N/A Build! Need Assistance

User avatar
oldeskewltoy
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2026
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby oldeskewltoy » Fri Nov 14, 2014 9:26 am

AE Harold. wrote:
oldeskewltoy wrote:Sorry I missed this.... 2 to 3 weeks from payment to delivery Yes, my pistons and a bit of headwork can meet 12 - 1



Thats sounds great. Do you have a website that I can purchase your piston set or you have another way such as a paypal?
Also. Just to gain some knowledge. Why would a shimless kit be a P.I.T.A.?



I take Paypal... send me an email to oldeskewltoy@yahoo.com

Availability.... waiting 10 weeks to finish a head is a P.I.T.A
once I tried to order the individual shimless buckets, Toyota USA didn't deliver...... My client ordered them direct from Japan, and it took 10 weeks total to get it all finalized


burdickjp says there is a source here in the USA... find out how much they cost.... MSRP on the lifter should be $14 and change per lifter
OST Cyl head porting, - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=300

Building a great engine takes knowing the end... before you begin :ugeek:

Enjoy Life... its the only one you get!

Disable adblock

This site is supported by ads and donations.
If you see this text you are blocking our ads.
Please consider a Donation to support the site.


yoshimitsuspeed
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby yoshimitsuspeed » Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:34 am

Why would you go shimless when shim under are readily available?

burdickjp
Club4AG Expert
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:39 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby burdickjp » Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:08 pm

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:Why would you go shimless when shim under are readily available?


I believe shimless is quite a bit cheaper, but I could be wrong there. It's been a while since I looked into it.
Pursuing the ideal

AE Harold.
Club4AG Regular
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby AE Harold. » Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:27 pm

burdickjp wrote:
yoshimitsuspeed wrote:Why would you go shimless when shim under are readily available?


I believe shimless is quite a bit cheaper, but I could be wrong there. It's been a while since I looked into it.



Whats the difference of shimless and shim under?
Also whats the pros and cons of both?

Disable adblock

This site is supported by ads and donations.
If you see this text you are blocking our ads.
Please consider a Donation to support the site.


burdickjp
Club4AG Expert
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:39 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby burdickjp » Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:37 pm

AE Harold. wrote:
burdickjp wrote:
yoshimitsuspeed wrote:Why would you go shimless when shim under are readily available?


I believe shimless is quite a bit cheaper, but I could be wrong there. It's been a while since I looked into it.



Whats the difference of shimless and shim under?
Also whats the pros and cons of both?


With shimless valve lash is taken up by the thickness of the bucket itself. The stems inside the buckets are different heights.
With shim under bucket there are shims between the valve stem and the bucket. The buckets are all the same and different thicknesses of shims are used.

Shimless buckets are lighter than shim under bucket setups, which are lighter than shim over bucket setups.
Pursuing the ideal

User avatar
oldeskewltoy
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2026
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby oldeskewltoy » Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:38 am

I've just looked at the 193b cams - http://www.camshaftshop.com/uploads/Sho ... /193-B.pdf

I'm not a fan for the OP's desires.... too long a duration will push the rpm of this engine to about 8800-9000, which will make this more difficult to be truly dual purpose. **IF** this was primarily a track car... I can see this cam, but in my opinion it is a bit too aggressive for the OP's stated desire.

I'd look at camshafts with a 1mm lift duration @ (or close to) 230 degrees. This will allow the engine to twist to about 8500. As far as lifts... under 9mm allows you the retention of the standard valvetrain... which saves Harold $$. ** Although Ted's/Kamikaze Kams have a few cams over 9mm that they say can retain the standard valvetrain.

Harold... I again refer to yoshi's customer's engine, and my engine... both of these engines are great mix engines, suitable for street and track. Both of our engines run 226 degree cams with lifts under 8.5mm. Yoshi's client uses the Tomei Poncams, while I use Web camshafts medium cam (grind 577).

Just a few things to think about.... One other... do you have emissions regulations??
OST Cyl head porting, - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=300

Building a great engine takes knowing the end... before you begin :ugeek:

Enjoy Life... its the only one you get!

yoshimitsuspeed
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby yoshimitsuspeed » Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:00 pm

I suggested the 193-b because it sounds like the OP wants to push this build just a step further than yours or mr2tailbreaker's.
I admit that on paper they look quite large but they are designed for and described as this "Rally cam, great midrange power."

I have not seen these dynoed or pushed so I can't say how they will behave but I suspect they should be quite acceptable as long as someone isn't desperately concerned with below 3000 RPM performance. Even then the compression increase they should allow should keep most if not all the mid range that the poncams or web cams give.

I have a customer doing a carbureted build with these right now with the 193-b.
He could do something like the poncams but to take the next step to engine management, ITBs and these other things I personally would try to take it to the next step.

burdickjp
Club4AG Expert
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:39 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby burdickjp » Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:43 pm

oldeskewltoy wrote:I'm not a fan for the OP's desires.... too long a duration will push the rpm of this engine to about 8800-9000, which will make this more difficult to be truly dual purpose. **IF** this was primarily a track car... I can see this cam, but in my opinion it is a bit too aggressive for the OP's stated desire.


I'm glad you took the time to do some further investigating. It made me go back to the beginning and review the OP's ... original post ... ?

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:I suggested the 193-b because it sounds like the OP wants to push this build just a step further than yours or mr2tailbreaker's.


Bigger cams on the 16v tends to push power up in the rev range, and it doesn't take much to get out of the streetable power range. This is where a proper intake and exhaust help.
Maybe increasing bore will help by adding some displacement?

There are people here, and on MR2OC, who feel cam combinations such as HKS's 272/288s are streetable, and enjoy them, but there are people who would say quite the opposite after driving the exact same car. I don't think you'd find that kind of polarization with PonCams.

Whenever I'm on the fence between two things I always pick the more conservative thing. I'd have to assume 193-Bs are better than the 30 year old HKS profiles. As I said earlier; I'm a big fan of the PonCams, and have seen them perform well beyond what their specs would suggest, even in full race cars. They work very well with compression and tuning.
While I don't think you'd be going wrong by picking the 193-Bs, you may be happier with the PonCams.

The advantage is that you could build with the PonCams, and if you want some more drop in the Kelfords. You'd want to keep the Kelfords in consideration when choosing pistons. You'd be able to sell the PonCams rather quickly. I don't think the opposite would be true; if you started with the Kelfords and decided you wanted to bring power down in the rev range, they'd be harder to sell.
Pursuing the ideal

yoshimitsuspeed
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby yoshimitsuspeed » Sat Nov 15, 2014 4:42 pm

burdickjp wrote:Bigger cams on the 16v tends to push power up in the rev range, and it doesn't take much to get out of the streetable power range. This is where a proper intake and exhaust help.
Maybe increasing bore will help by adding some displacement?


Bigger cams move the power curve up.
It also allows you to run higher static compression which allows you to get more out of the air and fuel available. A properly setup high power build should not loose you low end. It always annoys me when people talk about loosing low end or driveability. If you want low end then an NA small displacement motor is not the place to look for it. You should always be able to maintain stock low end power though. The only reason it would be any less streetable than stock is because that stock hp under 4k RPM will feel much more pathetic when compared in contrast to the motor actually making power in the upper RPM.

To illustrate my point here is a stock AW11.
Image

mr2tailbreakers build.
Image

And an N2 build. Image

http://www.linkecu.com/newsfromlink/trd ... a-g4-storm

At 3k RPM the stock 4A is making about 40 WHP.
The transverse 11:1 poncam build is making 50 WHP.
The Longitudinal N2 motor is making 50 WHP.
From there up the N2 motor and the poncam motor kill the stock 4AGE. This means if you consider a stock 4A to be streetable you should consider either of these other motors to be streetable. The poncam motor does take a bit of a lead over the N2 motor between 4k and 6500 but we are comparing vastly different motors and much bigger cams.
I would not recommend that FA/N2 build for a street car due to longevity but even if you limited it to 7500 RPM it would still spank a stock 4A down low and devastate it up high.

AE Harold.
Club4AG Regular
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby AE Harold. » Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:02 pm

oldeskewltoy wrote:
Harold... I again refer to yoshi's customer's engine, and my engine... both of these engines are great mix engines, suitable for street and track. Both of our engines run 226 degree cams with lifts under 8.5mm. Yoshi's client uses the Tomei Poncams, while I use Web camshafts medium cam (grind 577).

Just a few things to think about.... One other... do you have emissions regulations??


Ive been reading more and more about the poncams and feel as if they would be the right choice. I do want to build a streetable 4age where it could be pushed to its limits with no problem and just have a blast. I currently have a stock 4age in my AE86 and in my opinion, its awesome. All I've done is suspension on the car and i love it. But i do want more from the 4age and i believe the poncams will be fit my needs just perfect. You (oldeskewltoy) and Yoshi both have positive outcomes and have proven that to me that they are great for a mix engine.

As of now i live in florida and emissions regulations are not forced upon but I would like to keep in regulations.

burdickjp
Club4AG Expert
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:39 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby burdickjp » Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:14 pm

Something is wrong with your N2 dyno graph. 450 N*m does not look right.

That N2 engine still has a torque peak of 8k RPMs. If that 200HP (150 kW) at 10k RPMs can be believed, it's making 100 ft*lbs of torque there (135 N*m). It's making about 90 ft*lbs at 4k RPM. The stock AW11 says it's making 75 ft*lbs. Your PonCam engine is making over 110 ft*lbs. Here's the crux: at 3000 PRM the N2 motor is making 61 ft*lbs, which is less than the stock AW11. Unless you like shifting at 4k or 5k in traffic, the engine is going to feel like a dog. If you DO like shifting up there in traffic, go buy a Honda.

The stock bigport 4A-G has an intake runner length and exhaust manifold set up for the cams and compression it comes with. Cam profiles can be changed some while leaving these without really sacrificing driveability. This is exactly what PonCams were intended for. As you venture further from stock cams without changing the intake or exhaust, you'll find that the cams move the torque peak to a less than ideal area of the RPM range, and as it moves up it gets narrower. Adjusting intake and exhaust dimensions can do a lot to drag that torque peak out of the stratosphere. If you're intending on running ITBs and doing some exhaust tuning, you should be able to compensate for larger cams.
Pursuing the ideal

yoshimitsuspeed
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby yoshimitsuspeed » Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:17 pm

Torque is irrelevant and should never be trusted on a dyno because half the time it's rated at the wheels which is 100% useless unless you want to do all the math for wheel diameter, gear ratios and all that.
The N2 dyno says on the graph that it's torque at the wheels.
Why do some dynos do this? I have no idea. It's almost as stupid as graphing in MPH instead of RPM. But the fact of the matter is that they do it.

Power is all that matters so there is no point to trying to find torque. Since we have power and RPM we can know that the N2 motor is producing 88 lb ft of torque. Which again is useless since we already knew power which is what is important.

Again that motor makes more power than the stock 4A across the entire rev range. Whether or not you feel the stock 4A is a dog at 3k RPM is going to be relative but the N2 motor will be less of a dog. If that's not enough for you then you should be looking at boost or displacement.

burdickjp
Club4AG Expert
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:39 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby burdickjp » Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:02 pm

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:Again that motor makes more power than the stock 4A across the entire rev range. Whether or not you feel the stock 4A is a dog at 3k RPM is going to be relative but the N2 motor will be less of a dog. If that's not enough for you then you should be looking at boost or displacement.


Except that it doesn't. At 3k it's making less torque than the stock engine.

Also, torque with respect to rpm is more indicative of performance than power. Power being based on RPM means that the rate of change is less obvious. That rate of change is proportional to torque, and is very easy to see by just looking at torque.
If you have less torque in one area than another then the rate of change will be less. When tuning, optimizing, and comparing, you look at torque.
Pursuing the ideal

yoshimitsuspeed
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby yoshimitsuspeed » Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:27 pm

burdickjp wrote:
yoshimitsuspeed wrote:Again that motor makes more power than the stock 4A across the entire rev range. Whether or not you feel the stock 4A is a dog at 3k RPM is going to be relative but the N2 motor will be less of a dog. If that's not enough for you then you should be looking at boost or displacement.


Except that it doesn't. At 3k it's making less torque than the stock engine.

Also, torque with respect to rpm is more indicative of performance than power. Power being based on RPM means that the rate of change is less obvious. That rate of change is proportional to torque, and is very easy to see by just looking at torque.
If you have less torque in one area than another then the rate of change will be less. When tuning, optimizing, and comparing, you look at torque.


Seriously?
If it was making less torque at 3000 RPM then it would be making less power. They are after all mathematically tied.
The N2 motor makes 50 HP at 3000 RPM therefore it makes 88 lb ft.
The stock motor makes 40 HP at 3000 RPM therefore it makes 70 lb ft.

Power is all indication of performance.
Torque has no indication of performance until you apply an RPM. Once you do you are talking about power.
Yes you can look at a torque curve in some situations when you are tuning and some oldschool tuners might think this is an important place to focus but there are also a lot of oldschool tuners who actually think that torque is the important force that accelerates a mass so it should all be taken with a grain of salt.
In the end it is power that determines how fast a mass will accelerate. If you wanted to determine how fast a given vehicle would accelerate you would only be interested in power.

burdickjp
Club4AG Expert
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:39 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby burdickjp » Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:38 am

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:Seriously?
If it was making less torque at 3000 RPM then it would be making less power. They are after all mathematically tied.
The N2 motor makes 50 HP at 3000 RPM therefore it makes 88 lb ft.
The stock motor makes 40 HP at 3000 RPM therefore it makes 70 lb ft.


That doesn't look like 50 HP to me, but your picture is so small it's difficult to tell. All three scales say "at the wheels" but the torque scale isn't correct, so let's just agree that something is wrong there.

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:Power is all indication of performance.
Torque has no indication of performance until you apply an RPM. Once you do you are talking about power.
Yes you can look at a torque curve in some situations when you are tuning and some oldschool tuners might think this is an important place to focus but there are also a lot of oldschool tuners who actually think that torque is the important force that accelerates a mass so it should all be taken with a grain of salt.
In the end it is power that determines how fast a mass will accelerate. If you wanted to determine how fast a given vehicle would accelerate you would only be interested in power.


: Image
This is a graph of the change in RPM with respect to RPM of my Corolla in 2nd gear. One line is an average of 3 runs with VVT on. The the other has VVT off. That looks like a torque curve because it is some kind of proportionality to torque, not power. If you're looking at power while tuning a car on the dyno you are not doing yourself any favors, because changes in torque are more obvious. When doing development and determining intake and exhaust dimensions you look at torque peaks and moving that torque peak, not power. Torque is the tool. Power is the product.
Pursuing the ideal

yoshimitsuspeed
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby yoshimitsuspeed » Sun Nov 16, 2014 8:57 am

burdickjp wrote:
yoshimitsuspeed wrote:Seriously?
If it was making less torque at 3000 RPM then it would be making less power. They are after all mathematically tied.
The N2 motor makes 50 HP at 3000 RPM therefore it makes 88 lb ft.
The stock motor makes 40 HP at 3000 RPM therefore it makes 70 lb ft.


That doesn't look like 50 HP to me, but your picture is so small it's difficult to tell. All three scales say "at the wheels" but the torque scale isn't correct, so let's just agree that something is wrong there.

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:Power is all indication of performance.
Torque has no indication of performance until you apply an RPM. Once you do you are talking about power.
Yes you can look at a torque curve in some situations when you are tuning and some oldschool tuners might think this is an important place to focus but there are also a lot of oldschool tuners who actually think that torque is the important force that accelerates a mass so it should all be taken with a grain of salt.
In the end it is power that determines how fast a mass will accelerate. If you wanted to determine how fast a given vehicle would accelerate you would only be interested in power.


: Image
This is a graph of the change in RPM with respect to RPM of my Corolla in 2nd gear. One line is an average of 3 runs with VVT on. The the other has VVT off. That looks like a torque curve because it is some kind of proportionality to torque, not power. If you're looking at power while tuning a car on the dyno you are not doing yourself any favors, because changes in torque are more obvious. When doing development and determining intake and exhaust dimensions you look at torque peaks and moving that torque peak, not power. Torque is the tool. Power is the product.



Torque should not be measured at the wheels. This is the whole problem and one reason why I ignore torque curves on dynos because they are usually BS. If you took that torque graph and calculated it by the gear ratio it could give you torque at the crank which is what would matter in regards to determining power but that is all unnecessary since we already have power.
You can use torque in tuning. I disagree that it's any more important or useful than the power curve but that's opinion one way or the other. What is fact is that torque is irrelevant to determining performance or acceleration until you apply RPM and once you do that you have power.

User avatar
oldeskewltoy
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2026
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby oldeskewltoy » Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:24 am

AE Harold. wrote:
As of now i live in florida and emissions regulations are not forced upon but I would like to keep in regulations.



THIS is important.... ***IF*** you want to be anywhere near clean... you need to chose VERY carefully... The more duration you add, the less chance of passing emissions. The 193B will likely never pass... this is primarily because most emissions based states require a maximum idle speed... the overlap on the 193b, will never be clean at typical emissions based maximum idle speeds. In other words... the 193B is not likely to idle smooth enough @ under 1200 rpm that it will be clean for a sniffer.

One of my head builds using 264 type cams did pass Cally emissions with a tiny bit of ignition adjustment. My engine (uses 264 type cams) passes Oregon emissions with a dual stage cat and some ignition trickery - I have aftermarket engine managment. I don't remember if yoshi's customers engine passed... but I'm sure he can tell us.

If you are currently using a completely stock 4AGE in your AE86, and you love it... you don't NEED radical.... you just want more....

Another P.O.V.
correctly ported largeport head, OEM high comp pistons w/light weight wrist pins, blacktop, or aftermarket rods, a 256 type camshaft, and all the careful build info we can offer... This should get you a nice bump* in power, while maintaining idle quality, and emissions. All while retaining all the stock management

How much of a bump? Over what you currently have... a used 30 year old stock engine... a minimum of 25%.... over a brand new stock 4AGE, 15%, or more. All while maintaining emissions compliance. yes it is a conservative build.... but that doesn't mean it will be dull.


Oh... it will also work on the track....

Image
OST Cyl head porting, - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=300

Building a great engine takes knowing the end... before you begin :ugeek:

Enjoy Life... its the only one you get!

burdickjp
Club4AG Expert
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:39 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby burdickjp » Sun Nov 16, 2014 4:34 pm

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:Torque should not be measured at the wheels. This is the whole problem and one reason why I ignore torque curves on dynos because they are usually BS. If you took that torque graph and calculated it by the gear ratio it could give you torque at the crank which is what would matter in regards to determining power but that is all unnecessary since we already have power.
You can use torque in tuning. I disagree that it's any more important or useful than the power curve but that's opinion one way or the other. What is fact is that torque is irrelevant to determining performance or acceleration until you apply RPM and once you do that you have power.


The best way I can describe this is thus: Torque is the tool. Power is the product.
As an example, when doing intake runner length tuning you look at changes in the torque peak. This is much more obvious than power.
Ignition and fuel tuning all revolves around torque production.
Power is performance, but torque is the way you get there. Even then, there are better ways of showing that performance than power; the integral of torque with respect to RPM, for instance, can tell you a whole bunch about performance.

For tuning, It doesn't matter how you measure torque, or that you even measure torque. As I showed above, acceleration can be used for tuning because it is proportional to torque. What really matters is that you are quantifying changes in some manner.
If you're trying to compare dyno plots you're swimming against the current. Chassis dynos are what they are. People suck at them.

oldeskewltoy wrote:correctly ported largeport head, OEM high comp pistons w/light weight wrist pins, blacktop, or aftermarket rods, a 256 type camshaft, and all the careful build info we can offer... This should get you a nice bump* in power, while maintaining idle quality, and emissions. All while retaining all the stock management

How much of a bump? Over what you currently have... a used 30 year old stock engine... a minimum of 25%.... over a brand new stock 4AGE, 15%, or more. All while maintaining emissions compliance. yes it is a conservative build.... but that doesn't mean it will be dull.


Oh... it will also work on the track....

Image


Awesome.
Pursuing the ideal

yoshimitsuspeed
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby yoshimitsuspeed » Sun Nov 16, 2014 8:01 pm

burdickjp wrote:The best way I can describe this is thus: Torque is the tool. Power is the product.
As an example, when doing intake runner length tuning you look at changes in the torque peak. This is much more obvious than power.


