Norwegian W123 240D with 245 hp
Norwegian W123 240D with 245 hp
01-21-2011, 05:54 AM
#1
![[Image: kr%e5b%f8l4.jpg]](http://home.no/vegardforseth/kr%e5b%f8l4.jpg)
![[Image: 05_01_0.JPEG]](http://home.no/vegardforseth/05_01_0.JPEG)
Turbo pressure 2.5 bar, 245 hp and 397 Nm
Differential from w116 280S, transmission from som 7-series BMW, lowered compression ratio, turbo fram scania DS9, double IC from Fiat(welded together), modified dieselpump, oilinjectors for piston cooling, waterinjection.
Turbo pressure 2.5 bar, 245 hp and 397 Nm
Differential from w116 280S, transmission from som 7-series BMW, lowered compression ratio, turbo fram scania DS9, double IC from Fiat(welded together), modified dieselpump, oilinjectors for piston cooling, waterinjection.
01-21-2011, 11:49 AM
#3
.5 liter short of our cars modified damn good and you don't belive it?
Lower compression, 40psi of boost, etc... Sounds about right to me.
-Jesse
80 300sd hy35, front mount intercooler, w115 intake, rack limiter removed, Alda removed, full load turned up, boost, ebp, trans, pyro, egr delete, 3.5" exhaust, e-fan, 16x8 rims with, 245/50 tires, lowered, bilstien 5100's, 12" front brakes, 2.65:1 diff.
97 f250 psd 4x4, crawler
70 f250 390
83 Volvo 242, lots of mods
66 Volvo amazon
10 mistsubishi fuso service truck.
Hater!!
.5 liter short of our cars modified damn good and you don't belive it?
Lower compression, 40psi of boost, etc... Sounds about right to me.
-Jesse
80 300sd hy35, front mount intercooler, w115 intake, rack limiter removed, Alda removed, full load turned up, boost, ebp, trans, pyro, egr delete, 3.5" exhaust, e-fan, 16x8 rims with, 245/50 tires, lowered, bilstien 5100's, 12" front brakes, 2.65:1 diff.
97 f250 psd 4x4, crawler
70 f250 390
83 Volvo 242, lots of mods
66 Volvo amazon
10 mistsubishi fuso service truck.
01-21-2011, 01:42 PM
#5
Thanks for the translation Bonden
This post was last modified: 01-21-2011, 01:43 PM by casioqv.
-Tyler
1984 Volvo 760GLE Turbo Diesel D24T/M46
1986 Isuzu Trooper Turbo Diesel
No mercedes (for now)
01-21-2011, 03:52 PM
#7
OM605 600hp diesel drag car build with BMW E30 chassis
01-21-2011, 04:34 PM
#8
(01-21-2011, 09:07 AM)OM617a Because I haven't seen a dyno graph. Like any figure, its open to exaggeration or interpretation.Hello Forced,
...
If its "at the crank", take away 35% from the quoted number for drivetrain losses and you have a far more realistic 157hp.
I can draw you a dyno graph. What's so unbelievable about 100hp/l in old diesel, almost any engine can do that with just big turbo and fueling.
You calculated drivetrain losses two times and use such a huge factor for rwd? If it was at the crank, the losses have already been calculated. If it wasn't, you should use a factor closer to 15% for normal manual transmission rwd.
They are 35% in rwd car only for Yankee (muscle) cars
(01-21-2011, 09:07 AM)OM617a Because I haven't seen a dyno graph. Like any figure, its open to exaggeration or interpretation.Hello Forced,
...
If its "at the crank", take away 35% from the quoted number for drivetrain losses and you have a far more realistic 157hp.
I can draw you a dyno graph. What's so unbelievable about 100hp/l in old diesel, almost any engine can do that with just big turbo and fueling.
You calculated drivetrain losses two times and use such a huge factor for rwd? If it was at the crank, the losses have already been calculated. If it wasn't, you should use a factor closer to 15% for normal manual transmission rwd.
