about cosworth ex manifold ...from other topic
22-12-2006, 09:40 AM
#243
Wahay!! I've lost my Virginity!!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: swe
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only way to measure backpressure in a manifold is to run it without turbo and measure pressure as close to the head as possible. All cylinders need to be measured and compared to eachother, the difference between lowest and highest pressure can be called Bp, I dont think you will see any...
One question.. What intake manifolds are you running?(those who melt engines) start there, a tip for you all.
One question.. What intake manifolds are you running?(those who melt engines) start there, a tip for you all.
22-12-2006, 10:04 AM
#247
Advanced PassionFord User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 1,660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by martin-reyland
Did both failures occur at the same boost and for the same time it has held flat out?
22-12-2006, 10:07 AM
#250
Advanced PassionFord User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 1,660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by martin-reyland
Originally Posted by CossieRich
Pic of the "holed" piston
Rich
Rich
22-12-2006, 10:09 AM
#251
Originally Posted by MAD Ade
Originally Posted by martin-reyland
Originally Posted by CossieRich
Pic of the "holed" piston
Rich
Rich
22-12-2006, 10:11 AM
#252
Originally Posted by Bosch-Man
...people just dont measure things in the right places 
Hmm middle 2 lets look at the 2wd manifold 
Hmm middle 2 lets look at the 2wd manifold 
22-12-2006, 10:13 AM
#253
Originally Posted by CossieRich
Originally Posted by Bosch-Man
...people just dont measure things in the right places Hmm middle 2 lets look at the 2wd manifold
Hmm middle 2 lets look at the 2wd manifold 
22-12-2006, 10:14 AM
#255
Originally Posted by martin-reyland
Originally Posted by CossieRich
Originally Posted by Bosch-Man
...people just dont measure things in the right places Hmm middle 2 lets look at the 2wd manifold
Hmm middle 2 lets look at the 2wd manifold 
22-12-2006, 10:19 AM
#256
Advanced PassionFord User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 1,660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by martin-reyland
Originally Posted by MAD Ade
Originally Posted by martin-reyland
Originally Posted by CossieRich
Pic of the "holed" piston
Rich
Rich
22-12-2006, 10:25 AM
#258
Originally Posted by MAD Ade
Originally Posted by martin-reyland
Originally Posted by MAD Ade
Originally Posted by martin-reyland
Originally Posted by CossieRich
Pic of the "holed" piston
Rich
Rich
22-12-2006, 10:28 AM
#259
Advanced PassionFord User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 1,660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by martin-reyland
Originally Posted by MAD Ade
Originally Posted by martin-reyland
Originally Posted by MAD Ade
Originally Posted by martin-reyland
Originally Posted by CossieRich
Pic of the "holed" piston
Rich
Rich
22-12-2006, 10:35 AM
#260
Originally Posted by MAD Ade
Originally Posted by martin-reyland
Originally Posted by MAD Ade
Originally Posted by martin-reyland
Originally Posted by MAD Ade
Originally Posted by martin-reyland
Originally Posted by CossieRich
Pic of the "holed" piston
Rich
Rich
Will check in later... over to you Phil...
22-12-2006, 10:56 AM
#261
Ade,
The turbo you are using, could it be that the exhaust housing is creating too much back-pressure in internally gated format, and not actually the manifold?
I only ask, as you say that you were using the same turbo as Rod's, but internally gated, and Rod's was an externally gated GT35? I just can't see an internally gated GT35 being ANY good what-so-ever and MUST be causing back-pressure issues, due to the exhaust housing not being man enough? Obviously with this being a new design of turbo, the back-pressure was measured and recorded on the dyno?
Is Mark prepared to divulge this, as it would be a good indication of it's efficiency .
Also, the piston's used are not suitable in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with CP pistons, just the spec Mark has chosen is completely wrong for this application and not suitable for 600bhp IMO.
The ones that we use are rated to 750bhp / 800Nm / 9500rpm and 2.8 bar and have a 4.8mm to 6.7mm thick crown (compression rato dependent). Your one looks like a standard piston thickness, which is not suitable IMO.
So to conclude, I believe that the engine failed because it built up too much back-pressure due to the TURBO having too small a turbine, this caused high cylinder pressures and punched a whole in the pistons, which are too thin for these kind of cylinder pressures.
Providing you change either the turbo back housing for a more efficient one, or go for the thick crown, I think you have found your cure. Obviously going for the bigger housing will require a change of exhaust manifold, so Phil can still attribute it all to this .
The turbo you are using, could it be that the exhaust housing is creating too much back-pressure in internally gated format, and not actually the manifold?
I only ask, as you say that you were using the same turbo as Rod's, but internally gated, and Rod's was an externally gated GT35? I just can't see an internally gated GT35 being ANY good what-so-ever and MUST be causing back-pressure issues, due to the exhaust housing not being man enough? Obviously with this being a new design of turbo, the back-pressure was measured and recorded on the dyno?
Is Mark prepared to divulge this, as it would be a good indication of it's efficiency .Also, the piston's used are not suitable in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with CP pistons, just the spec Mark has chosen is completely wrong for this application and not suitable for 600bhp IMO.
The ones that we use are rated to 750bhp / 800Nm / 9500rpm and 2.8 bar and have a 4.8mm to 6.7mm thick crown (compression rato dependent). Your one looks like a standard piston thickness, which is not suitable IMO.
So to conclude, I believe that the engine failed because it built up too much back-pressure due to the TURBO having too small a turbine, this caused high cylinder pressures and punched a whole in the pistons, which are too thin for these kind of cylinder pressures.
Providing you change either the turbo back housing for a more efficient one, or go for the thick crown, I think you have found your cure
. Obviously going for the bigger housing will require a change of exhaust manifold, so Phil can still attribute it all to this .
Which is what?
22-12-2006, 11:29 AM
#267
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Ade,
The turbo you are using, could it be that the exhaust housing is creating too much back-pressure in internally gated format, and not actually the manifold?
I only ask, as you say that you were using the same turbo as Rod's, but internally gated, and Rod's was an externally gated GT35? I just can't see an internally gated GT35 being ANY good what-so-ever and MUST be causing back-pressure issues, due to the exhaust housing not being man enough? Obviously with this being a new design of turbo, the back-pressure was measured and recorded on the dyno? Is Mark prepared to divulge this, as it would be a good indication of it's efficiency .
Also, the piston's used are not suitable in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with CP pistons, just the spec Mark has chosen is completely wrong for this application and not suitable for 600bhp IMO.
The ones that we use are rated to 750bhp / 800Nm / 9500rpm and 2.8 bar and have a 4.8mm to 6.7mm thick crown (compression rato dependent). Your one looks like a standard piston thickness, which is not suitable IMO.
So to conclude, I believe that the engine failed because it built up too much back-pressure due to the TURBO having too small a turbine, this caused high cylinder pressures and punched a whole in the pistons, which are too thin for these kind of cylinder pressures.
Providing you change either the turbo back housing for a more efficient one, or go for the thick crown, I think you have found your cure. Obviously going for the bigger housing will require a change of exhaust manifold, so Phil can still attribute it all to this .
The turbo you are using, could it be that the exhaust housing is creating too much back-pressure in internally gated format, and not actually the manifold?
I only ask, as you say that you were using the same turbo as Rod's, but internally gated, and Rod's was an externally gated GT35? I just can't see an internally gated GT35 being ANY good what-so-ever and MUST be causing back-pressure issues, due to the exhaust housing not being man enough? Obviously with this being a new design of turbo, the back-pressure was measured and recorded on the dyno?
Is Mark prepared to divulge this, as it would be a good indication of it's efficiency .Also, the piston's used are not suitable in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with CP pistons, just the spec Mark has chosen is completely wrong for this application and not suitable for 600bhp IMO.
The ones that we use are rated to 750bhp / 800Nm / 9500rpm and 2.8 bar and have a 4.8mm to 6.7mm thick crown (compression rato dependent). Your one looks like a standard piston thickness, which is not suitable IMO.
So to conclude, I believe that the engine failed because it built up too much back-pressure due to the TURBO having too small a turbine, this caused high cylinder pressures and punched a whole in the pistons, which are too thin for these kind of cylinder pressures.
Providing you change either the turbo back housing for a more efficient one, or go for the thick crown, I think you have found your cure
. Obviously going for the bigger housing will require a change of exhaust manifold, so Phil can still attribute it all to this .Big Up Mike Or should l say Harvey
22-12-2006, 11:31 AM
#268
Advanced PassionFord User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 1,660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Ade,
The turbo you are using, could it be that the exhaust housing is creating too much back-pressure in internally gated format, and not actually the manifold?
