Coach me. N/A build. 200 bhp? Engine rebuild required. +T go home.

John V said:

And just because a person spends the time ---and a huge pile of money--- to reduce the rod journals from 54mm down to 45mm, and uses stock cast pistons, that's is supposed to yield 200 hp?

That IS the subject here ya know.

Per dollar spent, stroking a motor is about the poorest return on investment...And for such a modest goal of merely 200 bhp, it is pretty poor advice...


What do crank shops in BC charge for grinding 010 off a crank?
I cannot begin to imagine what they would charge to grind off .354" but likely a huge pile of cash....

Click to expand...

$150 to grind the crank
it made 185whp on e85.

Poik said:

Your "advanced dynamics" problem is ONE equation. It's not difficult. It doesn't take 40 hours to decipher, it's not black magic, it's basic geometry. It takes 2 minutes with a pen and paper.

PistonDistanceFromCrank = (80mm)*sind(90-CrankAngle) + sqrt((145mm)^2-((80mm)*cosd(90-CrankAngle)).^2)

I feel like I shouldn't have to say this, but you actually might need it, so: piston speed is the derivative of distance. You want to find the force in the connecting rod? F=ma. Guess what! You have the mass! Guess what else! Acceleration is the derivative of speed! OH MY GOD. I just did your 40 hours of math in 5 minutes. I know, I know, it's a lot to grasp at first, so maybe you should stick to your day job.

Click to expand...

So, what is the derivative of acceleration? Don't know? I'll give you a hint, you have been acting like one in this thread. Just yanking your chain.

poulson01 said:

RSI flow (claimed as per post #1) 221cfm intake @ 28" and ? lift.

B234f head flow (claimed as per Ford guys ) 210cfm intake @ 28?. and 430" lift.

Click to expand...

Mueller said:

No mention of valve lift with those CFM numbers, that might be a little important in this discussion.

Click to expand...

OK. So update...Today I searched around for a shop that operates on my island equipped to check specs on my head. There's only one and he's booked up with work for at least a month. So hopefully RSI can provide me all that I need to know in that respect. However I'm in no desperate rush either, fortunately.

Redwood Chair said:

How stock does a fast B230 piston support at 7500 rpm?

Click to expand...

i have seen a NA 8V-B250(penta crank)redblock deliver 235HP@7350rpm/ 300+Nm@ somewhere about 4750-4800rpm. 95-97hp/L on pumpgas (RON98)
That engine was by no means cheap and it sure as hell wasn't stock. In fact i think nothing was left stock

But it was still useable on the street (rally spec = acceptable idle + useable lowrange + super-bitchin' midrange + very good top end.)

i suppose you could get 100+HP/L from an 8V redblock but would it still be useable? I doubt it.

if that same approach would have been used on a 16V engine it would have easily made over 100hp/L (think BMW S14 or Ford BDA) and still be useable on the street.

JE Jr said:

In the standard rallying class in Sweden where 240/740/940 competes, they use stock B230FB-engines (LH2.4 & 531) , but blueprinted, and reach upto 170metric horsepowers. Revlimiter is normally at 7000rpm. These pistons (often B230E-variant 96.6mm bore) holds up just fine to that task as far as i know!

Camshaft is H-grind, No headwork except 0.5mm shaving and free shape on the valve seat inserts (ok, you're also allowed to sand blast the ports for ~8 seconds, but...).

Of course these guys making these power numbers has learnt what counts and what not to get those high numbers from the stock engine. But 30 extra hp with no regulation limitations shouldn't be impossible...

Click to expand...

Volvo Original Cup is a nice class but GruppH is more like what we wish for and aim at here..

I've posted this many time before but it is appropriate in this thread...It is from 1992 or 1993
(and in the first page they say "20 hp more" for VOC cars " om jobbet g?rs r?tt" )
(Sorry for the size but I wanted the text clear)



Title says "It pays to 'sharpen' the Volvo

Now look at the times---OP is in Canada so km/hr is good. Stock, VOC and typical club car 20 years or so ago.




While all you guys are busy waving you whangers over motors you guys have never built, maybe the OP can look this over and discuss it...Maybe some of you guys can get a room, you guys are really just made for each other.

A little note...most of the old rally motors from this era did the max hp at somewhere right around 7000 rpm...It is absurd to suggest that 7000 rpm is some big deal...As long as water temp, oil temp and oil pressure is good, 7000 is no big deal.
The OP has no intention of doing 7000 for minutes on end..

man, what a typical thread. sadly.

Janspeed said:

i have seen a NA 8V-B250(penta crank)redblock deliver 235HP@7350rpm/ 300+Nm@ somewhere about 4750-4800rpm. 95-97hp/L on pumpgas (RON98)
That engine was by no means cheap and it sure as hell wasn't stock. In fact i think nothing was left stock

But it was still useable on the street (rally spec = acceptable idle + useable lowrange + super-bitchin' midrange + very good top end.)

i suppose you could get 100+HP/L from an 8V redblock but would it still be useable? I doubt it.

if that same approach would have been used on a 16V engine it would have easily made over 100hp/L (think BMW S14 or Ford BDA) and still be useable on the street.

Click to expand...

230 with an 8v head on a 2300 is very "useable' ---rally cars do far more KM on transits than they do on SSs and transits are open public roads...

The same sort of work (compression and serious "fun" cams) with 16v would make 240-250 fairly easily...look at Topplockverkan page for some seriously reworked heads where they are flowing air good for low 300s n.a. power...waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of any turbobricker budget.

John V said:

Volvo Original Cup is a nice class but GruppH is more like what we wish for and aim at here..


A little note...most of the old rally motors from this era did the max hp at somewhere right around 7000 rpm...It is absurd to suggest that 7000 rpm is some big deal...As long as water temp, oil temp and oil pressure is good, 7000 is no big deal.
The OP has no intention of doing 7000 for minutes on end..

Click to expand...

^

I had a B20 spinning 8K once and it was fine.

7400 hurt something in my B21, but it was up that high for about 20 seconds.
Maybe it was the 275k miles, maybe it was the abuse, but it's dead as ****.
It didn't have any major failure, just dropped a valve. I'm sure with a proper valve train and some light internals it could do that and love just fine for the short sustained periods of normal use.

A 7000 rpm limit with a K-cam dropped two valves on my b230f+t

RSI economy springs and titanium retainers with the stage3 cam, no issues. Probably 50 passes at the track, and loads of stoplight and highway pulls to redline

I tried to kill the beater many times.
315,000 mikes, K grind and Isky springs.
7000+RPM clutch dumps and missed shifts due to the detachable shifter knob etc.
Never skipped a beat.
I'd guess no more then 120 HP though.

[/URL][/IMG]

2manyturbos said:

Like I said, a snap shot. That gives you one tiny piece of the data required. Sorry, but that one simple equation is not goin to net you anything but a snap shot of what is happening at a particular instant. Incredibly lame.

Click to expand...

Excuse me? What do you suggest we do, Mr. Expert? Do we include the combustion temperatures and the CTE of the block, piston, rod, and crankshaft? Do we provide stiffness matrices for those components to calculate the deflection under the loading at that instant? Do we include the effects of gravity in the model? Do we include the effects of gravity of the moon? Of Jupiter?

Over complicating a model in order to produce results that are exactly the same in the range of error you are looking at is a complete waste of time.

2manyturbos said:

I'm attempting to make a very relevant point that is flying right over Poik's head. The loads go up exponentially relative to RPM. That's it. No amount of hand waving is going to change that. Experimentation will prove whether it is up to the task. IOW, build it, test it, refine the build.

Click to expand...

Trust me, it's not flying over my head. I am completely familiar with the relationship between engine speed and the force in the rod, and I never said anything that would suggest I did not think the forces increased with engine speed. The fact that you think "centrifugal force" is responsible for the force in the connecting rod is absolutely laughable, and shows your complete lack of understanding of a high school level physics problem.

RvolvoR said:

$150 to grind the crank
it made 185whp on e85.

Click to expand...

Oh what's the name of the crank shop in BC that will charge $150 to take off 9mm...
That was the question...
I've seen some photos of some poor bastids that listened to this advice years ago before there were affordably priced rods for Volvos and I have to say it was a real butcher job...there was nothing at all resembling a fillet radius in the journal... He was up to that point happy with the motor but then realised what a time bomb he had...But like whatever, seems like the normal precautions that apply to most people when working with steel and iron are all like optional for a lotta you guys. everybody else are probably all being stupid when they don't leave sharp corners in stressed areas..

Like everything else, clearly you're much smarter... In fact it seems that Oregon has the smartest Volvo engine builders in the whole world..

It's so flying over your head it is laughable. Do you think the rod itself follows a circular path? If not, you missed it. The crank itself is easily analyzed by the "centrifugal force" equation. Did it ever occur to you that the big end of the rod is following a circular path while the small end is doing a linear motion. What do you think happens when the rod reaches the end of its stroke with the piston at TDC? Is it somehow modeled separately, or is it part of the crank assembly when you are considering the equation F=MW^2R? I think conceptually, you are at the high school Physics level. Looking at what you posted, it appears you simply have the trig relationship which describes piston motion relative to crank position. That may have taken you 5 minutes to look up that version of the relationship. Without the corresponding diagram and key to your variables, I'm going to have to guess you have it right. That one equation won't net s**t as far as what we're after. The load in the rod. Even after taking the derivative, all you have is the velocity of the piston. After taking the derivative of the velocity, all we have is the acceleration of the piston. Now, with that, we can get load on the wrist pin by making the assumption that it is what has to accelerate and decelerate the piston. What don't we know from that entire drill? How about the relationship between the rod itself and the piston? That lies way outside what that one simple equation will net us. You can't model the rod as massless. Sorry, that's high school level Physics. They let you do crap like that because the instructor knows it's way above your comprehension level. The fact that the rod is being accelerated by the crank doesn't even get take into consideration using your 5 minute "GENIUS" formula. So what should we leave out, according to you? The mass of the rod? The acceleration of the rod? Remember that whole F=MA bit? Remember the triangle formula you used to describe the piston position? It also applies to the relationship of the rod itself and the load it sees based on the angle it is running relative to the path the piston pin is following. Notice, nowhere in the single equation you presented as the solution to this problem does it address this? I think you better go back and review your dynamics. The actual solution to this problem is WAY more complicated than you comprehend.

Take a look at the piston motion equations on Wikipedia. They get pretty messy. All they net is the piston acceleration, nothing more. Care to add to this, or are you done BSing about how easy it is to analyze? I guess my joke flew right over your head too. You didn't respond. Look it up. It applies to you even more so after your last post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piston_motion_equations

Poik said:

Excuse me? What do you suggest we do, Mr. Expert? Do we include the combustion temperatures and the CTE of the block, piston, rod, and crankshaft? Do we provide stiffness matrices for those components to calculate the deflection under the loading at that instant? Do we include the effects of gravity in the model? Do we include the effects of gravity of the moon? Of Jupiter?

Over complicating a model in order to produce results that are exactly the same in the range of error you are looking at is a complete waste of time.


Trust me, it's not flying over my head. I am completely familiar with the relationship between engine speed and the force in the rod, and I never said anything that would suggest I did not think the forces increased with engine speed. The fact that you think "centrifugal force" is responsible for the force in the connecting rod is absolutely laughable, and shows your complete lack of understanding of a high school level physics problem.

Click to expand...

While I am enjoying seeing you demonstrate the arrogance and poor thinking of one of the more obnoxious and offensive people around this place--Oh, yeah-PM me if you want to see some hilarious PMs full of ranting and swearing at me from our favorite fellow--classic!---you've written enough put down stuff which ya know you could have just gone ahead and plugged in some weights and velocities and done the side by side thing I was and have been suggesting.. Come on you're getting real close to that dreaded "central casting Injur-near"........

Come on, its a good subject and I think it could be worth some thinking and punchin in some numbers..
And truth is it may not be as dead simple as you think....that's because there question really needs clarifying as to just what exactly we are trying to compare and then contrast...
The answers may be for you high school level physics....but what's the question exactly...

Ignore toomuchhotair and let's look at quantifying the differences between a theoretical B23T OEM rod and piston/pin and a theoretical just say +15mm rod, -15mm piston and pin..
Other people are interested.

John V said:

While I am enjoying seeing you demonstrate the arrogance and poor thinking of one of the more obnoxious and offensive people around this place--Oh, yeah-PM me if you want to see some hilarious PMs full of ranting and swearing at me from our favorite fellow--classic!---you've written enough put down stuff which ya know you could have just gone ahead and plugged in some weights and velocities and done the side by side thing I was and have been suggesting.. Come on you're getting real close to that dreaded "central casting Injur-near"........

Come on, its a good subject and I think it could be worth some thinking and punchin in some numbers..
And truth is it may not be as dead simple as you think....that's because there question really needs clarifying as to just what exactly we are trying to compare and then contrast...
The answers may be for you high school level physics....but what's the question exactly...

Ignore toomuchhotair and let's look at quantifying the differences between a theoretical B23T OEM rod and piston/pin and a theoretical just say +15mm rod, -15mm piston and pin..
Other people are interested.

Click to expand...

The ignorant masses have spoken. I'm sure you have plenty of brilliant math to help us get to the solution, right John? Not. Your clueless sidekick doesn't either. He is still at the high school Physics level where you analyze everything using statics, not dymamics relationships. That's why the equation he posted seems valid to you. You may not have made it though high school for all we know. That's why it not only has to have another major component to the math that is missing, it needs to be in spread sheet form so that thing like rod length, stroke, rod mass, piston mass can be varied easily. That would take some time. None of which I'm willing to put in. If Poik wants to use his engineering education to take it further and figure out what is missing, finish the relationship and get a model that works at every instance, no discontinuities, great. It isn't there yet.

John V said:

Oh what's the name of the crank shop in BC that will charge $150 to take off 9mm...
That was the question...
I've seen some photos of some poor bastids that listened to this advice years ago before there were affordably priced rods for Volvos and I have to say it was a real butcher job...there was nothing at all resembling a fillet radius in the journal... He was up to that point happy with the motor but then realised what a time bomb he had...But like whatever, seems like the normal precautions that apply to most people when working with steel and iron are all like optional for a lotta you guys. everybody else are probably all being stupid when they don't leave sharp corners in stressed areas..

Like everything else, clearly you're much smarter... In fact it seems that Oregon has the smartest Volvo engine builders in the whole world..

Click to expand...

I dont exactly know complete details, but I know rough costs and how much power it made for decently cheap. OP asked, he received. now back to your theories while the rest of us talk about things that have already happened.

RvolvoR said:

I dont exactly know complete details, but I know rough costs and how much power it made for decently cheap. OP asked, he received. now back to your theories while the rest of us talk about things that have already happened.

Click to expand...

Fail again. God you are a snitty-snotty person.

You said 150 to offset grind. Since here in this area it is at least $130 for an ordinary grind at a respectable crank shop, your claim of $150 sound like most of what you post---BullsH1t.
Or a lie.

Or just your normal blabbering---you "don't know exact details".. Then shut the **** up.

No matter. But machine shops work by hours, maybe you don't know that so maybe you can't fathom that the time to grind away 9mm is a lot more than the time to grind 0,25mm

Somehow I don't see machine shops in Victoria charging less than around here.

Whatever, it was dumb idea a long time ago and a pointless idea now---and nothing worth this guy thinking about---

2manyturbos said:

The ignorant masses have spoken. I'm sure you have plenty of brilliant math to help us get to the solution, right John? Not. Your clueless sidekick doesn't either. He is still at the high school Physics level where you analyze everything using statics, not dymamics relationships. That's why the equation he posted seems valid to you. You may not have made it though high school for all we know. That's why it not only has to have another major component to the math that is missing, it needs to be in spread sheet form so that thing like rod length, stroke, rod mass, piston mass can be varied easily. That would take some time. None of which I'm willing to put in. If Poik wants to use his engineering education to take it further and figure out what is missing, finish the relationship and get a model that works at every instance, no discontinuities, great. It isn't there yet.

Click to expand...

Then you tell us oh masterful engine designer....
Oh wait, are you just a wrench spinner in some little shop on some wide spot in the road???
whatever, tell us everything compare. contrast..
You know all the weights of course and dimensions...

Oh you can't take the time do do the math--well then sharpen the questions.

John V said:

Fail again. God you are a snitty-snotty person.

You said 150 to offset grind. Since here in this area it is at least $130 for an ordinary grind at a respectable crank shop, your claim of $150 sound like most of what you post---BullsH1t.
Or a lie.

Or just your normal blabbering---you "don't know exact details".. Then shut the **** up.

No matter. But machine shops work by hours, maybe you don't know that so maybe you can't fathom that the time to grind away 9mm is a lot more than the time to grind 0,25mm

Somehow I don't see machine shops in Victoria charging less than around here.

Whatever, it was dumb idea a long time ago and a pointless idea now---and nothing worth this guy thinking about---

Click to expand...

yup, doesn't work, didnt happen...youre right.

.