Can a holden 202 = porsche 3.3L turbo?
pac_...@hotmail.com
I would like to rebuild my 3.3L holden to get the same power and
torque as the 1980's porsche 3.3L.
We are talking about 300 HP @ 5500 and 303 lb-ft@ 4000. (90%
available from 2000 )
The porsche has the following dimentions
Bore /Stroke 97 / 74.4
C.R. 7.0:1
Boost 12psi
Timing at 1mm valve lift IN 20/60 Ex 50/18
Valve size 49mm inlet 41.5 Exhaust
Intercooler
If I put larger valves, starfire rods, TO3 turbo, and a suitable cam,
do you think I can get similar performance? Im not going to use full
boost all the time so It doesnt have to be a race tough engine.
Norbie
No.
*------------------------------------------------------*
~~~ Norbie ~~~ BIT undergrad, USQ Australia
nor...@isisol.com.au
q942...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au
http://www.isisol.com.au/norbie
ICQ# 10426264
"There are things known, and there are things unknown,
and in between are The Doors" - JD Morrison
*------------------------------------------------------*
frenzy
the dino with a blue printed engine, 2000 clearance, 14:1 compression,
controlled cam, avgas and free exhaust and extracters.
Even if you got 300HP at the engine with a roller cam, supercharger, big
bore, bucket loads of money the vehicle ain't going to handle or pull up
like a porsche. Better of starting with a 308+ V8.
Rob
pac_...@hotmail.com wrote in message <36972b64...@news.uwa.edu.au>...
Dion Mikkelsen
<rhaw...@nsw.bigpond.net.au> wrote, with the use of a cucumber dipped
in blackberry sauce:
>I race HQs with stock 202 engines. We get up to 140HP at the rear wheels on
>the dino ... <snip>
I'm sorry, but I just have this image of a little purple dinosaur ...
:-)
--
Dion! -=DUH#12=- (Y1)
"It is apparent that the President used a cigar as a flaming aid ... "
Farmer
>Ok this might seem like a joke but I actually mean it.
>
>I would like to rebuild my 3.3L holden to get the same power and
>torque as the 1980's porsche 3.3L.
>
>We are talking about 300 HP @ 5500 and 303 lb-ft@ 4000. (90%
>available from 2000 )
>
>The porsche has the following dimentions
>
>Bore /Stroke 97 / 74.4
>C.R. 7.0:1
>Boost 12psi
>Timing at 1mm valve lift IN 20/60 Ex 50/18
>Valve size 49mm inlet 41.5 Exhaust
>Intercooler
>
>If I put larger valves, starfire rods, TO3 turbo, and a suitable cam,
>do you think I can get similar performance? Im not going to use full
>boost all the time so It doesnt have to be a race tough engine.
You could get one of those engines to make power but bear in mind
they've a iron head so won't have the thermal efficiency of an alloy
head, Which will mean the need for a higher octane fuel then an alloy
head can use.
Have you considered upgrading to a small japanese car like a nissan
micra, Which will offer more performance then a 202 can do without
major upgrading.
B*)
Win if you can.
Lose if you must.
But ALWAYS cheat.
" I'm going to knock your teeth out, And by the looks
of things you can't afford it"
Shawn Michaels to Mike Tyson.
Dene Oehme
>If I put larger valves, starfire rods, TO3 turbo, and a suitable cam,
>do you think I can get similar performance? Im not going to use full
>boost all the time so It doesnt have to be a race tough engine.
If you want to get 300 HP out of a 202 it had better be a race tough
engine or it wont last too long at all. Yes you can get 300 HP out of
one no problem and turbo would plobably be a good way to go but it
would have to be a top of the line setup, certainly involving a hell
of a lot more than just rods,valves a turbo and a cam.
Regards
Dene Oehme
de...@camtech.net.au
http://www.adelaide.net.au/~dene/menu.htm
Dion Mikkelsen
use of a cucumber dipped in blackberry sauce:
>Ok this might seem like a joke but I actually mean it.
>
>I would like to rebuild my 3.3L holden to get the same power and
>torque as the 1980's porsche 3.3L.
>
>We are talking about 300 HP @ 5500 and 303 lb-ft@ 4000. (90%
>available from 2000 )
>
>The porsche has the following dimentions
>
>Bore /Stroke 97 / 74.4
>C.R. 7.0:1
>Boost 12psi
>Timing at 1mm valve lift IN 20/60 Ex 50/18
>Valve size 49mm inlet 41.5 Exhaust
>Intercooler
>
>If I put larger valves, starfire rods, TO3 turbo, and a suitable cam,
>do you think I can get similar performance? Im not going to use full
>boost all the time so It doesnt have to be a race tough engine.
Isn't the Porsche motor a flat-six though ? Or isn't it - I'm not
sure ...
jason Devlin
On the front cover is a 400 HP (flywheel) stroker 6 cylinder. I can send you
a copy if you can't find one.
forg
>
> Ok this might seem like a joke but I actually mean it.
>
> I would like to rebuild my 3.3L holden to get the same power and
> torque as the 1980's porsche 3.3L.
>
> We are talking about 300 HP @ 5500 and 303 lb-ft@ 4000. (90%
> available from 2000 )
You should be able to get these sorts of numbers out of a 202 without
major hassles, if you're looking at forced induction. They're not overly
wild out of a 2L "Pinto" Escort engine (well, maybe not the 90% torque
at 2000rpm bit), so it should be easy in a 202.
Actually, the 90% torque at 2000rpm will be the most expensive part to
design in; you'll need low-comp pistons, meaning less torque than normal
off-boost, yet you'll need a decent sized turbo to give enough boost to
get you going ... I don't think even WRX's have 90% boost at 2000rpm,
and they've spent at least some R&D money on manifold design & matching
of turbo size & properties etc.
When you say it doesn't have to be "race tough", I reckon it should have
some strength to it; it'd be preferable if it was still going in 2
years' time! ;-)
--
Forg! -DUH#6=- (Y1)
"Flamin' heck; another Volvo Driver!"
"...
Another Turnip Boy;
A Forg stuck in the road
..."
[Greenday]
forg
...
> Isn't the Porsche motor a flat-six though ? Or isn't it - I'm not
> sure ...
All 911's have been powered by a flat-six ... what was your inference,
though?
[He was asking whether he'd get 300hp out of a Holden engine, not
whether he could fit a Porsche engine into a Holden; or I thought he
was!]
Dion Mikkelsen
the use of a cucumber dipped in blackberry sauce:
>Dion Mikkelsen wrote:
>...
>> Isn't the Porsche motor a flat-six though ? Or isn't it - I'm not
>> sure ...
>...
>
>All 911's have been powered by a flat-six ... what was your inference,
>though?
>[He was asking whether he'd get 300hp out of a Holden engine, not
>whether he could fit a Porsche engine into a Holden; or I thought he
>was!]
Yeah, but the configuration of the Porsche engine is therefore quite
different - ie it's a flat six rather than an inline six.
Arnie
> If youre serious about this get a copy of STREETMACHINE September 1998.
>On the front cover is a 400 HP (flywheel) stroker 6 cylinder. I can send
you
>a copy if you can't find one.
That was 400 PHP - pub horsepower, you know, 400 gen-nu-wine horses...:)
The 234ci stroker got 220hp at the rear wheels on the chassis dyno which is
very good, but extrapolating that to 400hp at flywheel is just tugging the
middle one.
Arnie
Trent
Trent
Dion Mikkelsen wrote in message <36980789...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
>On Sat, 09 Jan 1999 10:24:54 GMT, pac_...@hotmail.com wrote, with the
>use of a cucumber dipped in blackberry sauce:
>
>>Ok this might seem like a joke but I actually mean it.
>>
>>I would like to rebuild my 3.3L holden to get the same power and
>>torque as the 1980's porsche 3.3L.
>>
>>We are talking about 300 HP @ 5500 and 303 lb-ft@ 4000. (90%
>>available from 2000 )
>>
>>The porsche has the following dimentions
>>
>>Bore /Stroke 97 / 74.4
>>C.R. 7.0:1
>>Boost 12psi
>>Timing at 1mm valve lift IN 20/60 Ex 50/18
>>Valve size 49mm inlet 41.5 Exhaust
>>Intercooler
>>
>>If I put larger valves, starfire rods, TO3 turbo, and a suitable cam,
>>do you think I can get similar performance? Im not going to use full
>>boost all the time so It doesnt have to be a race tough engine.
>
>Isn't the Porsche motor a flat-six though ? Or isn't it - I'm not
>sure ...
>
Trent
>micra, Which will offer more performance then a 202 can do without
>major upgrading.
>B*)
But upgrading and building it yourself is half the fun.
Trent
Trent
jason Devlin wrote in message ...
> If youre serious about this get a copy of STREETMACHINE September 1998.
>On the front cover is a 400 HP (flywheel) stroker 6 cylinder. I can send
you
>a copy if you can't find one.
but that car was only an estimated 400hp at the flywheel.
on the dyno it had 220 rearwheel hp at 5000rpm.
Trent
Dion Mikkelsen
with the use of a cucumber dipped in blackberry sauce:
>whats a flat six? how is it different from a straight six?
Horizontally opposed cylinders.
Dion Mikkelsen
Mikkelsen) wrote, with the use of a cucumber dipped in blackberry
sauce:
>On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 21:07:36 +1100, "Trent" <la...@tig.com.au> wrote,
>with the use of a cucumber dipped in blackberry sauce:
>
>>whats a flat six? how is it different from a straight six?
>
>Horizontally opposed cylinders.
Let me elaborate on that - take a V6 and open out the angle between
the banks of three cylinders until the cylinders basically move back
and forth in the horizontal direction. That is, make the angle 180
degrees. That's basically the boxer engine (or "flat" or
"horizontally opposed").
I think they're called "flat" because of the way the engine is - ie is
now very "flat" and "boxer" because of their characteristic sound ?
Anyone know for sure why these names originated.
Arnie
[snip]
>I think they're called "flat" because of the way the engine is - ie is
>now very "flat" and "boxer" because of their characteristic sound ?
>Anyone know for sure why these names originated.
I thought it was called "boxer" because the cylinders are "boxing" each
other??
Arnie
Dion Mikkelsen
with the use of a cucumber dipped in blackberry sauce:
>Dion Mikkelsen wrote :
Oh okay ... I always thought it was from their unique sound ...
Trent
degrees?
Trent
Dion Mikkelsen wrote in message <3698718a...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
>On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 21:07:36 +1100, "Trent" <la...@tig.com.au> wrote,
>with the use of a cucumber dipped in blackberry sauce:
>
>>whats a flat six? how is it different from a straight six?
>
>Horizontally opposed cylinders.
>
Matt Cremer
<36987479...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
...
> now very "flat" and "boxer" because of their characteristic sound ?
> Anyone know for sure why these names originated.
The names both refer to the same thing; the configuration of the engine.
"Flat" because the "V" is 180 degrees so the engine is "flat" (as opposed
to totally upright in most inline engines, except for your "slant 6" in a
Valiant, or a "slant 4" in a Volvo).
"Boxer" is because the pistons move in & out from the central crank with a
sort-of "punching" motion, like a "boxer" ... sounds poxy, but it IS the
reason! ;-)
-Forg (Elsewhere)
Matt Cremer
> On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 19:24:46 +1100, forg <fo...@zip.com.au> wrote, with
> the use of a cucumber dipped in blackberry sauce:
>
> >...
> >> Isn't the Porsche motor a flat-six though ? Or isn't it - I'm not
> >> sure ...
> >
> >All 911's have been powered by a flat-six ... what was your inference,
> >though?
> >[He was asking whether he'd get 300hp out of a Holden engine, not
> >whether he could fit a Porsche engine into a Holden; or I thought he
> >was!]
>
> Yeah, but the configuration of the Porsche engine is therefore quite
> different - ie it's a flat six rather than an inline six.
IMHO, configuration means zip when talking about engine power. In terms of
packaging or marketing there is definitely an effect ("Holden - Big
Vee-Six"), but with engine power there are examples of good designs & power
results in all configurations.
-Forg (Elsewhere)
Jack Stands
>
starfire rods,
hmm.
I didnt think there was any usefull parts in a misfire.. I mean a starfire engine.
Well there ya go.
****************************************************
****************************************************
Automotive technical repair advice
Motor cycle technical repair advice
Help Articles to browse
The Name of the Site is
"Jack Stands".
Its at
http://www.users.bigpond.com/jack_stands/
Free Software, Links and more.
A Public Resource.
ALL Articles Authored by an Australian Qualified (actively employed as) Motor Mechanic.
They are written for "Interest" and are not redistributable by any other parties or individuals.
*************************************************************************************************
John Harvey
>So it is like a V6 except the angle between the opposing cylinders is 180
>degrees?
>
IMHO not a very good analogy though.
The boxer is a vastly superior design to a V6, due to its better
balance characteristics as well as offering much greater flexibility
in head and manifold design.
John H
Sean Dunlop
Dene Oehme wrote in message <3698131...@news.camtech.net.au>...
>
>>If I put larger valves, starfire rods, TO3 turbo, and a suitable cam,
>>do you think I can get similar performance? Im not going to use full
>>boost all the time so It doesnt have to be a race tough engine.
>
Sean Dunlop
same reliability of the porche. Unless he has a similar budget to porche.
Dion Mikkelsen wrote in message <36986bbc...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
>On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 19:24:46 +1100, forg <fo...@zip.com.au> wrote, with
>the use of a cucumber dipped in blackberry sauce:
>
>>Dion Mikkelsen wrote:
>>...
>>> Isn't the Porsche motor a flat-six though ? Or isn't it - I'm not
>>> sure ...
>>...
>>
>>All 911's have been powered by a flat-six ... what was your inference,
>>though?
>>[He was asking whether he'd get 300hp out of a Holden engine, not
>>whether he could fit a Porsche engine into a Holden; or I thought he
>>was!]
>
>Yeah, but the configuration of the Porsche engine is therefore quite
>different - ie it's a flat six rather than an inline six.
>
Sean Dunlop
>now very "flat" and "boxer" because of their characteristic sound ?
>Anyone know for sure why these names originated.
Derived from the Boxing action the opposing pistons perform. They box each
other. (Boxing as in fighting)
Sean Dunlop
potentially pull higher revs.
But in real terms it comes down to the configuration that has the most money
spent on it.
I believe v motors are the least efficient - but more compact.
ie - Choice between flat, inline and V4 - Flat motor is best option.
Conceptually.
forg
>
> In absolute terms the boxer motors are slightly more efficient and
> potentially pull higher revs.
Conceptually, maybe. In the real world, it doesn't make any real
difference; show me an engine with one configuration, and I'll either
show you a better one with another configuration, or a really bad one
with that first configuration.
I was sure I'd been told that your straight-six and thus V12, straight
12, straight 18, V24, etc engine was the most efficient though, with the
best balance? This was from Mech Eng students though, so they may have
been drunk at the time.
Sean Dunlop
applications.
Thats why i said conceptually.
I remember readig that Radial engines were the ultimate config - but not
very practical.
forg wrote in message <3699A6E1...@zip.com.au>...
Dion Mikkelsen
<se...@commerce.wa.gov.au> wrote, with the use of a cucumber dipped in
blackberry sauce:
>>I think they're called "flat" because of the way the engine is - ie is
Ah okay, it seems unanimous and logical. I thought it might have been
because if you stick a normal exhaust output into a box, it sounds a
bit like a boxer engine ;-)
Farmer
>On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:27:24 +0800, "Sean Dunlop"
><se...@commerce.wa.gov.au> wrote, with the use of a cucumber dipped in
>blackberry sauce:
>
>>>I think they're called "flat" because of the way the engine is - ie is
>>>now very "flat" and "boxer" because of their characteristic sound ?
>>>Anyone know for sure why these names originated.
>>
>>
>>
>>Derived from the Boxing action the opposing pistons perform. They box each
>>other. (Boxing as in fighting)
>
>Ah okay, it seems unanimous and logical. I thought it might have been
>because if you stick a normal exhaust output into a box, it sounds a
>bit like a boxer engine ;-)
Stupid old me thought it was a German word that described the
configuration.
B*) ( Drunk again )
Farmer.
Look out for SOCKO.
John Littler
between rebuilds (these two are proportional....)
Given enough money you can do anything. It's probably not a very cost
effective start point though, you'll spend a shit load more to get the
same result on a 202 than you would on a number of other 3 litre
starting points, save yourself a bundle and either buy a V8, get an
alloy OHC V6 out of a DunnyDoor or whatever, or just go for some
performance mods on the old red block without going ape shit (that's a
technical measurement, son, equal to 25% of what you were just dreaming
about spending :-)
Your average 308 H Series doesn't go for much these days and 300 ponies
will cost you a lot less to achieve there.
John
pac_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Ok this might seem like a joke but I actually mean it.
>
> I would like to rebuild my 3.3L holden to get the same power and
> torque as the 1980's porsche 3.3L.
>
> We are talking about 300 HP @ 5500 and 303 lb-ft@ 4000. (90%
> available from 2000 )
>
> The porsche has the following dimentions
>
> Bore /Stroke 97 / 74.4
> C.R. 7.0:1
> Boost 12psi
> Timing at 1mm valve lift IN 20/60 Ex 50/18
> Valve size 49mm inlet 41.5 Exhaust
> Intercooler
>
> If I put larger valves, starfire rods, TO3 turbo, and a suitable cam,
> do you think I can get similar performance? Im not going to use full
> boost all the time so It doesnt have to be a race tough engine.
--
This mail is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and
grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to
be considered flaws or defects.
Dene Oehme
>I was sure I'd been told that your straight-six and thus V12, straight
>12, straight 18, V24, etc engine was the most efficient though, with the
>best balance? This was from Mech Eng students though, so they may have
>been drunk at the time.
Straight engines inherantly balance better than Vs but I'm unsure of a
flat (180 degree ) configuration.
Dene Oehme
Missquoted Jack. I didn't post any of that part.
Starfire rods are essentially the same as XU1 rods.
Matt Cremer
<3699BAD5...@ibm.net>...
...
> It's probably not a very cost
> effective start point though, you'll spend a shit load more to get the
> same result on a 202 than you would on a number of other 3 litre
> starting points, save yourself a bundle and either buy a V8, get an
> alloy OHC V6 out of a DunnyDoor or whatever
OHC V6 out of a Commodore? Methinks you credit it with being a much newer
design than it is ... ;-)
-Forg (Elsewhere)
Moron
[snip]
> Starfire rods are essentially the same as XU1 rods.
But you need one and a half engines to get enough!
What about 173 rods? are they the same? I thought the starfire was just a
173 with a couple of cylinders lopped off. I guess with the new starfire, a
leap ahead in technology it was, probably used "Hi-Tech" XU1 rods!
Moron by name
aus.cars FAQ On-Line: http://www.clubduh.com/users/rotor/auscar/auscar.html
Brendan Walker
> Ok this might seem like a joke but I actually mean it.
> I would like to rebuild my 3.3L holden to get the same power and
> torque as the 1980's porsche 3.3L.
> We are talking about 300 HP @ 5500 and 303 lb-ft@ 4000. (90%
> available from 2000 )
> The porsche has the following dimentions
>
> Bore /Stroke 97 / 74.4
> C.R. 7.0:1
> Boost 12psi
> Timing at 1mm valve lift IN 20/60 Ex 50/18
> Valve size 49mm inlet 41.5 Exhaust
> Intercooler
> If I put larger valves, starfire rods, TO3 turbo, and a suitable cam,
> do you think I can get similar performance? Im not going to use full
> boost all the time so It doesnt have to be a race tough engine.
Many people have replied to this with an emphatic "no". I don't think
those people have ever actually modified a motor like this for pure
performance.
The question is can the 202 be modified to put out the same power and
torque as the production Porche engine, with modifications including
a dirty great T03 turbo-charger. We are not talking about
turning the whole *car* into the equivelant of the Porche - that is a
whole other ball game.
A 202 (3.3L) with a 12 psi turbo can easily produce 300+ bhp and
300 ft/lbs of torque provided the engine is modified properly, ie,
adequate induction, big ported heads and a good free-flowing exhaust,
plus of course lower compression forged pistons, strengthened crank
and maybe 4 bolt mains (if possible in a 202?) for reliability.
