Stavros

I bet tuners fucking LOVE the fact they have a new scapegoat every time something fucks up- blaming the country the part came from, or pretending it came from there at least

project rs

he did pay them special attention for 3 weeks prior to them going in the engine he slept with them every night to keep them warm and cosy and still they shit on him

scoooby slayer

iTrader: (4)

big ends get much more stick than mains lots if throw on a big end especially once you get up in the revs. have seen a big end like that once before on a cat 3306 engine in a d6h lgp but that was knocking very bad when it came in for repair and they only rev to 2k flat out.

Big Will_

Not so much scapegoating for me Stav, a genuine curiousity as to what caused the failure as i'm genuinely scratching my head as to how the rods can have caused the failure...

For the damage to have been done as the photos indicate it - somehow the lubrication film has surely broken down and the bearing shell and crank picked up, fretted, generated a huge amount of heat and spun the bearing shell.

I'm baffled as to how the reversal of that could have happened unless the machining tolerances meant the there wasn't sufficent clearance and the rod was in essence 'pinching' the crank...

In no way a 'dig' at anyone - just a mechanical curiosity...

project rs

we've got it down to 2 ideas we think one as will thinks pinched crank a bit and got pulled round by crank or two complete opposite and not tight enough and hence spun but can only guess, this thread was started to make every one think twice about saving a few quid on the rods if this might happen as a lot of people are in middle of building zt's and if 1 person is saved from this then it's done it's job

Turbo Zetec

iTrader: (1)

i joined the thread because of exactly that will... as i have a set for myself and i've heard stories before. unless he got a bad batch of four somehow, i can't see it being the rods...

i've checked everything on mine, both ends, weight and balance and they're 100% spot on

those big ends have definately been hot though, and that dosen't just happen in an instant

Martin-Hadland

iTrader: (2)

Both of which should have been picked up by the builder!!! Ever heard of plastigauge? It's very cheap and takes hardly any time at all to use.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/PLASTIGAUGE-pl...d=p3286.c0.m14

Big Will_

I don't know about you Martin, but any engine build i've done see's everything built up with plastigauge where necessary, stretch bolts initally torqued and the stretch measured etc. and only when everything is checked and double checked does it come apart for a final clean and assemble...

It maybe adds 2 hours onto an engine build...

glancy2081

as stated above both your ideas on failure indicate a poor engine build

Turbo Zetec

iTrader: (1)

i've never really thought about this before, but do you (Reyland and MSD) do your machining in-house? or is it sent away and checked when it gets back?

crazycage

no it was less and its been payed in full . my speck has had a lot of people having a dig at it on various threads on here so that's why there is no graph or power , people will just pick holes in it . i was told it was held at 5500rpm doing the fueling ect all was fine had been on the rollers for aprx 2hrs then just lost a load of power there was no warning and no noise before hand ,he said to me if it was the pump then main caps would be scored and they are all mint and the turbo didn't die . im not saying its the rod but it was the rod or the bearing .

Big Will_

At the moment we're not doing any engine building as we're too busy with the day to day stuff.

We don't have the facilities to do our own machining work though and so it's outsourced and inspected on its return.

Martin-Hadland

iTrader: (2)

But if it was the rods or their bearings I couldn't see them being fine for a couple of hours then failing...

NEEDFORSPEED

does steve m stil do your stuff?

crazycage

whats odd about the spec ?? what sort of power would you expect to see from 9psi??

rst-g

stavros: why do you think its a slightly odd engine spec?

Big Will_

With a compression ratio in the 9's, ST170 head and cams with VVT on 97RON and 9psi i'd be expecting around 290bhp with 20bhp either side...

crazycage

whats that at the wheels???

Big Will_

You're on a T34.48 from what i remember? I'd expect that 290 +/-20bhp to be at the flywheel at 9psi in all honestly...

Turbo won't really be into its high efficiency islands of the map at only 9psi.

rst-g

how have you come to that conclusion will?

Big Will_

What - the power figure? Or the T34 not being fully efficient at 9psi?

crazycage

i haven't got a fly wheel figer so what would 290hp be at the wheels ??

rst-g

both mate just of of interest

Big Will_

Without getting into the technicalities of who's dyno has what losses, what tyre pressure you ran at, what air temp, which gear etc. etc. - i'd say around 250whp...

rst-g, please remember i spent 3 years researching, testing and developing zetec stuff when i was building my engine - i wanted to build the most powerful, efficient and reliable engine i could.

I've worked on plenty of cars with similar sized turbos to a T34.48 and at 9psi you can physically feel them not working efficiently, i haven't seen a compressor map to compare that against, but i can assure you, they feel lethargic and not particularly spritely. Depends on this engines efficiency, i could be wrong!

Red16

My mates 2ltr zetec turbo engine built using Eagle rods and JE pistons C/R 8.3:1, standard head & cams, tubular exhaust manifold, rover inlet, cosworth t3 turbo, it has done 1100 miles so far and touch wood has been ok.

It's been mapped by Dave Walker at Emerald in Norwich and had problems with boost (possible actuator problem)

at 9psi it made

Torque: 223.4lbft @ 3850rpm
BHP: 202.9BHP @ 5608

not sure if theyre flywheel or wheel figures

pa_sjo

Here's the map...



The red trace and final point are typical of a T34 on a 2L zetec producing 300bhp, standard head, standard cams. The lower 'splodge' is the suggest "290bhp @ 9psi", which frankly I can never see happening, not unless it's at 8000rpm on a mega head!

scoooby slayer

iTrader: (4)

i cant see that ? a yb wont make 290 hp at 9psi nowhere near ?

Big Will_

Remember this is not a YB...

And it's got a compression ratio in the mid 9's, a far superior flowing head and in the turbo world - very lairy cams...

I could be very wrong

But so far i think i'm the only person who's actually posted up a guess

project rs

scooby your right yb's don't make that because people tend to throw big boost through them and very rarely do anything to the head or ports till over 400hp is wanted where as the st170 head is so much better at moving the air it's easy to get big figures on low boost and after being in the little fiesta with this engine in it at low boost it drives and pulls like a train

Red16

well i posted up what my mates 2ltr zetec made at 9psi, so that makes 2 of us, i suppose i didnt guess though what you think of those figures Will?

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Will, I agree with you more or less on your guess if its holding onto the revs and specced for it.

N/A 2.0 engines make that much power at 0psi, so if its a very efficient setup, doing so on 9psi isnt hard at 8000rpm+

Only thing that I doubt, is it doing it on a .48 housing TBH

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Neither of those issues are a fault in the rod, they are a fault in the assembly, as bearing crush should have been checked when it was assembled ideally, or at least the bore size of the hole in the rods at a minimum.

Big Will_

About right for the spec, sounds a good start for running in! What's he hoping for out of it?

Chip

iTrader: (3)

He's on a T3, it would hold onto the power a lot longer on a T34 potentially, also I bet he wasnt on a very modified head or a lairy set of cams like Will is discussing.

The torque he made though, just to put things in perspective, is sufficient for 350bhp @ 8000rpm

So to make what will is saying, you can still allow for the fact the VE drops at revs increases and still consider it reasonable on 9psi

Andy_R

iTrader: (3)

If the ST170 = 170bhp @ 0psi or 1bar absolute.
Then to make 290bhp @ 9psi it would need to be more efficient per psi than if it were N/A.

pa_sjo

Not really, as it its a completely different intake. With the right intake on an ST170, it'll do over 200bhp (eg, ITB's).

You really cant compare..

Garage19

Having read this thread i must say that i agree with Chip and Martin.

If that was my engine i would be requesting Jamsport to rebuild it FOC with new eagle rods.

If they refused i would get an independant engineers report and take action in the small claims court.

I am certain any engineer worth their salt will report that the problem wasn't caused by the rods and was either:

- Oil pump failure
- Oil contamination or oil passage way blockage (probably swarf)
- Incorrect tolerances on big end bearings
- Bearings damaged during build

Chip

iTrader: (3)

The ST170 does NOT make 170 @ 0 psi or 1 bar absolute.

It does it at more like -3psi or 12psi absolute

So its making about 14bhp per psi effectively.


So at 24psi absolute if it kept the same efficiency it would be making 340bhp, now obviously it will NOT do that, but 290 is perfectly reasonable IMHO


My nova engine makes around 300bhp at 10psi no drama.

Stavros

As in its a fucking lot of money just to get 300bhp.

Smallish turbo, mega low boost, quite serious head, wild cams, high comp, aftermarket managment, custom manifolds, etc etc.

Strange way of going about things to me.

pa_sjo

Stavros- but using C20LET pistons, uprated valve springs and a T34 to get a consistent/known 300bhp must be wrong