High spec N/A engine

1st February 2012, 18:28

Has anyone had any involvement or got any more info on this engine?

Would like some opinions from people more in the know on high spec n/a engines!

http://www.106owners.co.uk/forums/sh...P-A-106-Engine

1st February 2012, 18:31

No idea as I have little knowledge butttt sounds like an awesome set up!!

1st February 2012, 18:33

Yeah does sound very interesting to me!

Does anyone know if the colin satchell converted gsxr bodies would be ok for this setup? Would just be that and a pred for a mental set up

1st February 2012, 18:37

ENGINE section

1st February 2012, 18:38

thats pretty big power for a non boddied engine!

1st February 2012, 18:38

Fair enough mate, just wanted a few quick replies in gen chat!

1st February 2012, 18:39

Come on then Ryan offer some advice (apart from saying wrong section

)

I know you've got a decent spec n/a

1st February 2012, 18:39

Interesting set up, id expect its been used hard

TBs can run on any engine, then obviously you will need a new map. Id be surprised if you would see over 200bhp as he said though from adding them though. I wouldnt have expected someone with a race engine to be running one which was so heavily restricted, even citroen made huge power on the single TB/restricted system due to the regs. Obviously there will always be some compramise restriction but you never know.

Fact is though if the cam profile inst great the rest of the engine isnt bad to use and run new cams + bodies.

Reason posting in the engine section is better is because general chat is mostly full of people posting bollocks.

1st February 2012, 18:43

Yeah probs has been used hard. And just going on his word that it's only been used for 6 events. But if it is true then doesn't sound too bad to me

1st February 2012, 18:43

What are you wanting to know? We built a 206hp N/A one he's on moaners there's a spec list too

1st February 2012, 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_O

Yeah probs has been used hard. And just going on his word that it's only been used for 6 events. But if it is true then doesn't sound too bad to me

The cost of most engines to be built (bottom end + head) from alot of tuners is circa 5k alone. irrespective of the other parts.

1st February 2012, 18:47

My guess it been bodged or something surley. Why would you spend £7500 on a engine use it a few times try sell it for £3000 to build a new one :s

1st February 2012, 18:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom5190

What are you wanting to know? We built a 206hp N/A one he's on moaners there's a spec list too

Just wanting to know if anyones come across the engine before/ seen it out in action etc. Have you got a link to that spec list?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

The cost of most engines to be built (bottom end + head) from alot of tuners is circa 5k alone. irrespective of the other parts.

Yeah that's what I mean. Saving a lot of money by not getting a high spec engine built up myself. Does seem cheap

1st February 2012, 18:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cam

My guess it been bodged or something surley. Why would you spend £7500 on a engine use it a few times try sell it for £3000 to build a new one :s

Because by the sounds of it he bought the car and the previous owner paid for the engine to be done.

My engine cost considerably more than i paid for it and wasnt bodged.

1st February 2012, 18:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

Because by the sounds of it he bought the car and the previous owner paid for the engine to be done.

My engine cost considerably more than i paid for it and wasnt bodged.

Ah a old owner fair enough, he just makes it sound he paid for it etc.. Edit fail i see engine was built for old owner

1st February 2012, 18:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cam

Ah a old owner fair enough, he just makes it sound he paid for it etc..

Quote:

This engine was built for the previous owner of my car by Richard Longman & Co LTD he had it built to comply with Group A regulations and the original cost was approx £7500 all in

1st February 2012, 18:51

Yeah person who had the work done had it before this bloke now.

Edit: There you go ^^^^ lol

1st February 2012, 18:52

It sounds like a good deal if your wanting to strap some boddies to it but id be suprised to see 20hp from just boddies and another map.

206bhp link: http://www.106owners.co.uk/forums/sh...hlight=sven106

1st February 2012, 18:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom5190

206bhp link: http://www.106owners.co.uk/forums/sh...hlight=sven106

Do you know if thats running 811s in that at all?

1st February 2012, 18:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom5190

206bhp link: http://www.106owners.co.uk/forums/sh...hlight=sven106

Cheers for that mate, looks like an intersting build that one!

1st February 2012, 18:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

Do you know if thats running 811s in that at all?

Off the top of my head i dont know any of the spec aside's from what ben has listed as it was a while ago we finished that build

1st February 2012, 18:58

one thing i do find interesting is that across alot of the different higher spec engines even with bhp differing by as much as 20-30bhp the torque always seems to be in the high 130s and low 140s. Obvioulsy i suspec sandys 225 engines to have more but the toque differencials being so minimal is interesting to see.

1st February 2012, 19:09

what torque do the 225 usually make? There was a 15lb/ft difference from mine from RS tuning to Northampton

made more bhp less torque at NMS and vice versa at RS.

1st February 2012, 19:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom5190

what torque do the 225 usually make? There was a 15lb/ft difference from mine from RS tuning to Northampton

made more bhp less torque at NMS and vice versa at RS.

Dont think sandy has released it, which is fully understandable with it being a race engine.

Considering as you say the rollers vary so much having so many engines with such a small variation in peak torque figures I just find it interesting.

1st February 2012, 19:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

Dont think sandy has released it, which is fully understandable with it being a race engine.

Considering as you say the rollers vary so much having so many engines with such a small variation in peak torque figures I just find it interesting.

Ah fair enough, would be good to see. Yea it is quite intresting having the difference, i wish i had a 9000rpm screamer though instead of gay entry level

1st February 2012, 19:13

Longman used to make some of the very best engines out there. Though it will be getting on a bit now so all depends on condition.

1st February 2012, 19:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom5190

Ah fair enough, would be good to see. Yea it is quite intresting having the difference, i wish i had a 9000rpm screamer though instead of gay entry level

Wont cost you half as much to build a good engine. Trade price on parts + no labour charge.

1st February 2012, 19:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

Wont cost you half as much to build a good engine. Trade price on parts + no labour charge.

i no but im a poor bum student arnt i

1st February 2012, 19:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by AXracing

Longman used to make some of the very best engines out there. Though it will be getting on a bit now so all depends on condition.

First bit sounds good. How you go about making a decision on the condition of it without investigating internaly? (sounds a bit wrong that lol)

Obviosuly I would be be requesting numerous pictures and running vids etc..

1st February 2012, 21:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom5190

what torque do the 225 usually make? There was a 15lb/ft difference from mine from RS tuning to Northampton

made more bhp less torque at NMS and vice versa at RS.

Do we know the rpm at which these cars hit 225 hp?

It won't give us peak torque but it'll give us the torque at peak power and you can use that as a ball park for peak torque earlier in the rpm range.

1st February 2012, 21:57

That engine spec build looks soo sweet wish i had that

2nd February 2012, 07:22

My top race 1600 engines are around 220bhp at 8200-8300 and up to 152lbft, that's recorded on a calibrated and DIN corrected engine dyno, 1700s slightly more, but it's the manners and track performance that matter most. I don't pay too much attention to rolling road results, they aren't that scientific/repeatable, as has been said; you can vary the results simply by going to another location or even just running it at different speeds.

To answer questions about where the torque's made, here's a graph of one of my 1600s (with my exhaust manifold) and one of my 1700s (with a kitcar exhaust manifold, not mine, slightly affecting the torque):

It's the broad delivery that makes them quick, that's what I focus on achieving, rather than headline figures.

2nd February 2012, 09:26

bloody hell, the 1598 cc makes standard-J4 peak torque at 2000 rpm.

Thanks for the post.

2nd February 2012, 10:32

Thats some torque!

2nd February 2012, 11:05

Some good info in this thread now so thanks for that. Found out the engine in question was built in 2006. I think I've got some graphs comming my way soon so ill stick them up

2nd February 2012, 14:19

Glad to see you posting the peak torque figures sandy, knew previously you hadn't done so for obvious reasons relating to them being a race engine.

2nd February 2012, 16:04

That's from over a year ago, the 1600 shown is using my 2009 cam spec (on std diameter followers), so not really sensitive info anymore; peak figures haven't changed much since, but I've made quite a few changes that have improved delivery further. I'd be surprised if I improve peak power much more now, without harming the delivery or making concessions to reliability/durability anyway.
My latest 2 litre XU gave 197lbft a few weeks ago, 98lbft/litre, the best we've seen from anyone's 2 litre on our dyno (on proper fuel)! If I can get the 1700 spec to work that well, we'd be looking at 165lbft from it. Might remain a dream though!

2nd February 2012, 18:33

I take it you map all of your engines on high octane rather than standard 95 ron?

Its interesting that on the 1700 you are not a fan of the kit car manifold, would this be because you feel the bore is too big (as you are using 2.25 exhausts and not 2.5)

2nd February 2012, 21:01

All my engines are done on 97RON or V-power. Considering the amount of money and effort put into a proper engine, I don't think 95RON should be on the menu!

I have my own manifold designs according to spec, which differ quite substantially from the kit car one. They're the result of alot of devlelopment work, so I'm not going to give away the important differences I'm afraid. My engines are a package developed together, if any of the important elements are changed, it affects the results!

I did some testing of 2.25" vs 2.5" system recently and found no significant changes, other than the 2.5" was boomier.

2nd February 2012, 21:27

sandy, do you run your engines with the chassis exhaust system when on the dyno?

I assume its a water brake dyno you use, what is its stability like when doing transient work and steady state, are you constantly having to change the PID tune on the dyno?

I have been doing a little work on a water brake dyno and I can either get the control good on steady state conditions, or on transient but cant get both to work well on the same PID settings.

3rd February 2012, 06:28

Because of the size of the dyno cell, an additional bend or two is always needed, but we run the same size, length and silencers as on the car wherever we can. No point in doing it, if it's not going to be close to in the car!

We do almost all steady state, only refining on transients at the end or in the car after. It depends which set up you have? But there are usually separate PID controls for speed or torque regulation. The Froude I use mostly works fine on the same PID settings for most 4 cylinder 1.6-2.3 engines, but small high revving engines or 6 cylinder bigger engines need different settings. It struggles with how quickly the JRE 2.5s produce maximum torque too when the throttle's are thrown open! The Schenk I use has been alot more problematic to stabilise, despite being a much more modern machine. Looks like we've narrowed that down to a delay in the valve stepper control, maybe something you might want to look closely at?

3rd February 2012, 15:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandy309

It struggles with how quickly the JRE 2.5s produce maximum torque too when the throttle's are thrown open!

thats the test I am trying to do, throw the throttles open from a low opening to measure rate of rise of boost/torque (large capacity turbocharged engine). It probably is a bit much to ask a water brake to cope with a 800Nm change in torque over a short period or time. Interesting to see that is it not only I who is having difficulty.

3rd February 2012, 15:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandy309

All my engines are done on 97RON or V-power. Considering the amount of money and effort put into a proper engine, I don't think 95RON should be on the menu!

I have my own manifold designs according to spec, which differ quite substantially from the kit car one. They're the result of alot of devlelopment work, so I'm not going to give away the important differences I'm afraid. My engines are a package developed together, if any of the important elements are changed, it affects the results!

I did some testing of 2.25" vs 2.5" system recently and found no significant changes, other than the 2.5" was boomier.

Fully understand you not wanting to go into details, was just a ponder on why you were not a fan on that particular manifold.

Thanks for sharing the info on the 2.25/2.5 research as I know recently theres been alot of posts about the 2.5 system being felt to be possibly sapping power over the 2.25.

4th February 2012, 05:56

It's the primary and secondary pipe geometry that defines how the exhaust manifold affects the engine mostly, although the wrong collector shape can impact peak power severely. The kit car manifold doesn't work with the rest of my package so well as my own one. It was developed for the kit car package and no doubt achieved what they wanted as part of that.

5th February 2012, 15:29

Interesting info as ever Sandy