A full-house normally aspirated 202 can produce up to 330 bhp@7500rpm
following the "rule-of-thumb" for this type of engine, (100bhp per litre),
so to get 300 bhp with 12 psi boost you don't need to go anywhere near
full-house specs for cam profile etc... more like a nice mid-range
cam (around 280 degrees advertised duration). With other mods I
mentioned above this cam should produce about 200+ bhp at about 5500rpm
normally aspirated, so whack on the 12psi turbo and we are talking an
easy 300+ bhp (another rule-of-thumb, each 14psi of boot *doubles*
torque and therefore power at any given point in the rev range).
Torque-wise an engine in the above config should peak torque out at
around 4000 rpm. A stock 202 produces about 180 ft/lbs of torque, add
the 12psi boost and you would see 300ft/lbs plus at around the same
rpm.
Voila - 300+bhp@5500rpm and 300+ ft/lbs @ 4000 rpm,
modded 202 = production Porche!
Regards,
Brendan Walker
96 EFII XR8 Falcon
bjw _AT_ cisco _DOT_ com
John Littler
I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with any of the Holdens since the H
Series, but I thought the mid/late 80's (VN?) Commode had that Nissan V6
donk, you're not going to tell me Nissan made something with pushrods
are you ?
John
--
John Littler
>
> pac_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Ok this might seem like a joke but I actually mean it.
>
> > I would like to rebuild my 3.3L holden to get the same power and
> > torque as the 1980's porsche 3.3L.
>
> > We are talking about 300 HP @ 5500 and 303 lb-ft@ 4000. (90%
> > available from 2000 )
>
> > The porsche has the following dimentions
> >
> > Bore /Stroke 97 / 74.4
> > C.R. 7.0:1
> > Boost 12psi
> > Timing at 1mm valve lift IN 20/60 Ex 50/18
> > Valve size 49mm inlet 41.5 Exhaust
> > Intercooler
>
> > If I put larger valves, starfire rods, TO3 turbo, and a suitable cam,
> > do you think I can get similar performance? Im not going to use full
> > boost all the time so It doesnt have to be a race tough engine.
>
> Many people have replied to this with an emphatic "no". I don't think
> those people have ever actually modified a motor like this for pure
> performance.
Well at least 2 of the replies claim to have done so. And depending on
how you read the above sentence you can include me as one of the ones
that have modified a 202, although I've never whacked a blower on one
(depending on which way you read "like this"). My answer said yes, but
cost effectiveness needs to be considered, along with reliability. All
the details you quote below are true, theoretically, consider a couple
of things for real world use - 14 PSI with the standard head and pistons
is going to be ping city - the 202 was 9:1 from memory (hey, it's been a
few years, sue me if I'm wrong :-) if you want to run any more than
6-8psi you're going to need to drop the compression ratio or run Avgas.
Yes I know "everyone" cranks their WRX's up to 6 zillion psi on std.
PULP (ahem) but you're talking light years advanced head design, and far
better heat exchange (and you'd better have a better radiator in that
202 project plan as well). Secondly how much is it going to cost him to
get it to happen, cost effectiveness he's better of to go buy a 308 or
350, lastly how reliable is it going to be - 100hp per cc is pushing the
limit for a cast iron pushrod engine.
In other words it's not whether it's possible, it's how expensive it is
to do it that way and how reliable will it be afterwards.
John
--
Moron
[snip]
> Ok this might seem like a joke but I actually mean it.
> available from 2000 )
Other than the 90% available from 2000RPM you shouldn't have a drama.
Engine life is another thing again. . .
My current engine in my 120Y pushes me down the 1/4 in 16.1's. That
engine has ~75HP at the wheels. (Can produce dyno sheets if needed)
My turbo A12 (1200) engine did the 1/4 in mid to low 15's, I'm thinking
that the assumption that another 25 HP would have been needed to drop
the 1/2 or so second. Flywheel figure I guesstimate at 125HP using
a 25% drivetrain loss. . . (I know the fihure is probably too large
but I like an even 100HP at the flywheel ;-) )
That was using a standard engine with a blowthru carby setup. If I do
some simple maths (for simple people like me) for 3.3L that works
out to be 343.75 HP. With fuel injection, intercooler, forged pistons=>
increased boost, hi-flowed turbo, 300HP sounds easy enough. But you
will probably find it easier and cheaper to drop in an import engine,
eg, RB25DET and raise the boost and be done with it!
I'd love to have money!
--
Moron
[snip]
> I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with any of the Holdens since the H
> Series, but I thought the mid/late 80's (VN?) Commode had that Nissan V6
> donk, you're not going to tell me Nissan made something with pushrods
> are you ?
Yeah, the A series engines!, actually an austin design initially, with extra
main bearings. . . I believe. .
The local 'dickheads' used to give me crap when I beat their "Aussie" cars
in my Nissan Skyline (Most Australian content ever???) by saying it had the
Holden RB30. I used to reply by saying that it couldn't possibly be a holden
engine, no pushrods. Used to get 'em all fired up. ..
;-)
Those were the days. . .
Trent
Trent
Sean Dunlop
>torque as the production Porche engine, with modifications including
>a dirty great T03 turbo-charger. We are not talking about
>turning the whole *car* into the equivelant of the Porche - that is a
>whole other ball game.
The original question involved very minimal engine mods.
Dene Oehme
wrote:
>Dene Oehme wrote:
>[snip]
>> Starfire rods are essentially the same as XU1 rods.
>
>But you need one and a half engines to get enough!
That's true but the less Starfires in existance the better I'd say.
>
>What about 173 rods? are they the same?
No. They're not as good.
>I guess with the new starfire, a
>leap ahead in technology it was, probably used "Hi-Tech" XU1 rods!
Something like that.
John Harvey
>I was sure I'd been told that your straight-six and thus V12, straight
>12, straight 18, V24, etc engine was the most efficient though, with the
>best balance? This was from Mech Eng students though, so they may have
>been drunk at the time.
Pissed as newts I'd say!
Balance wise a V12 doesn't resemble two straight sixes - six vee twins
is nearer the mark. It's all about crank planes since all vees (and
boxers) run two rods on each crank pin. If this isn't glaringly
obvious then arm yourself with a suitable length of fencing wire and
try modelling a V12 crankshaft as though it were two straight sixes.
John H
John Harvey
wrote:
>Pissed as newts I'd say!
>
>Balance wise a V12 doesn't resemble two straight sixes - six vee twins
>is nearer the mark. It's all about crank planes since all vees (and
>boxers) run two rods on each crank pin.
Oops and so am I!
Vees do but boxers don't.
John H
Brendan Walker
> > > Ok this might seem like a joke but I actually mean it.
> > > I would like to rebuild my 3.3L holden to get the same power and
> > > torque as the 1980's porsche 3.3L.
> > > We are talking about 300 HP @ 5500 and 303 lb-ft@ 4000. (90%
> > > available from 2000 )
> > > The porsche has the following dimentions
> > > Bore /Stroke 97 / 74.4
> > > C.R. 7.0:1
> > > Boost 12psi
> > > Timing at 1mm valve lift IN 20/60 Ex 50/18
> > > Valve size 49mm inlet 41.5 Exhaust
> > > Intercooler
> > > If I put larger valves, starfire rods, TO3 turbo, and a suitable cam,
> > > do you think I can get similar performance? Im not going to use full
> > > boost all the time so It doesnt have to be a race tough engine.
> > Many people have replied to this with an emphatic "no". I don't think
> > those people have ever actually modified a motor like this for pure
> > performance.
> Well at least 2 of the replies claim to have done so. And depending on
> how you read the above sentence you can include me as one of the ones
> that have modified a 202, although I've never whacked a blower on one
> (depending on which way you read "like this"). My answer said yes, but
> cost effectiveness needs to be considered, along with reliability.
Agreed - but at least one poster replied with a straight "no" answer -
as if to scoff at the mere idea that a push-rod 202 motor could ever
produce as much power and torque as a Porsche......
> All
> the details you quote below are true, theoretically, consider a couple
> of things for real world use - 14 PSI with the standard head and pistons
> is going to be ping city - the 202 was 9:1 from memory (hey, it's been a
> few years, sue me if I'm wrong :-) if you want to run any more than
> 6-8psi you're going to need to drop the compression ratio or run Avgas.
This is true - in my reply I think I specified lower compression pistons,
to avoid detonation, and forged for strength - not *too* expensive for this
type of motor really....
> Yes I know "everyone" cranks their WRX's up to 6 zillion psi on std.
> PULP (ahem) but you're talking light years advanced head design, and far
> better heat exchange (and you'd better have a better radiator in that
> 202 project plan as well). Secondly how much is it going to cost him to
> get it to happen, cost effectiveness he's better of to go buy a 308 or
> 350, lastly how reliable is it going to be - 100hp per cc is pushing the
> limit for a cast iron pushrod engine.
I am sure the cost would end being far less than buying the Porche :-)
although I take your point re using a 308 or a 350 instead, this would
definitely be a far cheaper option...... and lets leave WRX's out of this :-)
> In other words it's not whether it's possible, it's how expensive it is
> to do it that way and how reliable will it be afterwards.
This can certainly become the main thread of the discussion but the original
question was about the techincal *possibility* of doing it. I think we
agree that it *is* certainly possible.....
> > The question is can the 202 be modified to put out the same power and
> > torque as the production Porche engine, with modifications including
> > a dirty great T03 turbo-charger. We are not talking about
> > turning the whole *car* into the equivelant of the Porche - that is a
> > whole other ball game.
> > A 202 (3.3L) with a 12 psi turbo can easily produce 300+ bhp and
> > 300 ft/lbs of torque provided the engine is modified properly, ie,
> > adequate induction, big ported heads and a good free-flowing exhaust,
> > plus of course lower compression forged pistons, strengthened crank
> > and maybe 4 bolt mains (if possible in a 202?) for reliability.
[snip]
> > Voila - 300+bhp@5500rpm and 300+ ft/lbs @ 4000 rpm,
> > modded 202 = production Porche!
Although there would be a fair risk of an engine catasrophie if the
engine was let massively out of tune or abused mercilessly, I think if
treated with care the above engine should be extremely reliable....
Arnie
[snip]
>350, lastly how reliable is it going to be - 100hp per cc is pushing the
>limit for a cast iron pushrod engine.
100hp per cc is pushing the limit for ANY engine! :)
Anyway, if you're not going over 6500rpm, the pushrod is no worry.
As for cast iron blocks, they are stronger than an alloy block. Are the
Supra, GTR, and M3 bad for using cast iron blocks?
Arnie
Peter McMillan
>I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with any of the Holdens since the H
>Series, but I thought the mid/late 80's (VN?) Commode had that Nissan V6
>donk, you're not going to tell me Nissan made something with pushrods
>are you ?
The VL used a Nissan inline 6. The VN used the Buick V6.
Cheers,
Peter! -=DUH#14=- (Y1)
"What does this button do? Oops .... flames. RUN!!"
To email me, change .com in my address to .au
Peter McMillan
>100hp per cc is pushing the
>limit for a cast iron pushrod engine.
Don't you mean 100 hp per litre?
Moron
>
> John Littler <john.l...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
> >100hp per cc is pushing the
> >limit for a cast iron pushrod engine.
>
> Don't you mean 100 hp per litre?
Damn! I hope not, I was trying to work out 1/4 mile times for a 120Y with
120 000HP, at the flywheel of course! I wonder how the rest of the drivetrain
would stand up.
100HP/L is a good estimate for a NA engine, forced induction is another
story though. . .
Farmer
>John Littler wrote :
>[snip]
>>350, lastly how reliable is it going to be - 100hp per cc is pushing the
>>limit for a cast iron pushrod engine.
>
>100hp per cc is pushing the limit for ANY engine! :)
>
>Anyway, if you're not going over 6500rpm, the pushrod is no worry.
>As for cast iron blocks, they are stronger than an alloy block. Are the
>Supra, GTR, and M3 bad for using cast iron blocks?
>
>Arnie
It's the head where the problem is.
Iron is a no no for thermal transfer.
John Littler
> > >limit for a cast iron pushrod engine.
> >
>
> Damn! I hope not, I was trying to work out 1/4 mile times for a 120Y with
> 120 000HP, at the flywheel of course! I wonder how the rest of the drivetrain
> would stand up.
ROTFL !!! OK you got me there. I suspect the 120Y's drivetrain might
have a bit of problem...
John