New Crankshafts
02-19-2012, 08:37 PM
#136
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Woodstock Ga.
Posts: 1,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rob Thanks for the info! I don't know much but the 5.0L hybrids seem to end up with 300 rwhp from everything I have read. So custom cams and a higher rpm range would get you an extra.......?
It isn't about the final number in my book. A euro would fly with this setup and could last an old guy like me a lifetime. Thats how I look at the cost. Add it up over the next 20 yrs and it is money well spent.
I have the right car to put the motor in so I am half way there!
It isn't about the final number in my book. A euro would fly with this setup and could last an old guy like me a lifetime. Thats how I look at the cost. Add it up over the next 20 yrs and it is money well spent.
I have the right car to put the motor in so I am half way there!
02-20-2012, 12:11 AM
#137
Rennlist Member
I think the real answer to 375 -400rwhp will be found in the CF intake mounted to the stock 5 liter with some hotter cams. AND, i dont think you need to twist it up past 6500rpm to get it.
just look at the M5 engine. 5 liter, longer stroke, narrower bore (our 928 is a more square engine so it would seemingly be better for higher RPM). its also a Alusil block , yet it runs near 7500pm and can easily get 375rwhp , with some minor mods to the heads. its near 11:1 compression. but most importantly, it has a very nice intake . cams, via the spec, are not much different than our GT cams.
I think its all in the intake. the oiling issues, are something else.
02-20-2012, 01:11 AM
#138
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
I drove the heck out of all my race 928 engines. never did i ever see any bearing wear, or stuff in the oil filter , OR, anything but a perfect result from oil analysis. the only engine i didnt open up , is my newer stroker, and scots latest engine, but we do cut the filter open after every 3-4 race weekends as Greg advises.
I think the real answer to 375 -400rwhp will be found in the CF intake mounted to the stock 5 liter with some hotter cams. AND, i dont think you need to twist it up past 6500rpm to get it.
just look at the M5 engine. 5 liter, longer stroke, narrower bore (our 928 is a more square engine so it would seemingly be better for higher RPM). its also a Alusil block , yet it runs near 7500pm and can easily get 375rwhp , with some minor mods to the heads. its near 11:1 compression. but most importantly, it has a very nice intake . cams, via the spec, are not much different than our GT cams.
I think its all in the intake. the oiling issues, are something else.
I think the real answer to 375 -400rwhp will be found in the CF intake mounted to the stock 5 liter with some hotter cams. AND, i dont think you need to twist it up past 6500rpm to get it.
just look at the M5 engine. 5 liter, longer stroke, narrower bore (our 928 is a more square engine so it would seemingly be better for higher RPM). its also a Alusil block , yet it runs near 7500pm and can easily get 375rwhp , with some minor mods to the heads. its near 11:1 compression. but most importantly, it has a very nice intake . cams, via the spec, are not much different than our GT cams.
I think its all in the intake. the oiling issues, are something else.
Your "bearing experiences" are somewhat unique. You'd have to be living in a cave not to know this.
What you really need to do is have Mark Anderson drive your car for a weekend. If the bearings survive that, you'll have a bunch more credibility regarding your "lack of doing anything but using Amsoil" approach. Until absolutely shown to apply to everyone, your "bearing experiences" are a direct reflection of your driving style....not a revelation.
Regarding the rpms.....
I'm to the point where I just can't see that making more torque, down low and in the midrange, is going to do anything but break more transmissions and driveline parts. I've not even attempted to put one of my "big" output street engines into a 5 speed car, because there simply hasn't been a "street clutch" adequate to hold the torque. Rob Edwards' engine (very mild) is the most output I "dare" to put in front of a 5 speed, up to this point. Because of the "clutch problems", I've had to "develop" a different clutch for the 5 speed transmissions to even be able to hold the torque that Rob Edwards makes. (Two weeks away, from testing.)
Moving the power range up 800-1000 rpms is going to help, not hurt things.
I'm trying to "move forward" with 928 development....not be 'stuck" 15 years in the past.
......and there's a "almost completed" new intake on my shelf, just about ready for testing....but I can't run it in anything but an automatic, right now.
"There is a method in my madness."
02-20-2012, 01:30 AM
#139
02-20-2012, 02:43 AM
#140
Nordschleife Master
My 5.0L base line isn't a 928, too little hard data, but there is plenty for a 5.0L Mustang and very little credibility for anything more than 350 rwhp for a 5.0L that you can drive on the street or hope to pass smog and thats using heads, intakes, cams, and exhaust that are a bit down the road from current 928 development. Other than Dynojet Hp 280 to 290 rwhp seems like typical Euro hybrid output, maybe 5 to 10% more with some of the more advanced mods, but more then that and it would be nice to see some time slips instead of dyno graphs.
Seems to me the first baby step is crank, rods, cams, valve springs, lifters, plus usual rebuild related parts so picking a size based on cost is kind of too late. Why would you spend that much and not get EXACTLY what you want?
OTOH why go larger than what the stock clutch and 5 spd can handle without constant problems?
Seems to me the first baby step is crank, rods, cams, valve springs, lifters, plus usual rebuild related parts so picking a size based on cost is kind of too late. Why would you spend that much and not get EXACTLY what you want?
OTOH why go larger than what the stock clutch and 5 spd can handle without constant problems?
02-20-2012, 10:45 AM
#141
Captain Obvious
Super User
Super User
02-20-2012, 11:49 AM
#142
Race Director
Mark:
Your "bearing experiences" are somewhat unique. You'd have to be living in a cave not to know this.
What you really need to do is have Mark Anderson drive your car for a weekend. If the bearings survive that, you'll have a bunch more credibility regarding your "lack of doing anything but using Amsoil" approach. Until absolutely shown to apply to everyone, your "bearing experiences" are a direct reflection of your driving style....not a revelation.
Regarding the rpms.....
I'm to the point where I just can't see that making more torque, down low and in the midrange, is going to do anything but break more transmissions and driveline parts. I've not even attempted to put one of my "big" output street engines into a 5 speed car, because there simply hasn't been a "street clutch" adequate to hold the torque. Rob Edwards' engine (very mild) is the most output I "dare" to put in front of a 5 speed, up to this point. Because of the "clutch problems", I've had to "develop" a different clutch for the 5 speed transmissions to even be able to hold the torque that Rob Edwards makes. (Two weeks away, from testing.)
Moving the power range up 800-1000 rpms is going to help, not hurt things.
I'm trying to "move forward" with 928 development....not be 'stuck" 15 years in the past.
......and there's a "almost completed" new intake on my shelf, just about ready for testing....but I can't run it in anything but an automatic, right now.
"There is a method in my madness."
Your "bearing experiences" are somewhat unique. You'd have to be living in a cave not to know this.
What you really need to do is have Mark Anderson drive your car for a weekend. If the bearings survive that, you'll have a bunch more credibility regarding your "lack of doing anything but using Amsoil" approach. Until absolutely shown to apply to everyone, your "bearing experiences" are a direct reflection of your driving style....not a revelation.
Regarding the rpms.....
I'm to the point where I just can't see that making more torque, down low and in the midrange, is going to do anything but break more transmissions and driveline parts. I've not even attempted to put one of my "big" output street engines into a 5 speed car, because there simply hasn't been a "street clutch" adequate to hold the torque. Rob Edwards' engine (very mild) is the most output I "dare" to put in front of a 5 speed, up to this point. Because of the "clutch problems", I've had to "develop" a different clutch for the 5 speed transmissions to even be able to hold the torque that Rob Edwards makes. (Two weeks away, from testing.)
Moving the power range up 800-1000 rpms is going to help, not hurt things.
I'm trying to "move forward" with 928 development....not be 'stuck" 15 years in the past.
......and there's a "almost completed" new intake on my shelf, just about ready for testing....but I can't run it in anything but an automatic, right now.
"There is a method in my madness."
Plus it would be interesting for you to tear down my current 4.7L engine with 76 hours on track on top of the 117k miles in had when I bought it for $300 in 09...
02-20-2012, 11:57 AM
#143
From your last statement, you still have a fundamental misunderstanding of the fuel and it's usage, but we will not discuss this here.
02-20-2012, 01:26 PM
#144
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Stoney Creek, Ont
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi BC, sorry if this takes us down a rat hole...but is there a thread that would explain the misunderstanding? I thought Ethyl Alcohol was only about 70% as efficient as gasoline in terms of btu/gal. My understanding was that ethanol was used in boosted applications because of the reduced tendency for detonation. Is there more to it than that? Just curious not looking for an argument.
02-20-2012, 01:31 PM
#145
Hi BC, sorry if this takes us down a rat hole...but is there a thread that would explain the misunderstanding? I thought Ethyl Alcohol was only about 70% as efficient as gasoline in terms of btu/gal. My understanding was that ethanol was used in boosted applications because of the reduced tendency for detonation. Is there more to it than that? Just curious not looking for an argument.
02-20-2012, 01:59 PM
#146
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
In a purely selfless effort to expand your efforts of 928 development...I will gladly loan my 928 Estate (automatic, rebuilt last year..88S4 with LSD) as a test mule......I'll even deliver it to you to install a killer engine (+brains since mine is L jet) and intake...feel free to install the baddest engine you can think of.....then have Mark Anderson pound on it at Fontana or Willow Springs (might need bigger brakes).....then I'll bring it back home and pound on it at Thunderhill (known 928-944 killer track).....
Plus it would be interesting for you to tear down my current 4.7L engine with 76 hours on track on top of the 117k miles in had when I bought it for $300 in 09...
Plus it would be interesting for you to tear down my current 4.7L engine with 76 hours on track on top of the 117k miles in had when I bought it for $300 in 09...
The US "smog" 4.7 engines were....fairly easy on the bottom end. The 2 cam engines also have an distinct advantage on the track....there is "limited' room in the cam carriers to "hide" oil at higher rpms. Since you related so well to my "gun" analogy...think 38 special.
02-20-2012, 02:02 PM
#147
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
My 5.0L base line isn't a 928, too little hard data, but there is plenty for a 5.0L Mustang and very little credibility for anything more than 350 rwhp for a 5.0L that you can drive on the street or hope to pass smog and thats using heads, intakes, cams, and exhaust that are a bit down the road from current 928 development. Other than Dynojet Hp 280 to 290 rwhp seems like typical Euro hybrid output, maybe 5 to 10% more with some of the more advanced mods, but more then that and it would be nice to see some time slips instead of dyno graphs.
Seems to me the first baby step is crank, rods, cams, valve springs, lifters, plus usual rebuild related parts so picking a size based on cost is kind of too late. Why would you spend that much and not get EXACTLY what you want?
OTOH why go larger than what the stock clutch and 5 spd can handle without constant problems?
Seems to me the first baby step is crank, rods, cams, valve springs, lifters, plus usual rebuild related parts so picking a size based on cost is kind of too late. Why would you spend that much and not get EXACTLY what you want?
OTOH why go larger than what the stock clutch and 5 spd can handle without constant problems?
02-20-2012, 02:19 PM
#148
Hi BC, sorry if this takes us down a rat hole...but is there a thread that would explain the misunderstanding? I thought Ethyl Alcohol was only about 70% as efficient as gasoline in terms of btu/gal. My understanding was that ethanol was used in boosted applications because of the reduced tendency for detonation. Is there more to it than that? Just curious not looking for an argument.
It has, iirc, been discussed a few times. Well.. Discussed and... Argued. Sometimes vehemently. But those discussions are about the mpg, really. And yes - in a non-100% optimized motor-tranaxle package, you will need to inject more ETOH than Petrol to get a certain Mile Per Gallon number. But as I have always held - there are many variables. Many.
In the case that I threw out, a 5L engine that can safely operate up past 7k rpm, the package has changed. With the proper fuel (ETOH/ethanol/e85), you can remove detonation at 13:1 compression or higher. Stick a well designed and (as greg mentions "modern") cam set in there, and you have an engine that hits efficiency at above 4k. With the higher compression, you are gaining MORE efficiency. With the ethanol you can gain power with more timing and more actual combustible material at every combustion process. 5% for just the fuel usage with no other changes. More than 10% for the compression changes. I mentioned ITBs. More efficient breathing at higher rpms. 400 is attainable on the 5L engine and perfectly sane heads. Is it cheap? Of course not.
As greg said - we do not need stump pullers. We are not towing anything and cruising at 2k rpm. I have my 8.1L 2500 Yukon XL for that.
For boost, the added benefits of e85/ethanol become insurmountable for anything else other than C16.
The rush of a large engine with high rpm potential is much more fun than the stump pulling pull of a 2k rpm trans-breaker anyway.
E85 is 85% ethanol and 15% fuel. It does not have as many challenges related to lubricity, etc as 100% (well, 98%) ethanol.
02-20-2012, 03:00 PM
#150
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
If Greg allows this worm/rat-hole, otherwise I will delete.
It has, iirc, been discussed a few times. Well.. Discussed and... Argued. Sometimes vehemently. But those discussions are about the mpg, really. And yes - in a non-100% optimized motor-tranaxle package, you will need to inject more ETOH than Petrol to get a certain Mile Per Gallon number. But as I have always held - there are many variables. Many.
In the case that I threw out, a 5L engine that can safely operate up past 7k rpm, the package has changed. With the proper fuel (ETOH/ethanol/e85), you can remove detonation at 13:1 compression or higher. Stick a well designed and (as greg mentions "modern") cam set in there, and you have an engine that hits efficiency at above 4k. With the higher compression, you are gaining MORE efficiency. With the ethanol you can gain power with more timing and more actual combustible material at every combustion process. 5% for just the fuel usage with no other changes. More than 10% for the compression changes. I mentioned ITBs. More efficient breathing at higher rpms. 400 is attainable on the 5L engine and perfectly sane heads. Is it cheap? Of course not.
As greg said - we do not need stump pullers. We are not towing anything and cruising at 2k rpm. I have my 8.1L 2500 Yukon XL for that.
For boost, the added benefits of e85/ethanol become insurmountable for anything else other than C16.
The rush of a large engine with high rpm potential is much more fun than the stump pulling pull of a 2k rpm trans-breaker anyway.
E85 is 85% ethanol and 15% fuel. It does not have as many challenges related to lubricity, etc as 100% (well, 98%) ethanol.
It has, iirc, been discussed a few times. Well.. Discussed and... Argued. Sometimes vehemently. But those discussions are about the mpg, really. And yes - in a non-100% optimized motor-tranaxle package, you will need to inject more ETOH than Petrol to get a certain Mile Per Gallon number. But as I have always held - there are many variables. Many.
In the case that I threw out, a 5L engine that can safely operate up past 7k rpm, the package has changed. With the proper fuel (ETOH/ethanol/e85), you can remove detonation at 13:1 compression or higher. Stick a well designed and (as greg mentions "modern") cam set in there, and you have an engine that hits efficiency at above 4k. With the higher compression, you are gaining MORE efficiency. With the ethanol you can gain power with more timing and more actual combustible material at every combustion process. 5% for just the fuel usage with no other changes. More than 10% for the compression changes. I mentioned ITBs. More efficient breathing at higher rpms. 400 is attainable on the 5L engine and perfectly sane heads. Is it cheap? Of course not.
As greg said - we do not need stump pullers. We are not towing anything and cruising at 2k rpm. I have my 8.1L 2500 Yukon XL for that.
For boost, the added benefits of e85/ethanol become insurmountable for anything else other than C16.
The rush of a large engine with high rpm potential is much more fun than the stump pulling pull of a 2k rpm trans-breaker anyway.
E85 is 85% ethanol and 15% fuel. It does not have as many challenges related to lubricity, etc as 100% (well, 98%) ethanol.
Interesting information always welcome.