Choosing the right Buschur Racing engine for your build.
I mentioned the 2.3RPM engine (with the billet crank) to an experienced 4G63 engine builder who works near me. He was wondering about the weight savings over the standard crank. (Did I miss it posted here somewhere)? Would the weight savings be similar to the Winberg crank (the crank is claimed to be about 26-27lbs)? The Winberg is quite expensive but the weight is very good as compared to the stocker and he said that the high RPM oiling is way better than the stocker. Just curious.
I'll be in touch when the time comes to make some big changes...
I'll be in touch when the time comes to make some big changes...
Last edited by CoachG; Mar 5, 2011 at 02:31 PM.
I mentioned the 2.3RPM engive (with the billet crank) to an experienced 4G63 engine builder who works near me. He was wondering about the weight savings over the standard crank. (Did I miss it posted here somewhere)? Would the weight savings be similar to the Winberg crank (claimed to be about 26-27lbs)? The Winberg is quite expensive but the weight is very good as compared to the stocker and he said that the high RPM oiling is way better than the stocker. Just curious.
I'll be in touch when the time comes to make some big changes...
I'll be in touch when the time comes to make some big changes...
Bluevo9, your question about available compression ratios. The basic answer is "yes" we can build the engine to about any compression you want. BUT the actuality of it is there is WAY-WAY too much time spent on worrying about it. We ran from 7.x:1 compression to around 12:1 compression. The difference in power is negligible and the difference in boost levels that can be run on pump fuel is also negligible. The biggest difference I can tell in raising compression is the feel of the car off boost. The engines feel better and accelerate better out of boost with the compression higher. So it makes for a nicer car to drive. On the dyno that difference is back to being negligible at WOT and under boost. All of our engines are built with fairly high compression. 10:1 and up is just about standard. I hate discussing it because the general attitude from customers is "OH MY IT'S TOO HIGH, LOOK OUT SHE'S GONNA BLOW!!! RUN RUN RUN" When that is simply not the case.
The DSM's came with 7.8:1 compression. We tried even less than that at one point, not good. Then we went to 8.5:1, then to 9.5:1 in all the DSM's. Everyone thought we were nuts 15+ years ago doing that. Now we are at 10:1+ and the engines are better than ever. I can tell you for a fact running 11.5:1 compression on 93-94 octane at 33-34 psi isn't a problem with the right set up and it's FAST!!!
. For the record I'm actually one of those few that favors and wants as high a compression as possible that will be running on e85 and 93 octane daily driver.
I mentioned the 2.3RPM engine (with the billet crank) to an experienced 4G63 engine builder who works near me. He was wondering about the weight savings over the standard crank. (Did I miss it posted here somewhere)? Would the weight savings be similar to the Winberg crank (the crank is claimed to be about 26-27lbs)? The Winberg is quite expensive but the weight is very good as compared to the stocker and he said that the high RPM oiling is way better than the stocker. Just curious.
I'll be in touch when the time comes to make some big changes...
I'll be in touch when the time comes to make some big changes...
I'm curious about the winberg crank too, but, I'd prefer David's expertise over anyone else's on my build, I'm just not convinced 100% on using anyone else.
My understanding is the Manley crank David uses weighs in at 33.5 and the winberg is 26. The winbrerg is 3 times the price. Is it going to be worth that in the long run is the question? More reliable? Faster Revving? Provide less strain?
I think a similar question was asked in another thread of David concerning Carrillo pro H beam rods that weigh 100g less than the Manley.
Evolving Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
From: NY
A WINBERG CRANK IS 2700$ NOW, less than 2x more than the manley... that said If an engine builder would make a deal with them, he would get an additional 30% off at least. Now look:
STOCK RODS PISTONS PINS 4700 GRAMS
STOCK CRANK 14318 GRAMS
TOTAL 19018
BUSCHUR RPM2.3
CRANK 15227 GRAMS
CUSTOM RPM2.3 pistons 1120 grams
RPM2.3 22mm wrist pins 480 grams
MANLEY TT 150mm rods: 2720 grams
TOTAL: 19547 GRAMS
BASICALLY, weight wise buschurs engine is a downgrade from stock, but bulletproof and made from the strongest materials.
THIS RPM 2.3 ASSEMBLY is a 3% in INCREASE of weight.
Now using the same Bushurs pistons, but better parts you could end up with real rotating weight gains and not downgrades...
WINBERG CRANK 12045 GRAMS
CUSTOM RPM2.3 PISTONS 1120 GRAMS
TRICK TITANIUM WRIST PINS 260 GRAMS
OVIVER OR R&R BILLET ROSS-SPORT OR CUSTOM SPEC RODS 2360 GRAMS
TOTAL: 15785
20.5 % LIGHTER THAN STOCK, 23.5% LIGHTER THAN RPM2.3.
food for thought/
maybe Manley made on offer couldn't resist))
STOCK RODS PISTONS PINS 4700 GRAMS
STOCK CRANK 14318 GRAMS
TOTAL 19018
BUSCHUR RPM2.3
CRANK 15227 GRAMS
CUSTOM RPM2.3 pistons 1120 grams
RPM2.3 22mm wrist pins 480 grams
MANLEY TT 150mm rods: 2720 grams
TOTAL: 19547 GRAMS
BASICALLY, weight wise buschurs engine is a downgrade from stock, but bulletproof and made from the strongest materials.
THIS RPM 2.3 ASSEMBLY is a 3% in INCREASE of weight.
Now using the same Bushurs pistons, but better parts you could end up with real rotating weight gains and not downgrades...
