Evo magazine

[Peter Carmichael]

The construction of the K means that the pulley has to go on last. Its radial location is not very reliable, so a component balance is about all that is viable and assembly balancing is meaningless.

 

The comment that forces can be 50 times the size is also a bit of a diversion. Reciprocating forces dominate with big end loadings of up to 5 tonnes, and a counter rotating out of balance force at the mains of an idicative magnitude of 1.7 tonnes (max) (reference a 1.8 K running at 9300 rpm). Any force 50 times this size will wreck the engine before it turns over once. The out of balance force counterrotates, so no amount of balance weight is going to eliminate it.

 

I am obviously going to have to go and read this article now so I can stop bull****ing and understand better the comments being made,

[Peter Carmichael]

I've read the article now. Not much new information.

 

I think the general conclusion is right: tuner cars are not necessarily reliable

 

I think some of the detail points are irrelevant: particularly the assertions about crank balance. As pointed out above, an out of balance force of 120kg (their figure) is swamped by the reciprocating forces and wil be irrelevant to bearing load.

 

Seeing as balance is something that can be fixed, it falls to the reputable engine builder to see that this is done.

 

And yet some engines still fail.

 

Dave Andrews has always told us that the standard crank is good for 8500rpm safely. Geoff Northcott has been running his interim engine to 8700 on a standard crank.

 

The article also pointed out that running extra thick bolts through the engine is counter to the engineered design of the K. I know for a fact that internal Rover discussions took place regarding my engine where the considered opinion was that it *could not work*. My engine did eventually fail, but in a totally avoidable way because of collateral effects from an ancillary failure. On disassembly there were absolutely no signs of wear or fretting of liner tops etc. And the engine did work. However good the theory, I know that engine proved itself and will rebuild to the same spec again.

 

I think a whole lot of installation issues with Ks are skimped over. The cooling system is an area where Caterham seem to choose a favoured radiator with each passing season. Dry sumping is a very good thing for Ks to maintain oil temperatures in a way that just isn't possible with a shallow wet sump. I think the R500 internals are flawed in specification and installation. I would rather stick an R500 spec head on an R400 bottom end.

 

The approach I took with my engine was to take responsibility for all aspects of its installation. I still have a few ideas for the cooling system that I want to try out, but with those fixed I think I can safely run it until a valve spring breaks or some other unavoidable component failure catches me out. 250+ bhp and 9500rpm is a fun place to be

[Jason Plato]

well get your spanners out and rebuild it then Peter ....

 

dave

 

Edited by - Dave Jackson on 6 Jun 2003 17:41:59

[Rob Walker]

Peter stop slagging off the Farndon steel R500 crank there is nothing wrong with it. I have just stripped my engine after 9000 miles and found all the internals including the main and big end shells to be in perfect condition. The reason for the strip down was three failed OE flywheel bolts.

 

I also have no liner to head fretting and use the original OE stretch bolts and oil rail. My liners are the same spec as yours.

 

Your suggestion that the stock 1.8 cast crank is stronger than the R500 is just laughable. IMHO the main reason that R500 owners see wear in the bottom end is due to running with the crank main bearings wrongly configured. This results in the bottom end lubrication being lower performance than the original Rover design.

 

 

[Graham Perry]

Anyone who has ever seen the Open University programme about the K series crank, will know that at the time it was claimed to be the worlds first ever scientifically designed cast crank in relation to the way it was cast, so that it could cope with higher revs. The fact that people are running them at 8700 revs to me is pretty good evidence that they are well designed and made as standard as many other cast cranks wouldn't put up with this at all. I cannot see though that it could ever be better than even the poorest design of Steel crank.

 

Any manufacturer that made a poorly designed steel crank particularly for racing would not be making them for long. I guess what we are debating here is whether one make of steel crank is fit for purpiose whereas another is more than fit for purpose.

 

Edited by - Graham Perry on 6 Jun 2003 19:52:21

[Rob Walker]

As with all things its a trade off. The R500 crank is a lightweight fully crossdrilled EN40B steel billet crank with a particularly clever series of oil way drillings. This effectively ensures that there is a double oil feed to each big end IF GROOVED TOP MAIN SHELLS ARE FITTED on each main. Peters crank is a Doug Kiddie design it is a very heavy fully counterweighted EN40B steel billet crank. It has cross drilled mains on 2, 3 , 4, &5 but not crossdrilled on the big ends, it also has a groove ground into each main which will provided a similar oil feed to the R500 crank. I weighed this crank against a standard 1.8 cast crank and found it to be 3Kg heavier. There is no doubt that the Kiddie crank is stronger than its Farndon R500 stable mate but I for one see no point in all that extra inertia when the the Farndon crank has proved to be more than strong enough. After all we are building a race engine not a Tractor.