This makes no sense. I know that some tuners prefer to look at torque but there is nothing better or easier about it. A 10% increase in torque at 3000 RPM will equal a 10% increase in power at 3000 RPM. How would a 10% increase in tq be more obvious than a 10% increase in power?

burdickjp wrote:The best way I can describe this is thus: Torque is the tool. Power is the product.
As an example, when doing intake runner length tuning you look at changes in the torque peak. This is much more obvious than power.
Ignition and fuel tuning all revolves around torque production.
Power is performance, but torque is the way you get there. Even then, there are better ways of showing that performance than power; the integral of torque with respect to RPM, for instance, can tell you a whole bunch about performance.

For tuning, It doesn't matter how you measure torque, or that you even measure torque. As I showed above, acceleration can be used for tuning because it is proportional to torque. What really matters is that you are quantifying changes in some manner.


If you are using torque at all it absolutely depends on how you measure it. If you measure torque after a 2:1 gear reduction you will see twice as much torque. You have to factor the fact that the RPM has been halved or you have nothing.

Acceleration is a means of measuring power. It's actually a perfect example. To calculate acceleration you are trying to calculate the rate at which work is being done. That is power.
How many lb ft does it take to accelerate 2000 lbs at 2 meters per second per second? You can't solve for this.
How much power does it take to accelerate 2000 lbs at 2 meters per second per second? You can solve for this because power is a unit of work and acceleration is a measure of work.
You are using the rate at which a mass accelerates to quantify work done.

With that said I am very confused by your graph because the 20v makes peak power near redline. Therefore it will accelerate a mass at the greatest rate at redline. This would cause your RPM to increase at the greatest rate near redline. If your graph is measuring acceleration over time it should climb all the way to redline.

yoshimitsuspeed
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby yoshimitsuspeed » Sun Nov 16, 2014 8:04 pm

oldeskewltoy wrote:
AE Harold. wrote:
As of now i live in florida and emissions regulations are not forced upon but I would like to keep in regulations.



THIS is important.... ***IF*** you want to be anywhere near clean... you need to chose VERY carefully... The more duration you add, the less chance of passing emissions. The 193B will likely never pass... this is primarily because most emissions based states require a maximum idle speed... the overlap on the 193b, will never be clean at typical emissions based maximum idle speeds. In other words... the 193B is not likely to idle smooth enough @ under 1200 rpm that it will be clean for a sniffer.

One of my head builds using 264 type cams did pass Cally emissions with a tiny bit of ignition adjustment. My engine (uses 264 type cams) passes Oregon emissions with a dual stage cat and some ignition trickery - I have aftermarket engine managment. I don't remember if yoshi's customers engine passed... but I'm sure he can tell us.

If you are currently using a completely stock 4AGE in your AE86, and you love it... you don't NEED radical.... you just want more....

Another P.O.V.
correctly ported largeport head, OEM high comp pistons w/light weight wrist pins, blacktop, or aftermarket rods, a 256 type camshaft, and all the careful build info we can offer... This should get you a nice bump* in power, while maintaining idle quality, and emissions. All while retaining all the stock management

How much of a bump? Over what you currently have... a used 30 year old stock engine... a minimum of 25%.... over a brand new stock 4AGE, 15%, or more. All while maintaining emissions compliance. yes it is a conservative build.... but that doesn't mean it will be dull.


Oh... it will also work on the track....

Image


While I don't think that the 193-b would be in any way too big for a street build or would loose you any significant mid range I do agree that if emissions are a concern they may not be the way to go.
But then generally speaking I would tend to want to keep the stock engine management too because that could throw a wrench in the works anywhere that does real inspections.
Last I heard mr2taibreaker hadn't been through emissions yet. I do not know for sure how the poncams look from an emissions perspective.

burdickjp
Club4AG Expert
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:39 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby burdickjp » Sun Nov 16, 2014 8:56 pm

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:
This makes no sense. I know that some tuners prefer to look at torque but there is nothing better or easier about it. A 10% increase in torque at 3000 RPM will equal a 10% increase in power at 3000 RPM. How would a 10% increase in tq be more obvious than a 10% increase in power?

If you put on 100mm velocity stacks and do a pull recording torque and then put on 20mm velocity stacks and do a pull recording torque you can compare the two without actually having to put them over the top of one another to see the minute differences there would be in power. You can see where torque peaks. You can see how flat torque is. You can judge where you want to go and what you want to do without ever needing to overlay the two runs.

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:If you are using torque at all it absolutely depends on how you measure it. If you measure torque after a 2:1 gear reduction you will see twice as much torque. You have to factor the fact that the RPM has been halved or you have nothing.

The numbers may be twice as large, but the shape of the torque curve will be the same, and that is what is most useful. You have some kind of numbers and some kind of repeatability to your experiment, so you are doing some kind of science.
With the intake situation above it wouldn't matter what the numbers are, as long as they're comparable.

RPM has nothing to do with it.

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:Acceleration is a means of measuring power. It's actually a perfect example. To calculate acceleration you are trying to calculate the rate at which work is being done. That is power.
How many lb ft does it take to accelerate 2000 lbs at 2 meters per second per second? You can't solve for this.

F = M * A
T = F * r
where:
F = force
M = mass
A = acceleration
T = torque
r = radius of lever arm
T / r = M * A = 907 * 2 = 1814 N*m /m
So 1814 N applied to a 1m arm or 907 N applied to a 2m arm, etc.

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:How much power does it take to accelerate 2000 lbs at 2 meters per second per second? You can solve for this because power is a unit of work and acceleration is a measure of work. You are using the rate at which a mass accelerates to quantify work done.


This actually doesn't work. Acceleration is not a measure of work. You'd need a force times a distance divided by a time to get power.
Work and energy are measured in Joules, which is a Newton times a meter in rectilinear systems. Power is Watts, which is Joules per second. Acceleration is in meters per second squared. Even if you have acceleration and mass you still only have the force involved, which is in Newtons.

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:With that said I am very confused by your graph because the 20v makes peak power near redline. Therefore it will accelerate a mass at the greatest rate at redline. This would cause your RPM to increase at the greatest rate near redline. If your graph is measuring acceleration over time it should climb all the way to redline.


That's because acceleration is proportional to torque, not power.
A = F/M
or in rotational terms
A = T/I where I is moment of inertia.
Pursuing the ideal

yoshimitsuspeed
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby yoshimitsuspeed » Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:05 pm

burdickjp wrote:If you put on 100mm velocity stacks and do a pull recording torque and then put on 20mm velocity stacks and do a pull recording torque you can compare the two without actually having to put them over the top of one another to see the minute differences there would be in power. You can see where torque peaks. You can see how flat torque is. You can judge where you want to go and what you want to do without ever needing to overlay the two runs.


This would be no different with power. You would need the graph to have torque and RPM to make it of any use and once you have those two things you have everything you need to determine power. You could look at either torque or power and know just as much. Any way you cut it I am not talking about tuning. I am talking about acceleration potential. I am showing that a motor with huge cams can make the same in the low to mid range as a build with smaller cams. The dynos are right there. It's hard to make out the power graph on the N2 build but it's there. I posted the power for a few spots for reference. Since you have HP and RPM you can calculate FW torque if you want to know but it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. If the poncam motor makes 20% more power at 3k RPM then it will make 20% more torque there too.


burdickjp wrote:The numbers may be twice as large, but the shape of the torque curve will be the same, and that is what is most useful. You have some kind of numbers and some kind of repeatability to your experiment, so you are doing some kind of science.
With the intake situation above it wouldn't matter what the numbers are, as long as they're comparable.

RPM has nothing to do with it.

It still does.
I could show you a torque graph of a motor that makes 100 lb ft at 100 RPM and a motor that makes 100 lb ft at 200 RPM. As long as they were scaled properly without RPM markers they would look identical even though one motor did twice as much work per unit of time.

burdickjp wrote:F = M * A
T = F * r
where:
F = force
M = mass
A = acceleration
T = torque
r = radius of lever arm
T / r = M * A = 907 * 2 = 1814 N*m /m
So 1814 N applied to a 1m arm or 907 N applied to a 2m arm, etc.

This equation is incomplete. It does not address time.
You can apply 1814 NM to a lever but if it's not moving it's not doing any work. You need to move to have work and you need to calculate that work over time to calculate power.
We can also look at this in the linear manner.
http://www.epi-eng.com/mechanical_engin ... d_work.htm
You can push on your car as hard as you can but if it does not move it's not doing any work.

http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine_te ... torque.htm

POWER (the rate of doing WORK) is dependent on TORQUE and RPM.

Acceleration is measuring the rate at which something accelerates.
To determine how fast something will accelerate you need to determine the amount of work that can be done over time. Or the rate of acceleration.
The force, be it linear or rotational does not mean anything until you define the rate at which it applies that force and does work.

burdickjp wrote:
This actually doesn't work. Acceleration is not a measure of work. You'd need a force times a distance divided by a time to get power.
Work and energy are measured in Joules, which is a Newton times a meter in rectilinear systems. Power is Watts, which is Joules per second. Acceleration is in meters per second squared. Even if you have acceleration and mass you still only have the force involved, which is in Newtons.

Let's go back to the link comparing work and energy. Here We need to clarify the difference between a lb/ft and a ft/lb as they are completely different measurements.
A lb/ft is a force applied. That force doesn't have to move and doesn't have to do any work. A lb/ft is the ability to apply one lb of force for the distance of one foot. This is a measurement of work. It still cannot calculate acceleration because it still doesn't factor for time. Now if you apply 1 lb of force 1 foot in one second you can now calculate accleration. Once again we are back to talking about work over time or power.

burdickjp wrote:
That's because acceleration is proportional to torque, not power.
A = F/M
or in rotational terms
A = T/I where I is moment of inertia.


Acceleration is 100% proportional to power.
Once again acceleration is a measure of speed over time.
On the other side of the equation you need time. Force applied needs to be factored over time. This brings us back to power.

burdickjp
Club4AG Expert
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:39 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby burdickjp » Sun Nov 16, 2014 11:07 pm

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:This would be no different with power. You would need the graph to have torque and RPM to make it of any use and once you have those two things you have everything you need to determine power. You could look at either torque or power and know just as much. Any way you cut it I am not talking about tuning. I am talking about acceleration potential. I am showing that a motor with huge cams can make the same in the low to mid range as a build with smaller cams. The dynos are right there. It's hard to make out the power graph on the N2 build but it's there. I posted the power for a few spots for reference. Since you have HP and RPM you can calculate FW torque if you want to know but it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. If the poncam motor makes 20% more power at 3k RPM then it will make 20% more torque there too.


When I ask the question "at what RPM is VE highest?" and hand you a power with respect to RPM graph, you would have to do some calculations. If I asked you with a torque graph you would just point to peak torque and say, "There." Seeing changes in that peak, or in the shape of the curve, is important, and conveys much more information about how an engine behaves than power.

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:It still does.
I could show you a torque graph of a motor that makes 100 lb ft at 100 RPM and a motor that makes 100 lb ft at 200 RPM. As long as they were scaled properly without RPM markers they would look identical even though one motor did twice as much work per unit of time.


I didn't phrase that correctly, so you are right here. Adding RPM to the equation, that is using power instead of torque, would be less productive than torque for the above mentioned reason.

burdickjp wrote:F = M * A
T = F * r
where:
F = force
M = mass
A = acceleration
T = torque
r = radius of lever arm
T / r = M * A = 907 * 2 = 1814 N*m /m
So 1814 N applied to a 1m arm or 907 N applied to a 2m arm, etc.


yoshimitsuspeed wrote:This equation is incomplete. It does not address time.


I'm at a loss as to why you'd be arguing against Newton's Second Law.
I'm going to go ahead and repeat it with units so you can see that it works.

T / r = M * A
N*m / m = kg * m/s^2
N = kg * m/s^2
kg * m/s^2 = kg * m/s^2
All units cancel. It's a good equation.

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:You can apply 1814 NM to a lever but if it's not moving it's not doing any work. You need to move to have work and you need to calculate that work over time to calculate power.
We can also look at this in the linear manner.
http://www.epi-eng.com/mechanical_engin ... d_work.htm
You can push on your car as hard as you can but if it does not move it's not doing any work.


F = M * A still applies. Force causes motion.
Unless there's an opposing force. In the case of the immobile car, that would be friction. You have to overcome friction to start motion. The equation then becomes:
Force - friction = mass * acceleration
Acceleration is then proportional to NET force, or really, the summation of ALL net forces on the object. You've got a bunch of forces on an object, which way does it accelerate? That is determined by the resultant of the forces. This is the basis of dynamics.

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:To determine how fast something will accelerate you need to determine the amount of work that can be done over time. Or the rate of acceleration.
The force, be it linear or rotational does not mean anything until you define the rate at which it applies that force and does work.


F = M * A

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:Let's go back to the link comparing work and energy. Here We need to clarify the difference between a lb/ft and a ft/lb as they are completely different measurements.
A lb/ft is a force applied. That force doesn't have to move and doesn't have to do any work. A lb/ft is the ability to apply one lb of force for the distance of one foot. This is a measurement of work. It still cannot calculate acceleration because it still doesn't factor for time. Now if you apply 1 lb of force 1 foot in one second you can now calculate accleration. Once again we are back to talking about work over time or power.


A lb/ft is a linear density. A pound per foot.
A ft/lb is a specific length. A foot per pound.

A lb*ft or ft*lb is what you are trying to talk about.

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:Acceleration is 100% proportional to power.
Once again acceleration is a measure of speed over time.


Acceleration is NOT proportional to power. It is proportional to force in rectilinear systems and torque in rotational systems. That is Newton's Second Law. F = M * A
Acceleration is the first derivative of velocity with respect to time. It is the measure of a CHANGE in speed with respect to time.

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:On the other side of the equation you need time. Force applied needs to be factored over time. This brings us back to power.

Force over time is not power.
Last edited by burdickjp on Mon Nov 17, 2014 10:51 am, edited 3 times in total.
Pursuing the ideal

burdickjp
Club4AG Expert
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:39 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby burdickjp » Sun Nov 16, 2014 11:46 pm

Maybe an inverse example would be helpful: you can have power without acceleration.

Steady state dynomometers, for instance, absorb energy from the engine they are testing. The engine does work on the dyno. With these specific dynos, load and RPM are independent. The absorber can change the amount of energy it is absorbing without changing RPM. This is why fuel and ignition tables have a load axis, and one way in which it is tuned.
Pursuing the ideal

User avatar
oldeskewltoy
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2026
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby oldeskewltoy » Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:56 am

How important is torque???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4uSn-0Qfjg

Factory Ferrari engine assembly and testing... @ 10:14 they are discussing torque @ 5000 rpm, if it passes they continue....


so not to interrupt this love fest... but Ferrari is a far more reliable source then Matrix Garage!
OST Cyl head porting, - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=300

Building a great engine takes knowing the end... before you begin :ugeek:

Enjoy Life... its the only one you get!

yoshimitsuspeed
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby yoshimitsuspeed » Mon Nov 17, 2014 10:53 am

oldeskewltoy wrote:How important is torque???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4uSn-0Qfjg

Factory Ferrari engine assembly and testing... @ 10:14 they are discussing torque @ 5000 rpm, if it passes they continue....


so not to interrupt this love fest... but Ferrari is a far more reliable source then Matrix Garage!


Also note that the whole time they refer to it as a power curve. If you talked to the engineers that designed the car or came up with the test they would tell you that there is no difference looking for a minimum of x amount of torque at 5000 RPM is the exact same thing as checking for x amount of power at 5000 RPM.
Your argument proves nothing except that in that test Ferrari chose to look at torque and as I have already said there is nothing wrong with that.

ogdougynutty
Club4AG Enthusiast
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:07 am

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby ogdougynutty » Mon Nov 17, 2014 11:02 am

If it is the exact same, then why do they specifically say the check the torque? They are measuring the power curve yes, but to make sure the power curve is correct they are checking the torque.

And how do you know the engineers would say that? Are you a Ferrari engineer?

yoshimitsuspeed
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby yoshimitsuspeed » Mon Nov 17, 2014 11:22 am

burdickjp wrote:
yoshimitsuspeed wrote:This would be no different with power. You would need the graph to have torque and RPM to make it of any use and once you have those two things you have everything you need to determine power. You could look at either torque or power and know just as much. Any way you cut it I am not talking about tuning. I am talking about acceleration potential. I am showing that a motor with huge cams can make the same in the low to mid range as a build with smaller cams. The dynos are right there. It's hard to make out the power graph on the N2 build but it's there. I posted the power for a few spots for reference. Since you have HP and RPM you can calculate FW torque if you want to know but it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. If the poncam motor makes 20% more power at 3k RPM then it will make 20% more torque there too.


When I ask the question "at what RPM is VE highest?" and hand you a power with respect to RPM graph, you would have to do some calculations. If I asked you with a torque graph you would just point to peak torque and say, "There." Seeing changes in that peak, or in the shape of the curve, is important, and conveys much more information about how an engine behaves than power.


For a quick and dirty analysis this would be true and being able to look at the torque curve does have it's merits at times and this is a good example of when it would be easier to look at t torque curve.
On the other hand if you want your car to go faster at 4k RPM it really wouldn't matter which graph you looked at or tuned off of.

burdickjp wrote:
I'm at a loss as to why you'd be arguing against Newton's Second Law.
I'm going to go ahead and repeat it with units so you can see that it works.


I was thinking about this last night and decided I was in fact looking at it wrong. It is still however power that is the important factor here.
Force applied is in fact what will determine acceleration. As you say in a car that is rotational force or torque on the wheels but here is what you don't seem to be addressing.
You can have a motor that makes 100 lb ft of torque at 1000 RPM redline and a motor that makes 200 lb ft at 500 RPM redline. If you run the latter motor through a gear box with a 2:1 multiplier both setups will accelerate at the same rate to the same speed. This is because the same force over time is being applied to the wheels. Why? Because they make the same amount of power and can do the same amount of work over time.
Now if you removed the gear reduction on the second motor it could accelerate at twice the rate but only to half the speed. It's doing the same amount of work over time just in a different ratio of force to distance. Now you could say that this motor will now reach it's max speed faster so it seems it's low end power makes it faster. But wait. We can now add a gear box to the first motor with a 2:1 reduction and it will now also accelerate at the same rate to the same speed. Why? Because they both make the same amount of power and do the same amount of work over time.
Power is what is important because if you have enough power you can make any desired amount of force (torque) you want with gear multipliers. If you don't have the force at a high enough RPM (power) then you will not be able to do the amount of work you need to do. Sure you can double the torque but it will half the RPM so you need enough of both to hit your target. Again that would be power.
For an application where you can't use gears you would need the motor to make the required amount of power at the required RPM. Since RPM is fixed you could look at torque but power is in fact what is important. It is the work that is being done.

yoshimitsuspeed
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby yoshimitsuspeed » Mon Nov 17, 2014 11:34 am

ogdougynutty wrote:If it is the exact same, then why do they specifically say the check the torque? They are measuring the power curve yes, but to make sure the power curve is correct they are checking the torque.

And how do you know the engineers would say that? Are you a Ferrari engineer?


Sadly no I am not but I say that because the only people I don't get in this argument with are physicists and engineers. They either say "yup you are right".
Or "well duh, you don't need to be a physicist or engineer to realize that". But apparently you do.

Why do they specifically check torque? Could be for any number of reasons.
Engine dynos generally measure torque and RPM then calculate power based off of that. Why convert it to power in a situation where you don't need to?

Or the designing engineers could have flipped a coin and said torque or power?

Or it could be that way back in the day dynos used mechanical outputs from torque and RPM to monitor the motor and then those outputs would have likely been calculated by hand to determine power.
It could be that their current system has evolved from previous systems and it never needed to be changed?

ogdougynutty
Club4AG Enthusiast
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:07 am

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby ogdougynutty » Mon Nov 17, 2014 12:08 pm

I imagine they specifically check torque because that is the factor that makes power along with RPM.

Power (in general) is work per unit time, in this case Torque and RPM. So when checking the end result (power) it is better to check the components of it. More so for the fact that if you have to change something you manipulate torque.

From a point of view of just looking at the equation. You can use either idea, but just going off the power is inefficient.

Disable adblock

This site is supported by ads and donations.
If you see this text you are blocking our ads.
Please consider a Donation to support the site.



Return to “TECH: 4A-GE ENGINE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests