Tuning the EG33 While Keeping it N/A- Part II

[drivemusicnow]

So on my way back from Michigan tonight i stopped by my machinist's workshop. He is the person i'm having do all the work for my eclipse motor, and is probably one of the best machinists in the country, or at least that I know of. His work is meticulous, and hes willing to go through everything with you, getting as technical as you'd like. He is a Machinist by trade, however in all reality, hes more of an engine builder who does his own machining.

He does high performance work basically because its fun to him, and he does dealership and other work because it pays the bills.
Well i happened to notice a "geniune subaru parts" box (actually have my old pistons in it right now haha) and asked if he did subaru work. he said that yes, the subie dealer sends any machining to him. Soo, I brought up this little thread. He basically said that he would be willing to work on the EG33 as long as there is no time requirement. Hes busy as hell all the time, and barely has time to do the work he accepts right now, and couldn't possibly do this "side project" under a strict time deadline.

It would be an expensive project, however he would be very open with whatever results/processes etc that he comes up with.

I can't stress how much of a professional this man is. His work is incredible, prices fair, however when you do the type of work he does, things get expensive. If anyone is serious about truly going through with this... He'd be a good option.

[SilverSpear]

Originally Posted by oab_au

Danny the valves won't hit the pistons with the extra 1mm lift. They could have more lift than that, and still not hit the piston, while the engine is running. The only time that they could hit is if the timing belt should break. If the belt is replaced at the normal time, you won't have any worries.

Harvey.

Harvey what i wanted to know, does the valves hit the pistons in case the timing belt breaks, on a STOCK ENGINE?? or only if there is that 1.00mm more lift?

Originally Posted by drivemusicnow

So on my way back from Michigan tonight i stopped by my machinist's workshop. He is the person i'm having do all the work for my eclipse motor, and is probably one of the best machinists in the country, or at least that I know of. His work is meticulous, and hes willing to go through everything with you, getting as technical as you'd like. He is a Machinist by trade, however in all reality, hes more of an engine builder who does his own machining.

He does high performance work basically because its fun to him, and he does dealership and other work because it pays the bills.
Well i happened to notice a "geniune subaru parts" box (actually have my old pistons in it right now haha) and asked if he did subaru work. he said that yes, the subie dealer sends any machining to him. Soo, I brought up this little thread. He basically said that he would be willing to work on the EG33 as long as there is no time requirement. Hes busy as hell all the time, and barely has time to do the work he accepts right now, and couldn't possibly do this "side project" under a strict time deadline.

It would be an expensive project, however he would be very open with whatever results/processes etc that he comes up with.

I can't stress how much of a professional this man is. His work is incredible, prices fair, however when you do the type of work he does, things get expensive. If anyone is serious about truly going through with this... He'd be a good option.

Hmmm, following your reply, can you forecast a $$$ figure for his work?
Does he have a dyno?

[oab_au]

Danny the valves won't hit the pistons if the belt breaks, on a stock engine. We don't know for sure yet, if the extra 1mm will make it hit if the belt breaks, nobody has checked it yet.

On the WRX, if the belt breaks, it can tangle the valves together, then the piston will smash them into the head. You don't hear too many WRX drivers saying that, they are worried about breaking a belt.

Harvey.

[Chiketkd]

Originally Posted by oab_au

You don't hear too many WRX drivers saying that, they are worried about breaking a belt.

Very true. I have yet to find a single incident of that occuring on either clubwrx.net or nasioc - and some members have well over 100K miles and have not changed their timing belts!

-Chike

[SilverSpear]

Originally Posted by oab_au

Danny the valves won't hit the pistons if the belt breaks, on a stock engine. We don't know for sure yet, if the extra 1mm will make it hit if the belt breaks, nobody has checked it yet.