 

Edited by - Rob walker on 7 Jun 2003 08:04:26

[Paul Ranson]

Your suggestion that the stock 1.8 cast crank is stronger than the R500 is just laughable.

I don't see Peter saying that.

 

IMHO the main reason that R500 owners see wear in the bottom end is due to running with the crank main bearings wrongly configured.

That seems to be what he's saying...

 

Paul

 

[Gridgway]

came a bit late to this thread, but even Wallace a Grommit wouldn't try to get 300 bhp from an engine made of cheese and expect it to get to the cheese shop *and* back!

 

Graham

[edmandsd]

...all other things remaining equal i'd rather have a fully counter balanced crank than a lightweight one. DKE cranks are some of the best around from what I've seen.....even if I happen to be using a forged Farndon item myself.

 

Home of BDR700

[AMMO]

For what it's worth, I've run fully counterbalanced cranks and lightweight cranks in various engines. In operation they seem exactly the same in terms of feel and driveability. What makes a difference (I'm going a bit off subject here, I know, but may be of interest) to the way an engine feels is the weight of the components you hang off the crank. Pistons, rods and flywheel. I always try to make these as light as possible without compromising strength.

 

I would run a fully counterbalanced crank in an endurance engine or something that is meant to last (a road /weekend track car) and a lightened crank in a sprint engine where overall mass of the complete vehicle is important and durability less so (a race car).

 

Doug Kiddie Engineering seem to be the top crank makers at the moment. You can tell this by their prices (about £200.00 per crank more than anybody else) and their lead times. I know of a lot of top people who use DKE cranks who have no intention of going elsewhere. If I wanted a crank for my own use I'd probably go to Farndon and save a couple of hundred quid. I'd spend what I saved on better pistons (Cosworth, Omega or Wiseco) and rods (Arrow or Carrillo).

 

The K-Series probably would go to 300 bhp + if you changed the block, bore and stroke, cylinder head and a few other bits. 😬

 

It would probably end up looking loke a Duratec. 😬 😬 We could call it the L-Series. 😬

 

AMMO

[Swiss_Tony]

Having read the article I would assume that they are saying that the engine in a standard road car (tin top) is very reliable. All I will say to this is 🙆🏻.

I have seen lots of them which have problems in standard trim. If the engine is looked at closely its easy to see that its a bad design for a reliable strong engine. It is however a good design for a cheap to produce disposable unit.

On the other hand think about the amount of spares that Rover sell.........

One thing thats often forgotten in race engines and cars is that in order to finish first first you must finish. Reliability does matter.

As for cranks personally I would have a heavier DKE crank than a lighter Farndon one. Having said this I use a standard crank in my vx.

Dont be surprised at 9000 + rpm with a standard crank. Lots of standard cranks will do this.

Balancing of the crank and ancillary components is essential. I have seen a few disasters from so called reputable engine builders. Not being balanced would be one of the lesser sins 😳

 

James

Su77on Se7ens

Up to my neck in K-series and Duratec engines!

 

[Rob Walker]

I think its wrong to "sterio type " Farndon as makers of only lightweight cranks. They will make you a crank to your specification. If you want a fully counterweighted crank they will make you one. The crank they make for the Rover Cup is a heavier stiffer crank with more counterweight, its also cheaper then the lightweight crank.

[Joe 90]

Lots od standard cranks will do 9000 RPM I don't think so. I would also argue that a standard crank that repeatedly tolerates 50% more RPM than standard is not well designed, as it could have been made lighter.

 

Upgradeitis ward, awaiting open wallet surgery. 100,016 miles

[AMMO]

I meant to say I would have a crank made by Fardon to my spec, not that I would use a lightweight Farndon crank in preference to a DKE one in a K Series. Hope I didn't confuse anyone.

 

Farndon will make anything you want to your own drawings. It just so happens the one they make for the K-Series is a light weight one. May or may not be their design. They may have made it to someone elses drawings or specifications. Farndon are a reputable company that make stuff that doesn't usually go wrong. You can't generalise without knowing all the details.

 

P.S. I have been informed that Rover already make an L-Series engine. It is a 2 litre diesel. Can't call the next generation an M-Series because of BMW, so maybe an N-Series is next in line for Rover?

 

AMMO

[Gridgway]

am I right in thinking that the 'k' comes from the shape of the gubbins in the bottom end (that'll be the technical explanation then), rather than the next letter in a series?

 

Graham

[Slipper man]

Just to add to the heat....

 

I know nothing about cranks, or the bearing flow issue that Rob is referring to, but next time my engine is rebuilt I will have a real good look at the centre main. Last time, it certainly had far more wear than it should have suffered.

 

Jez Coates apparantly believes that the R500 crank was an unnecessary expense and that a standard one (with the R400 strenghtening would do the job just fine).

 

If you want power, have a look on www.racecar.co.uk and follow the links to the guys that build Judd engines. They apparantly have a conversion in final development that will take the K-series to 2 litres and LOTS of power!!

 

(And you are right, Graham)

[AMMO]

Graham

 

I never thought of that! I just assumed that as Austin/Morris/BL/Rover started with the A, B, etc. series, that they'd worked their way up to K (and L). I'm obviously wrong.

 

What is "K" shaped in an engine? I'm curious.

 

Regarding Judd, they hardly have a great reputation (anybody can make great claims about what they can potentially do, I prefer to see what people have actually done). The Nissan Touring Car engines Judd made (although a work of art) were very expensive and didn't match the speed of of the IES "cheapy" engines (if you can call 53K cheap).

 

AMMO

[Nick M]

so maybe an N-Series is next in line for Rover?

 

Presumably N would stand for "nail" ??!! 😬 😬

[oilyhands]

Legend has it that the 'K' moniker comes from the strengthening ribs on the oil rail situated underneath the main bearing ladder, these radiate out at 45 degrees and form 3 perfect 'K's.

 

FWIW quite a number of competition prepared K's I have been involved with are now running standard cranks rather than VHPD or steel. The stock cranks I have seen used have proved very robust (suprisingly so) , more so than the VHPD tufftrided item.

 

In my experience the *crank and rods* of the K series is seldom afflicted by any bother in 1.6 or 1.8 form, especially in a standard road car, carefully chosen standard components, properly prepared and balanced can make a very effective choice.

 

Oily

[Peter Carmichael]

To clarify my comments. The concern is that in the R500 installation the Farndon crank is not fed oil according to its design and the Farndon rods are not bushed so that they are heated and blued when fitting the gudgeon pins. These are two areas I would seek change in the spec of an R500 engine.

 

My DKE crank was one that Rob Walker rejected. It has no cross-drilling at all as the oil feeds are single oblique drillings from the mains to the big ends. Main 1 ffed big end 1, main 2 feeds big end 2... etc. It has a groove machined into each main bearing to maintain oil flow (a la Porsche) although it ran in a block that had been modified to take grooved shells top and bottom on mains 1 to 4.

 

I doubt if the 2 litre Judd will ever see the light of day demonstrating any more power than has already been achieved. There is a limit to the amount of material that can be removed from the ports before Mr Port meets Mr Waterway. The only breathing advantage a 2 litre would have would be if you could unshroud the valves a bit more and feed them through a bigger port. I really don't see this being easily achieved.

[Alex Wong1697456877]

Not sure I understand what the point is then. It's like saying the radial bone in my arm is capable of withstanding 2 tons vertical pressure; yeah and......? interesting but of no practical value.

 

Damned. There goes another excuse for not doing some pressups and trying to get a bit fitter.

 

Alex Wong

www.alexwong.net

         _________

/ __ __ /

___ _//__T/__/_ ___

/ (_) (_)/

/`-'/o/ _______ /o/`-'/

/ /// ( VDU7X ) // /

/___/--_________/--/___/

 

[Paul Ranson]

Regarding Judd, they hardly have a great reputation

Well, in the heirarchy of British engine constructors it presumably goes Ilmor, Cosworth Racing, Engine Developments. And the first two are probably not going to be able to sell you an off the shelf potential Le Mans winning engine.

 

I've no idea whether the 2 litre K will offer much over the 1.8, but from a competition pov 1.8 is a really awkward capacity. A 260BHP K series engined Caterham would be an interesting basis for a Mod Prod Hillclimb car.

 

Paul