how many 7 liter strokers are out there???? - Page 9 - Rennlist - Porsche Discussion Forums

Go Back  Rennlist - Porsche Discussion Forums > Water Cooled Technical Discussion Areas > 928 Forum
Reload this Page >

how many 7 liter strokers are out there????

Notices
928 Forum
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by: 928 Specialists

how many 7 liter strokers are out there????

Reply

Old 02-12-2018, 10:46 PM
  #121  
Catorce
Basic Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor

 
Catorce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,212
Default

Which begs the question - what is the maximum sustainable RPM a 928 derived engine has been spun at? I'm talking a maximum designed RPM, not an overrev.
__________________
Current cars:
70 914-6 - 2.7L screamer
73 911T Carrera RS Clone, 3.6 power
75 911 Targa - RSR width 930 motor
78 928 - DEVORE CAR, 6.54L
83 911 Euro SC - 3.2 Short Stroke!
88 928S4 5 speed
02 911 Targa
04 911 40th Anniv
07 997 Twin Turbo 6MT - Techart beauty
08 SL55 AMG
09 997 Twin Turbo 6MT - Factory Aerokit
11 Camaro SS - 6MT Z28 Spec, V7Ysi 850whp
The only reproduction flat six engine cases on the planet -3.6, 2.0, 2.2, 2.7, GT3/TT
www.taorminaracingdesigns.com
Catorce is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2018, 11:58 PM
  #122  
Mark Anderson
The Parts Whisperer
Rennlist
Site Sponsor

 
Mark Anderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Anaheim Ca
Posts: 5,909
Default

Mark Anderson is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2018, 06:43 AM
  #123  
Strosek Ultra
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
Strosek Ultra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mostly in my workshop located in Sweden.
Posts: 1,192
Default

Originally Posted by GregBBRD View Post
My changes don't come from induction related issues but of concern over piston speeds in the larger stroke engines.

Drag racers rarely worry about piston speeds....they spent only a few tenths of seconds at rpms that would tear a road racing engine apart. Road racing is very different.

The engineers at Chevrolet found that with a 3.750 stroke engine, 7,600 rpms was the absolute limit, even with super light pistons and titanium rods ( with engines used in Trans Am racing.)

Mark Anderson's 928 race engine used an extremely "beefy" connecting rod (heavy) with relatively heavy pistons for years. He reved this engine 8,000+ for years. The only side effects were cracked blocks, pounded bearings, and rapid cylinder wear.

When we switch to a lighter rod, engine failure (rod failure) occurred very quickly. Analysis of the remaining pieces of the failed rod (not all of the pieces remained) at Carrillo found no defects or problems (with the pieces we supplied.) They said that the rod failed from excessive loading (too many rpms) and asked for any recorded data to see what rpms the rod had been subjected to. We had no such data.

Final engineering findings resulted in no changes to the design of these rods, but simply a suggestion to reduce the piston speeds (or use a lighter piston) and "gather" some recorded rpm data.

"Research" resulted in finding Chevy's information about piston speeds with a 3.750" crankshaft.
​​​​​
​​
Actually it is not much difference between a 6.5L and a 7.0L engine. The 7.0L is about 7.5% larger and should produce the same amount of extra torque everything else being the same. 7600 rpm limit for 3.750" stroke make sense, it is a mean piston speed of about 24 m/s. Over here in Europe 25 m/s is considered as an upper safe limit. In my case I will never race the engine, it is just a toy, a boy dream I like to come true. I expect and hope the engine will stay together for some occasional high rpm bursts in the lower gear above the 25 m/s limit. If it breaks, that´s it. I can always put the stock engine back or drive any of the other two cars when considering how to build a new high performance engine. By the way the oldest car will get a 6.5L two-valve engine with four Dellorto Twin-choke carbs (see my avatar picture).
Åke
Strosek Ultra is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2018, 10:10 AM
  #124  
ptuomov
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
ptuomov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MA
Posts: 4,490
Default

My opinions:

The big issue with rpms is piston weight. As piston weights have come down, maximum rpms and rules of thumb about piston speed limits have increased. It's the piston inertia due to mass and the acceleration forces that it creates that mainly limits the rpms. A heavy piston requires a heavy connecting rod with a large cross-sectional area. The two important determinants of the rod strength under tension loads are material and cross-sectional area. Tension is what matters for the normally aspirated motors, ability to hold up under compression also matters for turbo engines that can make real power. If the pistons are heavy, and then connecting rods must be heavy, the bearing loads are high. This will then require long bearings, a lot of bearing area, and high viscosity oil. If the pistons are heavy and there's rod bearing damage due to excessive loads, it's logical that replacing the heavy connecting rod with a light one (holding material constant) will increase likelihood of rod failure and catastrophic engine damage. The right way to go about it is to replace the pistons with lighter ones. For example, running an ancient 968 piston design isn't the way to go for a high rpm engine, when you can easily save more than 25% of the piston mass with a more modern design. The problem with our engines is of course that then the whole engine needs to be rebuilt with Nikasil coated cylinders or with some other solution like liners. Building a normally-aspirated engine from scratch without a budget constraint (money or time), though, I'd go with modern piston design for sure.

Even taking heavy pistons as given, a long-stroke engine will make more average power and will be faster than a short-stroke engine as long as there's no displacement limit (i.e., the bore is the same). This is because the power is proportional to rpm times the stroke, while for long-rod engine the destructive forces on the rotating assembly are proportional to the rpm squared times the stroke (the first term in the piston acceleration equation). Therefore, holding piston acceleration constant, you'll make more power by increasing stroke and reducing the rpm. You can go to absurd extremes where this may not hold, but for car engines it does.
ptuomov is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2018, 10:17 AM
  #125  
Carl Fausett
Developer
Rennlist Member


Rennlist
Site Sponsor

 
Carl Fausett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Horicon, WI
Posts: 6,207
Default

Although the 7.0L version currently performs under the 6.5, I know we haven't been giving it enough air. I feel we have shown the kind of advances in the intake manifold and cams that it is going to benefit from. The story of the 7.0L motor is not over - later this year I should have another that we can feed correctly and realize its true potential.
__________________
Carl Fausett
Member SAE
Builder of the most powerful Naturally Aspirated 928 engine, 602 HP, 510 lb ft Torque Nov 2017
Builder of the most powerful Supercharged 928 engine, 934 HP, 742 lb ft of Torque July 2012

Questions? Tech Support?
Call 920-485-0928
International 001-920-485-0928
Email: [email protected]
Website: https://928motorsports.com/
Instructions: http://www.928motorsports.com/install.php
Carl Fausett is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2018, 11:40 AM
  #126  
Marti
User
 
Marti's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Posts: 340
Default

Originally Posted by Carl Fausett View Post
Although the 7.0L version currently performs under the 6.5, I know we haven't been giving it enough air. I feel we have shown the kind of advances in the intake manifold and cams that it is going to benefit from. The story of the 7.0L motor is not over - later this year I should have another that we can feed correctly and realize its true potential.
I also think the 7.0 + has mileage left in it. As you say Carl recently advances in intake and cams will help harness the CC.

I also think a liner engine has its own advantages if the technique can be tested and standardised. No more alloy coating problems, new piston designs, possible standard parts.

For every cloud there is a silver lining, it’s about seeing past the cloud
Marti is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2018, 02:13 PM
  #127  
BC
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 24,261
Default

Fun. That's it. This is for fun. If you get fun from a stock engine boosted to within an inch of its life - great. If you get fun from building a 75k motor with shiney bits - great. Just remember you only get one go - so if what you are doing with your hobby isn't fun, don't do it.
BC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2018, 02:58 PM
  #128  
Chris Lockhart
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
Chris Lockhart's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Taylors, S.C.
Posts: 1,911
Default

Originally Posted by BC View Post
Fun. That's it. This is for fun. If you get fun from a stock engine boosted to within an inch of its life - great. If you get fun from building a 75k motor with shiney bits - great. Just remember you only get one go - so if what you are doing with your hobby isn't fun, don't do it.
Amen Brendan!!
Chris Lockhart is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2018, 03:45 PM
  #129  
V2Rocket
Rainman
Rennlist Member
 
V2Rocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Posts: 41,483
Default

Originally Posted by BC View Post
Fun. That's it. This is for fun. If you get fun from a stock engine boosted to within an inch of its life - great. If you get fun from building a 75k motor with shiney bits - great. Just remember you only get one go - so if what you are doing with your hobby isn't fun, don't do it.
4.5 block with a 95mm crank boosted to the moon would be ridiculous...

still makes 5.4L but tiny combustion chamber (can you fit 4v head over 95mm bore?) makes for easier tuning control and holding the head on easier.
V2Rocket is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 04:38 AM
  #130  
Strosek Ultra
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
Strosek Ultra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mostly in my workshop located in Sweden.
Posts: 1,192
Default

Originally Posted by Carl Fausett View Post
Although the 7.0L version currently performs under the 6.5, I know we haven't been giving it enough air. I feel we have shown the kind of advances in the intake manifold and cams that it is going to benefit from. The story of the 7.0L motor is not over - later this year I should have another that we can feed correctly and realize its true potential.
Well the big engine makes a mountain of torque. It may now be time to move the discussion further on to engine breathing - improved air flow - for more power. Here we have cylinder head porting with larger valves, hotter cams, improved induction systems like ITB´s, long tube big pipe headers, dual 3" or 3.5" exhaust systems and more. What are your views guys?
Åke
Strosek Ultra is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 06:14 AM
  #131  
The Forgotten On
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Thousand Oaks California
Posts: 2,955
Default

Originally Posted by V2Rocket View Post
4.5 block with a 95mm crank boosted to the moon would be ridiculous...

still makes 5.4L but tiny combustion chamber (can you fit 4v head over 95mm bore?) makes for easier tuning control and holding the head on easier.
Boosting the 4.5 was the original plan with my 81 until I decided to build a 5.0. Also, S3 heads are a direct swap to the 4.5 engine, S4 heads would give super high compression in excess of 12:1 IIRC.
The Forgotten On is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2018, 03:07 PM
  #132  
slate blue
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
slate blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,199
Default

Originally Posted by Catorce View Post
Again, I think 7 liters is going in the wrong direction. Why is so much displacement needed to achieve more power? Although I own a 6.57L stroker that made 602hp with the custom manifold shown on my thread, it begs the question as to why the motor has to be so big to achieve that power level. As a counterpoint, I just placed an order for the Huracan Performante - 5.2L V10 normally aspirated, 640hp. Many people think this is underrated since the Performante smashed the Nurb lap time of the 918 Spyder, a much more powerful car by like 5 seconds.

I know, the new motor has DFI and a bunch of other doodads, but at the end of the day 640HP is being achieved by a motor that is smaller than that of the 928 GTS even. To me, that is a way more exciting challenge at this point - to build a super high horsepower 5.0 or 5.4.........
Congrats on your order of the Lambo! For my larger build, one which has been beset with various delays, I need the extra bore diameter for the flow. It uses very large valves and as such a large bore is useful. The bore also needs reinforcement when the power levels go up. I can add more if you like but that is the main reasons.
slate blue is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2018, 03:27 PM
  #133  
slate blue
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
slate blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,199
Default

Originally Posted by Catorce View Post
Which begs the question - what is the maximum sustainable RPM a 928 derived engine has been spun at? I'm talking a maximum designed RPM, not an overrev.
Well we should find out this year, I have placed the order for my (simple) sleeves not liners. The piston design is with CP Pistons, it’s a lightweight design. The bobweight will be under 1500 grams. This compares to 2390 grams for stock. Each piston, pin, rod, bearing, and rings are lighter, exact weight difference not known as yet but the assembly will be about 500 grams per cylinder. A rough breakdown would be, piston with rings (estimate) 410 grams, pin 90 grams, rod with bearing 550 grams. For a total of 1050 grams.

A stock setup from memory is 760 grams for the S4 piston and about 890 for the rod and bearings? For a total of 1650 grams.

Well that weight difference is greater than I thought, 600 grams x 8 = 4,800 grams and then the stroke goes to around 82.5 mm from offset grinding. I don’t know how much weight I will be able to trim off due to costs. This particular engine has a cost factor involved. The rev limit will be 8,000 just because there is no point to going higher. The camshaft I suspect will make its max power in the 7250 to 7500 range. It has 251 degree at 0.050”. It’s a two valve engine. We are currently designing a CNC intake manifold which uses a LS throttle body.
slate blue is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2018, 04:00 PM
  #134  
SwayBar
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
SwayBar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago Bears
Posts: 1,926
Default

251 degrees at 0.050" is a big cam!
SwayBar is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2018, 04:06 PM
  #135  
slate blue
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
slate blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,199
Default

Originally Posted by SwayBar View Post
251 degrees at 0.050" is a big cam!
Mmmm, the lift is 0.542” nett, (solid tappet engine) the exhaust is 240 degrees with 0.495” nett . The exhaust side flows very well hence smaller duration, the engine capacity will be around 350 CI. As such I think my guess where the power range will be is pretty accurate, we’ll see.
slate blue is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: how many 7 liter strokers are out there????


Contact Us Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: