4 Valves per cylinder ?
Discussion
FarmyardPants said:
Thanks, very interesting. That guy certainly knows his onions. I remember reading his articles in Fast Car 25 years ago (blimey).
IMO the AJP is already quite a 'cammy' engine (max torque @ >5krpm, max power @ >7krpm), I'm not sure that regular 4v heads would do it many favours in the drivability stakes. Although a 4.7 with Vizard heads would be an interesting proposition
Agreed it is a cammy engine, but with a 4v setup you'd not need to go for such a wild cam and you could achieve the flow needed for higher rpm power too. IMO the AJP is already quite a 'cammy' engine (max torque @ >5krpm, max power @ >7krpm), I'm not sure that regular 4v heads would do it many favours in the drivability stakes. Although a 4.7 with Vizard heads would be an interesting proposition
DonkeyApple said:
The problem with these articles is that they are actually advertorials for their product so 'information' is at huge risk of being skewed. Was an interesting read though but context is important.
It was one of the few 2v versus 4v articles I could find out there and DV sells information rather than any one product. Steve_T said:
It was one of the few 2v versus 4v articles I could find out there and DV sells information rather than any one product.
The first couple of pages are interesting but the whole article is an advert for a product so those first couple of pages will not be honest per SE but cherry picked to assist in the sales process. 450Nick said:
Steve_T said:
Agreed it is a cammy engine, but with a 4v setup you'd not need to go for such a wild cam and you could achieve the flow needed for higher rpm power too.
Not only that, but 4 smaller valves = less mass moving about = higher revs. I don't know, if you run a balanced steel crank, h beam rods and decent bearings then I would have thought that it should remain strong beyond 6/7k. Surely with a heavy valve train you end up running into problems with the valve springs not being able to control the valve's inertia. Increasing the spring rate then puts more strain on the cam and followers.
450Nick said:
I don't know, if you run a balanced steel crank, h beam rods and decent bearings then I would have thought that it should remain strong beyond 6/7k. Surely with a heavy valve train you end up running into problems with the valve springs not being able to control the valve's inertia. Increasing the spring rate then puts more strain on the cam and followers.
Exactly - it's both. Top and bottom ends need to be light and strong (and balanced) to take the revs, which are needed if you want to make full use of the increased valve area of the 32v heads.When is the first engine due for the dyno?
Edited by dom9 on Wednesday 24th October 21:30
There are some flow figures from a standard and mildly ported Coyote head here: http://store.jpcracing.com/COYOTE-RGRJPC-CNC-Stage...
412bhp from a 5.0 production engine is impressive when you take into account all the intake/ exhaust noise/ emission gear.
I'm guessing, even with standard cams, around 450bhp is possible by de-bottlenecking (ITBs?) and re-mapping. So, the flow potential would seem to be there.
Interesting article on upgrading the Coyote here, more for what's available and some more flow numbers (though pressure is missing): http://www.musclemustangfastfords.com/projectcars/...
412bhp from a 5.0 production engine is impressive when you take into account all the intake/ exhaust noise/ emission gear.
I'm guessing, even with standard cams, around 450bhp is possible by de-bottlenecking (ITBs?) and re-mapping. So, the flow potential would seem to be there.
Interesting article on upgrading the Coyote here, more for what's available and some more flow numbers (though pressure is missing): http://www.musclemustangfastfords.com/projectcars/...
spitfire4v8 said:
I thought an engine had already run? or is this the first? is this all smoke and mirrors? Is bionicjim really dave davies? are the ford heads really any good? oo it's like an episode of dallas with extra oil.
The words that come to mind...Marketing, aspiration, potential, unproven, risk... Shove one in mike Saunders car and show me the actual graphs and I'll have one.
wadsapple said:
Why So negative about a project that is obviously intersting to discuss on here.I didn,t see anywhere that it was stated it was surposed to be a comercial project,why can,t it be about a couple of chaps having a go at sorting somethink that hasn,t been done before.
Well said Perry! PH does seem to have a tendancy to resist change and pick holes in people trying new things. I guess the only way around it is to not post anything up here until you have a tried, tested and proven idea - which would make PH a pretty boring place - although I think even then you'd have people talking crap. I for one love to see things like this on PH, its far more interesting than people asking what exhaust they should buy or what's the cheapest insurance they can find. This is a great looking project and I will be keeping a very close eye on the results you produce in testing
Gazzab said:
spitfire4v8 said:
I thought an engine had already run? or is this the first? is this all smoke and mirrors? Is bionicjim really dave davies? are the ford heads really any good? oo it's like an episode of dallas with extra oil.
The words that come to mind...Marketing, aspiration, potential, unproven, risk... Shove one in mike Saunders car and show me the actual graphs and I'll have one.
spitfire4v8 said:
It can! If it makes good power it will be brilliant. But even if it only makes a bit more power its still an interesting project. I for one am pleased people do stuff like this
Totally agree. I don't see much negativity. Everyone wants this to be a winner. Get it running and all the questions will change to 'how can I get one'?
Gassing Station | Cerbera | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff