GT2560R / GT28R any one fitted or used them??
26-01-2011, 04:41 PM
#81
Lol, just opinion Perry, im not THAT worried, i want a wide power band, more than i want low down power, 5-9000rpm would be fine.... some how i don't think my little bottom end will cope very well with that! so 3-6500 is fine by me.
Your talking about VE mate, the head and inlet tract plays a large role, but so do a lot of other things, cam profiles, exhaust housings etc also play a major role.
Your 2.5 duratec isn't really a good example. That still makes bags of low down torque, so its always going to be nice to drive regardless of where peak power is.....
Personal preference at the end of the day, Im just not chasing figures.
lol
I'll tell you what Perry, when your engine is built we can compare dyno graphs, i think that would be the clearest example of a decent head vs my DIY attempt. You should start a build thread, would make for an interesting read!!!
Rob,
Your talking about VE mate, the head and inlet tract plays a large role, but so do a lot of other things, cam profiles, exhaust housings etc also play a major role.
Your 2.5 duratec isn't really a good example. That still makes bags of low down torque, so its always going to be nice to drive regardless of where peak power is.....
Personal preference at the end of the day, Im just not chasing figures.
Why not put a diesel engine in the car then?
I'll tell you what Perry, when your engine is built we can compare dyno graphs, i think that would be the clearest example of a decent head vs my DIY attempt. You should start a build thread, would make for an interesting read!!!
Rob,
Last edited by Rob_DOHC; 26-01-2011 at 04:57 PM.
26-01-2011, 04:49 PM
#82
The only reason i mentioned it mate was because 200 brake on a relatively standard engine minus cam and a stage 2 turbo is pretty common place.... what other differences are there bar your head (and a shiny new engine
)? don't get me wrong, 30 brake is a fuck lot lol, it was more to show that 80 brake @ 1bar is a bit of a tall order with just a head change.
Karlos - What cam do you run?
Rob - The pics of your head (in other thread) do look awesome, and i wish i had the patients of you to acheive that sort of work/finish. Yours is a car im very keen to follow, progress wise - best of luck to you!
Canada - I don't think people want max power at 2k rpm, just as much power as poss to ensure a good turbo response time and smooth power curve to retain as much driveability as poss. I didnt realise head work was what restricted the CVH, it's something i'll def look into on my own engine!
Rob - The pics of your head (in other thread) do look awesome, and i wish i had the patients of you to acheive that sort of work/finish. Yours is a car im very keen to follow, progress wise - best of luck to you!
Canada - I don't think people want max power at 2k rpm, just as much power as poss to ensure a good turbo response time and smooth power curve to retain as much driveability as poss. I didnt realise head work was what restricted the CVH, it's something i'll def look into on my own engine!
thats kind of you to say, if im honest im fully prepared for the head to be a shit waste of time, i just wanted to give it a go, trouble is i won't know until i hit the dyno 
probably would have been easier to get a pro to do it! By the sounds of it, if Canada1 was closer i would have paid him to do it! Rob,
Last edited by Rob_DOHC; 26-01-2011 at 05:00 PM.
26-01-2011, 04:56 PM
#83
The Newman's RST CVH cam mate, Robs work does look good he has copied work from very good heads so I think he will see good results.
Nobody wants to wait until 4000rpm for boost because the CVH doesn't like sustained high RPM's, it generates a lot of heat and with our poor cam and lube situation will chew through a cam in no time, also rockers studs like to exit the head at high RPM's and of course general engine wear will be greatly accelerated if you have to spend all your time 4000rpm+, a nice 2500-6000rpm power band is ideal for a road going RST IMO, this is what I aimed for and what I have got and I cant fault it.
For reference I still make 220bhp @ 6600rpm so thats only a drop of 11bhp, not bad for a .36 housing.
Nobody wants to wait until 4000rpm for boost because the CVH doesn't like sustained high RPM's, it generates a lot of heat and with our poor cam and lube situation will chew through a cam in no time, also rockers studs like to exit the head at high RPM's and of course general engine wear will be greatly accelerated if you have to spend all your time 4000rpm+, a nice 2500-6000rpm power band is ideal for a road going RST IMO, this is what I aimed for and what I have got and I cant fault it.
For reference I still make 220bhp @ 6600rpm so thats only a drop of 11bhp, not bad for a .36 housing.
Sound like we both have a similar wish list! maybe you need to take me for a spin in yours to convince me to stick with the stage 2!!!
Rob,
26-01-2011, 05:07 PM
#84
Not sure, guess we will see, i think a decent cam would give a 10 brake advantage over a standard cam, and if nothing else stop power tailing off quite so badly, The only advantage i can see efi having (in terms of power) is the ability to more accurately control ignition advance, probably makes more difference before peak power? apart from being able to fuel more... I was running out of head room on the mfi @ 185. I think at one point we saw 190 but backed out boost and advance slightly (this was also on 95 octain).
The only reason i mentioned it mate was because 200 brake on a relatively standard engine minus cam and a stage 2 turbo is pretty common place.... what other differences are there bar your head (and a shiny new engine )? don't get me wrong, 30 brake is a fuck lot lol, it was more to show that 80 brake @ 1bar is a bit of a tall order with just a head change.
Cheers mate thats kind of you to say, if im honest im fully prepared for the head to be a shit waste of time, i just wanted to give it a go, trouble is i won't know until i hit the dyno probably would have been easier to get a pro to do it! By the sounds of it, if Canada1 was closer i would have paid him to do it!
Rob,
The only reason i mentioned it mate was because 200 brake on a relatively standard engine minus cam and a stage 2 turbo is pretty common place.... what other differences are there bar your head (and a shiny new engine
)? don't get me wrong, 30 brake is a fuck lot lol, it was more to show that 80 brake @ 1bar is a bit of a tall order with just a head change. Cheers mate
thats kind of you to say, if im honest im fully prepared for the head to be a shit waste of time, i just wanted to give it a go, trouble is i won't know until i hit the dyno probably would have been easier to get a pro to do it! By the sounds of it, if Canada1 was closer i would have paid him to do it! Rob,
Exactly, EFI will make for faster spooling and a better overall torque and power curve (more low down and midrange) but I dont think it makes that much difference at peek bhp.
I run 99RON and that allowed for an extra 5deg of advance which equates to a reasonable amount of BHP, never did a before and after so dont know an exact figure.
I agree 80bhp at 1bar is a lot for just head work... at around 250bhp no definately not, at 300bhp+.... maybe?!
It has to be 80bhp's worth of a restriction in the first place!
lol
26-01-2011, 05:10 PM
#85
Thats my next big worry, bloody rocker studs.... Im in two minds about whether to leave them, or to remove them and helicoil them as a preventative measure
Sound like we both have a similar wish list! maybe you need to take me for a spin in yours to convince me to stick with the stage 2!!!
Rob,
Sound like we both have a similar wish list! maybe you need to take me for a spin in yours to convince me to stick with the stage 2!!!
Rob,
We do have a very similair wish list Rob yes!
Feel free to come for a spin if your up my way, no problem at all mate!
26-01-2011, 06:15 PM
#86
Wahay!! I've lost my Virginity!!
I wanted to use the gt25 turbo on my previous rst as it would give me what I wanted from a turbo,quick spool up and 280bhp max output which is plenty for a fwd car.will need a custom manifold to fit it though,I was quoted 450 by the polish guy on here who makes the jamsport copies st/st with the gt25 flange.I thought that was pretty good and will be going that route when i buy my next rst as I have the bug again
26-01-2011, 06:44 PM
#87
15K+ Super Poster!!
My NMS headed CVH engine at 7.4:1 made 210bhp at 10psi, on Mfi, and it was very very rich - around 10:1. It only made 166ftlb. On the same day, same rollers, a friends car who's engine I built and had been setup by MSD ran 200hp at 18psi, but well over 200lb of torque. A good head is critical on a CVH, no question.
Rick
Rick
26-01-2011, 07:11 PM
#90
Good point! if i have a spare few hours after i've built the bottom end i think it might be worth it, for peace of mind!
Feel free to come for a spin if your up my way, no problem at all mate!
Rob,
26-01-2011, 07:41 PM
#93
PassionFord Post Whore!!
26-01-2011, 08:22 PM
#96
+/- 25bhp for RR inaccuracy of course, but if the VE of the engine was that good then it is possible, boost pressure is relative to the engines VE it's volume/flow as we know that counts.
4x4 T3 with 60 trim comp has a .48 yeah, so the same as running 10psi on a Stage 3 T3 or any T3 with a .48 housing?
4x4 T3 with 60 trim comp has a .48 yeah, so the same as running 10psi on a Stage 3 T3 or any T3 with a .48 housing?
Last edited by Karlos G; 26-01-2011 at 08:45 PM.
26-01-2011, 08:29 PM
#97
15K+ Super Poster!!
don't forget, it was done straight after a chipped car with big cooler did just shy of 200hp as a comparison at 18psi. I only made 166lb, due to the low boost, but it held it.
Rick
Rick
26-01-2011, 08:43 PM
#98
Yeah which means in reality about 185bhp as we all know a stock T3 cant flow for any more than around that, might sqeeze a bit more with 99RON fuel and EFI mapped well but not much.
Still an impressive figure Rick and does demonstrate the effectiveness of good headwork!
As does my own figure of 231bhp at 19psi, I imagine if I went .48 I would drop quite a few psi for the same power.
Still an impressive figure Rick and does demonstrate the effectiveness of good headwork!
As does my own figure of 231bhp at 19psi, I imagine if I went .48 I would drop quite a few psi for the same power.
26-01-2011, 09:27 PM
#101
PassionFord Post Whore!!
tbh i dont know, but in the end of 09 thats whats all it was running on a standard HEAD and the small exhaust housing and pulled 116.77mph terminals at the pod so around 300-310 imo. with a diy ported head bigger housing and 4psi more it pulled 123.55mph , it now runs about 6psi more and has done for 7 months.
26-01-2011, 09:36 PM
#102
A Zetec is so much better than a CVH, when I get some more money coming in I'm going to build one up for sure!
Not for more power but for greater reliability (no cam issues etc.) and economy, also if I'm honest I'd just like to build one because I havent yet!
lol
Not for more power but for greater reliability (no cam issues etc.) and economy, also if I'm honest I'd just like to build one because I havent yet!
lol
26-01-2011, 09:44 PM
#103
PassionFord Post Whore!!
but its the off boost torque that i like most .
i was only pointing out the gain in terminal speed for what had been changed that doesnt have the inacurracy of dynos lol.
26-01-2011, 09:57 PM
#104
Wahay!! I've lost my Virginity!!
well surely as it's a 2l then there would be more off boost torque.IMO a big power zt would be too much for a road car/daily driver.
I wanted to stay cvh in my previous rst and will do in my next one.going back to the original poster,have u decided what turbo you are going to get? I will be going for the gt25 decided that about 9 months ago
I wanted to stay cvh in my previous rst and will do in my next one.going back to the original poster,have u decided what turbo you are going to get? I will be going for the gt25 decided that about 9 months ago
26-01-2011, 10:35 PM
#105
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
we might have drifted off track here
The original question was about 250 to 280 hp 1.6 cvh.
A stage 2 T3 is out of the question - good cylinder head and camshaft or not.
Building a 250 to 280 hp cvh 1.6 with no turbo lag is impossible (unless nitrous oxide is used)
The 2000 to 6000 rpm powerband is unrealistic at the high output levels.
Now a 3500 to 6500 rpm powerband might just get a 1.6 to 250+ hp levels with
a half decent head and cam.
6500 rpm certainly isnt too high for the short stroke 1.6. The rocker studs pulling out is easily solved by using Timecerts.
Just my opinion of course.
The original question was about 250 to 280 hp 1.6 cvh.
A stage 2 T3 is out of the question - good cylinder head and camshaft or not.
Building a 250 to 280 hp cvh 1.6 with no turbo lag is impossible (unless nitrous oxide is used)
The 2000 to 6000 rpm powerband is unrealistic at the high output levels.
Now a 3500 to 6500 rpm powerband might just get a 1.6 to 250+ hp levels with
a half decent head and cam.
6500 rpm certainly isnt too high for the short stroke 1.6. The rocker studs pulling out is easily solved by using Timecerts.
Just my opinion of course.
27-01-2011, 10:09 AM
#106
What r the advantages of helicoiling the rocker studs? Also what are timeserts?
I don't think il b spending much time above 6k, my limiter is set at 6,200rpm and ive only brushed it once or twice wen on track, mind u that was NA.
The Zetec turbo's do seem to make awesome power/torque at relitively low boost levels and i'd love to build one for myself in the future.
Karlos how much agro was the newman cam to set-up, lifters wise? Removing the solid lifters allows for higher revs, doesnt it? So is the next restriction the rocker studs, rpm wise?
I don't think il b spending much time above 6k, my limiter is set at 6,200rpm and ive only brushed it once or twice wen on track, mind u that was NA.
The Zetec turbo's do seem to make awesome power/torque at relitively low boost levels and i'd love to build one for myself in the future.
Karlos how much agro was the newman cam to set-up, lifters wise? Removing the solid lifters allows for higher revs, doesnt it? So is the next restriction the rocker studs, rpm wise?
27-01-2011, 12:19 PM
#107
A helicoil is stronger than a thread cut into ali. I think timeserts are the same as a helicoil, probably a brand name across the water.
No doubt, ZT and mtx75 is the way to go! The only reason i didn't was for originality's sake.
Cant comment on how easy they were to set up, karlos will be able to help more there. I've had my hydraulic lifter up to 6500 with no problems, the main problems the cvh faces with high rpm surround the con rods, standard rods IMO should not be used above 6500rpm, rocker studs aren't really considered a 'restriction' but quite a few people have had problems with them.
Rob,
No doubt, ZT and mtx75 is the way to go! The only reason i didn't was for originality's sake.
Karlos how much agro was the newman cam to set-up, lifters wise? Removing the solid lifters allows for higher revs, doesnt it? So is the next restriction the rocker studs, rpm wise?
Rob,
27-01-2011, 03:05 PM
#108
Cam and lifters are easy to setup and allow for much higher revs if the rest of the engine is built for it, but they do take a little time to do thats all.
As Rob says stock Rods are not suited to sustained high rpm's, but yes many people have had rocker stud come out too.
As Rob says stock Rods are not suited to sustained high rpm's, but yes many people have had rocker stud come out too.
27-01-2011, 04:20 PM
#109
Ive never heard of the studs thats all... Ive heard afew ppl snapping rocker arms and cracking them.
Is it worth replacing the rods and leaving the standard pistons?
Karlos the newman cam is certainly worth a thought if i start to look for higher rpm!
Is it worth replacing the rods and leaving the standard pistons?
Karlos the newman cam is certainly worth a thought if i start to look for higher rpm!
27-01-2011, 04:35 PM
#110
Im using standard pistons and h-section rods. Apparently people have used them to over 300bhp so im fairly sure they're okay. As a minimum for above standard builds i would suggest ARP rod bolts which aren't too hard to fit.
Rob,
Rob,
27-01-2011, 05:59 PM
#111
If you get rods that are a direct fit and you dont want to go over about 300bhp then yes as Rob has done.
Christian Major ran his at just over 300bhp skimmed for slightly lower CR, although last I spoke to him he said it can be done at stock CR so you do not have to skim them.
Christian Major ran his at just over 300bhp skimmed for slightly lower CR, although last I spoke to him he said it can be done at stock CR so you do not have to skim them.
27-01-2011, 06:48 PM
#112
Thats good to know... Saves the aggro and cost of new pistons, What bolts need replacing with ARPs or is it best to do them all, while your down there lol so to speak lol!
300Bhp on standard pistons and CR thats interesting... At what point do the standard rods reach their limit?
300Bhp on standard pistons and CR thats interesting... At what point do the standard rods reach their limit?
11-11-2015, 12:25 AM
#120
I'm Finding My Feet Here Now
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Scotland
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I made 271 so only 10hp more.
What torque did that make?
Cheers