They are 35% in rwd car only for Yankee (muscle) cars
01-21-2011, 04:52 PM
#9
(01-21-2011, 04:34 PM)muuris They are 35% in rwd car only for Yankee (muscle) carsIf we used same factor here would be almost 1000hp diesel Mercedes
OM605 600hp diesel drag car build with BMW E30 chassis
(01-21-2011, 04:34 PM)muuris They are 35% in rwd car only for Yankee (muscle) carsIf we used same factor here would be almost 1000hp diesel Mercedes
OM605 600hp diesel drag car build with BMW E30 chassis
01-21-2011, 05:24 PM
#10
1982 300D Turbo ... 3,6xxlbs, No fan, No AC, Hood Stack, No ALDA, No rear bumper and stuffed front, A/W Intercooled, Injectors by Greezer and HUGE Pre-Chambers with help from OM616 & Simpler=Better, Fuel Cranked up, 60 Trim Compressor wheel, EGT, EMP, Boost 50" Rigid Radius bar on roof Aux tank for a total of 48 Gal Of Diesel! Odyssey PC-1750 Battery in trunk, 27"x8.5"/R14 Maxxis BigHorn Mud Terrains, In June '14 issue of Off Road Mag
AX15 Jeep Trans swap in progress....
Captain America
01-21-2011, 05:24 PM #10I love my Yankee!
1982 300D Turbo ... 3,6xxlbs, No fan, No AC, Hood Stack, No ALDA, No rear bumper and stuffed front, A/W Intercooled, Injectors by Greezer and HUGE Pre-Chambers with help from OM616 & Simpler=Better, Fuel Cranked up, 60 Trim Compressor wheel, EGT, EMP, Boost 50" Rigid Radius bar on roof Aux tank for a total of 48 Gal Of Diesel! Odyssey PC-1750 Battery in trunk, 27"x8.5"/R14 Maxxis BigHorn Mud Terrains, In June '14 issue of Off Road Mag
AX15 Jeep Trans swap in progress....
01-21-2011, 05:51 PM
#11
(01-21-2011, 05:34 PM)OM617aSo i have over 700hp on my om605(01-21-2011, 04:34 PM)muuris You calculated drivetrain losses two times and use such a huge factor for rwd?Because thats what it actually is.
Stock; 125hp, 87whp= 30%
Mine 165hp, 115whp= 30%
Okay, I'll happily admit I was 5% off.
OM605 600hp diesel drag car build with BMW E30 chassis
(01-21-2011, 05:34 PM)OM617aSo i have over 700hp on my om605(01-21-2011, 04:34 PM)muuris You calculated drivetrain losses two times and use such a huge factor for rwd?Because thats what it actually is.
Stock; 125hp, 87whp= 30%
Mine 165hp, 115whp= 30%
Okay, I'll happily admit I was 5% off.
OM605 600hp diesel drag car build with BMW E30 chassis
01-21-2011, 08:57 PM
#13
Mr Smartass in cryarado is butthurt.. I have my name in my sig. Your just scared because your a troll and from what I've researched have pissed of alot of people. Don't be surprised if you get gearboxed.
This post was last modified: 01-25-2011, 03:06 AM by dieselboy.
-Jesse
80 300sd hy35, front mount intercooler, w115 intake, rack limiter removed, Alda removed, full load turned up, boost, ebp, trans, pyro, egr delete, 3.5" exhaust, e-fan, 16x8 rims with, 245/50 tires, lowered, bilstien 5100's, 12" front brakes, 2.65:1 diff.
97 f250 psd 4x4, crawler
70 f250 390
83 Volvo 242, lots of mods
66 Volvo amazon
10 mistsubishi fuso service truck.
Ahahaha.
Mr Smartass in cryarado is butthurt.. I have my name in my sig. Your just scared because your a troll and from what I've researched have pissed of alot of people. Don't be surprised if you get gearboxed.
-Jesse
80 300sd hy35, front mount intercooler, w115 intake, rack limiter removed, Alda removed, full load turned up, boost, ebp, trans, pyro, egr delete, 3.5" exhaust, e-fan, 16x8 rims with, 245/50 tires, lowered, bilstien 5100's, 12" front brakes, 2.65:1 diff.
97 f250 psd 4x4, crawler
70 f250 390
83 Volvo 242, lots of mods
66 Volvo amazon
10 mistsubishi fuso service truck.
01-22-2011, 01:46 AM
#14
(01-21-2011, 05:34 PM)OM617a Because thats what it actually is.
Okay, I'll happily admit I was 5% off.
Next you'll tell us a 4wd has 70% losses, right?
I had 360hp at the wheels with the previous 7mm pump, that would make over 500hp at crank. Dyno showed my car had about 10% losses which correlates to about 400hp. Car has been weighed and quarter mile end speed correlates nicely to the 400hp.
You know, drivetrain losses aren't a solid factor. They can be big even in fwd car if the joints are bust, wheel alignment isn't correct, the car is heavily pushed against dyno (for better grip) etc. That's why the losses are measured, not just thrown 30%. That's only for the muscle cars, so they wouldn't be disappointed to the dyno results.
This post was last modified: 01-25-2011, 09:47 AM by winmutt.
(01-21-2011, 05:34 PM)OM617a Because thats what it actually is.
Okay, I'll happily admit I was 5% off.
Next you'll tell us a 4wd has 70% losses, right?
I had 360hp at the wheels with the previous 7mm pump, that would make over 500hp at crank. Dyno showed my car had about 10% losses which correlates to about 400hp. Car has been weighed and quarter mile end speed correlates nicely to the 400hp.
You know, drivetrain losses aren't a solid factor. They can be big even in fwd car if the joints are bust, wheel alignment isn't correct, the car is heavily pushed against dyno (for better grip) etc. That's why the losses are measured, not just thrown 30%. That's only for the muscle cars, so they wouldn't be disappointed to the dyno results.
01-22-2011, 04:03 AM
#15
(01-21-2011, 08:22 PM)garage Thats bad ass!
Is the tranny a 5speed or a 6speed?
I sure wish i could read that article in english! What magazine is that??
In the bottom left corner of the pic it says:
"Norsk-Motorveteran"
There isn't that much interesting stuff in the text, they're telling a short story about that car appearing at some 1/4 mile race where it turned some heads
(01-21-2011, 08:22 PM)garage Thats bad ass!
Is the tranny a 5speed or a 6speed?
I sure wish i could read that article in english! What magazine is that??
In the bottom left corner of the pic it says:
"Norsk-Motorveteran"
There isn't that much interesting stuff in the text, they're telling a short story about that car appearing at some 1/4 mile race where it turned some heads
01-22-2011, 02:05 PM
#16
Drive train loss is more dependent on what is done and what fluids are used! on hot rod magazine TV a few years back they took a Challenger and replaced all of the drive train fluids with synthetic and picked up 20hp on there dyno
As for every one who doesn't like what F.I. has to say ignore what he says stop feeding the flames please!
This post was last modified: 01-22-2011, 02:09 PM by willbhere4u.
1987 300SDL 6spd manual om606.962 swap project
1985 300td euro 5spd wagon running
willbhere4u
01-22-2011, 02:05 PM #16I worked on a an 07 Miata it dynod at 140 RWHP we dismantled the trans and rear diff and sent out all of the gears and bearing for friction reducing coating's when reassembled with synthetic racing fluids it made 180 RWHP
Drive train loss is more dependent on what is done and what fluids are used! on hot rod magazine TV a few years back they took a Challenger and replaced all of the drive train fluids with synthetic and picked up 20hp on there dyno
As for every one who doesn't like what F.I. has to say ignore what he says stop feeding the flames please!
1987 300SDL 6spd manual om606.962 swap project
1985 300td euro 5spd wagon running
01-23-2011, 10:57 AM
#19
Quote:Don't be surprised if you get gearboxed.And what exactly would that prove? That somebody is stupid enough to get within range of a 12ga? Yeah, go for it. At the least I can get a few bucks at RMR for it.
(01-22-2011, 01:46 AM)muuris Next you'll tell us a 4wd has 70% losses, right?No, 4wd is closer to 40% depending on the tire type.
Quote:Dyno showed my car had about 10% losses
Please, show us your engine dyno compered to your chassis dyno.
Quote:How much heat will your transmission and final drive produce?The fact that the transmission requires a cooler should suggest it produces quite a bit of heat, especially the torque converter. The diff is easily air cooled since its at its highest heat production at highway speeds, though some have integral fins on the back cover for added cooling.
This post was last modified: 01-25-2011, 09:47 AM by winmutt.
ForcedInduction
01-23-2011, 10:57 AM
#19
Quote:Don't be surprised if you get gearboxed.And what exactly would that prove? That somebody is stupid enough to get within range of a 12ga? Yeah, go for it. At the least I can get a few bucks at RMR for it.
(01-22-2011, 01:46 AM)muuris Next you'll tell us a 4wd has 70% losses, right?No, 4wd is closer to 40% depending on the tire type.
Quote:Dyno showed my car had about 10% losses
Please, show us your engine dyno compered to your chassis dyno.
Quote:How much heat will your transmission and final drive produce?The fact that the transmission requires a cooler should suggest it produces quite a bit of heat, especially the torque converter. The diff is easily air cooled since its at its highest heat production at highway speeds, though some have integral fins on the back cover for added cooling.
01-29-2011, 08:13 AM
#20
I personally think 245HP out of a 616 engine is surely possible. Do all the right stuff (nitrided crank, ARPs everywhere, maybe custom rods, ceramic everywhere, squirters, elements & injectors, a bit of lightening of the rotating assembly, big/compound turbos, custom intake & exhaust manifolds, intercooler, custom pistons, prechamber mods, etc...) & it should survive. OK, on the 400HPvideo we have all seen, that comes out to 133.33333333... HP per liter. a 616 engine at that power would be 320HP. So, with all of the above, I think he can do more boost & fuel to get more HP than what is in the article without grenading. The math is simple & irrefutible.
We don't even know if it might be a billet crank/rods. To just say "Impossible" is wrong.
As an example, http://turbobyholset.com/gregs-ford-mustang-svo-dyno/
1986 Ford Mustang SVO 2.3L 4 cylinder 8 valve iron block/head, Holset HX35W turbo, ported head, custom turbo manifold, custom Spearco intercooler. Running 22psi, 290rwhp/322rwtq (on a mustang dyno).
If a gas engine of the same vintage can do it WITH the torque numbers there, surely a well modded 2.4 liter Diesel can do it.
Ed
yankneck696
01-29-2011, 08:13 AM #20Back on subject...
I personally think 245HP out of a 616 engine is surely possible. Do all the right stuff (nitrided crank, ARPs everywhere, maybe custom rods, ceramic everywhere, squirters, elements & injectors, a bit of lightening of the rotating assembly, big/compound turbos, custom intake & exhaust manifolds, intercooler, custom pistons, prechamber mods, etc...) & it should survive. OK, on the 400HPvideo we have all seen, that comes out to 133.33333333... HP per liter. a 616 engine at that power would be 320HP. So, with all of the above, I think he can do more boost & fuel to get more HP than what is in the article without grenading. The math is simple & irrefutible.
We don't even know if it might be a billet crank/rods. To just say "Impossible" is wrong.
As an example, http://turbobyholset.com/gregs-ford-mustang-svo-dyno/
1986 Ford Mustang SVO 2.3L 4 cylinder 8 valve iron block/head, Holset HX35W turbo, ported head, custom turbo manifold, custom Spearco intercooler. Running 22psi, 290rwhp/322rwtq (on a mustang dyno).
If a gas engine of the same vintage can do it WITH the torque numbers there, surely a well modded 2.4 liter Diesel can do it.
Ed
01-29-2011, 08:43 AM
#21
(01-29-2011, 08:13 AM)yankneck696 If a gas engine of the same vintage can do it WITH the torque numbers there, surely a well modded 2.4 liter Diesel can do it.No, the two engines are not even remotely related.
G@s engines produce significantly more HP/L due to their ability to revv very high which reduces the torque needed to produce the number.
This post was last modified: 01-29-2011, 08:43 AM by ForcedInduction.
ForcedInduction
01-29-2011, 08:43 AM
#21
(01-29-2011, 08:13 AM)yankneck696 If a gas engine of the same vintage can do it WITH the torque numbers there, surely a well modded 2.4 liter Diesel can do it.No, the two engines are not even remotely related.
