martinwhitcher Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 For all you 1900cc K owners..... Just about to plunge full on with a high spec 1900cc DVA special "K" 😬 Head is brought, bottom end to sort out. Got my own thoughts on spec, however I wanted to see want the others have done. hands up who went for a steel crank, why and where from and how much? Injectors are another question that needs answering, who using what injectors with success? Martin MW 51 CAT Superlight No.171 now known as:Superlight DVA 207 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave McCulloch Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Martin Mine's one of the tamer 1900s - DIY ported VVC head with 285H cams, making 210bhp and 170 lb/ft. Because it's not a 250bhp screamer, I've stuck with the stock crank and early single tang rods. Done 2,500 miles so far, including Brands track day this week, and touch wood it's been fine. I have set the rev limit at 8k rpm as well. Were I going for a proper DVA ported head and aiming for higher power, I would go steel crank and rods to safeguard the engine. As for injectors, I'm using 740s with the standard 3 bar FPR - but even at only 210 bhp they're running at over 90% duty maximum. Dave Edited by - Dave McCulloch on 28 Sep 2006 21:28:05 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnty Lyons Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Martin mine is a 242BHP unit on Arrow rods with the Italian pistons but std crank However the whole lot was balanced by WBD and has done over 4000 miles without a cough including the hectic blast across USA its a full house DVA unit and i am well pleased rev limit is 8000 As yet I can find NO justification for a DK crank jj N.I. L7C AO. Membership No.3927. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Plato Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 The whole K series engine flex's a lot at 245bhp/175lb, consequently wear is seen on the piston pins , rods and the whole of the bottom end moves quite a lot - we re-dowled my head with larger dowels and fretting /movement was still evident at the head / block and also at the oil rail and crank ladder. The quality of the scholar blocks is sometimes far from optimal and offset bores can result in extra stress on the bottom end even when "only" using 7950 rpm limit . What pistons are you going to use ? . I under stand there are issues with some of the more commonly used 1900 / 82 mm pistons breaking. . In my view the more strength you can build in the more reliability you will build in. Thats why I chose to use steel rods ( for sale ) crank and all the tatsy bits I could lay my hands on and *all* brand new OE parts and ballanced where applicable. The only bits that were original rover were the exhaust valve seats and thats what failed 🙆🏻 *thumbdown* But there will be lots of alternate views I'm sure but 2.5 seasons with my 1900, over 50 sprints and hills , trackdays and about 8K miles drew my conclusions Please note of of the above is affected by the engine builder even when *all* clearances are checked , dummy build , re checked, and final build sort of attention to detail - its just issues with the K series engine not having a lot of meat and strength in it. still was a great little motor tho 😬 😬 😬 😬 😬 😬 here is C7 TOP South Wales AO Edited by - Dave Jackson on 28 Sep 2006 21:56:29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Plato Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 ps - I used pico injectors , but calibra turbo ones or Saab will also be Ok here is C7 TOP South Wales AO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Support Team Shaun_E Posted September 28, 2006 Support Team Share Posted September 28, 2006 Mine was dynoed at 227 bhp with BP285H cams and a DVA ported VVC head. I am using single tang rods and a stock crank with a 7800 RPM limit. Done a few thousand miles with it now and one season of sprints. I am using the standard injectors but they are at nearly 100%. The only problem I have had so far was a lunched scavenge pump and pressure pump so we replaced the big ends to be safe as there were signs of oil starvation. The temptation at rebuild time was to go to solid followers and wilder cams but Dave Andrews convinced me to stick with the setup I have. All in, I think it is a good compromise and is a great road engine even if it isn't quite at the top of the class 5 power charts. Mail me if you want more details. Yellow SL #32 Edited by - Shaun_E on 28 Sep 2006 22:30:18 Edited by - Shaun_E on 28 Sep 2006 22:30:58 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFA Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 It may be worth looking at CatCams website. If you call their HQ in Belgium, I think they do a crank for the K. I saw there EN40B crank for a VX engine and it was very nicely made, and about 2/3 the price of a DKE. K2RUM - The car of two halves with no engine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leadership Team SLR No.77 Posted September 28, 2006 Leadership Team Share Posted September 28, 2006 Injectors - Saab 9000 2.3 Aero Speak to Neo Bros Ltd, Waltham Cross, 01992 719280. here Stu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Day Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Same spec as Shaun's engine. However I had to fit an uprated fuel pressure regulator as the injectors came from my 1.6 & were on 100% duty cycle with the standard FPR. The biggest plus with this engine is the good low down torque. One doesn't have to rev the nuts off to make progress on the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Plato Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I have found there is a big increase in stress and flex when moving from 220bhp > 245/250 bhp in a K and upto and over 175 lb torque . This should be borne in mind when specifying the build and allow for rebuilds each year especially if you are going to do trackdays etc . here is C7 TOP South Wales AO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinwhitcher Posted September 29, 2006 Author Share Posted September 29, 2006 i agree dave, I intend to try to spec a reliable *touch wood* 240+ spec I have sourced a very high spec DVA head with the new larger 33.5/28.3mm valves and Piper 1444 cams now to sort out the bottom end. My thoughts are for a steel crank and rods fully balanced I will continue to use the pace dry sump system and my powerspeed 