|
2.8 Short Stroke Compression Ratio fine-tuning
So, I've got a (not mine) 2.8 short-stroke motor on the table, minus pistons.
Carrera 3.0 Case 66mm CW Crank 2.2 Rods 3.2 95mm Cylinders SC ported, twin-plugged heads w/ Ti retainers and Aasco springs DC80 cams Twin plug ignition MFI ARP Rod hardware and Head studs 110 Race gas It's a full race engine, planned to run up to 8500 or so. Now I'm second-guessing myself on the compression. Originally, I was thinking 11.5:1, with these cams, would provide the necessary punch around 5k rpm. Now, I wonder if this is going to become an engine that needs to be torn down every 10 hours to be R&R'd. Ideally, I'd like to be able to get 25 hours out of it before it needs to come apart again. That may mean 10.5:1 or so... Any thoughts welcome Cheers, |
Hello, Scott.
The revs will kill it faster than the CR surely? Those big pistons are heavy and wobble in the bores.. Kind regards David |
Quote:
TIA. |
Never mind.....
|
Hi Scott
10.5 to 10.8 to one would be appropriate for your application. Engine sounds nice. Where did you get that idea? :) ARP Head studs, what were you thinking ? This sounds like a candidate for a Supertec Gen II twin plug distributer. http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1156200434.jpg http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1156200459.jpg http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1156200521.jpg |
NEXT QUESTION : INDUCTION ?
PMO? MFI ? http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1156200765.jpg http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads8/21156201869.jpg |
Haha, the idea was all mine!! ;) :D
Henry, a 009 Pump needing a rebuild will be heading your way sometime in 2006...as will a 911SC distributor. I'm working on remaking (CNC) slide valves, we'll see how they work. If not, I've got some '70E MFI stacks that would be perfect bored out. I'm sure your head studs are damn near perfect, but with ARP stud strength at a comparable level, the deciding factor simply became cost, and yours were a bit more ;). Now, I have to ask, but I think I know the answer: is it worth buying MFI injectors new over having used ones cleaned? I'm thinking no, those things are soo expensive now. I'll post more pics as I progress...:) Cheers |
Scott,
While I defer to Henry’s superior knowledge, I use the highest CR physically possible given piston-to-head clearance and piston-to-valve clearance. Both of those you can start on the conservative side and at each maintenance rebuild creep them closer. There are cylinder base gaskets available in 0.002” increments, maybe finer today. I have three 66x91 engines that peak at about 8300 and I would occasionally intentionally run to about 8700 rpm. There were some unintentional trips to 9000 with no bad consequences. These were Mahle forged RSR-like pistons which, I suspect, are lighter than what you will use. I also used carefully selected, prepared and tested lighter 2.0 rods. I edged the CR as high as I could without the piston ever touching the head. It was above 11.7:1. It kept the piston and head clean in the squish area but never any contact. I was very careful warming the engine up (propane pre-heat oil and engine) and immediate shut-off for concern of expansion differences. The issue here is to use race fuel octane appropriate for the CR and keep the head temperatures under control. I disassemble these every 25 hours based on summing at-speed lap times. I never had a failure or even a close call. The parts looked like I could quadruple the time if I wanted. Each time the engines got new main bearings (except #8), rod bearings, rod nuts & bolts, rings and head gaskets. I would Magnaflux both the rods and new bolts. I constantly stirred around the rods to have a fresh and well tested set. I would touch-up the valve seating – that is where the power is. I am generally not inclined to extend the hours on a very high rev engine. It is the RPM and not the CR that is the limiting factor. The loads go up with the cube of the angular speed. Stroke and mass of the rods & piston are very important. I want to take out perfectly good parts. The consequences of a failure are just too great. This past weekend a friend lost a 2.2 with a holed early aluminum case that was thoroughly prepped. The engine isn’t apart yet but I think he lost a non-Mahle piston first. Where Porsche Motorsports wants your Cup engine rebuilt every 40 hours, I think that can be