Yes as I said I reckon his is the bench mark.

On their thread it just says they used special iron sleeves.

They also did say they have a future motor planned with a stroke of 81mm, so I don't think we're that over the top with 82mm

 

Gentlemen, the thread by Champion Motorsport is out there. Info and pics posted are as much as they wanted to provide. It is not in my hands to offer more. I apologize but must respect their R&D and work.
The engine builder is a true race engineer. It doesn't hurt that he's been a friend for 18 years. Trust and confidence are in play here 100%.
How and everything that was done came after a year deliberation of the project and years of engine building.
This was built as a street engine with race characteristics without the demands and rebuild needs of a race (Cup) motor.
The balance struck is awesome. The low end grunt is almost turbo-like and the high rpm pull ... well fogetabouit.

\m/

 

Congrats Keyser… Beautiful car in deed!!

As for the stroke goes, if your bore size is 105.9 and stroke is 79mm then your displacement would only be 4175cc not 4.25L. If they used the 105.9mm bore and used 81mm as it was mentioned to be the next stroke that would make 4280cc which is bigger than 4.25. 80.4mm x 105.9mm how ever does make 4249cc, 4.25 which makes sense.

In any case, that is a great car you have there. Knock on wood! You are the Ranger than I take it..? Or did you buy it from him? Does anyone know the whereabouts of Ranger? lol
Keyser might have Mozambiqued him!!!

 

I do not believe it was ever stated to have been a 4.25L. Initial thoughts were so but did not pan out that way. Yes you are correct on the 4.17.
btw I "black op'ed" his @$$. Made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

\m/

 

Good deal. She is a beauty.

"When all else fails FAILURE DRILL is King!!"

 

Adam,

Any info on the no machining liners?

 

Sorry I have been busy for a bit.
Here is what I have gathered about the Sleeves, the liners. Both are ductile iron. Everyone likes ductile iron sleeves over the Alu-Nikasil Sleeves for high performance engines. There are two options.

-Option 1: Sleeves which allow up to 104mm bore. This requires machining. I will include a step by step instructions by the manufacturer for you.

-Option 2: Drop in where you can go up to 103mm. These do not require machining which makes it easy but they cost a little bit more. Additional 125 per liner.

I know these cost more than the others but, I have been told you will end up saving money at the end because it usually costs around $250 per cylinder for the machining to go up another millimeter of bore. I think it is a good compromise to go with the drop in sleeves\liners; you loose 1mm bore but they save you money and hassle of machining. Less risk of having issues that might be caused by faulty machining. These crank cases and cylinder housings are not cheap! They know this which is probably why they charge extra. I would say the convenience would be well worth it. If you have a machine shop that you really trust then that's a different story, but is it worth it just for 1mm extra bore?

Now that I have everything we need to put together these strokers, who is interested? Lets see a show of hands… Who's is in?

 

Here is a comparison between different bore sizes and displacement.

GT3:

- 80 x 103 = 3999.5cc ---- vs. ---- 80 x 104.1 = 4085cc
- 80.4 x 103 = 4020cc ---- vs. ---- 80.4 x 104.1 = 4106cc
- 81 x 103 = 4050cc ------ vs. ---- 81 x 104.1 = 4136cc
- 81.4 x 103 = 4070cc ---- vs. ---- 81.4 x 104.1 = 4157cc
- 82 x 103 = 4100cc ------ vs. ---- 82 x 104.1 = 4186cc
- 82.4 x 103 = 4120cc ---- vs. ---- 82.4 x 104.1 = 4208cc 4.2
- 83 x 103 = 4150cc ------ vs. ---- 83 x 104.1 = 4238cc
- 83.4 x 103 = 4170cc ---- vs. ---- 83.4 x 104.1 = 4259cc
- 84 x 103 = 4200cc ------ vs. ---- 84 x 104.1 = 4289cc (MAX recommended)

TURBO & GT2:

- 80.4 x 102.6 = 3988cc ------- vs. ----- 80.4 x 103 = 4020cc
- 81 x 102.6 = 4018cc (4.0) --- vs. ----- 81 x 103 = 4050cc
- 81.4 x 102.6 = 4038cc ------- vs. ----- 81.4 x 103 = 4070cc
- 82 x 102.6 = 4068cc --------- vs. ----- 82 x 103 = 4100cc
- 82.4 x 102.6 = 4088cc ------- vs. ----- 82.4 x 103 = 4120cc

 

A little more info on the company making the 103mm drop in cylinders? If we're not machining the case/water jackets do we know the cooling will be adequate and we're not going to crack a sleeve?

 

They are custom, direct replacement, drop in sleeves. I can ask for some photos if you like. There will be no issues with cooling or problems with the sleeves. It was Brian's recommendation again. We have a lot to thank him for.

I like that post about the Evans waterless cooling by the way. I like the idea of a cooling system that would be without any pressure. I would still have the weld in cooling bungs done while you have the motor apart just to have it done but I think I am going to switch to Evans stuff myself. I had a cooling line split last week and I can still smell coolant that got all over. It stinks

 

Adam,

I will bow to Brian's knowledge and expertise in relation to this build to let me know what his recommendation would be to get from my 3.6 to 4.2.

Whether that be 104.1 x 82.4 with machining, or down the drop in sleeve 103 path.

Either way I'm in. Will have to juggle some finances around as 99% of my cash is invested. Will have enough to buy the kit anyway, but will have to wait a while to do the build

 

So my understanding is rods/crank/bearings are all going to come from Pauter either specd for assembly or already assembled? Correct?

Also interested to hear Brian's recommendation for a quick reving 4.2 NA street/track build from a 3.6. The drop in 103mm are sounding nice, but the 84mm crank is concerning only from the fact that it seems to be the stroke limit.

Still interested...

 

You can choose the crank and rods to be already assembled together or have them labeled so you can assemble them yourself. I think having them assembled together is a good idea for both shipping\packaging and the fact that everything will go together where they should; the right bearing,with right rod, right right crank journal. The crank, rods, and the bearings are all from Pauter.

84 is the max recommended. I am sure if you want to sink a lot more time and money into further R&D, even more stroke is possible but 84 max is where Brian feels comfortable.

Here is a way to do it:
You can go with 82.4 x 104.1 = 4208cc instead of 84 x 103 = 4200cc to achieve a 4.2. Just that there will be extra cost and time of machining is involved.

I just called him to ask him if he recommends the titanium rods for the 84mm stroke. He will call me back after lunch and I can let you know what he thinks.
I don't think so because of all the weigh we are shaving off the rotating assembly but I will confirm. I would think the further crank lightening would be advisable. It can't hurt. It can only help Anything you can do to further lighten the crank or the rods by going titanium (unobtainium) will help!

 

If 84 has been done before successfully then that would be the way to go along with the 103 cylinders.

Last thing is I've heard rumors of a build using a Pauter crank that didn't make oil pressure. Can you discuss how the crank oils? Is it similar to a Porsche crank that oils from the ends to the middle? or different? Most oil pressure issues are more assembly and tolerance related in my experience... This would be the last thing for me to commit (warm fuzzy and all...)

Thanks

Jamie

 

The lack of oil pressure could have been due to several things. Most people decide to build their motors, when something bad happens to their motors and they have to rebuild them anyway so they decide it is a good time to do a stroker. They might loose a piston, spin rod bearings, damage a rod, etc. etc. That might have caused damage to the oil pump in that motor, or the pump might have been defective in the first place which might have caused the engine failure. I am not saying that is what happened, just that these can be some possible scenarios. Another thing could have been that they just ordered a crank and did not use the modified bearings.