Short Stroke 2.8

[ael911]

Originally Posted by Henry Schmidt

If you are looking to build something really trick, grind the rod journals on the 2.2 (66 mm) crank the except 3.0 rods. When you grind the crank properly, you can get a larger radius fillet that will greatly increase the crank rigidity. Knife edge it and it gets almost as light as a non counter weighted crank.
At this point you can install the GT3R Pankl titanium rods [130 mm center to center length] and use a standard piston as you will have restored a the standard dimension to the crank and rod combination. In a 2.5 you use a 90 mm RS piston to get 7.6:1 @ .060 deck.
With a 95mm 8.5 CIS piston (78-79 SC) you get the same CR .7.6:1 @ .060 deck.

The alternative to Viagra...Henry's motors

Someone please sell me a case so I can get my own 2.8SS porn....

[mcinturff]

Originally Posted by Henry Schmidt

If you are looking to build something really trick, grind the rod journals on the 2.2 (66 mm) crank the except 3.0 rods. When you grind the crank properly, you can get a larger radius fillet that will greatly increase the crank rigidity. Knife edge it and it gets almost as light as a non counter weighted crank.
At this point you can install the GT3R Pankl titanium rods [130 mm center to center length] and use a standard piston as you will have restored a the standard dimension to the crank and rod combination. In a 2.5 you use a 90 mm RS piston to get 7.6:1 @ .060 deck.
With a 95mm 8.5 CIS piston (78-79 SC) you get the same CR .7.6:1 @ .060 deck.

We'd love more tricks like these.

Now here's food for thought: When chevy heads build a 325, 352, or 377, they take a 400 block (large journal) and use extra thick bearings, or bearing spacers (big no,no) with a 302, 327, or 350 crank; would this be possible in a Porsche as the SC case can be thought of as a 400 block and the 2.2s crank can be thought as a 302 crank.

[Walt Fricke]

Mac

Yes and no. All the main journals except #1 are the same on the 66mm and 70.4mm cranks. The 1978 and on 930 (includes SC) cases have the same journals. Only difference is #1, which has a wider crank journal (facilitated the switch to the 9 bolt SC and later flywheel) and hence a wider hole in the later case for the wider crank journal and bearing. But I've talked with a guy who just made some kind of spacer so a regular SC case would be run with a 6 bolt 66mm crank. He must be a pretty good machinist. I see no advantage to this other than the fact that it lets you use the relatively common SC/3.2 case rather than the rare 930 cases from '75-77.

Walt Fricke

[kenikh]

Originally Posted by Walt Fricke

I see no advantage to this other than the fact that it lets you use the relatively common SC/3.2 case rather than the rare 930 cases from '75-77.

Walt Fricke

Pretty big advantage.

[mcinturff]

Do you perhaps know the guy's name or business name? This would be a great product to market.

[Walt Fricke]

Mac

I can't quite remember. It might have been Pat Williams (patwilliamsracing.com is always worth a look). It might have been the guy from Zuffenhaus at the Charlotte Parade. It might have been Bruce Anderson. And it might have been someone else.

I doubt there is much of a market: how much would it cost to make 100 of them, and how many would pay how much to purchase one? By and large guys like larger motors, not smaller ones. Why build a trick 2.8 when you can buy a 3.6? Simpler to make them each time a customer says can you make one of these.

The 2.8SS is a neat motor. But had I been able to predict the formula we came up with for PCA GT classification, I'd have just built a high squeeze, tricked out 3.0. Fewer special parts, and I'd not be looking at how to shed even more weight from my car, which is already pretty stripped down.

But I'm slowly forging on with my SS. To be decided: what valves to use in the 3.2 heads I have for it. After that, what cams.

Walt

[Henry Schmidt]

New 9 bolt, 66mm cranks are coming and they will resolve all of the needs for short stroke engines. Chrome molly, modern oiling, full counter weights and more.
Countdown about 3 weeks or so.
Why just 66x95 when 66x102 is possible? 9200 rpm 3.24 ltr.? Yikes!!!!

[mcinturff]

Now you're speaking my language. Who is making them?

[Henry Schmidt]

Originally Posted by mcinturff

Now you're speaking my language. Who is making them?

Disclosing some of the information about our new product before it exist seems somewhat premature. Once I have the first run in my hands and have completed the inspection and testing process, I will share all the pertinent information with everyone who's interested.
I will say that the cranks are being made with 100% certified US materials (chrome-moly) and were designed and manufactured in So. Cal.

I've had my fill of dishonest Chinese manufacturers.

[cgarr]

Same company who have been making the 912 cranks by any chance? If so it will be a work of art!

[svandamme]

pricing?

[Henry Schmidt]

Originally Posted by cgarr

Same company who have been making the 912 cranks by any chance? If so it will be a work of art!

No 912 cranks, at this time they are only making a few special order 911 cranks.
here's the only hint you get. Their main work is with very high engines.

Originally Posted by svandamme

pricing?

$3500-$4000 depending on developement work required. They will come with special main bearings required for this crank design.

[svandamme]

great, i'll call you as soon as i win the lottery

[Henry Schmidt]

Originally Posted by ael911

The alternative to Viagra...Henry's motors

Product warning: If erection lasts for more than 4 hours, step away from the computer screen!!!!
Then call Extreem Escorts @ 1(976)-too-cute

[cgarr]

Originally Posted by Henry Schmidt

Product warning: If erection lasts for more than 4 hours, step away from the computer screen!!!!
Then call Extreem Escorts @ 1(976)-too-cute

You need to re-title this thread to something other than "Short Stroke" then!

[mcinturff]

Henry, is that sound file on the Supertec site of a 2.8?

[Henry Schmidt]

Originally Posted by mcinturff

Henry, is that sound file on the Supertec site of a 2.8?

YES
This is the engine. 2.8 SS stroke 66x95, twin plug, slide valve, 9.5:1 comp street gas.

[svandamme]

Henry,

quick bump, i started hording parts, got the case, the crank, now the rest.
I'll be ordering Headstuds from you in the near future, sorry i can't order the 2.8SS direct, i'm poor, plus i like to get my hands dirty and diy a bit.

But do you happen to have a Dyno sheet from a stock 2.8SS , as you build em? Just so i can get an idea what the Benchmark looks like?

[Henry Schmidt]

Originally Posted by svandamme

Henry,

quick bump, i started hording parts, got the case, the crank, now the rest.
I'll be ordering Headstuds from you in the near future, sorry i can't order the 2.8SS direct, i'm poor, plus i like to get my hands dirty and diy a bit.

But do you happen to have a Dyno sheet from a stock 2.8SS , as you build em? Just so i can get an idea what the Benchmark looks like?

We have head studs in stock ready to ship.


As for the dyno sheets, we haven't torque tested an engine in quite a few years. We found when we had a dyno that everyone wanted a sheet but no one wanted to pay for it.
We get figures from customers upon occasion but those numbers are always subject to outside influences.
300 hp would be considered a reasonable top line and with milder street cams I would think 280 would be reasonable.
Good luck with your build.

[svandamme]

Henry, 280HP with milder street cams?
define milder? DC60? DC40?