Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Engine Performance Parts

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Engine Performance Parts

    Hi All,

    I am a career engineer that works at an OEM . I have also been a TR owner for quite some time now, owning a TR6, Spitfire, 2.5 Spit6 and a couple others throughout the last several years.

    While upgrading my own personal car I felt that a lot of the performance product options that were available were "old". Same designs for the past decade or so with little to no change with the general consensus being that its all we got! The one place that seemed extremely promising in the quality of products and engineering had bad reviews, which was too bad...

    I took it upon my self to bring modern engine design principles to the TR6 engine. I have several products I am working on, including an affordable port injection EFI setup, affordable ITB EFI setup, Affordable 2.7 L overbore kits (sub $1000 for everything is the goal!) and some other odds and ends including an aluminum head thats in the works.. All of this hopefully to come!



    The camshaft has an advertised duration of No longer offering on the intake and No longer offering on the exhaust with a lobe lift of intake and . exhaust. This is what is known as a "Dual pattern" camshaft which holes the exhaust open just slightly longer but with a lower lift to increase the velocity of air exiting the cylinder. This not only helps evacuate the spent exhaust gas but allows during the overlap (when the intake valve to open) for the outgoing exhaust charge to help "suck in" fresh air.

    The cam developed above is for people who want a very stock driving tr6 that want a slightly hotter camshaft that will not affect idle quality and to see healthy HP/TQ gains (about 10% increase). The duration and lift seem smaller than most camshafts on the market but there is good reason.
    1) To NOT require the use of high lift springs (High lift springs are always welcome)
    2)Allow for use of Stock push rods
    3) Work with stock compression or even higher compression setups (9.5:1 preferred)
    4) Use stock carbs/jetting
    5)Reduce valve train loading and reducing stress on the engine
    6)Due to number 5, it is not necessary to run camshaft bearings but still recommended

    Thanks for the support everyone, I may decide to offer parts to the public in the future but at the moment I've decided to focus more on my own car.
    Last edited by rjb2968; 10-22-2019, 10:42 PM.

  • #2
    I will watch this space with great interest for your EFI introduction.

    Comment


    • #3
      That alloy head sound interesting, would it be flowed, ported and polished?
      CF1634U+O Pimento/Chestnut
      2nd owner, since 1975
      Now in Fair Oaks, CA

      Comment


      • #4
        RJB, in a couple months I'm changing out my MS2 for a MS3. I'll let the MS2 go pretty cheap. You could use it as a mule for development. I have learned quite a bit in the last 8-9 years with it, and quite a bit with the Megajolt for 5 years before that. I have a bespoke intake manifold, with heat blocks, heat shield, single TB with great tip in response, cable throttle, about 17" runner length from bells in the plenum to the flange (about 20" total to back of valve).

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Elwood View Post
          I will watch this space with great interest for your EFI introduction.
          Right now I have a later wide port head being scanned. I talked to a couple suppliers and the price will be up there. I may have to look into crowd funding for that piece and make it a “public group buy” rather than a profitable item .

          @huhreally
          @elwood
          right now I have three separate ideas I’m playing with.
          1) a very easy bolt on conversion that would place the injector behind the factory carb

          2) an itb throttle body setup, sourced from a bike

          3) common plenum. I actually have a prototype of this


          Comment


          • #6

            Comment


            • #7

              Comment


              • #8
                always thought that a factory fuel injection setup with electronic injection replacing the mech ing would be the ultimate look.factory throttle bodies and air cleaner with an electronic injection would be the best of both worlds

                Comment


                • #9
                  There is an outfit in the UK that bores out the Lucas kit to accept Bosch injectors, it would be a neat look but you may give up a lot of learning that's taken place since the 60's to have that look.
                  I attended a TR show in the UK in Malvern and one of PI dealers told me the Lucas kit was a based on a the PI for the Centurion tank, if true that is pretty cool.
                  I'm totally watching this space!

                  Is the cam a regrind or a blank ground to your specs?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    @RJB - really encourage you to follow your path. That said, other individuals have (attempted) to go down similar paths. If I could suggest anything it'd be find out whats already out there. For instance, BP Northwest already has an asymmetric cam designed in the last 10 years or so (so taking advantage of 40 years worth of cam tech) which, I think, is pretty close to your design
                    The aluminum cylinder head is interesting, but other than weight will there be "more" there (crossflow?).
                    As to the plenum design on the FI - the pic you show of the prototype ovalized plenum probably isn't a good model to repeat without at least a couple of changes. The factory PI plenum was probably an inch too small in diameter (I think 3.2 inches or so) and, as I understand it, the plenum you have in that pic is even more narrow than stock (at 3 inches). Also, the plenum should have a 'trumpet" piece fitted inside the plenum for each throttle bottle (this is how the factory plenum is set up....also how all Alfa & Ferrari w/Webers I've worked on have inside their plenums). Airlfow equal to all cylinders and flowing in fast is what you want. I'm not sure the prototype as it sits hits those objectives. The plenum showed by HuhReally looks the piece - large diamter, very long runners, single MAF on the front of the plenum.
                    #1 & 2 on your post earlier (fuel injected for stock carb) and ITB from a motorcycle have already been done and are available commercially, so maybe you can focus, initially, elsewhere or improve on whats already there..

                    Not trying to discourage you just sharing what 40 years with TR's has exposed me to.
                    Best of luck with your projects!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Steve View Post
                      There is an outfit in the UK that bores out the Lucas kit to accept Bosch injectors, it would be a neat look but you may give up a lot of learning that's taken place since the 60's to have that look.
                      I attended a TR show in the UK in Malvern and one of PI dealers told me the Lucas kit was a based on a the PI for the Centurion tank, if true that is pretty cool.
                      I'm totally watching this space!

                      Is the cam a regrind or a blank ground to your specs?
                      Steve, converting the factory setup would be quite simple actually. I am looking to develop a bolt on option that will convert any engine (Carb or PI) to have EFI. I've decided to try three different methods out and offer them out at different prices. The first would be placing the injectors after the factory CD 175s (Have started on this), second would be a manifold similar to the one I posted above, the third would be a individual throttle body setup (Have the parts but have not started on this)

                      Also the cam is a regrind to my specs, I suppose I could source new blanks but the quality of them I've heard is questionable in the past... A quality regrind with a good lifter that will spin its bore will last as long as the engine, really most times its the lifter that doesn't rotate and causes a scuffing action that wears lifters/cams.


                      Thanks for the support everyone, I may decide to offer parts to the public in the future but at the moment I've decided to focus more on my own car.
                      Last edited by rjb2968; 10-22-2019, 09:10 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by YankeeTR5 View Post
                        @RJB - really encourage you to follow your path. That said, other individuals have (attempted) to go down similar paths. If I could suggest anything it'd be find out whats already out there. For instance, BP Northwest already has an asymmetric cam designed in the last 10 years or so (so taking advantage of 40 years worth of cam tech) which, I think, is pretty close to your design
                        The aluminum cylinder head is interesting, but other than weight will there be "more" there (crossflow?).
                        As to the plenum design on the FI - the pic you show of the prototype ovalized plenum probably isn't a good model to repeat without at least a couple of changes. The factory PI plenum was probably an inch too small in diameter (I think 3.2 inches or so) and, as I understand it, the plenum you have in that pic is even more narrow than stock (at 3 inches). Also, the plenum should have a 'trumpet" piece fitted inside the plenum for each throttle bottle (this is how the factory plenum is set up....also how all Alfa & Ferrari w/Webers I've worked on have inside their plenums). Airlfow equal to all cylinders and flowing in fast is what you want. I'm not sure the prototype as it sits hits those objectives. The plenum showed by HuhReally looks the piece - large diamter, very long runners, single MAF on the front of the plenum.
                        #1 & 2 on your post earlier (fuel injected for stock carb) and ITB from a motorcycle have already been done and are available commercially, so maybe you can focus, initially, elsewhere or improve on whats already there..

                        Not trying to discourage you just sharing what 40 years with TR's has exposed me to.
                        Best of luck with your projects!
                        Hi Yankee,

                        Thanks for the feedback. I have seen the BP270 cam but the one thing I do not like is that it does not split the duration but only the lift.... So its really not that modern of a design looking at the specs... its more or less a 270 advertised duration camshaft on a 110 LSA with .400 inches of lift. The exhaust lift being greater is almost negligible since this engines weakness is its inlet flow path, the factory dual pipe manifold was not as restrictive as other factory setups. I can only guess the valve opening and closing events based on the info on their page and its a fairly generic camshaft. Modern grinds almost always increase the exhaust duration to hold the exhaust valve open larger to take advantage of the scavenging effect, this would be very beneficial on a TR6 since its reverse flow.

                        As for the intake pictured above, its slightly over 2800 CC volume with a total 8 inch runner with individual cylinder tuning of EFI you can compensate for volume but I think it is very adequately, over six times volume of each cylinder!. Could I go all out and taper it, lengthen the runners and design it to make every bit of power possible? Certainly, I have before for other applications but that is where cost is no object. My intake provides a good compromise between reliability/performance/economy, the intake "HuhReally" posted probably doesn't have "trumpets" due to manufacturing restrictions (how can you get a welder in there?), another thing I would state is that his intake will experiences losses in the bends of the runners (K value increases in fluid dynamics). In the past I have designed two piece intakes such as the one attached but they were rapid prototype composite pieces that cost over $3000, so not that feasable for the average TR owner.


                        What I will say is my design does not flow that bad, check out the following static flow simulation use 1 atmosphere of pressure: https://imgur.com/a/hI7uSlz

                        Another using the actual pressure drops seen across the valve at 4500 RPM (Note that this clip is with runner four purposely closed for a different analysis I was doing) https://imgur.com/a/oMcrcDk

                        Lastly, the simulated power curve with the output data of the intake out of the above simulation is attached (9.5:1 with my street cam). As you can see its a very balanced camshaft that will provide excellent torque and horsepower. Comparable to whats out there right now except without the large duration... What does this mean? The car will idle beautifully without a lope, you and your passenger wont smell like unburned fuel and it'll pack a nice punch.



                        Thanks for the support everyone, I may decide to offer parts to the public in the future but at the moment I've decided to focus more on my own car.
                        Last edited by rjb2968; 10-22-2019, 09:10 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          So far nothing I've seen offers more than scant improvement over TRIUMPH's diligence resulting in the TR5 P.I. unless it were triple Weber DCOEs for simplicity, appearance, vintage cachet, reliability and the wealth of knowledge and experience worldwide. Given the poor breathing characteristics of the TR's head, long duration cams are needed to deliver 1 HP / cubic inch in normally aspirated mode. The CP cam has a low lift/duration ratio which provides longevity well over 100K miles, and an unmatched track record owing to its half century of existence.

                          The 150 BHP recipe of CP cam and triple DCOEs delivers TR5/250/6 nirvana with no downside other than its smelly exhaust and fuel economy penalty ( ~ 20% relative to the smog engines ), the unavoidable penalties of long duration cams ( pre VTEC ). The myriad other tangents TR6 owners pursue to that end seldom deliver on their owners' hopes and frighten prospective buyers with no clue what make them tick nor resources for servicing/tuning; each is unique with little or no supporting documentation.

                          I'll take iron over aluminum, thanks. Ferraris are sorely tempting, but Hemmings did a spread on a 250 GTE whose corroded engine block poured water out of the sides. The heads were worse! The only aluminum my TRs have in their cooling system are the thermostat housing. These reliably corrode under the hoses. Aluminum makes more sense for air cooled engines, if they appeal.

                          Tom

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ima68tr View Post
                            So far nothing I've seen offers more than scant improvement over TRIUMPH's diligence resulting in the TR5 P.I. unless it were triple Weber DCOEs for simplicity, appearance, vintage cachet, reliability and the wealth of knowledge and experience worldwide. Given the poor breathing characteristics of the TR's head, long duration cams are needed to deliver 1 HP / cubic inch in normally aspirated mode. The CP cam has a low lift/duration ratio which provides longevity well over 100K miles, and an unmatched track record owing to its half century of existence.

                            The 150 BHP recipe of CP cam and triple DCOEs delivers TR5/250/6 nirvana with no downside other than its smelly exhaust and fuel economy penalty ( ~ 20% relative to the smog engines ), the unavoidable penalties of long duration cams ( pre VTEC ). The myriad other tangents TR6 owners pursue to that end seldom deliver on their owners' hopes and frighten prospective buyers with no clue what make them tick nor resources for servicing/tuning; each is unique with little or no supporting documentation.

                            I'll take iron over aluminum, thanks. Ferraris are sorely tempting, but Hemmings did a spread on a 250 GTE whose corroded engine block poured water out of the sides. The heads were worse! The only aluminum my TRs have in their cooling system are the thermostat housing. These reliably corrode under the hoses. Aluminum makes more sense for air cooled engines, if they appeal.

                            Tom
                            Tom,

                            I think the biggest misunderstanding with the CP 150 HP engine is how its measured for power. It was SAE gross power meaning no pumping losses from the alternator and waterpump and most likely the crankcase pressure was vented to atmosphere, the later 125 HP engine was measured with accessories and of course the different camshaft profile. A large amount of the 1HP/CI can be attributed to the way its measured.

                            Logically speaking, CP engine is fitted with the same cylinder head as the later US cars (Wide port). There are many people who have run the later head on the same displacement with higher compression ratio, better oil, reduced friction (camshaft bearings and roller rockers) which much more aggressive camshafts who have BARELY made 150 BHP with all the accessories. So I'd like to point out that the CP camshaft is not as great as you're making it out to be....

                            But again comparing the camshaft I am offering with an advertised duration of 262 on the intake and 264 on the exhaust with a lobe lift of .297" intake and .291" exhaust to the "125 HP" profile with 256 advertised duration and .240" lobe lift

                            You can see that I am bringing a performance option that will behave tame and give excellent power output without crazy duration numbers and overlap by taking advantage of split duration/lift and changing the valve opening and closing events.

                            Thanks for the support everyone, I may decide to offer parts to the public in the future but at the moment I've decided to focus more on my own car.
                            Last edited by rjb2968; 10-22-2019, 09:10 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by rjb2968 View Post

                              Tom,

                              I think the biggest misunderstanding with the CP 150 HP engine is how its measured for power. It was SAE gross power meaning no pumping losses from the alternator and waterpump and most likely the crankcase pressure was vented to atmosphere, the later 125 HP engine was measured with accessories and of course the different camshaft profile. A large amount of the 1HP/CI can be attributed to the way its measured.

                              .
                              Indeed; specialists in the UK say it's a good day when a stock P.I. engine makes 130 BHP on the dyno. Anyway, the DIN rating for the CP engine was 141 HP vs. 125 HP for the CR. By the same token, Jaguar's E-type engine didn't make 265 HP DIN either. Dunno if the 240Z was really good for 150 HP for that matter...

                              Head work and a suitable exhaust system will get it to 150 BHP with the CP cam and triple Webers. I haven't had my driver dyno'd but it's a half second faster in the 1/4 mile than the fastest factory TR5 they could find to test at the time - and that's with me, a rank amateur at the wheel; a pro might have gotten another 1/2 second off, dumping the clutch as is their custom. FWIW, in the UK specialists have gotten 240+ BHP out of the TR5/6 engine with triple 45 Webers but they have 7500 rpm capability, collision cams and 2.7 liters too.

                              Your cam grind has a 20% higher lift/duration ratio than the CR cam you cite, and 26% higher than the CP cam. This bodes ill for longevity, but with optimum springs, followers, a wing and a prayer it might do fine. Both of my engines are on their 3rd camshafts; now all is sorted but this might well be the Achilles heel of this robust engine - little room for error! Pig of a job to change them ( though it is possible without removing head or sump ) and for 10 HP motivation to go through the ordeal may not break records.

                              The CP cam will lope alright, all the more so at very low idle rpm ( like 550 on the video ).

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBxiA-ghseQ

                              Tom

                              Comment

                              Engine Performance Parts

                              Collapse

                              Search

                              Collapse

                              There are no results that meet this criteria.

                              6-Pack Statistics

                              Collapse

                              Topics: 38,574   Posts: 479,970   Members: 8,261   Active Members: 207
                              Welcome to our newest member, Thacket.

                              Upcoming Events

                              Collapse

                              There are no results that meet this criteria.

                              Working...
                              X