Peter T Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 Thanks Steve for the positive comment. This is a new venture for me as i have never worked on a ' K ' seies engine and i am trying to understand on what priciples it is built. Sometimes engines have a weakness that can be addressed, but the k has a couple of quirky items that seem on paper tricky to simplify, until i have stripped one and see exactly what the arrangement of components are, i am at a loss of it's nature. Another question is why do the liners have to protrude above the block which causes the head to become banana shape in the first place? Is the block not strong enough for the liners to be fixed in then? And if not then surly when the head is bolted down does it not pull the block up anyway? R500 Mango Madness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leadership Team SLR No.77 Posted October 31, 2006 Leadership Team Share Posted October 31, 2006 Not that I'm refering to Oily ar just "any" engine builder! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oilyhands Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Rob, It doesnt surprise me at allthaty only blue/blue are used but that will not show excessive clearance only insufficient. The main bearing tunnels are line bored with the block clamped, the question was about being able to use ungraded bearings (I.E. intermediate grade) and re-line boring so that graded bearings weren't necessary. In my experience this is rarely necessary and the Rover bearings seem up to the job. I have seen the results of using VP2 ungraded bearings on a non hardened crank where bearing clearances are not established correctly. The R300 uses VP2 ungraded bearings on a stock crank regardless of the pin and rod grades, in 50% of cases this will work out OK, however when the pin grades determine that a thicker or thinner shell is needed then the bearing clearance will not be met. Liner heights are crucial to ensuring correct clamping force on the liner top, the correct liner protrusion is .004"-.006" despite what the Rover manuals may say. The liners also need to be level with one-another. The differential expansion of the block WRT the liner requires that the liners start of proud, as the block expands the head is affectively lifted off the liner tops and the head bows slightly the other way, if the liner protrusion isn't correct then the gasket will leach across the fire ring. It's a short ride then to gasket failure and head softening across the fire ring contact area. The block isnt pulled up locally because the threads are not in the upper part of the block but in the oil rail below, the nett affect is therefore an overall clamping of the sandwich. Interference fit liners can help, the first time this was tried was many years ago (1998) in Mike Bees' and Mark Bishop's engines using old Citroen diesel liners which were also thicker. Scholar now use a similar methodology using custom made liners. Perfect bore's liners are also a tighter fit in the block and are made of steel. Oily. The problem on Exiges is snide side swipes and attacks on people's reputations and integrity, once that course is embarked on then it all escalates pretty quickly. Edited by - oilyhands on 31 Oct 2006 09:01:38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 Are the upgraded bearings a sputter bearing? R500 Mango Madness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oilyhands Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 The bearings are not coated or anodised in any way. They are a conventional aluminium/tin alloy with some other trace alloying but basically reticular tin/ally, the later TF160 (AS16) bearings can handle much higher rod loadings, not quite as high as VP2 but then their improved tolerance to debris impaction makes then overall a better bet. VP2s are quite hard and will soon destroy themselves if any debris enters the bearing. Oily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Walker Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Stu, One of the engine builders explained that the Rover bearings are not that accurately manufactured so they fit the medium shells. I personally do not agree with this theory and always try to size the correct bearing, with the exception of the Big Ends when using Vandervell, I simply mic the crank pin and check that it not oversized. I have tried using plastigauge as recomended in the Haynes book of lies but this is usless in the mains as the distortion defrorms the stuff before you can pull it in line with the head bolts and its not much use on the big ends either as its difficult to hold the rod straight when pull the big end caps on and off. Then the stuff sticks to the surface of the bearings and you can easily damage the surface trying to wash the stuff off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oilyhands Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Rob, To hold the cap/rod straight when removing, simply insert a feeler gauge of the required thickness twixt rod side and crank, this will stop any twist in the rod when removing and torquing. oily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Walker Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Dave, How do you check that the big end running clearances are correct when using Vandervell Shells and have you had any sucess using plastigauge in this area? Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozz Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 We always used to use lead wire for measuring bearing clearances. BTW very interesting post *thumbup* Bozz McLaren Orange and Black 1.6SS 6 Speed here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oilyhands Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Rob, I rarely use VP2 and usually only at the customers insistence. I would normally mic the pins and if they are intermediate then I simply fit the bearings and ensure they are free. This can be done on a trial build with the crank out of the engine and dummied on the bench, this way any stiction from the crank bearings or rings is eliminated. oily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Walker Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Dave, A diplomatic answer, so your not a fan of the Vandervell bearings in the K application? I chatted with Dave Walker on this subject some months ago he was amazed that anyone was still using this old hat technology. He told me that these shells were first designed for use in the Vanwall F1 racing car in 50`s and designed to get the car to the end of the race if some surface bearing wear had taken place. I don`t know how much truth there is in the last statement but its a nice story. I find them very difficult to work with from an assembly point of view, as you say a dummy build on the bench is about the only way to check them, you cannot mic the surface without damage, you cannot touch the surface without damage splitting new big end caps on steel rods that are dowelled is always a difficult nervracking job. Assembly needs to be carried out in near surgical conditions. Rob Edited by - Rob Walker on 31 Oct 2006 09:58:23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 Seeing as the bottom end flexes, does having a steel crank reduce ladder flex as a result compared to an iron crank? Or is it vice versa as iron has a lower harmonic frequency resolution which possibly does not flex as much? If the bottom end is flexible to say, does increasing the compression ratio change con rod loadings which in turn transmit this to the crank? Or does piston speed do more damage to crank loadings? R500 Mango Madness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oilyhands Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I think a cast crank will be stiffer and less prone to bending. Secondary out of balance forces will contribute to flexing and bending, some steel cranks have hollowed pins which helps with the overall weight, but mpre significantly helps to reduce the overall pin/rod/piston weight and brings the SOOB closer to ideal. Increasing the CR will increase rod loadings and side loadings on the piston and liner and will therefore cause the engine to move more. Oily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 So the conclusion of the facts that i have read are that the R500 engine as with other high revving/BHP units are at the limit of power to reliability levels. Trying to achieve higher levels of power are deemed not practical due to engine life. I can therfore accept this as the absolute cost of power for this engine, so the other conclusion is that better components can prolong engine rebuilds and where possible reduce the chances of total engine failure. Ok how about using a superchager unit, being a lower compression unit will it still flex with 1-2 bar of boost i wonder? R500 Mango Madness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leadership Team SLR No.77 Posted October 31, 2006 Leadership Team Share Posted October 31, 2006 ........ except that maximum power on the R500 is 230bhp @ 8600rpm - my 1900 engine hits 230bhp at around 7200rpm, assumedly less stressed then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 244 bhp @ 9100 rpm. R500 Mango Madness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leadership Team SLR No.77 Posted October 31, 2006 Leadership Team Share Posted October 31, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 How about a V8 ' K ' series? R500 Mango Madness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Mupferit Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Great, 2 lots of head gasket failures on one engine............just what you need. Brent 2.3 DURATEC SV Reassuringly Expensive R 417.39 😬 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Walker Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 You are predictable and boring Brent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Mupferit Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Can't take a joke Rob 🤔 Believe it or not, I've never actually knocked the K series so I fail to see where the 'predictable' comes into it but hey ho maybe you are just overly sensitive. Brent 2.3 DURATEC SV Reassuringly Expensive R 417.39 😬 Edited by - Brent Chiswick on 31 Oct 2006 22:48:21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oilyhands Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Let's try to keep it friendly I think Brent was just having a little joke 😬 Oily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leadership Team SLR No.77 Posted November 1, 2006 Leadership Team Share Posted November 1, 2006 Bringing it back on track whilst we've got such wisdom and knowledge together................. Considering all things equal, ie. 1800 rather than 1900, same power/rpm limit etc (eg. 200bhp vhpd), how do the various blocks measure up benefit wise, ie. a well-built standard vhpd (liners corrected), or a Scholar sleeved, or a Perfect Bore's linered block? Is there a possible disadvantage to any of the non-o/e setups? As far as rods are concerned, AFAIK there doesn't appear to have been any doubt - single tang o/e items, or if higher power a pucker steel version, but only necessary when modifying to higher than normal vhpd power? And at the bottom, the standard crank (pref vhpd) has shown to be pretty strong within sensible rpm limitations - but the balancing is key? The latest question appearing to be whether to use HMI as opposed to just a highly accurate balance. So is the HMI now considered a real benefit? Stu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Mupferit Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I was indeed Dave and despite not owning a K, I have been reading this thread purely in the interest of learning more from the luminaries who do own, build and modify them. It is always interesting to read about engine design (to me anyhow) of any sort even if it doesn't relate directly to me. My 'tongue in cheek' remark was simply in response to Peters equally, I am sure, 'tongue in cheek' comment about a V8 K series, 'twas all. So please keep the engine builders Master Class on this thread going. Brent 2.3 DURATEC SV Reassuringly Expensive R 417.39 😬 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7 wonders of the world Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Slighty OT has anyone every used a KV6 in a Caterham 🤔 I was considering it when I built mine but went down the more conventional route...............well for the moment 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