extended significantly by keeping the revs lower if not used for serious racing. Looking at your list, the valve springs caught my eye. I am in favor of doing everything possible to lighten the reciprocating valve gear mass and then be able to use the lightest spring rate and seat pressure possible. This means the valves stay where you set them, even after 25 hours of 8000+. Additionally it takes less power to operate the valves and all the parts in the valve train are less stressed. What can you do? Titanium. The non-adjustable rocker arms that use lash-caps are also very significant. My engines are currently single plug (then rules). I intend to make these 70.4x92 mm and twin plug. Modifying 2.4 (not 2.7) heads should let me run even higher CR. I’ll convert to twin plugs which will cost a little in CR but gain in combustion efficiency (mostly from better burn and less ignition advance). Using the longer 70.4 mm stroke will cause me to lower the max RPM. Your engine has the advantage of a more rigid crankcase so the dimensions will hold better. Remember this doesn’t necessarily mean “longer”. Your 3.0 heads are great for your use with a 95 mm bore. One advantage of the 66 mm stroke with the 2.2 rods is the longer rod length particularly in relation to the stroke. This reduces the side loads on the piston and consequential “flopping about” of the piston in the cylinder. The other side of very high CR is keeping the heads and cylinders cool. Up rated air cooling is important here. The “Rubbermaid Solution” is legal in everything I (my son) will run so that will be included. The turbo piston squirters will be also. With the water vaporization the 1.3:1 fan should be sufficient. I can increase to 1.6:1 or 1.82:1 if measurement shows it necessary. There isn’t an engine mounted oil cooler or heat exchangers so all the air goes to the cylinders and heads. Please use my, Henry’s and other’s experience to build your engine so it will be reliable, put out significant power and “clean the clock” of your non-Porsche competitors. Best, Grady |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The case is shuffle-pinned and fitted with Turbo oil squirters, a 3.2 oil pump (very low mileage, as-new). The crankshaft has been knife-edged, lightened and balanced to within 1g, and the rod journals have been ground down .001" (and re-hardened) to increase the rod bearing/journal clearance for more oil flow..I've seen a few alu case race 2.0 & 2.5 motors go kapooey spinning the rod bearings on #5 (and #2?) due to inadequate oil pressure/flow. I will of course still be using standard-size rod bearings. The engine will be run exclusively on 104+ octane, and the MFI will be probably dialed just a tad rich to take care of any possible CHT issues. I plan on running a 1.3:1 fan with a 226mm (early 911SC) aluminum fan housing and fan. I need to read the "rubbermaid solution" thread again (just found it and saved the link). The car will have a second oil filter in place of the engine cooler, so the fan air will be directed at the cylinders/heads only. The car has a large front oil cooler, too . The fan ratio may be changed based on our test-runs. The heads have Aasco springs, which apparently are not full-tilt race springs, ie. they are perhaps a "lighter" spring. I deferred to Ollie's in this case; they build many race engine heads with much success. I installed Titanium retainers, as well. At the moment, the rocker cap-adjustable RSR rocker arms are out of the question (budget), but I have forged 2.0L rocker arms that I'm planning on using. They are significantly lighter than the cast rocker arms (perhaps 10 grams although I'd need a more accurate scale to know precisely). Based on this, and discussions with the new owner of the engine, it seems as though I am going to walk a middle ground, perhaps in the low-11:1 C/R range. Thanks again Scott |
I am most interested to read that Grady has tested very close head-piston clearances:
This is something I have also done with success. I have one road engine running at 25 thou on the road..this is a 2.2L 84mm bore.. I wonder if grady could say what clearance he has found possible please? I'd hazard the guess that the 91mm pistons rock a bit more and may need more clearance...but I also "know" that at very tight squish points the hydraulic forces from the mixture become very large and may stabilise the piston if it rocks... Kind regards David |
“I don't think Mahle ever made 91's.”
Yes, they were for the SCCA 90 mm + 0.040” spec. They have valve cutouts for the standard production 46 & 40 mm valves and are very high compression. Starting with a 2.7 head they are about 11.3:1 and you can eak it more starting with 2.2 or 2.4 heads. The pistons look similar to the 92 mm RSR but have smaller valve cutouts, 1 mm less diameter and a higher crown. They come matched to Nikasil cylinders. I got mine from Vasek Polak when Arnold was parts manager (pre-Andial). These pistons, the RSR 92 mm and others are made in batches. This is why occasionally they are plentiful and other times very scarce. Scott, there is also great benefit from opening up the sides of the cylinder spigot and matching that to the main bearing webs. The pumping losses in a 911 are significant. There is a (964?) check valve that fits the breather and helps reduce the atmospheric pressure in the case. I have considered using several of these to vent the case above each cylinder. The 2-stroke reed valves would work well also. David, I have used slightly less than your 0.025” deck but only on race engines that I intend to have apart each 25 hours or so. I don’t trust the wear on the rod bearing or wrist pin bushing and any stretch of the rod or settling of the case & cylinder to not have the clearance become “too close.” I think the critical time is during the cool-off lap when the cylinder cools substantially but the rod and piston are still hot. I think the closest I ever ran was 0.50 mm – maybe a little less. Bruce Anderson has an example (p. 178) using 0.021” (0.533 mm). These Mahle pistons are closely fitted to the Nikasil cylinder and rocking isn’t the issue that it is with a looser fit required by a JE for example. I have measured the deck with solder on one side and modeling clay on the other to make sure there wasn’t some condition where the piston could contact the head. Any contact under any circumstance is too much. What pistons are you using with 0.025” deck? What piston-to-cylinder clearance? I had an interesting discussion with a very knowledgeable SBC builder a few months ago. He was inspecting little “pits” on a rod bearing at the location where small “spider webs” of bearing overload failure were just starting to be visible with a hand 10X microscope. He explained the pits were from detonation of small bubbles of air-oil mixture entrained in the oil. He theorized this occurs with a combination of combustion load, inertial load, some detonation load, too high oil temperature and too much “foam” in the oil. I have seen this on Porsche bearings. The classic failure is where the copper layer in the bearing fractures and small pieces of the copper, with babbitt still attached, flake off the steel backing. Just shy of the failure, you can see the “spider webs” outline in the babbitt above the fractures. I had always ascribed this from overloading from combustion and inertia and particularly from inaudible detonation in the combustion chamber. I flet the microscopic pits were just more underlying structure failure. This, of course, is very different from oiling issues where the babbitt is scraped off the bearing from contact with the crank journal. This too can result in the copper intermediate layer flaking off. This got me thinking again about the GT3 oil system configuration. There is a centrifugal air/oil separator. Could this be another reason these engines can successfully turn so fast with such long stroke and big bore? Here is a diagram of a, ‘02 GT3RS. It doesn’t show an oil-air centrifugal separator but it is mentioned in the text in several places. " http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1156358616.jpg " © Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche A.G. " http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1156358710.jpg " © Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche A.G. " http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1156358777.jpg " © Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche A.G. I suspect there are two. One is clearly in the oil tank and separates the air out to reduce foam in the tank. Some other diagrams show this. The other separator may be integral with the oil-to-water heat exchanger. I think there is a small air return line to either the tank or case. I would like to see someone build a GT3 style oil tank to fit an early 911 and a 914-6. The key features would be: 1) Have a centrifugal separator in both the scavenge circuit and the pressure circuit before the cooler. In the pressure circuit it should be integral with the pressure relief valve. 2) Have the full flow filter in the pressure circuit. 3) Have the hottest oil in the tank and the thermostatically controlled oil cooler in the pressure circuit. 4) Mount the tank and everything else on the engine above and where the engine oil cooler mounts. Only the oil cooler remote to the engine. 5) Only the normal attachments to the engine at the cooler ports, thermostat opening, scavenge out, breather and oil pressure port. Why would this be an advantage? A) Better oil supply to the inlet of the pressure pump. B) Less entrained air in the oil. C) Improved filtering. D) Better heat transfer at the oil cooler. E) Lighter weight; less oil, more compact system. F) Don’t have to drain the oil when removing the engine. :D Something to think about. :cool: Best, Grady |
Hello, Grady.
Very very good thinking as usual. I do not recall whether I ever posted my thoughts about case windage reduction, and means to achieve case vacuum. But what I had sketched was a three-compartement case, with non return valves on each compartment. The boxer pistons will expel air and oil when coming together and leave a high vacuum when apart. Hysteresis loss will be low with adiabatic conditions at high revs. A small set of scavenge pumps should suffice or may be redundant altogether. This is a massive development excercise. The idea of an oil tank on the engine at the oil cooler mount is also a great one: I wanted to minimise the risk of starvation from cornering forces acting on the column of pil beteween the tank and engine. And to maximise the vertical height of the tank above the pump inlet to asssist degassing. The tank idea is much simpler, and I will do this Real Soon Now.. The engine I ran at 25 thou was just a rough rebuild, using a modified forged mahle VW piston ( 85.5mm) on a 2.2T bottom end.. I do not recall the piston/wall clearances..they would have been stock VW.. Kind regards David |
Scott,
You sure the valves will not hit eachother with that DC80 cam? One motor with 2.7 heads with 993 intake valves cleared with a DC60. They said a DC80 cam would make them hit. Sounds like a great motor. |
“I do not recall whether I ever posted my thoughts about case windage reduction, and means to achieve case vacuum.
But what I had sketched was a three-compartement case, with non return valves on each compartment. The boxer pistons will expel air and oil when coming together and leave a high vacuum when apart. Hysteresis loss will be low with adiabatic conditions at high revs.” You are right on. There are three opposing 2-cylinder engines spaced 120° apart. When the two opposing pistons are on down stroke, the pressure between rises. This is when the atmospheric air/oil should be expelled. On the up-stroke, there is actually negative pressure working against the back-side of the piston. Based on calculations this isn’t significant compared to the pressure pumping. I think the critical issue is the low atmospheric pressure allows the entrained air to let the oil to drop out of the air-oil suspension. This means the oil is returned to the sump faster. The back-side of the pistons sees less restriction from compressing the air/oil atmosphere. Good ‘ol adiabatic compression losses are less. Less power lost and less heat generated. ”A small set of scavenge pumps should suffice or may be redundant altogether.” Note how the GT3 does it. I have some important questions about the diagrams I posted above. More to come. ”This is a massive development exercise.” No, this has been an issue since the late ‘60s. Just not many knew about it. ”The idea of an oil tank on the engine at the oil cooler mount is also a great one: I wanted to minimize the risk of starvation from cornering forces acting on the column of oil between the tank and engine. And to maximize the vertical height of the tank above the pump inlet to assist degassing. The tank idea is much simpler, and I will do this Real Soon Now.” I posted this some time ago. Link to follow. ”The engine I ran at 25 thou was just a rough rebuild, using a modified forged Mahle VW piston ( 85.5mm) on a 2.2T bottom end.” Cool. Post that info as others might want to use this. ”I do not recall the piston/wall clearances..they would have been stock VW.” Those are important numbers if you can find the, All this used to be super secret engine builder’s info. I can find all this on-line. We should have this for every Porsche engine builder so we can wax the non-Porsche competition. Sooner or later they will realize how far ahead we are and copy. We should never be so conceited as to not look at all the other engine building info. Best, Grady |
Here is a good thread from ’04 about oil tank location.
”Oil Tank location“ Ok, on to the GT3 system. EngineOilSyatem01c.jpg “ http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1156717599.jpg " © Dr. -Ing. h.c. F. Porsche A.G. “A” must be the centrifugal air separator in the sump tank. It is shown in the X-ray diagram above. “B” must be the ball check valve in the breather. Is “C” in the intake after the restrictor/venturi? What is “D”? It doesn’t make sense if that is simply an outside vent. That would just pull in dirt and air. Is this a breather connection to the two cam boxes? “E”, “F” and “G” appear to be check valves. The engineers sure didn’t want the oil to drain out while setting. Is there another purpose? “H” appears to be another draftsman’s error. I think this is the filler neck. “I” is the breather connection between the crankcase and the sump tank. Whoever drew the diagram missed some connections. I put a green dot nearby each that I think are connections (EDIT to add). There doesn’t seem to be a connection to the #1 main bearing. Is that an omission in the diagram or can it be fed down the entire length of the crankshaft? I put a green question mark ? and the normal connection. Note that there aren’t any oil return tubes from the cams. All of that oil is scavenged by the four cam oil pumps (#16) and returned to the sump tank via the centrifugal separator. It would be interesting to know the capacity of those pumps compared to the oil flow to the cams, lifters and Vario. If we add a centrifugal separator in the pressure circuit, it should be after the oil filter (#4) and before the oil cooler (#6). The pressure (regulating) relief valve (#7) should be integral with the centrifugal separator so it passes oil/air back to the tank (not to the pressure pump as we have done for decades.) This could be a third port into the centrifugal separator in the tank. Centrifugal separators are very common in industry. There shouldn’t be any lack of expertise applying this to a new (old) Porsche dry sump system. If someone uses the main oil pump from this engine, you must consider the total size of the five scavenge pumps. I have considered doing away with the oil return tubes and use scavenge pumps driven off the ends of the cams (Turbo or Sportomatic) or an aftermarket pump off the jackshaft. A small 4-section pump here could duplicate the GT3 version simply using the oil return tube ports in the cam housings. One issue in a long turn is filling the entire cam box with oil. Imagine running an engine on an engine dyno with the engine tipped 45° with one cam box down. This is equivalent to a long corner at 1G. The entire volume around the rockers, cam, chain & sprocket would rapidly fill with oil. All that gear operating under oil would create huge losses. The oil from the other side cam box would drain across the bottom of the case and add to the filling. A breather from the top of the cam housings to the engine crankcase is something that has always been lacking. Imagine the full cam housing truing to drain through the oil return tubes with out the air returning – glug, glug, glug…. How about filling the chain housing also under acceleration? It would fill in a 914-6 on deceleration. OilSysten45Degrees01a.jpg “ http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1156704255.jpg " © 1965 Dr. -Ing. h.c. F. Porsche K.G. With all that oil in the cam box, imagine how little is in the sump tank. No wonder Porsche has added all these scavenge pumps. Clearly the engineers feel that the power cost to run the pumps is offset by the gains. Best, Grady EDIT – I corrected the GT3 diagram (left off the green dots) and added content to the post. |
You know what:
These really cool old, obsolete, last century, expensive engines somehow have a LOT more life in them. It is up to us to make that happen. I am very impressed that you very knowledgeable Pelicans and many professionals choose to contribute. There needs to be more. There are hundreds of details that are “common knowledge” in certain circles. That needs to be available to everyone. It isn't skin off anyone’s nose. There is a great deal that the Porsche Factory can contribute. Why don’t they provide engineering information for these long-out-of-date engines? Don’t they realize this is what helps sell new 997s and more? I like “thinking outside the box” to help make these wonderful engines smoke the competition. With my lame old 914-6, I embarrassed the “Big Iron” 5-liter racers 20 years ago. I even took away their track records. This is what should continue to happen today. Porsche Racers and Builders should have the combined knowledge of the past 40+ years. Add to this our collective inventiveness and track Porsches can be unbeatable. If you know an experienced builder, admonish him to post his knowledge. He will benefit from the interaction and collectively Porsche will win. Best, Grady |
Thread mutation!
Boy this thread has gone from A to Z and not quite back. It's awesome - stuff that 'I' would have never thought of, but makes perfect sense. After reading both threads given, I think they are on the mark, but no overt mention was made of the 'tensile strength' of a liquid (If this was covered, my apoligies). Like all liquids, you are good in compression, but in tension all you got is van derr wall (for non polar materials) interactions to hold things together. I have to politely poke at chucks analysis on this point. There may still be ~9psi of net pressure pushing in the 'correct' direction, but if the pump is at the source, then you are in compression for the 'long haul' and get 50+ psi in the 'correct direction'.
Just to clarify, that was a suggestion of a 'header' tank in place of the engine mounted oil cooler? I like the idea, but would this be realistic considering the rate of oil flow at 8k? It would seem to need to be a big tank (gallon maybe?). The head scavening pump idea is awesome. Would it be worth the dollars to use the porsche parts or might one use the scavenge stages from type 1 VW aftermarket pumps? Cheers, tadd |
air separator
in the commercial heating and air conditioning business they use centrifugal air separators to purge the air from chilled and hot water systems.
I do not know the pressures etc but a device like this in line may be a solution to air removal. http://www.bellgossett.com/productPages/Parts-Inline-Air-Separator.asp |
Quote:
These heads allow the use of any cam lift that is offered for 911 based engines. The chamber in these 3.0 heads allow for greater compression with as many detonation issues. We pioneered this configuration years ago and with all the engines out there we have not encountered any design issues what so ever. As I've stated many times before " The best engine Porsche never built". http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads8/11158076154.jpg |
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1160772970.jpg
Just arrived from EBS! Should be about 10.8:1... I'll start a new thread on this engine soon!! |
Anyone been using the latest GT3 oil pump in their engines? This is the pump with 2 scavenge pumps.
|
We have used a few and they make huge oil pressure.
In fact maybe too much pressure for some applications. The two stage scavenge is a nice benefit. Scott: One thought on the piston. If you radius the sharp edges on the material between the two valve pockets you will find free horse power. We have found in excess of 5-7 hp by paying attention to this simple detail. This is a real performance upgrade, unlike the boat tail myth. |
Interesting on the piston modification, must improve the crossflow beteween intake and exhaust during valve overlap.
Curious, do you mean the pump makes more pressure than the pressure relief valve can control? I like the large scavenge pump and want to use with a breather one way valve from a GT3 to try to develop negative crankcase pressure. I wonder if this will create leaks at the early small diameter crankshaft flywheel seal like it did in the GT3 |
I think the GT-3 oil pumps can put the engine-mounted oil cooler at risk but if thats replaced with the oil filter console (993), you'll not have any problems.
Now,..using the one-way valve from the GT-3 Cup cars might give you some oil leaks,...:) |
Henry, is that engine an MFI 3.0(SC) with slide valve induction and your twin plug set-up? That thing belongs in a centerfold. What kind of power?
|
I was thinking about another thing: wouldn't a very hi-revving engine get away with using slightly higher C/R than low-revving one as VE (thus cylinder filling) would be less perfect on the top?
With other words, engine running VE of 90% on the top would survive with 10% more compression, to do the best possible of available mixture at high revs? You could wind back the ignition where VE peaks upwards 100% and thus save it from knocking but still pull the most of it onn the top? Just a thought... |
Quote:
This makes me think the residual negative pressure in the crankcase after shut down sucks the seal away from the crank and oil in the galleries above is allowed to "burp" out in small quantities as the pressures equilbrate themselves. I wonder if the large diameter seal is more susceptable to this, than the early seal only one way to find out is to try it myself if nobody else has. |
Quote:
I am not certain which engine you are asking about. If you are talking about this engine: RSR 3.0 case (new) Special machine work to use 3.3 heads and SC cylinders shuffle pins 95 mm Cosworth pistons 9.8:1 RSR sprint cams Aasco valve springs and ty retainers Supertec head studs Turbo heads,40 mm intake ports 2.2 S crank (66mm) Carrillo rods 930 oil pump Old stock after market distributor (Dick Evelrude ?) 1 of 3 custom build slide valve w/custom Supertec pump Supertec fuel injector lines Getty Design amber shroud 935 8 pin CDs Taylor plug wires European Racing headers w/sport muffler 8500 RPM red line 300+ horse power on 91 octane fuel. http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1161011569.jpg |
That's really awesome. I bet it was fun to design that on paper and then just go to town on the build up. You must have a very fulfilling job.
If you don't mind what is the bill for something like that? What does it cost to put MFI on an engine that didn't originally have it like an SC 3.0? |
IMHO, that's usually something disclosed via PM/email/phone...not to be a party pOOper....I think I speak for Henry, too, when I say this.....just a kind of "etiquette thing" for the buyer/owner of the engine.
|
extra scavenge stage
After doing inventory last night I 'remembered' that I have a GT3 oil pump in box for the 2.8 or 2.1LS build.
So what is the best bet for that center scavange stage? Is it as simple as rotating that section of the housing so that the inlet points upwards? I have not found flow figures, but anything to help remove that cotton candy like oil suspension that rotates with the crank would seem to be a good thing. The other thought would be to run a 'Y' of hardline from that section of the pump up to the rear oil drain back tubes to acheive what Grady was refering to w/o using cam driven pumps a al GT3. Thoughts anyone? tadd |
Tadd,
Be sure to disassemble and inspect your new GT3 oil pump. About a year ago a friend found one where the original casting was improper and the subsequent machining left some untouched. It wouldn’t scavenge correctly. Someplace in the past year or so I saw a nice CNC oil pump that could be driven off the ends of the cams (like Sporto & Turbo.) Best, Grady |
Grady:
Thanks for the tip! I'll check it before it gets used. tadd |
Quote:
Scott |
These should give everyone a chubby:
http://www.barnessystems.com/8917.htm http://www.moroso.com/catalog/categorydisplay.asp?CatCode=13939 http://www.titanspeed.com/content/pump/ |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website