144 replies to this topic

[ozzimark]

We had a discussion on that gap and its purpose last year: http://volvospeed.co...ost__p__1995007


Edit: I posted that hoping we could continue the discussion with some additional insights and opinions... not to just be totally silent on the matter.

Edited by ozzimark, 11 February 2012 - 12:49 PM.

[lookforjoe]

ozzimark, on 10 February 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

We had a discussion on that gap and its purpose last year: http://volvospeed.co...ost__p__1995007


Edit: I posted that hoping we could continue the discussion with some additional insights and opinions... not to just be totally silent on the matter.

The Savarturbo thread you linked is very interesting. I'm curious about his pins around the sleeve/jacket.

My PTE is here,



and I picked up my new '04 2.3L block from MA today

[Captain Bondo]

Not much to discuss. My comments echo those of johann and chuck. People who have done it cannot prove it is helpful. Experiences from people making sub 450bhp are meaningless. The depth of experience inside this forum when it comes to 450hp+ is too shallow for meaningful conversations on this topic to happen.

The discussions are always 1 or 2 guys who have actually walked the walk and a dozen people looking for a quick fix to ease their minds, so they ignore the people who actually know what's up.

So the people who know go back to building things that work. I'm not interested on arguing things I have proven with my own builds and neither are most of those other guys.

[lookforjoe]

It seems the consensus on the slots is to leave them as is. I'll see what the machine shop thinks about it.

What is still unclear from reading the various threads is what crank/rods/piston arrangement is preferable.

Some seem to say the lighter setup produces better torque. Chuck said goals of 400-500 might as well stick with old setup, but didn't specify what the issues actually are with later crank.

Since I have both styles, I want to make an educated decision BEFORE I order pistons. I can get the longer rods in H-Beam style, I presume.

What happens if you use the later crank with earlier rods & pistons?

This was taken from Bondo's old post:

"The RN engine uses a short skirted piston with the gudgeon pin located nearer to the ring pack to allow the use of a longer connecting rod. A longer connecting rod is beneficial for several reasons. A longer rod reduces piston-to-bore friction, improves combustion by holding the piston at TDC and BDC for longer duration allowing better ignition and better cylinder fill, and a longer connecting rod produces better torque by providing a better mechanical advantage."

[Volvo5.0]

Have you had time to pull the head yet? Post up some pictures of the carnage

Since I use the same software (Logworks) as you for logging, I spend a lot of time studying your logs to see how I compare. I know you like living on the edge, but I gotta say, some of your last logs before the engine went were scary...http://volvospeed.co.../page__st__1460

You even mentioned it in your post on Nov 21, about wacky EGT's and severe timing pull. AFR's over 13.5 at WOT and timing pulled al the way back to 10BTDC. Definitely something was amiss....

[lookforjoe]

Volvo5.0, on 13 February 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

Have you had time to pull the head yet? Post up some pictures of the carnage

Since I use the same software (Logworks) as you for logging, I spend a lot of time studying your logs to see how I compare. I know you like living on the edge, but I gotta say, some of your last logs before the engine went were scary...http://volvospeed.co.../page__st__1460

You even mentioned it in your post on Nov 21, about wacky EGT's and severe timing pull. AFR's over 13.5 at WOT and timing pulled al the way back to 10BTDC. Definitely something was amiss....

Took the 'new' block apart today, I'll drop it off at the machine shop tomorrow, hopefully.

I haven't had time (or inclination in this weather) to move the wagon to my driveway so I can begin pulling the engine. I also need to borrow an engine hoist.

Those particular logs were when I tried running 20+ psi. The AFR's were definitely high & the EGT's were nuts if accurate - considering you need to add at least 150ºF to factor the post-turbo probe. Maybe that was the beginning of the end.





Wish I could get more info on this: (Mark put pics in the con rod thread)

[wizzard_al]

They are trying to stabilize the bores, but not use sleeves. This could produce hot spots, and I wonder how this would work in a car that isn't designed for drag racing. The pugs give better water flow that the Darton sleeves, which Pras says cause cooling problems. My machinist says there are other brands of sleeves, one from LA, and he says use those, they don't have the big section around the top, so it is just like having the block without the slots at the top and the cooling would be far better. Don't know if it will solve the problem of harmonics that Pras talks about. RSJ is talking about putting in bolts through the side of the block to stabilize the sleeves, but that only does it side to side, not diagonally, or for and aft.

Looks like an early block, there is no small steel diverter plate at the front of the block in the water passage, like there is in the later engines. I'd also be curious to see what he does to replace the PCV system. I don't recall seeing it in the pictures, but its been a while since I reviewed the entire thread.

[lookforjoe]

^ going through the entire thread, he eventually cracked the block with those pins, but that was with close to 1000HP. He also has a MASSIVE remote crankcase breather can.

What I really want to know is which crank/rod/piston setup to go with, or if the later crank will behave with earlier rods/pistons. No one has clarified what the issue actually is, or the benefits of either.

[Captain Bondo]

I'm hazy on that kind of specific detail with the 5's. From what i remember, the later engines have a lightened crank shaft. This almost always means less stiff and more prone to weird resonances. What you would want is the opposite of what you are describing, Heavier early crank with the longer rods.

A better rod ratio makes for less side loading on the cylinders, which is a good thing.

So people are reporting cooling issues using Darton "MID" style sleeves? If so that is a bummer. What would be cool is a stepped sleeve that is siamesed to the top like a MID sleeve but that still leaves the deck open. CJ had some cosworth sleeves years ago. I think they were just straight sleeves but they were thicker than stock.

If/when i do another whiteblock that's what it'll get, thicker stock style sleeves and pins (but not like in that thread, threaded set screws like the honda guys do).

[lookforjoe]

Captain Bondo, on 13 February 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

If/when i do another whiteblock that's what it'll get, thicker stock style sleeves and pins (but not like in that thread, threaded set screws like the honda guys do).

Thanks Kenny.

I'll talk to the shop[ about the crank/rod/piston setup.

Threaded set screws that come in from the top, or through the liner/sleeve? Do you have any links for that, I'm totally unfamiliar with this sort of modification. Just spent an hour or so going through garaget.org/projects trying to find higher output whiteblock builds for inspiration, not much luck so far...

[Captain Bondo]

http://www.theoldone...s/badtothebone/

Note that in your case the posts go on the exhaust side since hondas spin "backwards".

[lookforjoe]

So this would be what Chuck was referring to as "pinning' I presume?



outside of block



The machine shop has to check w/JE - if they've already begun production of the standard piston based on the sample we sent in, I'll just have to stay with the shorter rod setup. If not, we'll send them one of the newer pistons & I'll order 147mm rods from RSI.

[Captain Bondo]

Posting. Pinning is what was done in the other project (vertical dowels)

[lookforjoe]

Captain Bondo, on 13 February 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

Posting. Pinning is what was done in the other project (vertical dowels)

OK, got it. Thanks for the clarification. I'm going to show these pics to the machine/speed shop & see if he can deal with that. His speed shop does a fair bit of Honda work, but I've only ever seen the modded heads he does for them.

[wizzard_al]

2.3 and 2.4 engines had 90 mm stroke cranks. Early models had 139.5 mm rods. Then aroung '02, they came out with 147 mm rods. pin was higher in the piston, so you had better rod/stroke ratio. Those cranks were supposedly lighter than earlier ones, but how much, I don't know. That should be the crank and rod in that '04 2.3 block Hussein. Then when Volvo went to 93.2 mm cranks, they lightened the cranks for certain, and the rods were 143 mm. Figures, the stroke takes it 3.2mm closer to the top of the block, so the rod is 4 mm shorter. Sten Parner sells 139.5, 147, 143 and 144.6 mm rods, the last two probably for the longer stroke cranks. He will also sell you a 100 mm stroker crank to boost a B5234 to 2600 cc. http://www.stenparne....aspx?NodeId=42

LGSpeed sells 139.5 and 143 mm rods. http://translate.goo...ls=en&prmd=ivns

R-Sport International sells 139.5, 143 and 147 mm rods. Then you have to worry about the piston pin diameter, 23 mm or 21 mm for the later stroker engines.


I just picked up what is supposed to be a B5254T2 engine, which should have the 93.2 mm crank, and 143 mm rods, but it is 83 mm bore, so I don't want that block, only the crank. I'll see if it is what I expect on the crank.

Yes, those were the types of "pins" I was talking about in the picture, screwed into the sleeve from the side.

[Jardim]

2600cc B5234T?

I'd be eager to find out what this thing would do......

[ozzimark]

Al, total weight savings of the transition from the 139.5mm rods to 147, including changes to the crank is 3.5 to 4.5kg, according to Volvo. I guess it depends on NA vs turbo on how much weight is really lost

There are also some 152mm rods in select RNC engines: http://volvospeed.co...ost__p__1829050

[lookforjoe]

wizzard_al, on 14 February 2012 - 03:41 AM, said:

R-Sport International sells 139.5, 143 and 147 mm rods. Then you have to worry about the piston pin diameter, 23 mm or 21 mm for the later stroker engines.

Thanks!

Are the pins exactly 21 or 23mm? RSI said theirs measured @ 22.8 ID - big difference from 23mm if I have to have the pistons altered to accommodate the change. I can't tell from Parner's site, he doesn't list the specs on the rods that I can determine.

[ozzimark]

http://pukema.com/kanget.htm

Quote

N length 139.5mm, 23mm dia piston pin, 25.8mm wide pin bearing, weight 642g, Stem 10.5mm/24mm, 4mm, replacement number 1270483

RN length 147mm, 21mm piston pin, 22mm wide pin bearing, weight 638g, Stem 12.4mm/23mm, spare part number 1270671

R length 143mm, 23mm piston pin, 22mm wide pin bearing, weight 650g, Stem 14mm/23mm, 22mm top end Levey, spare part number 8630714

D5 length 147mm, 28mm piston pin, 14mm to 25.8mm wide pin bearing (angled), weight 741g, Stem 15mm/23mm, 8mm, spare part number 8631505

I can measure the pins I have from RSI tomorrow to double check them if you'd like.

[lookforjoe]

ozzimark, on 14 February 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

http://pukema.com/kanget.htm

I can measure the pins I have from RSI tomorrow to double check them if you'd like.

That would be good - I need exact ID of the small end - not something an estimated measurement will work for