well u must certainly have everyone intrigued now...care to temp us with anymore clues....

I unfortunately will have to keep it under my hat for now. It seems ingnorant to mention it then not tell you, but sorry We have done a years worth of research for this engine and I am not willing to be pipped at the post by someone ellse. We are trying alot of things that have not been done before. Actually changing piston designs etc etc.

The engine builder is trying to build the most powerful N/A 6 in QLD/AUS. The QLD record shouldn't be a problem, he reccons, but he is worried about the AUS record. I am not going to stop him I say go hard son.

My builder and I spoke about this though and when we are done it will all be released as common knowledg for any one who wants to know it.

SO hopefully this year if not early next year it will all be done.

fastest NA 6 falcon or against everything....are expecting to get much over 400Hp?
what sort of time would u need?

Now, THIS is what I'm talking about. Nice of you to stop by with a bit of input XR6EAT.

As long as it doesn't get a $10,000 crank which looks like a standard, standard, standard one (yes - they DID balance the cranks by drilling... Don't show us close up photos of the crank and claim it is special because it has holes drilled in it.... Yawn) I'll be very interesting in more information as you see fit to release it.

The masses will be mighty impressed. Count me in.

I'd love to build a very strong N/A motor - but this would be the basis of a "real" supercharger install one day. This would include deep dish pistons and all that carry on - which would reduce its N/A performance quite substantially of course.

As it is, I (and others) can only sit and dream about what we'd do "if' and "when"...

If you feel like private messaging me with photos and build information, I promise not to share with anyone....

LOL No I promise it is not as simple as a few holes in a standard crank. I am still using the stock crank out of the EF it is fully counter ballanced from ford and it can deffinately handle the most a N/A build can through at it.

400HP I wish he is talking close to the 300BHP mark. We are not trying to build the fastest NA6 purely because i don't feel like gutting my car and turning it into a drag car. He is trying for the power figure for the 4.0L 6. The best we know of so far is just under 200rwkw.

That the goal but it might not come to order so we can only hope for the best.

yeah I was meaning 400hp at the flywheel.....thats what COME racing are claiming for their v6 ecotec (stroker)......probably around 240-260rwkw

Just had a read of this thread and its a ripper. If you guys want to wait a week or two I'll have a spreadsheet running which will show you the instantaneous piston speed and acceleration at any selected crank angle and any selected rpm. If I can get some PV (pressure-volume) diagrams and conrod/piston weights I will also be able to roughly determine how much power the engine will make at any particular point.

Last edited by xcabbi on Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Brilliant, and thanks for sharing some ideas and photos --- Looking good, and am sure there will be many a when you do get this thing running!

I think a stroked ecowank might be a hard one to top, since it has a much better bore/stroke combination for making peak revs power. Thats about it though, everything else is rubbish

even with an increased stroke, it should still be oversquare. Origional combo is 97mm x 86mm. heaps of stroking room while remaining oversquare. (oversquare motors- with a bore wider than the stroke- generally make more revs, and more top end torque than undersquare engines, where the stroke is wider then the bore.)

whereas the poor old i6 is drastically undersquare as a result of its stroking from 3.3l form. 3.3's (in the xc form) were 93 x 80mm, and the 4.0 is 92 x 99. as you can see it got a BIG stroke increase.

perhaps a custom crank and rods setup, with bore modifications resulting in a 95mm x 90mm combination could produce some high revs with the apropriate valvetrain. funnily enough, this equates to 3.83l capacity you could go for fully square engine with a 95mm X 95mm combo, resulting in 4.04l

the problem still stands then that mid 90's is about as far as you can reliably take the bore on the i6. this limits its oversquare capacity badly. even bored out it has a smaller bore than an ecowank. the ecowank goes to 4.1l, and is still oversquare with a 97mm x 93mm setup, without even touching the bore size (which im pretty sure is very close to as far as you can go in stock guise anyway).

Beating a stroked eco wank in NA trim will be a tough task, and I can only pray a way is found.

I could not tell you how far you can bore them out to. I am not even sure what size mine is at present. Boreing and stroking was not on the cards for my build, reliability was more important. Geoff, says that the bore and stroke is an issue but he seems to think that the rocker ratio will over come it. ???????? He strongly advised against an offset grind. Some of this stuff is too technical for me. I find my self nodding and smiling at him some times. He usually explains himself properly eventually. I will ask him what he thinks next time i am there.

I am no expert, just a broke dude with big ideas, but from my looking at the block with the heads pulled off there is leeway there to possibly bore out to 96 or 97 mm if you only wanted to run the engine for brief periods!!!

You might need to start looking at bigger injectors / fuel pressure regulator / etc to compensate for having increased engine capacity (therefore sucking in more air per revolution)...?

3.14159265358979323846 (pi) * (bore / 2) * (bore / 2) * stroke... Etc etc.

Have a look at the attached spreadsheet. When working out induction numbers I think you could actually divide the resulting figures by two? Let's say your engine is four litres and is revving at ONE REV PER MINUTE. This would result in 4Lt/minute? Or is it actually 2lt/minute as there is actually only ONE load of air input every two revolutions?!

 

 

Attachments:

File comment: Simple spreadsheet by FIEND which attempts to provide displacement and therefore air requirements of an engine based on bore, stroke, cylinder number, and RPM. DISPLACEMENT_FIGURER.xls [8 KiB] Downloaded 237 times

Back in the day of the 186 red motors dad used to resleeve the block and fit bigger valiant pistons.

Last edited by WagonDad on Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Siamese bores like what it takes to get a BOSS out to 6.0L

I think the PC term is conjoined bores?



no, simply because of the variable of volumetric efficiency.

at peak VE a well developed NA engine might run at 90% VE, but then mostly at a certain rev point. Forced induction puts the engine into positive VE, ie over 100% of what the normal cylinder fill would be. Getting good cylinder fill across the rev range wil create a nice broad power pand, getting near perfect cylinder fill at a smaller, desired range will result in a more peaky but ultimately higher peak power engine. Undersquare motors generally run higher VE down low and mid range than oversquare engines which have a tendancy to create better high end VE.

To determine what your engine will do, you must first create the right Bore/stroke balance.

interested to know more about this....is it do-able for a street driven car?