Author Topic: Milwaukee Midget  (Read 3294746 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lsrjunkie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 922
Re: Milwaukee Midget
« Reply #2535 on: May 10, 2013, 04:33:02 PM »
I'm holding out on the pay off!  :evil: I'm sure you boys can get a few more ponies! Keep us posted!
Maybe there is no Heaven. Or maybe this is all pure gibberish. The product of a demented hill billy who has found a way to live out where the winds blow. To sleep late, have fun, drink whiskey, and drive fast on empty streets with nothing in mind except falling in love or getting arrested.    H.S. Thompson

Offline Andy Cooke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
Re: Milwaukee Midget
« Reply #2536 on: May 10, 2013, 08:15:49 PM »
did you rev it any higher?  it looks like it's taking a rest before laying down a big number at 10K  :-D

Offline Milwaukee Midget

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6663
    • Milwaukee Midget Racing
Re: Milwaukee Midget
« Reply #2537 on: May 11, 2013, 12:40:55 AM »
did you rev it any higher?  it looks like it's taking a rest before laying down a big number at 10K  :-D

Good hearing from you, Andy.

I've downloaded the software to read the files, but have had no success in opening any of them.  Computer illiteracy in a strange domain - I'll eventually figure it out.

There were a few pulls that indicated that peak might be above where we stopped.

I doubt it would go quite to 10 without letting me know its displeasure, but between 7800 and 8000 is where we need to tune for peak.  I've buzzed it up to 9000 in the past, and after it's broken in a little bit, I'll feel comfortable doing that again, but I'm a bit nervous about the valve train at this point.  Been bitten by that one.

When we go back, first order of business will be checking valve lash and making sure that the valve train is staying glued together.  I've also got a new oil filter I want to put on - I'm pretty sure this one has more than its fair share of assembly lube and RTV shavings in it at this point.

According to Mark, who has reviewed all the files, best torque was 71.3 @ 5400.  BMEP was 176.3, but that was not on the same run with best HP.  That we need to work on, and will be largely a function of intake length.  It's a double dip torque graph I recall seeing - and as soon as I figure out how to post this stuff - well, trust me, I want it out there.  I recall it being flatter than I expected it to be, given the short stroke, but I don't have a lot of experience.  I've got a shorty intake manifold we haven't tried, which may be promising, because when we put the short stacks on, we picked up 2 HP.  

Header was a surprise - we started out with my elcheapo Peco street header, and it outperformed the Maniflow 3-into-one.  We've got a LCB we want to test, but if I had to race tomorrow, the Peco would be the choice.

We started out at 28 degrees advance, and after we got the replacement carb in place and somewhat dialed, we kept bumping the advance until we got to 36.  Indications are that 36 is about right, but I can trim the center two cylinders with respect to the outside ones to maximize for the uneven intake distribution that the shared ports give us.

I recall one run where we had a dip in the curve at about 6500 - right where the knock sensor was programmed to disengage.  A second run with the knock sensor deactivated showed no difference.

I think we can drop the oil pressure - it was around 90 PSI hot at 8000 RPM.  We've got good flow and clearances, and after we've established we're not hurting anything, pulling that back a few will probably unleash another horse - maybe two.

These are some of the variables we are working with and have at our disposal.  Each change either points to, dictates or eliminates a direction.

It's becoming the best damned education I've ever had.

Thanks to all who have contributed to the "DYNOTHON"!  I'll compile a list of how that's breaking down on the corresponding thread, but I know that Jon and Nancy appreciate your generosity toward keeping this site up and running.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 12:08:56 PM by Milwaukee Midget »
"Problems are almost always a sign of progress."  Harold Bettes
Well, I guess we're making a LOT of progress . . .  :roll:

Offline Milwaukee Midget

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6663
    • Milwaukee Midget Racing
Re: Milwaukee Midget
« Reply #2538 on: May 11, 2013, 12:53:17 AM »
One other variable we need to address - we were at 1.5 vac at 8000 rpm.  A bigger set of chokes are in order, I suspect.
"Problems are almost always a sign of progress."  Harold Bettes
Well, I guess we're making a LOT of progress . . .  :roll:

Offline AJR192

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
Re: Milwaukee Midget
« Reply #2539 on: May 11, 2013, 10:33:50 AM »
10 PSI per 1000 RPM's is Mellings recommendation. You are pretty close now.

Offline Milwaukee Midget

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6663
    • Milwaukee Midget Racing
Re: Milwaukee Midget
« Reply #2540 on: May 11, 2013, 12:01:44 PM »
10 PSI per 1000 RPM's is Mellings recommendation. You are pretty close now.

Cold, we were pulling 80 psi on the starter motor.

Fordboy is a fan of the 10 per 1000 recommendation.  Conversely, Vizard suggests, at least for the A-series, that 60-65 provides the same protection, and can decrease oil temp.  We've increased the size of the oil passages and plugged off the internal oiling on the cam - plenty of oil shoots up from the crank, and the cam was drawing from the center main - already responsible for 2 rod ends. 

We're slinging a bit of oil off of the rear main onto the flywheel - nothing major, and a common problem on these things with their inverted screw oil retention system.

Tom at T & T suggested a lighter viscosity - I'm breaking in on 10-W40.

More variables - more options.

For the time being, I'll leave well enough alone, but I'm thinking I might find a pony by simply loosening up the adjuster a tad.

One thing is for sure - it's running now!
"Problems are almost always a sign of progress."  Harold Bettes
Well, I guess we're making a LOT of progress . . .  :roll:

Offline Stan Back

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5896
Re: Milwaukee Midget
« Reply #2541 on: May 11, 2013, 01:20:24 PM »
What would a "stock" 996 produce?
Past (Only) Member of the San Berdoo Roadsters -- "California's Most-Exclusive Roadster Club"

Offline 38flattie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2169
    • http://www.flatcadracing.org/
Re: Milwaukee Midget
« Reply #2542 on: May 11, 2013, 01:32:59 PM »
Chris, nice job! You'll get those extra ponies next time! :cheers:

See you next week!
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. -- RFC 1925

You can't make a race horse out of a pig. But if you work hard enough at it you can make a mighty fast pig. - Bob Akin

http://www.flatcadracing.org/
http://youtu.be/89rVb497_4c

Offline Milwaukee Midget

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6663
    • Milwaukee Midget Racing
Re: Milwaukee Midget
« Reply #2543 on: May 11, 2013, 01:41:55 PM »
What would a "stock" 996 produce?

Well, they never made a 996 - but this is essentially a bored out 970 Cooper S configuration.  65 is the DIN HP number often bandied about - probably a tad less BHP.
"Problems are almost always a sign of progress."  Harold Bettes
Well, I guess we're making a LOT of progress . . .  :roll:

Offline Rex Schimmer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2638
  • Only time and money prevent completion!
Re: Milwaukee Midget
« Reply #2544 on: May 11, 2013, 04:03:14 PM »
Chris,
Backing off on the oil pressure by 20-30 psi will not get you much HP increase. The formula for the hp to drive an oil pump is: HP= (GPM)x(Pressure)/(1714)x(pump efficiency) so if your pump is 10 gpm and your pump is 65% eff. which is pretty typical for a gear pump then the HP to drive it at 90 psi is: .8 horse power and going to 60 psi is .54 hp so you are only gaining about .25 hp.  Going to a thinner oil from the pumps stand point will reduce the pump efficiency and increase the oil temp. From this you can see that pump efficiency is pretty important and with a gear pump that efficiency is pretty much determined by the amount of "slippage" that the pump has, that is the amount of oil that leaks from the high pressure side of the pump back to the low pressure side ( pump inlet). If the pump efficiency drops below 50% i.e. the outlet flow is less than the internal leakage then it is on its way to self destruction. As the amount of pump slippage is proportional the pressure (it is not a linear proportional rate) going to a lower pressure may increase your pump efficiency which is good so you may pick up more than my estimated .25 hp but not much.

Congrats on the dyno pulls but I am also waiting for your final pulls before I write the check.

Rex
Rex

Not much matters and the rest doesn't matter at all.

Offline Milwaukee Midget

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6663
    • Milwaukee Midget Racing
Re: Milwaukee Midget
« Reply #2545 on: May 11, 2013, 04:49:52 PM »
Chris,
Backing off on the oil pressure by 20-30 psi will not get you much HP increase. The formula for the hp to drive an oil pump is: HP= (GPM)x(Pressure)/(1714)x(pump efficiency) so if your pump is 10 gpm and your pump is 65% eff. which is pretty typical for a gear pump then the HP to drive it at 90 psi is: .8 horse power and going to 60 psi is .54 hp so you are only gaining about .25 hp.  Going to a thinner oil from the pumps stand point will reduce the pump efficiency and increase the oil temp. From this you can see that pump efficiency is pretty important and with a gear pump that efficiency is pretty much determined by the amount of "slippage" that the pump has, that is the amount of oil that leaks from the high pressure side of the pump back to the low pressure side ( pump inlet). If the pump efficiency drops below 50% i.e. the outlet flow is less than the internal leakage then it is on its way to self destruction. As the amount of pump slippage is proportional the pressure (it is not a linear proportional rate) going to a lower pressure may increase your pump efficiency which is good so you may pick up more than my estimated .25 hp but not much.

Congrats on the dyno pulls but I am also waiting for your final pulls before I write the check.

Rex

Rex, thanks, and we intend to reward your patience with a bigger dent in your wallet.  :wink:

You're very good at explaining what I intuitively thought but sometimes lack the technical lexicon to explain.

It's tough to find precisely what the flow numbers are for these pumps.  They drive straight off of the back of the cam.  The one I have is considered the "large capacity" pump that is used in the turbo MG Metro that they sold in Europe in the early 1980's.  Additionally, the pump also provides oil for the transaxle in the Metro, and I think it's the same pump that they used in the automatic version of the Mini.  Allegedly, it provides 20% more flow than a stock unit, but 20% more than what is the question that remains unanswered.

I won't do anything foolish to hurt reliability, but as to 1/4 horse, well let's put that into perspective.  On a LT-1, .25 HP isn't worth switching brands of gasoline for.  We've probably already achieved the big gains at this point, but if this development continues like I think it might, in a couple of weeks, .25hp might start to look like low hanging fruit.

If it changes, it will be the last thing we do - hopefully for better, and not for worse.   :-D
"Problems are almost always a sign of progress."  Harold Bettes
Well, I guess we're making a LOT of progress . . .  :roll:

Offline Andy Cooke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
Re: Milwaukee Midget
« Reply #2546 on: May 11, 2013, 09:59:06 PM »
Hi Chris :)

I don't like to correct you, but the metro pump only supplied the engine, just as in the mini.

I forget now, what size venturi do you run? 


Offline Milwaukee Midget

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6663
    • Milwaukee Midget Racing
Re: Milwaukee Midget
« Reply #2547 on: May 11, 2013, 11:22:31 PM »
Hi Chris :)

I don't like to correct you, but the metro pump only supplied the engine, just as in the mini.

I forget now, what size venturi do you run? 



But from there, doesn't it just rain down on the transmission?  Perhaps I misspoke, or missed something, but I thought that pump provided oil for the whole drive unit.  I didn't think the transaxle was a pressurized oil system. 

If I'm wrong, I'll own it - it's my chief method for getting smarter!  :-D

This is the link I was thinking about regarding the automatic mini . . .

http://home.earthlink.net/~roygmisc1/convert1/convert1.html

So simple - so confusing . . .

The carbs a 45 DCOE, set up with 38 mm chokes, but we swapped in a 48 w/ 38 chokes - my 45 was malfunctioning.
"Problems are almost always a sign of progress."  Harold Bettes
Well, I guess we're making a LOT of progress . . .  :roll:

Offline Andy Cooke

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
Re: Milwaukee Midget
« Reply #2548 on: May 12, 2013, 07:22:47 AM »
I don't know anything about the automatic transmission, but that certainly looks to be supplied by the pump.  The manual transmission is best described as being a really deep sump full of gears, nothing pressure fed.

38mm venturi sounds plenty big on the face of it, but the numbers don't lie.  How does the altitude at Bonneville change the venturi requirement?  We don't have altitude here  :-D

Offline Milwaukee Midget

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6663
    • Milwaukee Midget Racing
Re: Milwaukee Midget
« Reply #2549 on: May 12, 2013, 10:45:40 AM »
How does the altitude at Bonneville change the venturi requirement? 

Good question.  I don't know if the venturi size should remain constant and jets, bleeds, and emulsion tubes adjusted for altitude, or if the best combination at 4,400 feet might include a venturi change.

Gosh, I just woke up, and now I have to think . . .  :|
"Problems are almost always a sign of progress."  Harold Bettes
Well, I guess we're making a LOT of progress . . .  :roll: