Building a 10,000 rpm NA engine.

[stevek]

I know that you guys are way ahead of me on the project and with all your knowledge, but I've built a few Rover V8 engines and made an oil pump priming tool - sort of dummy distributor drive which can be turned with a drill. First time I used it, admittedly with 20w50 oil, my 240v drill burned out! I could not believe how much stress the drive gears must be under with cold oil. Cured me from revving cold engines though.

[Dessertrunner]

Good point I think we need to know how much power the oil pump will consume when matching the max revs. You can be sure at 10k if th epump goes the engine will distroy its self.

Have this idea in the back of my head that I may build up a rig with the engine being driven by a electric motor and running it under VSD up to the 10,000 rpm. It will help tell and number of factors before going to fuel power.
Tony

[Dessertrunner]

A calc,
Please jump in if I am wrong,

A EG33 will use 1.65l of air for ever rev ( 4 stroke)
there for at 10,000 rpm the engine will use 16,500 litres of air per mim.
The expert tells us that this converts to 19.272 kg's per minute or 1,156 kg per hour. If we then assume maxium efficiency of 130% then the amount of air the engine will need per hour is 1,502 kg per hour.

Okay were is this all heading well I will tell you.
If I use a Bosch airflow meter the maxium size they make is 1,000 kg per hour so in short I will have to use one on each bank.

See doc.
http://www.bosch.com.au/content/lang...rs_airmass.pdf

So why would I use MAF units, according to the expert they are accurate to with in 3% so in developing cams, intakes etc it is important to understand how much air is getting into to engine at a given rev range. In this way the data can be used to calculate the efficency over given rev range.

Here is a wild number at 10k the engine should develop around 340kW and that is only acheiving the same power per rev of the standard engine.

Have a great day.
Tony

[Tapani]

Originally Posted by Dessertrunner

Here is a wild number at 10k the engine should develop around 340kW and that is only acheiving the same power per rev of the standard engine.

Have a great day.
Tony

130% VE @ 10.000 rpm?

The peak torque of very few current bike engines exceeds 100Nm per litre in real life - this equals to over 100% VE. Power = torque x rpm. If you'd have 330Nm across the rev range in the EG33 you would have 250hp @ 5400 rpm (we have 230hp), 348hp @ 7500 rpm and 464hp @ 10000 rpm (real close to your 340kW).

I would be surprised if the EG33 set up can be developed to produce modern "bike engine" VE figures at said rev range.

Tapani

[Dessertrunner]

Hi Tapani,
The VE of 130 was only in light of airflow maxium to decide on the Bosch units to use.

The power was just double what the current engine develops at 5k rpm.

That all said I would agree with you about not being able to match the bike motors. It would be good to hear what Harvey has to say about this.
Tony

[oab_au]

I think you would need a blower to get a VE of 130%. If you can get to 115% you are doing well.

If you compare the cylinders of the EG33 and the Ducati 1098, that are the same capacity.
The EG33 550cc cylinder gets 38.3hp at 5600 , and 38 ft-lbs at 4800.
The Ducati 550cc cylinder gets 58.5hp at 10000, and 39 ft-lbs at 9500.

The other important thing is the Ducati has a 63.5mm stroke, the EG33, 75mm. stroke.

Harvey.

[Tapani]

Yes, but to move the torque peak to 10000 from 4800 and keeping the peak value the same is a challenge (while keeping the stock basic set up) ! This means achieving the best result the major OEMs have reached today (in bike engines). Further, the strong low and midrange will be lost (or redefined to say the least ).

Harveys point also shows how well developed the EG33 really is. Force feeding / increasing the capacity is the only way to increase the torque. No room for improvement in practice (but to move the torque curve to higher revs, exactly what you are doing).

Tapani

[Dessertrunner]

Okay Harvey I admit it I stuffed up it should have been 115% VE.

Well main part of dry sump is finished machining, here it is fresh off the mill.
It weights in at 3kg (started at 8k) so I maybe able to cut a further 1 kg off it but I am scared that hanging the pump off maybe a issue if I lighten it to much.

Now to make the plate for the pump mount as well.
Tony

[Dessertrunner]

So Harvey & Tapani if I understand your point correctly then anyone changing the cams etc with the existing engine isn't going to gain anything, or at least only gain a little.
Tony

[oab_au]

Originally Posted by Dessertrunner

So Harvey & Tapani if I understand your point correctly then anyone changing the cams etc with the existing engine isn't going to gain anything, or at least only gain a little.
Tony

No mate, its just that 10000 rpm is safer with a shorter stroke.

The engine will go to 10000 ok, but it will need a lot of resonate tuning to make the torque at those rpms. So it will have to have very short inlet tracts, a bit like the first set, so a MAP sensor would have to do.

Harvey.

[Dessertrunner]

Harvey I ment the guys like Matt who are changing the cams etc and running the engine around 5k. Does your simulator show that any power can be gained on the standard engine at standard revs?
Tony

[oab_au]

Originally Posted by Dessertrunner

Harvey I ment the guys like Matt who are changing the cams etc and running the engine around 5k. Does your simulator show that any power can be gained on the standard engine at standard revs?
Tony

I have been looking at it for a number of years now and the only conclusion I can come to, without taking to torque peak to a higher rpm, is
that the engine is almost fully developed as it is.

Other than fuel and ignition tuning, valve lift is all that can help to give the torque curve a bit more pork. The original inlet cam that we worked out back in 2005, is still the best result for the standard engine's performance. That cam had 8mm lift, 8.75 (which is the max for the standard hydraulics) would be the better. The cam can be retarded 10* to help stretch the torque up the range a bit, but for the standard inlet manifold, 240* duration is best to keep the Inertia system working.

Harvey.

[Tapani]

If you move the torque peak to higher revs you will loose more down low than what you gain high up - just a rule of thumb. You will transform the engine character.

Anyone who has driven the 3.0R engine has felt it. It has more power higher up than the EG33 - but feels lame down low. Different approach. With the extra taaaall gearing and the 5EAT I find it annoying in the Outback at times :-)

If you have an application in which you push the engine high up (above 5k)more than spend in the mid range - you're on the right track !

Tapani

[Dessertrunner]

Originally Posted by oab_au

I have been looking at it for a number of years now and the only conclusion I can come to, without taking to torque peak to a higher rpm, is
that the engine is almost fully developed as it is.

Other than fuel and ignition tuning, valve lift is all that can help to give the torque curve a bit more pork. The original inlet cam that we worked out back in 2005, is still the best result for the standard engine's performance. That cam had 8mm lift, 8.75 (which is the max for the standard hydraulics) would be the better. The cam can be retarded 10* to help stretch the torque up the range a bit, but for the standard inlet manifold, 240* duration is best to keep the Inertia system working.

Harvey.

Well Harvey don't keep me in the dark, when you ran all these different options what was the best power you managed to develop in simulation?

Tony

[oab_au]

Originally Posted by Dessertrunner

Well Harvey don't keep me in the dark, when you ran all these different options what was the best power you managed to develop in simulation?

Tony

That would have been the one for Bill "SVXride". 257* inlet and exhaust at 8.75 lift. Don't remember what the numbers were, Bill might. I remember doing the same simulation with the inlet tracts shortened to raise the resonate peak, and told him what it was, a fair bit higher.
Bill do you still have the numbers?

Harvey.