FAO Mike Rainbird - I have something of yours
17-04-2007, 04:24 PM
#44
20K+ Super Poster.
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 23,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chip-3Door
Originally Posted by RichardPON
In what way? Were they Nikasil?
17-04-2007, 04:43 PM
#46
PassionFord Regular
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Nick,
Where and when were the pictures taken, as when I phoned yesterday, I was told that the car would be with Harvey today?
Doug,
Oil in with water - assumed to be in order of likely-hood:
1. Cracked liner.
2. Head gone porous around exhaust valves.
3. Faulty head-gasket.
Obviously I'm praying for the latter, but as Harvey has only ever seen one be faulty in all his life, I don't think my bad luck is that good
!
Where and when were the pictures taken, as when I phoned yesterday, I was told that the car would be with Harvey today?
Doug,
Oil in with water - assumed to be in order of likely-hood:
1. Cracked liner.
2. Head gone porous around exhaust valves.
3. Faulty head-gasket.
Obviously I'm praying for the latter, but as Harvey has only ever seen one be faulty in all his life, I don't think my bad luck is that good
!
17-04-2007, 09:01 PM
#50
Originally Posted by Bosch Dealer
...any reason why you would use std liners on such a big build..was it so you could reuse some pistons?
...what thickness were they too?
...what thickness were they too?
Everything, bar the block was brand new and the block didn't need to be as it was fitted with liners. Full spec is in my resto thread
.Dave,
I think Michael would have something to say about that, as that engine is now his
.
18-04-2007, 01:05 AM
#57
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Originally Posted by rapidcossie
Originally Posted by GARETH T
mike how was the throttle respnse on the new engine?
sorry Mike to harm meant
Best of luck in getting it fixed mike
Mike
18-04-2007, 07:35 AM
#58
Originally Posted by GARETH T
mike how was the throttle respnse on the new engine?
), so had to drive straight to the ferry and then straight from the ferry to the Ring (270 miles in 3˝ hours ), and then arrived at the hotel (after driving all through the night) in time for beakfast and then went straight out on the track . So 99.9% of the time was spent in the boost threshold, where it was stupid quick even on low boost (as quick as the old car on high ). I never went above position 2 on the boost controller 
.
18-04-2007, 09:28 AM
#63
Professional Waffler
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Originally Posted by GARETH T
mike how was the throttle respnse on the new engine?
), so had to drive straight to the ferry and then straight from the ferry to the Ring (270 miles in 3˝ hours ), and then arrived at the hotel (after driving all through the night) in time for beakfast and then went straight out on the track . So 99.9% of the time was spent in the boost threshold, where it was stupid quick even on low boost (as quick as the old car on high ). I never went above position 2 on the boost controller .
18-04-2007, 09:42 AM
#65
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Mr T,
Of course it was. But that info is never going to make the net due to all the bickering it creates. I'm happy with the power, which is all that counts 
.
Of course it was
. But that info is never going to make the net due to all the bickering it creates. I'm happy with the power, which is all that counts .
18-04-2007, 09:44 AM
#66
Professional Waffler
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Mr T,
Of course it was. But that info is never going to make the net due to all the bickering it creates. I'm happy with the power, which is all that counts .
Of course it was
. But that info is never going to make the net due to all the bickering it creates. I'm happy with the power, which is all that counts .
18-04-2007, 10:06 AM
#69
Chip,
My torque curve is EXACTLY where you would expect it to be running at 31psi - it's comments like yours that make me realise I am right to keep the figures to myself and close friends
.
Obviously if I ran a huge amount of boost, I would get HUGE amounts of torque. However, I'm not after numbers to brag about, hence why you have definitively made up my mind to keep "schtum". The fact that it has over 300lbft from 3500-8500 (and WELL over 400 from 4000-7000 ) is good enoug for me .
My torque curve is EXACTLY where you would expect it to be running at 31psi - it's comments like yours that make me realise I am right to keep the figures to myself and close friends
.Obviously if I ran a huge amount of boost, I would get HUGE amounts of torque. However, I'm not after numbers to brag about, hence why you have definitively made up my mind to keep "schtum"
. The fact that it has over 300lbft from 3500-8500 (and WELL over 400 from 4000-7000 ) is good enoug for me .
18-04-2007, 10:10 AM
#70
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Chip,
My torque curve is EXACTLY where you would expect it to be running at 31psi - it's comments like yours that make me realise I am right to keep the figures to myself and close friends.
Obviously if I ran a huge amount of boost, I would get HUGE amounts of torque. However, I'm not after numbers to brag about, hence why you have definitively made up my mind to keep "schtum". The fact that it has over 300lbft from 3500-8500 (and WELL over 400 from 4000-7000 ) is good enoug for me .
My torque curve is EXACTLY where you would expect it to be running at 31psi - it's comments like yours that make me realise I am right to keep the figures to myself and close friends
.Obviously if I ran a huge amount of boost, I would get HUGE amounts of torque. However, I'm not after numbers to brag about, hence why you have definitively made up my mind to keep "schtum"
. The fact that it has over 300lbft from 3500-8500 (and WELL over 400 from 4000-7000 ) is good enoug for me .PMSL @ Trying to "blame" me cause you arent satisfied enough with the figures to post them.
The MAIN person ive seen trying to add doubt to or question dyno results on this website is YOU, if you are happy to comment on other peoples, then it implies that you feel this is something that is open for discussion, so its funny that you then choose to make sure your figures remain a secret so that when you pour scorn on others there is no point of reference from your own car.
If you say it does what it should, then why not post it, surely that sort of informative and interesting post is EXACTLY what passionford should be about?
18-04-2007, 10:36 AM
#74
Originally Posted by Chip-3Door
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Chip,
My torque curve is EXACTLY where you would expect it to be running at 31psi - it's comments like yours that make me realise I am right to keep the figures to myself and close friends.
Obviously if I ran a huge amount of boost, I would get HUGE amounts of torque. However, I'm not after numbers to brag about, hence why you have definitively made up my mind to keep "schtum". The fact that it has over 300lbft from 3500-8500 (and WELL over 400 from 4000-7000 ) is good enoug for me .
My torque curve is EXACTLY where you would expect it to be running at 31psi - it's comments like yours that make me realise I am right to keep the figures to myself and close friends
.Obviously if I ran a huge amount of boost, I would get HUGE amounts of torque. However, I'm not after numbers to brag about, hence why you have definitively made up my mind to keep "schtum"
. The fact that it has over 300lbft from 3500-8500 (and WELL over 400 from 4000-7000 ) is good enoug for me .PMSL @ Trying to "blame" me cause you arent satisfied enough with the figures to post them.
The MAIN person ive seen trying to add doubt to or question dyno results on this website is YOU, if you are happy to comment on other peoples, then it implies that you feel this is something that is open for discussion, so its funny that you then choose to make sure your figures remain a secret so that when you pour scorn on others there is no point of reference from your own car.
If you say it does what it should, then why not post it, surely that sort of informative and interesting post is EXACTLY what passionford should be about?
) .But following the 11 pages of bollocks from last time I posted figures, I will politely decline your attempt at manipulation
.
18-04-2007, 10:55 AM
#76
20K+ Super Poster.
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 23,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chip-3Door
Originally Posted by rapidcossie
how do Nikasil liners wear compared to a normal block?
You have to use a diamond tool just to hone them properly, they are tremendously durable.
18-04-2007, 11:04 AM
#77
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 7,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RichardPON
Originally Posted by Chip-3Door
Originally Posted by rapidcossie
how do Nikasil liners wear compared to a normal block?
You have to use a diamond tool just to hone them properly, they are tremendously durable.
http://www.bmwworld.com/engines/nikasil.htm
Nikasil was very popular in the 1990s. It was used by companies such as BMW, Ferrari,Honda and Jaguar Cars in their new engine families. However, the sulfur found in much of the world's low quality gasoline caused the Nikasil cylinders used by BMW to break down over time, causing costly engine failures. Eventually, the product was abandoned after BMW was forced to replace a number of M60 V8 engines in the USA and the UK. Nikasil or similar coatings under other trademarks are still widely used in racing engines where low quality gasoline isn't a problem, this include F1, ChampCar and NASCAR engines.
Engines using Nikasil include:
Porsche 912 engine ( engine in 917 car, not to be confused with the Porsche 912 car )
Porsche 911 1973+ (excluding some 1975-1978 911S)
BMW M60 V8
BMW M52 I6
Jaguar AJ-V8
Maserati Biturbo 2.0 V6 Engines
Ferrari F50 V12
Honda XR650R
Moto Guzzi 850 T3 and derived engines
BMW R80GS, as measure to reduce weight over cast-iron lined cylinders
Lambretta TS1
Honda H-series
Citroën Visa twin
Citroën GS birotor wankel engine made by Comotor
