Rb29 Wow!

[paulr33]

3400rpm 600nm

4000rpm 720nm

4500rpm 800nm

5100rpm 850nm

5700rpm 870nm

6200rpm 800nm

6800rpm 750nm

7400rpm 700mm

[NYTSKY]

600Nm at 3400rpm!

[Swiper the Fox]

600Nm at 3400rpm!

from memory mine was 500Nm at 80kph...topping out at 1100Nm at 130kph...holding dead flat till 160kph and only dropping down to 900Nm at 200kph 3rd gear though with adjusted ramping to suit the gear loading to read true. Not bad for an engine 'apparantly' only built for top end drag racing. Im sure it runs the right numbers to take on most circuit racers. Pump fuel 20psi...it made 1300Nm on race fuel with 25psi.

ill get the dyno fella tomm to send me a graph...

You already know your a sure thing Richard, as when you get to my age you knock back no women and very few men.

Edited May 12, 2008 by DiRTgarage

[sh@un]

The only real way to settle this would be to engine-dyno both engines. Too many variables re: gearbox ratios, final drive ratios and wheel diameter.

[sh@un]

I can't for the life of me figure out why they do it. well aside from the fact that it makes every AFR curve into a nice ruler straight line (which is not always a great thing anyway).

or ever

engines will always need more fuel at and around the peak torque revs, because that's where the engine reaches it's greatest volumetric efficiency, and the charge density is at it's highest.

[Swiper the Fox]

The only real way to settle this would be to engine-dyno both engines. Too many variables re: gearbox ratios, final drive ratios and wheel diameter.

Im not going head to head with Ben...its no contest...his is a better engine.

It just shits me when everybody goes "drag car" "drag engine" etc and when you look at both combo's they are not that far removed from each other from what is in my eyes the ultimate street/track setup.

mines not too shabby though, and makes power and torque to rival some of the finest combo's and would make some of the so called circuit engines look a little silly.

People have been drooling over it (myself included) and its a credit to him of what he has created. A massive amount of research, testing and time has gone into it. The fact he's gone and sold the car is a real shame...i would have loved a drive.

Edited May 12, 2008 by DiRTgarage

[Lithium]

i was just pointing out Gary's arguement that a higher revving engine with less torque wears more than higher capacity one with more torque...what a load of dribble.

the difference in wear rates between the two would be almost negligible for a given power output, as more revs would even up the ledger with the higher wearing torque engine.

Not true, higher revs add a far greater load than increased torque on an engine. You can double the power of an engine using boost and the same rev range (provided good tuning) while adding only a percentage more stress on the bottom end - well short of 100% more. Its pretty much the opposite for extra revs, add 25% more rev range to a car to make only a little more power and the stresses on the bottom and top end go through the roof.

The trick is that a large amount of the stress on rods etc go into accelerating and decelerating the pistons/rods in each direction (with the rods holding a lot of the force). Putting more boost into a motor will not add to net effect of the of the reciprocating masses, revs does.

[allblitz]

I too am confused. I have read every post on this thread, first few pages were awesome (to see differences of opinions on ways of setting up a good engine). The thread is about an engine setup and the figures it produces. Yes you may differ in opinion and by all means express your views on the engine setup. However the mods (who are 99% of the time on the ball with moderating threads, have for some reason let things go and get nasty - which does no good to anyone and at the same time hijacks the purpose of this thread).

I would request from the mods that all 'useless' posts be deleted, let the thread continue to be a 'descent' discussion on a great engine setup and warn those who have broken any forum rules.

I don't know Sydney Kid nor have purchased any of his products or engaged in any technical discussions with him, same as for DirtGarage. But regardless of differences of opinions, I don't think any form of public bad mouthing of another business should be allowed.

C'mon guys, relax and enjoy Ben's engine setup and stick to the topic.

My 2 cents worth.

[R31Nismoid]

Next person takes a week holiday.

You were warned, and continue to carry on, so i care not for the resulting action that will occur

[Swiper the Fox]

I too am confused. I have read every post on this thread, first few pages were awesome (to see differences of opinions on ways of setting up a good engine). The thread is about an engine setup and the figures it produces. Yes you may differ in opinion and by all means express your views on the engine setup. However the mods (who are 99% of the time on the ball with moderating threads, have for some reason let things go and get nasty - which does no good to anyone and at the same time hijacks the purpose of this thread).

I would request from the mods that all 'useless' posts be deleted, let the thread continue to be a 'descent' discussion on a great engine setup and warn those who have broken any forum rules.

