Yes, one set of liners were Woosner and they are plasma coated.

We have taken a twelve week detour. When it is finally assembled we'll see what comes of it.

 

Sharkster, here is another bit of info I received.

"I had a long conversation with a contact in the UK. He told me that RS Tuning had had problems with the Wossner Liners and Pistons. I have asked him to follow up with this and obtain further information. There are always many sides to these stories, but what was confirmed is that they no longer use these parts.

As soon as I hear from him, I will forward through to you."




In addition the CP pistons we have seem to be designed with some real loose clearances towards the top of the pistons. Like I said above, we are doing something different ............. no guarantees it will be better, but we won't know if we don't try. More on this later.

 

Chad,

Came in to read some updates. For what it's worth, I agree with m42racer racers views. I know it's easy to comment when you're on the sidelines observing but that's my 2 cents.

If you planned on building a 4.0 liter, build it. I'm not sure what you finally decided on, you said S Car Go was gonna lend you a motor to mock up the parts on. Build it the way you want it done. I'm young, and so far have only built up one car, but I learnt a lot of lessons (mostly what NOT to do)in the process, and things never go the way as planned, but it's important to at least learn from these lessons and improve upon them.

With all the $ spent on this project, it seems like it would have been worth it to hire a project manager to oversee everything and compile weekly reports. We all need a push once in a while. It's gone on so long, if it were me (again I know its easy to comment) I would take a vacation from the project. Let things be for a month lets say. Then after you've cleared your mind, come back to it, make a list of what's gotta get done, and push push till it's all seen through. I've found that typically things only feel rewarding if you've had to fight for them.

Good luck with the completion, and I hope by spring time to see many high res pictures, videos, dynos, and full specs of the final build

 

Things are coming along and I realize many are wondering ............. why all the delays. I can explain a little more. The question is ............. how do you safely harness almost 1100 foot pounds of torque with any longevity? How do you do this and keep the lower end of the liners from distorting? Conventional wisdom dictates longer rod lengths. You can go to two rings on the pistons to gain rod length, but that won't work well on the street with a turbo motor. You can use smaller wrist pins, but at the cost of them breaking trying to contain all the power? Offset wrist pins and rod bores ........... maybe.

The stock turbo motor uses five inch rods on a 76.4 mm stroke. That renders a 1.66 rod to stroke ratio. This is a good ratio that renders reasonable lower liner pressures. We are using a 80.4 mm crank, with pistons designed to gain all the lenght we can would give us a rod lenght of close to 5 inches and a rod to stroke ratio of about 1.58. To use a set of our pistons and a rod lenght which is a little bit shorter would render a rod to stroke ratio of approx. 1.55.

What can be done besides designing another set of pistons which by itself will not provide a desirable rod to stroke ratio?

a) We are having designed a billet crank with smaller journals, complete with redesigned oil passages. Although our GT3 stroker crank had the smaller journals, it was forged and we felt it was not designed for the power levels being exerted. The stronger billet material will gain us rod length and strength.

b) We are using 104.5 mm pistons with higher center wrist pins. These pistons will use new technology ..... tin plated rings. To accomodate the pressures we are using DI taper honed steel liners. These liners will be not only 4.5 mm wider than stock, they will be just over 2 mm longer than stock. In addition they will be over 140 thousands thick at the top and 120 thousands thick at the bottom. The added thickness will provide additional strength. Mind you, stock aluminum 100 mm liners are 170 thousands stick, but these are DI steel which are stronger than aluminum and far thicker than currently available steel liners. These liners will require machining of both the engine case and the liner housings along with custom thickness liner sealing rings located at the bottom of the liners. The engine will now be spread a little under 3 mm on each side which will require a longer timing chain along with adjustment of certain attached parts due to the approx 6 mm of added overall engine width.

There is a little more to this, but the end result will be a very acceptable rod/stroke ratio and a lower cylinder pressure that will safely contain the power. Hopefully, they engine assembly will be complete for Christmas.

 

Here is another recent correspondence I received.

Chad,


I thought I would send this over to give you some idea of the differences with long and short Rods.

1.55 L/R is not the shortest we have seen. I have Chevy engines out there with 1.52. The typical 350 small block with the off the shelf stroker kit is around 1.52.

There are many variables that the rod length affects. The issue is how much and how important are these. There is a lot of hype attached the Rod ratios. Some put a lot more importance upon it than I think is necessary.

The shorter Rod will have a greater angle at any given Crank position. This increases the side loading of the Piston against the Cylinder wall. Offset Pins in the Piston, and offset bores in the Rod help here.

The shorter rod will not dwell at TDC as long as a longer rod will, but will sit at BDC longer. This helps in the cam timing allowing slightly different Exhaust cam timing. You may run more Ignition timing to obtain the same amount of power.

Some will argue that a longer Rod will give a wider Torque curve. This typically occurs as the engine will rev higher due to many factors. The shorter rod often does lower the RPM where peak torque occurs, but other factors can affect this also. If this was to happen in your case, this would be a good thing. The Piston is in a different position in the Cylinder bore with a shorter Rod. This often changes the negative pressures in the Cylinder, changing the Cylinder’s ability to fill and scavenge. You have to put all factors into play here. You have a Turbocharged engine, so Cylinder filling in time and volume are very different than that of a NA engine. Factor in the your heads ability to flow and your cam design, the blanket statement that one is better than the other is often stretched in order to justify one over the other.

In the real world, you often cannot achieve the perfect design. What works in one engine does not necessarily work another. This topic is quite involved with many variables. Suffice to say, it can get quite technical.

Bottom line here, the shorter length will not hurt you here, but as I told you, I have not built one of these engines with the length we are discussing and therefore cannot tell you what the performance or wear rate is. I do feel that the longer Rod (1.58 +) is the way to go all things being equal, and if we can do this by making the engine slightly wider, this should be the way to go.

The following is what the ratios are.

Stock 127.00/76.40 1.66

Chad 4.2L using existing aftermarket Pistons 125/80.40 1.55

Chad 4.2L using above Pistons with wider engine 127/80.40 1.58

Chad 4.2L using new Pistons with wider engine 129/80.40 1.60

As you can see, there is little difference. I feel comfortable that with the stock length Rod and making the engine wider (all things considered here) the L/R of 1.58 will be just fine.

 

CJV,

Thanks for sharing your dream / adventure.

 

CJV,

When do you think the beast will be done?

 

eMJay1133,

I have given up estimating the date of completion.

I'm going to finish her one of these days but honestly after almost four years I've lost a liitle interest. As of today I gave Neil at Performance Developments the green light to order the liners which will use my already in stock pistons. PD will have a minor amount of machining to do. They have quoted me four weeks to get these liners in my possession.

Once we receive these parts we will still have to finish assembling the motor, then fabricate the turbo's, intake, MAF, external waste gates and fuel system.

Since winter is about to begin, I would be very happy if the car is on the road by March.

 

This car is the greatest Myth ever




Can't wait to see her finally run Chad! Been following closely the last 4 years

 

I believe I have heard this one about the"Greatest Myth" a few times before. Now if she only stands up to her legandary billings. Something tells me this long wait will be more than worth it.

 

what we really need to know to hold us over is what are you driving for your "fun" car in the time being (not the sable)

 

I honestly drive the Sable 99% of the time. Other than that AM Vanquish, B CGT, MB CL65 and MB CLK60.

Recently I had an issue with the CLK 60. I had it non opped for five years. When I went to re register it, it failed smog because it has a 6 speed instead of an automatic. I was told this was a one of a kind car when I bought it but I was assured it is California legal. Funny thing is I bought it from the largest MB dealer in the Bay Area and I have not modified it at all. This is currrently being discussed with them now.

 

SABLE FTW!

 

Understandable. The Mercury Sable is a fine vehichle.

Sorry to laugh Chad. But I love that. I think of Warren Buffet driving that dumpy old truck every time I hear about your affection for the Sable.

 

I think the car is done and Chad is just holding out for the biggest thread in internet history.

This thread is the reason I came to 6speed (followed from Rennlist) and I think all of the effort and work that has gone into this car is amazing.