4-2-1 exhaust, but I think i'll use the new bernard scouse airbox and 90mm trumpets to see if there are any gains to be had. Martin MW 51 CAT Superlight No.171 now known as:Superlight DVA 207 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racingshoe Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I went for a VHPD nitrided crank on my 1900 with 285cams. Alas, this was not the bit that broke Rik Robarts - bl**dy bright orange thing here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Plato Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 gains are to had from a better/bigger exhaust than your powerspeed and roller barrels Martin . here is C7 TOP South Wales AO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinwhitcher Posted September 29, 2006 Author Share Posted September 29, 2006 Interested to know more about exhausts specs dave? Martin MW 51 CAT Superlight No.171 now known as:Superlight DVA 207 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahatma Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I have a set of new Arrow rods that I'm unlikely to use - mail me if you want to discuss. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinwhitcher Posted October 22, 2006 Author Share Posted October 22, 2006 Cheers for your help Andy I have now sorted the spec for the bottom end Standard Crank (Yes you heard correctly 😳) however Steve at Vibration Free is converting it with Heavy Metal Inserts to correctly balance the crank he mentioned something like it is around 2-2.5kg underweight in regarding the counter balance with this process it takes a *lot* of the stresses out of the bottom end and he & Dave feels that the std cranks oilways are better quality than some of the steel cranks on offer. With this process(which Steve Butts has used with his Elise 250BHP+ for i believe 2 seasons hard use) Steve says that the std crank is more than strong enough 😬 Arrow rods courtsey of Andy (Mahatma) newer Pistal pistons R500 lightweight flywheel and ap clutch I am looking forward to seeing what this engine produces Martin MW 51 CAT Superlight No.171 now known as:Superlight DVA 207 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leadership Team SLR No.77 Posted October 22, 2006 Leadership Team Share Posted October 22, 2006 Is there any way that a record of failures/reasons can be put together to establish the most likely weeknesses of the 1900K? Although the crank does come high on the "worry" list, in truth it may be further down than other smaller items but big failure issues, ie. Dave's valve seat? My 1900K has a vhpd crank and single-tang rods (very nice build by Nig M ) but I already have a set of Arrow rods that were destined for another engine project. It's very tempting to give the engine a refresh and fit the steel rods at some stage in the future, probably next year. Stu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Plato Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 weak areas as a result of the power and torque in my opinion and following strip downs - regardless of who builds the engines is the flex that occurs as a result of the K design, so you have wear on the piston pins , bearings and all the mating faces move to the extent that you can see fretting . Then there are quality issues to monitor in relation to the bores being bored centerline to the crank, possible ovality of the bores beyond Rover spec owing to the interference fit of the scholar block and quality of some of the piston options. the head is fairly well proven in all fitments and doesnt genwerally cause any issues but the spec of cam chosen can increase loadings on the valve train. There are only a small number of 240 bhp K's about and not many of those do any serious mileage or trackdays and only a few of those have been stripped and inspected on an annula basis to assess wear - so most owners say its been 100% reliable ........that is untill it blows up . We assessed the wear each season on mine but the fecker still lost a REC valve head or lost a valve seat which is difficult to prevent - the valve seats were the original Rover and the valves were regular REC ones ☹️ I'm not slagging the K , its a great engine , but I do think that above 220bhp things start moving around too much and wear is greatly increased - just an honest opinion based upon my experiences here is C7 TOP South Wales AO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinwhitcher Posted October 22, 2006 Author Share Posted October 22, 2006 Dave, did you have your crank heavy metal inserted or balanced as is? What I undedrstand is that having this done, does reduce a lot of flexing and removes a lot of stress the high power K can have, resulting in a much smoother engine. Martin MW 51 CAT Superlight No.171 now known as:Superlight DVA 207 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Plato Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 I used a proper steel DKE crank and steel rods and had the whole of the bottom end ballanced. here is C7 TOP South Wales AO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinwhitcher Posted October 22, 2006 Author Share Posted October 22, 2006 Cheers Martin MW 51 CAT Superlight No.171 now known as:Superlight DVA 207 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casbar Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Its ok Martin, I'll be around to bring the bits back in my van 😳 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinwhitcher Posted October 22, 2006 Author Share Posted October 22, 2006 Martin MW 51 CAT Superlight No.171 now known as:Superlight DVA 207 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oilyhands Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Dave, It's the secondary out of balance forces that HMI is designed to minimise, these are the ones that afflict the assembly at higher RPM causing flexing and pin push. The imbalance is between the counterwight of the crank and the weight of the rod/piston assembly. It also has the advantage of distributing the flywheel affect along the whole of the crank. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dartmoor7 Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 You might like to look at the crank section on this page: http://www.sandsmuseum.com/cars/elise/thecar/engine/kingk.html Be careful choosing your supplier. Jerry Parker L7 SVN 1400 Supersport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now