Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
A stock type 1 makes around 25kw on the wheels at highveld altitude... now you go and modify the crap out of it to make 100kw on the wheels and expect it to be reliable for a daily. Not going to happen.
Now in the same sense, a turboed engine should last longer than a stressed n/a, or that is my theory. Take a type 1 and rev it to 7000rpm to make 100kw on the wheels, now take that same engine with slightly lower compression and a good turbo and you will make the same power at low boost at 5000rpm. Which one will last longer...
Understandable rhetoric from you Tony...but I dont disagree with you. I know know for a fact how great a purpose built big bore engine can be...
Lets use a 1914 cc T1 engine. Great motor, good power, and depending on how, by whom and why it was built, could be reliable to boot. Only problem is that it would easily set you back anything from R50k to R60k. This in anyones book is a lot of money.
MY point that im maybe not too clear on is, how much more cheaper and reliable a Type 4 engine would be to achieve the same power you would get out of a similar isze big bore T1 engine.
I agree that Ron and Gills bus is reliable. I agree that your 2330cc 140 kw engine could be reliable too. I disagree with the money it takes to achieve those figures. The jury is still out on whether any big bore engine is truly reliable, even if sensibly built as a daily driver, even though this would be the exeption and not the norm... Yes I also agree... each to their own and all that.
The gist of my arguement/oberservation is: Type 4 cheaper, reliable power compared to T1 engined, ALWAYS expensive, predominantly unreliable as a long distance, or daily driver, power.
Muds
Last edited by Muderick on Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
4agedub wrote:... now take that same engine with slightly lower compression and a good turbo and you will make the same power at low boost at 5000rpm. Which one will last longer...
Muderick wrote:Understandable rhetoric from you Tony...but I dont disagree with you. I know know for a fact how great a purpose built big bore engine can be...
Lets use a 1914 cc T1 engine. Great motor, good power, and depending on how, by whom and why it was built, could be reliable to boot. Only problem is that it would easily set you back anything from R50k to R60k. This in anyones book is a lot of money.
MY point that im maybe not to clear on is how much more cheaper and reliable a Type 4 engine would be to achieve the same power you would get out of a big bore T1 engine.
If a the guys are charging that kind of money for a 1915cc engine then my small business plan will definitely take off. 60K for a 1915 is crazy, unless everything is new. So if that is the going price, then I'll agree that a T4 is probably cheaper.
So at cheapest..R50k - R60K plus about another R25K for the turbo, cooling and all related plumbing?
That aint cheap.... and then again maybe thats the point of it all... no wonder that T1 based, go fast goodies are so expensive to start with... it just makes good business sense to parts makers and suppliers to sell them to us...
Sounds like you could have a corner on the market Tony...
With all new parts you get to R60k quickly, no labour
A type 4 with all new parts will be even more
You dont get cheap type 4 go fast bits, for type 1 you can get cheap chinese cranks... type 4 only guys like scat. The same goes for performance cylinder heads
Phew what a heated debate So I know what it cost to get a crappy 1776 motor the total spent on mechanical work was 85 k with all the best possible parts going in Result = total disappointment and should've just built a 356 super 90 a motor that purrs along at 120kph with ease and can get me to 200kph on the home stretch.
The type 4 build will cost If u shop round big disacement kits fully balanced and matched with cranks and all the business range from 1500 to 2000 dollars All that is needed is the work you would do anyway on the rebuild of any motor. So subtract the cost of new stock pistons and barrels at 500 dollars and a new crank at about the same you are left with 1000 dollars which is close to 10 180 zar
Oh yah I forgot to mention anything else except stock expect unreliability and constant filling and tweaking to get it right just read the numerous threads on all the big builds
dont forget that designing a new engine, the engine manufacturers like Ford, VW, Mazda and the likes build a few engines of the same type, put a full team of engineers with dyno stations and test cars and spend hundred of hours tuning it correctly for all situations.
People like me, with my big build have to do this by ourselves with maybe 0.01% of the budget of the big boys.
That said, the point I am trying to make is that a stock engine has already been tweaked.
Once the tweaking is over, it shouldnt need any more tweaking....
Tony why would it be that U wouldn't be able to drive U'r car with that engine to JHB and back with no problems
I would think that with the good parts U'v got in it it should be really strong
U'r not going to be using 200hp to drive at 120kph so it should be able to run the distance ?
or is it because U only built it to run more full throttle and it doesn't cruise well ?
not at all Slak
its all part of the combo.
my car is surprisingly easy to drive believe it or not.
It runs super cool to the point that I cannot get the heads up to "normal" temperature. At cruise my heads sit about 40deg cooler than they should be.
Most of the problem is rooted around the choice of camshaft. The stock cam is rated at around 250deg with 8mm lift at the valve. Mine is rated at +/-310deg with 15mm lift at the valve. To run a cam like this you need much more spring pressure to keep things under control.
After about 20 000km I am expecting my case to be worn out and my valve springs to be nearly useless.
I am not saying the car wont make it to jhb and back without issues, but I woudlnt want to waste 15% of the engines possible lifespan on a trip like that. I would rather build another engine (stock is cheapest) to do long journeys like that.
If I wanted to build a 2332 to use daily and drive all around the country, I would have gone for a much smaller and conservative cam. This would also involve lowering the compression ratio but would be quieter and more fuel efficient on the street. It however wouldnt make 180hp, but rather about 140hp.