I don't know Sydney Kid nor have purchased any of his products or engaged in any technical discussions with him, same as for DirtGarage. But regardless of differences of opinions, I don't think any form of public bad mouthing of another business should be allowed.

C'mon guys, relax and enjoy Ben's engine setup and stick to the topic.

My 2 cents worth.

agree...apoligies to Ben and all concerned. My issues with Gary should be left out of it.

Back on topic...

Wait till Ben posts the new graph up...im sure it will make our jaws hit the floor even harder.

40kw more at the same boost level....holy sh1t!!

Edited May 13, 2008 by DiRTgarage

[Angus Smart]

Im not going head to head with Ben...its no contest...his is a better engine.

It just shits me when everybody goes "drag car" "drag engine" etc and when you look at both combo's they are not that far removed from each other from what is in my eyes the ultimate street/track setup.

mines not too shabby though, and makes power and torque to rival some of the finest combo's and would make some of the so called circuit engines look a little silly.

I wouldnt consider yours a drag engine, you hardly see low mount drag orientated cars these days! yours is a responsive power house that all low mount twins dream of

as you said, coilovers, some semis bit of aero, and the brakes and you'd be scaring some of the toughest circuit cars for sure

[phunky_monkey]

I remember going to an Autosalon years ago, and Ben's white 33 was there. I recall it had an awesome dyno chart, with something like 300awkw's from around 3000rpm. I'd be very interested to see this engine setup against that one. I'd dare say this one is better, hence the change, but it would be great to see none the less.

[TTT]

300awkw's from around 3000rpm

holy crap..

is that even possible with an RB of any kind?

[joeyjoejoejuniorshabadoo]

me wantee

[GTR1993]

holy crap..

is that even possible with an RB of any kind?

Easy! give it 150 shot of gas!

[TTT]

at 3000rpm though?

even with the cheater gas, is it possible to have enough exhaust power to spin whatever turbo he used to make 300awkw at 3000rpm?

[Sydneykid]

as above, more info on this. very keen to know bore and stroke, aswell as rod/stroke ratio (seems to be a hot topic in this thread )

RB34

Bore around 87 mm

Stroke around 94 mm

Rod stroke ratio around 1.62

RB30

Rod stroke ratio around 1.77

RB26

Rod stroke ratio around 1.63

RB20 (for Roy)

Rod stroke ratio around 1.77

OS Giken RB30

Rod stroke ratio around 1.40

The general consensus amongst the top level US engine builders is a rod stroke ratio around 1.75 is the ideal. Not everyone agrees, but the sound geometric logic behind it has majority support. There is plenty of reading on the subject, so you can make your own judgement.

There are some irrefutable rules however. If you increase stroke, you increase piston velocity and acceleration. If you reduce rod length, you increase piston velocity and acceleration. So the RB30 route of increasing the stroke (over an RB26) AND increasing rod length (over an RB26) results in lower G forces on the piston and rod than the OS Giken method of increasing stroke (over an RB26) whilst maintaining the same rod length (as an RB26). There is no debate on this, it's a fact of the geometry.

In summary, if 2 equally skillful engine builders using the same quality components, build 2 engines. One with a rod stroke ratio of 1.77 and the other with a rod stroke ratio of 1.40. The engine with the rod stroke ratio of 1.77 WILL place lower G forces on the pistons and rods than the engine with the 1.40 ratio. Hence why engine wear is increased, as is the risk of rod failure.

Cheers

Gary

[joeyjoejoejuniorshabadoo]

i spose a 26 with a 3.0 bottom end and 2 smallish turbo's and a lot of vct modification...

[sh@un]

...add....more rev range to a car to make only a little more power and the stresses on the bottom and top end go through the roof.

very true

inertial loads rise as a square of the percent rev increase (nb: assuming reciprocating component weight remains unchanged)- say you wanted to raise the rev limit on an RB26 from 8000rpm to 9200rpm (a 15% increase), the load on the reciprocating components would increase by just over 32%.

[Raysboostin]

i think the only person you are kidding is yourself...put the textbooks away Gary and think about it.

MORE TORQUE IS MORE STRAIN/WEAR ON COMPONENTS...end of story.

im not sure i quite grasp what ur saying. i understand more torque increases wear, but how does that conclude a stroker has the same amount of wear as a stock stroke?? if u compared 2 engines of equal peak torque, now im no mechanic, but i would think u would need a higher rpm to make peak torque in the std stroke motor. or at least use more rpm to begin developing torque. wouldnt that mean the std stroke would have more wear from the increased friction/heat etc?? could u explain it a little better, i just dont get it.

but on topic, this looks like a killer setup. id love to have that much torque that early in my stag. might actually get its heavy a$$ movin