WINBERG CRANK 12045 GRAMS
CUSTOM RPM2.3 PISTONS 1120 GRAMS
TRICK TITANIUM WRIST PINS 260 GRAMS
OVIVER OR R&R BILLET ROSS-SPORT OR CUSTOM SPEC RODS 2360 GRAMS
TOTAL: 15785
20.5 % LIGHTER THAN STOCK, 23.5% LIGHTER THAN RPM2.3.
food for thought/
maybe Manley made on offer couldn't resist))
Last edited by STi*guy.kiev; Mar 6, 2011 at 03:22 AM.
I'm curious about the winberg crank too, but, I'd prefer David's expertise over anyone else's on my build, I'm just not convinced 100% on using anyone else.
My understanding is the Manley crank David uses weighs in at 33.5 and the winberg is 26. The winbrerg is 3 times the price. Is it going to be worth that in the long run is the question? More reliable? Faster Revving? Provide less strain?
My understanding is the Manley crank David uses weighs in at 33.5 and the winberg is 26. The winbrerg is 3 times the price. Is it going to be worth that in the long run is the question? More reliable? Faster Revving? Provide less strain?
No need for any other people to chime in on my original question (regarding the effect of the claimed weight savings and increased oiling capacity of the Winberg crank over the stock piece) as I am sure David has reasons and opinions for his decision to go with the Manley that would be more well thought out and more highly valued by the average reader of this thread.
I never heard of the Winberg crank until a week or so ago. The price when I found out about them was more than a shortblock. It's in interesting looking piece.
I've been extremely pleased with the service and parts we've gotten from Manley. I'm a loyal guy. I've got a call into Manley with some requests for some custom parts to be built, rather than jumping ship to unproven parts I'll stick with a company I've got a good relationship with and see what happens.
I'd be willing to use the Winberg crank in an engine, someone just has to step up and pay the price. They are also 6-8 weeks wait time to get one from what I understand.
I've been extremely pleased with the service and parts we've gotten from Manley. I'm a loyal guy. I've got a call into Manley with some requests for some custom parts to be built, rather than jumping ship to unproven parts I'll stick with a company I've got a good relationship with and see what happens.
I'd be willing to use the Winberg crank in an engine, someone just has to step up and pay the price. They are also 6-8 weeks wait time to get one from what I understand.
I never heard of the Winberg crank until a week or so ago. The price when I found out about them was more than a shortblock. It's in interesting looking piece.
I've been extremely pleased with the service and parts we've gotten from Manley. I'm a loyal guy. I've got a call into Manley with some requests for some custom parts to be built, rather than jumping ship to unproven parts I'll stick with a company I've got a good relationship with and see what happens.
I'd be willing to use the Winberg crank in an engine, someone just has to step up and pay the price. They are also 6-8 weeks wait time to get one from what I understand.
I've been extremely pleased with the service and parts we've gotten from Manley. I'm a loyal guy. I've got a call into Manley with some requests for some custom parts to be built, rather than jumping ship to unproven parts I'll stick with a company I've got a good relationship with and see what happens.
I'd be willing to use the Winberg crank in an engine, someone just has to step up and pay the price. They are also 6-8 weeks wait time to get one from what I understand.
Great write up. I feel the same way about the engines. There are different uses for each one and very few people actually understand that. Please PM me about that 2.3RPM turn around time.
James
James
Sorry, been busy all morning.
Bluevo9, your question about available compression ratios. The basic answer is "yes" we can build the engine to about any compression you want. BUT the actuality of it is there is WAY-WAY too much time spent on worrying about it. We ran from 7.x:1 compression to around 12:1 compression. The difference in power is negligible and the difference in boost levels that can be run on pump fuel is also negligible. The biggest difference I can tell in raising compression is the feel of the car off boost. The engines feel better and accelerate better out of boost with the compression higher. So it makes for a nicer car to drive. On the dyno that difference is back to being negligible at WOT and under boost. All of our engines are built with fairly high compression. 10:1 and up is just about standard. I hate discussing it because the general attitude from customers is "OH MY IT'S TOO HIGH, LOOK OUT SHE'S GONNA BLOW!!! RUN RUN RUN" When that is simply not the case.
Bluevo9, your question about available compression ratios. The basic answer is "yes" we can build the engine to about any compression you want. BUT the actuality of it is there is WAY-WAY too much time spent on worrying about it. We ran from 7.x:1 compression to around 12:1 compression. The difference in power is negligible and the difference in boost levels that can be run on pump fuel is also negligible. The biggest difference I can tell in raising compression is the feel of the car off boost. The engines feel better and accelerate better out of boost with the compression higher. So it makes for a nicer car to drive. On the dyno that difference is back to being negligible at WOT and under boost. All of our engines are built with fairly high compression. 10:1 and up is just about standard. I hate discussing it because the general attitude from customers is "OH MY IT'S TOO HIGH, LOOK OUT SHE'S GONNA BLOW!!! RUN RUN RUN" When that is simply not the case.
I look at It like this. When a customer comes to me for a tune I ask him two questions. 1. Which fuel injectors are you running? 2. What octane gas are you running?
I don't need to know what compression it is, what turbo is on it, who ported the head, what intake it is, the displacement or anything else. It is completely moot. With the correct parts WINNING (haha, celebrities!) happens, with one incorrect part suck happens. I know for a fact that 33-34 psi of boost on 93 octane and 11.5+:1 is NO problem, the compression is moot.
I don't need to know what compression it is, what turbo is on it, who ported the head, what intake it is, the displacement or anything else. It is completely moot. With the correct parts WINNING (haha, celebrities!) happens, with one incorrect part suck happens. I know for a fact that 33-34 psi of boost on 93 octane and 11.5+:1 is NO problem, the compression is moot.