JB, the 793 was on race fuel, apologies for any confusion there mate.

 

Awsome results , just a shame about the gasket.
Would a gasket the same as me and Euan are now running be any use , its a mls with seperate fire rings, im sure it also gets fitted with some kind of bonding agent. There was pics in the post euan put up the other day.

 

sounds a similar thing to what I am recomending

 

I just had a look and the pics arent very clear but im sure euan has some others that were better if not Alan will be able to let Mark know the story with them.

 

Im sure Mark is aware of the options anyway mate, just didnt know till today that they would be needed.

Not a huge deal, but certainly a pain

 

Idve thought at this level, the difference in cyl pressures that 2 and 3 bar boost gives are relativley fuck all, so boost pressure itself isnt the issue in the slightest?

And yeah, Skylines rarely do big torque, they do big power and big revs, so less of an issue in that respect for them.

Just for fun I posted this on the GTR board and they are amazed one of their "little" 2.6s can be so torquey and give such a good powerband, race fuel or not I didnt actually say what engine it was

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/upload/10...4500-good.html

Maybe theirs would if they wasnt mostly specced so strangely most the time...

 

Awsome power and torque out of that engine , bet there glad the gasket went before they fitted the engine in the car .

Them gas filled ring look like a good answer to the gasket problem as they will expand to give a good seal .

Hope it gets sorted soon so we can all see the full engine output .

Will his transmission be able to cope with the serious amount of torque that its going to reach ?

 

Well peak cylinder pressure is effectively decided by the det point of the fuel, and the shape of the chamber and speed of the pistons etc, so you may be correct there mate, as less boost would have meant more timing, and potentially still similar pressures.

It might be that Mark has effectively done such a good job of the pistons and head etc, and choice of fuel of course, that the det point is MASSIVELY higher than we all are used to, and hence he was running loads more timing than we would think he could get away with, and hence higher cylinder pressures.
It would certainly explain the MONSTER torque!


He could potentially take 5 degrees out of the timing, lost 30bhp, and it last forever, even on gas, or it might not be that simple, sadly, its NOT an easy thing to find out!

 

LMAO @ that thread

 

Just off topic slightly regarding the gasket, what kind of top-speed would the saff be capable of now with the 793 power figure?? i forget what the old engine produced, probably been put on this thread somewhere and i've missed it..

 

WICKED!

I didn't realise the cylinder pressures were not much different. Sorry... I thought 3 bar was mentally more.

Guess I'll leave it to the pros

 

Rod ran 206 with no more power than that IIRC

Most his old engine ever saw was probably nearer to 900 (purely an educated guess, no dyno figure to back up my "claim" im just trying to answer the question), but it never completed a run like that before it broke the block.

That figure without nitrous is probably good for best part of 210 Id imagine just cause of the shape of the curve (ie massive everywhere!) its area under the curve used (used being the top third of it in this instance) that matters more than the peak figure

 

Because you run less timing, the cylinder pressure stays the same, but lasts for more degrees of crank rotation.

Its perfectly possible that at even 1.5 bar of boost, in this engine and on this fuel, that it would have done the gasket.


On pump fuel, it would almost certainly NEVER have done that to the gasket, so that 726 they saw probably would have done 10,000 miles, even at 2.7 bar of boost or whatever it was, or even if it peak at 3 bar for that matter.

 

Because it saw less cylinder pressure for a bigger % of the cycle to make the power.

If this new engine (as it was intended too) had held the pressure it was doing on the dyno but for the sort of number of degrees of crank rotation the engine saw last time, it probably would have made 1100-1200 BHP

800bhp or 900bhp isnt the issue, its the cylinder pressures used to get to it.


On nitrous you can get away with lower pressures for longer time periods

 

Gutted news on the gasket! But some VERY impressive figures being shown. Keep us updated on the news wether it is the gasket or something else. Hopping its not going to be anything to serious.


Monstrous engine.

 

@that thread when you going to tell them it is a ford, how long you going to string them along

 

Its got 450lbft at 8000rpm and someone is saying its dropped too much, but reality is person saying so and posting his graph only has 400lbft at 7500rpm on his graph, lol
Its just that rods make such MONSTER torque in the midrange it makes it look like its tailing off.

Mind you if they knew the midrange spike it was running (2.7 bar) they might understand why, lol

 

that will be an animal to drive looking at that graph.

 

How certain are they that it's the gasket that is the problem, and not the bolts they are using??

just wondering if the head has lifted slightly before the failure?

 

They are certain the gasket has failed, im sure they cannot be certain of why just yet, and TBH even when its apart, you dont know if the head lifted, or at least didnt pull down as hard, briefly as the failure happened

 

No they wouldnt as they think anything lower than 8.6:1 comp is the root of all evil and cant seem to run more than 1.5bar on pump fuel, so 2.7bar on pump gas would be like speaking some strange alien language to them

I nearly replied to that guy to explain how poo his powerband is, your average Cossie engine with his power has a better powerband, but couldnt be arsed.

 

Your cover has been blown now anyway

 

his power graph was on a hub dyno to fair to him but he still had a very narrow power band
if you tell them it was 2.7 bar they will probably assume that is absolute

 

 

thanks adam what a spoil sport would have been seriously funny ruined now

 

Yeah he's chatting some good shit that guy.

also look how much torque its making and even earlier on compared to that skyline graph which I would assume is on a much smaller turbo package due to making way less power/torque!

The spread of torque on Rods engine is mad.

 

I run one of the cometic phuzion gaskets and it seems like a good set up.

Obviously way off the pressure Rod's engine is putting thru it tho.

the seperate rings can be seen in this pic.

 

Good choice for an off the shelf job IMHO Euan.

AVA specced you to have that I take it?

 

what gasket arrangement has norris used to build his 4 1000bhp+ engines?

 

never heard of these till just , love the idea tho

 

Very cool idea IMHO, and not mega money either.

 

Yeah Alan suggested we go to these for the high powered engines.

Mine, Neil's and cossie916(sorry forgot your name) have all got them.

 

You should've heard it Chip! The sound of it coming on boost hard over about 500rpm was quite something!

Poor Norri's dyno...

Gutted for Rod.

 

I was gutted I couldnt make it today, had stuff to do in the office sadly so couldnt get away

 

Just got home.

A big shame to an exciting day. Engine was just going to be recored at 6k on race gas. I saw 790 something bhp uncorrected just before the gasklet let go. Is a brute of an engine and the way it produces the power. You can all see for yourself the lb/ft at 4k and then the lb/ft at 4.5k

The noise of it spooling up and hititng full boost is just incredible

Gasket let go at circa 3 bar boost. Blew the water feed pipe off the dyno. Feel sorry for Rod and Mark. Maybe a more manyl headgasket is needed. The 120 ron race fuel and ignition making such huge cylinder pressures are to blame

Great day out though

 

Dam that GTR thread could of been fun

 

So it got 790bhp (uncorrected) at 6k before the gasket had enough?

 

Fantastic results guys' Im sure it wont be long before its back together again

 

Rod said he saw 675lbt just as it went, so cant have been much over 6000rpm if it was making "only" 790odd, so that sounds right stav.

you done the maths for even if it just held onto 600lbft at 8000rpm? !!!