Watching and learning
Watching and learning
Out for a drive on a sunny spring day reminds me why I got this car
finsihed off repair at bottom of A pillar, although i havnt taken a pic, ive now replaced the section of sill cut away to do the repair.
ive moved to the n/s/r sill now, being triple and even quadruple skinned in some points its real rust trap, as you can see a bit of minor scabbing on the outside got a whole lot bigger when i started cutting back to strong steel.
the rusty looking bits left are only surface, so will get a good clean up, coat of worm poison and generous waxoyling
Thoroughly enjoying this thread, glad your making time for the old racing girl and bringing it back to life
its not dead till it's buried!
T.I.T engineering. "Feel the power!"
have been shopping, a partially successfully trip,
i picked up another 4.1 diff, its not a slipper but it will give me a spare diff if ever i need one in a hurry
not so good is that i travelled a couple of hours to get a close ratio dog leg 5 speed box which turned out to be a normal overdrive box
this has caused me to re think the whole gearbox thing, im now thinking of making an adapter plate so i can use a T9, it seems a backwards step to engineer the car to take a heavy not actually that strong iron box in place of the all alloy bmw box, BUT for potentially a vast cost saving over of getting a dogleg for the car, i can rebuild a T9 with a gear kit and get much more suitable set of ratios, and once a T9 will fit, then its an easy switch to either a caterham 6 speed or one of many different varieties of sequential box at a later date.
i also picked up a 2.0 crank, still std and not needing a grind, so that seals the engines fate for now 2.0 it is, with that crank 2.1 is a option, but as i only have later lighter/thinner walled m10 1.8 blocks a big bores not an option
and a 1602 head, no one, but no one uses these on a 2.0, as std they flow way less than a 2.0 head, but i know from previous flow testing that they can flow more than the 2.0 can without welding up ports, but to do so means fitting 8 new much bigger valve seats and about a weeks worth of grinding, a lot of the flow gain will come because bmw made the 1600 ports smaller so once you have put big valves in theres was more material to play with in the short turn, the only down side is they unfortunatly made the port od smaller as well as the id, so getting max flow risks breaking through, not to mention slight differences in manifold faces mean off the peg 2.0 manifolds, exhaust in particular cant be used
not really an update, but ive been thinking about exhaust manifolds, and trying to find a big bore 4/2/1
my first 02 had a race 4/1 manifold, but the design of it always bugged me, 3 of the primaries are fairly close in length, but one was twice the length of the others, it clearly worked as i had 200bhp, and in RHD form with a steering box in the way its difficult to get a decent manifold in there.
it gave a power curve this shape
http://www.turbosport.co.uk/attachme...0&d=1182884521
what ever i did with that engine the power graph was always the same shape, even changing cams didnt alter it, always big hicup in the middle of the power, just the more power i got the bigger the hicup. i ten moved onto other things and forgot all about it.
when i came back to N/A m10s it was with a bigger capacity, but this time with a 4/2/1 manifold. fundamentally other than the engine capacity there was little difference between the 2.0 and 2.5 engines, induction, cam compression all the same, even bhp per litre was close but no ugly dip/spike in the power curve
http://media2.turbosport.co.uk/2008/...82.5%20m10.jpg
so ive been looking hard for 421 manifolds, which lead to an interesting email conversation with someone earlier, i was offered a choice of manifolds, the chap said the bigger bore one worked better at over 5000 rpm on engines upto 240bhp. i replied what sort of m10 have you dyno'd that gave 240bhp, i built one but that was a 2.5, he saidwow, the goal posts have just moved!It was an original Schnitzer Group 2 engine from ’73 running some fairly naughty internals. I have no idea what compression ratio was, but the guys who owned it spent a long time mixing fuel up before running it.
tbh, i do recall a reading a snippet from vizard who said he once did some head work on one which gave 240bhp, which i rather dismissed knowing that figure to be a lot higher than anything claimed by any one else, so maybe it was true after all. obviously i cant use exotic rocket fuel, but it seems i need to be thinking of power north of 220bhp from just 2.0
Good to see you back with a 2002 Graham, I'm looking forward to watching you progress with this one
http://escort.accelerator.org
1968 MK1 Escort 1300GT
1969 'Big Wing' MK1 Escort
1972 MK3 Cortina 1600XL
1984 Sierra XR4i
And other junk I don't like to talk about!
Graham,,, what a small world, I tried to buy this car, think it was a Thursday night and he said it was sold couple hrs before....
Finger oot graham, I'd ave finished this by now lol.
nothing much to report, ive been playing with a head on the flowbench
the head is question is the modifed one i used on my 2.5litre m10 build, ive tried more agressive porting, lost a little midrange flow and picked some up at the top end, going even more agressive picked up a whole heap of high lift flow, but way beyond where the valves will lift to, i also tried a bigger valve but without the agressive porting, that lost flow everywhere except right at the top again, so overall they dont improve flow. that im not suprised at because ive heard from several sources that oversize valves dont give anymore power, from what i can tell overise inlet valve will only hurt power unless you have custom cam ground. i wil however try the big valve with the very agressive porting.
been hard at the flow bench again
i had hoped that i would see a big flow improve ment going from a 46 to a 48mm inlet valve, even though i had heard ther were no power gains to be had by going to 48mm,
unfortunatly the flow figuers dont lie the 48mm valve only really starts to work at very high valve lift, beyond where even schrick race cams lift to.
i started out with a fully modified port and 46mm valve (blue line) even more radical porting picked up flow at higher lifts (brown/redish line) trying harder still picked up a bit more at the very top and lost out where i'd preciously gained, 48mm valve (pink line) lost more of teh previous gain but picked up lift at very high lift around 550thou plus. it took a lot more work to make the 48mm valve work that well and as such i really do not think its worth exploring, its too big for the valve seats, needs chamber mods and without a one off cam giving insane lift its never going to give more power than the 46mm valve can,
curiously to make the port flow ive had to lift it up until its on the very edge of breaking through the top of the port, as its now a huge port you would expect that fillingthe bottom of the port in would be good, not so, low and middle lifts you can fill it in and it makes no difference, but high lift flow is damaged by lifting the port floor.
when you back out ?
sideways is the best way to turn a corner
wont be for ages yet im afraid, simply cant afford it
i see you was over brands in October when the tin tops were on
sideways is the best way to turn a corner
ive been trying really hard to make the big valve flow, at ultra high lift i have achived it with some style, ive got it upto over 137cfm@10", however, its at huge cost flow throught most of the lift range is well down, and it will need a cam lifting to 600 thou which is nearly 100 thou more than any off the shelf cam!
im going to have another look at filling the bottom of the port in next
Last edited by Graham; 10-11-2015 at 21:42.
Hi Graham,
Is the problem with the flow on the red and the blue curve is at 115 / 120 cfm, the air cannot go around the short side. If you continue the graphs at higher lift will the curves continue to rise but at a slower rate. If that is the case then I found that widening the width of the port at the short side radius helped get the flow around the corner without effecting the high lift flow. If you could keep the lines increasing at the same rate then you could see nearly 140cfm at around 12mm lift.
This is kind of what I tried to do
I dont know anything about your cylinder head so this may not work at all for you.
To finish first, you must first finish
absolutely, the blue tops out at 115cfm red at 120, the problem with the bmw port is its rectangular and already as wide as the valve, so widening it further may not work, but its something i will have to try
when i was using daves superflow i found airflow on the blue line stalled dead @115cfm, but with my bench running @28" (i convert the results to 10") i do get a slight increase if i lift the valve further but not much, i can see this is going to end up with a custom cam and welded up port
didnt get a picture, but i tried widening the port at the sides like works on a pinto, clearly doesnt work on an M10!
i think the problem with going wider is the bmw port is already very wide
All seams very technical to me but I get and understand what and why, be good to see ya back on track again
Huge arches on that, never seen one done like that
oh yes there certainly are, 7 inch wheels on inch spacers are lost in those arches
Thought I'd share.. I bought a set of Wössner pistons for my M10. 575€ a set. 13:1 ratio after machining the domes (5mm narrower) and combustion chambers. With a practically stock head and block height. They come with deep valve cutouts big enough for 48/40mm valves I think. Piston height is 1mm higher than stock Tii pistons.
right been at it again with the flow bench, if you have been following you will know ive hit a wall flow wise, essentially what ever ive tried i cant increase the average airflow over the valve lift range,
my instincts are screaming the short turn is all wrong and needs raising to give a longer radius, but that doesnt work, only lowering it more, which increase high lift flow at great expense to low lift, raising the port between the guide and manifold face works at high lift, big valve was fantastic and megga valve lift, like way more than ever practical,
the one part of the port i had ignored all along was the long turn, its quite concave, but i figured the air would ignore it like on a pinto, i was wrong! i filled that section and gain a whole heap of air flow both with standard and big valve, my guess is the air was following the concave section of port and simply crashing into the back of the valve rather than going round it. i wont know for sure until i get home and put the numbers in a spread sheet, but i think i have made progress, even if in an ideal world i still need a cam that lifts to 600 thou
boy did filling the long side of the port work the big valve previously lost out massively everywhere but the very top end, what i did was also put back a bit of material on the short side which picked up lower lift flow, there is still work to be done, but clearly with welding the big valve now becomes viable
Last edited by Graham; 30-01-2016 at 22:31.
blue line is best conventional port, green line is big valve with long turn filled, im sure with work it can be better still, infact i dont thinki used the best set of flow figs for the big valve
same valve same port, just with long turn filling, the filler is worth 10cfm through most of the lift range
glad you have made a breakthrough
i think your "excitement " is something only us petrol heads understand
been digging around the spread sheet which has also confirmed the tests, years ago i ported the hell out of a carb type small port 1800 head, it made more flow but a never used it because it meant fitting 8 new valve inserts and risking breaking through everywhere but it loks like i have to revisit that head, here it is against the best ive managed with a 2.0 head
as i sit here i remember more reasons why i didnt use that head, very small exhaust ports which require a different manifold, inlet manifolds are different too
Last edited by Graham; 31-01-2016 at 11:35.
Any progress Graham
well funny you say should say that, nothing with the engine, im in the process of building an s14 for a customer, and my head is saying build a short stroke screamer of 2.0 s14 for the 02. serious bucks though, but the is sort of some progress, in just over a week its going to off to have a cage fitted, i have had the cage for years but never got around to fit it, so i have a chap doing it for me, his unit is close enough to mine we can simply push it over to him ( it is sitting on a pallet with wheels attached)
ive also decided how im going to build the car now, my heart said, screaming 16v engine, sequential box, ultra trick brakes and suspension, 12 inch wide wheels so as to fill the arches and so on, BUT id end up spending 25-30k and the only place i could race it would be against thunder saloons and such like which would eat it alive on anything but the very smallest tightest circuits, and an 02 is pretty light weight and fragile so i really dont fancy racing against cars which have much higher straight line speeds and twice the weight, so the big arches are going to come off and go into storage, and im going to re-build it with standard arches and most of the bits i already have to suit a couple of the classic championships. not forgetting ive still got the E30 race car
And there was progress
thats probably all for now, what i want to do first is get the E30 up and running
we have a bit more progress, the really wide rear arches have come off, thats revealed standard arches with the lips removed ( to suit turbo arches) whoever did it thought didnt weld the inner and outer skins back together, they just filled the gap with filler! we have now cut (the n/s) quarter away so we can but weld an arch repair section in
Good to see its still moving along mate.
from my angle yes and no, over the last few years my business has expanded rapidly and staff numbers grown, but right now im short of work for one of my young guys so this is keeping him occupied as well as teaching him new skills, so yes its good but i really need him doing customers cars not mine lol!
Just Read this entire thread, Great work. I do love the old Bms. I had two, whilst I was serving in Germany. Wish I still had them.
back on it again, o/s this time, arch repair section and lower quarter repair panels butt welded in
Looking very nice will have to have a proper look over it when I drop the engine bits off for the Blue Rs
had young Sam doing some more today, rear lower quarter fully welded in, the inner and outer arches now welded together and we have welded a spare wheel well back in. Some one had previous cut it out and replaced it with a riveted in Alloy sheet, the repro wheel well was expensive and even then didnt have a lip so we had to fold an hammer one into it.
there we a couple of reasons why i put the well back in, firstly it does add a bit of structural strength because a 2002 has absolutely no form of chassis rail or structural member rearward of the rear suspension. Secondly i want to to look fairly correct, the other hole in the boot floor was where the OE fuel tank goes, again it was covered with an alloy plate, if i had a standard tank i would cut teh bottom off it an bolt it back in, so again it would look correct, but i havnt got one, so either the alloy plate will go back or a will fab something in steel which will resemble the top of a tank
Bookmarks