http://www.uphillracers.com/showthre...cing-4024.html
Absolutely nothing to do with me, but thought it might be of interest to people on here to see how far things can be taken...
Printable View
http://www.uphillracers.com/showthre...cing-4024.html
Absolutely nothing to do with me, but thought it might be of interest to people on here to see how far things can be taken...
wow
13k for an engine?:eek: ? is that the right price
thats lush
can someone post up the pics as you have to log in,
and alex thats cheap IMO.
27k from swindon themselves is the only other price I've seen for one before. Tried signing up to see if there's any decent pics but you have to wait for activation :tard:Quote:
Originally Posted by alex_maris
edit: activated, and I'd be interested to know what pumps it's running for the dry sump, as it looks like it's running the original oil pump and a single scavenge to me.
In Fairness thats not a bad price sbd quote 10k plus for there 292bhp build and that you supplying and engine aswell
http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/l...ngine20001.jpg
http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/l...ngine20005.jpg
They're the only photos on the advert, sorry.
And £13k isn't out of line for something like this.
Just for those questioning the price, the only original parts on it that I can see are the block, possibly the water pump (obviously most likely brand new for the build though) and also it looks like it may be running the original oil pump, or at least a ZLET one etc.
Also seems theres a pressure pump and what could be 2 scavenge in that single pump.
for someone wanting an engine in that spec this seems a tidy buy. Ive seen so many engines with little work and wanting 4k plus.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by n-vaux
If someone wants a proper XE for less than £4k, have a look at the one I have for sale;
no ebay links in here cheers :)
good price for that engine. bare in mind a bare reverse head will cost in region of £3k alone, + valves, springs, caps, collets, guides, oversized buckets etc etc could have maybe £6 in the head alone + labour to build.
i was just looking through the other adds.....some silly prices for standard parts fair do's. one lad put a coscast head up for sale @ £275 and is going to put it up in the new year? wtf is he smoking?
lol yh i seen tha wtf!! lol
I have seen a coscast head do £400 on ebay.Quote:
Originally Posted by philip
this is the problem..... common ignorance has elevated the coscast head to grail status....... its only the name of the foundry for god's sake..... cosworth sub stuff out like everyone else does...... the KS ones are apparently only good for propping doors open.... right... ks made complete heads and major engine components for loads of manufacturers.
The coscast process is far superior to average manufacturers casting, but its only something you're gonna notice if you're boring ports out and pressurising cylinders to breaking point, as that's the reason the cosworth casting process was created in the first place...
The main reason it was used is it was cheap, as you didn't scrap so many out of tolerance parts.
KS head is actually better IMO.
I assumed they were to the same dimensions etc but different casting processes? Geoff Goddard spent more time explaining the process than what they did with manufacturers contract work, but from what I understand there was no design work done, just moulds created from manufacturers design and the Cosworth casting process used?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
people moaning about high prices,
i dont think its a problem, some one on there had some standard XE pistons, original ones for a "high" price.
if i needed some, i would rather buy his at the right price or over priced, knowing they had been looked after (hopefully) and treated right. rather then bunged into a box in the damp corner of someones shed.
p.s racers are always minted.
That gonna be about 230 Horses Colin?
BTW that swindon race engine ISN'T the highest spec N/A XE out there, ok it has a reverse head but even by their own admission there was no horse power gain from it.
it's pretty close to as good as you get out of something like that tbh, and it says 290-300 not 230. So it's a full late spec BTCC engine basically. Maximum power for a 2.0 NA like that without revving to 20k or something is 330-350 imo.
JRE are now building 2.5litre stroked xes for the rally lads, but im sure he regularly gets 330bhp or more from his strokers, but theior mega mega money.
max power for a 2.0 id say is more like 300bhp tops or maybe a tad more.
as for heads unless building a +2mm head where the ports will of had a mega amount of machining, id always use a gm head on any of the engines i build even if building 260/270bhp motor with +1. the usual idea is a gm head is like aero while a coscast is like milk chocoloate in terms of how its been cast also the alloy used on a coscast head is harder than a normal gm head
the jtcc allowed fuel additives & higher octane & were getting 330+ on that spec.
imho the reverse head only works when fitted into a super touring cavalier.. as it was a clever bit of packaging, and all that clever stuff is not necessary when fitted into anything else with a stock shape transmission, or in a rwd application, but for bragging rights, then someone will pay for it.
so is coscast some sort of diecast method then??
considering it was only meant as a run of 5000 so they could go f3 racing, it did pretty well...
http://ll.speedhunters.com/u/f/eagam..._98_rydell.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by philip
338 ;)
Coscast use a casting method that takes fresh alloy from the middle of a vat of molten metal to avoid aluminium oxide layers, is then cast under pressure and rotated to stop cold aluminium oxide from the top of the casting to sink into it as it cools. It is a ridiculously accurate casting process, it was used for a certain aerospace component for a company that had a ridiculously success rate of something like 8 in 100 in tolerance, and cosworth scrapped 6Quote:
Originally Posted by mowgli
mk999, the reason the racing volvo had 338hp was simple....TWR were renowned cheats..... tom walkinshaw was behind the benetton f1 car that set on fire cos someone had removed components in the nozzle to speed things up, then there was the traction control, launch control & 4 wheel steering on the same car, but if anyone opened the computer menu, they were automatically deleted.......
the racing rover v8's had illegal components in them....
there is no way that volvo could get that much extra hp from a super tourer with legal componentry.....
the twr volvo team did little tricks like putting vaseline on the lenses of the onboard camera, cos tim harvey's job was to smack someone off the track to ensure championship points, but they didn't want it seen on telly.....
Actually I know exactly the reason for it having that much power, and why other teams cant follow it, they're really bad at copying basic ideas. Could get about 30 brake extra out of that swindon XE, 50 if it runs the standard oil pump still.
The F1 car you refer to that was said to have fantastic traction control all season, I have seen the torque curves for, and they make very interesting viewing compared to the "most powerful" engine of that season, that it beat.
Like any team they found as many loopholes as possible and turned the rulebook into swiss cheese, but I can ensure you that 340bhp from a 2.0 engine is entirely possible, because I can look at that 300 bhp swindon xe and see another 30-50. Pretty common knowledge to have knife bladed cranks etc to drop the drag on them as the tips of a crank move at about 150-175mph at 10k rpm, but no one ever considers running 4 dry sump scavenge pumps to take half of the air out of the crankcase in the first place. Why 4? Because you've sealed each of the cylinders into their own separate chamber to eliminate pumping losses. Like wise, total loss ignition system, yes please... spin an oil pump the size of a tea plate instead of one about 50mm across? Yeah why not, it cant be losing that much power...
The racing rover V8 is an interesting one, took Geoff Goddard about 1h30 to design a camshaft... that's the only involvement he had in it. Guy he did it for said it was the quietest camshaft he'd ever used.... Quietest?! "Yeah well, with the old one, there was 15 people round me and I could hear a load of engines, with your camshaft I can't hear a thing and there's nothing in my rear view mirror..."
the rover v8 camshaft you refer to had a problem with bushes spinning, and little grub screws were fitted..... they were completely illegal......
the benetton electronics wizard could make all sorts of traction control type things, the other drivers often commented about hearing strange sounds coming from the benetton cars when they were alongside....
the supertouring stuff is interesting, and i'd be surprised if the other teams weren't doing the same sort of stuff....all that sort of stuff was on f1 engines 30 years ago, so it will have filtered down to touring car engine people.. or maybe the other teams were lying and stuck to the 300hp limit official line, like wrc cars allegedly do....
Grub screws for reliability, somewhat irrelevant to your original point of that kind of power not being possible. strange noise was probably that of a car making near peak torque for 2000RPM rather than peaking like everyone else lolQuote:
Originally Posted by mowgli
If you wanna be surprised then look at that swindon XE, that's 300bhp apparently so 10 up on BTCC top spec (most likely through raised rev limit) and lacks what I mentioned. People are crap at copying simple ideas and simply assume there's either black magic involved, 2 million in development or they're cheating.
Why did we never see another 1500bhp 1.5 turbo F1 engine despite teams getting hold of a genuine engine? They blew the heads off their copies because they didn't think the head bolts felt a bit odd as they were undoing them.
the rover v8 could not produce reliable hp, so the grub screws stopped it running its bushes. thus it was an illegal performance mod. thus it was a cheat.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK999
the benetton was an illegal car, it was in a time of no traction control, no launch control, no 4 wheel steering, and it had them all...
ps. the s40 was 3 seasons later than the cavalier with the reverse head engine....in the middle of the arms race.
I have been in my boss mates rally sunbeam and its 270bhp its and xe on 45's but i think its a 2.2, there is also a spotless 2.2 block sitting upstairs at my work lol
The Rover V8 probably started making the racing look silly and thus they found an excuse to ban it, most motorsport engineers dont aim to just win anything, they aim to get banned :pQuote:
Originally Posted by mowgli
The Benetton you speak of I have not heard about then, one I am thinking of ran a ford HB engine and was said to have better traction control than it's competitors, when in fact it just had torque where it was supposed to.
The S40 was also 4-5 seasons after the Calibra DTM, and 9 years after the Ford HB F1, both of which had sealed crankcases and dry sump systems. Like I said, 99% of engineers suck at copying simple, effective, old ideas. Even the latest tech in F1 is old news, F ducts were first banned in the 80's
sweet looking engine