Big cams, OE manifold, way down on power.

[227bhp]

GreenV8S said:

stevieturbo said:

And it seems admin have done it again....

You sure? I assume you're referring to the cat with nine lives. The profile looks the same as normal.

So do his old ones. I don't think there is anything in a profile which says if someone is banned or not does it?
Anyhow, Stevie has a special hotline to him so is probably right; oh bugger

[GreenV8S]

227bhp said:

oh bugger

[227bhp]

Inline__engine said:

227bhp said:

You can't accurately model this manifold that's the biggest issue.

you don't need to in order to work out the cam and exhaust ballpark recommendations, its not a simulation. one of the outputs is the recommended runner lengths.

In any case lets be real the exhaust is way oversize for a 190 bhp engine, its probably good for something 260-280 bhp and something more suitable would drastically improve the driveability of the engine but thats based on the current hp number which is clearly much lower than your expectations.

Having said that its unlikely its the exhaust side costing the top end issues and causing the power plateau (almost constant power 6000-7500) which is almost certainly inlet side related due to a restriction.

i'd be going to a proper ITB setup with a bunch of different trumpet length and remap as one way or another this is the plan anyway. once you've got the inlet working properly then you can revisit the exhaust cam and exhaust depending how close you get to the 250bhp number. what has been done to head in terms of valve jobs, porting etc is the said engine know to have a adequate cylinder head?

The exhaust wasn't sized for a 190bhp engine, 190 is just where i'm stuck at for some reason, it isn't an issue and does not contribute to any driveability issues whatsoever, not that that matters anyhow on a track car.
The head is very capable, much of this is outlined in the first post which contains a lot of info that many have ignored.
PM does ask for manifold specs and does list a variable runner type, but who would have thought a manifold with the choice of 4 long and 4 short would have gone all 8 open at low rpm? It defies conventional thinking.

[227bhp]

stevesingo said:

There is not a lot to revisit here. The engine appears to be either a 2.3 Duratec or 2.3 Mazda L Series. It is a well trodden path with various amatures such as Cosworth and Mountune having a go at improving it. Maybe there is more to give, I don't know.

If this is a learning exercise, then the best lesson is to not reinvent the wheel.

Maybe I should have rung Cosworth up and asked them to spec me an engine for me to build myself? I'm sure they would have obliged
I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here, what is the limit of that incredibly complex manifold? You don't know for sure and no-one else is going to donate info on it for free, but I will know. That's education and it doesn't come easy, nor cheap.
It's a completely new avenue and engine for me, so really I haven't done badly by letting something spec me an exhaust cam with too much duration.

[spitfire4v8]

Boosted LS1 said:

Surely not FFS? If so, when will they learn? We need all the guru's on here, not just the divine ones ;-).

Edited by Boosted LS1 on Monday 13th January 19:08

Does anyone know where dcw might post other than ph ?

[Inline__engine]

227bhp said:

The exhaust wasn't sized for a 190bhp engine, 190 is just where i'm stuck at for some reason, it isn't an issue and does not contribute to any driveability issues whatsoever, not that that matters anyhow on a track car.
The head is very capable, much of this is outlined in the first post which contains a lot of info that many have ignored.
PM does ask for manifold specs and does list a variable runner type, but who would have thought a manifold with the choice of 4 long and 4 short would have gone all 8 open at low rpm? It defies conventional thinking.

Saying the head is ported / excellent is not really a quantitative description. Flow numbers, velocities and areas mean something though.

The different manifold options don’t change the exhaust and cam recommendations anything meaningfully provided you dont choose something out of left field like a dual plane carb. The loss of VE % can be estimated by using the factory engine to correlate other wise 5% wouldnt be too far off something build relatively recently

[227bhp]

Inline__engine said:

Saying the head is ported / excellent is not really a quantitative description. Flow numbers, velocities and areas mean something though.

The different manifold options don’t change the exhaust and cam recommendations anything meaningfully provided you dont choose something out of left field like a dual plane carb. The loss of VE % can be estimated by using the factory engine to correlate other wise 5% wouldnt be too far off something build relatively recently

I have all of that info and am currently putting it into the PM program.
The issue now lies in the manifold, that is the unknown factor now and as far as I can see only putting another ex cam in and putting back on the dyno will see that one put to bed.

Edited by 227bhp on Tuesday 14th January 10:14

[stevieturbo]

227bhp said:

So do his old ones. I don't think there is anything in a profile which says if someone is banned or not does it?
Anyhow, Stevie has a special hotline to him so is probably right; oh bugger

I is right. lol.

I guess the forum is doomed to more questions about why engines wont start, when batteries are flat etc

[spitfire4v8]

who is the mod for this forum ? please explain yourself ..

[Krikkit]

stevieturbo said:

227bhp said:

So do his old ones. I don't think there is anything in a profile which says if someone is banned or not does it?
Anyhow, Stevie has a special hotline to him so is probably right; oh bugger

I is right. lol.

I guess the forum is doomed to more questions about why engines wont start, when batteries are flat etc

Bloody terrible...

[Evoluzione]

spitfire4v8 said:

Boosted LS1 said:

Surely not FFS? If so, when will they learn? We need all the guru's on here, not just the divine ones ;-).

Edited by Boosted LS1 on Monday 13th January 19:08

Does anyone know where dcw might post other than ph ?

spitfire4v8 said:

Does anyone know where dcw might post other than ph ?

Setting up a FB page is the first thing which springs to mind. Not as good as a forum base, but more features than many would realise unless you've run one.

[Inline__engine]

227bhp said:

I have all of that info and am currently putting it into the PM program.
The issue now lies in the manifold, that is the unknown factor now and as far as I can see only putting another ex cam in and putting back on the dyno will see that one put to bed.

Edited by 227bhp on Tuesday 14th January 10:14

i think the manifold is likely the issue. i dont see 30* less ex duration adding 40+bhp at the topend

[stevesingo]

Do you have the ability to measure MAP? Two reasons;

1, Progressively dropping MAP as RPM rises indicates a restriction. I would expect a less than 5kPa drop.

2, Measuring the fluctuations in MAP at low RPM would indicate reversion issues. If you can log it at a high frequency.

The low rpm running I would put down to the inability of the EMS to deal with reversion. Be that MAP for load sensing or MAF.

[227bhp]

stevesingo said:

Do you have the ability to measure MAP? Two reasons;

1, Progressively dropping MAP as RPM rises indicates a restriction. I would expect a less than 5kPa drop.

2, Measuring the fluctuations in MAP at low RPM would indicate reversion issues. If you can log it at a high frequency.

The low rpm running I would put down to the inability of the EMS to deal with reversion. Be that MAP for load sensing or MAF.

Yes it was mentioned in the first post

227bhp said:

Would a smaller cam and less overlap give more peak power and if so, how or why? It's been suggested it would based on measured manifold pressure, this is the bit i'm struggling to understand, as I see it now I've done everything to create a 250bhp engine, but the manifold is strangling it as it's too restrictive and the pipe lengths are wrong. I know separate TBs are the way to go and ultimately that is what it will get once i've been through everything else.

There will be logs of intake pressures via MAP we've logged most things.

Also outlined earlier, for the purposes of this thread we aren't interested in low speed running right now. We know the cams and lack of ITBs are causing issues there, they were always going to, we will address those issues later.
As also said earlier, I want to find out the limits of this manifold as it has a lot of features which are very useful. Comparing what i'm doing with what others have done is utterly useless, the industry is full of bullst, hidden agendas and secrecy, you have to do your own R&D to sort out what is what.

[227bhp]

Inline__engine said:

227bhp said:

I have all of that info and am currently putting it into the PM program.
The issue now lies in the manifold, that is the unknown factor now and as far as I can see only putting another ex cam in and putting back on the dyno will see that one put to bed.

i think the manifold is likely the issue. i dont see 30* less ex duration adding 40+bhp at the topend

That is the reason for the thread yet two experienced people think a cam will help me and others have also reported +25 - 30 more than I currently have with this manifold on a similar engine.

Edited by 227bhp on Wednesday 15th January 15:04

[stevesingo]

227bhp said:

There will be logs of intake pressures via MAP we've logged most things.

Also outlined earlier, for the purposes of this thread we aren't interested in low speed running right now. We know the cams and lack of ITBs are causing issues there, they were always going to, we will address those issues later.
As also said earlier, I want to find out the limits of this manifold as it has a lot of features which are very useful. Comparing what i'm doing with what others have done is utterly useless, the industry is full of bullst, hidden agendas and secrecy, you have to do your own R&D to sort out what is what.

Ref the bolded part, can you explain why you think the lack of ITBs are causing idle/low rpm issues?

[GreenV8S]

stevesingo said:

Ref the bolded part, can you explain why you think the lack of ITBs are causing idle/low rpm issues?

Perhaps in the sense that the cams are causing them and ITBs would resolve them.

[227bhp]

stevesingo said:

227bhp said:

There will be logs of intake pressures via MAP we've logged most things.

Also outlined earlier, for the purposes of this thread we aren't interested in low speed running right now. We know the cams and lack of ITBs are causing issues there, they were always going to, we will address those issues later.
As also said earlier, I want to find out the limits of this manifold as it has a lot of features which are very useful. Comparing what i'm doing with what others have done is utterly useless, the industry is full of bullst, hidden agendas and secrecy, you have to do your own R&D to sort out what is what.

Ref the bolded part, can you explain why you think the lack of ITBs are causing idle/low rpm issues?

You outlined it earlier in the thread that you yourself have a car with large cams and ITBs which idles perfectly. The reason for that (as pointed out earlier) is your ITBs.
Any reversion and also the pulses whether they be intake or exhaust can't get back up the runners and destroy the smooth idle.
Outside of that, would your car pass an MOT on emissions?

[stevesingo]

227bhp said:

You outlined it earlier in the thread that you yourself have a car with large cams and ITBs which idles perfectly. The reason for that (as pointed out earlier) is your ITBs.
Any reversion and also the pulses whether they be intake or exhaust can't get back up the runners and destroy the smooth idle.
Outside of that, would your car pass an MOT on emissions?

You are not explaining why the you think ITBs help low speed running, you are just saying because my engine on long cams with ITBs idles fine, it must be the ITBs. But it may be for other reasons, such as the load reference the ECU is using. What are you ECU are you using and what load reference?

My car passes MOTs just fine.

[227bhp]

GreenV8S said:

stevesingo said:

Ref the bolded part, can you explain why you think the lack of ITBs are causing idle/low rpm issues?

Perhaps in the sense that the cams are causing them and ITBs would resolve them.

stevesingo said:

227bhp said:

You outlined it earlier in the thread that you yourself have a car with large cams and ITBs which idles perfectly. The reason for that (as pointed out earlier) is your ITBs.
Any reversion and also the pulses whether they be intake or exhaust can't get back up the runners and destroy the smooth idle.
Outside of that, would your car pass an MOT on emissions?

You are not explaining why the you think ITBs help low speed running, you are just saying because my engine on long cams with ITBs idles fine, it must be the ITBs. But it may be for other reasons, such as the load reference the ECU is using. What are you ECU are you using and what load reference?

My car passes MOTs just fine.

"Any reversion and also the pulses whether they be intake or exhaust can't get back up the runners and destroy the smooth idle."

It's using the OE ECU. I can't answer the other as it's out of my knowledge base, I just let them get on with it, but can find out if it's relevant..

Edited by 227bhp on Wednesday 15th January 18:50