Landracing Forum

Tech Information => Technical Discussion => Topic started by: Jack Gifford on December 04, 2011, 12:17:59 AM

Title: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on December 04, 2011, 12:17:59 AM
I need help with fundamentals of high-performance four-bangers, as I've never modified/built one before. This is for my F-class blown/fuel lakester (182 c.i., ~4" bore, a little under 3.75" stroke). To attain my goal of 4 HP/c.i., simulations show it needing to spin ~10,000 RPM (keeping boost within reason, vintage-look blower with no intercooliing, and on alky only). So... I need to learn about keeping this "vibrator" in one piece. Is it a 'given' that I use a flat crank, or does some arrangement of 90` offset throws have any "smoothness" advantage? If flat, is there any precedent for other than having #2 and #3 throws in-line?

Note: Think clean-sheet-of-paper with no restrictions, since crank and cams need to be from billets anyway.
Hmm... if there are literally no restrictions, I guess I shouldn't necessarily assume crank throws at multiples of 90 degrees, huh? :roll: C'mon, help me think out-of-the-box on this!

Lots more questions, but that's it for now.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on December 04, 2011, 01:34:12 AM
I know you're just approximating at this point, but I'm showing you at 189 ci with the dimensions you gave.  This is the planning stage, so it's just numbers for now.

F/BFL record is 262 and change.

700 hp - 10 K, you're probably thinking a 3:1 rear end with 28" tires?  Wouldn't have to wind it that tight with different gears, if you can come up with an engine model that will get you your power at a lower RPM.

5 main bearings, I hope?  :-D

How big of a bore do you think you could get away with and not have the walls so thin that they might flex?

Needless to say, I'm a fan of the low reciprocating weight, short-stroke idea if you want to keep it smooth.  You wind up with the advantage of a stiffer crankshaft, which equals less flex and vibration.  You also get a longer rod to stroke ratio, with less side loading on the bores.  You take a lot of pounding on the block out of the equation by going with a shorter stroke.

All generalities at this point.  You need to get specific.  More info, please!  :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: 55chevr on December 04, 2011, 07:15:47 AM
I would investigate an Offenhauser engine ... good starting point
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: hotschue on December 04, 2011, 07:24:52 AM
Give "jacksoni" a shout.....he is the architect and builder of our Pontiac G motor...
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on December 04, 2011, 08:55:52 AM
You might go read this thread on speedtalk which deals with a cross plane crank. Done in bikes. They shake your fillings out I understand. Done for traction not power. Uneven firing order. Need balance shafts etc. On a big four don't think good idea. Also on speedtalk a member "cspeier" who ran a comp elim 202" 4 based on same engine as mine (super duty pontiac). 465hp NA. Might ask his thoughts on the vibration issue. And of course, drag motor rpms and bonneville rpms may not be happy being the same. But there are lots of 4 cyls running comp eliminator. Gotta have all your valve train ducks in a row for that kind of rpm (your 10k) if you are running a 2 valve pushrod engine( I am and have some issues) Might think DOHC.

http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=29040
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: RichFox on December 04, 2011, 09:11:37 AM
Other than a flat crank will not result in a cylinder firing every 180 degrees. That and a forged flat crank being inherently stronger than a twisted crank, that started out flat, pretty much rules out your plan.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: johnneilson on December 04, 2011, 10:10:04 AM
The only way around the offset acceleration vibration problem (inline 4) is to configure the motor as a boxer type and problem goes away.
Using very long rods and the absolute lightest piston helps.

You didn't mention Vintage motor, what are you thinking about basing the motor on?

John
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: maguromic on December 04, 2011, 11:09:22 AM
I asked a good friend that designs cranks for some of the big engine builders and he mentioned that:

"This will be a bigger problem than he might expect, vibration will be
terrible even with a flat crank at that high rpm with a 3.75 stroke
unless the parts are super light.

When the Pro stock teams were running flat cranks at 3.72 stroke, WJ
said the car vibrated so bad the tack looked as big as a dinner plate.

It is possible to use a non flat crank but he will have to use an
external balance shaft. I don't know if there would be an advantage that makes it worth doing".

The record your after is held by a turbo Offy that can produce over 1000hp in the old Dick Russel lakester (maybe Rex will chime in with his "how to stop an runaway  Offy on the dyno story").  Unless you were really tied to what you want to do I would look for a last generation Chevy 3.0L IRL motor and put a turbo on it.  It will get you over 1000HP and you would be in it for a fraction of an Offy and less than a good SBC.  Tony
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on December 04, 2011, 11:56:23 AM
I suspect what Jack has up his sleeve is a bit more interesting than an IRL motor . . . :wink:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: RichFox on December 04, 2011, 02:29:13 PM
I may be wrong but I believe Russel Eyres runs, has run, a SBC using only one bank. I believe the engine has a standard V8 crank and so would be very much like what you discribe. Contact information for the Eyres clan can be found in the rule book. You might want to contact them and see what they think.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on December 04, 2011, 02:42:44 PM
Of course, Fred Larsen and Cummins beautiful little liner ran a blown 4 cyl (of eight) in GBFS and a 3 liter V-8 in F.  This year, Don McMeekin had a half Ford motor in FGC. I think he had custom crank rather than just counterweighting it. So there are number of times has been done. And first time out with my streamliner took 2 pistons out of the G motor 4 to make a 2 cyl 1liter. Did set a record- which has been exceeded by 200mph! :roll: :cheers: There are always ways.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: RichFox on December 04, 2011, 04:53:13 PM
I have seen several SBC V8 engines running the end two on one side and the center two on the other. I believe that's what Larsen and Cummins did. As did Solomen and Hartsok roadster. But Russel's one side Chevy. The other side blanked off with a flathead is a horse of a different color.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Rex Schimmer on December 04, 2011, 06:33:38 PM
Last time I was at Van Dyne Engineering Stu had a 200 inch 4 cylinder based upon current midget motor technology, it had a hair dryer on it and ran gas with an intercooler, I think, anyway it was for some guys sand rail but it made over 1200 hp on the dyno. That equals 6 hp/inch so you could back it down and probably get a reliable 4 hp/inch that would run 5 miles at Bonneville. If you are going to run alcohol even better. John Romero, was getting almost 650 hp from his 91 cu-inch Honda at the wheels and literally "hot lapped" that car at Bonneville a couple of years ago, so a high hp four cylinder should not be a problem. The cure for the vibration is to use rubber motor mounts to keep from breaking the motor loose from the frame and keep the instruments from being unreadable .  Trying to do some sort of trick weird offset crank is probably a waste of time and certainly lots of money.

When the old time sprint car guys ran Offys at 317 cu. inches the only way they could keep the motor in the frame was to use rubber motor mounts.

Rex
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on December 05, 2011, 01:06:14 AM
1) ... 189 ci with the dimensions you gave...
2) ... F/BFL record is 262 and change...
3) ... 3:1 rear end with 28" tires...
4) ... come up with an engine model that will get you your power at a lower RPM...
5) ... 5 main bearings...
6) ... How big of a bore...
7) ... generalities at this point.  You need to get specific...
1) I had only given approximate numbers. Bore will be 4.000", stroke 3.620" (or maybe 3.580" for more wiggle-room within the 'F' limit).
2) Which is one of the main reasons I've chosen 'F', since the car has already displayed good manners up to 260-something (on its GPS at Bonneville '08).
3) The quickchange box (my design and fabrication) has a huge range available, so no need to discuss rear gears and tire rollout.
4) With the constraints I've set I'm stuck with turning the engine that fast.
5) Yes. _____________________________[to be cont'd]
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on December 05, 2011, 01:23:51 AM
continuation of post#13 (I can't figure out how to create a loooooooong post?)

6) Although it would be advantageous, I can't do a larger bore-to-stroke ratio.
7) In the interest of being methodical, I hoped to avoid "distracting" specifics. Right now, I need to learn enough about the fundamentals of inline-four "shaking" to choose a crank configuration.
Thanks.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on December 05, 2011, 01:31:53 AM
... Need balance shafts etc...
... "cspeier"...  Might ask his thoughts...
... Might think DOHC...
I ain't gonna' mess with balance shafts.
I haven't looked at 'speedtalk'; got an email address for him?
My DOHC design is in-process.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on December 05, 2011, 01:36:26 AM
... pretty much rules out your plan.
I don't have a plan yet. Thanks for the reminder about twisted forgings.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on December 05, 2011, 01:48:03 AM
... very long rods and the absolute lightest piston helps...
... didn't mention Vintage motor, what are you thinking about basing the motor on?
Although long rods/low reciprocating mass is a concern for all engine configurations, thanks for reminding me- I'll need to try to emphasize that with this project- not easy with high-dome hemi pistons.
I'm not interested in the actual "Vintage" classes; just to give the appearance of a sixties-vintage lakester.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Anvil* on December 05, 2011, 01:59:45 AM
Mmmm, since you don't have a plan yet, you may want to consider a Nissan RB26 6-cylinder as an option.
---
Guess I should add that the only requirements then is how you dress the engine. Developing vintage look exterior castings rather than a new engine from scratch that still isn't vintage. Hilborn looking EFI...
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on December 05, 2011, 02:03:37 AM
... The record your after is held by a turbo Offy that can produce over 1000hp...
... Unless you were really tied to what you want to do...
I don't know anything about the car, only that the record is 262. I'm surprised that it required an engine capable of 1,000 HP. The former N/A engine in my car dyno'd seven-hundred-something HP, yet showed 260-something on its GPS.

Yes, I'm "really tied"; see my signature line...

Thanks.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: maguromic on December 05, 2011, 02:17:28 AM
... The record your after is held by a turbo Offy that can produce over 1000hp...
... Unless you were really tied to what you want to do...
I don't know anything about the car, only that the record is 262. I'm surprised that it required an engine capable of 1,000 HP. The former N/A engine in my car dyno'd seven-hundred-something HP, yet showed 260-something on its GPS.

Yes, I'm "really tied"; see my signature line...

Thanks.

I id not mean it had 1000 hp, only that a turbo Offy is capable of 1000 hp.  Tony
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Robin UK on December 05, 2011, 04:02:04 AM
Jack,
Maybe worth searching out some technical articles on 80s F1 engines. Here's a link to a bit about the 1500cc turbo BMW F1 engine from the 80's. Based on the M10 in-line 4 production block it was developed to produce 1300/1400bhp in qualifying trim and 900 or so for the duration of a race. F1 doesn't allow alky or nitro so it ran on gasoline with some weird additives to help produce the power and keep the engines together - sometimes. This was also the ground effect era and I remember watching the cars go out on a qually lap surrounded by a brown haze and a pungent smell. It was terrifying and awesome it equal parts. When BMW pulled out, the engines were picked up by Megatron Inc who provided them for another year. The Hart 415T in-line 4 was not far behind in power - also 1500cc - but based on a custom block. Mechanical valve control was an issue at ultra high rpms (20,000rpm at one point a couple of years back) which the F1 designers eventually fixed by using pneumatic valves rather than springs.

http://www.gurneyflap.com/bmwturbof1engine.html

Cheers
Robin

Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on December 05, 2011, 07:10:05 AM
... Need balance shafts etc...
... "cspeier"...  Might ask his thoughts...
... Might think DOHC...
I ain't gonna' mess with balance shafts.
I haven't looked at 'speedtalk'; got an email address for him?
My DOHC design is in-process.

Thanks.
Although I have an email for him I don't think appropriate to publish it. However, I have attached here his website and if you sign in to Speedtalk you can send a PM. Tell him I sent you.

http://www.speierracingheads.com/

Somehow if the combo is right wouldn't think need the 10Krpm. Lot of blown small 4's making 1200 in drag trim and IIRC Ron Main in prior iteration of power in his liner had "detuned" the Ecofire 2 liter to "only" 800 for his 300+ runs. I don't have any experience modeling these things so don't know in your case.   And as you are running fuel class, there is always N20!
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jimmy six on December 05, 2011, 09:15:14 AM
What ever you decide on make sure you have as many shoulder bolts as you can to hold on the flywheel. 3/8" dowel are good too.
Rich maybe able to comment on a balencer but I would suggest at least 2 full length keys for iwhich ever one you choose.........Good Luck
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Rex Schimmer on December 05, 2011, 04:44:56 PM
Jack,
You have a much bigger problem than vibration if you are considering running a 3.58 inch stroke motor at 10,000 rpm, at that speed your "mean piston speed" is 6000 ft/min, most engine designers and builders consider 4500 ft/min the upper limit for performance engines that need to run longer than 10 seconds, i.e. such as Bonneville. I have seen several big block Chevys run pretty reliable at over 5000 ft/min but at the rpm you are looking at regardless of what style crank/rods/pistons you plan to have you are building a hand grenade. 

The equation for mean piston speed= 2xrpmxrod length(in inches)/12= mean piston speed in feet/minute.

Rex
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on December 05, 2011, 05:22:12 PM
Agree with Rex. Though I am having some valve spring issues have sort of forgotten about the piston speed. My 2.58 stroke is 4300fpm range at 10k.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Interested Observer on December 05, 2011, 06:47:51 PM
Ref. Reply #24
Rex probably meant "stroke" instead of "rod length" in his formula.  The 6000 fpm number probably got him really concerned about the rods, leading to the misprint.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: johnneilson on December 05, 2011, 06:55:37 PM
Not being a follower of NASCAR, what are the motor dimensions they run?
It seems to me that they live in the 9k rev range. Anybody?

John
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: interested bystander on December 05, 2011, 08:03:51 PM
I recall the Nascar MAXIMUM bore is like 4.185". @ 358 c.i. you figure the stroke . ( I WORKED  today and drove SoCal freeways so I's a bit brain ded!)
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: johnneilson on December 05, 2011, 09:21:10 PM
I thought something close to that. max 4.185 bore and 3.25 stroke = 357.7 in

so piston speed =4875 @9k and 5145@9500.

If memory serves, the pin placement and skirt design plays a ton into what will work.

I seem to recall that F1 motors at one time had issue with centrifugal force pumping the oil out of the crank throws and starving the mains.
The cranks are now cross drilled at a very flat angle (close to CL) to reduce starvation.

John

BTW, SoCal freeways leave you "Dain Bramaged", if you can avoid all the texting going on.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Rex Schimmer on December 05, 2011, 11:04:14 PM
IO, you are right I did mean stroke, at my age I find it is easy just to blame being old but thanks for the correction.

One of the side affects of high "mean piston speed" is very high acceleration numbers when the piston hits the end of the stroke and is reversed. It increases by the square of the rpm change, i.e. going from 4500 ft/min to 6000 ft/min increases the acceleration load by 1.78 times. Studies have been done regarding rod failure and most of them fail in tension from these acceleration loads, which is a reason for light pistons and very high quality rod material. It has also been found that the back pressure from turbo charging can reduce this tensile stress in the rod a;though you normally do not have to turn a turbo motor at high rpm to get competitive power.

I attended a class a couple of weeks ago that was put on my Dema Elgin of Elgin Cams on racing engine design and it really put a light on really being able to define the parameters that you need for the type of competition that your are going to do to enable you to have a grip on how to build a competitive racing engine and also the huge number of compromises that are required to make real horse power. 
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on December 05, 2011, 11:23:28 PM
... "mean piston speed" is 6000 ft/min, most engine designers and builders consider 4500 ft/min the upper limit for performance engines that need to run longer than 10 seconds...
Thanks for the heads-up. Apparently the 4,500 isn't a "hard" limit, judging by my hemi V8 experience. It's a full 3.75" stroke and it ran 9,000 almost every time down the track the last two seasons in competition. That's full power for as long as twenty seconds- longer than dragracing, but shorter than land-racing.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: WOODY@DDLLC on December 06, 2011, 05:57:18 AM
IO, you are right I did mean stroke, at my age I find it is easy just to blame being old but thanks for the correction.

Rex, at my age I just do rpm x stroke / 6!  :-D

Leaves time for that second glass of Merlot if I can remember where the bottle is!  :?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Interested Observer on December 06, 2011, 07:52:45 AM
Ref. Reply #29 - Centrifugal oil pressure
The other consideration is the pressure required to pump the oil “uphill” INTO the crank in the first place.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: RansomT on December 06, 2011, 07:55:50 AM
Just to put things into perspective:  the new Kawasaki ZX10r has a piston speed of 5200 (a little more than 26 m/s) and comes with a factory warrantee to boot.  :roll:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on December 06, 2011, 11:57:17 PM
The consensus seems to favor a flat crank.
So... the next crank concern is whether center throws (#2 & 3) should be at 0` or 180` to each other- comments?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on December 07, 2011, 07:20:22 AM
The consensus seems to favor a flat crank.
So... the next crank concern is whether center throws (#2 & 3) should be at 0` or 180` to each other- comments?
Just changes firing order making custom crank of course mandatory but also makes getting a cam ground harder as no standard cam core will work. Makes cost go up. I need a custom core, though one used in other engines also, but by the time I get done with the core, shipping, grinding,shipping etc etc is close to $1k. A lot more than your usual Comp Cams deal. Spend the money on better rods, lighter pistons or something else.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on December 07, 2011, 11:52:58 PM
The consensus seems to favor a flat crank.
So... the next crank concern is whether center throws (#2 & 3) should be at 0` or 180` to each other- comments?
I guess I should have emphasized that I'm asking strictly about vibration aspects. I've never attempted to delve into the analysis of a piston engine's vibrations. But I'm sure that the firing order of an inline engine will influence vibrations in at least one plane (probably the plane defined by the bore centers), and possibly in the other two planes.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wobblywalrus on December 08, 2011, 12:32:32 AM
In reference to reply #34.  Just for perspective, the Hinckley Triumph Bonneville will rev to 9,000 rpm with Carillo rods, forged Arias racing pistons, special crank and rod bearings, racing valve springs, and careful assembly.  This is really pushing it and it is just over 4,000 fpm average piston speed.  The 5,200 fpm average piston speed, with street bike reliability, opens new frontiers of big horsepower.  I wonder how Kawasaki does this?
 
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Koncretekid on December 08, 2011, 06:03:20 AM
The Triumph is a 360 degree twin, which like a single, cannot be balanced without a balance shaft of some kind.  I suspect that vibration may be more of a limiting factor than piston speed.
I'll bet some of the racers in AHRMA are spinning higher than 9,000.
Tom
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: RansomT on December 08, 2011, 06:19:56 AM
In reference to reply #34.  Just for perspective, the Hinckley Triumph Bonneville will rev to 9,000 rpm with Carillo rods, forged Arias racing pistons, special crank and rod bearings, racing valve springs, and careful assembly.  This is really pushing it and it is just over 4,000 fpm average piston speed.  The 5,200 fpm average piston speed, with street bike reliability, opens new frontiers of big horsepower.  I wonder how Kawasaki does this?
  

They have kept the same bore/stroke (76x55mm) for several generations of the bike while raising the rev limit to 14k.  Here is an article that does give a little info on the engine design.

http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2011/Jan/110106kawza10.htm (http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2011/Jan/110106kawza10.htm)
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wobblywalrus on December 08, 2011, 11:27:46 PM
I am not sure how useful this will be for the subject of this thread, but here it goes.  The Triumph is a twin with four main bearing journals and counter balancers.  There are two firing orders for these bikes, 360 degrees and 270 degrees.  The engines with 270 degree cranks are much smoother on the street than the ones with 360 degree cranks.  The race part suppliers have figured out the proper combinations of piston weight, connecting rod weight, and crank balance factors for the 360 degree engines.  I would need to figure everything out on my own if I use a goofy firing order.  With a 360 degree crank I am building on their experience.

The target rpm for my engine is around 7,500 rpm.  I gear for that.  There is always the possibility of a tailwind or me putting on too big a rear sprocket.  The engine is built to run safely at higher rpm if this happens.  Bearing shells are on the loose side of tolerance.  The oil hole edges on the journals are chamfered.  Carillo rods.  The gudgeon pins are offset 1 mm in forged racing pistons.

These engines can be built to run over 9,000 rpm.  This advice was given to me if I planned to do this.  Polish the crank and grind knife edges on the webs, enlarge the oil passages, and rebalance the crank for high rpm.  They told me the balance factor.  Also, I was advised to use a metal treatment that is also used on F1 car engines.  I did not do any of the things in this paragraph.  I would only go up to 9,000 rpm accidentally, or never.

It sure made sense to me to trust the experts on the issues associated with high rpm.  I am a low dollar guy and a crank break would set the program back.  Besides, that exploding motor would be right up close to a sensitive part of my anatomy.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on December 09, 2011, 07:37:08 AM
The consensus seems to favor a flat crank.
So... the next crank concern is whether center throws (#2 & 3) should be at 0` or 180` to each other- comments?
I guess I should have emphasized that I'm asking strictly about vibration aspects. I've never attempted to delve into the analysis of a piston engine's vibrations. But I'm sure that the firing order of an inline engine will influence vibrations in at least one plane (probably the plane defined by the bore centers), and possibly in the other two planes.
I asked about this firing order (up, down, up, down instead of more usual up, down, down, up) on an engine building site and got this response:

It would introduce a first-order end-to-end rocking couple in the engine while providing absolutely no benefit whatsoever, and would need a first-order counter-rotating balance shaft. It doesn't change the 2nd-order vibration of a normal (up down down up) four-banger. There's simply no logical reason to do it that way.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on December 10, 2011, 12:45:22 AM
re: post#42
Thanks for a direct answer to the question! Up/down/down/up it will be.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: sockjohn on December 12, 2011, 09:07:12 PM
Last time I was at Van Dyne Engineering Stu had a 200 inch 4 cylinder based upon current midget motor technology, it had a hair dryer on it and ran gas with an intercooler, I think, anyway it was for some guys sand rail but it made over 1200 hp on the dyno.

I thought that older midget motors were V4's, possibly in the 60's?  V4's are somewhat prevalent in motorcycles and outboard motors, but I am uncertain the advantages and disadvantages to them.

Bub 7 streamliner used a V4.

http://seven-streamliner.com/engine/index.html
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: RichFox on December 12, 2011, 10:10:59 PM
[]

I thought that older midget motors were V4's, possibly in the 60's?  V4's are somewhat prevalent in motorcycles and outboard motors, but I am uncertain the advantages and disadvantages to them.

Bub 7 streamliner used a V4.

http://seven-streamliner.com/engine/index.html
[/quote]You are thinking of the SCAT half of a Chevy V8. Some used them. Lots didn't.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Rex Schimmer on December 13, 2011, 12:15:12 AM
Present midget motor tech is an aluminum block straight 4 cylinder with the proper bore spacing to fit the head you want, Ford or Chev. Also Chevy, Dodge and Toyota all make complete 4 cylinder engines specifically for midgets. All are around 160 cu. inches and good ones make 350  hp plus at 9500 rpm on alky.

Rex
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wobblywalrus on January 04, 2012, 08:02:38 PM
The V-4 can be a smoother motor than an inline 4.  Do not ask me why.  This was explained in a technical article I read years ago.  There were all sorts of graphs and I could barely understand it then and there is no way I can explain it now.  One thing I remember is that the V-4 can provide smooth running without balancing shafts and the drag that is associated with the shafts.   
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Richard 2 on January 04, 2012, 08:29:06 PM
I can tell you from experience to run a turbocharged 2.3 inline 4 cyl WOT (8500 rpm) for 4 miles it has to have a very strong, stiff crankshaft, and as small a flywheel and clutch as possible (to keep the inertia low) just to keep the flywheel on. And a little taper on the flywheel flange helps to.
Richard
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: RichFox on January 05, 2012, 08:33:17 AM
The Lotus 907 I had in my roadster for a while turned plenty of Rs. Never caused any problums. The 60 degree V4 in German Fords has a balance shaft. Never had one. Don't know much about them except most say they were junk.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on January 06, 2012, 12:40:06 AM
I now see that my initial post neglected to state that it will specifically be an inline four (although the thread title does say 'Inline')

Thanks for all the responses.

A successful boat racer (Tony Black) recommended Kansas Racing for billet inline-4 cranks. Anybody here use them?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Richard 2 on January 06, 2012, 06:22:56 PM
I had Rick King at King Crank make us a billet full counter weighted crank out of 300 M steel. looks and works great. Note our Esslinger 2.3 doen't have a balance shaft.
Richard
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on January 06, 2012, 11:25:35 PM
Is your crank from Jack and Rick King in Denver, NC? "... works great" to what sustained engine speed?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on January 07, 2012, 07:21:47 PM
I now see that my initial post neglected to state that it will specifically be an inline four (although the thread title does say 'Inline')

Thanks for all the responses.

A successful boat racer (Tony Black) recommended Kansas Racing for billet inline-4 cranks. Anybody here use them?
[/quotNot sure. KRP builds (built) SD Pontiac heavier duty blocks drilled to your specs and part number for midgets etc. They did market some good quality (according to them) cranks but they were not billet and not at 3.75 stroke.  I think you are not using that block anyway? I got Moldex to do my crank, was on time, to specs. I am sure there are other companies that will do you one. Considering more or less one off custon billet I thought price at least OK. $1600
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Richard 2 on January 07, 2012, 09:25:42 PM
Is your crank from Jack and Rick King in Denver, NC? "... works great" to what sustained engine speed?


Rick King Denver N.C.   http://www.kingscrankshaft.com/index.html

8,500rpm through the 5 mile. Could probably handle more but we run 25 to 40 pounds of boost.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on January 08, 2012, 12:00:29 AM
Thanks, guys.

Jacksoni- no, I'm not doing a SD. I'll use half of my "junk" aluminum 389 block. I'm probably remembering wrong about Tony saying his crank is billet.

Richard- is vibration difficult to contend with? Solid mounts?

I'll plan on talking with King's about a billet. There's a good chance that it was Jack King who expertly added center counterweights to the 389 SD forging that's still going strong in my hemi V8, after eleven seasons of pulling competition (about 900 HP, to 9,000 RPM).
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Richard 2 on January 08, 2012, 08:52:55 AM
Thanks, guys.

Richard- is vibration difficult to contend with? Solid mounts?


I have never talk to a Jack King. With the stock Esslinger crank the vibration was uncontrolable, couldn't keep any bolts tight. Have not had that problem with the king crank.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on January 08, 2012, 09:45:17 AM
Thanks, guys.

Jacksoni- no, I'm not doing a SD. I'll use half of my "junk" aluminum 389 block. I'm probably remembering wrong about Tony saying his crank is billet.


I am sure the cranks were not race quality but if you could find one might help with setup etc. You recall of course that Pontiac had their slant 4 in the pre '64 Tempests and maybe other stuff. Was your basic "half a 389".
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on January 09, 2012, 12:14:06 AM
Jack King is Rick's father. He was with a major California crank shop (CSC?) in the sixties. [I hope I don't learn that the website is out-of-date and that Jack has died since I talked to him twenty years ago]

Do you have a picture of your crank? I'm curious about the counterweights- their shapes and orientations.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Richard 2 on January 10, 2012, 07:18:31 PM
Sorry no pictures of the King Crank. I'll take one next time I see it, Not for a while I hope.
Richard
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: 1 fast evo 2 on January 30, 2012, 10:21:31 AM
I may have missed it but is there a reason you are building an engine from scratch instead of using an existing mass produced 4 cly?

        Mike Reichen
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: tomsmith on January 30, 2012, 11:07:58 AM
I'm a little late on this, but the early midgets (circa 1950) usually ran 91 cu in Offys (4 cylinder inline just like the big offys).  They really sounded nice - almost as good as my Ariel square 4.  A few midgets ran Drake motors, which were based on a Harley v-twin.  They were known as "Shakers" for a good reason.  The Drake evolved so it was not even remotely Harley.  For instance, they used a water cooled 1-piece cylinder and head, a crankcase carved from billet aluminum and big chrome moly rods.  Drake (for you kids out there) was part of Meyer & Drake, who designed and built the Offenhauser motors, which were in turn derived from the 1920's Miller (which was also 91 cu in in one incarnation due to Indy rules).  I don't know the displacement of the Drake, but it was lots bigger than 91 cu in thanks to the rules.  Anyone like to correct or help me with this?  My memory is going fast, so the details are long gone.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Rex Schimmer on January 30, 2012, 05:49:09 PM
Tom,
There is a guy in Orange, Richard Denabiles, that has most of the old Drake/Harley stuff and he actually rebuilds them and they run (as opposed to guys that have lots of neat old stuff but just let it grow old and dusty in their garages) and he even rebuilds the midgets that they ran in. Richard is around 85 and a true inspiration when you meet him. I have attached a couple of pics of an engine that he is doing and a car also.

Rex
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Peter Jack on January 30, 2012, 06:59:07 PM
Now that's NICE!  :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

Pete
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Dr Goggles on January 30, 2012, 07:14:49 PM
Tom,
There is a guy in Orange, Richard Denabiles, that has most of the old Drake/Harley stuff and he actually rebuilds them and they run (as opposed to guys that have lots of neat old stuff but just let it grow old and dusty in their garages) and he even rebuilds the midgets that they ran in. Richard is around 85 and a true inspiration when you meet him. I have attached a couple of pics of an engine that he is doing and a car also.

Rex

Got one here too. Ken Izzard , from what he told me spent a few years in the Army during the 2nd world war so he'd have to be well into his eighties. He's just finished a midget replica, at home, by himself. Wonderful old bloke, he gave me some NOS heims that I used on my little tanker. His stories and photo's really are a sight to behold and I can see the fire burning in him brightly even though most would see him as burnt out. His son Geoff tracked me down via our build diary as Ken had built a hillclimb car using a bellytank which he ran for years. When I last spoke to him Ken said he was at a charity function at a since closed speedway years back and a clean cut guy after looking at their back-in-the-day cars said, looks pretty dangerous to me , aren't you blokes worried about getting killed in them.One of Ken's mates said " son, we spent three years in the jungle with other blokes with guns REALLY trying to kill us, this was just fun"

Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on January 30, 2012, 11:44:37 PM
I may have missed it but is there a reason you are building an engine from scratch instead of using an existing mass produced 4 cly?...
No, you didn't miss it; I missed inclusion of the "why", so here it is:

I will have reached my goal if eventually some old-timer might look at my lakester and say "what year did Mickey do that?".

Mickey has been my hero for a very long time, even before I got seriously involved with stuff he designed (see my signature). When I first bought the engine-less lakester (great fifties-appearing, but modern inside), I thought about using my complete blown-alky V8 M/T hemi (which IS looking for a good home). But I've decided against the V8 for two reasons- 1) the V8 width would require significant chassis rework, and 2) I don't want to go that fast- the record in C/BFL is ~350 MPH. So I'll be building for F/BFL where the record is 260-something, which this car has already been safely (per GPS). I've started machining my spare hemi head and it's now undergoing further flowbench development at a renowned shop. I'll resurrect my extra (broken) aluminum 389 block (one of six that Mickey acquired from Harvey Aluminum) and use the un-cracked half of it to build a stand-up four cylinder.  [to be cont'd]
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on January 31, 2012, 12:01:22 AM
[cont'd]
As with my V8, I'll need to build many pieces from scratch- blower manifold, exhaust system, front drives for fuel/oil pumps, etc. I'll also create much extra work by attempting to design/fabricate a DOHC setup (basic design is well along, but the "devil is in the details"). I've wrung-out the pushrod/rocker-arm deal about to its limit (reliably 9,000 RPM with the V8), and would like to be able to twist the lakester engine to around 10,000, which mandates OHC.

No, I don't expect to see this thing run soon. Even 2013 is sounding too optimistic. But I'm determined...
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on January 31, 2012, 07:22:50 AM
[cont'd]
As with my V8, I'll need to build many pieces from scratch- blower manifold, exhaust system, front drives for fuel/oil pumps, etc. I'll also create much extra work by attempting to design/fabricate a DOHC setup (basic design is well along, but the "devil is in the details"). I've wrung-out the pushrod/rocker-arm deal about to its limit (reliably 9,000 RPM with the V8), and would like to be able to twist the lakester engine to around 10,000, which mandates OHC.

No, I don't expect to see this thing run soon. Even 2013 is sounding too optimistic. But I'm determined...
Man, go for it!! This is what makes this stuff fun!. After close to 20 years and a dozen trips to the salt with Cosworth Vega power I decided to go another direction. Wanted stay same class and a lot of folks said just "buy a Honda". Nah. Am sort of a Pontiac guy too. So here I am, cost about 4 times as much as "just buy a Honda" and I've got an engine that has managed to beat a few of them---- Just not (yet) all the ones I want to beat.  :-D :cheers: So out to the shop I go......
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: tomsmith on January 31, 2012, 09:55:14 AM
Rex: thanks for the pictures of the Drake.  It looks just like the one we worked on in 1951 or 52 at Motorcycle Specialties (HD dealer) in South San Gabriel.  It was owned by a guy named "Schenley" Henley, since it was believed he drank a lot of whiskey.  I don't remember what we did to it, but it was in pieces and I never saw it put together.  We did get a set of connecting rods from Henley.

I always wanted to drive a midget or sprint car but never got a chance, and I would be more than crazy to try it now - I've used up 8.5 of my lives and just have half of one left.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: 1 fast evo 2 on February 02, 2012, 08:42:01 AM
Well O.K. then that explains alot.
That's really a cool project!!
I hope it goes fast and I know you will have alot of fun getting there.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: SPARKY on February 02, 2012, 10:00:18 AM
I would look at the Trailblazer 4.2L 6 or the Colorado 2.9L 4 cyl---DOHC, 4 valves per cyl, great crossflow heads and they can be SPUN would be easy to make look like an OFFY or a OHC from the 60s
All alum and there are folks making stupid power blown and un blown already
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: gearheadeh on February 02, 2012, 03:57:11 PM
[cont'd]
As with my V8, I'll need to build many pieces from scratch- blower manifold, exhaust system, front drives for fuel/oil pumps, etc. I'll also create much extra work by attempting to design/fabricate a DOHC setup (basic design is well along, but the "devil is in the details"). I've wrung-out the pushrod/rocker-arm deal about to its limit (reliably 9,000 RPM with the V8), and would like to be able to twist the lakester engine to around 10,000, which mandates OHC.

No, I don't expect to see this thing run soon. Even 2013 is sounding too optimistic. But I'm determined...

Oh man, have you got my interest, this sounds like an excellant project, Start a thread ASAP please?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 15, 2013, 11:32:27 PM
I'm still plugging away at it. I just delivered the "junk" block to my TIG-welding friend today, after V'ing out all the cracks as he asked. DOHC setup is proceeding well- major remaining machining effort will be seven copies of the prototype cam-follower-finger that I'm finally happy with (using Isky EZ-Roll technology).

Regarding a crankshaft; anybody ever hear of a high-speed inline four cylinder using firing order 1-2-3-4? A zig-zag 180` crank is mandated (rather than center throws at 0` like most fours). I've only ever seen one example, a slow-speed tractor engine. I'd like to learn about both the inherent imbalance (no combustion) and the firing-induced imbalance considerations.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: SPARKY on March 16, 2013, 09:03:15 AM
 :-o

the torsional inputs in the crank would be  :?  :-o
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: 38flattie on March 16, 2013, 12:29:33 PM
Jack, sounds like you have you're work cut out for yourself! Cool project, but I think you might want to really consider getting away from the 1-2-3-4 firing order. JMHO
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on March 16, 2013, 02:17:27 PM
Hi, Jack –

Usually what leads people to non standard practices in firing order is a deficiency in head airflow patterns.  Ed Winfield ran a 1-3-2-4 in his Ford banger on the dry lakes back in the 1930's.  The advantage for him was the shared intakes were not robbed by the adjoining cylinder during the cam events which left both intakes partially open.  Simon Gardner did the same thing with a Sprite engine in Australia a number of years ago for the same reason.

But seeing as you've got a really good breathing head with individual ports all the way around, I'd suggest you just keep it 1-3-4-2, and make the components as light as possible.  It works, it’s proven, and it won’t detach your retinas when you spank it.

You're already re-inventing the Hemi - why re-invent the wheel?

:cheers: 
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: manta22 on March 16, 2013, 03:37:17 PM
Speaking of crankshafts...

FYI, I had never seen a welded-up crankshaft made of sheet metal before but here it is. I took this picture in the ghost town of Santa Laura, Chile in an abandoned nitrate processing facility. Spooky location all alone in the desert-- a great location for a movie.

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: SPARKY on March 16, 2013, 03:43:53 PM
Neil, was that for a stamping mill?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: manta22 on March 16, 2013, 04:16:39 PM
Bill;

No, that was a HUGE 2-cylinder air motor, I think. There were many other derelict machines lying around, most made in England between 1870 and 1920. Here are a couple of other photos (sorry about the thread hijack):

Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Ken Yooper on March 16, 2013, 05:22:55 PM
In 2006 the Blowfish team ran a 3.0 turbocharged  four cylinder on alcohol.  I think it was a pushrod motor - went about 249 as I remember.    Might want to contact them and see what their thoughts might be.

I have a few pics of the engine but for some reason I cannot post them
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on July 31, 2013, 12:43:22 AM
Now that the DOHC top-end fabrication is finished (some parts at heat-treat, and Ron Iskenderian looking at creating the camshafts), I'm proceeding with the cracked-but-welded "junk" Harvey-Aluminum block. Machined some of the welds, made press-fit plugs for the cam bores, plugged oil passages that won't be used, and made 2024-T6 center-three main caps. I need to finish dowel-pinning the caps, get some original iron front and rear caps, then can send it out to align-bore.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: 38flattie on July 31, 2013, 04:43:42 AM
That's looking good! :cheers:

Any pics of what you did on the DOHC top-end?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on August 01, 2013, 12:25:04 AM
I won't bother with photos of the top-end until I've got a pair of camshafts, so it can all be assembled at once.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Robin UK on August 01, 2013, 03:18:54 AM
Jack,
Love your project and thought you might be interested in this. The little known UK company of Lea-Francis produced twin cam fours designed by Hugh Rose who they poached from Riley. The engine he produced had many similarities to the Riley unit. Post WW2 Connaught in the UK used LeaF chassis and engines as an affordable way into both F2 and sports car racing.  1.5 litre and 1.8 litre engines made their way to Australia and the US for midget racing but never managed to crack the Offy stranglehold.

Ivan Dutton - well known in the UK for his Bugatti expertise-  is rebuilding a number of them that he has brought back to the UK. I've rescued a long abandoned 1948 LeaF to use as the basis of my next project. A fellow club member has had his cams re-profiled by Kent Cams here in the UK. I'll post another pic of his rebuilt engine when I can find it. Old age.

Here is a pic of a LeaF  engined midget and a link to an Aussie website with more pics.

http://justmidgets.homestead.com/thebeasleys.html

Cheers

Robin
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Robin UK on August 01, 2013, 03:53:17 AM
Here's the pic of the LeaF engine with the covers off.

Robin
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on August 02, 2013, 12:37:33 AM
Interesting engine- and I love the midget pictures! Even though it's a "high cam" engine, there appears to be, nontheless, quite of bit of mass in pushrods and rockers. In my DOHC design, total mass of one "valvetrain" is a one-piece follower-finger- 4140, U-shaped cross-section, 3.3" long (fulcrom center to valve roller center). At the cam lobe they use Isky EZ-roll needle-less wheels and axles.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: vwpsycho on August 26, 2013, 01:19:16 AM
For what it's worth, we use production Volkswagen 121 cubic inch inline fours and produce very reliable turbocharged outputs of over 800 hp. The crankshaft of choice is an off-the-shelf (under $1000) 2.0 liter turbo forged steel (flat) crank that has proven durable at outputs of over 1000 hp. 
92.8mm (3.65") stroke / 83mm (3.27") bore isn't an ideal situation, but the confining 88mm bore centers of Volkswagen inlines are what we live with.

We also use solid engine/transaxle mounting, which has actually helped dampen the ridiculous shaking the engine produces at 8800 rpm. We don't spin the engine any faster, since stock oiling starts to give up in the 8000 rpm range.

With a well-designed turbo system/camshafts/valves and ports there is no need for you to rev a (giant from our perspective,) three liter engine beyond 7500 RPM to get a relaxed 1000-1200 hp.

Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on August 26, 2013, 11:54:04 PM
vw- that's  encouraging to know that a flat crank is a good choice. Firing order 1-3-4-2? Eight-counterweight crank? What rod length?

As for a "relaxed" 1,200 HP @ 7,500 RPM of a 3 liter engine- that's fantasy to me. 840 lb.ft. @ 7,500 RPM? Almost 6.6 HP/c.i.? Not even in my wildest dreams... :roll:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Crackerman on August 27, 2013, 10:06:43 AM
I am also going to have to chime in on the flat crank.
Mitsu 4g63 engines use one as well. With 5 bearing caps and balance shafts.
At two liters and no fill,600- 800 hp daily driveable is  pretty doable for reasonable costs.
 Over a thousand on a filled block and e98 is fairly standard and required to be competetive.

You may have heard of mike reichen and the worlds fastest evo. 236 at maxton. He uses this engine on a factory crank and a single 80mm turbo.  1100 or so hp at 10k rpm and 600 ish torque Up around 8500rpm.

Cylinder 1 and 4 are paired and 2-3 are paired.

They use a 150 mm rod and can go upwards of 156 with "stroker" pistons and maintain deck height. Destroking a 2.4 block to 2.1 l and using a 162ish mm rods is also a doable endeavor to rod ratio down and rpms up.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on August 31, 2013, 11:25:27 PM
... With a well-designed turbo system/camshafts/valves and ports there is no need for you to rev a three liter engine beyond 7500 RPM to get a relaxed 1000-1200 hp...
I just read a little about the new Triumph motorcycle streamliner, which is looking to bump the outright two-wheeler record from 376 up to 400 MPH. It's 3 liter (a pair of massively destroked 2,300 Rocket-3 engines), turbocharged, and makes 1,000 HP (at above 9,000 RPM, don't remember exactly). With all of the resources of North American Triumph, Carpenter Engines, et.al., why can they not obtain a "relaxed 1,200 HP @ 7,500 RPM"? :-o
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on August 31, 2013, 11:37:47 PM
... Firing order 1-3-4-2?...
... 8-counterweight crank?...
???
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Gary Perkinson on September 01, 2013, 10:26:59 AM
Destroking a 2.4 block to 2.1 l and using a 162ish mm rods is also a doable endeavor to rod ratio down and rpms up.

I'm thinking about doing this this winter when I put a turbo on my N/A 2.4 Ecotec. It'll give me the 2.4's bigger bore (88mm) with the forged strength and shorter stroke (86mm) provided by the 2.0 crank...
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: George Fields on September 01, 2013, 11:02:00 AM
Jack,
I can relay a bit of experience we have had with the four cylinder. We used a 1/2 Chrysler Hemi, 180 dg crank and cam, 4 1/4 X 4 1/4, 358 c.i., installed inline with 12:71 blower. Initially experienced  vibrations until we had all the cylinders receiving the same amount of fuel. 5200 rpm, 314 mph in Comp Coupe. Look at Al Eisenbaugh's (sic) " F" motor
George Fields
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: George Fields on September 01, 2013, 01:23:26 PM
That should be 4.25 x 4.5 = 255 cubic inch
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: vwpsycho on September 01, 2013, 03:04:23 PM
... Firing order 1-3-4-2?...
... 8-counterweight crank?...
???

Yes, Jack. 8 counterweights. 1-3-4-2 firing order. 144mm rod length.
This is the setup we use:
http://www.intengineering.com/integrated-engineering-06a-1-8t-20v-2-0l-2008cc-stroker-engine-kit-je-8-5-1cr


Abe
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on November 29, 2013, 12:48:27 AM
So... a few baby-steps taken in engine decisions:     [Omigosh- I started this thread TWO YEARS ago!
> Flat crank (cost-no-object billet)
> Eight counterweights
> Direct-shot oil drillings
> [some non-crank-related choices made for DOHC details]

Any helpful comments regarding 1-3-4-2 firing order vs. 1-2-4-3? :?( I need to get grinding of camshafts underway).
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: JimL on November 29, 2013, 02:35:36 AM
Wasnt 1-2-4-3 a setup for 3-main crankshafts?  I think it was in some forklifts up until about 10 years ago.

Maybe someone knows the real deal, I never paid much attention to it.  I was told back in the 70s that you dont want to rev that firing order very high.  Dont know why... :?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on December 04, 2013, 11:56:14 PM
... Any helpful comments regarding 1-3-4-2 firing order vs. 1-2-4-3? :?
Anybody?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: fredvance on December 05, 2013, 08:00:56 AM
Hayabusa is 1243.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on December 05, 2013, 09:17:14 AM
Unless there is some predetermined head/port, induction or exhaust issue suggesting otherwise (such as siamesed ports) it is my understanding that there is no difference between 1243 and 1342. Since you are grinding billet cams anyway starting from scratch as I understand (your first post), it should make zero difference. Ask your cam grinder, they may have suggestions or issues that could make the decision for you
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: RichFox on December 05, 2013, 10:50:20 AM
Even with engines that pair cylinders 1 & 2 and also 3 & 4 I can't see the advantage between the Ford firing order and the more common 1342 Plymouth 4 firing order. You end up with two cylinders getting seconds on the intake either way.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: tortoise on December 05, 2013, 11:58:25 AM
. . . no difference between 1243 and 1342.
The same crank works for both, just rotating in opposite directions.

Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: RichFox on December 05, 2013, 12:41:00 PM
. . . no difference between 1243 and 1342.
The same crank works for both, just rotating in opposite directions.


What? Same crank. Different cam.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on December 05, 2013, 01:09:46 PM
. . . no difference between 1243 and 1342.
The same crank works for both, just rotating in opposite directions.


What? Same crank. Different cam.

I was thinking from a power/vibration standpoint which has been part of the topic here. Cam different of course and I suppose he doesn't want it rotating counter clockwise- unless is a twin and the salt continues to be wet...... :roll: :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on December 05, 2013, 11:49:14 PM
I'm merely asking about engine dynamic considerations. I could imagine that one or the other firing order might behave (vibrate, shake, whatever) worse than the other. Ideally, I'd like to find some real-world examples to learn from. I won't be using any balance shaft.

Does the 1-2-4-3 order Hayabusa use balance shaft(s)?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Stainless1 on December 06, 2013, 09:18:37 AM
I'm merely asking about engine dynamic considerations. I could imagine that one or the other firing order might behave (vibrate, shake, whatever) worse than the other. Ideally, I'd like to find some real-world examples to learn from. I won't be using any balance shaft.

Does the 1-2-4-3 order Hayabusa use balance shaft(s)?

It does have a balance shaft, most racers take it out.  The motor will buzz a little in spots, it eats a couple of HP, but it is not a street motor so who cares if it buzzes a little  :-D
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: fredvance on December 06, 2013, 09:22:42 AM
I have mine balanced, they are pretty close from the factory. I do remove the internal shaft, Like Bob!!
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on December 06, 2013, 10:06:32 AM
All 4 cyls will shake some, larger stroke, worse it gets but the firing order is not the issue. Both 1342 and 1243 are used in production engines. I surmise that if there were a real advantage to one over the other, that would not be the case. Again, ignoring port configurations. I have seen reference to MG, Ford and Yamaha using the less common 1243 pattern.

http://books.google.com/books?id=DoYaRsNFlEYC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=1342+vs+1243+firing+order&source=bl&ots=3OZXNzCojy&sig=yBbYmQa34wsUi1Rq8sDzyNBtG4w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DfShUrLYNIaysAStsoGgDA&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=1342%20vs%201243%20firing%20order&f=false
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: JimL on December 06, 2013, 11:19:18 AM
Maybe your firing order decision comes down to what parts or software are most commonly available on the current market?  For example, a certain size distributor cap may have the firing order numbers embossed on it.  It wont matter until the day someone accidentallly puts the wires on in the "as marked" locations.  Same thing with programmed ignition software.

  Different crew help come and go; every one of our projects has been at the mercy of lifes complications, from year to year.  If most your friends think 1-3-4-2 is the firing order of a banger, then thats what you better use.  Someday, one of them will be helpng under the easy-up.

JimL
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: johnneilson on December 06, 2013, 09:25:37 PM
I reused a EFI system on my current car so the coils are numbered 4-1 and the injectors 1-4 front to back.
It took me an hour to explain to some guy that with wasted spark and batch inj that it didn't matter.

Then, he tried to tell me that I was going to overheat the coils.

J
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 22, 2014, 11:48:40 PM
Some progress.
Block modifications done and back from getting almost every machined surface re-machined- align bored, decks/pan rail/front face squared and trued, bores finish-honed.
Almost finished creating a dedicated scavenge cavity to handle all top-end oil return.
Moldex has my down-payment to begin creating a billet crank- hit them at a good time, as they expect about an 8-week timeframe.
Working with Diamond to start on billet pistons.
A  couple of billet pieces made for the front face-
 > front main seal plate, as there won't be any timing cover- cam belt drive will be "open air".
 > multi-function plate to anchor adjustable belt idlers and to route coolant from the cylinder bank up to the head.

Began laying out the belt drive for the DOHC, and so far it appears that I'm extremely lucky (dumb luck?).
> Using 8mm-pitch, the largest flanged sprockets to fit the cam center distance (about .2" to spare) are 50 tooth (even number necessary for half-speed cam drive).
> In 36mm wide, both 50 and 25 tooth sprockets are available-stock items- hurrah!
> My geometric calculation shows I need a belt of minimum pitch length 1,356.9 mm- a 30mm by 1,360mm belt is a stock item, which is well within my idler adjustment range.
> And the final stroke of luck- building 7-bolt hubs on the cam sprockets will provide fully-indexable cam positioning in one-degree increments.
Wow- must be my lucky day! :-)
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: fordboy628 on March 23, 2014, 07:46:21 AM
Some progress.
Block modifications done and back from getting almost every machined surface re-machined- align bored, decks/pan rail/front face squared and trued, bores finish-honed.
Almost finished creating a dedicated scavenge cavity to handle all top-end oil return.
Moldex has my down-payment to begin creating a billet crank- hit them at a good time, as they expect about an 8-week timeframe.
Working with Diamond to start on billet pistons.
A  couple of billet pieces made for the front face-
 > front main seal plate, as there won't be any timing cover- cam belt drive will be "open air".
 > multi-function plate to anchor adjustable belt idlers and to route coolant from the cylinder bank up to the head.

Began laying out the belt drive for the DOHC, and so far it appears that I'm extremely lucky (dumb luck?).
> Using 8mm-pitch, the largest flanged sprockets to fit the cam center distance (about .2" to spare) are 50 tooth (even number necessary for half-speed cam drive).
> In 36mm wide, both 50 and 25 tooth sprockets are available-stock items- hurrah!
> My geometric calculation shows I need a belt of minimum pitch length 1,356.9 mm- a 30mm by 1,360mm belt is a stock item, which is well within my idler adjustment range.
> And the final stroke of luck- building 7-bolt hubs on the cam sprockets will provide fully-indexable cam positioning in one-degree increments.
Wow- must be my lucky day! :-)

Jack,

Lucky day my buttocks!!

I know what the dictionary definition of luck is.   For racers, luck is the intersection of opportunity, engineering, preparation and finance.

Sounds to me like you have done a sh**load of measuring, pre-planning and good old "engineering".    You "made" your own luck the old fashioned way, you worked hard for it.

Congratulations!!   You deserve it and your hard "engineering" work is starting to pay off.
 :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Fordboy

P.S.   How about some photos?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: johnneilson on March 23, 2014, 10:18:48 AM
Some progress.
Block modifications done and back from getting almost every machined surface re-machined- align bored, decks/pan rail/front face squared and trued, bores finish-honed.
Almost finished creating a dedicated scavenge cavity to handle all top-end oil return.
Moldex has my down-payment to begin creating a billet crank- hit them at a good time, as they expect about an 8-week timeframe.
Working with Diamond to start on billet pistons.
A  couple of billet pieces made for the front face-
 > front main seal plate, as there won't be any timing cover- cam belt drive will be "open air".
 > multi-function plate to anchor adjustable belt idlers and to route coolant from the cylinder bank up to the head.

Began laying out the belt drive for the DOHC, and so far it appears that I'm extremely lucky (dumb luck?).
> Using 8mm-pitch, the largest flanged sprockets to fit the cam center distance (about .2" to spare) are 50 tooth (even number necessary for half-speed cam drive).
> In 36mm wide, both 50 and 25 tooth sprockets are available-stock items- hurrah!
> My geometric calculation shows I need a belt of minimum pitch length 1,356.9 mm- a 30mm by 1,360mm belt is a stock item, which is well within my idler adjustment range.
> And the final stroke of luck- building 7-bolt hubs on the cam sprockets will provide fully-indexable cam positioning in one-degree increments.
Wow- must be my lucky day! :-)

Jack,

Lucky day my buttocks!!

I know what the dictionary definition of luck is.   For racers, luck is the intersection of opportunity, engineering, preparation and finance.

Sounds to me like you have done a sh**load of measuring, pre-planning and good old "engineering".    You "made" your own luck the old fashioned way, you worked hard for it.

Congratulations!!   You deserve it and your hard "engineering" work is starting to pay off.
 :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Fordboy

P.S.   How about some photos?

I was always taught, Winning was the fortunate collapse of the Quantum waveform where "opportunity, engineering, preparation and finance" intersect.
Then it is off all bets off again.........

J
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wobblywalrus on March 23, 2014, 11:01:06 AM
Sometimes it looks like all four of those are needed plus a big dose of luck. 
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 24, 2014, 11:10:20 PM
I hope that my apparent success at locating "stock" pieces for the cam drive isn't short-lived, but... I just noticed that my Internet reference for Gates products is the South Pacific Catalog... uh oh... :cry:
I'd better get on the phone with Gates.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Seldom Seen Slim on March 25, 2014, 08:18:42 AM
Or you could send an email to Jon Amo.  He's a member here under that name -- and works for Gates. :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Crackerman on March 25, 2014, 08:24:08 AM
I hope that my apparent success at locating "stock" pieces for the cam drive isn't short-lived, but... I just noticed that my Internet reference for Gates products is the South Pacific Catalog... uh oh... :cry:
I'd better get on the phone with Gates.

most of the common parts gates produces were available in the states at any given time. euro, korean (things like daewoo are a bit oddball, but kia and hyundai used mitsubishi engine families) and japanese , until you get into the funky diesel engines. the parts may still cross to an available engine derivative in the US.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Bob Drury on March 25, 2014, 11:16:39 AM
   Not to steal this thread, but on the BangShift.com site if you scroll down to a article on the Lingefelter flat crank v8 you can watch and listen to this motor on a dyno with a sound somewhere between a Offy 4 bangr, and Courtney Hizers Indy motor based buick v6.  Pretty neat clip.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 29, 2014, 12:34:00 AM
,,, send an email to Jon Amo... works for Gates...
Thanks. Sent Jon Amo an email.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 31, 2014, 11:14:54 PM
Anybody know why Jon hasn't responded to my email?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: salt27 on March 31, 2014, 11:26:01 PM
Anybody know why Jon hasn't responded to my email?

In Costa Rica maybe?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: salt27 on March 31, 2014, 11:27:56 PM
Oops, my bad that was Joe.

 Don
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Stainless1 on April 01, 2014, 08:58:04 AM
I know he spends a lot of time "on the road" for Gates.  I'll call him later and see if he got your email.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: JonAmo on April 01, 2014, 07:02:25 PM
I am here, but no email that I saw from you...

Just remember folks, Industrial belts and Automotive belts are not built the same. Industrial timing belts are made across the board same construction (in each family and style of belts), automotive belts use a different tooth profile and ARE NOT the same construction across the board. Automotive timing belts are made to the demands of the drive system in which they are made for. Every automotive timing belt is made for an automotive application. You have many different teeth profiles, square, trapezoidal, modified curvilinear and curvilinear. On top of that there are Highly Saturated Nitrile, Nitrile and Polyester belts including belts that are reinforced with jackets - like some diesel applications. We haven't even gotten into cord design or choices there.

Bottom line DO NOT ever settle on just dimensional data - it still may not be anywhere close the needs of the drive system and you end up with a broken belt and broken engine. Most would blame the belt but in reality it was a belt selection that was not correct for the application.

This is a touchy subject on belt selection since automotive belts are mode to fit an application. Not as easy to answer when you factor in all the data.

Let me know if I can be of any help.
Jon Amo
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on April 01, 2014, 11:36:22 PM
Jon- I sent to jkamo@comcast.net- is that correct?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: JonAmo on April 02, 2014, 11:56:05 AM
I think this information is beneficial to all whom may be trying to source different parts.

> Sprockets 8M50S-36 and 8M-25S-36PB
 > Belt 1360-8M (30mm Powergrip HTD)

    Also, can you confirm that these parts are appropriate for a race
engine (3 liter 4-cylinder with roller-follower cams, 600 lb.-open valve
springs, to 9,500 RPM, about 700 HP)?


So to start off Industrial sprockets are only static balanced to approx 6000 ft/min and are very heavy material. These are not designed for automotive use running in the RPM range. Once past that 6000 ft/min it have a high probability of balance issues tearing apart system components. They can be dynamically balanced but it would be up to the user to accomplish this and then tested, but you still will be dealing with a heavier component then one designed for automotive use.

The 8M-25S-36PB would be 6550.221 ft/min (Gates number is PB8MX-25S-36) This sprocket is just a pilot hole and will need to be finish bored to size, set screws or keyway will have to be done.

The 8m-50S-36 would be 13116.15 ft/min - This has taperd bushing to contact.

Additionally the 1360-8m HTD belt will NOT work in those sprockets. And that is not an off the shelf belt. However there may be distributurs that have this size that we make the belt for exclusive. And they would be the only avenue to procure the belt.

Shorter answer is NO those parts would not be off the self appropiate for automotive use.

We have a MTO department that can make anything in any size and material that can better support what you are trying to accomplish.

Hope this information helps,
Jon
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Freud on April 02, 2014, 12:10:44 PM
Gates provided an unreal amount of help to Treit/Davenport when they were running

the lakester. The blower drive belt jumped off frequently and the explosion was felt

all the way to the bank. They sent a field rep to the salt at least 3 times.

If you can describe the need and the problem, they can fix you up.

Just be ready to use the butter and egg money.

If you want the problem presented to engineering in Gates terms contact

Jon Amo. He's a racer and a Gates team member. He can convert racer

talk to the Gates language.

FREUD
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: RichFox on April 02, 2014, 04:41:23 PM
I don't know anything much about belts. And i don't use them to drive anything that uses real power. But I have found that for some reason Summit does not carry injector pump drives for 32 plymouth, '56 Packard, '57 Lincoln,'26 Dodge or Lotus 907 engines. Why I don't know. So i have to make my own. I use cam belt pulleys left over from the Lotus or the Nissan. More recently I picked up some from a Goldwing. Very nice. They all seem to me to be 3/8ths pitch and i just buy belts of the right length in either 1/2 for fuel pumps or 3/4 for oil pumps. Always seems to work. But that is the advantage of ignorance.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on April 03, 2014, 12:06:16 AM
...
1> Industrial sprockets are only static balanced to approx 6000 ft/min
2>  and are very heavy material.
3> past that 6000 ft/min... high probability of balance issues... can be dynamically balanced
4> 8M-25S-36PB would be 6550.221 ft/min
5> just a pilot hole
6> 8m-50S-36 would be 13116.15 ft/min
7> 1360-8m HTD belt will NOT work in those sprockets.
8> not an off the shelf belt... may be distributurs that have this
9> MTO department
 ,,,
.
As you said, some of this discussion may be "beneficial to all", therefore:

1> My belt speed at 9,500 RPM will be just 16% over Gates balance speed (~6,900 FPM).
2> Weight (and polar inertia) are of little consequence here.
3>  I'll be having all rotating pieces balanced anyway (see 5>).
4> My 6,900 FPM is only 6% over that.
5> Since I'll be machining custom hubs for all three sprockets, the existing bores are of no concern.
6> My 6,900 FPM is well under 13,116.
7> 'Not work' in what respect? Geometry (tooth profiles, etc.)? Suitability for load/speed? Durability? Minimum sprocket radii?
8> Will Gates Corporation help me by identifying those distributors for whom they manufactured the parts I found listed?
9> What is 'MTO'?

If you'd rather not discuss this "publicly", that's fine- just let me know.

Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: johnneilson on April 03, 2014, 09:33:58 AM
Jack,

Engineering belt drives are not as simple as one might think.
One issue also can be the shaft rigidity, in this case cams and crank.
The crank is usually not issue here, cams can be something different.

Another issue is the tooth profile and engaged amount of teeth. The std? timing belt trapezoidal design is very low in the capacity of transferred HP or torque. The HTD is better and Gates offers other higher performance products.

MTO refers to "made to order" department.

If I recall correctly, Gates has some very good engineering data on-line.

John

Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Richard 2 on April 03, 2014, 11:37:49 AM
If you are running an all aluminum block and head you will need to allow for growth in your adjustment.
Title: Re: Aniline-four crankshaft
Post by: Stainless1 on April 03, 2014, 01:21:25 PM
The engineering group at Gates can provide the engineering design data for their products.... the hot rodder in you must decide if you can make it work of if you go the High dollar route of "engineer this drive for me". 
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: JonAmo on April 03, 2014, 01:33:57 PM
...
1> Industrial sprockets are only static balanced to approx 6000 ft/min
2>  and are very heavy material.
3> past that 6000 ft/min... high probability of balance issues... can be dynamically balanced
4> 8M-25S-36PB would be 6550.221 ft/min
5> just a pilot hole
6> 8m-50S-36 would be 13116.15 ft/min
7> 1360-8m HTD belt will NOT work in those sprockets.
8> not an off the shelf belt... may be distributurs that have this
9> MTO department
 ,,,
.
As you said, some of this discussion may be "beneficial to all", therefore:

1> My belt speed at 9,500 RPM will be just 16% over Gates balance speed (~6,900 FPM). If it over the value than it is not advised to use.
2> Weight (and polar inertia) are of little consequence here. If your build says it doesn't matter then that could be the case.
3>  I'll be having all rotating pieces balanced anyway (see 5>).
4> My 6,900 FPM is only 6% over that.
5> Since I'll be machining custom hubs for all three sprockets, the existing bores are of no concern.
6> My 6,900 FPM is well under 13,116. Th3 13116 is the value of speed at your rpm point. So it is over the 6000 ft/min And not suggestested
7> 'Not work' in what respect? Geometry (tooth profiles, etc.)? Suitability for load/speed? Durability? Minimum sprocket radii? The main point here is the tooth mathcing from pulley to belt or vise versa. You should always ahve a matched belt and pulley system if not the contact points will not allow for proper power transfer.
8> Will Gates Corporation help me by identifying those distributors for whom they manufactured the parts I found listed? RCD Engineering is a good place to start.
9> What is 'MTO' Made to Order

If you'd rather not discuss this "publicly", that's fine- just let me know.


Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: JonAmo on April 03, 2014, 01:42:20 PM
Jack,

 IT IS UP TO THE BUILDER to TEST, TEST, TEST and see if these will work at a different rating then they were originally designed for. We only give the ratings of a component that fits within the intended use of the part.

Hope you find what you are looking for,
Jon Amo
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: fordboy628 on April 05, 2014, 06:17:55 AM
Jack,

 IT IS UP TO THE BUILDER to TEST, TEST, TEST and see if these will work at a different rating then they were originally designed for. We only give the ratings of a component that fits within the intended use of the part.

Hope you find what you are looking for,
Jon Amo

I've designed lots of "stuff" over the years, including a bunch of belt drives for various accessories.   Sometimes I'm in uncharted territory, as far as the application goes.    BUT, I ALWAYS find it helpful to listen to the manufacturing/design engineers that produce the components that I'm trying to utilize.    With their greater knowledge and experience with THEIR PARTS, they can usually be counted on to provide sound advice.    When they make a point, I always make it a point to listen to what they have to say.

Costs me nothing, AND, over the years, I've learned a bunch that way . . . . . .                 Just my 2 cents worth.

 :cheers:
Fordboy
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on August 15, 2014, 01:21:29 AM
Gee, I started this 'crankshaft' thread three years ago... and today I just received my billet crank from Moldex! Looks good- at a glance- but "validation" will take a little longer.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Hot Rod Lincoln on August 15, 2014, 11:27:42 PM
Good thing you weren't in a hurry     :lol:

I need to read your thread I guess. What did you decide on for the power adder ?

Da mn interesting project      

Dare to be different   :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on August 16, 2014, 12:03:04 AM
Power adder: engine simulation shows me needing a high-helix 8-71 to hit my goal of 4 HP/c.i.
A modern twin-screw blower would make it so much easier; but doesn't fit my self-imposed restriction of early-Thompson-era vintage "look".
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: ronnieroadster on August 20, 2014, 06:19:33 PM
Gee, I started this 'crankshaft' thread three years ago... and today I just received my billet crank from Moldex! Looks good- at a glance- but "validation" will take a little longer.


 Good old Moldex go to them as long as your never in a HURRY! Good thing you ordered the crankshaft before ever needing it.  :-P
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on August 20, 2014, 07:21:25 PM
Gee, I started this 'crankshaft' thread three years ago... and today I just received my billet crank from Moldex! Looks good- at a glance- but "validation" will take a little longer.

I just started on my destroked 1 liter MG/Rover K series twin cam. 

As soon as I finish dimensioning everything, the crank will be the first thing I order.

I also know it will be the last thing to arrive.

Jack, yours is going to be really cool, and I can't wait to here it fire up.  :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: RichFox on August 20, 2014, 08:10:52 PM
Moldex may be fine. I don't know. I have used Crower rods and one crankshaft. Came in reasonable time and I have no reason to complain.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Dynoroom on August 20, 2014, 11:23:29 PM
I have bought billet cranks from Crower, Bryant, Scat, Moldex, Kings Crank, Velesco, LA Billet, & HTC (Hank the Crank) the last two are no longer in biz.
For me Henry Velesco was more than fair price wise & always delivered within 1 week of his quoted time frame of 12 weeks. Moldex was always way late on out Buick V-6 cranks. The others did well also.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on August 20, 2014, 11:51:01 PM
Moldex took just under five months to build and deliver my crank. I was originally told about eight weeks- but I didn't really expect that to happen.

Just got my hemi head back from tweaking the intake port shapes (a little over 20% flow increase @ .400" lift and above). It was at Sonny Leonard's shop, but Bill Anderson did the work. This will help considerably to reach my power goal.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Saltfever on August 21, 2014, 05:45:54 AM
The discussion with Jon a few pages back was interesting but a key point is missing. All industrial applications specify not only the type of drive (electric, gas, diesel, etc.), but continuous load and useful life. The mean-time-before-failure is usually generous and cost effective. When an applications engineer specs a part they are not thinking in racer terms. Many times you can “overdrive” or abuse a part if you are willing to accept a much shorter life. It becomes your experiment to determine a useful life under your conditions but you certainly should not rule out a part because your environment fall outside a nice spreadsheet.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Saltfever on August 21, 2014, 05:59:37 AM
Billet cranks are always a very long-lead item everywhere. But the problem is that you need to know your final bob-weight so the counterweights are close.

Jack, did you have your rods, pistons, rings, etc. on hand before you placed your order with Moldex?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on August 22, 2014, 01:15:41 AM
I don't have the rods, even now. I acquired the pistons, pins, buttons, and rings after I ordered the crank. I had already spoken with Joe (at Moldex) at length about these items. Joe wasn't concerned with the exact weights- he knew I was having full-skirt high-dome (hemi) billet pistons made and will use Pontiac-length aluminum rods. I had also told him of my plans to experiment with "counterweight stuffing" (full-circle shapes, to reduce oil aeration)- thus the "ball is in my hands" regarding determination of eventual mass of counterweights.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Saltfever on August 22, 2014, 01:57:40 AM
Thanks Jack for getting back to me.
That is kind of my problem right now. I need a crank for the El Mirage May meet next year and it is almost too late to order. I don’t have my final rod assembly and I wanted the counterweights to be as thin as possible without having to add expensive heavy metal. I know with drilling or heavy metal there is some latitude on the mass of the counterweight but I wanted to try and minimize secondary balancing work. 
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Dynoroom on August 22, 2014, 08:58:40 AM
Salt, you're going through the expense of a custom billet crankshaft $2800- $3300) and you're worried about the cost of tungsten for balance ($150-$200)?  :roll:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Saltfever on August 22, 2014, 03:23:33 PM
Salt, you're going through the expense of a custom billet crankshaft $2800- $3300) and you're worried about the cost of tungsten for balance ($150-$200)?  :roll:
LOL! . . . Excellent point, Mike. Sometimes we get so focused it takes real experience to point the way.   :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on August 23, 2014, 01:14:07 AM
... Sometimes we get so focused...
Hmm... my problem is that I get un-focused. :roll:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on September 14, 2014, 12:36:46 AM
Once more, pure luck trumped any of my planning. :-D I had neglected to discuss with Joe (at Moldex) the oiling scheme for this crank. So I was happy to see that it has straight-shot oiling- but that was more due to Joe's experience, than luck. The "luck" concerns the layout of oil delivery to the rod journals; in general, each main journal (#5, 4, 3, & 2) delivers oil to the rod throw just in front of it. This leaves main #1 with no demand for the "extra" flow volume of a rod- whoopee! This is great news for a Pontiac engine, in which the front main is farthest from the supply-end of the oil gallery.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: ratpatrol66 on September 24, 2014, 03:27:02 AM
Hello Jack, Any chance your going to tease us with pictures of your crank? Darn that sounds so wrong! You know what I mean.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on September 24, 2014, 10:18:10 PM
Camera died, and I'm not much for pictures anyway. It's just a crankshaft. I try to shoot pictures when there's something unique or unusual. For instance, once I've got prototype pieces ready for spin-testing of my full-circle counterweight scheme, I'll take photos; and hopefully, eventually of the crank with all eight full-circle counterweights in place.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on October 10, 2014, 09:03:51 PM
Jack- Have you gotten any further on the pulley/belt issue for your cam drive? And what are you using for an idler?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 11, 2014, 12:11:52 AM
No, I haven't yet sourced the cam drives; sort of put that aside while working on more immediate stuff- built the oil pan, inspected the billet crank, designing the full-circle counterweight scheme and test facility, finalize connecting rod details and get them ordered, etc.
I'll use a pair of flanged idlers, outboard of the belt and about midway between crank and cams. The idlers themselves are easily available from stock (Gates), and I've finished machining a 'beefy' mounting plate (5/8" thick) that bolts to the front of both the head and the block, and has slotted holes for idler studs. Incorporated into the plate is a 'shunt' passage for coolant flow from the front of the block up to the head (engine is dry-decked)- one piece of plumbing eliminated!
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: RichFox on October 11, 2014, 08:31:00 PM
I have some pulleys and an idler from a Gold Wing. pretty nice and quite cheap. Of course I only use them to drive oil and fuel pumps. But they work for Honda. 
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 11, 2014, 11:42:09 PM
Designing "by proven example" (aftermarket belt cam drives of race V8 engines with cam loads/speeds similar to mine), I've decided the belt should be 8mm pitch and at least 30mm wide (170 tooth, 53.5", characteristics of Gates PowerGrip TT2 series). I haven't yet seen such an OEM drive.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Buickguy3 on October 16, 2014, 08:57:15 PM
   I think I found a video of your crankshaft in production. Facinating.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81UjjSH2iFw

    Doug  :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 17, 2014, 12:54:31 AM
I enjoy that video. But my crank is more "old school"- from Joe at Moldex!
However- The shaping of the webs and counterweights appears like they may have been done by CNC. I'm hoping they were- I''ll call Joe and ask. CNC data would allow Moldex to quite easily create a single web/counterweight for my validation-testing of the filler-segment scheme (spinning it to 9,500 RPM + 20% safety factor- in a [hopefully] burst-proof housing.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 29, 2014, 12:37:29 AM
No such luck- counterweight "profiling" by Moldex was not CNC'd. :cry: So I'm stuck with doing my own analog measuring to re-create one counterweight for testing.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on February 10, 2015, 01:48:31 AM
I finally received a sample piece of Elektron-43 wrought magnesium, along with a design manual for these alloys. Made a steel replica of one of the crank webs and an explosion-resistant housing to use to validate the design of filler segments and attachment scheme. Bought pulleys needed to turn it up to 12,000 RPM, and put together a sheet metal enclosure for the pulleys and belt. Almost finished machining one magnesium segment- then the sample web & filler will go to the balance shop before test-spinning.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on February 10, 2015, 02:38:13 AM
More pictures.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: fordboy628 on February 10, 2015, 05:33:43 AM
Jack,

Have you got a magnesium capable fire extinguisher in your shop?    Just in case . . . . .

I've witnessed 2 mag fires started by dry machining, neither was fun, or did the shop any good.

Be prepared my friend.
 :cheers:
Fordboy
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: tauruck on February 10, 2015, 07:14:14 AM
All that glitter flyin around, man!!!!!.
Remember those Verco Type raised letters on wedding invitations?.
Magnesium powder over wet ink.
Well an older guy I knew gave me some powder and a little recipe.
My hearing ain't that great these days. :-D
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Rex Schimmer on February 10, 2015, 12:52:04 PM
Jack,
Your "12,000 rpm test to destruction" reminds me of a story told to me by Duane Korn, former owner of H&L Metals in Signal Hill, Ca. (H&L was the go to place to have tubing bent in So Cal for years) Duane was one of the original members of SEMA, which at that time stood for "Speed Equipment Manufactures Assoc." and one of the SEMA members made racing flywheels and clutches ,don't remember the companies name, anyway he decided to make a test cell in which he was going to spin one of his flywheels up until it exploded. Duane said the guy built a big steel box from 1/2 inch plate, fully welded all around with a 1/2 plate door that allowed you to mount the flywheel to a shaft that was spun by an electric motor with gearing that would make it go to 10,000 rpm+. The door had heavy steel hinges and was bolted closed with 1/2 inch bolts. Well they had the initial testing and most of the SEMA members were there to watch the "blast". The guy starts the thing up and he starts to ramp up the speed and Duane said he started to move to the very back part of the room! When it blew up at around 10,000 the box turned into a "ball" and the door was almost blown off! So be careful!!!

Rex
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on February 11, 2015, 12:57:22 AM
Yes, I'll be "careful". One main attribute of my housing is its uninterrupted full-round internal shape. The fairly small clearance to the sample's O.D. makes the mounting of the housing possibly more of a concern than its integrity- especially considering the vibration energy if breakage occurs (causing imbalance).

Truth be told, I need to look harder at the shielding of the pulleys and belt- the belt speed will be around 150 ft./sec.! Way over any "intended usage" of a vee-belt. I've neglected to do any calculations of expected "ballooning" of the belt runs- guess I'd better look at that- might need idlers on the outside of the runs.

Elektron's robust design manual has a full chapter devoted to combustion considerations of magnesium alloys. I've read it at least twice so far. And this isn't my first time machining magnesium; the GE apprentice-tool&die shop I started in (1958) got some such jobs, and we had a couple of training sessions on the dangers.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on February 21, 2015, 07:04:21 AM
Designing "by proven example" (aftermarket belt cam drives of race V8 engines with cam loads/speeds similar to mine), I've decided the belt should be 8mm pitch and at least 30mm wide (170 tooth, 53.5", characteristics of Gates PowerGrip TT2 series). I haven't yet seen such an OEM drive.
JACK- Your reply to my thing abut cams in MM's thread prompted me to revisit this. I have designed a cam drive for my engine and the question of cam loads- that is how much power to run or torque to turn- has come to my mind- with the help of the Gates Design IQ3 software which asks for loads or hp or torque needed and it will tell you how big the belt needs to be. I am using a Polychain GT belt 21mm wide. The Polychain GT seems to be their best quality belt but I can't fit the next size up (36mm IIRC). Unless the load is way off what I think, this will be good. Anyway, have you tried the software and do you have any clue how much power it actually takes to run a valve train? There are lots of small Japanese and other 4 cyls with smaller belts but maybe not the spring pressures. I am using a DOHC, direct acting bucket follower with peak springs in the 300lb range. MY head was designed for chains and the cams are close together so that limits size of cam pulleys, thus crank pulley tooth count would be too low (I think) so am driving the cams from the front of the stock, Jesel belt driven, cam location. Bit convoluted, yet to be proven....... :|
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on February 22, 2015, 01:32:37 AM
I've gotten temporarily away from the cam-drive area the last few months. I'll get back to you in awhile.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: generatorshovel on February 22, 2015, 03:16:48 PM
Jack, I realize my load load levels are far below your needs, but I spun this engine to 12,000 rpm @ Lake Gairdner a few years back , with no problems
(http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t24/generatorshovel/LH-1.jpg) (http://s156.photobucket.com/user/generatorshovel/media/LH-1.jpg.html)
 HTD P24 5MH 25  ( Crank )
 HTD P48 5MH 25 ( Cams )
Tiny
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on February 22, 2015, 10:09:28 PM
Tiny (?)- I like the looks of that. Were there any unforeseen issues?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: generatorshovel on February 22, 2015, 11:14:15 PM
Tiny (?)- I like the looks of that. Were there any unforeseen issues?
No issues, apart from loosing partial oil supply to the big end one year, the following year it managed 87 mph on a 71 record, with my mate's "jockey" son on it, he had team orders, 11,500 rpm, no more,,well he noticed it was spinning at 12 in the 3, buttoned off and still got 87 ,,I told him NEVER to follow team orders again, lol.
It's full of goodies now,lost the radiator and gained a tank, upped the c/r to 11.7/1 (fuel) planned on APS mods, the got sidetracked with the 250.
I had concerns regarding the small crank gear, but like you, have limited room 'tween the 2 cams, there is no signs of belt stress after 9 wot miles + return & test runs
http://youtu.be/Uh6mtzR9Yr4
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on February 23, 2015, 07:57:05 AM
In researching belts I was looking at the modified curvilinear tooth which is a bit "better" than the similar HTD which is better than the trapezoidal traditional ("Gilmer") tooth design. Most of the cam drive belts in HTD or modified curvilinear on factory engines were 8mm pitch, a few at 3/8 so I mostly looked only at those. It looks like you are using the 5mm pitch, Tiny, and it worked fine. Jesel belts are custom 3/8 pitch HTD belts and use a 24/48 or 27/54 (I think) pulley combo. These are not even close to fitting what I needed. The biggest I could fit  ended with a 34 tooth pulley on the cams which are about 3.8" diameter. That would require a 17 tooth crank gear that is less then 2" in diameter and not made that I could see in standard sizes though a custom might have been possible. That would have given less than 8 teeth engaged on the crank and though I did not speak with an engineer about it, reading suggested this was not going to work. Anyway, I am using the double belt set up I mentioned before with the best belt Gates makes and will see. I will let you know. I just finally heard from JE they are making my pistons ->1month on a 2 week guarantee for custom pistons :( - Hope to have running by early April (good luck with that !) so I can make the May ECTA meet.
Sorry for the hijack, Jack, but it sorta goes with what you are doing as well.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on February 24, 2015, 12:59:03 AM
No hijack; it's all good.
To begin answering you- no, I haven't attempted to estimate the power to be transmitted through my belt drive. I'll probably skip that, and use the example of existing aftermarket belt cam drives (8mm pitch, 25 mm width), which are being used satisfactorily in drag engines with extreme loads, compared to what mine will be (close to 1" valve lifts, open valve loads up to 1,200 lbs versus my .625" lifts, open loads 590 lbs.). I've got room for 50-tooth cam sprockets, so it should work out with 30 mm width; just need to source the pieces, then machine custom hubs for my cams and crank.
I wouldn't call it "convoluted" to drive 1:2, then 1:1 to the cams. I considered that for my engine- since it would shorten the long belt spans I'll have. But in the interest of "shortness" in front of the block (also need to fit in a 3" wide blower belt), I decided against it. I've got room for idler pulleys outboard of both belt spans (about mid-span) that won't move the blower belt position ahead at all, and should control "ballooning" of the belts.

Progress on crank "fillers" testing: got the sample balanced today. Awaiting delivery of a 1 HP motor and 10" v-belt pulley (tomorrow?). Then it will be "show time"! :-D
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on February 24, 2015, 07:06:18 AM
There are others but I used http://www.bbman.com/ as a source for my cam pulleys. Their online catalog is a big help with pulley diameters,  pitch, belts, tooth type etc etc. Takes a few minutes to figure it out but works well. 
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on February 26, 2015, 12:15:48 AM
Hmm... "accidental" lesson in fluid friction (dry air inside the close-fitting housing around an almost-full-round test piece)- 1 HP motor (117V single-phase) only gets it to 9,200 RPM, then trips the 20 amp breaker (would be 12,000 RPM at motor's rated 3450 RPM). I suspect a VFD (variable-frequency drive) might allow it to be "nudged" up to 12,000, but single-phase-output VFDs aren't easily available (translation- can't borrow one from local electrical contractor). So... I guess tomorrow I'll borrow the 2 HP motor from my mill and try again.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Rex Schimmer on February 26, 2015, 05:21:21 PM
Jack,
If you aren't going to run it for a long period of time try going to a larger breaker, try 30 or 40 amp. What rates electric motors is the amount of heat they generate you can literally increase the amount of power you can get out of a electric motor by blowing cool air over it and through it if possible. But you will need a bigger breaker for more amps although at 20 amps and 120 volts single phase you are over 2 hp already. If you are looking for 12,000 rpm from a 3450 motor I would assume that your ratio between the motor and the "test stand" is around 4:1 which makes the torque required from the motor shaft to accelerate 16 times higher than is required with a 1:1 ratio. If the motor still accelerating when the breaker goes? If it is the air drag inside the test enclosure then you will definitely need more HP as aero load is a "power of 3" function so the hp required for 12,000 rpm would be about 2.2 times the amount of power you are using now which could easily be 5 hp. Hook you shop vacuum up to the test chamber and evacuate some air out of it.

Have fun, be careful and let us know what happens.

Rex


Rex
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: fordboy628 on February 26, 2015, 05:59:11 PM
Jack,

If you aren't going to run it for a long period of time try going to a larger breaker, try 30 or 40 amp.

Rex

Jack,

Check the insulation on the wires before substituting a larger amperage breaker.   If it is older or vinyl insulation, increasing the current MAY damage the insulation.
 :cheers:
Mark
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: JimL on February 26, 2015, 09:47:21 PM
Jack...a pic of one of our engines (that we've never used.)  That cam belt is running 4 cams and a total of 24 Formula Atlantic valve spring packages.  The tension and guide rollers are all uneven spacing (length divisions between drive/driven components).  The "draw side" of the timing belt seems happiest with an idler that presses on the back of the belt, which has a web straightening effect at very high speed (beyond rated).

The multirib blower belt also has uneven run divisions, as well as a back-bending idler on the draw side of the belt.  This one is only enough to keep the whip out of the belt, but this engine doesn't run past 7800 rpm and blower speed is not that high.  During the dyno tune, we learned we were horsepower limited by the belt width on the blower (had to reduce boost).

On a smaller V6 with blower, I was spinning the blower beyond 15,000 and had to put the "deeper" idler higher on the draw side of the belt....nearer the blower pulley.  That was the only way to keep the belt on.  Trying to pull straight would pitch the belt instantly at high rpm.

This engine, by the way, is 3.65 liters and made 440 HP and 390 lb/ft torque on pump gas....pretty big cams in there for a street blower motor.  Maybe this is a grain of info to help your research.  The only thing I am sure of, is that you don't want to be symmetrical on those belt divisions between idlers and sprockets.  I don't think the pattern matters much, but it seems to work well to put the reverse bend pretty close to the smaller pulley or sprocket.  I have no technical explanation to offer, except experience from making things work years ago.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on February 27, 2015, 12:15:11 AM
Thanks. What''s that timing belt width- 40 mm?

For the spin-test: ordered yet another pulley to attempt driving with the 2 HP motor. But I'm beginning to think I may need to compromise the continuity of the housing by generously "ventilating" it. I imagine the least dangerous scheme would be "breathing" holes in the 3/4" thick end plates, leaving the total coverage of the circular housing alone.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: JimL on February 27, 2015, 01:04:52 AM
As best I remember its 40.  That engine is stored in SoCal and I havent seen it in a year or so.

One note about the blower on a banger.  You only have two big planes of vibration, so a side mounted blower/manifold tends to rip the studs right out of the head.  Inline 6, V6, V8.... no problem.  Inline 4 got really ugly in the 2.4-2.7 liter engines.  My best guess is that the blower rotating elements need to be as close to the crankshaft line as possible.  There is more going on than I understand, but those blowers were prying themselves off the head beginning toward the front (where youd think the belt would be pulling them inward).

I had very little involvement with that program and the final solution was to quit messing with it.

Strangely, a smaller 4-cylinder blower kit was serviceable except for the crank pulley bolt.  That took a really trick part to prevent breaking at long high RPM.  Weird science, aint it?

  Another lesson we learned was that you just about cant make a strong enough intercooler core when the blower is too tight to the ports.  The blower pulses get to dancing with the intake tuning and pieces crack off.  A long taper intercooler survives better than straight or flat.

Also....double 90degree bends in flexible hoses or lines will save you a bunch of time and repair costs because you dont have to transmit as much vibration from one component to another.  Even an air inlet hose can pump with those pulses, which makes it act like it is trying to pull or push its end components.  Thats why good 4-cylinder cars look the way they do under the hood.

OK....that is all I can remember that might be useful for you.  Good luck on your project and have fun with it.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on February 28, 2015, 12:02:09 AM
Thanks JimL. Vibration is certainly a big concern for me, having never built an inline-4 race engine before.

I drilled ten 5/8" holes in each end plate, to hopefully "free up" the test sample somewhat. After re-assembling it, I was quite surprised that giving it a little hand-spin results in about twice as long a coast-down; maybe 7-8 seconds instead of 3-4 seconds.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 01, 2015, 12:49:41 AM
8,390 RPM. No destruction yet. More to come...
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 07, 2015, 01:17:46 AM
Pretty poor planning on my part, not doing any calculation of power required for this test. Couldn't get more than about 8,400 RPM using the 2HP mill. So I decided to try one more last-ditch attempt before turning the task over to a "professional". Working with available stuff, I "paralleled" the 1HP motor onto the 2HP mill, with the pulley ratios which give the same no-load speed at the mill spindle. Got the sample past 10,000 RPM a couple of times, highest of 10,746 RPM. I'll do a little more tweaking, as there are variable-pitch pulleys on both the 1HP motor and on the test fixture. I had arbitrarily aimed for a 20% safety-factor (above the planned 10,000 RPM engine speed), so I'm not there yet.  However, the 10,746 is already about 15% over on radial acceleration.

I'm still not "comfortable" with belts and pulley rims moving more that 150 ft/sec next to me... but my knuckles aren't quite as white as when I began... :-o
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wobblywalrus on March 07, 2015, 09:34:12 PM
That looks like a picture of a Velocette on the wall.  None of those got anywhere near 10,000 rpm.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 08, 2015, 01:16:49 AM
... a Velocette... None of those got anywhere near 10,000 rpm...
Bikes can be fun at any speed!

Tweaked the "spin test" up to 11,158 RPM. No destruction, no bodily harm... guess I'll "call it a day". The sample did see 25% more radial acceleration than the actual pieces will at 10,000 RPM, so there's at least a chance of success. I'm talking to a shop about doing CNC milling of the eight magnesium segments- which would allow a closer fit to the crank webs than my manual-milled sample. And I'll be busy for awhile doing the necessary milling of the crank's web flanks.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 13, 2015, 01:41:16 AM
I jus' don't got no respect... pay $3,600 for a Moldex billet, and then start hackin' away on it! :roll:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 15, 2015, 12:38:37 AM
Wow, what a *#&+#%# to machine! I should have asked earlier- Moldex heat-treated the whole thing up to 42 Rockwell-c. And they Nitrided it, which can instantaneously kill a cutting tool just trying to break through the surface.
Anybody got a good deal on a used cutting tool sharpener? Trying to keep C6 carbide end mills sharp, by hand on a diamond wheel, is getting VERY tedious- and obviously compromises their efficiency.
Taking it one step at a time, but... worried about the drilling/tapping needed...
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: fordboy628 on March 15, 2015, 07:44:46 AM
Wow, what a *#&+#%# to machine! I should have asked earlier- Moldex heat-treated the whole thing up to 42 Rockwell-c. And they Nitrided it, which can instantaneously kill a cutting tool just trying to break through the surface.
Anybody got a good deal on a used cutting tool sharpener? Trying to keep C6 carbide end mills sharp, by hand on a diamond wheel, is getting VERY tedious- and obviously compromises their efficiency.
Taking it one step at a time, but... worried about the drilling/tapping needed...

Jack,

When we were tapping some nitrided EN40B cranks, it took one tap per hole.    If reused, the taps snapped off in the holes, at max depth of course.    None of the cutting fluids seemed to help much.     Hope you have a friend with an EDM . . . .
 :cheers:
Fordboy
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 16, 2015, 12:16:54 AM
Irony: I've got an old Elox EDM (vacuum tube) sitting here, that I haven't found time to get working yet!! :roll:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on March 16, 2015, 03:16:18 PM
Wow, what a *#&+#%# to machine! I should have asked earlier- Moldex heat-treated the whole thing up to 42 Rockwell-c. And they Nitrided it, which can instantaneously kill a cutting tool just trying to break through the surface.
Anybody got a good deal on a used cutting tool sharpener? Trying to keep C6 carbide end mills sharp, by hand on a diamond wheel, is getting VERY tedious- and obviously compromises their efficiency.
Taking it one step at a time, but... worried about the drilling/tapping needed...

Maybe it is subtley trying to tell you something.... (leave me alone....) LOL. sounds like a good piece of gear though. I have a moldex too. Has survived couple episodes of oil pressure loss under power and an excursion to neighborhood of 13k rpms when popped out of gear at full throttle.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Rex Schimmer on March 16, 2015, 05:07:39 PM
Jack,
As nitriding is pretty thin you may be ahead to pre-grind the areas that you plan to machine to remove the nitriding. This still doesn't do anything for you in the 42Rc 4340. Nothing kills tools faster than not having a stiff set up and looking at your mill set up I think I might try to move the head down as close to the crank as possible and then pull the quill/spindle back up as short as possible and also maybe consider using a small, 3-4 inch dia face mill with indexable carbide inserts and couple it as close as you can to your spindle. Turn it slow and lots of coolant. I worked on a project where we were cutting some 4340 that was around 35-40 Rc and we were using a 12 dia indexable face cutter, 6 inch spindle, and it ran at around 75 hp to make the cut, 12 inchs wide, .2 to .3 inches deep, probably not more than 50 rpm, don't remember the feed speed but the operator had to stand over the chip pile with a fire extinguisher to keep putting out the small fires from the slight amount of spindle oil and coolant that keep starting to burn. The chips came of the part with a very nice red glow!  Just a note, the spindle was actually a 50 hp spindle but we were doing a 12 hour, 150% test to prove out the spindle. The machine was a Giddings and Lewis 6 inch spindle floor mill and we had to run this test with the spindle only extended a couple of inches any more and the cutting tool would not live.

Rex
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: ronnieroadster on March 16, 2015, 06:29:11 PM
The Moldex crank made for my flathead needed a huge amount of material removed from all six counter balance areas. Why you may ask would I need to remove material that's because Moldex screwed up. Counter ballancers so big in diameter I was unable to put a cam in the block! It took only six hours in my South Bend lath to remove the material. As your learning the crank material is very hard I could only remove .005 per pass. Man what a pain in the Acura. But heck what would you expect that crank shaft only cost me $3200.00. Knife edging and detailing was much easier using die grinders and four inch grinding pads on a Makita grinder. But only after correcting their screw up good times for sure  :x
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 17, 2015, 01:06:14 AM
Yes, I will do abrasive removal of the Nitride in some spots. And, yes, I did drop the mill head down a ways. A larger more rigid milling machine would be advantageous- but after 25 years of cranking work out on this little one, I've gotten adept at minimizing the problem. Generally, I keep a tool sharp enough to do a .001" cut to final dimension. But good 4340 at 42Rc is nasty- not just the hardness, but it's as "tough" as most stainless alloys. At 285 RPM, 3/4" diameter mill, and cutting only .005" at very slow feed, I'm having to sharpen C6 carbide cutting edges about every two hours.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Koncretekid on March 17, 2015, 03:06:59 PM
Jack,
Is that a Rong Fu RF-30 mill drill?  If so, you've got more guts than I do.  .5mm lash in the lead screws (acme, not ball screws) and the Z axis is worse - - no real way of controlling other than keeping the lock tight and hoping the dial is correct!  Good on you!
Tom
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 18, 2015, 01:30:09 AM
Tom- As I said, I've had 25+ years to become adept with the mill. I think you can see in the last photo, the 6" dial caliper with zero-lash mountings to read the Z-axis. I also added the home-brew motor drive for Z-axis, infinitely variable from .001" - .004" per second with adjustable microswitch stop- works great for precise cuts (boring or OD turning) with an offset boring head that uses 3/4" diameter boring bars. I also built a variable-angle tool feeder to emulate angled-cross-slide lathe work (cone-shapes, etc.). When I first got it, I carefully squared the spindle centerline to the table ways by selective shimming between the cast column and the base (within .0005" over a 12" diameter swing). Also had 2" thick spacer blocks surface ground that I can install between the column and base to gain a little more headroom (and a stand to support the top-end to install/remove the spacers)- which I needed to bore and hone Kohler single-cylinder blocks. Last summer (after 25 years) I did have to replace the X-axis table nut (bronze casting); I took that opportunity to add easily-accessible grease fittings to both table nuts (maybe get more than 25 years next time?).  Good news was that the  lead screws show zero wear. The hardest thing for me to deal with is the inaccuracy of the X lead screw- it moves 1.001" for each 1.000" dialed (but consistent across all 22" of travel). I've been promising myself to add a DRO (digital readout) to the X, but just haven't gotten to it yet. It's a Central Machinery model 590 bought from Harbor Freight. If I said I run it ten hours per week (very conservative estimate- I even had a custom-machining business for about five years), that would be 13,000 hours on it! Spindle bearings are still perfect and the ways don't have measurable wear. Of course I've lost count of number of drive belts consumed... :roll:

Oh- also had to replace the 2HP motor last summer. :-(

Milling on the crank is making progress- close to half done now. It's caused me to improve my skills at re-sharpening 4-flute carbide mills- I'm now to the point where I can get all four flutes to cut quite evenly!
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 18, 2015, 01:39:50 AM
Irony: I've got an old Elox EDM (vacuum tube) sitting here, that I haven't found time to get working yet!! :roll:
And to add to the irony- I've got the rotary drive for the EDM which would allow EDM'ing the needed threads in the crank, rather than having to tap them!
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Peter Jack on March 18, 2015, 05:49:00 AM
Jack, if you haven't tried them look up Power Twist Plus vee belts. They're a really neat linked belt that you buy in bulk and put together at any length you require. They virtually don't stretch, last about forever and run much smoother than a conventional vee belt. I've taken the vibration out of a couple of my drill presses just by switching to them. Oh yes, the other advantage is they don't slip. Any belt drive machines in my shop that are more than a couple of years old are converted because it's a far superior system to the conventional vee belt.

After a ringing endorsement like that I wish I was profiting from the advice. I just really like the product. It does what it says and more.  :-D :-D :-D

Pete
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Koncretekid on March 18, 2015, 06:12:16 AM
Jack,
My RF-30 mill looks like a dead ringer for the Harbor Freight 590.  How do you raise the spindle drive to accomodate longer tool bits without loosing alignment?

Also, how's your weather?  My wife and I were planning to make the drive to Colorado starting tomorrow, but woke up to this!

Tom
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wobblywalrus on March 18, 2015, 11:44:18 PM
Jack, the modern carbide insert tooling might work best.  The little bits have materials, coatings, and edge profiles we cannot duplicate on our old skool stuff.  There are specialized inserts for hard materials.  www.doriantool.com (http://www.doriantool.com) or www.meshertool.com (http://www.meshertool.com)

Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 18, 2015, 11:47:58 PM
... How do you raise the spindle drive to accomodate longer tool bits without loosing alignment?...
The spacer blocks are parallel-ground on two faces.
Yes, your mill looks pretty much like mine. Does yours have 7 3/8" travel in the Y direction?
I believe winter is on its way out here. A lot of snow melted the last 10 days. Had about 2-3" today, but no more in the near forecast.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Koncretekid on March 19, 2015, 05:24:39 AM
Yes, 7-3/8" in the Y direction.  By the way, I was reading some info about the Rong Fu mill drill (also sold under Enco, Harbor Freight, and many other names) and learned how to tighten the gibs and the bed nuts.  Got my lash down to .25 mm (mine's metric) and movement in the table down to about .002".  Then I read an interesting conversion to full CNC using ball screws, stepper motors, and an available computer program.  Fascinating stuff for an old mill drill.

The alignment issue in the Z direction I was referring to was when you run out of travel and need to install a longer drill, for example.  Only way to move the spindle up on the round column messes up alignment.  Only way I know is to leave in the smaller drill inserted into the previously drilled hole, raise the spindle and lock it with the drill in the hole.  Then raise the quill which allows you to put in a longer drill or whatever.  Just a pain.

You mentioned you put a stepper motor on the Z axis.  Did you convert to ball screw?  How does the stepper motor prevent the quill from pushing up while milling or do you depend on the quill lock?

Good to hear you're not expecting any more snow. I may be passing your exit Saturday afternoon.

Tom
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 20, 2015, 12:22:23 AM
Your're right, that having to re-orient the spindle after raising/lowering the head is a pain; haven't figured a way around it.
No modern stuff like stepper motors here; my downfeed motor is from an old barbecue grill! Replaced the flashlight batteries with a 6VDC supply and potentiometer, V-belt drive to a pulley in place of the original crank handle. I call it an "electric" feed, vs. "power" feed. However, I haven't come to any boring/drilling/turning situation that it wouldn't handle okay. I just remove the belt to use the mill normally.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on April 01, 2015, 01:20:42 AM
Finished the milling on the crank today. A word to the wise: if you plan to modify a billet crank, have the maker send it to you prior to any hardening and/or Nitriding! It took me a long time to realize that carbide cuts 42-hardness 4340 alloy just fine- IF you can avoid the tool touching any of the Nitride- which is a problem, as the Nitride depth is quite varied and located unpredictably. In general the Nitride is .003"-.004" deep and can be ground off the surface. But many places it was up to .040" deep, which ruled out grinding it all away.

Now I get to find out how "tappable" the heat-treated 4340 is... :roll:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on April 01, 2015, 11:47:26 PM
Hopeful news: Spot-faced, drilled, and tapped the first couple of holes okay. :-)
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: tauruck on April 02, 2015, 12:10:52 AM
We once sent in a Crower crank for balancing and the machinist couldn't even drill a hole. :-D
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on April 05, 2015, 12:13:07 AM
... a Crower crank... machinist couldn't even drill a hole...
He should have hand-ground through the surface hardening (Nitride, induction hardened, whatever), then it would have drilled okay.

24 holes spot-faced, 22 drilled, 9 tapped; only 18 more to drill, and 31 more to tap... 8-)
Broke just one tap so far- operator error. Got lucky and worked the broken piece out.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: fordboy628 on April 05, 2015, 06:40:45 AM
... a Crower crank... machinist couldn't even drill a hole...
He should have hand-ground through the surface hardening (Nitride, induction hardened, whatever), then it would have drilled okay.

24 holes spot-faced, 22 drilled, 9 tapped; only 18 more to drill, and 31 more to tap... 8-)
Broke just one tap so far- operator error. Got lucky and worked the broken piece out.

Jack,

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you on the tapping.    When, or if, a tap starts to "drag" while cutting the threads, change to a new tap.   Although I'd bet real money, (or beer), that a guy with your machine tool experience already knows that.
 :cheers:
Fordboy

Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on April 09, 2015, 11:32:09 PM
A milestone: crank machining done... gee, only 27 days... :-o Sort of glad I didn't keep track of how many hours...
Just a little more work with a Dremel and sand-roll to knock off a few remaining sharply-square corners. Then, after double/triple checking my blueprint of the magnesium segments, I'll see when (?) that job would fit into the local CNC shop's schedule.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on April 09, 2015, 11:52:37 PM
Nice bit of skill, patience and care with that, Jack. 

A race car is never done, but there's a huge sense of relief and satisfaction when a project get's to the point that you can put a line through it.

And THIS was a project.   :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on May 16, 2015, 11:57:25 PM
The shop finally scheduled the CNC shaping of the magnesium alloy filler segments- they expect to start on them about four weeks from now.

I think I've already "set a record" with this car; most money ever thrown at an engine project! Crane Cams has finally started building the unique pair of camshafts needed for my DOHC design- for a mere $1,600 each... :-o
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on May 19, 2015, 11:16:44 PM
... I used http://www.bbman.com/ as a source for my cam pulleys...
Thanks for the link to B&B Manufacturing. Very good site; looks like I can get my GT-2 sprockets from them.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on May 30, 2015, 12:34:53 AM
... B&B Manufacturing... looks like I can get my GT-2 sprockets from them...
Well, sort of. The two larger ones (50 tooth) are only stocked in steel, which weigh over five pounds each! Their website says "available in aluminum alloy"; however, the aluminum versions show on the quote as "special order"- at up to $300 each! And a minimum 7-week lead time. :x
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: generatorshovel on May 30, 2015, 02:40:14 AM
Try these guys Jack, the had everything I needed, at a good price too,
http://www.naismith.com.au/nnews/article/4_3.htm
Tiny
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: tauruck on May 30, 2015, 02:48:40 AM
... B&B Manufacturing... looks like I can get my GT-2 sprockets from them...
Well, sort of. The two larger ones (50 tooth) are only stocked in steel, which weigh over five pounds each! Their website says "available in aluminum alloy"; however, the aluminum versions show on the quote as "special order"- at up to $300 each! And a minimum 7-week lead time. :x

Jack, I don't know what a GT-2 sprocket is. Can you please enlighten me?. Thanks. :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: generatorshovel on May 30, 2015, 03:37:11 AM
The GT2 or 2GT Tooth Profile timing pulley is prevailing in the 3d printing hobby cause the Round tooth profile brings high precision and anti-backlash, were known as today's Reprap Pulley.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on May 30, 2015, 07:22:59 AM
As I understand the toothed belt (synchronous drive) design has changed with time as a lot of things. The classic "Gilmer" or trapezoidal tooth, which works fine for moderate loads, evolved to a "curvilinear" tooth design which was called "high torque drive" or HTD belts. A rounded tooth. That then had minor design changes to become the Modified curvilinear tooth design with smoothness and excellent torque delivery and belts designed for it are, ( according to Gates anyway), the best high strength belts (Polychain GT Carbon) belts available . So far of course. These are the GT2 belts and pulleys. . They are pretty stiff, at least when new. Best I can tell, just looking at the teeth there is not much difference but you are not supposed to mix up GT2 and regular HTD belts and pulleys though they may physically fit. All three of these belt types- Trapezoidal, Curvilinear, and Modified Curvilinear have been used for cam drives by the OEM's.

Jesel cam drives use a custom width/length HTD belt, for instance.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on May 30, 2015, 07:29:06 AM
... B&B Manufacturing... looks like I can get my GT-2 sprockets from them...
Well, sort of. The two larger ones (50 tooth) are only stocked in steel, which weigh over five pounds each! Their website says "available in aluminum alloy"; however, the aluminum versions show on the quote as "special order"- at up to $300 each! And a minimum 7-week lead time. :x
Ouch!. I spent a lot of time looking at stock and aftermarket pulleys (light aluminum) for my application. I couldn't go any bigger than a 34 tooth because of the cam spacing. Because of how I was going to adapt pulleys to a cam drive system that originally used lubricated chains, hubs to cam and then pulley on that became an issue. I ended with steel pulleys and yes they are heavy. Also on mine the crank drive pulley would have needed to be totally custom hub etc and only 17 teeth with the above 34 and I thought that would be too small with the belt routing for adequate tooth engagement. Soooo..... Am driving the cams from the existing Jesel drive system with another 34 tooth belt and a Polychain GT carbon belt with the GT2 pulleys. Will see...... :roll:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on May 30, 2015, 11:30:24 PM
Yes, it appears that tooth design of synchronous belts/pulleys is continuing to evolve. When I began looking, GT-2 profile was the latest/greatest. But now Gates has developed their new GT-3 belt tooth profile, so little different from GT-2 that it employs GT-2 pulleys!

Thanks for the help. I'll take a look at Naismith.com.au
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wobblywalrus on June 15, 2015, 12:11:26 AM
Jack, machining tough metals was a subject of an earlier post on this thread.  My brother, the machinist, is helping me with a problem of the bit chattering while machining tough stuff.  It is a boring problem.  He recommended a carbide shank boring bar.  It works.  This website shows them [url]www.globalcnc.com/Carbide Boring Bars.htm[url] 

Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wobblywalrus on June 15, 2015, 12:15:11 AM
www.globalcnc.com/Carbide Boring Bars.html (http://www.globalcnc.com/Carbide Boring Bars.html)
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wobblywalrus on June 15, 2015, 12:20:54 AM
www.globalcnc.com/Carbide Boring Bars.htm (http://www.globalcnc.com/Carbide Boring Bars.htm)

Hopefully this link works.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on June 15, 2015, 12:39:35 AM
Interesting. I never used a carbide boring bar. I'm sure the vibration characteristics are quite different from steel bars.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wobblywalrus on June 16, 2015, 01:23:36 AM
The carbide shank does not vibrate as much as a steel one.  They do cost a lot.  That is their drawback. 
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on July 27, 2015, 12:49:06 AM
Christmas in July- received the two camshafts that Crane "built from scratch" for me! All measurements are spot-on (I have yet to measure lobe profiles, but don't doubt them). Photos to follow soon of complete DOHC top-end trial-assembled.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on July 28, 2015, 01:00:09 AM
Photos of DOHC top-end mostly all assembled- the only valves in-place are #1 cylinder, springs are light 'test' springs, and camshaft rear thrust bushings are yet to be surface ground to set endplay. And an "enclosed" view- my insistence on fitting it all under a M/T rocker cover caused many headaches!
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: fordboy628 on July 28, 2015, 01:32:56 PM
my insistence on fitting it all under a M/T rocker cover caused many headaches!

Waaay cool Jack!!!!!!!

 :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Fordboy
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Peter Jack on July 28, 2015, 05:05:16 PM
Jack, that's an awesome looking piece!!!  :-D :-D 8-)

Pete
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on August 11, 2015, 12:46:17 AM
I now have the CNC-milled magnesium segments- very precise work.
Attachment of two of them completed; six to go, but very time-consuming on a manual mill.
I purposely co-located the heads of each pair of Allen head 1/4-28 screws, to reduce "disturbances" of the O.D. During final assembly, aluminum plugs will be inserted above the heads of all 29-degree-canted screw heads, then plunge-milled to accept the heads of the radial (15-degree) screws- thus minimizing disruptions of the smooth O.D.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: tauruck on August 11, 2015, 03:04:51 AM
Jack, I wish I had you over here.
That is some serious engineering. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on August 21, 2015, 12:24:48 AM
Finally- a view of a full-round crankshaft!
Next, I take a break from that job, while awaiting Tagnite surface treatment of the magnesium segments (to prevent corrosion).
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Rex Schimmer on August 21, 2015, 07:40:28 PM
Jack,
Great work, I really like the multi direction retainer bolts, reminds me of the way ship builders used to dowel the wooden blanking on to the ship ribs with dowels at various angles. Stress from any direction would cause at least one of the dowels to be in shear and not be pulled out.

Balancing should be interesting, I know you will keep us abreast of your continuing development.

Rex
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 13, 2015, 12:27:13 AM
As usual... many delays were encountered (TAG lost my phone number, etc.). TAG suggested also applying an epoxy they've developed to better resist any acidity in the crankcase. It actually is absorbed into the pores of the Tagnited magnesium, adding less than .001" to any dimension. I finally received them a few days ago and assembled everything- Loctited all fasteners and torqued them to 52% greater than I had used for the spin-test sample. The only remaining machining on the crank will be to bore/ream the snout for a round key, after I finish the cam-drive sprocket hub and blower-drive hub.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: tauruck on October 13, 2015, 12:41:08 AM
That's beautiful Jack.

You've been at it a long time and it turned out great. :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Peter Jack on October 13, 2015, 03:59:28 AM
Nice work Jack. You're a more patient man than me.  :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

Pete
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wobblywalrus on October 13, 2015, 10:51:07 PM
That crank looks nice.  It reminds me of old style motorcycle crankshafts from twins and fours that were pressed together and had roller and ball bearings instead of shells and journals.   
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 14, 2015, 01:16:30 AM
I'm mainly relieved to tear down the crank setup and free up my mill for other stuff. I used a "leftover" 15" pulley from the spin-testing to create a REAL degree wheel- one degree is about 1/8" at the rim! After turning the rim true, I used an index fixture to mill lines every one-degree, with the 5 & 10-degree points slightly deeper (lousy photo resolution doesn't even show them). I've got taper-lock pulley hubs for both the 1.125" cam snouts and the 1.375" crank snout.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: tauruck on October 14, 2015, 06:51:07 AM
Absolute work of art. :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 26, 2015, 12:07:30 AM
A milestone of sorts: accomplished the first spin-test of my DOHC design today and no parts escaped! Using belt/pulley reduction from a one HP motor, I ran the exhaust cam and valvetrain for a number of minutes. Only about 700 RPM (would be 1,400 engine RPM), but I'll do some parts-inspection before spinning it faster. Oiling of cams and followers looks good- I may decide to restrict the volume somewhat. Oil supply for now is a variable-speed drill driving an old oil pump, and uses the top-end scavenge cavity as a temporary wet-sump (1 1/2 qt.). Once I'm satisfied with the exhaust side, I'll need to do the intake side also, since the follower geometry differs (can't run intake and exhaust simultaneously until the synchronous belt drive is finished, or valves would collide).

Prior to this test, I finished incoming-inspection of the cams that Crane built (measured lift every one degree!). They agree 100% with the print and the lobe profiles are exactly what I specified- including the limit I placed on maximum negative acceleration [2x10^(-4) inches/cam degree-squared].
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 27, 2015, 01:11:00 AM
Swapped V-belt pulleys and ran the exhaust train for awhile today at 1,300 RPM. All is looking good. Now adapting some pulleys to see whether the one-HP electric motor will spin the valvetrain to 4,500 RPM (engine speed of 9,000 RPM).
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wobblywalrus on October 27, 2015, 10:06:19 PM
Jack, are you making your engine rather than modifying one?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 28, 2015, 01:15:54 AM
,,, are you making your engine rather than modifying one?...
Both of the above! The hemi head itself and the V8 block were both made by Mickey Thompson; everything else is my doing.

Well, the pulley combination to attempt 4,500 RPM didn't fly- it couldn't start the cam turning (springs are 290# seat/ 590# open, with 2:1 ratio followers!). So I'll scrounge some different pulleys to see just how fast the 1 HP setup can spin it.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Rex Schimmer on October 28, 2015, 06:11:31 PM
Jack,
When you tried the 1 hp motor did you give it a little "manual assist" on the pulley? Some times once it gets turning the friction drops and it will continue to turn. Did it break the breakers on the electrical panel? Most electric motors will run at 200% if you give them some amps. Use your shop air to blow over the motor to assist in cooling. I have run some large DC motors (50 hp) at 150% for hours with out problems. 115 or 230 volts?

You are really a pioneer so keep on keeping on as it is sure interesting to see your results and progress!!!

Rex
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 29, 2015, 02:20:51 AM
Yes, I need to use a ratchet wrench on the cam snout to start it moving regardless of the V-belt drive ratio. I played around more today, using a variable-pitch motor pulley. I got it up to 1,675 cam RPM, where the 20 amp breaker kicks out after 3-4 seconds of running (single phase 115V). Not sure of my next step- perhaps drive the V-belt from my old 7 HP Wheelhorse, except that would interfere with closely listening to the OHC deal being tested.

Tonight I set up a laser tach to read the camshaft speed directly, instead of tediously measuring pulleys and calculating the speed.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Rex Schimmer on October 31, 2015, 04:17:29 PM
20 amps single phase 115 volt is 1.5 HP, you might try a 25 amp breaker and blow air through the electric motor. That would give you 2 hp+ and it may be enough.

Rex
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: TheBaron on October 31, 2015, 08:25:59 PM
Hi Jack,

If you put a "beam" type torque wrench to work turning the valve train and get a reading on just how much torque it takes to keep things spinning along, the Hp needed can be found by multiplying the torque in ft-lbs times 471 and then divide the result by 550....This will give you the size of the electric motor needed to turn 4500 rpm.

 I used to do this trick on the  CHAMP car engines I assembled to know the basic turning friction before and after run-in.

Robert
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on November 01, 2015, 01:07:10 AM
Thanks for the suggestions. I considered swapping to a 25 or 30 amp breaker, but decided it would only get me a little bit further with the test. There's no simple way to measure the torque required to keep the cam turning- at very slow speeds, such as turning it with a torque wrench, the cam "snaps" from one valve closing to the next opening. Yeah, a person could come up with a load-sensor on the motor mounting to get an average torque value at a decent speed, but that's more hassle than it's worth. I'm almost finished rigging the 7HP Kohler of my Wheelhorse to it- should have it going tomorrow. The Kohler power rating is at 3,400 RPM and I've got a pulley combination that will get the cam to 5,000 RPM- I'm confident the 7HP will do the job. "By accident" I discovered how to avoid most of the noise of the tractor running- the muffler had to be removed to clear the belt, so... now I'll cobble up a connection from the pipe stub to my exhaust hose and run the hose out of the garage!

With all the running I've done of the cam (with no faults) I've got enough confidence in the valvetrain, that I don't need to keep it visible by leaving the rocker cover off. I removed the temporary oil shields, cleaned up the oily mess, and installed the cover. Sure is much "nicer" to deal with now!
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on November 01, 2015, 01:42:40 AM
1:07 AM on this post.

Making hay while the sun shines AND burning the midnight oil.

Been a long, productive day for you, Jack - 'bout an hour longer seeing as we switched over from daylight saving time this morning!  :cheers:

Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on November 01, 2015, 11:04:23 PM
Off-topic...

The sound of a one-lung Kohler exhausting through 15' of 3" diameter hose is amazing!!! The definitive "thumper" sound... :evil:
Especially impressive from outside the garage with the Wheelhorse nowhere in sight 8-)

Monday: got the cam up to about 3,300 RPM, but laser tach was inconsistent. I'll keep plugging until I've seen the valvtrain "happy" at 10,000 engine RPM... or broken.... whichever occurs first! :|
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on November 09, 2015, 12:15:47 AM
... I'll keep plugging until I've seen the valvetrain "happy" at 10,000 engine RPM... or broken.... whichever occurs first!...
Umm... guess which occurred first? :-o

The best light I can put this in- is that the spin-test did what it was supposed to do. Can't say the same for my design skills... :-(

The good news is that examination of the break (and re-calculation of tensile stress) clearly shows the change needed to the cross-section at that point. It also shows that the 49 rockwell-C treatment was harder than ideal for the best compromise between brittleness and toughness.

The other good news is that there was no colateral damage- cam, etc.- at about 6,000 [equivalent engine speed] RPM.

The bad news is the hours I spent whittling them out on a manual mill. I guess my best approach now is to farm out the job to a CNC shop- have them scan/digitize an unbroken one, make the necessary changes, and crank out 8 of them. Then treat to ~42 rockwell and transfer the rollers and axles to them. And eventually- try again to break them... :-D
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: RidgeRunner on November 09, 2015, 06:27:02 AM
Jack,

     Discovering "what if" and "why can't I" is what hot rodding is all about in my book.  A good light to shine, you are maintaining the proper mental altitude required for ultimate success.

          Keep the faith,

          Ed
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: rebelce on November 09, 2015, 08:11:58 AM
Sorry to see this! You are living my nightmares Jack. At least you have a handle on the analysis of the problem and the solution in the works.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: tallguy on November 09, 2015, 12:15:53 PM
About breaking of rocker arm(s) . . .

Toughness is an indicator of "impact strength".  Since a rocker arm's load
is increased relatively gradually, I don't see it as "impact" that requires a
lot of toughness.  CNC machining could help, leaving as smooth a finish as
practical (particularly where the surface material of the arm will experience
tensile stress).  Shotpeening could also help.

Hardness is related to tensile strength.  Instead of softening the arms, I
suggest you look at the design -- for example, was the crack initiated at
a small radius or sharp corner?  Either could cause a stress concentration. 
Try to keep the radius large, and the distribution of mass a large distance
away from the neutral line (where only bending occurs, with no tensile or
compressive stress).  Think like a structural engineer . . . in other words,
design the cross section of the arm so it's much like an I-beam, with the
material spread far apart.  You could bounce these ideas off a structural
engineer (I'm not "officially" or "semi-officially" authorized/qualified as one).
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: John Burk on November 09, 2015, 01:46:44 PM
One way to strengthen the weak point where the rocker broke . Create a flange along where the one broke . If you're starting with a tube make a fixture around which to hammer the outward flange . A crack will no longer have a point to start . If they are machined from stock add the flange to the design .
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on November 09, 2015, 11:52:26 PM
Thanks for the pointers. Yes, there was an unintentional stress riser that initiated a fracture in the surface at the break. Correcting the design is straightforward; the problem for me is determining the most practical way to get there- aside from the unlimited-dollars/unlimited-time approach.

tallguy- yes, hardness is related to strength (both yield & ultimate), but it's more closely related to elastic modulus. At 49 Rockwell, these followers are so non-elastic that they can be pushed to their tensile yield point with virtually no distortion. For the next go-around I'll take advantage of the experience of others with 4140 engine parts and use about 42. The only reason for having these at 49 was to assure compatibility of their pivot sockets with the pivot balls (~45 R.c)- but I'll find a way around that.

Incidentally- if you were to watch/listen to these followers transferring ~.7" lifts with 590# springs (~1,200# at the roller, ignoring acceleration forces) from the aggressive cam profiles at 3,000+ RPM.... you might think twice about them not needing to be "tough"! [Acceleration forces were not ignored in my calculations. A rough calculation showed about another 1,200# due to acceleration @ 10,000 engine RPM, to which I added a safety factor of about 20%]
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Rex Schimmer on November 10, 2015, 03:08:32 PM
Jack,
Sorry to see your rocker arm failure but if you look at your design it did fail exactly where the maximum bending stress so from that stand point it did what I am sure your analysis predicted if there was a failure. I agree that Rc49 is probably to high (for this material)  and would suggest going even lower than 42 possibly 38 could provide additional toughness and with a slight redesign of your arm provide the require strength. I would suggest that you consider tapering the section of the failed part of the arm from the present dimension at the tip and increasing to the thickness dimension of the arm at the center pivot. This would provide additional section and would reduce the stresses accordingly and would have a minimum affect on the polar moment of inertia about the point of rotation. If you decide to change materials I would also recommend going with aircraft quality (this means that you can get the material certifications from the manufacture that shows the actual composition.) This would provide a pretty large improvement in both tensile and yield strength and possibly material quality. My best choice for this would be 300M which is basically a very high purity 4340. Expensive but worth it for its quality and increased fatigue properties. I would also look closely at the heat treatment process used on your arms as high residual stresses can be imposed on the material if the heat treatment is not done correctly. I agree with tallguy about shot peening the arms after they are finished machined, your arms are a perfect application for shot peening. I also think that you may be designing a little close to the materials properties if you are only using a 20% safety margin.
BTW what is the function of what appears to be an aluminum insert that is pinned (riveted?) to the failed end of the rocker?

Rex
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Interested Observer on November 10, 2015, 06:27:13 PM
Various comments and questions--

1--  Ref. reply 253: “hardness is related to strength (both yield & ultimate), but it's more closely related to elastic modulus”.
Hardness is not related in any particular way to the elastic modulus.  The elastic modulus of steel is typically in a very narrow range for any grade or heat treatment.  Hardness can be all over the map.  The elastic modulus relates to elastic deformation, hardness relates to resistance to plastic deformation.

2--  I, too, am wondering about the aluminum(?) blocks.
3--  From the photos, I assume the right end of the rocker is “stationary” on the adjuster, the cam acts downward on the large roller in the middle, and the small roller actuates the valve stem.

If that is the case, it seems that this arrangement entails a larger amount of valve train inertia than most since the middle roller and the necessary reinforcement around it has to be accelerated in addition to the valve actuating end.  The polar moment about the fixed end is considerably larger than if the rocker rocked about the middle.  A problematic issue for a 10,000 rpm system.
4--  I assume the basic form of the rocker is a “U” shaped channel, with a continuous “floor” member from the pivot to near the small roller.  If that is the case, increasing the thickness of the floor through the middle section would be the most direct way of lowering the stresses in it. 
5--  The relatively long thin flanges of the U may present a buckling problem since they are in compression and are not particularly reinforced laterally.  This may visit grief on the roller retention mechanism.  May also introduce some weird harmonics to the valve train.  How “stiff” is this system?
6--  You definitely want the material to be “tough”.
7--  In your analysis, did you include the spring and valve masses?  What were the resulting max stresses, and where?  Was this an FEA analysis or by hand?
8--  Any successful 10,000 rpm valve train is usually a very highly engineered system. 
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wobblywalrus on November 10, 2015, 08:31:46 PM
Jack, look at structural titanium when you do your calculations.  Like steel, it has a endurance limit for long term survival under cyclic loads.  It is also very strong so it is possible to overdesign your rocker arms, strengthwise, with minimal weight penalty.  Another good aspect is it provides good properties in its annealed state so you do not need to worry about heat treating and its side effects.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on November 11, 2015, 12:31:24 AM
Each aluminum block has a pair of drilled passages to direct pressure oiling from the pivot ball to each end of the roller wheel axle. Metering of this oil is copied from rocker-pivot oiling scheme of the original '55 Pontiac V8 engine- a drilled passage through a cam journal, thus a "spurt" every revolution, plumbed to all eight pivot balls. The test spinning showed the oiling system functioning as planned.

Regarding acceleration forces in the valvetrain- yes, of course the mass of all moving parts was part of the calculations. The 10,000 RPM goal is not a "blue sky" number. It's based on years of experience with my pushrod hemi V8, with its massive (literally) valvetrain. It runs reliably to 9,000 RPM in competition. The four cylinder being developed uses one of the same hemi heads, same valve sizes, etc., but with much less reciprocating mass in its OHC valvetrain- so the 10,000 RPM capability is not at all an unreasonable expectation.

Again, thanks for the suggestions about redesign, alternative materials, etc. However, if it weren't for the one neglected stress riser in that one follower (oops!), I'd still be trying to make the valvetrain fail.

No FEA. Purely old-school approach. [Although a pocket scientific calculator beats the heck out of the old slide rule...]
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Speed Limit 1000 on November 11, 2015, 07:25:00 AM
Quote from: Jack Gifford

No FEA. Purely old-school approach. [Although a pocket scientific calculator beats the heck out of the old slide rule...

The old slide rule got us to the moon and back each time. With all the computers in the world half of the mars missions have failed. Getting results to your problems faster may take less time but it doesn't always give better results. It is funny that now the lines on the old slide rule look smaller and harder to see :-o
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Freud on November 12, 2015, 02:30:48 PM
Clean the slide rule in the dish washer. When it's clean

it's easier..............

Slide rules are SOP in Costa Rico.

FREUD
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Speed Limit 1000 on November 12, 2015, 05:46:01 PM
Clean the slide rule in the dish washer. When it's clean

it's easier..............

Slide rules are SOP in Costa Rico.

FREUD

Freud, Good point. I will be back in Costa Rica on 24 November 8-)
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on January 29, 2016, 01:45:37 AM
Returning to my original purpose of this thread: attempting to educate myself somewhat about high-performance inline four cylinder engines.

Reading a 1953 Hot Rod Magazine article by Don Francisco about engine balancing, I was jolted by this statement: "If the crank is for an inline four cylinder or is a flat crank for a V8, proceed directly to balancing the crank- no need for bob weights."

Whoa! How did I make it to age 75 not knowing squat about engine balancing? All these years I blithely assumed that the bob weight formula (in a round-about way) provided an indication of the appropriate amount of mass for the counterweights of each rod throw.

So... what determines the ideal mass of a flat crank's counterweights? Or, in my case, when I asked Moldex to make me an 8-counterweight four-cylinder crank, how did they establish the size of the counterweights?

I've got an appointment with my "balance guy" tomorrow- hoping he can "enlighten" me.

[I realize that my use of the term "mass" above isn't totally correct- it's also necessary to know the radial distance of the center of that mass from the crank's center]
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on February 05, 2016, 01:21:00 AM
While waiting for CNC replication of a set (& a spare set) of cam followers:

Made up the two required crank hubs (for cam-drive sprocket & for blower-drive pulley), so I could finish the final machining on the crank- fitting 1/4" round keys to drive the hubs- a "ticklish" job that I wasn't looking forward to. Had to offset the complete column/head of the mill 3" to the side (on 1" thick bars) to be able to hang the crank off the back of the table. Feed needed to be VERY slow (~.001"/sec) to avoid drills/reamer wander (2.700" deep)- but it came out well. Now it's off to the balance shop with the crank.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Rex Schimmer on February 07, 2016, 01:13:08 PM
Nice job Jack! I have always liked "Dutch" pins and if you don't have keyway broaches it is a great way to key parts together. Doing it with a good drill and then a good reamer you get a really tight fit which can be more difficult with square keys. Max alias the "Kansas Bad Man" used Dutch pins on many of his Vincent parts for his MC streamliner.

Great job!
Rex
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: bearingburner on February 07, 2016, 04:09:59 PM
My experience with a "Dutchman" is that you drill longitudinally down the joint between the two pieces and tap the resulting hole. Then thread in a set screw and lock with loctight.   


Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on February 09, 2016, 12:55:03 AM
My sole reason for round-keying is reduction of stress-risers. Typically, driving a "lot" of blower from a Pontiac crank snout (only 1.375" diameter) is done with dual keys/keyways, which create so much stress that snout breakage is a concern. [In the lakester, there won't be enough room for a snout support in front of the blower pulley]
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on February 12, 2016, 12:47:24 AM
Wow... I actually got something done FAST! Took the crank to the balance shop, expecting to pick it up sometime(?) later. I was surprised to hear "give me a hand and I'll do it now". Being a flat crank, there was no need for any Mallory metal and it really didn't require much correction. :-)
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on February 28, 2016, 01:43:00 AM
CNC'd followers should be done this week.

Plugging away at other stuff- machining of blower manifold pieces mostly done. Won't finish the top plate (1/2" 6061) until the blower is in-hand, and haven't decided whether to build a pop-off valve or simply buy a burst panel.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 08, 2016, 01:19:24 AM
Received the CNC-milled revised design cam followers (plus 8 spares) a couple of days ago. They look good, except for a miscommunication regarding clearance to the spring retainers. The shop took the liberty of creating an almost-square-cornered "step" (only .030" radius insude corner), so I milled them to a smooth radius at that area. They also didn't check with me before changing my .096" oil feed passage to .125" (to utilize a thread former, rather than a tap). This messed up my re-use of the aluminum oil-manifold pieces, so I had to rework those. Some more minor detailing and they'll be ready for heat-treat and assembly.

[My new byline: "Hey, it's only money..."]
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: fordboy628 on March 08, 2016, 04:13:04 AM
Very nice Jack.

If the CNC shop did not follow the print and made changes without consulting you, I'd have them make another set, on their dime.   That's why prints exist, so the designer's decisions on part dimensions and form can be communicated to manufacturers/fabricators without errors or changes.   If you are trying to maintain a some sort of relationship with the shop, I understand why you might be reluctant to push the issue though.   Finding capable suppliers for small quantity prototype parts is always difficult, it gives me a headache just thinking about it . . . . .   :cry:

Hope everything works the way you have planned.   It's looking like things are coming together for you.

 :cheers:
Fordboy
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 09, 2016, 12:39:50 AM
... If you are trying to maintain a some sort of relationship with the shop, I understand why you might be reluctant to push the issue though...
Yeah, there's always a "story behind the story". I have a "back door" relationship with a guy at the shop. If I went through the office, I'd have payed significantly more than the $1,600 (+ $215 mat'l). It's generally a good relationship, with the machinist visiting my shop often to witness how the parts are being used. The change for retainer clearance was a verbal deal- my mistake for not changing the print.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on May 12, 2016, 12:16:14 AM
Spin-testing of valvetrain has resumed, with the improved-design CNC'd cam followers. So far, the new 5 HP electric motor seems capable of powering one cam and valves (testing INT & EXH separately) up to my goal- 5,000 cam RPM, equivalent to 10,000 engine RPM.  I ran the EXH train for a considerable time, working from 6,000 up to around 8,000. Then briefly in the ballpark of 10,000 (per the pulley ratio, but didn't have a tach connected), but a change in sound caused me to quickly stop. The locknut of one follower's pivot stud had loosened, allowing the stud to quickly loosen. No real harm done (whew!) but I need to address the problem. I've changed to grade-8 locknuts with full 11/16" hex in place of 5/8" hex grade-5 (I had used the smaller hex because of the crowding). I'm reasonably sure that under-torqueing of the lock nuts caused the incident. So now I need to create a pair of custom-fabricated wrenches to be able to hold the pivot stud stationary while torqueing the locknut- which is more of a task than it sounds like, due to the limited space. I tried modifying a purchased crow's foot wrench but it wound up too weak for 67 ft.lb. of torque. To be contiinued...
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Sumner on May 12, 2016, 09:02:29 AM
Sure admire what you are accomplishing Jack  :cheers: :cheers:.  Keep the updates coming.  I feel you are doing the type of project that many of us dream of but never accomplish  :-) :-),

Sumner
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on May 12, 2016, 10:21:17 AM
Jack- I can't really visualize what sort of wrench you need but your mention of crows foot brought this to mind. I had to make something to tighten head bolts in my engine with the cams installed. Very limited space and giant PITA to take them out. Welded a 3/8 drive chunk of a crows foot to a 5/8 socket. Worked fine. I was torqueing to 75ftlbs (maybe not enough but not sure of the head castings and what I could go to. 1/2" studs
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on May 13, 2016, 12:05:34 AM
jacksoni- I wish I had the option of a box-end, but I need an open-end to get onto the locknuts when the followers are in place.

In the interest of continuing the "spinning" I assembled it (with the new locknuts) by setting the clearances, precisely noting the rotational position of each pivot stud, removing the followers, torqueing the locknuts with a six-point socket (a multi-step process, since the stud sometimes turns with the nut), then re-installing the followers. Very tedious and not an acceptable procedure for the future- I'll definitely need to develop an appropriate open-end wrench deal.

After some validation at  about 6,000 RPM, spun it for awhile at 9,300, then 9,640- after which all seemed okay (turning the cam slowly with a wrench while monitoring the "feel" and sound of each cylinder's exhaust valve movement). But a short spin at 9,910 RPM resulted in a broken pivot stud. Not real surprising since there isn't much (or maybe none?) safety margin in my manufacture of these parts. I made them from grade-8 7/16-14 bolts, cutting the heads down to a 7/16" diameter hemispherical shape, then heat-treating to Rc-45. I admit to not attempting to calculate the shear stress that they would see- so I guess I'm lucky they "almost" sufficed. There was some collateral damage this time- the follower's ball-seat got beat up a little, so one of the "spare" CNC'd followers will get pressed into service. Once again the testing will be interrupted while I get the follower body shot-peened and heat-treated, and assemble wheels and axles into it. Plus investigating shear strength improvement of the studs- better material, smaller oil hole, etc.

P.S.- Hindsight truly is 20/20- I shouldn't have ignored the fact that the torque seemed to level-off at about 65 ft.lb. on the locknut of that one stud! :oops:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Rex Schimmer on May 13, 2016, 12:10:00 PM
Jack, to quote someone, I don't know who said this, "people that don't make mistakes don't learn anything" or my other favorite, "When you learn by experience the test comes first that the lesson comes afterward". We are all learning so much from your build, not many people would tackle something this extensive. Keep it up!!!!

Rex
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on May 17, 2016, 12:11:09 AM
I feel more "contented" now, as I usually do once I have a "plan of attack".

Started on a couple of crowsfoot wrenches for valve adjustment. They will look strange, since they both will rise from the crowsfoot part, up clear of cam stands, then out and down, so both handles will lie in the same plane as the fasteners. Normally with an extension on a wrench, two hands are required- one at the handle and the other at the drive end to hold the wrench from tilting sideways on the nut. With the handles co-planar I'll be able to work each of the two wrenches with just one hand- to hold the adjusting stud with one hand while I torque the locknut with the other.

I talked to ARP today- they have some "stock" 7/16-14 studs made of 8740 alloy which has a yield strength of 180 Ksi- they should be here in a few days. The studs I made weren't that strong (grade-8 bolts are nominally 120 Ksi) so I should see a significant increase in material strength. Plus, I'll EDM smaller oil holes through them, buying a slight increase in cross sectional area. The guy who CNC'd the followers says he will be able to CNC-lathe-cut the spherical shape onto the ends of them with merely carbide tooling, since ARP says the shanks don't exceed 39 Rc hardness.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on June 09, 2016, 12:22:08 AM
"Spintron" setup back together, with upgraded 8740 pivot studs, a new set of grade-9 lock nuts torqued to 67 ft.lb., and the two dinged-up followers replaced. The custom wrenches work "okay", but adjusting clearances is still a time-consuming pain in the neck. Just one brief run to about 3,000 cam RPM so far, to basically confirm the assembly. We'll see what I can break next... :evil:

P.S.- Couldn't get anybody with an EDM interested in doing the .050" oil holes, so I had to tackle drilling them. I "done good"- didn't break a single drill bit! A combination of very consistent US-made 8740 alloy and v..e..r..y slow feed- about .002"/second. Feeding the studs downward in the mill spindle to a stationary drill helped keep the drill point clear of chips. And probably some luck too. :roll:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: tauruck on June 09, 2016, 01:40:00 AM
Nice one!!. Well done. Now you know why other guys wouldn't tackle the drilling job. :-D
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on June 10, 2016, 12:37:10 AM
Gee... I failed to break the exhaust valvetrain at the equivalent of 9,960 engine RPM! Post-mortem looks okay; one valve clearance closed up about .001", which wasn't unexpected.  Got a couple of drops of oil out of the cam snout seal which I can't yet explain. :?

Should have the intake side set up and "spinning" in the next couple of days. :-)
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Peter Jack on June 10, 2016, 12:52:54 AM
It's always great to hear good news Jack!  :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

Pete
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on June 14, 2016, 01:25:10 AM
Spin-tests finally wrapped up- success at almost the equivalent of 10,000 engine RPM (4,980 exhaust cam, 4,870 intake). Actual engine assembly to begin soon. The only machining left will be mounts for stuff driven off the rear of the cams- magneto, oil pump, and fuel pump.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on June 29, 2016, 01:42:33 AM
It feels good to FINALLY start actual engine assembly.

Verification of things isn't finished, though. With just the crank installed (no pistons/rods) I'll set up the cam drive, get the two cams phased together, and check valve-to-valve clearance during overlap. Then, hopefully, the 5HP electric motor will be able to turn the crank/cams enough to observe the whole cams/valve-train in action.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on July 05, 2016, 12:25:04 AM
Worst case valve-to-valve clearance measured all of .030"! :-o But changing from 108.5 degree lobe centerlines to 112.5 degrees (easy to do with dual cams) improves the situation to about .054". Surprisingly, engine simulator software shows very little change to the torque curve from the centerline change- if the software is to be believed. :? Anyhow, I'll be cautious and set them @ 112.5 initially, at least.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: tauruck on July 05, 2016, 12:44:44 AM
That looks great Jack. Long time coming but it sure looks worth it.
All the best. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on July 05, 2016, 06:00:30 AM
Looking good Jack. Here are a couple of threads from Speedtalk dealing with this issue. I know Bill Jones from Bonneville- He lives in SLC. Always has good stuff to say.

http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32174&p=383511&hilit=valve+to+valve+clearance#p383511

http://www.speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=25838
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: fordboy628 on July 05, 2016, 07:37:01 AM
Worst case valve-to-valve clearance measured all of .030"! :-o But changing from 108.5 degree lobe centerlines to 112.5 degrees (easy to do with dual cams) improves the situation to about .054". Surprisingly, engine simulator software shows very little change to the torque curve from the centerline change- if the software is to be believed. :? Anyhow, I'll be cautious and set them @ 112.5 initially, at least.

Jack,

You might consider running the intake @ 108.5 and the exhaust @ 116.5 to preserve your valve to valve clearance.    If your simulation is PipeMax, there will be little change, if any.   I like to see valve to valve clearance @ overlap somewhere in the .040" plus range, depending on how much I suspect the valve will "waggle around".    Spintron testing has made me "cautious".

My experience with 2v and 4v DOHC engines is that advanced intake events (~2/4 degrees) improve Tq, at little to NO top end penalty, as long as exhaust events are also advanced a similar amount.   This is of course, all subjective, and engine types DO vary, so it might not work.   But at least it is an option to try and as a side benefit, exhaust valve to piston clearance is increased.    Intake valve to piston clearance is, of course, decreased by advancing events.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on July 12, 2016, 12:33:42 AM
Engine assembly going well. Spun the whole longblock to about 700 RPM for a few seconds (didn't rig up any oiling- just lots of assembly lube on all surfaces)- just long enough to let the valvetrain "settle in" before a final check of valve clearance settings. Still waiting for the welding shop to "stitch up" the blower manifold. Then comes a trial fit in the lakester- to look at clearance around where the magneto and pumps will be, before building the mounts for them to drive off the rear of the camshafts.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on July 26, 2016, 11:43:02 PM
The 14-71 from The Blower Shop (billet case, billet rotors) is a LOT of blower! Shipping weight sans snout, etc. was 100 lb.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Stainless1 on July 27, 2016, 08:41:53 AM
WOW  :-o is it me or does that thing look bigger than the motor. 
Looking good Jack  :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: RichFox on July 27, 2016, 08:56:30 AM
How about an 18-71?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on July 28, 2016, 12:32:54 AM
18-71 displacement? Rotor diameters?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on July 28, 2016, 12:36:47 AM
... does that thing look bigger than the motor...
Yeah, it does look bigger. And it is bigger- about 511 c.i. compared to the engine's 182 c.i.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: RichFox on July 28, 2016, 07:23:43 AM
18-71 displacement? Rotor diameters?
The rotors are 21in. long billet hard anodized 120 degree hi helix rotors that are 5.840" in dia. that are teflon stripped on the sides and on the tips to seal the rotors to the case and against one another. Picture with new super high tech hat.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on July 29, 2016, 11:46:04 PM
Ready for a ride to the Ames Performance Pontiac Nationals (Norwalk, Ohio) next week.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on August 09, 2016, 11:55:51 PM
Had an enjoyable weekend- lots of interest in my DOHC conversion.
Watched Eric Larsen's 'Boss Bird' (nostalgia fuel funny car tribute to Arnie Beswick) run the quickest/fastest quarter-mile ever with traditional Pontiac V8 power- 6.02 seconds at 232 MPH!
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: tauruck on August 19, 2016, 07:35:28 AM
Jack. Was I hearing things on the live stream???. You broke a record.  :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on August 20, 2016, 12:26:25 AM
Say what? :?

Finished the crank scrapers. Still need to fabricate a windage screen, then the engine can be buttoned up.
Custom oil pump from Dailey Engineering is on the way- separate pressure and scavenge sections for top- and bottom-end, centrifugal air separator, and provisions to mount Hilborn fuel pump on the rear. Mounting for it behind the intake cam is done, just need to machine a short drive stub to go between the cam and pump.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: fordboy628 on August 20, 2016, 05:48:05 AM
Wow Jack, Dailey engineering dry sump system,  FIRST CABIN!

BTW, everything looks fantastic!    I envy your machining skills.

 :cheers:
Fordboy
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on August 20, 2016, 11:21:51 PM
Pontiac guys will notice in the above photo that the passenger side outboard row of main studs isn't where Pontiac put it. I moved them further outboard so they anchor (3/4" long HeliCoils) into the more massive area where the strengthening rib intersects each main web. Every little bit helps? :|
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: hoffman900 on August 28, 2016, 05:01:47 PM
Worst case valve-to-valve clearance measured all of .030"! :-o But changing from 108.5 degree lobe centerlines to 112.5 degrees (easy to do with dual cams) improves the situation to about .054". Surprisingly, engine simulator software shows very little change to the torque curve from the centerline change- if the software is to be believed. :? Anyhow, I'll be cautious and set them @ 112.5 initially, at least.

Jack,

You might consider running the intake @ 108.5 and the exhaust @ 116.5 to preserve your valve to valve clearance.    If your simulation is PipeMax, there will be little change, if any.   I like to see valve to valve clearance @ overlap somewhere in the .040" plus range, depending on how much I suspect the valve will "waggle around".    Spintron testing has made me "cautious".

My experience with 2v and 4v DOHC engines is that advanced intake events (~2/4 degrees) improve Tq, at little to NO top end penalty, as long as exhaust events are also advanced a similar amount.   This is of course, all subjective, and engine types DO vary, so it might not work.   But at least it is an option to try and as a side benefit, exhaust valve to piston clearance is increased.    Intake valve to piston clearance is, of course, decreased by advancing events.

 :cheers:

Mark, here is a thread with a homemade spintron on a Norton twin (hemi). I / E valve clearance is tight when things start bouncing. Yikes!
http://www.accessnorton.com/about-time-for-the-spintron-t21837-150.html (videos from that point on).
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on September 04, 2016, 12:47:08 AM
Windage tray done- neat directional-perforation material from Moroso. Engine all buttoned up.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 15, 2016, 12:58:14 AM
Just a quick note to let people know I haven't fallen off the face of the earth...

Many non-racing interruptions, but slow/steady progress. Oil system is complete other than in-car plumbing to tank/filter. Engine coolant cavity is finally water-tight; should not have taken long, but every little detail wanted to fight me. So the engine is complete other than buying/plumbing/flowtesting a fuel system (Hilborn 4-port, 150B pump) and bolting up the magneto that's almost finished being built. Discussed dyno time with a local shop that specializes in staged-turbo diesel engines for pulling competition- the dyno can measure up to 4,300 ft.lb. of torque! I certainly don't need that torque range, but we did need to talk about the dyno brake's 6,000 RPM limit. Looks like it will work out well if I bolt my drivetrain (clutch can, CrowerGlide clutch, in/out box, and inline QC box) to the engine first. I can create almost any desired ratio in the QC, so a 1.7:1 will allow running the engine to the [hoped-for] 10,000 RPM. The QC uses a pair of straight-cut spur gears, so power losses through it won't be a big concern. Actually, this will kill-2-birds-with-one-stone for me- I can experiment with clutch weights, instead of needing to do that on a race track. I'm hoping enough weight can be removed to delay full lockup to about 4,000 - 4,500 RPM.

Omigosh- 4,300 ft.lb. @ 6,000 RPM is more than 4,900 HP. :-D  Watching dyno-testing of these "smoker" engines is awesome.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 29, 2016, 01:32:29 AM
Got in a couple of good hours with the dyno shop owner yesterday, checking stuff off my list of details to take care of prior to dyno time. Only a few items to deal with- machine a coupler to mate my QC output shaft (1 3/8" 16 spline) with the dyno shaft, modify engine mounts slightly, add EGT bungs to the header pipes, and provide a magnet mount on my crankshaft for the dyno to log engine speed. A bunch of stuff is available on-site- drysump tank, etc.- and it appears that all hose sizes/fittings are compatible.

I think I'll initially fire the engine up prior to the session, to not waste dyno time chasing leaks or whatever.

Engine is looking a little more complete...
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: tauruck on October 29, 2016, 03:18:51 AM
Looks great Jack. What a piece of engineering!!!!. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Stainless1 on October 29, 2016, 09:14:01 AM
Jack,
That is too cool
nice work  :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Sumner on October 29, 2016, 02:48:46 PM
Jack,
That is too cool
nice work  :cheers:

 :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: You are an inspiration,

Sumner
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Ron Gibson on October 29, 2016, 04:19:49 PM
X3  :cheers: :cheers:

Ron
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on October 29, 2016, 05:55:30 PM
Jack, I hope you don't mind, but I downloaded the picture and I'm using it as my screen saver.

VERY WELL DONE!

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 30, 2016, 12:23:14 AM
... VERY WELL DONE!....
Thanks... but it surely isn't 'DONE' yet...
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on October 30, 2016, 06:15:32 PM
... VERY WELL DONE!....
Thanks... but it surely isn't 'DONE' yet...

Are they EVER?   :wink:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Stainless1 on October 30, 2016, 09:11:42 PM
Well Jack, of course they are never done...

But it certainly looks like one of those motors that ought to

Go Like Stink   :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 31, 2016, 01:11:59 AM
Shade tree approach to angle cross-slide lathe work on a mill:
I re-purposed a cheap drillpress vise as a variable-angle-travel toolholder for my mill. It came in handy, yet again, on the fittings of a NOS Hilborn F500 fuel filterl I bought on e-pay (no longer available new). Fifty years of rude handling had dinged up the 37 degree angled flares, so I set the device to 37 degrees and skimmed about .010"  off the flares. [Using such a cheap vise required considerable effort to re-machine the dovetails and wedges for precise/true travel]
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: manta22 on October 31, 2016, 10:14:58 AM
Jack;

An alternative to re-machining the 37 degree flare on the AN fitting would be to put a conical copper washer over the dinged-up flare. This thin soft washer deforms as the fitting is tightened and seals it. They are available at a couple of race parts dealers.

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on November 01, 2016, 01:36:23 AM
There are always "alternatives" to my solutions...

but that would deprive me of the victories over little challenges... without leaving the shop or using the phone. :wink:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Peter Jack on November 01, 2016, 03:05:56 AM
There are always "alternatives" to my solutions...

but that would deprive me of the victories over little challenges... without leaving the shop or using the phone. :wink:

 :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D    :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

Pete
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: tauruck on November 01, 2016, 03:08:47 AM
I agree with you Pete. :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: oj on November 09, 2016, 08:17:18 AM
Very impressive.  I'll admit to skipping ahead to the 'end' of this thread and now I'll have the pleasure of going back to read the entirety.  In the beggining everybody was talking of huge horse power numbers, I thought I'd skip ahead for a looksee before investing the time to read it.  It has exceeded my expectations, now I'l be able to read how it was done.
Well done.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on November 10, 2016, 12:14:10 AM
Well... not "done"... merely proceeding with the "acid test" of a bunch of wacko ideas.

But it's moving along now toward a dyno session. Got some odds and ends done- EGT sensor bungs welded into headers, temporary engine mounts to fit the dyno rig, sourced a Zeke's Engineering water pump and NC pressure-limit switch, System-1 engine oil filter plumbed and mounted, tiny magnet mounted to bottom blower pulley for engine speed logging, drive adaptor to couple QC to the dyno's shaft is almost all machined, etc., etc. Also set up a temporary qauge/switch panel to initially fire up the engine at home prior to the dyno time.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on November 29, 2016, 12:26:00 AM
Dang it all. DejaVu all over again. Seems like I go through this same mental anguish every time I get an engine 99% wrapped up. Did I really plug all eight oil drillings to the unused lifter bosses of the engine's left bank? :? I hoped I could get some assurance by putting air pressure on the feed port and listening- but the results were inconclusive. :cry:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on December 09, 2016, 01:56:20 AM
I'm relieved to learn that, yes, I truly did block those unused oil passages. :-) Didn't require much teardown- just enough to view the area while applying oil pressure to the gallery.
Mallory Super-mag III received and base/drive adapted, ignition system completed.
Fuel system has been built and flowed by Hilborn, should arrive here any day.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: tauruck on December 09, 2016, 02:09:51 AM
Better than just chancing it hey Jack??? :-D

All sounds great. awesome build friend. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on December 11, 2016, 12:12:48 AM
It's a good thing I don't keep a log of all the time I waste... you'd all die laughing. :oops:

However, the latest incident is so silly you WILL laugh. On my first note-taking trip to the dyno shop, I scribbled a sketch of the layout and dimensions of the 8-bolt flange on the brake. I proceeded to make up a steel adaptor to connect my QC output shaft to the dyno. I had finished it but had forgotten to note the necessary bolt hole sizes and couldn't get through to them on the phone. So I drove there yesterday, taking the adaptor with me to double-check the fit. Surprise :-o- I had created an exact copy of the dyno piece face- instead of a piece to mate with it! :x

Fortunately it merely required machining away the "register" diameter at the outer edge of the adaptor, and opening my 7/16" bolt holes to 12mm.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on December 24, 2016, 02:05:32 AM
A drawback of such a long-drawn-out project is forgetting details from a couple of years ago...
After mounting the block plate, flywheel,  clutch, and clutch can, I was puzzled by not being able get the can to indicate closer than about .015" from crank center. Finally, it came to me- the massive welding to repair the block and machining to true it all up resulted in the crank being "sunk" into the block about .015"- duh! Took me most of this afternoon to set up the can in the mill, individually locate on each bolt/dowel hole (total of 21 of them!) and plunge mill them .015" offset.

Fuel system is just awaiting some AN- fittings to finish plumbing it. Temporary oil and water tanks/hoses set up for test-firing. Hoping to hear it run yet this year... :-D :-D :-D
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on January 02, 2017, 12:35:55 AM
Well... as for 2016, I did get to hear it fire up on a primer shot of gas a couple of times. But didn't see any bottom-end oil pressure, so didn't dare run it long enough to flow alcohol. Started tearing into it today and am now totally embarrassed. Look closely at the photo and you'll notice a cork blocking the fitting that feeds into the block's main gallery! This isn't the first time I've been this dumb- I've got a habit of putting corks in openings while stuff is apart (to keep dirt out)- and then forgetting them before assembling. Duh... :roll:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: tauruck on January 02, 2017, 12:52:34 AM
Jack, you're not dumb, just careful and you found the problem before it became a catastrophe.  :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: fordboy628 on January 02, 2017, 04:30:31 AM
Well... as for 2016, I did get to hear it fire up on a primer shot of gas a couple of times. But didn't see any bottom-end oil pressure, so didn't dare run it long enough to flow alcohol. Started tearing into it today and am now totally embarrassed. Look closely at the photo and you'll notice a cork blocking the fitting that feeds into the block's main gallery! This isn't the first time I've been this dumb- I've got a habit of putting corks in openings while stuff is apart (to keep dirt out)- and then forgetting them before assembling. Duh... :roll:

I would say you were smart enough and experienced enough to not hurt the assembly by "hoping" for the oil pressure to appear.

Just get some plastic caps and plugs for AN fittings.  Used properly, they can't be "left in" the fittings.    They are cheap and that solves the cork problem.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on January 02, 2017, 09:02:47 AM
Jack - it's the nature of projects like this - it's not our 9-5 jobs.

If we had the ability to do this kind of work all at one sitting, the cork would likely have not even been in place.

You caught it before you had a problem - that's what's critical.

One will read through dozens of articles and builds, or talk with other engine builders, and never hear about something like this.  But THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN TO OTHERS.

Let's face it - if it was truly foolproof, we wouldn't be doing it!
   :-D
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on January 03, 2017, 02:11:00 AM
Yeah, the AN-caps are the way-to-go. It just seems I never have enough of the size needed at any time. Having a huge old bag of corks handy is probably not wise... :|

Bottom-end pressure is now 20 PSI on the starter. Busy with other stuff today, but hope to hear it run tomorrow!
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on January 03, 2017, 07:12:35 AM
Jack- do you have a set up to drive the oil pump with a drill or something to prelube everything well before you fire it? I have a 7/16 ball like hex bolt in the pulley on my pump that I use. In the car can't fit even an angle drill driver on it so use a gilmer belt pulley mounted in the drill and a spare belt to drive the pump. I run it until have good pressure for quite a while before trying to fire it any time when the engine has been sitting for any period of time or for sure after a rebuilt. This prelubes the pump too so there is no delay getting pressure on the starter. Has helped me catch things I have done like the cork in the line deal.

Looking forward to hearing it run!!! :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: oj on January 03, 2017, 03:58:31 PM
McMaster Carr has bags of plastic plugs and caps for AN fittings, they go by thread size not the AN number.  We all prefer the hard aluminum but for a modest investment you can get bags of each size.  They come in handy when you send stuff out they rarely come back with the hard fittings but the plastic ones will be back in there for some reason.
We're all anxious to hear this little sucker run!
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: handyguy on January 03, 2017, 07:26:22 PM
Thought I might reply here with how I deal with priming oil pressure  in my '40 Austin 4 cyl. flathead ,( 48  cu. in. )  There is a differential electric pump plumbed into the oil lines that primes the motor  , (about 20 lbs. ) , before I start .  It never runs with out at least that  20 lbs. already there !!
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wobblywalrus on January 03, 2017, 11:24:02 PM
Jack, a well written shop manual with lots of hand written notes about special items and procedures is what I use as a memory aid.  There are notes saying "TAKE PAPER TOWEL OUT OF INTAKE PORT BEFORE INSTALLING MANIFOLD" and "INSTALL DRAIN PLUG BEFORE POURING OIL IN."
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: manta22 on January 04, 2017, 10:10:29 AM
WW;

...in my case, "Install oil filter before cranking engine"  :x

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Seldom Seen Slim on January 04, 2017, 11:15:32 AM
Ah, for the days of the 302 Ford with the pan that had two drain holes - before and after the steering cross pieces.  I remember when Ed, the oil changer old guy at the Ford garage where I worked, put one of the plugs back in before refilling the motor and sending the customer on the way.  The guy got a few blocks. . .  Ed might have learned, but he was old.

Don't ask if I ever did that on the Caterpillar engine in our trucks.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wheelrdealer on January 04, 2017, 01:08:26 PM
Last fall I cranked my engine over a few times before I realized  I had taken the distributor out so no oil pump drive. Good  thing I have to change pistons and cam before the turbo set up is ready to run. It happens.

You are not alone!

BR
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on January 12, 2017, 12:32:17 AM
Progress was slowed by discovering that the custom-built Mallory SuperMag III won't reliably fire the engine on the starter. It's asking a lot of a mag to perform well at 10,000 RPM and also at 120 RPM! It's an external-coil mag, so I changed some of the mag's wiring to be external and added a switch to allow it to function as a normal battery/coil/points system during starting. Once it's proven I'll replace the switch with a relay driven from the starter button.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on January 13, 2017, 11:49:42 PM
Points/coil start system worked okay. Ran briefly on alcohol a couple of times- fuel system needs sorting out to get a decent idle. Hilborn had provided me a ballpark initial setup but it was with aerated hat nozzles, which I dislike. Changing to non-aerated nozzles threw the setup off, especially low-speed.

Ran just long enough to start looking things over. Immediately noticed runout of the blower pulley. The blower drive snout is defective- .047" TIR at the register diameter for the pulley, causing .077" runout at the front of the 3" wide pulley. Another delay... :-(
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wobblywalrus on January 14, 2017, 11:38:51 PM
Jack, why do you use mechanical fuel injection rather than the electronic version?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on January 16, 2017, 12:21:58 AM
The "theme" of the car is early sixties, when "injected" implied mechanical injection.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on January 22, 2017, 12:02:49 AM
Replacement blower snout is fine- less than .001" runout. Got a "free" upgrade- it's 1.250" dia. spline instead of the original 1.125". However... the O.D. increased by .062" so my idler arm no longer fit! :-o Rather than wait for yet another part, I bored the arm to fit.
Although the battery/points starting ignition system worked, I may not need it. I discovered that I could buy just the motor & solenoid to upgrade my 1.4KW Tilton starter to 2.2KW. It cranks at least 50% faster now, and the magneto's free-air spark jumps 2.5 times as far. :-)
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 07, 2017, 12:00:20 AM
Been having trouble getting the fuel system close enough to keep it running but finally got it going on methanol, about 3,000 RPM, for 20 seconds or so today... prior to the explosion! :-o
The distorted rectangle of 6061 was formerly the floor of the blower manifold. Didn't intend it to be a "burst panel", but it may have served that purpose. Have yet to look for damage to blower or engine.

Right now, I can only guess at the cause. May have simply been too lean on just the hat nozzles- had the port nozzle delivery temporarily blocked, hoping to get it closer to an idle to check at what pressure the popoff valve would open.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on March 07, 2017, 09:08:23 PM
That is real bummer Jack. I know diddly about roots type blowers other than backfires do happen so can offer nothing but condolences. However, better now than going down the track. Hope for no damage otherwise and soon back together. You mentioned burst panel...... :?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 08, 2017, 01:07:14 AM
Many sanctioning groups- like NHRA- require burst panels on blower manifolds. They are designed to rupture at some value greater than normal boost pressure, to avoid (or at least reduce) collateral damage. When a burst panel is not required it's common to just provide a small spring-loaded popoff panel on the manifold, which will handle minor backfires. My incident was so violent that if the poorly-welded panel hadn't sacrificed itself, the blower would probably have "lifted" and hit the ceiling, even though I did have a popoff valve on the rear. I had to scramble to extinguish a dozen fuel/oil fires all 'round the garage.

The guy who does blown-alky tuning at the dyno shop is sure that my setup was way too lean. Apparently the engine software I use is off-base for extreme situations like my monster blower on a tiny engine.

Hopefully, I'll wind up learning a little something.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Rex Schimmer on March 08, 2017, 01:16:45 PM
Hang in there Jack! As the saying goes: "When you learn by experience the test comes first and the lesson comes afterward"! We are all learning from your experience.

Rex
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 09, 2017, 11:59:09 PM
It will be awhile until I have more info. Cranking compression is way low, so it's got to come all apart for examination. :-(
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on March 10, 2017, 07:18:54 AM
Generally it is unusual for methanol to detonate but if the tune up is off enough it will and violently. Do the plugs show anything- aluminum balls, black specs, broken insulators etc? Getting the part throttle tune correct is tough on engines like yours where there is no real experience to rely on. Hope your dyno tune guy can be helpful. You mentioned engine software. You are using mechanical FI are you not? Is this a program that helps judging the tune in some way rather than controlling the engine?  Fingers crossed the damage is not bad.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: RansomT on March 10, 2017, 12:34:48 PM
Check valve clearance first.  I've seen "booms" cause the shims/keepers to dislodge.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 11, 2017, 12:06:33 AM
The only hopeful sign is the lack of any aluminum specks on the plugs. Yes, the insulator was broken off #1 plug- I didn't think much of it at first, figured the plug wire got yanked by a piece of debris. But looking at the valvetrain, the only thing not right is zero lash on #1 exhaust valve. So the explosion may have begun in #1 cylinder, possibly as severe detonation. And maybe enough percussive force to tulip the valve .020"?

Hindsight, as they say, is easy. I should have been more alert to the brief running not sounding right- instead of the unsteady loping of a somewhat 'fat' no-load alky engine, it was very steady and "flat" sounding.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wobblywalrus on March 11, 2017, 09:13:04 AM
Jack, is there any way that enough fuel could be injected to cause a hydraulic lock in a cylinder?  In other words, the combustion chamber would have been completely full of alcohol and there would be no way to compress it.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on March 11, 2017, 12:52:10 PM
To me (have seen it unfortunately) a broken insulator is diagnostic of bad detonation. Will need to check ring lands for compression (not to mention holes in pistons and .....) Though hydrolock is good thought, short of the innards coming out of an injector so it flowed wide open I don't see how that could happen with a running engine. Usually is fuel (or water) in a cylinder that locks when trying to start it. Bent rods the most common result as well as possible other damage. Pieces of piston could have hit the valve, bending it or tulip/stuck open. Let us know Jack. Hoping things not too bad.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 12, 2017, 12:34:28 AM
"Torched" spot by #1 exhaust- mostly in head but also small divot in block just outboard of sleeve flange. ("Scab" on head created by molten aluminum pushed away from chamber). Hole in gasket at the same spot, so I assume that either molten aluminum or copper acted as glowplug to initiate the 'bang'. Although the main culprit was the way-lean mixture, I'm also puzzling over why that one spot was the only victim. Could simply have been a porous spot in the 55 year old castings. The ends of the steel wire O-ring were located right there also- probably should have positioned the ends other than adjacent to the exhausts. Still need to pull pistons/rods to look for collapsed ring lands or whatever.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 24, 2017, 12:42:22 AM
Slowly getting answers to most everything. First clue- removing the head, I was watching that both dowel pins stayed in the block rather than falling out on the floor. The rear dowel remained in the block, but the front one was nowhere to be seen. I figured it probably lifted from the block and dropped out. But after stripping to the bare block and searching the whole floor it still isn't found. Looking closer at the torched spot on the copper gasket, it appears the gasket was outboard from center on #1 cylinder, with barely any copper clamped by the head/block inboard of the O-ring, leaving some copper (only .022" thick) with no good cooling path. I have a spare gasket which is a perfect match to the used one (machined their bores simultaneously); placing the spare gasket on dowels on the head confirms that I must have assembled it with no front dowel pin... :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

Under "good news"-  pistons/rods/crank/sleeves are fine; ring lands still measure .002" side clearance on all rings. All rings are good except top ring in #1 lost a bit of moly.

Repair of the head is underway. I prefer not to TIG weld it (would require keeping the whole head over 300 degrees F for a while), since EVERY surface would need to be re-machined true. So I milled out the damaged area to a rectangular relief (about 1"x1.5"x.250") and pressed in a precisely sized piece of 6061T6. I drilled/tapped for two aluminum flathead screws to guarantee that the piece won't move during later machining (in the assembled engine it will be firmly clamped between block/gasket and head). Both bronze valve seats need to be replaced in that cylinder (press fit was no long satisfactory), and that exhaust valve will be replaced. Also found a couple of intake valve with slight runout to be replaced- probably occurred during valvetrain spin-testing, after which I didn't strip the head to check everything.

Also taking advantage of it being apart to improve (?) some things. Bottom end oil flow volume wasn't as much as I like, so I'll increase the side clearance of the rods' big ends- and perhaps increase main bearing clearances .001"; maybe also rod bearings after I finish cleaning up and inspecting them.
Spent quite some time fussing with the O-rings to make their ends flat where they meet. I had never worried much about it, but it appears that crude "snipped" wire ends may have contributed to this incident.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on March 24, 2017, 08:16:36 AM
Glad some answers are there and things can be fixed and that the rotating assembly is pretty much OK.

What is your evidence that lower end oil flow was low? Since rod side clearance is usually much larger ( 0.010" for instance) than the bearing clearance ( maybe 0.0025") the side clearance has no impact on oil flow/pressure as I understand. Slightly increasing the bearing clearances my help your flow. I know there are differences of opinion about bearing clearance depending on use, rpm's, power level etc, etc. As long as oiling system can keep up with it and considering how much you are leaning on this thing (10k rpms and who knows how much power) a somewhat larger than average clearance may be helpful.

A comment from Darin Morgan of Reher Morrison racing engines:

If your having bearing problems with 05-30W synthetic oils your problems are not with the oil as much as they are the clearances and the machine work. Bearing misalignment or worse yet, to tight a clearance will hurt you every time. A good line honed main and properly trued and honed rod housing bores seem like a given but they seldom are. They need to be addressed, checked out and honed by a professional that knows what he is doing. You need to have .003 on the rods and .0035 on the mains or your playing with fire. We run .003+ on the rods at all times never less than that, ever. We run .0035 to .00375 on the mains and never less than that, ever. On engines with higher loads the clearances go up never down. Pin bores can have up to .00225 for clearance on some engines with high vacuum in the crank case and good oil control in the pan. The better the oil control and vacuum in the pan, the less oil the wrist pins get! We run 0055 (not a misprint) weight and it about the thickness of water. we run .0035 on the rods and upwards to.004 on the mains in the PS engines and the mains last all year long. Our 1300 horsepower Super Series engines have .003 rods and .0035 mains and run for 600 runs down the track! The record so far is 675 runs by Scotty Richardson.

(1) Get a good, professional machinist to line hone the mains and hone the rods properly.
(2) Make sure you have proper oiling. If your pressure fluctuates during the run,, you have problems.
(3) .003 rods and .0035 mains for clearance
(4) Use a good synthetic 05-30w oil like Mobil-1 or Castrol syntec
(5) In my personal opinion you need to stop using any oil from Amsoil. That is not a racing oil even if they say it is.

And one from Larry Meaux, also I think one of the smartest guys around (Pipemax fame)

"
Darin, all i can say is "I'm glad you Posted this first"

like your results , for the last 20+ years i've run nothing but
.0035" to .004" rod and main bearing clearances
on every Engine i've built, even my old Chevy Suburban Dragster Trailer Tow vehicle's SBC 406 cid has .0035"
never had 1 rod/main bearing failure yet in 20 years, not one !
Bearings look new -to- almost brand new after full season or more,
and most of time i never replace the main bearings, just new Rod Bearings instead on rebuilds.

all the Engine Builders i deal with run .003 to .004" Rod/Main clearances,
and most just tell Customers they have .002" to .0025"
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 25, 2017, 12:11:15 AM
Thanks for the comments.
Only having run it a few seconds at a time didn't provide a lot of opportunity to observe oil flow volume. But the last run for about 20 seconds allowed me to glance at the scavenge line dumping back into the oil tank. It was a smaller stream than I'm used to seeing at about 3,000 RPM.
Race engine builders have found that opening rod side clearances up to almost .020" continues to flow more oil. I think i'm at .011" now- need to look at notes.
Also need to look at what my rod & main bearings clearances are. I'm pretty sure they are a little less than what's recommended by Darin Morgan and Larry Meaux. I always ran at least .004" clearances in my blown V8, sometimes .005". This engine behaves like clearances are too small- spinning on the starter instantly runs oil pressure up to 50-60 PSI, and after it stops turning it takes a good 10 seconds or so for pressure to bleed down to anywhere  near zero.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on April 06, 2017, 12:46:14 AM
Just discovered a MAJOR screw-up. I meant to use jets in the hat around the range of Hilborn #24, but the #24 jets I bought are apparently per Enderle sizing- the equivalent of Hilborn #9! :-o
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on April 06, 2017, 07:25:12 AM
Ouch!!- but at least you found a reason.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on May 15, 2017, 06:27:23 AM
Hey Jack- how are you coming with any further diagnosis and the repair of your engine? Progress?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on May 16, 2017, 12:43:54 AM
Pretty much found explanations for everything. Re-construction is progressing slowly. Still working with the head- a number of valve seats lost their press fit, and some surfaces "moved around". Shortblock is back together. Blower manifold rebuilt- now with a burst panel and four(!) popoff valves, and injector bolt pattern machined into it to allow running naturally-aspirated for awhile during initial running.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on August 12, 2017, 10:24:12 PM
After much delay, I finally fired it up today, with my son's help- mostly to observe. Only ran about 30 seconds but didn't see/hear anything out-of-line. I'm surprised how healthy it sounds unblown- very good throttle response. I'll proceed to check compression, leakdown, etc. before running it longer (to get up to temperature and check coolant flow, etc.), before bolting the blower back onto it.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: RidgeRunner on August 13, 2017, 05:36:09 AM
     Great news!  All the best for everything to continue to  go well now.

     Great chat with you at Loring, looking forward to another one when I'm not quite so busy.

               Ed
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wobblywalrus on August 13, 2017, 09:45:26 AM
This was explained to me while I was in my early 20's so some things are sorta vague now.  Picture in your mind two moving smooth plates with one laying on top of the other and an oil film between them.  One plate is moving to the right at the same speed the other plate is moving to the left.  The oil at the boundary where it touches the plate is moving at the speed of the plate in the direction the plate is going.  The average speed of the oil halfway between the plates is zero.

The relationships between distances and velocities are "shear."  The shear increases when the plate velocities increase.  It also increases when the plates are closer together.  Lubricants have a limit of shear they can withstand.  The clearances between the moving objects need to be wide enough to keep the shear within acceptable limits.

Flexure can cause clearances to decrease between a shaft and a journal during operation beyond their values when the mechanism is static.  This can lead to lubrication failure.  The specific instance where I learned this was the outside crank journal bushing on a BSA A-65 twin.  There is no center journal on these cranks and they flex.  The clearances at the ends of the journals would be tight in some places due to this flexure.  Sometimes it would occur on the edges of the rod bearings.

What I did was to build the engine, break it in fairly gently, run it hard for a short time, and then tear it down.  Then, I would look for signs of overheating or galled spots on the journals and bushings, scrape them, and put the engine back together.  What I was trying to do was to keep the oil film shear within the limits the lubricant could withstand.   

   
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 24, 2017, 11:26:18 PM
No excitement here... which is good news- nothing gone "bang", broken, etc. :-D Engine has been test-run a few times now. Still tweaking the fuel system for a reliable idle- it's down to about 1,700 RPM but air/fuel isn't optimal yet.
Firing it up has been troublesome. The cam-driven Enderle pump doesn't want to draw fuel (about 30" above the tank) when cranking. I've had to manually fill the tank-to-pump line for it to begin pumping. My alky experience has all been with a tank above the pump for gravity feed, so I don't know whether this is to be expected with such a slowly-turning gearotor pump (half of cranking speed)? Pump is new and seems to function okay once engine is running. I'm in the process of mounting a test setup tank up at the pump level, but in the lakester I won't be able to put the tank quite that high. And I won't have the option of push-starting due to the full-centrifugal CrowerGlide clutch.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Crackerman on October 25, 2017, 12:07:24 AM
An electric primer pump and check valves installed in a certain configuration does help it start. If you can find a small electric pump tha will stand up to alcohol.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on November 13, 2017, 11:12:38 PM
If it's a problem after situating everything in the car, I guess I could look for a high-flow check valve (equivalent flow of -12 lines) to keep fuel from draining out of the pump feed line when not running.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on November 19, 2017, 11:35:53 PM
Won't win any collector-design awards. :oops:
But- it will allow some test-running in the dry/heated garage while it's wintry out. Main goal is to get rid of the noxious fumes, but perhaps I'll get to listen to the engine some, instead of just the exhaust roar.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: revolutionary on November 20, 2017, 01:36:50 PM
Jack,

From all the descriptions you provided and the issues you had, I would highly recommend you send the head out to get re-heat treated. It sounds like the aluminum is all too soft.  Just my $.02.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on November 30, 2017, 01:12:56 AM
Oh well... it worked a couple of times before self-destructing... :oops:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: bearingburner on November 30, 2017, 02:16:13 PM
Had the same problem priming my Hilborn flathead dragster engine 50 years ago. Will we see you at Loring this year with or without car?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on November 30, 2017, 11:48:13 PM
I hope to see you at Loring at least once this season. Having the lakester ready is doubtful though.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on December 06, 2017, 12:45:10 AM
Okay... enough unblown testing. Bolted the blower back on and added SFI restraints. If the next start-up goes okay (probably be delayed awhile for decent weather), then next step will be to schedule a dyno session.

Another instance of "my own worst enemy"- I finally explained a small but persistent oil leak at the front of the exhaust cam. Before replacing the seal, I was spinning the sprocket hub to polish its seal surface and saw a small "glitch" right where the seal lip runs. Duh... dummy... oh yeah- that's the mark I had scribed there to denote the internal keyway position when designing the DOHC deal- and totally forgot about it! :oops:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on January 20, 2018, 12:44:31 AM
Tentative dyno session set for March 28th...
I guess that will give me some time for non-racing stuff- honey-do list, etc.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on March 28, 2018, 12:31:19 AM
I did accomplish quite a bit of non-racing stuff these last two months. Truth-be-told, it did include some machining for a racer friend.

Dyno session postponed a little- hopefully will occur early next week (April 2nd, 3rd, or 4th).
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on April 02, 2018, 11:41:52 PM
New dyno date Monday 4/9/18.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Rex Schimmer on April 14, 2018, 06:36:23 PM
OK Jack it is Saturday 4/14/2018, almost a week since your "dyno date" ! How did it go???

Rex
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on April 15, 2018, 01:22:50 AM
It went... tediously and stressfully. I had never dyno'd an engine before; the shop had never run such a small engine; the mounting and driveline hardware that I had prepared beforehand needed rework (different dyno 'cart" than the one I had measured); the dyno computer and my crank sensor weren't "happy"; zoomies had to be modified to connect to the cell's vent duct; etc.; etc. On the first startup in the dyno cell I forgot hearing protection and was literally deaf for the next 24 hours. Adding to the stress was the hour and a half commuting to the shop each of four days, plus the cost- $85/hour/man, usually two guys working with me.

Positives: engine is still in one "lump"; dyno data for pressures (bottom end oil, top end oil, fuel) and coolant temperature were fine.

Negatives: first attempted full-throttle "sweep" (3,000-7,000 RPM, 600 RPM/sec) ended quickly (about 3.5 seconds in, 4,430 RPM) with a bang (not severe enough to blow the burst panel).

The manifold pressure data clearly identifies the culprit. My guess at blower drive ratio (80% of crank speed) was totally "out of the park". This billet 14-71 is WAY more efficient than I knew. I was shooting for no more than 30 PSI of boost at around 9,000 RPM; the dyno recorded 25 PSI boost at 4,300 RPM! :-o Since the fuel setup was configured for a slower rise in boost, the mixture was going rapidly lean.

A quick engine check showed compression low on two cylinders, so I need to pull the head and hope it's repairable.

Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on April 15, 2018, 10:33:44 AM
Shucks, Jack, sorry to hear. I have no experience with supercharges but seems a 14-71 is awful big for a 3 liter. They put them on big V8's don't they? Anyway, hope any damage is small. Have you had anyone really versed in the big blowers help with set up, pulley ratios etc? ( sorry if that be you, not meaning to put anyone down)
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wobblywalrus on April 15, 2018, 03:12:47 PM
Would a manifold pressure release valve be a fix?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on April 15, 2018, 03:51:05 PM
the shop had never run such a small engine;

I feel your pain there.

Orphan and custom engines are always a PITA getting properly hooked up to a dyno.

In most shops, you can get an LS or BBC bolted in and ready to go in an hour.  It's rare to find a shop that will tackle anything but a common drag motor, or a roundy pounder, and tougher to find a dyno operator with the patience and experience to even touch a combination like this. 

But when you do get this dialed in, it is going top be so much more impressive than any Bow-tie.

It's always better to find the problems before you run it on the track:  It's quicker to diagnose, you've got easier access to the problem not having to pull it out of the car, and you're not under the pressure of trying to get it together before the event closes down.

With the engine back in the shop, you can fix it on your own terms.

Sometimes, a dyno failure is a blessing - a track failure is always a headache.

Press on, Mr. Gifford.  I'm looking forward to seeing this thing go.



Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on April 15, 2018, 11:16:33 PM
... Would a manifold pressure release valve be a fix?...
No. Besides at each port, fuel is injected above the blower.
There's no need for dynamic pressure relief in a Roots-blown engine, once the correct configuration is established (i.e., the dumbass who set it up should have better researched the blower characteristics)! :oops:

jacksoni- I'm not aware of anyone familiar with a huge blower on a small engine. I tend toward less-travelled paths (at my own peril). In this case, I want to explore a means of reducing heating of the intake mixture without resorting to an intercooler system. Maybe I'll learn something, maybe not...
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on April 16, 2018, 06:44:48 AM
..[/quote]jacksoni- I'm not aware of anyone familiar with a huge blower on a small engine. I tend toward less-travelled paths (at my own peril). [/quote]

Well, I have to say, I am personally familiar with this syndrome.  :roll: :wink:
Keep at it!!
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: bearingburner on April 16, 2018, 09:02:28 AM
Experience is a good teacher though costly.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: POPS on April 16, 2018, 09:06:26 AM
Jack,
We have the solution for cooling the charge.  Our atomizing nozzles will drop the inlet temperature 40 degrees.
Typical manifold temperature drops 20 degrees. 
Power gain for alcohol drag motors is 75 for roots and 85 for screw compressors.
You will see a 1.5 gain in boost, because the case will shrink faster than the impellers. Case will be cold to the touch.
Total EGT spread at WOT in the Flashpoint Streamliner is 35 degrees. 
POPS
Don Jackson Engineering
714-269-9645
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on April 28, 2018, 12:11:49 AM
Head off now. Head just has one small torched spot by #3 exhaust, easily repairable. But #2 & 3 sleeves are damaged, appears to be right at the spot where their top rings sat when detonation occurred. If they were typical cast iron sleeves, I'd guess they are cracked there. But I specifically make sleeves from DOM steel tubing to avoid the cracking of cast iron. I won't know what's happened until I get it completely torn down and the sleeves pressed out.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: oj on May 02, 2018, 05:49:11 PM
I feel for you.  Learning thru experience is a tedius job, I guess thats why its called the 'bleeding edge of technology' when you can't ask anybody else how they got there.
In any event, you are an inspiration to the rest of us, for whatever thats worth.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on May 06, 2018, 10:16:14 PM
Torched spot in head's chamber #3 repaired, just need to "touch" the valve seats a few thousandths. Prior to taking block apart, blocked off coolant passages to do an air pressure check of sleeve integrity- they are okay, air-tight. Apparently I'm seeing evidence of top/middle rings being "blasted" out and marking the sleeves. So it still needs to come apart to replace rings. But hopefully a careful light hone will save the sleeves from needing changing.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on June 06, 2018, 11:52:54 PM
Shortblock buttoned up. Waiting on custom head gasket from SCE to bolt it all back together. Other than sourcing a belt, blower drive is set for 40% of crank speed. The only 32 tooth pulley available was intended as the driven pulley on a screw blower, so I machined down my crank hub to match the pulley's tiny bolt/dowel/register pattern. Looks crazy with an 80 tooth pulley on the blower! While it's apart, I've been chipping away at the list of stuff to make the next dyno session less hassle (matching fittings, connectors, etc.) and a few items I wanted to do better. The first two photos are of a plate on the bottom of the blower manifold to maintain alignment of the deflector style port nozzles. Despite best attempts to not disturb the nozzles when changing jets (in cramped space underneath the manifold), I had never found them perfectly aligned on a teardown.
The final photos are a reminder to NEVER use a grade zero fastener for ANYTHING! After I exploded and rebuilt the blower manifold a year ago, I had added four 5/16" bolts as anti-balloon "struts" near the middle of the manifold, and apparently grabbed one grade zero bolt by mistake. The photo shows it stretched and stripped where the locknut had been under the manifold's 1/2" thick top plate, following this year's detonation incident. The final photo shows how the "bang" tried to separate the blower from the manifold.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on June 07, 2018, 12:41:42 AM
Final photo
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: floydjer on June 07, 2018, 01:57:12 PM
wow...26 pages of proof that everyone should read every thread on this site. Boat load of great info. Bravo. JB
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: ronnieroadster on June 07, 2018, 03:19:48 PM
Having run GMC and now Whipple blowers on one off intakes for my vintage engine projects one thing I learned was using a paper blower gasket is not a good idea.  Now on every blower manifold I make I machine a grove so " O " ring Buna N cord stock can be installed around the perimeter of the mating surface with the blower. Using the "O" ring material I now experience no gasket leakage even if the mating surfaces become slightly warped. I realize your gasket failure was due to the manifold explosion but eliminating the gasket would be a good thing. Plus considering all the work you have accomplished yourself making the "O" ring grove will be extremely simple.  
   Just wanted to mention this about manifold sealing to. You have A great project which I have been watching as you progress along. Your in a learning curve those of us who chose to go our own way find  rewarding after the learning curve has been beaten.   :cheers:
    Ronnieroadster
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on June 08, 2018, 01:41:14 AM
I would REALLY like to monitor air/fuel ratio during my next test runs. I see that many reasonably priced air/fuel ratio meters will function with methanol. But I'm not sure how to come up with a sensor location that could work with individual exhaust stacks. Instructions for the meters only talk about where to place a sensor in an exhaust collector. Any comments?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: fordboy628 on June 08, 2018, 05:20:09 AM

I would REALLY like to monitor air/fuel ratio during my next test runs. I see that many reasonably priced air/fuel ratio meters will function with methanol. But I'm not sure how to come up with a sensor location that could work with individual exhaust stacks. Instructions for the meters only talk about where to place a sensor in an exhaust collector. Any comments?


YES, monitoring A/F is something you really want to do.    Data of this nature can prevent the sort of problem you ran into.    What I do is:  On the run up to WOT, loaded on the brake, I'm watching the readout for A/F or BSFC to confirm that the engine is not way too lean or too rich.    This prevents damage to the engine, as you are aware.   You do however, need instrumentation you can trust . . . . .  So . . . .


You could monitor 1 cylinder, and presume the others are equal, although that is probably not the case,

If your dyno facility can log fuel flow into the engine, that can be calculated into: Brake specific fuel consumption.    Not A/F I know, but still useful.    ALL SuperFlow dyno have this calculation capability, as do Depac and Performance Trends equipped.

I would check with the mfg to see if a "dual fuel" O2 sensor that is ethanol safe is also methanol safe.    Methanol does have detrimental effects on some fuel flow sensors, notably SuperFlow.   


I'm certain others on the board will have other ideas/experiences.  Perhaps Harold Bettes or Mike Lefevers might have some suggestions, or put you into contact with a person with more experience.


Best wishes on this Jack.    Everyone wants your project to succeed.

 :cheers:
Mark
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Stainless1 on June 08, 2018, 08:57:59 AM
AEM makes an A/F meter recorder with 4 inputs.  I used one on Max's liner... blown methanol... it worked.  They suggested not to close to the end of the pipe, we were less than 12 inches.
I have it in a box in the shop if you want to try it.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wobblywalrus on June 08, 2018, 03:01:20 PM
My experience was to have more problems with the mixture sensor setup than with the carb.  It might be good to have an exhaust gas temp meter to act as a backup.  This way, if something goes goofy with the indicated mixture readings there is another data set to examine.   
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: RansomT on June 08, 2018, 04:54:37 PM
What I have is a WBO2 in the collector and then 4 EGT sensors.  Once I get the AFR right, then I can see the imbalances in the cylinders.  I run ethanol over nitrous, as the mixture leans the EGT temps go up.  You also can see the effects that timing has on the EGTs, which you can't see with just O2 sensors.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on June 09, 2018, 12:40:59 AM
... They suggested not to close to the end of the pipe, we were less than 12 inches...
Where would I position an oxygen sensor in an 18" long zoomie? Did you see a ratio of about 6.5:1?

EGTs were monitored in my dyno session. They have the capability to monitor fuel flow, but didn't bother (?) to set up the sensor during my session- next time I'll insist on it.

But prior to the dyno, I hope to monitor air/fuel ratio when test-running the engine (no load). I've got an A/F meter that I used for a gasoline street engine, but don't know if it's methanol compatible. I emailed AutoMeter with that question but they haven't responded. I'm guessing the answer is "no" since the instructions say "Intended for unleaded gasoline". There isn't a model number on the gauge, but the instruction sheet is #2650-1465-00; anybody know if it will work with methanol? If it won't, is it merely a matter of swapping out the sensor?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Stainless1 on June 09, 2018, 09:25:14 AM
I think Max's were longer than that, but I would send a PM to NathanStewart on this site for a suggestion on placement and use in your case.  They want them away from the end to make sure they are only reading exhaust gas and not getting atmosphere.  It read well down to 5.5, about where we started if I am remembering right... I did see 6.5 one run and told Max I thought the data showed he was dangerously lean (my research showed 5.5 -6 would be the right ratio for LSR) .... but the motors were blubbering due to a timing problem we found during the autopsy and a drag racer that was helping that year suggested we needed to go leaner.... I think that next run showed about 6.8 to 7 and the motor finished the run in about 2 miles on 3 pistons.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jdincau on June 09, 2018, 09:59:12 AM
Here is what AEM and Bosch have to say
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Stainless1 on June 09, 2018, 10:06:01 PM
Actually here is what they say about the 4 Channel...  :cheers:
http://www.aemelectronics.com/?q=products/wideband-uego-air-fuel-controllers/4-channel-wideband-uego-afr-controller
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on June 10, 2018, 12:06:58 AM
Thanks guys.

Bosch says that a single cylinder can have the sensor as close as 12" to the exhaust port. And apparently having it close to the pipe's end would only cause unreliable readings at low engine speeds. So I guess I could try placing a sensor in a zoomie about 12" from the port and ignore low speed readings.

Stainless- In the AEM info I couldn't find any recommendation for sensor placement. Did you have sensors in individual runners? How far from the ports?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wobblywalrus on June 10, 2018, 12:23:54 AM
The dyno shop uses an O2 sensor attached to a wire probe that fits up the exhaust pipe.  They moved the probe around during testing and found good locations for the permeant O2 sensors.  The operator told me to place them where condensation running down the inside pipe wall will not contact the sensors.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Stainless1 on June 10, 2018, 08:50:18 AM
Yes Jack, we had a sensor in every pipe since each cylinder had a different size pill... and it was individual stacks, no way to do a collector.  Placement was based on where we could make them fit under the bodywork... Max built everything on the "blivit" principle... stuff 10 lbs in a 5 lb sack... so we tried to put the sensors in the same general spot in each pipe, and I am sure they were more than 12 inches from the end and at least 6-8 from the valve. 
The sensors are Bosch so I know we followed their installation recommendation as close as possible.
I was happy with the unit... as with all data... it is part of the puzzle... but it is data... collected instantly after the event.... you can watch it on the computer as is happens on a dyno.... a little tougher to intervene during a run on the salt.

Send me a PM if you want to borrow it and give it a test try.... it's in a box on the shelf.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on June 10, 2018, 11:17:42 PM
I assume that bungs for the sensors need to be welded into the stacks?

[sent a PM]
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wobblywalrus on June 11, 2018, 07:42:39 AM
The bungs pretty basic.  They are easier to spin up on a lathe than to go to the trouble of ordering them.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on June 12, 2018, 11:19:30 PM
Thanks for the message.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on August 10, 2018, 10:26:16 PM
Engine back together, almost ready to test-run, then [hopefully] schedule another dyno session.

Stainless- sent a PM.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on August 17, 2018, 11:56:13 PM
No response from Bob (Stainless1) for a week. Is he tied up at Speed Week?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on August 20, 2018, 12:31:07 AM
Got your message Robert, and sent a reply. Thanks.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on September 01, 2018, 12:24:42 AM
Received the loaner AEM system- thanks Bob!

Quite a "can of worms"! Only got as far today as mounting the unit on my engine test rig and sorting out and identifying snipped-off wires (I soldered bullet connectors to them for possible later use).

I've only glanced through the software descriptions in the manuals. I'll need to borrow a laptop from my son before I take a good look at those manuals.

I'm sure I'll have many questions for AEM. One that someone here might answer- I'm surprised that system ground and sensor ground aren't common in the logger unit; any reason they can't be?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: manta22 on September 01, 2018, 10:31:37 AM
Jack;

The sensor ground and sensor input are differential inputs; this arrangement rejects small voltage differences that may appear between the two grounds- a "ground loop".

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on September 04, 2018, 12:22:13 AM
Neil- yes, I realize that it's a differential scheme. But the signal ground would typically be DC-referenced (presumably common) to the system ground at a single point somewhere. In this case I guessed that point would be in the AEM data logger, where the sensor 5V power originates. But an ohmmeter shows no DC connection between the two grounds within the logger.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: manta22 on September 04, 2018, 10:18:20 AM
Yes, Jack, but the whole idea of a differential input is to reject small voltage differences that may exist between the ground at the signal source and a ground elsewhere. In a car or bike, you don't have a single-point ground, things are grounded to the chassis where it is a convenient point to do so. Current flowing through the chassis back to the battery will generate small voltage drops and although they may be microvolts or millivolts, that is enough of a voltage to create an error in your sensor reading. By sensing the actual voltage difference directly at the sensor output the chassis ground return voltages (ground loops) are not included in the sensor reading. Differential inputs won't show a connection to ground using an ohmmeter if it is an instrumentation amplifier input; a difference amplifier (cheaper) input may show a high-resistance reading to ground.


Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: tauruck on September 04, 2018, 04:07:03 PM
Engine back together, almost ready to test-run, then [hopefully] schedule another dyno session.

Stainless- sent a PM.

That motor is a work of art. I'm blown away. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on September 05, 2018, 01:00:10 AM
Stainless- do you know what this "lump" is? The cable at its end has been cut off. It emerges from the harness between the 4-channel A/F box and the logger. I find no picture nor mention of it in any of the manuals.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Stainless1 on September 05, 2018, 09:17:09 AM
I think it is an unused plug to daisy chain devices together.... probably taped up, then heat shrinked to try to keep the salt out.  Is the other end  plugged into the logger? if so that is the data line that I mentioned.  The data lines are a 4 pin square connector...
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on September 06, 2018, 01:01:14 AM
I went ahead and cut away the covering, and yes it's a 4-pin square female connector. But strangely, no mating male connector was inside the covering- and the covering is not elastic enough to have allowed a connector to be pulled out of it (?). As for where the female connector is wired to, I don't know. It merges into the large bundle of cables from the oxygen sensors, but that bundle branches out both to the 4-channel wide band unit and to the data logger. I still need to do more ohmmeter probing of connectors to determine all the wiring.

You had said you were monitoring boost. The 4-channel wide band unit manual shows the harness having a cable to an exhaust back pressure sensor. This  cable has a 0-50 psig pressure sensor plugged into it- is this the sensor and connection you used (re-purposed?) for boost pressure?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Stainless1 on September 06, 2018, 10:15:28 AM
Jack, as I said before, I think that is the AEMnet data line.  There is probably another one from that unit plugged into the logger.  I thought we logged pressure, and I thought it was from that sensor... but that data is on a computer that died years ago... I suspect from excessive exposure to the salt.  It had tuning files we used in 2003-2008 for our assault on the 1000cc bike records... It had the data files when we used the equipment I sent you to help tune Max's streamliner in 2012....
so I am working on 6 year old memory... and you know how much 6 year olds remember  :roll: 
If that is the back pressure sensor wire, then it was not needed for Max's bike since that is only used in turbo installations, I put the pressure sensor on it because it was in the box of stuff we used and I thought we used it to monitor boost, otherwise it would have been capped like the daisy chain AEMnet data wire. 
The group of red wires goes to power, the group of black go to ground, I think the separate red is switched power and the remainder are the sensors.  Hook it to a battery and a laptop with the AEM logger software on it and it should work.  It came off Max's bike as a unit and went into the box.   
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Sumner on September 06, 2018, 11:21:23 AM
.... that data is on a computer that died years ago... I suspect from excessive exposure to the salt.  It had tuning files we used in 2003-2008 for our assault on the 1000cc bike records... It had the data files when we used the equipment I sent you to help tune Max's streamliner in 2012....

Do you still have the computer?  If so take the hard drive out and you could get the data off of it,

Sumner
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on September 12, 2018, 12:33:15 AM
... Hook it to a battery and a laptop with the AEM logger software on it and it should work...
Okay, that's what I'll do.
I've finished probing all connector pins and harness "pigtails" and labeling them where needed. I've mounted and wired most of it on the engine-test setup, and am almost finished building/wiring two more sensors- throttle position and fuel shutoff position (I manually lean the engine with the shutoff for prolonged idling)- which will use channels 7 & 8 of the logger. But these pins aren't implemented in the connector, and I'm having trouble sourcing the pins (without buying 200 of them for about $150!). Anybody got any of these female crimp-on pins (for 2.0-2.3 mm diameter wire)? I think they are Delphi #12110236.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: 4-barrel Mike on September 12, 2018, 09:00:45 AM
These?  https://www.mouser.com/Search/Refine.aspx?Keyword=delphi+12110236 (https://www.mouser.com/Search/Refine.aspx?Keyword=delphi+12110236)

Pricey lil' bustards.

Mike
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Stainless1 on September 12, 2018, 10:33:16 PM
Jack, when I get back home I will look... You might try Nathan at AEM or Dave at Engine Management Systems in CT.
 :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on September 13, 2018, 01:58:06 AM
AEM pointed me to an eBay seller- a few dozen of the pins for $9.95 & free shipping. So they are on their way to me. Thanks guys!
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on September 23, 2018, 12:13:01 AM
My son got me a loaner laptop and downloaded the AEM software for the data logger. With everything connected and powered up, all I'm getting is "device not connected". I didn't intentionally change the harness from the way Robert was using it, with the exception of adding two pins to the logger connector to utilize vacant inputs. Tomorrow I'll open the conector to see if maybe I dislodged a wire.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: ronnieroadster on September 23, 2018, 03:23:26 PM
My son got me a loaner laptop and downloaded the AEM software for the data logger. With everything connected and powered up, all I'm getting is "device not connected". I didn't intentionally change the harness from the way Robert was using it, with the exception of adding two pins to the logger connector to utilize vacant inputs. Tomorrow I'll open the conector to see if maybe I dislodged a wire.


 Oh the wonders of data logging it only took me four years to get my data max system to work correctly.  Many calls to tech and after a long troubling time finally figured out the problem on my own not something I wanted to do myself I feel your pain.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on September 23, 2018, 08:27:41 PM
Life is full of mysteries...
Opened the AQ-1 connector and [again] ohm-metered the four USB wires to the laptop plug; all was good, nothing intermittent while "jiggling" all of harness. Put it back together, powered it up, checked 5v and switched 12v, and- laptop now shows "AQ-1" connected"! :roll:
But then it showed "firmware update required". With my son to guide me (he's head of IT for a local school), we stepped through the firmware update. It's now showing live display of at least some inputs- the two position sensors I added (hurray!) and the four EGTs. I need to figure a way to confirm air/fuel ratio and RPM and boost pressure inputs without the engine running.
So progress is being made, albeit slowly. :-)
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Sumner on September 25, 2018, 04:19:52 PM
(http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/Hooley%202013/Innovate-Data-Log-15.jpg)

I checked the pressure sensors, both internal and the GM 3 Bar using a cheap regulator meant for a spray gun (Harbor Freight). One side connects to the air hose and the other goes to the sensor. You can regulate the pressure up and down and calibrate easily. While I'm doing this I have the LMA-3 connected to the computer via a serial cable and a USB to serial adapter and the computer is running Innovate's Log Works.

(http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/Hooley%202013/Innovate-Data-Log-16.jpg)

Above the line from the air hose/regulator is connected to a GM sensor.

More info here...

http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/Hooley%202013/13%20-%20hooley-construction-2013-29.html

Sumner
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: manta22 on September 25, 2018, 07:19:09 PM
Sum;

You are assuming that the Chinese-made gauge is accurate?

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on September 25, 2018, 11:38:08 PM
RPM display is tested and working fine.

Although live display of position inputs (throttle position, etc.) is okay, the units are merely in volts (0v to 5v). I'm assuming it can be configured to display converted values (0% to 100%, or 0 to 90 degrees, etc.), but I don't know how.

To verify air/fuel ratio logging it's back to studying the AEM manuals. I'm not too happy with the organization of their contents. They refer to "Wizard this" and "Wizard that" without even saying what "Wizard" is. Searching AEM website wasn't any better. Wizard perhaps(?) applies only to viewing logged data. But I haven't even figured out how to display live data of air/fuel ratio- let alone log it and play it back.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on September 27, 2018, 12:23:32 AM
I did get desired displays for TPS etc.- 0% to 100%.

Verified functioning of boost pressure display, which is a re-purposing of the air/fuel ratio monitor's exhaust backpressure channel. Set scaling and offset to correspond with the sensor and to change display from absolute pressure to PSIG.

Verified that at least the air/fuel ratio wiring is correct- disconnecting any cylinder's oxygen sensor changes its displayed ratio. Still need to determine whether the values are reasonable (while engine not running).

I think I created a log file, but haven't learned how to display it yet. The manual shows a screen display that's used to choose a file to display- but I haven't been able (yet) to get to that screen!
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Stainless1 on September 27, 2018, 09:17:44 AM
Hey Jack... this easy technology stuff doesn't seem to be easy till that "ah ha" moment.... do you have an 8-12 year old grandchild that can help you? 
Worked for me.....  :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on September 28, 2018, 12:28:17 AM
For me the "8-12 year old" is my 40 year old son, whose career is IT. But he's very busy- I have to get in line behind his other clients.
My four grandkids are very good students, but aren't "into" software as much as most other kids.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 01, 2018, 12:31:18 AM
With a bunch of keyboard time, I'm getting less uncomfortable with the logger's software. Managed to log a couple of "dry" runs and got the playback formatted to be useful. So now it's time to coordinate with my two sons for a test run. 8-)
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Stainless1 on October 01, 2018, 09:25:26 AM
Have you figured out how to watch it live Jack?
Good luck with the run and future dyno  :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: ronnieroadster on October 01, 2018, 02:04:58 PM
With a bunch of keyboard time, I'm getting less uncomfortable with the logger's software. Managed to log a couple of "dry" runs and got the playback formatted to be useful. So now it's time to coordinate with my two sons for a test run. 8-)


  Your fun will really begin once the engine fires and ignition noise gets into the data circuits hopefully the system has filters so you wont experience such a problem.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 02, 2018, 12:24:29 AM
Bob- yes, I can  do a live display. There apparently aren't the nice options like bar graphs (that can be set up for log displays). But I can display just the four air/fuel ratio numbers by themselves, which is of the most interest initially.

Ronnie- yeah, there's certainly the potential for RFI problems. I've done my best to avoid them- twisted pair wiring of added sensors, carefully keeping sensor ground separate from 12 volt ground everywhere, etc.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Stainless1 on October 02, 2018, 11:25:13 AM
I'm pretty sure we were able to see egt and afr while running Max's bike.... That is all Max wanted to see live when it was to run on the dyno... didn't get it done fast enough to run on the dyno,
I watched live data while it ran on the salt.
Keep at it, you are getting there  :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 03, 2018, 12:37:58 AM
Yes, I can have all data on the screen simultaneously. But it's somewhat cluttered, so I'd rather have a simple display of air/fuel ratios for a crew member to watch closely.
Also- for live display of all data we had to run two copies of AQ-1, since AQ-1 makes you choose either AEMnet (air/fuel) or the other channels (EGT, etc.). I haven't yet determined whether there might be a problem with two programs both trying to create a log file at the same time.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Stainless1 on October 04, 2018, 10:25:25 AM
Did I mention a laptop in the area of the motor to watch live may need to have a solid state drive.  Acoustic vibration (read loud motor noise) can cause a spinning hard drive to lock up... therefore the computer locks up and becomes unresponsive.... don't ask how I know  :-o
Keep learning... sooner or later it will be fun  :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 05, 2018, 01:13:30 AM
Yes, I got the loan of a laptop with solid-state "hard drive".
If the weather cooperates, we might test-run it this weekend.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 07, 2018, 11:09:59 PM
Good test run! No leaks, bad noises, etc. Great throttle response- almost instant 6,000RPM on half-throttle jabs (6,400 per log). Boost pressure didn't log (software? hardware?), but all else did. Boost gauge showed ~10 PSI, so blower drive is at least in the ballpark. Air/fuel ratios were all a little fat as planned, and log data will help balance port nozzles better.
I'm finally ready to schedule another dyno session.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on October 08, 2018, 06:50:06 AM
 :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: RidgeRunner on October 08, 2018, 07:41:35 AM
     Congratulations!

     All the best for as fun a trip to the dyno,  :cheers:

            Ed
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 11, 2018, 01:07:02 AM
Dyno session Friday 10/26/18 (and Saturday if necessary). :-)
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wobblywalrus on October 11, 2018, 06:45:31 AM
Jack, this is what was told to me by the experts when I do this.  First, use dyno power curves to determine the richest stoich ratio that produces best power.  Consider the air/fuel mixture instrument reading for this to be "indicated optimum mixture."

Set the timing to the most retarded setting that produces the best peak torque.

Record the EGT for best mixture and timing. Consider this to be "indicated optimum EGT."

I am sure you already know this.  It seems to work well for me.   
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 13, 2018, 01:10:05 AM
Jack, this is what was told to me by the experts when I do this.  First, use dyno power curves to determine the richest stoich ratio that produces best power.  Consider the air/fuel mixture instrument reading for this to be "indicated optimum mixture."

Set the timing to the most retarded setting that produces the best peak torque.

Record the EGT for best mixture and timing. Consider this to be "indicated optimum EGT."

I am sure you already know this.  It seems to work well for me.    
If I get the opportunity to do all of the above, that will mean the engine has survived a number of dyno pulls- which in itself would be cause for celebration!
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 31, 2018, 11:02:19 PM
Well, it almost survived. After three days of quite a lot of dyno running (could you believe 13 gallons of alky?), I thought it might come home undamaged. But today #3 cylinder died with a head gasket leak- probably not merely the gasket. So one more time it's got to come all apart. :-(
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Sumner on October 31, 2018, 11:46:30 PM
Admire your engineering and perseverance on the build  :cheers:  Hoping for a smaller setback than you anticipate,

Sumner
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Stainless1 on November 01, 2018, 09:57:06 AM
Well it sounds like you were running it like it was Bonneville....  :-o
I hope the data will help you figure out what happened... With any luck it is just a head gasket issue, keep us informed
 :cheers:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on November 02, 2018, 01:34:55 AM
Robert- the air/fuel ratio data was helpful. Unfortunately the borrowed laptop had an "SD card error" which prevented logging. But I was able to watch live display of air/fuel ratio while the dyno logged everything else. Using both EGTs and air/fuel we were able to tweak port nozzles for good balance of all four cylinders. Didn't make a lot of power (too long a story to attempt here) and I don't yet have a copy of the dyno logs.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on November 06, 2018, 12:04:33 AM
Easy to see what happened, with it apart now. The dyno "incident" last spring (cylinders 2 & 3) had lifted the center of the head, which I hadn't noticed when repairing the torched spot in #3. Had to cut the head deck .0125" today to get it flat again. No damage done this time other than the gasket.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on November 06, 2018, 07:08:48 AM
Are your cam bores still straight? I've had some trouble with head warping (when I first got the head it was not straight and then I got it hot once and did further damage) and the cam tunnels were then out as well as deck not being flat.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on November 06, 2018, 11:56:12 PM
Yes, cam bores are aligned okay. Maybe I shouldn't have said the head "lifted", since the top surface of the head was still flat. The distortion was all at the head's deck surface- as if the center of the head got "crushed" a little. [These heads were made in 1961- cast aluminum alloys weren't as advanced as today's are].
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on November 23, 2018, 09:44:41 PM
Engine is back together. Too wintry now to wheel it outside for more test running.
Finally got around to some research that I had postponed. Put together a test sample to look at possible loss of fastener torque after heat cycles of the magnesium crank filler segments. Identical fasteners and material thicknesses as the actual crank, and included a steel-to-steel "control sample". Ran it through six cycles of 15 minutes at 230 degrees F, then cool. No real surprise in results- steel-to-steel lost 25% torque, magnesium-on-steel lost an average of 33%. That's still within the safety margin of the design, but not by a lot. Next time the pan is off I'll re-torque those fasteners.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on January 16, 2019, 10:04:44 PM
Idle minds breed trouble?... :-o

I've rigged up a "static dyno" to enable loading the engine somewhat during the next test-running. Removed all weights (even the attaching bolts) from the full-centrifugal CrowerGlide- I guessed full lockup will now be up around 6,000 RPM (Crower guesses about 5,500). Made up a rugged 2' long torque arm on the QC box's output shaft, anchored to an S-type load cell, which is in turn anchored to the engine mounting (via an old-fashioned 550 lb. game scale, for quick visual reference). Logging ten data points per second should provide some useful data, despite being limited to 2-3 seconds bursts to not cook the clutch too badly. The arm also has a shock absorber to dampen its movement.

Don't be too alarmed- there's plenty of over-sizing of fasteners and other pieces. And a stout "gate" is provided to contain the arm in any event.

Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: salt27 on January 16, 2019, 10:49:17 PM
Will there be a video?

Be safe Jack.   :-o
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on January 25, 2019, 12:03:11 AM
Finished the torque monitoring stuff. The instrument amplifier I bought was crammed onto a 1" square board, which I had to package in a plastic box with terminal strips. Just soldering 7 wires onto that tiny board was a challenge for my shaky hands. Wired it into the engine's harness, spent some time setting the gain and offset, and set up the logger channel for torque readings (thanks for the loan of  the logger, Stainless!). Static loads show it's pretty close to the game scale readings from 0 - 440 ft.lb.- I'll tabulate more increments tomorrow to get percentage-difference numbers.

[No, I don't do videos...]
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: manta22 on January 25, 2019, 09:22:15 AM
What instrument amplifier did you use, Jack?


Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on January 25, 2019, 10:24:56 PM
In-amp is an AD620, on a board with gain & offset resistors, miscellaneous filters, etc.

This plot (done statically) shows some non-linearity, but I don't know whether the load cell or the spring-type game scale is more to blame. In any case, it will [hopefully] provide a little useful data.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on April 06, 2019, 10:53:16 PM
I can't find a twiddling-thumbs moticon...

Just waiting for mild weather- for another test-run (and bearing inspection, etc.), then start cramming it into the lakester.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Koncretekid on April 08, 2019, 09:59:05 PM
Idle minds breed trouble?... :-o

Don't be too alarmed- there's plenty of over-sizing of fasteners and other pieces. And a stout "gate" is provided to contain the arm in any event.


So the torque arm and the scale are well fastened, but don't forget to anchor the motor down.  500 ft. lbs. could probably turn the whole car over.

Tom
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on April 27, 2019, 01:03:56 AM
Nice weather yesterday. Got a friend to play fireman and monitor air/fuel ratios on the laptop. Didn't hurt anything or anybody!

Logging didn't work (RFI from magneto?). My plan for higher speed lockup of the CrowerGlide (5,000 RPM or so) was all wet- I ignored the fact that centrifugal force increases as the square of angular velocity. Even with no clutch weights, full throttle for 2-3 seconds only got a little over 4,000 RPM, with the analog scale showing about 300 ft.lb. of torque.

Bad stuff: no log of precise data, barely made any boost pressure, and didn't get to where it's intended to make power (6,000-9,000 RPM).

Good stuff: air/fuel was around 5:1 as hoped (still conservative but better than the 4:1 at the dyno shop), engine was stable and smooth while under load at full throttle, and no indication of clutch destruction (other than cool-down noises afterward!).

Rationalizations: if scaled up from 182 c.i. to 454 c.i. these numbers would be 750 ft.lb. and 600 HP @ 4,000 RPM.

I believe it's at least capable of propelling the car, so I guess it's time to look at squeezing it into the lakester.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: fordboy628 on April 27, 2019, 05:39:10 AM
Nice weather yesterday. Got a friend to play fireman and monitor air/fuel ratios on the laptop. Didn't hurt anything or anybody!

Logging didn't work (RFI from magneto?). My plan for higher speed lockup of the CrowerGlide (5,000 RPM or so) was all wet- I ignored the fact that centrifugal force increases as the square of angular velocity. Even with no clutch weights, full throttle for 2-3 seconds only got a little over 4,000 RPM, with the analog scale showing about 300 ft.lb. of torque.

Bad stuff: no log of precise data, barely made any boost pressure, and didn't get to where it's intended to make power (6,000-9,000 RPM).

Good stuff: air/fuel was around 5:1 as hoped (still conservative but better than the 4:1 at the dyno shop), engine was stable and smooth while under load at full throttle, and no indication of clutch destruction (other than cool-down noises afterward!).

Rationalizations: if scaled up from 182 c.i. to 454 c.i. these numbers would be 750 ft.lb. and 600 HP @ 4,000 RPM.

I believe it's at least capable of propelling the car, so I guess it's time to look at squeezing it into the lakester.

VERY likely.    I have had to fabricate a "magneto shield" on some dyno installations to be able to prevent interference.

A length of large diameter aluminum tubing with a grounding wire usually works.  Think mag suppression for a P-51.    NO mag suppression, NO RADIO . . . . SO . . . . . 
Some P-51's also used grounded brass tubes to "encase" the spark plug wires . . . . .

I have heard that in a pinch, Reynolds Wrap (aluminum foil) can be your friend . . . . . . . .

Glad to see your project up and running again.

 :cheers:
M
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on May 15, 2019, 11:43:10 PM
Baby steps...........
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on May 15, 2019, 11:45:36 PM
..........
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: RidgeRunner on May 16, 2019, 07:11:20 AM
Jack,

     Looking great!

     Any plans for some shake down passes at Loring or are they too far off yet?

     I like the spreader bar concept on your lifting device, great new ideas for a new one for us when I get 'round to it :cheers:

                      Ed
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on May 17, 2019, 12:28:53 AM
I built the 4-corner lift/tilt hoist deal back in 1984 when I ran my first blower engine and wanted to be able to deal with the complete engine with blower/injector in place. I've gotten a lot of use out of it.

If you believe "anything's possible", then yeah, it could be going in a couple of months- but it's not likely. Ideally, it would be ready to roll 6 weeks from now when there's a nostalgia tenth mile drag event only 20 miles away. It certainly won't be updated to current SCTA specs by then, but I'm pretty sure they'd let me limp down the track- all 528 feet of it!
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on June 19, 2019, 01:20:39 AM
Thrashing on it and getting a lot done. Hoping to have it moving in time to do some test running at the local (S.Butler NY) tenth-mile dragstrip on June 30th (first of this summer's four nostalgia events). It won't be SCTA compliant by then (12 year old tires, etc.) but I believe I'll be allowed on the track.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on June 28, 2019, 11:24:44 PM
I haven't learned the art of lakester-packing yet- the tank will need to grow a big blister around the blower. However, I just squeaked by to have it ready for a trial run (a whole tenth of a mile!) Sunday. I selected quick-change gears for about 120 MPH (instead of 200+ for landspeed venues), but it sure won't perform like a drag machine.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Peter Jack on June 29, 2019, 12:38:54 AM
Go for it Jack and enjoy some of the fruits of your labor!  :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

Good luck!

Pete
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on June 29, 2019, 06:23:21 AM
Good luck Jack! Keep us posted.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on June 29, 2019, 05:01:06 PM
Off to the [drag] races! :-)
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Elmo Rodge on June 29, 2019, 05:33:48 PM
Make us Tank Guys proud, Jack.  :cheers:
Wayno
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on June 30, 2019, 11:14:20 PM
"Speed Queen" made me proud today- didn't embarrass me at all (starting in 'high gear' on a dragstrip)! First time out went amazingly well- no problems, no fluids on trailer deck coming home. I'm mad that I didn't look at ANY gauge during those quick few seconds- not even the tach. And the strip's timing equipment didn't get any numbers. All I know is that it ain't no slouch.

I just looked for 'South Butler Nostalgia Drags' on facebook- the first video was my run.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: 4-barrel Mike on June 30, 2019, 11:22:33 PM
https://www.facebook.com/455242934602697/videos/362576527766912/ (https://www.facebook.com/455242934602697/videos/362576527766912/)

Sounded mean!   :cheers:

Mike
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: wobblywalrus on July 01, 2019, 12:14:57 AM
That car sounds and looks nice. 
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: RidgeRunner on July 01, 2019, 05:00:38 AM
Jack,

     Congratulations!  :cheers:  Very impressive first time out!  Next safari Loring?

Mike,

     Big thanks for the link  8-)

                   Ed
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Peter Jack on July 01, 2019, 07:56:10 AM
Well done Jack. Most of us who have built major projects have been there at one time or another. Now that most of the stress of first time is gone you'll be able to do a proper test program.

Boy, does it ever sound good and looks great!  :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

Pete
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: rancheroman on July 01, 2019, 05:03:33 PM
Jack...?.Great Job...at the end of the day, hard work does pay off....good luck...Paul...
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: ronnieroadster on July 01, 2019, 08:06:12 PM
The top end charge in high gear looked and sounded great congratulations     :cheers:
 Ronnieroadster
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Rex Schimmer on July 02, 2019, 05:14:36 PM
Sounds GREAT!! Great job Jack!!

Rex
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on July 03, 2019, 02:06:00 AM
I have a gravity feed gasoline primer system for cold-starting that works well. A cable in the cockpit opens a spring-return valve to drip gas into a couple of unused nozzle ports in the injector. In the interest of fitting body panels, I want to replace it with a small electric pump and tank mounted lower than the injector. But the pump's valves won't prevent siphoning of gas when the engine is running. I need suggestions for how to prevent the siphoning. My only thought so far is to use a solenoid valve that opens only when I activate the pump. But that's a little bit cumbersome. Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on July 03, 2019, 06:12:45 AM
Since you have already thought of this idea but are looking for others, this may not help but if you do go this way here is a source I used for a bigger one. This valve is normally closed so could operate just with the pump as you say. Many sizes are available. Normal fuels are but not sure about nitro and such:
https://www.electricsolenoidvalves.com/1-8-12v-dc-electric-brass-solenoid-valve-12-volt/
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: RichFox on July 03, 2019, 07:47:42 AM
I used a solenoid from a NOS kit.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on July 04, 2019, 01:24:14 AM
jacksoni- Thanks for the link to "electricsolenoidvalves".
RichFox- Yeah, I was thinking of using a nitrous solenoid from my junk box.

I just ordered a Facet 2psi solid-state pump from Aircraft Spruce. Wiring is done except to the pump & solenoid.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on July 24, 2019, 12:16:09 AM
The electric gas-priming system is done and working well. Had to build a shield by the little tank, since it's in the plane of the blower drive. Using old nitrous pieces had the bonus feature of tiny-orifice nozzles to gain a little atomization of the gasoline.

Next up- Pontiac Nationals at Summit Raceway in Norwalk Ohio a week from now. Hoping to get a test run or two on the quarter-mile strip (all of 1,320' vs. the 528' of South Butler!). Hopefully I'll remember to look at some gauges :oops:. Maybe even get to test chute deployment- although probably not needed, with the great 4-wheel disc brakes on the car.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on August 04, 2019, 11:40:15 AM
Happy Birthday Jack!!! :cheers:

Good luck at Summit testing.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on August 06, 2019, 11:34:34 PM
Thanks for the birthday wishes- 79 now!
Only got in one run at Summit Raceway. Still no bad news, other than "operator error". I [somehow?] put wrong gears in- 88 mph at end of strip @ just 4,700 RPM!
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on August 16, 2019, 11:39:54 PM
Hoping to get more testing time at the local tenth-mile drags August 25th. With more appropriate gearing! :oops:
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on August 28, 2019, 12:27:10 AM
Once more the car treated me good, no issues. Well... some things to improve on- discovered that the helmet/HANS doesn't allow my head to tip enough to see harness buckle, and a few other inconvenient items.
Tenth-mile speed was 85.3 MPH @ 7,100 RPM, which is getting closer to where I want to test the engine.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: RidgeRunner on August 28, 2019, 05:25:50 AM
    Noise without expensive breakage is always great  :cheers:

                     Ed
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on September 18, 2019, 12:26:38 AM
I'll get in one more tenth-mile run Sep 29th, with enough gearing to hopefully see 8,000+ RPM. I've only worked on some improvements to ease maintenance (oil drain/refill access with body in place, etc.) and moved the trailer axle back 1' to have some tongue weight (loading the car backwards was a pain).
If all goes well with successively faster engine speeds, I hope to get to a paved LSR venue next summer. Ideally, I could do some aero stuff over the winter- a "blister" over the big blower, etc.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on September 29, 2019, 09:16:01 PM
Survived another dragstrip outing without damage. Had to abort the first run due to wheelspin- which was unexpected, since I had only increased gearing about 12%. So on the second run I stayed away from full-throttle too long- only 7,250 RPM at the tenth-of-a-mile.
No more running this year, but I'm anxious to get to a landspeed track next season.
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: jacksoni on October 02, 2019, 06:55:58 AM
Nice going Jack- seeing light at the end of a long tunnel. Not the train coming either...... 8-)
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: bearingburner on October 02, 2019, 07:08:28 AM
Hope to see you at Loring next July.
                         
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: ronnieroadster on October 02, 2019, 08:35:50 PM
Survived another dragstrip outing without damage. Had to abort the first run due to wheelspin- which was unexpected, since I had only increased gearing about 12%. So on the second run I stayed away from full-throttle too long- only 7,250 RPM at the tenth-of-a-mile.
No more running this year, but I'm anxious to get to a landspeed track next season.



   For my first runs in my car 10 years ago when it was configured as a Lakester everyone back at ECTA Maxton at the time said for the first runs ever on my car head to Loring. Im glad I did not only was the inspection experience a pleasure as well as the bail out sign off for the log book the track was a pleasure to run on.  And if needed the test runway was helpful at times also. You should consider heading to the LTA event in July at Loring you will be glad you did.
 Ronnieroadster
Title: Re: Inline-four crankshaft
Post by: Jack Gifford on October 02, 2019, 10:50:44 PM
Yeah, I'm certainly considering the Loring July event. I believe I'm in pretty good shape for the inspection.
I hope to get my fire systems changed from foam to FE-36 this winter- I hate the thought of trying to exit the cramped cockpit if it were full of slippery foam.

Late note: Wow- don't know how I missed it, but rules (both SCTA & LTA) REQUIRE(!!) a Halon-like agent in the driver's compartment. I'm glad I was planning to change it this winter anyway. Bottle is on its way to FireFox to be filled with Halotron-1.