G@s engines produce significantly more HP/L due to their ability to revv very high which reduces the torque needed to produce the number.
01-29-2011, 08:47 AM
#22
(01-29-2011, 08:43 AM)ForcedInductionFunny, I thought it was the flame front of gas over diesel that allowed for more HP/L even though diesel has more energy per unit.(01-29-2011, 08:13 AM)yankneck696 If a gas engine of the same vintage can do it WITH the torque numbers there, surely a well modded 2.4 liter Diesel can do it.No, the two engines are not even remotely related.
G@s engines produce significantly more HP/L due to their ability to revv very high which reduces the torque needed to produce the number.
1987 300D Sturmmachine
1991 300D Nearly Perfect
1985 300D Weekend/Camping/Dog car
1974 L508D Motoroam Monarch "NightMare"
OBK #42
(01-29-2011, 08:43 AM)ForcedInductionFunny, I thought it was the flame front of gas over diesel that allowed for more HP/L even though diesel has more energy per unit.(01-29-2011, 08:13 AM)yankneck696 If a gas engine of the same vintage can do it WITH the torque numbers there, surely a well modded 2.4 liter Diesel can do it.No, the two engines are not even remotely related.
G@s engines produce significantly more HP/L due to their ability to revv very high which reduces the torque needed to produce the number.
1987 300D Sturmmachine
1991 300D Nearly Perfect
1985 300D Weekend/Camping/Dog car
1974 L508D Motoroam Monarch "NightMare"
OBK #42
01-29-2011, 08:50 AM
#23
G@s engines produce significantly more HP/L due to their ability to revv very high which reduces the torque needed to produce the number.>>
Would it be possible (with billet crank, rods & a gun drilled cam) thereby reducing reciprocating massthat the 240 engine can rev a bit higher than usual?
What about the simple math of HP per liter? I would like to hear your opinion about that. How come the 3.0 can do 133 per liter before grenading & the 2.4 cannot do aproximately 100 HP per liter? It is actually safer than the exploded engine.
Ed
yankneck696
01-29-2011, 08:50 AM #23<<No, the two engines are not even remotely related.
G@s engines produce significantly more HP/L due to their ability to revv very high which reduces the torque needed to produce the number.>>
Would it be possible (with billet crank, rods & a gun drilled cam) thereby reducing reciprocating massthat the 240 engine can rev a bit higher than usual?
What about the simple math of HP per liter? I would like to hear your opinion about that. How come the 3.0 can do 133 per liter before grenading & the 2.4 cannot do aproximately 100 HP per liter? It is actually safer than the exploded engine.
Ed
01-29-2011, 09:31 AM
#24
(01-29-2011, 08:47 AM)winmutt Funny, I thought it was the flame front of gas over diesel that allowed for more HP/L even though diesel has more energy per unit.
Gas engines have lower energy in their combustion, thats why they need more of them (RPM) to make power since horsepower is just a representative math number for torque over time.
Quote:Would it be possible (with billet crank, rods & a gun drilled cam) thereby reducing reciprocating massthat the 240 engine can rev a bit higher than usual?Mass isn't the problem, its piston velocity. If you want to revv high you need to reduce the stroke. Thats why torque monster engines like the Cummins 5.9 have a low RPM, it has a stroke 17% larger than the bore diameter (oversquare) compared to a 61x's 1.7%. Or a Cummins ISX that revvs out at 2500rpm, 23% oversquare. Or the Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96-C (worlds largest engine) that revvs out at 102rpm, 60% oversquare.
Comparatively, the Honda S2000 has a 5% shorter stroke than the bore diameter (undersquare) and the Kawasaki Ninja 400R has a 33% shorter stroke which allows them to revv very high. In contrast to the Wärtsilä-Sulzer, an F1 engine can revv to 21,000rpm, they're 47% undersquare.
I think thats enough examples.....
Here is a piston speed calculator.
http://www.csgnetwork.com/pistonspeedcalc.html
Note that a 5.9 Cummins at its 3200rpm redline and a 15.0L Cummins ISX at 2500rpm have nearly the same piston speed as a 61x at 4800rpm! (14meters per second)
Quote:What about the simple math of HP per liter? I would like to hear your opinion about that.For similar engine types its a decent gauge of relative performance. When you get into extremes like comparing a Cummins to a Kawasaki though, it gets a bit "unscientific".
Quote:How come the 3.0 can do 133 per liter before grenading & the 2.4 cannot do aproximately 100 HP per liter?Displacement is not the issue. The 616 is not strong internally like the 617a.
Given how much MB beefed up the 617a, I'm surprised the 616 even made it to 100hp/l without bending a rod or breaking the crank.
This post was last modified: 01-29-2011, 09:44 AM by ForcedInduction.
ForcedInduction
01-29-2011, 09:31 AM
#24
(01-29-2011, 08:47 AM)winmutt Funny, I thought it was the flame front of gas over diesel that allowed for more HP/L even though diesel has more energy per unit.
Gas engines have lower energy in their combustion, thats why they need more of them (RPM) to make power since horsepower is just a representative math number for torque over time.
Quote:Would it be possible (with billet crank, rods & a gun drilled cam) thereby reducing reciprocating massthat the 240 engine can rev a bit higher than usual?Mass isn't the problem, its piston velocity. If you want to revv high you need to reduce the stroke. Thats why torque monster engines like the Cummins 5.9 have a low RPM, it has a stroke 17% larger than the bore diameter (oversquare) compared to a 61x's 1.7%. Or a Cummins ISX that revvs out at 2500rpm, 23% oversquare. Or the Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96-C (worlds largest engine) that revvs out at 102rpm, 60% oversquare.
Comparatively, the Honda S2000 has a 5% shorter stroke than the bore diameter (undersquare) and the Kawasaki Ninja 400R has a 33% shorter stroke which allows them to revv very high. In contrast to the Wärtsilä-Sulzer, an F1 engine can revv to 21,000rpm, they're 47% undersquare.
I think thats enough examples.....
Here is a piston speed calculator.
http://www.csgnetwork.com/pistonspeedcalc.html
Note that a 5.9 Cummins at its 3200rpm redline and a 15.0L Cummins ISX at 2500rpm have nearly the same piston speed as a 61x at 4800rpm! (14meters per second)
Quote:What about the simple math of HP per liter? I would like to hear your opinion about that.For similar engine types its a decent gauge of relative performance. When you get into extremes like comparing a Cummins to a Kawasaki though, it gets a bit "unscientific".
Quote:How come the 3.0 can do 133 per liter before grenading & the 2.4 cannot do aproximately 100 HP per liter?Displacement is not the issue. The 616 is not strong internally like the 617a.
Given how much MB beefed up the 617a, I'm surprised the 616 even made it to 100hp/l without bending a rod or breaking the crank.
01-29-2011, 09:48 AM
#25
I am comparing a 240 to a 300. No cummins or ricers.
<<Displacement is not the issue. The 616 is not strong internally like the 617a.>>
Again, with a nitrided or billet crank, billet rods, ARPs everywhere, it would be as strong, or possibly stronger. Am I correct on that? Common sense would say so.
<<Mass isn't the problem, its piston velocity. If you want to revv high you need to reduce the stroke.>>
The 3.0 & 2.4 do have the same stroke, right? Also, when it comes to getting RPMs, the drag racers lighten up all of the reciprocating assembly to gain RPMs, right? It also frees up horsepower/torque as the combustion does not have to rotate the extra mass.
Ed
This post was last modified: 01-29-2011, 09:52 AM by yankneck696.
yankneck696
01-29-2011, 09:48 AM #25<<For similar engine types its a decent gauge of relative performance. When you get into extremes like comparing a Cummins to a Kawasaki though, it gets a bit "unscientific".>>
I am comparing a 240 to a 300. No cummins or ricers.
<<Displacement is not the issue. The 616 is not strong internally like the 617a.>>
Again, with a nitrided or billet crank, billet rods, ARPs everywhere, it would be as strong, or possibly stronger. Am I correct on that? Common sense would say so.
<<Mass isn't the problem, its piston velocity. If you want to revv high you need to reduce the stroke.>>
The 3.0 & 2.4 do have the same stroke, right? Also, when it comes to getting RPMs, the drag racers lighten up all of the reciprocating assembly to gain RPMs, right? It also frees up horsepower/torque as the combustion does not have to rotate the extra mass.
Ed
01-30-2011, 10:55 PM
#26
(01-29-2011, 09:48 AM)yankneck696 Again, with a nitrided or billet crank, billet rods, ARPs everywhere, it would be as strong, or possibly stronger. Am I correct on that? Common sense would say so.Yes but such extreme would be completely pointless since you could get a stock 617a for the cost of ARP studs alone.
Quote:The 3.0 & 2.4 do have the same stroke, right? Also, when it comes to getting RPMs, the drag racers lighten up all of the reciprocating assembly to gain RPMs, right?No. Lightening mass only reduces internal power consumption and allows it to revv to maximum speed quicker, RPM is still limited by the flame front speed (piston velocity).
This post was last modified: 01-30-2011, 10:57 PM by ForcedInduction.
ForcedInduction
01-30-2011, 10:55 PM
#26
(01-29-2011, 09:48 AM)yankneck696 Again, with a nitrided or billet crank, billet rods, ARPs everywhere, it would be as strong, or possibly stronger. Am I correct on that? Common sense would say so.Yes but such extreme would be completely pointless since you could get a stock 617a for the cost of ARP studs alone.
Quote:The 3.0 & 2.4 do have the same stroke, right? Also, when it comes to getting RPMs, the drag racers lighten up all of the reciprocating assembly to gain RPMs, right?No. Lightening mass only reduces internal power consumption and allows it to revv to maximum speed quicker, RPM is still limited by the flame front speed (piston velocity).
01-31-2011, 06:38 AM
#27
(01-30-2011, 10:55 PM)ForcedInduction(01-29-2011, 09:48 AM)yankneck696 Again, with a nitrided or billet crank, billet rods, ARPs everywhere, it would be as strong, or possibly stronger. Am I correct on that? Common sense would say so.Yes but such extreme would be completely pointless since you could get a stock 617a for the cost of ARP studs alone.
People have done crazier things for less reason.
Quote:The 3.0 & 2.4 do have the same stroke, right? Also, when it comes to getting RPMs, the drag racers lighten up all of the reciprocating assembly to gain RPMs, right?No. Lightening mass only reduces internal power consumption and allows it to revv to maximum speed quicker, RPM is still limited by the flame front speed (piston velocity).
I thought it was the stroke as bore... Now, I'm confused
yankneck696
01-31-2011, 06:38 AM #27(01-30-2011, 10:55 PM)ForcedInduction(01-29-2011, 09:48 AM)yankneck696 Again, with a nitrided or billet crank, billet rods, ARPs everywhere, it would be as strong, or possibly stronger. Am I correct on that? Common sense would say so.Yes but such extreme would be completely pointless since you could get a stock 617a for the cost of ARP studs alone.
People have done crazier things for less reason.
Quote:The 3.0 & 2.4 do have the same stroke, right? Also, when it comes to getting RPMs, the drag racers lighten up all of the reciprocating assembly to gain RPMs, right?No. Lightening mass only reduces internal power consumption and allows it to revv to maximum speed quicker, RPM is still limited by the flame front speed (piston velocity).
I thought it was the stroke as bore... Now, I'm confused
01-31-2011, 09:01 AM
#28
That why Finns like Jeemu can't get any more power above 6000-someodd rpm, combustion can't keep up. The only option to go higher is to make "anti-stroker" crank and rods.
This post was last modified: 01-31-2011, 09:03 AM by ForcedInduction.
ForcedInduction
01-31-2011, 09:01 AM
#28
Stroke is what determines piston speed, flame front velocity is what determines maximum rpm no matter the stroke.
That why Finns like Jeemu can't get any more power above 6000-someodd rpm, combustion can't keep up. The only option to go higher is to make "anti-stroker" crank and rods.
Users browsing this thread:
12 Guest(s)
12 Guest(s)
Users browsing this thread:
12 Guest(s)
12 Guest(s)