how much did the work run u ?

 

http://www.fluidampr.com/TEST_RESULTS.htm

it would be interesting to see if any of these teams are sponsored as well...

im not disputing the fact that it is a great damper, i just dont like the fact that the
damper has to be pressed on the crankshaft. i guess it really doesnt matter because that is what i have to do to put my damper on my stroked sbc...same thing i guess....

in our applications, the Fluidampr worked better than the ATi. it is a real benifit that we were able to send it back to have the ATi serviced and sent back to us. just seemed like it had a smaller window of controlling the harmonics....when the Fluidampr was put on the rpms were smoother and higher up in the range. this was on a sbc for a dirt track application...late models and sprint cars that regularly turn 8-8500rpm like the nascar guys do.

 

how is the timing down on the motor if using mivec? is it a huge issue?

Also, what did you do about the water pump cover?

anything else someone should know besides these two things and of course the oil squirters and mivec tapped?

 

Inquiring minds want to know...

 

The cam timing wasn't an issue, no different than a normal MIVEC 4G63. I used an adjustable exhaust cam gear. You must use a 4G64 DOHC belt since it's slightly longer for the taller deck height.

I used a special water pump purchased through AMS Performance. They have a modified pump from another Mitsubishi vehicle that they use in their 2.3RR engines. It bolted right up.

LESCO did the machined work for tapping the MIVEC oil feed line and oil squirters. I highly recommend using them for this job since they did this work in their CNC machine. They have a CNC program written to duplicate the factory oil squirters in the 4G64 block...you can see how well mine turned out. I was able to use the factory MIVEC hard line, but opened up theh hard line mounting tab hole to make it line up better.

Other than that...it's an easy swap.

You can read about the short block build here:
http://www.importtuner.com/tech/impp...ion/index.html

 

Here's a picture of the finished oil squirter in my 4G64:

 

So are the custom pistons something JE will be stocking?

What if I want to go the same route will the wait be that long for them?

 

These were custom made, so they are not available off-the-shelf. However, I'll post the job and piston part numbers tomorrow so anyone can reorder the same parts through Buschur, AMS or any other JE distributor. They only took 2.5 weeks to manufacture. The pistons feature "Tuff Skirt" skirt coating which is about .0003" thick per surface. The coating allowed me to tighten up my piston-to-wall clearance slightly for street use, without the risk of scoring the skirts.

 

i may have to get up with you when i get to cali in april. Sounds like a build i want to do except i want to do the 2.1 motor.

 

I thought all of the brian crower hard parts - rods, cranks etc.. were all the epitome of junk. They cant even grind a cam on center -- let alone build a billet crank? Didnt someone blow up like half a dozen BC 2.4 stroker kits a while back? Some were just plain machined like crap and some just broke.. etc.

 

The weakest link in the equation is the long stroke. No matter the rod length, piston speed is what ultimately determines bottom end reliability. The most widely used figure is 25 m/s.

Piston speed (m/s) = (25 / ((Stroke in mm *2) / 100)*60

For a 102mm stroke, that comes out to 7350 rpm.

For comparison's sake, an 88mm stroke works out to 8500 rpm.


In an independent dyno test conducted by David Vizard (IIRC) where resonances were measured and logged, both ATI and Fluidampr outperformed the factory damper, with the Fluidampr edging out the ATI by a nominal margin. In comparison, a solid pulley caused serious harmonic issues.



Yes, that was Paul Nelson who experienced failures with multiple B.C. parts before finally giving up and going to a factory crank and U.S. made hardware (which withstood over 1000whp).

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...ond-build.html
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...ed-walbro.html

All that B.C. stuff is straight from China and rebranded, and I'm not a fan, but that's just me.

 

In your graph though the specs for an evoIII are wrong. The stroke is 88mm and the rod is 150mm just like any other 4g63 motor in history. Who would use a 100mm rod on an 88mm stroke either. The numbers should have been stock stroke and rod vs 100mm stroke and stock rod with a 100mm stroke and a 156mm rod.

 

* The EVO III mentioned in the graph is a BMW S14 EVO III. Same physics, different engine.

 

Copper 0-rings dont work well with steel gasket. Copper works well when used with copper gasket or composite gasket. You will see what I am talking about the first time you remove head after running. the copper gets seriously squashed near the studs. its too malible to make a bite in the steel gasket. I would change those rings to stainless first chance.

I also think its pointless to change rod lengnth in these cars. The graph shows loading difference between a 100mm and 144mm rod? whats the point in that? so we can actually see the difference. show the graph of loading difference between 150mm and 156mm rod and the lines will be on top of each other.. doesnt make a big enough difference to warrant changing rod lengnth.

 

Now I realize opinions may vary, but the point in using copper o-rings as I understand it is where there is no receiver groove, and the copper will indeed contact a steel surface. In other words, compression of the copper is intended, and that completes the seal (like a bead of sealer). Where a receiver groove is machined in the head (the best way to do it), that's typically where stainless rings are preferred, and they do not get compressed.

I agree that it is interesting that the graph above appears to show relatively nominal changes in sidewall loading with fairly large swings in rod length. The greatest effect rod ratio dynamics appear to have is in the piston position and acceleration with respect to TDC, which ultimately impacts VE with respect to rpm.