I only ask, as you say that you were using the same turbo as Rod's, but internally gated, and Rod's was an externally gated GT35? I just can't see an internally gated GT35 being ANY good what-so-ever and MUST be causing back-pressure issues, due to the exhaust housing not being man enough? Obviously with this being a new design of turbo, the back-pressure was measured and recorded on the dyno? Is Mark prepared to divulge this, as it would be a good indication of it's efficiency .
Also, the piston's used are not suitable in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with CP pistons, just the spec Mark has chosen is completely wrong for this application and not suitable for 600bhp IMO.
The ones that we use are rated to 750bhp / 800Nm / 9500rpm and 2.8 bar and have a 4.8mm to 6.7mm thick crown (compression rato dependent). Your one looks like a standard piston thickness, which is not suitable IMO.
So to conclude, I believe that the engine failed because it built up too much back-pressure due to the TURBO having too small a turbine, this caused high cylinder pressures and punched a whole in the pistons, which are too thin for these kind of cylinder pressures.
Providing you change either the turbo back housing for a more efficient one, or go for the thick crown, I think you have found your cure. Obviously going for the bigger housing will require a change of exhaust manifold, so Phil can still attribute it all to this .
The turbo you are using, could it be that the exhaust housing is creating too much back-pressure in internally gated format, and not actually the manifold?
I only ask, as you say that you were using the same turbo as Rod's, but internally gated, and Rod's was an externally gated GT35? I just can't see an internally gated GT35 being ANY good what-so-ever and MUST be causing back-pressure issues, due to the exhaust housing not being man enough? Obviously with this being a new design of turbo, the back-pressure was measured and recorded on the dyno?
Is Mark prepared to divulge this, as it would be a good indication of it's efficiency .Also, the piston's used are not suitable in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with CP pistons, just the spec Mark has chosen is completely wrong for this application and not suitable for 600bhp IMO.
The ones that we use are rated to 750bhp / 800Nm / 9500rpm and 2.8 bar and have a 4.8mm to 6.7mm thick crown (compression rato dependent). Your one looks like a standard piston thickness, which is not suitable IMO.
So to conclude, I believe that the engine failed because it built up too much back-pressure due to the TURBO having too small a turbine, this caused high cylinder pressures and punched a whole in the pistons, which are too thin for these kind of cylinder pressures.
Providing you change either the turbo back housing for a more efficient one, or go for the thick crown, I think you have found your cure
. Obviously going for the bigger housing will require a change of exhaust manifold, so Phil can still attribute it all to this .we were using a custom high flow waste gate housing from the states which should reduce the back pressure plus control the boost more accurately, Mark would be able to explain this better. The pistons are exactly the same as Rods, he has done 200 mph (unoficially) without nos, so what else could it be?
22-12-2006, 11:36 AM
#270
Originally Posted by MAD YUM
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Ade,
The turbo you are using, could it be that the exhaust housing is creating too much back-pressure in internally gated format, and not actually the manifold?
I only ask, as you say that you were using the same turbo as Rod's, but internally gated, and Rod's was an externally gated GT35? I just can't see an internally gated GT35 being ANY good what-so-ever and MUST be causing back-pressure issues, due to the exhaust housing not being man enough? Obviously with this being a new design of turbo, the back-pressure was measured and recorded on the dyno? Is Mark prepared to divulge this, as it would be a good indication of it's efficiency .
Also, the piston's used are not suitable in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with CP pistons, just the spec Mark has chosen is completely wrong for this application and not suitable for 600bhp IMO.
The ones that we use are rated to 750bhp / 800Nm / 9500rpm and 2.8 bar and have a 4.8mm to 6.7mm thick crown (compression rato dependent). Your one looks like a standard piston thickness, which is not suitable IMO.
So to conclude, I believe that the engine failed because it built up too much back-pressure due to the TURBO having too small a turbine, this caused high cylinder pressures and punched a whole in the pistons, which are too thin for these kind of cylinder pressures.
Providing you change either the turbo back housing for a more efficient one, or go for the thick crown, I think you have found your cure. Obviously going for the bigger housing will require a change of exhaust manifold, so Phil can still attribute it all to this .
The turbo you are using, could it be that the exhaust housing is creating too much back-pressure in internally gated format, and not actually the manifold?
I only ask, as you say that you were using the same turbo as Rod's, but internally gated, and Rod's was an externally gated GT35? I just can't see an internally gated GT35 being ANY good what-so-ever and MUST be causing back-pressure issues, due to the exhaust housing not being man enough? Obviously with this being a new design of turbo, the back-pressure was measured and recorded on the dyno?
Is Mark prepared to divulge this, as it would be a good indication of it's efficiency .Also, the piston's used are not suitable in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with CP pistons, just the spec Mark has chosen is completely wrong for this application and not suitable for 600bhp IMO.
The ones that we use are rated to 750bhp / 800Nm / 9500rpm and 2.8 bar and have a 4.8mm to 6.7mm thick crown (compression rato dependent). Your one looks like a standard piston thickness, which is not suitable IMO.
So to conclude, I believe that the engine failed because it built up too much back-pressure due to the TURBO having too small a turbine, this caused high cylinder pressures and punched a whole in the pistons, which are too thin for these kind of cylinder pressures.
Providing you change either the turbo back housing for a more efficient one, or go for the thick crown, I think you have found your cure
. Obviously going for the bigger housing will require a change of exhaust manifold, so Phil can still attribute it all to this .Big Up Harvey
.Rich,
Having just measured a standard piston and a Cosworth one, they are actually a LOT thicker than I thought. I believe you need to find out the thickenss of these pistons used, as they LOOK thin, but that just might be the camera angle / optical illusion.
Standard Mahles = 6mm
Cosworth (forged to 7.2 c/r) = 7.6mm
Once the crown thickness is confirmed, if it is as thin as it looks, it could be ENTIRELY attributed to this
.Ade,
I don't doubt you are running CP psitons, but perhaps you are running different spec ones? Have you the longer rods etc same as Rods? (no pun intended
).Anyway, as long as any of this helps the engine being built and run so it is as reliable as the usual MAD lumps, then I'm glad to have been of assistance
.
22-12-2006, 11:41 AM
#273
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Originally Posted by MAD YUM
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Ade,
The turbo you are using, could it be that the exhaust housing is creating too much back-pressure in internally gated format, and not actually the manifold?
I only ask, as you say that you were using the same turbo as Rod's, but internally gated, and Rod's was an externally gated GT35? I just can't see an internally gated GT35 being ANY good what-so-ever and MUST be causing back-pressure issues, due to the exhaust housing not being man enough? Obviously with this being a new design of turbo, the back-pressure was measured and recorded on the dyno? Is Mark prepared to divulge this, as it would be a good indication of it's efficiency .
Also, the piston's used are not suitable in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with CP pistons, just the spec Mark has chosen is completely wrong for this application and not suitable for 600bhp IMO.
The ones that we use are rated to 750bhp / 800Nm / 9500rpm and 2.8 bar and have a 4.8mm to 6.7mm thick crown (compression rato dependent). Your one looks like a standard piston thickness, which is not suitable IMO.
So to conclude, I believe that the engine failed because it built up too much back-pressure due to the TURBO having too small a turbine, this caused high cylinder pressures and punched a whole in the pistons, which are too thin for these kind of cylinder pressures.
Providing you change either the turbo back housing for a more efficient one, or go for the thick crown, I think you have found your cure. Obviously going for the bigger housing will require a change of exhaust manifold, so Phil can still attribute it all to this .
The turbo you are using, could it be that the exhaust housing is creating too much back-pressure in internally gated format, and not actually the manifold?
I only ask, as you say that you were using the same turbo as Rod's, but internally gated, and Rod's was an externally gated GT35? I just can't see an internally gated GT35 being ANY good what-so-ever and MUST be causing back-pressure issues, due to the exhaust housing not being man enough? Obviously with this being a new design of turbo, the back-pressure was measured and recorded on the dyno?
Is Mark prepared to divulge this, as it would be a good indication of it's efficiency .Also, the piston's used are not suitable in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with CP pistons, just the spec Mark has chosen is completely wrong for this application and not suitable for 600bhp IMO.
The ones that we use are rated to 750bhp / 800Nm / 9500rpm and 2.8 bar and have a 4.8mm to 6.7mm thick crown (compression rato dependent). Your one looks like a standard piston thickness, which is not suitable IMO.
So to conclude, I believe that the engine failed because it built up too much back-pressure due to the TURBO having too small a turbine, this caused high cylinder pressures and punched a whole in the pistons, which are too thin for these kind of cylinder pressures.
Providing you change either the turbo back housing for a more efficient one, or go for the thick crown, I think you have found your cure
. Obviously going for the bigger housing will require a change of exhaust manifold, so Phil can still attribute it all to this .Big Up Harvey
.Rich,
Having just measured a standard piston and a Cosworth one, they are actually a LOT thicker than I thought. I believe you need to find out the thickenss of these pistons used, as they LOOK thin, but that just might be the camera angle / optical illusion.
Standard Mahles = 6mm
Cosworth (forged to 7.2 c/r) = 7.6mm
Once the crown thickness is confirmed, if it is as thin as it looks, it could be ENTIRELY attributed to this
.Bloody Liar
22-12-2006, 11:41 AM
#274
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Originally Posted by MAD YUM
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Ade,
The turbo you are using, could it be that the exhaust housing is creating too much back-pressure in internally gated format, and not actually the manifold?
I only ask, as you say that you were using the same turbo as Rod's, but internally gated, and Rod's was an externally gated GT35? I just can't see an internally gated GT35 being ANY good what-so-ever and MUST be causing back-pressure issues, due to the exhaust housing not being man enough? Obviously with this being a new design of turbo, the back-pressure was measured and recorded on the dyno? Is Mark prepared to divulge this, as it would be a good indication of it's efficiency .
Also, the piston's used are not suitable in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with CP pistons, just the spec Mark has chosen is completely wrong for this application and not suitable for 600bhp IMO.
The ones that we use are rated to 750bhp / 800Nm / 9500rpm and 2.8 bar and have a 4.8mm to 6.7mm thick crown (compression rato dependent). Your one looks like a standard piston thickness, which is not suitable IMO.
So to conclude, I believe that the engine failed because it built up too much back-pressure due to the TURBO having too small a turbine, this caused high cylinder pressures and punched a whole in the pistons, which are too thin for these kind of cylinder pressures.
Providing you change either the turbo back housing for a more efficient one, or go for the thick crown, I think you have found your cure. Obviously going for the bigger housing will require a change of exhaust manifold, so Phil can still attribute it all to this .
The turbo you are using, could it be that the exhaust housing is creating too much back-pressure in internally gated format, and not actually the manifold?
I only ask, as you say that you were using the same turbo as Rod's, but internally gated, and Rod's was an externally gated GT35? I just can't see an internally gated GT35 being ANY good what-so-ever and MUST be causing back-pressure issues, due to the exhaust housing not being man enough? Obviously with this being a new design of turbo, the back-pressure was measured and recorded on the dyno?
Is Mark prepared to divulge this, as it would be a good indication of it's efficiency .Also, the piston's used are not suitable in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with CP pistons, just the spec Mark has chosen is completely wrong for this application and not suitable for 600bhp IMO.
The ones that we use are rated to 750bhp / 800Nm / 9500rpm and 2.8 bar and have a 4.8mm to 6.7mm thick crown (compression rato dependent). Your one looks like a standard piston thickness, which is not suitable IMO.
So to conclude, I believe that the engine failed because it built up too much back-pressure due to the TURBO having too small a turbine, this caused high cylinder pressures and punched a whole in the pistons, which are too thin for these kind of cylinder pressures.
Providing you change either the turbo back housing for a more efficient one, or go for the thick crown, I think you have found your cure
. Obviously going for the bigger housing will require a change of exhaust manifold, so Phil can still attribute it all to this .Big Up Harvey
.Rich,
Having just measured a standard piston and a Cosworth one, they are actually a LOT thicker than I thought. I believe you need to find out the thickenss of these pistons used, as they LOOK thin, but that just might be the camera angle / optical illusion.
Standard Mahles = 6mm
Cosworth (machined to 7.2 c/r) = 7.6mm
Once the crown thickness is confirmed, if it is as thin as it looks, it could be ENTIRELY attributed to this
.Many thanks for taking the time to answer my question.
As Ade has just said though, he runs the same pistons as Rod and he hasnt had any bother. I think maybe its not down to the piston thickness. Mark will be able to explain more about the internally gated GT35
22-12-2006, 11:50 AM
#277
Advanced PassionFord User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 1,660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Originally Posted by MAD YUM
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Ade,
The turbo you are using, could it be that the exhaust housing is creating too much back-pressure in internally gated format, and not actually the manifold?
I only ask, as you say that you were using the same turbo as Rod's, but internally gated, and Rod's was an externally gated GT35? I just can't see an internally gated GT35 being ANY good what-so-ever and MUST be causing back-pressure issues, due to the exhaust housing not being man enough? Obviously with this being a new design of turbo, the back-pressure was measured and recorded on the dyno? Is Mark prepared to divulge this, as it would be a good indication of it's efficiency .
Also, the piston's used are not suitable in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with CP pistons, just the spec Mark has chosen is completely wrong for this application and not suitable for 600bhp IMO.
The ones that we use are rated to 750bhp / 800Nm / 9500rpm and 2.8 bar and have a 4.8mm to 6.7mm thick crown (compression rato dependent). Your one looks like a standard piston thickness, which is not suitable IMO.
So to conclude, I believe that the engine failed because it built up too much back-pressure due to the TURBO having too small a turbine, this caused high cylinder pressures and punched a whole in the pistons, which are too thin for these kind of cylinder pressures.
Providing you change either the turbo back housing for a more efficient one, or go for the thick crown, I think you have found your cure. Obviously going for the bigger housing will require a change of exhaust manifold, so Phil can still attribute it all to this .
The turbo you are using, could it be that the exhaust housing is creating too much back-pressure in internally gated format, and not actually the manifold?
I only ask, as you say that you were using the same turbo as Rod's, but internally gated, and Rod's was an externally gated GT35? I just can't see an internally gated GT35 being ANY good what-so-ever and MUST be causing back-pressure issues, due to the exhaust housing not being man enough? Obviously with this being a new design of turbo, the back-pressure was measured and recorded on the dyno?
Is Mark prepared to divulge this, as it would be a good indication of it's efficiency .Also, the piston's used are not suitable in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with CP pistons, just the spec Mark has chosen is completely wrong for this application and not suitable for 600bhp IMO.
The ones that we use are rated to 750bhp / 800Nm / 9500rpm and 2.8 bar and have a 4.8mm to 6.7mm thick crown (compression rato dependent). Your one looks like a standard piston thickness, which is not suitable IMO.
So to conclude, I believe that the engine failed because it built up too much back-pressure due to the TURBO having too small a turbine, this caused high cylinder pressures and punched a whole in the pistons, which are too thin for these kind of cylinder pressures.
Providing you change either the turbo back housing for a more efficient one, or go for the thick crown, I think you have found your cure
. Obviously going for the bigger housing will require a change of exhaust manifold, so Phil can still attribute it all to this .Big Up Harvey
.Rich,
Having just measured a standard piston and a Cosworth one, they are actually a LOT thicker than I thought. I believe you need to find out the thickenss of these pistons used, as they LOOK thin, but that just might be the camera angle / optical illusion.
Standard Mahles = 6mm
Cosworth (forged to 7.2 c/r) = 7.6mm
Once the crown thickness is confirmed, if it is as thin as it looks, it could be ENTIRELY attributed to this
.Ade,
I don't doubt you are running CP psitons, but perhaps you are running different spec ones? Have you the longer rods etc same as Rods? (no pun intended
).Anyway, as long as any of this helps the engine being built and run so it is as reliable as the usual MAD lumps, then I'm glad to have been of assistance
.Mike,
yes I am running 8mm longer rods, I think Rods are 6mm longer, he has a stroker crank, mine is standard dimension crank.
22-12-2006, 11:51 AM
#278
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
YUM,
Fuck off, one thing I DON'T do is lie
.
Also, Martin arrived at the same conclusion from seeing the pictures - did he phone Harvey as well?
Rich,
See my edited post.
Fuck off, one thing I DON'T do is lie
.Also, Martin arrived at the same conclusion from seeing the pictures - did he phone Harvey as well?
Rich,
See my edited post
.Why dont you pick up the phone and ask Martin then
Also no need for the langauge now is there
And a mod aswell
Whos stuffed your turkey this year