Harvey i need to ask you something, check this picture out:



My point is to order pistons having lower surface on the level of the valves caving where the red arrows are. Speaking of a lift of cams of 1.00mm is related to a lower caving of 1.00mm, which will keep the non-interfierent aspect of the engine.
In this respect, the engine’s compression will be lower, the compensate or even increase this compression, I will higher the surface on the level of the blue arrows…while I keep the rods stock dimensions.

Feasible? or am i talking nonsense?

[SilverSpear]

Originally Posted by deruvian

And I highly agree with the fact that you should get a second engine. It may be tough to find, but there has GOT to be one in the entirety of the middle east... I mean, it's a rare car, but c'mon. You're on the largest land mass on this planet.

G'luck!

Garrett, 90% of the middle east is desert… and Lebanon has approx 40-45 SVX’s … the most country in this area!!!
In the worst case scenarios, I will just put an STI core…

[oab_au]

Originally Posted by SilverSpear

Harvey i need to ask you something, check this picture out:



My point is to order pistons having lower surface on the level of the valves caving where the red arrows are. Speaking of a lift of cams of 1.00mm is related to a lower caving of 1.00mm, which will keep the non-interfierent aspect of the engine.
In this respect, the engine’s compression will be lower, the compensate or even increase this compression, I will higher the surface on the level of the blue arrows…while I keep the rods stock dimensions.

Feasible? or am i talking nonsense?

The picture is not coming up in the post, and the link in the reply does not work. But I get the idea of what you want. Yes you could machine the valve cutouts deeper, and build up the area between to keep the same comp ratio. If you really want to keep the noninterferance.

Harvey.

[SVXRide]

Originally Posted by oab_au

The picture is not coming up in the post, and the link in the reply does not work. But I get the idea of what you want. Yes you could machine the valve cutouts deeper, and build up the area between to keep the same comp ratio. If you really want to keep the noninterferance.

Harvey.

Harvey,
Short of having a CFD computer model of the combustion chamber, I'd be concerned with what Danny is proposing from a flame propagation/quench area perspective....thoughts?
-Bill

[elvis]

Don't you think Subaru did the math and made the cutouts as deep as they could be without messing up the airflow in the chamber?

Why do folks always think that they are better engineers than the engine's designers? Yes the EG33 is basically version 1.0, but Subaru has lots of experience building engines, especially flat ones.

The SVX was supposed to be a giant step forward for Fuji - akin to Lexus for Toyota and Infinity for Nissan. What would be the motivation to introduce a new flagship motor putting out less power than it could? Sure their are design compromises all the time, but I just don't see it.

I am sure there are ways to gain a little power here and there, but without increasing the displacement or compression, I think this is a fools errand.

Besides, this is distracting us from noodling a good Turbo setup

[TomsSVX]

you don't understand. The EG33 was made for the SVX not for just any car tht would fit it. The motor was designed to have a broad powerband in which the car would drive very well on the highway yet not be a putz around town. Those of us looking to make more power out of an N/A engine will sacrifice some of that broad power to make more power in the upper RPMs...

Tom

[SVXRide]

Originally Posted by TomsSVX

you don't understand. The EG33 was made for the SVX not for just any car tht would fit it. The motor was designed to have a broad powerband in which the car would drive very well on the highway yet not be a putz around town. Those of us looking to make more power out of an N/A engine will sacrifice some of that broad power to make more power in the upper RPMs...

Tom

Tom,
Couldn't have said it better myself!
-Bill

[oab_au]

Originally Posted by SVXRide

Harvey,
Short of having a CFD computer model of the combustion chamber, I'd be concerned with what Danny is proposing from a flame propagation/quench area perspective....thoughts?
-Bill

The amount that is cut out may not be very much, they may not touch, even with the 1mm extra lift. The extra could be Tig welded to the flat surface that fits into the chamber. I would not do it myself, but if thats what he wants to do, it will work.

Harvey.

Originally Posted by elvis

Don't you think Subaru did the math and made the cutouts as deep as they could be without messing up the airflow in the chamber?

Why do folks always think that they are better engineers than the engine's designers? Yes the EG33 is basically version 1.0, but Subaru has lots of experience building engines, especially flat ones.

The SVX was supposed to be a giant step forward for Fuji - akin to Lexus for Toyota and Infinity for Nissan. What would be the motivation to introduce a new flagship motor putting out less power than it could? Sure their are design compromises all the time, but I just don't see it.

I am sure there are ways to gain a little power here and there, but without increasing the displacement or compression, I think this is a fools errand.

Besides, this is distracting us from noodling a good Turbo setup

Gee, none of us have heard this before.

Sure, they knew what they were doing. And you know what? They were doing it for the average joe, who in the early '90s could afford a $40k car. They were also doing it before the reintroduction and popularity of the modern "muscle" car.

Case in point, it's a 3.3 liter 6 cylinder engine that only makes 230 horsepower. Good for torque and grandma-esque reliability, but some people don't want that. Some people want this engine to make, I don't know, let's say 270 hp @ 7500 rpm and 230 ft/lbs @ 6200 rpm.

I've always been told that the higher the rpms at which peak torque occurs, the better the engine will perform. I suggest that you become familiar with the following equation:

horsepower = (torque * rpm) / 5252

This equation is not a "guideline" to horsepower. It is a fact. Horsepower is never measured. It is calculated. Horsepower, in definition, is x torque over y period of time. This may also be a good article for you to read.

Suffice to say, if this is not enough to satisfy my contentions then perhaps the realization that some people just aren't happy with a 0 - 60 time of 7+ seconds will aid in the argument.

'nuff said.

[SilverSpear]

Originally Posted by oab_au

The picture is not coming up in the post, and the link in the reply does not work. But I get the idea of what you want. Yes you could machine the valve cutouts deeper, and build up the area between to keep the same comp ratio. If you really want to keep the noninterferance.

Harvey.

Harvey, the picture is in my locker, just go into my locker and you will see it, last picture on the main...

[drivemusicnow]

Originally Posted by deruvian

Gee, none of us have heard this before.

Sure, they knew what they were doing. And you know what? They were doing it for the average joe, who in the early '90s could afford a $40k car. They were also doing it before the reintroduction and popularity of the modern "muscle" car.

Case in point, it's a 3.3 liter 6 cylinder engine that only makes 230 horsepower. Good for torque and grandma-esque reliability, but some people don't want that. Some people want this engine to make, I don't know, let's say 270 hp @ 7500 rpm and 230 ft/lbs @ 6200 rpm.

I've always been told that the higher the rpms at which peak torque occurs, the better the engine will perform. I suggest that you become familiar with the following equation:

horsepower = (torque * rpm) / 5252

This equation is not a "guideline" to horsepower. It is a fact. Horsepower is never measured. It is calculated. Horsepower, in definition, is x torque over y period of time. This may also be a good article for you to read.

Suffice to say, if this is not enough to satisfy my contentions then perhaps the realization that some people just aren't happy with a 0 - 60 time of 7+ seconds will aid in the argument.

'nuff said.

Actually... if you want to get technical, 1 horsepower is the power it takes to raise 550 lbs up 1 foot, in 1 second. calculate THAT

By the way, i'm giving up on this thread... i've written at least 4 responses that for one reason or another have been lost... (mostly due to IE and our crappy network at work) all of them have been long and detailed with the basic message of... DON"T WORRY ABOUT INTERFERENCE!!!!!

if mess with the piston design to much, you will end up with hot spots on the piston face, and more easily cause detonation. basically what someone needs to do, is be able to measure clearances between the piston and valve at the maximum lift now, and the maximum lift allowed by the springs. also, how adding a larger valve would effect this

and for the 3rd time i'm typing this, Harvey... have you ever said anything about not having enough room for larger valves in the head... i remember reading something, however i can't remember.