had assumed that Todd had used a rod designed for use in a 928 engine, which if he had done, should look like all the current rods Carrillo makes for this application. My mistake to make this assumption and confuse you.
If, indeed, the rod pictured (which is in a Carrillo box of a vintage I do not recognize) is what is in your engine, it is obviously different....(and weaker at the bottom of the beam, than the current 928 design rod.)
Regardless, all of the Carrillo "H" beam rods are extremely robust....we are not dealing with "second rate" manufacturing, "offshore" materials, or a company without massive technical abilities gained from years of experience.
To be clear, to date, I only know three things for certain....and will not comment on anything else:
1. A connecting rod broke.
2. The spark plugs exhibit "textbook" detonation.
3. Your only goal, in this thread, is to stir ****.
EDIT:
the biggest question, is why did you pull both engines apart on "your dime" if the rods are all robust. what was the design change that made you worry about them. what changes did you make to make up for something that you thought might need improving over the original H design in both cars? it looks like the original rods in mark and joes engines were idential.. THEN you said you did a rebuild with A rods, didnt like those, so replaced with the H beam... but the ones that broke look very similar to the A rods? they could be "tapered H" beam rods, which look similar to my H beam rods ... but , could that be the variable? i agree, these all look like very stout rods... but the fact that you were worried about the A rods, makes me think any small change could be a problem.
Last edited by mark kibort; 05-14-2018 at 04:47 PM.
Greg, this gets messy because you cant get your story straight. you said>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now, i showed you the rods i have in my engine. i put the engine together inthe car and saw the rods. the ones that Hacker showed, are the rods in my car's engine . the rod that broke was a change that you made to a different style rod... (shown in the picture.) it is also different than the rod that came out of mark and Joes earlier engines that lasted for so long.
so you can see why im asking the question. not stir things up, but to wonder why the change and what , if any , risk could be introduced in to the engine capabilities. it seems like a natural question. i know that the rod , either one, is probably a lot better than stock in many ways, but what if it introduced a weakness that we found in both engines that blew after 4 hours of racing.
when you pull the rod out of the engine, you will see that those rods match the picture of the rod NOT in my car as you have assured as to being the "EXACT" same as my rods.
again, I'm not trying to stir up things, i just want to understand and others have made the same observation too. can you just be straight on the answer please?
I think we all agree:
1. a rod broke on both motors in the same fashion
2. the plugs look like there was detonation,
3. BUT, my goal is NOT to stir up anything . only to learn of the causes or more about what can be the causes of engine failure.
the biggest question, is why did you pull both engines apart on "your dime" if the rods are all robust. what was the design change that made you worry about them. what changes did you make to make up for something that you thought might need improving over the original H design in both cars?
I will repeat, although you are clearly not getting the message.... I did not design or build the current rods used in these engines, the same rods which are in many, many of my engines, including Andy's 605hp engine which now has over 20,000 miles it.
I also did not design or build the "A" rods which were installed in Mark's engine immediately prior to the current rods (which I removed on my own dime, and replaced with the current design rod.) A "design review" of the "A" beam rod showed a huge problem with using the incorrect offset (Chevy offset) connecting rod, when used in the 928 application. I removed 5 sets of these rods from engines I had build (at no cost to the client), including those in Mark's engine.
Perhaps you should call Carrillo (949 567 9000) and ask them any further questions.
Greg,
poor wording.. I should have said, "selected" (i know you didnt design them) you removed the A rods because of the chevy offset being incompatible for 928 application. We all get that. what did you put back in? Tapered H ? they are NOT the same, as you had originally said , to my rods which are the SAME as mark and joes original rods ( common, H rod design) .
I have been asking this question for many posts now. is there an answer? if the answer is " i thought they were stronger" or they were recommended by corillo" that woudl be a good answer. But would still beg the question, is it coicedental that both motors with this same rod, blew up after a few race hours... which has NOTHING to do with a 20,000mile street engine. you know better than that!!
Mk
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
I will repeat, although you are clearly not getting the message.... I did not design or build the current rods used in these engines, the same rods which are in many, many of my engines, including Andy's 605hp engine which now has over 20,000 miles it.
I also did not design or build the "A" rods which were installed in Mark's engine immediately prior to the current rods (which I removed on my own dime, and replaced with the current design rod.) A "design review" of the "A" beam rod showed a huge problem with using the incorrect offset (Chevy offset) connecting rod, when used in the 928 application. I removed 5 sets of these rods from engines I had build (at no cost to the client), including those in Mark's engine.
Perhaps you should call Carrillo (949 567 9000) and ask them any further questions.
Greg,
poor wording.. I should have said, "selected" (i know you didnt design them) you removed the A rods because of the chevy offset being incompatible for 928 application. We all get that. what did you put back in? Tapered H ? they are NOT the same, as you had originally said , to my rods which are the SAME as mark and joes original rods ( common, H rod design) .
I have been asking this question for many posts now. is there an answer? if the answer is " i thought they were stronger" or they were recommended by corillo" that woudl be a good answer. But would still beg the question, is it coicedental that both motors with this same rod, blew up after a few race hours... which has NOTHING to do with a 20,000mile street engine. you know better than that!!
Mk
I've already said that I made a bad assumption about your rods....I'm not sure you repeating the same thing, over and over again proves anything......let it go!!!!!
I can answer your questions about the rod design.
Carrillo designed the current rod, completely on their own. I had zero input about the rod design or construction....I'm not qualified to do that. The "A" beam rod that was removed from Mark's engine was a "Chevy offset" rod, which was a HUGE, HUGE mistake (This mistake was made very early in the building of stroker engines and was not caught until Carrillo studied the "A" beam rod.)
And once again (I've said this at least two times , in this thread), Carrillo did a complete engineering review of this connecting rod design, after the failure in Mark's engine. They made zero (0) changes to the design, even though they had a free hand to do so!
Please call Carrillo and take up whatever problems you, an armchair engineer, have with the design.
My "Tiny little brain" found a HUGE flaw in your logic. if they made "(0") changes to the rods that broke in marks original engine, then why are the rods that DID break, DIFFERENT. (again, they are not the same as my rods, which ARE the same as the rods in marks old motor that did break. )
For you YOU , the ones that are in Joes engine now, that you will find out, are not the same (and please post when you pull them) .. . they look to be near an A rod design or a tapered H design. NOT the same as what was in the engine that blew a long time ago.
again, you must understand why im questioning. maybe they gave you the wrong offset, or you put the A rods back in by mistake. if you answered straight up, we could move on. instead , you are waffling... or maybe you don't believe, or you doubt the pictures of the rods i posted ?
when you say, "exact" it means you know.. not an assumption. so, if you dont know, or remember, thats ok.
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
I can answer that.
Carrillo designed the current rod, completely on their own. I had zero input about the rod design or construction....I'm not qualified to do that. The "A" beam rod that was removed from Mark's engine was a "Chevy offset" rod, which was a HUGE mistake.
And once again, for your tiny little brain, Carrillo did a complete engineering review of this connecting rod design, after the failure in Mark's engine. They made zero (0) changes to the design, even though they had a free hand to do so!
Please call Carrillo and take up whatever problems you, an armchair engineer, have with the design.
My "Tiny little brain" found a HUGE flaw in your logic. if they made "(0") changes to the rods that broke in marks original engine, then why are the rods that DID break, DIFFERENT. (again, they are not the same as my rods, which ARE the same as the rods in marks old motor that did break. )
For you YOU , the ones that are in Joes engine now, that you will find out, are not the same (and please post when you pull them) .. . they look to be near an A rod design or a tapered H design. NOT the same as what was in the engine that blew a long time ago.
again, you must understand why im questioning. maybe they gave you the wrong offset, or you put the A rods back in by mistake. if you answered straight up, we could move on. instead , you are waffling... or maybe you don't believe, or you doubt the pictures of the rods i posted ?
when you say, "exact" it means you know.. not an assumption. so, if you dont know, or remember, thats ok.
Mark:
You're just not being serious here.
A complete brain damaged moron could go to Carrillo's website and see that an "A" beam rod is completely different than the broken "H" beam you have a picture of.
You are now just throwing whatever **** you can dream up, at the wall, and see if anything sticks.
Trust me, the engine will come apart and I (and others) will try to determine what else (besides detonation) damaged this engine (you have stopped between your incessant babble and looked at the spark plug, right?)
I'm terribly sorry that Mark Anderson decided to try and economize on an almost 12 to 1 race engine by being cheap and running low octane fuel .
I'm still sorry he did this to his own engine!
I don't like it when my engines blow up....that would be absurd. I try to do everything, in my power to make sure this does not happen!
However, "saving" a few bucks by pouring in 75% 91 octane fuel is not the thing to economize with this type of engine. This was a terribly poor decision! A horrendous lapse of judgement!
There were probably near a hundred Cup Car engines at this event, with less compression than this engine had. Do you think a single one of those engines were run on any form of 91 octane fuel?
The reality is, all initial indications show that this engine detonated. And rational people (obviously not you), expect things to break, when detonation occurs.
Just like the idiot that kept yelling, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling", you and Mark Anderson can keep yelling "The rod is the problem, the rod is the problem".
Greg, why cant i get a straight answer and why dont you comprehend what is being said ?
I wanted to know, and still want to know, why you selected a different rod for the two engines that blew up. i know the most recent failire is NOT an A rod. . as you said, you removed them due to the wrong chevy offset.. but you put in rods DIFFERENT than the original stroker build, 928 type, corillo rod. it is a tapered H . It looks like near the same shape of an A-rod, but i know its not.
both of the engines that failed had this rod.
here is what we know. the rod that broke is different than the rods mark has used for years in his engine standard, 928 corrillo rod, sized for 928 bearings.
It looks like a tapered H rod and the stock replacement 928 corrillo rod is a standard H design.
Sure, i agree , its more than likely due to something else. I would think that detonation would pound out the rod bearings before it broke a rod, no?
Again, just looking at the variables and comparisons.
btw.. what do the chevy offset cause as a problem? undue stress on the rod? are all the stroker rods you know of, using 928 offset and NOT chevy?
Mk
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
Mark:
You're just not being serious here.
A complete brain damaged moron could go to Carrillo's website and see that an "A" beam rod is completely different than the broken "H" beam you have a picture of.
You are now just throwing whatever **** you can dream up, at the wall, and see if anything sticks.
Trust me, the engine will come apart and I (and others) will try to determine what else (besides detonation) damaged this engine (you have stopped between your incessant babble and looked at the spark plug, right?)
I'm terribly sorry that Mark Anderson decided to try and economize on an almost 12 to 1 race engine by being cheap and running low octane fuel .
I'm still sorry he did this to his own engine!
I don't like it when my engines blow up....that would be absurd. I try to do everything, in my power to make sure this does not happen!
However, "saving" a few bucks by pouring in 75% 91 octane fuel is not the thing to economize with this type of engine. This was a terribly poor decision! A horrendous lapse of judgement!
There were probably near a hundred Cup Car engines at this event, with less compression than this engine had. Do you think a single one of those engines were run on any form of 91 octane fuel?
The reality is, all initial indications show that this engine detonated. And rational people (obviously not you), expect things to break, when detonation occurs.
Just like the idiot that kept yelling, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling", you and Mark Anderson can keep yelling "The rod is the problem, the rod is the problem".
.....and yet you are still OK with selling a stage 1 kit, pushing 6psi of non intercooled boost, with stock ignition timing relying on this system to save the engine.
Don't give me your BS about the efficiency of the supercharger you are using. These engines knock when they are bone stock & everything is working correctly.
On one hand you are pushing your stage 3 kit with an aftermarket ECU by disparaging the stock computers. But if we are talking about your stage 1 kit....the stock system is just fine.
Make up you mind.
What's really sad is you are not responsible enough to at least tweak the stock maps to be better suited for boost. With the invention of the Shark Tuner, no boosted application should ever be sold with an FMU. You say the pre-84 chip are too slow.....but you are OK with using a method of increasing fuel that is even more outdated.
Erik,
This is an unusual amount of vitriol for you. Quite frankly, it sounds like Greg took over your keyboard. What gives?
Greg, why cant i get a straight answer and why dont you comprehend what is being said ?
I wanted to know, and still want to know, why you selected a different rod for the two engines that blew up. i know the most recent failire is NOT an A rod. . as you said, you removed them due to the wrong chevy offset.. but you put in rods DIFFERENT than the original stroker build, 928 type, corillo rod. it is a tapered H . It looks like near the same shape of an A-rod, but i know its not.
both of the engines that failed had this rod.
here is what we know. the rod that broke is different than the rods mark has used for years in his engine standard, 928 corrillo rod, sized for 928 bearings.
It looks like a tapered H rod and the stock replacement 928 corrillo rod is a standard H design.
Sure, i agree , its more than likely due to something else. I would think that detonation would pound out the rod bearings before it broke a rod, no?
Again, just looking at the variables and comparisons.
btw.. what do the chevy offset cause as a problem? undue stress on the rod? are all the stroker rods you know of, using 928 offset and NOT chevy?
Mk
Of course, the new rods that Carrillo designed for this application are the newer tapered beam design.....but you knew this.....you have a picture of the current design 928 rod that you showed last week.....why are you being so stupid?
What, exactly, is your point?
Rod offset is engine design 101......day one. Cylinder offset on opposite sides of a V-8 (or any V design) engine vary from one engine type to the next engine type. This requires an offset that is built into the connecting rod to center the rod on the piston pin. Study up. Look up the big words in the dictionary and try to understand.
The "side" loading on the pistons and rods in an engine with the incorrect offset rod (rod not centered on the pin) is incredibly high.....and was largely responsible for the terrible cylinder damage in all of the early Alusil bore stroker engines that Mark Thomas built. Nicosil engines, because their bores are tougher fair better....but the loads are terrible and wear always occurs on the top of one side of the piston and at the bottom side of the piston on the opposite side.....the piston literally "rocks" in the cylinder every single time combustion occurs.
Chevy rods in a 928 engine is a terrible lapse in judgement/knowledge.
That spark plug pretty much tells the entire story why that cylinder blew, and had nothing to do with rod choice.
Let's say the rest of the spark plugs look good, therefore it's safe to assume that there was some sort vacuum-leak leaning out that one cylinder causing the detonation and destroying the engine. That would also imply the fuel was good, as well as the tune, because the other 7 plugs/cylinders are good.
On the other hand, if the rest of the plugs all exhibit some form of detonation, then it is reasonable to assume that the tune and/or fuel was the root cause of the failure.
Being able to view the rest of the plugs would provide valuable forensic clues, and are a lot easier to pull versus an entire engine.
05-14-2018, 01:22 PM
