132 replies to this topic

[mdlimy]

Captain Bondo, on 02 July 2010 - 10:37 PM, said:

I used to think these motors needed cams but my latest dyno sessions seem to suggest otherwise... I made peak power last year at around 6100rpm and figured the cams were choking it. I made a sheetmetal intake manifold and now power is still going up at 7500rpm.... I don't know how far it would keep going as I ran out of injector at that point.

This is a T6 using 960 cams with are slightly hotter than 850 NA cams but still, based on the fact I probably make peak power at 8000rpm or so, I doubt many people need more than NA cams honestly...

nice dude! i love your motor, such a sick setup

[ozzimark]

Captain Bondo, on 02 July 2010 - 10:37 PM, said:

I made peak power last year at around 6100rpm and figured the cams were choking it. I made a sheetmetal intake manifold and now power is still going up at 7500rpm....

Which style manifold were you using before? One of the ones out of the S90 that is shaped like the pre-eletronic throttle manifolds on the 5 cyl whiteblocks, or the newer style?

[Captain Bondo]

ME7 turbo manifold that originally had an e-trottle on it. I was suprised at the difference since the ME7 turbo manifolds seem pretty decent actually. Initially I didn't even make the sheetmetal intake for performance reasons I made it for packaging reasons. Kinda funny.

[ozzimark]

For reference when purchasing parts to build up the internals, the stock 143mm rods that came in the B5254T3 ('05+ 2.5L turbo) engine weigh 644 grams, and the corresponding pistons weigh 290 grams (or 412 grams with piston rings, snap rings and wrist pin)
http://theeshadow.co...005-Engines.pdf

Found some rough dimensions on the 5 cyl, haven't found the weight yet.

Quote

The 5-cylinder whiteblock is approximately 25" tall from sump to cam cover.


It is approximately 25" long at the crankshaft and 23" at the head, but roughly 27" allowing for the distributor.


Now it gets trickier..... it is around 14" wide at the flywheel end (not allowing for starter or exhaust) but 20"+ at the front allowing for water pump and alternator etc, but there is scope for reducing this dimension a little.

No stock mounts were fitted to the engine I measured, but the block itself is roughly 10" wide between the mount fixings, and these are positioned between 3.5" and 11" from the front face of the block. If you're mounting it for RWD you should have plenty of options for making your own mounts to suit to pick up on these fixings.

Out of curiosity I measured it up against a 6-cylinder whiteblock and this proved to be only 3.5" longer than the 5-cylinder, and obviously no distributor to have to allow for either.

[ozzimark]

Aha, found the weight over on TB, an earlier 2.3L HPT engine weighs 332 lbs. The RNs will be a bit less with their lighter pistons, crank and different intake manifold, although VVT will tack a bit back on there.

Quote

and the weights are in !!!!!

in the Redblock corner, B230 with full intake, n/a exhaust manifold, FI harness, engine mounts, some acc. brackets, NO starter, NO alt = 301 pounds...automatic flexplate installed

in the Whiteblock corner, 5 cylinder T5 engine, full intake, turbo exhaust manifold, FI harness, some acc. brackets, NO starter, NO alt = 332 pounds....automatic flexplate installed

no idea on fluids, hope empty

[gdizzle]

:tups: to ozzi.

[ozzimark]

I have edited some information about the valve stem size and year. I was mistaken in thinking that they stem size increased from 6mm to 7mm in 2002, but it actually went from 7mm down to 6mm with the change to solid lifters in mid-01

The picture from Johann showing this: http://www.swededemo...ngine/valve.jpg

[Johann]

Year to year all the way up to 2006 there are many differences in the details apart from the VVT stuff.
I don't know the exact years but somewhere 2002 the crank ventilation can changed size. 2003/2004 most of the sizes of the hex bolts were changed in relation to the thread size. What used to be 10 mm hex on M6 thread changed to 8 mm hex. 14 changed to 12 etc. etc. Alloy sensor housings changed to plastic. Starting 2004/2005 an RNC prepped casting was used for the block but still machined the RN way.

[ozzimark]

Sounds like a lot of cost saving measures taking place on a rolling basis. From looking at IPD's website, it appears the change to the catch can was done in '03. Other changes were done to the PCV system in '02, but looking at the pictures, the difference isn't clear, it appears to be a simple tube routing change

One major difference between the older engines and the RN engines is the addition of what appears to be a water line from the cylinder head. I'll have to take a close look at some documentation to see where that line goes, but I know it wasn't there when I was doing the PCV system on my '98.

[Johann]

I think you are mentioning the one which runs along the crank ventilation return line to the manifold. I think it is to warm it up for whatever reason.

[ozzimark]

Johann, on 10 August 2010 - 08:35 PM, said:

I think you are mentioning the one which runs along the crank ventilation return line to the manifold. I think it is to warm it up for whatever reason.

Yup, that's the one. My only guess would be that there were rare cases in which the condensation inside the PCV tube froze up when driving around in extremely low temperatures and blocked the pressure from venting, causing a blown seal?

[ozzimark]

Added valve diameter to the first post: Intake and exhaust valves remained constant at 31mm and 27mm diameters, respectively.

[kildea]

ozzimark, on 01 July 2010 - 07:29 PM, said:

By making the block-off plate, aren't you effectively fixing the VVT in place with the VVT cam anyhow?

no you are just allowing it to flop around freely.

also, you can't feed a constant signal to the cam and expect it to stay in one place, since the advance depends on oil pressure, and at higher revs you'll see different pressures at that port.
i dealt with it by tuning the cam timing as if it were an injector, it got one of the ve maps in megasquirt and with some time driving it i found a reasonable tune for it, which appeared to mostly start at a long opening time at the left of the map, gradually diminishing to a short one at the right, with some features here and there.

the 1999 t6 i have was missing a couple of the cooler rn details though, mine has 139.5mm rods and hydro lifters, most of the rest of it is different as described though.

[ozzimark]

kildea, on 25 August 2010 - 07:00 PM, said:

no you are just allowing it to flop around freely.

Even though you'll be fixing the volume of oil in both sides of the VVT gear? I guess it could, over time, slide around some. If it's the exhaust side, the rotation aligns with the direction of the spring, and makes the gear stay at the full retard position, I believe.

I plan on building a controller, as I'm planning on running an ME4.4 ECU. The oil pressure issue is the one I'm gonna have the most trouble with, since it varies so much with engine temp, RPM, how old the oil is, etc. I think the most accurate way would be to measure oil pressure at the VVT port, use that signal to modify an output based on manifold pressure. For the exhaust, start out advanced at very low pressures, and retard as manifold pressure comes up.

Also, it has been brought to my attention by Volvo5.0 that he has a 2000 B5244T (LPT from an XC) that has solid lifters and 139.5mm rod length. I'm gonna check to see when part numbers change, and hope I can make sense of what really goes on. If I can figure enough out about enough engines, I'll try to make a table of different engines and years, and what length rods they got.

[kildea]

ozzimark, on 25 August 2010 - 07:17 PM, said:

Even though you'll be fixing the volume of oil in both sides of the VVT gear?

the only way to fix the volume of oil in there is to actually fill the cam with oil then block off the ports on the cam itself, otherwise you just have a cam with no ports in the head to feed it.
but you are right it ought to sit fully retarded, but i would not expect it to be locked in any particular position, rather it'll just sit at that end of its travel.
i ran mine like this for a while, and advanced the cam gear to get it upright, but i found it still behaved a bit funny at times. as for controlling it

running the n/a cam gears is not so bad though, bondo does it as he has shown, i found that one could secure the foreward/aft position of the early cams by simply bolting a bearing to the rear of the cam, there is a nice spot for it and the cams are threaded already. if you get a proper high-temp flanged bearing capable of surviving the heat and rpms you'll find it will allow the necessary fore/aft play so the thing is not fixed hard in position, while keeping the cam properly aligned in the head.

as for controlling it it'd be a lot of effort to actively control it at all temps/pressures, some closed loop control using toothed wheel on the cam would not be bad, but honestly if it's not the intake cam anyways i'd not bother - that said, i'd still likely just approach it as an injector, and map it with the engine at operating temp, it gave me consistent results according to the but-dyno

[kildea]

although i like your idea of actually taking the oil pressure measurement into the process, makes sense to me

[ozzimark]

I wonder how much of a difference in pressure there is at the oil pump vs in the head at the VVT solenoid. If it's pretty similar, I don't see why you couldn't just use the same pressure transducer that is being used for an oil pressure gauge that any built engine should have.

[ozzimark]

ozzimark, on 25 August 2010 - 07:17 PM, said:

Also, it has been brought to my attention by Volvo5.0 that he has a 2000 B5244T (LPT from an XC) that has solid lifters and 139.5mm rod length. I'm gonna check to see when part numbers change, and hope I can make sense of what really goes on. If I can figure enough out about enough engines, I'll try to make a table of different engines and years, and what length rods they got.

Confirmed this, the rod assembly part number changes, every engine I looked at from 1993 to 2001 has 139.5mm rods, in 2002, some strange things happen. If you look at the S60, the B5234T3/7 keep the same rod pn as before, which implies to me that they're still 139.5mm, B5244T3 and B5244Sx have a different part number, B5254T2 has another, and B5244T4/5 has yet another Too bad VADIS doesn't list the length. To add to the confusion, the B5234T3/7 engines got a new crank in '02. And if you look at the C70, the B5234T3 and B5244T got new rods in '02. So the same engine in different cars got upgrades at different times. Knowing that, it's gonna be quite a process to figure out what engines got what rods.

So far, I can say with confidence that '93 to '01 all have 139.5mm rods. 2002 seems to be a transition year, which the exception of the S80, where things were always a bit screwy, but it's hard to say what's actually true, because some of the engines listed weren't offered in north america, as far as I know.

Anyway, I believe the rod length changed to 147mm, for the most part.. I'm gonna measure it up to be sure. I wonder where the 143mm rods that RSI makes come from

[kildea]

ozzimark, on 26 August 2010 - 02:39 AM, said:

Anyway, I believe the rod length changed to 147mm, for the most part.. I'm gonna measure it up to be sure. I wonder where the 143mm rods that RSI makes come from

i'd just assumed they changed from 139.5 to 143 with the vvt head introduction and the t6 was left out ... but i don't actually know one way or the other.

i did tear down a 1998 b6304 lest night and found the rods to be identical to rods from a 1999 b6284t, even though the b6304 has the early style pistons with bigger top ring and the t6 has the later 1.5mm top ring ... maybe that transition period was just plain old inconsistent?


as a side note i have been trying to get a set of 6 143mm rods for my current build (destroking to 83mm) and rsi has been unresponsive so far - i have a set of 139.5mm rods from them already, wish i'd thought this through fully before i spent the money on those during the first build. so if any data concerning the 143mm rods pops up i'd be excited to learn more, maybe get a set in hand so i can have some beefier ones made.

[ozzimark]

I have the piston and rod from my 2002 B5234T3 sitting on my desk, the length of the rod is indeed 147mm, the piston compression height is 1.203 inches, 30.55mm.