Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

DIY 180 Degree/Single plane/Flat plane V-8 crankshaft…


  • Please log in to reply
345 replies to this topic

#21 kiwi303

kiwi303

    Window licker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 748 posts
  • LocationTasman District, Nelson, NZ

Posted 05 October 2008 - 03:31 PM

This could end up on the engine stand within a month, or could be drawn out in the design phase over a few more years. Maybe someone else will see how to make it work on their and skip ahead with their own single-plane V-8 project, (if you do, please share it…) ;-)

Paul


I know what you mean about everything either being tomorrows job or taking years :D I was expecting to take a couple of years slowly building up a cleveland bit by bit alongside chassis/body work when a rover V8 landed in my lap at a price I couldn't resist :P so it'll be engine first, then bodywork :D

As per PM :P I'll be talking to a foundry next trip to town on the possibility/practicality of doing a crank for me. so there could be a new thread soon :D

Thanks for all the data in one lump, especially the pictures of the different cranks in one mass lump to browse through :D

#22 BRAAP

BRAAP

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 4166 posts
  • LocationOregon

Posted 05 October 2008 - 04:40 PM

...
As per PM :P I'll be talking to a foundry next trip to town on the possibility/practicality of doing a crank for me. so there could be a new thread soon :D
...


Let us know if that is feasible. A casting just might be a nice low cost alternative... :2thumbs:

...
Thanks for all the data in one lump, especially the pictures of the different cranks in one mass lump to browse through :D


You're welcome.



A point kiwi303 brought up earlier was to possibly build the crank in a typical stock stroke length for the proof of concept, then build another shorter stroke version later. Not sure if I enough swing over the bed of the lathe to support a 3” stroke. With that, the 2nd order harmonics might be pretty strong. If 2nd order harmonics is a big enough issue, a balance basket, (housing containing counter-rotating balance shafts as used in large displacement 4 cylinder such as the Nissan QR25DE, Saab, Chrysler 2.5, Mitsu 2.6, etc), or some variation of that design could possibly be adapted to the engine, so long as it is mounted solidly the engine itself.
I'll keep the idea of closer to stock stroke length in mind. Possibly something in the 2.5"-3" range... Hmmm....

Neat article on engine smoothness and counter balance shafts for buzzy 4 cylinder engines;
http://www.autozine....ine/smooth2.htm

WikiPedia on engine balance shafts;
http://en.wikipedia....i/Balance_shaft




.

#23 Daeron

Daeron

    DON'T PANIC

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2129 posts
  • LocationWPB, Florida USA

Posted 06 October 2008 - 06:57 PM

but don't forget to factor in the ratios in the lower end of the honda engine versus your theoretical V8.... You have to know what rod length and what stroke you are running to compare cams "apples to apples" at LEAST as much as you have to keep an eye on valve size... and valve size can be "compensated for" by tweaking the lift and profile of that lift. Air flow characteristics and how they impact the six or seven phases of ignition cycling are NOT as easy to "fudge" to compensate for...

I would be looking for a 1.5-1.6 4 banger that has as similar a bore/stroke/rod length as your V8, THEN analyze the valve size and camshaft specs of that engine, along with the intake ports.. In other words, start with common ground on the bottom end, then compare the top ends. You found a top end of a motor of similar displacement, but that could be an undersquare motor. A quick google suggests that the bore x stroke on the D16 is 75 x 90 mm. The r16 1600 OHV Datsun Roadster engine was 87.2 x 66.8mm. I may have overquoted the revs those engines see earlier (so I dunnot what you can do for valvetrain equipment) but the valve lift figures should transpose well...


I just spent a little time looking for a page I had bookmarked on my PC that had archaic datsun engine specs like that, but i cant find it tonight. My search DID confirm the bore/stroke figures above.
Fusible Links blow.

1-5-3-6-2-4, counter-clockwise from 9 o'clock when viewing from driver side fender

There's something about a white Nissan......
Wisdom is knowing how much you do not know.
"Indeed, if fish had fish-lore, and Wise-fish, it is probable that the business of anglers would be little hindered." -JRR Tolkien

ALL YOUR BOOST ARE BELONG TO US

#24 kiwi303

kiwi303

    Window licker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 748 posts
  • LocationTasman District, Nelson, NZ

Posted 06 October 2008 - 10:12 PM

A little google work gives rod to stroke for the 4ag as being 1:1.53, not sure if that is a custom setup or stock, or which model year. but thats what showed up in the results.

http://www.6gc.net/f...php/t24821.html

Rod Length: 122
Crank throw: 38.5
Stroke: 77
Bore: 81


Other news is none of the foundries in Nelson can do cranks, but theres a place in Dunedin and a place in Auckland. I've emailed the Auckland place for a quote, they do ISO 9002 quality investment casting in specified alloys. and work closely with a heat treating place that can do all the stress relief on the crank and induction hardening of the journals. Now to see how much they say it would cost! *winces at the thought*

#25 351freak

351freak

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts

Posted 07 October 2008 - 08:57 AM

Paul,
Since I'm a Ford Guy...you know what my vote is...

With that being said, I have some info that I would like to share...which may or may not be similar to Chevy offerings...

Hi RPM Small block Fords are not new... us mustang guys have been doing it since the 90's for our "street/strip stuff"..although the 9,000 rpm goal is a little higher than the 8,000-8,500 rpm that is typical to our genre...

BUT...here are several links that show it can be done, given the correct components...

Anderson Ford Motorsport sells "off the shelf" hi rpm cams with mild ramp rates for use with OEM style hydraulic roller lifters capable of going to 9,000 rpm...

http://www.andersonfordmotorsport.com/

Here is one of my favorite Hi rpm...Hi Horsepower combos using Andersons cams:
http://www.andersonf...Marnold359.html

And Marc Arnold's website can be found here:

http://www.the-arnolds.net/Cobra/

That should give you some ideas on HOW to make the Ford combo work.

Just be advised that almost ALL serious Ford guys scoff at the idea of trading HP capability for rpm...the question is always "Why do you want to rev to 8,000 when you can make the same power at 6,000 ??? "

If you don't care for "maximum horsepower", then the Anderson cam profiles (like the N-111,112,113) will most assuredly get a smaller stroke, smaller displacement motor spinning to the 8,000 plus rpm range all day long with the correct intake manifold (correct runner length for Hi rpm use). Anderson would just have to grind the stick for the modified firing order.

The Anderson grinds are tame by todays standards and much more power CAN be made...but their purpose is Hi rpm power.

On engine components, I would think any "good" I-Beam or H-beam rods with ARP 2000 bolts should do the trick and the next stronger bolts most assuredly will. (a 3" stroke puts you @ 4500 ft/min)

5.4" Ford rods are commonplace and 1.3" compression ht. pistons are too...
http://kb-silvolite....php?action=diam

This would give a 1.8 rod/stroke ratio with a standard 3.0" stroke in a 8.2" deck ht. block....using off the shelf components.

If you wound up going with an aftermarket crank, you could use:

-a 3" stroke 302 crank with Chevy (2.1") or Honda (1.88") rod journals
-a typical 1.090" compression Ht. piston from a 347 stroker kit
-a 5.596 351 Windsor rod (stock 351 Windsor length but needs journals to match crank)
This would get you to a 1.87 R/S ratio and a deck ht. close enuff to play with, even with a block that has been surfaced a few times ( 8.186" deck vs. 8.2" nominal)

I'm still going to look into the cranks...but it is probably going to take a while.

-David

#26 BRAAP

BRAAP

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 4166 posts
  • LocationOregon

Posted 07 October 2008 - 09:58 AM

David,
Good stuff thank you. I’ll look that up later today.

My bias is towards Chevy, more due to the availability and diversity of available components, but I can't hide that I am a huge fan of the SBF 289/302. From an engineering standpoint with its short deck height, oversquare bore/stroke, overall compact size/lightweight, the SBF is a sweetheart sports car power plant. Posted Image
As an engine builder/machinist, I am very much on board with this statement…

… Just be advised that almost ALL serious Ford guys scoff at the idea of trading HP capability for rpm...the question is always "Why do you want to rev to 8,000 when you can make the same power at 6,000 ??? "

… as it applies to domestic V-8’s the reason behind that is RPM’s add stress on the square of RPM. A 6000 engine will last MUCH longer without having to use uber-exotic components compared at comparable HP 8000 RPM engine. Note that David said SAME POWER at those RPM levels. This does not take into account the possibility of producing the same torque value at 8000 vs 6000 which then would be more HP by default, though as implied, if a defined max HP level is the goal, then by all means make that power at the lowest possible RPM, which will pay off in less stress on engine internals and the project can utilize readily accessible, less expensive, off the shelf components. (That was more to clarify any confusion others might see about keeping the “goal” in mind, not just peak power, as David mentioned).


Hopefully this thread will soon be viewed by a particular world renowned engine building guru who is no stranger to the SBF and the SBC, join HBZ, and offer his $.02 on this project?...

#27 roye@hrewheels.com

roye@hrewheels.com

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts
  • LocationSan Marcos, CA

Posted 07 October 2008 - 11:21 AM

If you have not yet contacted www.eaglerod.com they have been a good low cost supplier of forged rods and cranks for me in the past. At the shop I used to for we had a Jr. Fuel car with a 400cid sbc that turned 9,300 through the traps but we did tare it down after every "race day". That motor had about 25k in it but in contrast one of my co-workers had a 70GTO with a Blown Pontiac 455. There is not a lot of aftermarket availabilty for the Pontiac motors so he used every trick he could to keep it alive. With 70% nitro it ran in the high 7's 8 times before the factory cast crank let go.

He increased the width of the oil grove in the rod bearings and cut it all the way around (only 1 shell in the rod bearing set came with a grove in it). A trick nascar builders use is to pump the oil directly to the center of the main bearing cap to help offset the downward force from the power stroke.
You have to remember though that the main limiting factor for reving these engines is valvetrain stability. You will spend twice as much money getting the top end of the engine to work as you will on the bottom. You can buy a "rev kit" for a sbc that sets a plate, under the cylinder head where the pushrods pass through, that will hold springs against the lifters to take their mass out of the equasion. Custom pushrods, roller rockers, titanium valves, titanium retainers, springs, all of these parts cost a lot of money and you wont get near to having a reliable high rpm sbc or sbf with out such parts. If your goal is the sound and rpm it might be more economical to to e-mail a few nascar teams and ask about buying a set of used sb2 heads (we have gotten a few sets for customers in the past) they come with a shaft mounter rocker system, the valve agangement has been changed so that the intake ports can be larger and be out of the way of the head bolts and push rods. These heads are proven to run at max rpm for hours at a time. These are your best bet for getting the rpm you want and the flat plane crank will give you the sound.

#28 BRAAP

BRAAP

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 4166 posts
  • LocationOregon

Posted 07 October 2008 - 01:09 PM

Very impressive engines. I love the Pontiac running 7’s on factory cast crank! Cool!

I've used Eagle components in a few applications including the crankshaft in this 1168 HP MPFI Twin Turbo BBC endurance race engine pictured below.

Here are a few others I have on my list of possible manufactures for this crankshaft if I don't build it myself; SCAT, Callies, Bryant, Cola, Crower, (Crower has manufactured a few SBC single plane cranks). These might be viable sources as well; Custom Crankshaft Inc., Jay Kay Forgings PVT, Louisville Forge and Gear Works LLC, Tazman Millang Karan Co.

Yours truly on the right impersonating Vanna White…
Posted Image


Grooving the rod bearing shells? Not sure I agree with that approach in a street application. By chance did you mean the main bearing shells instead? High performance main bearings typically have a grooved upper shell, smooth lower shell, some shops will groove the lower shell or just slightly elongate the upper shell groove partially into the lower shell for a little overlap of the oil feed port in the main journal of the crank itself. Performance rod bearings are generally 100% smooth, no groove.

SB2 heads would be Awesome and have a tiny combustion chamber which would help in keeping the comp ratio up to a desirable level. I feel the SB2 heads would be the wrong direction for this project for a couple reasons. The biggest reason is the SB2 and SB2.2 heads have HUGE intake and exhaust ports that are really only in their element when flowing enough N/A air to support 700+ HP. This project isn’t even half that HP figure and port size is more related to the HP levels rather than just the RPM range. The ports of the SB2 heads in their raw/as cast are fairly small, hmmmm. Also, valve-train components for the SB2 are specific to the SB2 which should be more than adequate for our application, though not as readily available due to the specific niche market those heads are built for. The OE late ‘80’s VETTE head with small 58 cc chambers, and small port runners are a closer match to the small displacement and HP level this motor will be at. If a retrofit SBC/SBF Jesel or T&D “endurance” (not the sprint), shaft mount system can be acquired for reasonable that would help with valve train stability that the elevated RPMS for sure.

#29 kiwi303

kiwi303

    Window licker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 748 posts
  • LocationTasman District, Nelson, NZ

Posted 07 October 2008 - 03:20 PM

Kay Jay Forgings? would those be the guys in India? make OEM cranks and also supply customs?

#30 roye@hrewheels.com

roye@hrewheels.com

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts
  • LocationSan Marcos, CA

Posted 07 October 2008 - 03:36 PM

You're right BRAAP, it was the mains that were fully grooved and the rods were partials. The Idea behind the large groove is almos Pontiac specific, they have such a large main journal that they have problems with building up heat from the rotational speed at the surface of the journal. The aditional area in the groove gives the crank more cushion before makeing contact with the bearing.

Your definatly on key with the Jessel set up, it's what we used in our car and in 3 years of running only had 1 part in it fail, which was the cupped end of the rocker where it meets the push rod.

BTW, what size of a motor are you looking to build (in a perfect world)

RE

We built a 482cid SBC (yes SBC) with sb2 heads and ended up filing the bottoms of the intake runners with titanium putty and re-sculpting them up to the short turn radius to lower the volume of the runner and found that it had almost no effect on the overall air flow when we flowed the heads.

#31 BRAAP

BRAAP

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 4166 posts
  • LocationOregon

Posted 07 October 2008 - 04:22 PM

….
Your definatly on key with the Jessel set up, it's what we used in our car and in 3 years of running only had 1 part in it fail, which was the cupped end of the rocker where it meets the push rod.
….


Saw the same thing happen, Jesel “sprint” application shaft mount rockers, in an endurance application. Rocker broke on the push rod side.


…
BTW, what size of a motor are you looking to build (in a perfect world)
...


Between 150-250 CID, (2.5L-4.2L)
4” bore, with 1 ½"- 2 ½” stroke.

#32 351freak

351freak

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts

Posted 08 October 2008 - 11:36 AM

Alrighty, race fans....

Here's what I've turned up so far:

Bessel Cranks - Billet only - 2750.00 - 16 weeks
Crower - Billet only - 3000.00 - 10-12 weeks
Callies - pass, no thanks
Rodine Machine - To call back
Scat - Billet - 3000.00 - 20 weeks
Lunati - wont call back

Windberg - to call back - actually made both style flat cranks last year for the Ford FE motor...said the LRLR version was used over the LRRL...but didn't get to speak with the designer to get details...waiting on call back

Cola Cranks - inconclusive...may be out of business ???
Sonny Bryant - 3000.00+ - wouldn't give a lead time

FYI - can't remember who it was that said it, but 1 of the companies I spoke with indicated that the stroke I was looking for (3.4") was going to have harmonics @ 6800, 7600 and 8200 and that sustaining that rpm was going to rattle your teeth if held for 5+ seconds. Additionally, he stated that making the crank heavier (approx. 38 lbs vs. super liteweight 22 lbs) would dampen the vibrations a good bit. No solution for the vibrations was recommended.
I assume that the shorter stroke in question will move the harmonics up the rpm scale a good bit...crappy for me, though...because I want to shift @ 7,800 and run thru 8,000 with the 3.4 stroke. My heads flow just enuff to make peak power @ 7200-7500 rpm if I can get 110% VE...
I may be stuck using 180 degree headers.

The good news...found a super cheap bullet proof block...bad news is that it would take a custom crank to work...sooo...do I save $1500 on the block and put it towards the custom crank...???

Gonna run the flat crank Idea by the real hardcore guys and see if the benefits outweigh the troubles...I do like the sound though...

-David

#33 351freak

351freak

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts

Posted 08 October 2008 - 12:30 PM

Good news version 2.0... :-)

Greg @ rodine machine just called back. Said he could do one for $2200.00 in 4340...but it would be a 5 month delivery. :-(

He said he would check into it for the balancing issues and could make it as light or as heavy as needed.

$2200 is doable for me...given I'll be saving $1500 on the block.

If we can get the harmonics situation licked...!!!

Found another thread as well...don't know if there are any common members to both threads...but have a look...

http://www.gt40s.com...rank-sbf-2.html

-David

#34 BRAAP

BRAAP

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 4166 posts
  • LocationOregon

Posted 08 October 2008 - 04:36 PM

That is EXCELLENT news 351freak!!! Thank you and keep us posted…

When Windberg calls back, would you do us a favor and ask them a question regarding the LRLR vs LRRL crank? (I will fully understand if you prefer not to.) As I understand it and illustrated earlier in this thread, the LRLR design seems like it would suffer from a fore-aft rocking couple and the moment of that couple would be the bore spacing. With their experience building both styles, is that true? (maybe direct them to this thread, in particular that post)?

Again thanks for sharing your leg work. Looking forward to reading more about your project…




I’m assuming that being this deep into the project, you are very much aware of the tradeoffs/compromises of single vs dual plane V-8 cranks.

For those reading this who don’t know what compromises are made regarding single plane vs dual plane, I’ll line out the pros and cons for both as I understand them.

Single Plane;
Pros;
1) Exhaust pipe length tuning due to the even pulses per bank of cylinders, (on a 400 HP engine could be worth 5-10 HP).
2) Exhaust note, (this is more of a personal taste thing)
3) Lighter weight crank due to less mass needed in the counterweights for a given stroke. Faster revs, though not as smooth.
4) It’s different!

Cons;
1) 2nd order harmonics. Those harmonics are exaggerated with displacement, rod to stroke ratio determining how much 2nd order vibration, as well as how much stroke impacting the amplitude of those harmonics, (buzzy like big displacement four cylinder engines).
2) Cost of the crank and slightly more cost for the custom cam.
3) Complexity added to the project.


Dual Plane;
Pros;
1) Much smoother from a vibration/harmonics standpoint.
2) Readily available.
3) Exhaust note, (this is more of a personal taste thing)
4) Longer stroke/larger displacements without added buzziness.

Cons;
1) For given stroke, has more mass in the counterweights. Slower revs, but smoother.
2) For me anyhow, the exhaust note is a con. (Again, this is more of a personal taste than a performance aspect)


Quoted from the GT40s forum 351freak linked us…

Thought you all might appreciate the humor…

It is my understanding that if you wish to install a flat crank engine, several items must be completed first (based on the DFV, but nonetheless has also applied to SBCs I imagine will be a factor in a SBF);


1. Any fillings must first be removed in a convenient place.

2. All chassis joints should be double welded and have additional bracing fitted.

3. Place one's eyes on an independent suspension system.

4. Flexi-mount any fixed windows.

With these and other items done, some regularly, everything should be :2thumbs:



#35 BRAAP

BRAAP

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 4166 posts
  • LocationOregon

Posted 08 October 2008 - 05:41 PM

Found some more inspiration ... And its Red line is only a 8500 RPM!?!?




Ohhhh.. Full body chilll...

Edited by BRAAP, 09 December 2009 - 10:14 AM.


#36 351freak

351freak

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts

Posted 09 October 2008 - 02:37 PM

And another update...

1st...I'm still trying to get info on the cheap block...the sales guy didn't seem too thrilled to have to get out of his chair and actually have to go measure the bore to see it will work for my application. The blocks that I want have been notched for a stroker...but the notch job (that sounded dirty) got screwed and was too deep. If the notch is further than 4.3" from the top of the deck, then it doesn't matter...my piston rings will still be good with a 1.090" compression Ht. If that block is bad...then I'll just step up to the 4.115" bore without notches (I'll notch it myself) and just buy new pistons when it's time.

As for the flat crank...

Randy @ Winberg finally called back about the Big Block Ford cranks he did last year. He says they were 460 cranks...not FE..but it really doesn't matter at this point. Anyway...he said that although HE doubts the testing procedures were done in an accurate manner, he did say that the LRRL (standard 4 cyl.) crank was deemed by the end user to exhibit the best harmonics by a significant margin...but there was no hard data to back that up...but he did say that he expected this result anyway. He was VERY knbowledgable on the subject and clearly possesed the software and engineering skills needed to sort out all of the details to get the job done. When I told him that another company had said that foregoing ANY counterweights would yield a 22# crank BUT would be very rough, he concurred. When I said that the prior company suggested a target of 38#'s +/-2, he immediately said "I don't know how they got THAT number". Suggesting to me that he would not just throw a number out there without some serious engineering homework...which is why he charges $4500 :eek: (+/- $500) for the job...!!!

Sooooo...if we can do our homework and come up with the right weight to use (total and counterweights)...then we can get it for $2200 from Rodine...

I am also looking at using Titanium rods as well...since I can drop the rod weight from around 620 grams to 335 grams by switching to a Honda 5.394" rod vs. the 5.400" Ford rod... No big deal, if I am going to have a custom crank ground...right...???? Now I have to see what the requirements are for the rods to keep from rubbing/welding themselves together...Titanium doesn't play nice...

Heh... 302 Windsor block ($800)...Cleveland mains $0(or windsor...if I use spacers)...custom crank $2k...Honda Ti rods $2k...custom pistons $800...
.
.
.
The look on ANYONE'S face when that bitch screams to 8 grand and sounds like a Ferrari...

PRICELESS...

Will keep it coming as I get it...

#37 Flexicoker

Flexicoker

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 298 posts
  • LocationDetroit

Posted 09 October 2008 - 03:24 PM

I'm sitting in my kinematics and dynamics class right now... "Design of Machinery. 4th ed." by Robert Norton has a good section on engine dynamics, and has an engine program that comes with the book. I would recommend a book such as this to do a real dynamic analysis before plopping down a few grand for a custom crank.
Unlike women, a racecar is an inanimate object. Therefore it must, eventually, respond to reason.

#38 BRAAP

BRAAP

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 4166 posts
  • LocationOregon

Posted 09 October 2008 - 04:01 PM

And another update...
....


"Everything he said in that post..."

....
PRICELESS...
Will keep it coming as I get it...



:2thumbs:

Edited by BRAAP, 09 December 2009 - 10:14 AM.


#39 jtmny1999

jtmny1999

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts
  • LocationLancaster, CA

Posted 09 October 2008 - 04:07 PM

What trans are you guys planning to use?
RB25DET 240z
Posted Image

#40 1 fast z

1 fast z

    HybridZ Supporter

  • Donating Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1151 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, Arizona

Posted 09 October 2008 - 04:17 PM

Braap, we have built custom billet cranks for guys before. Its doable on a 4 jaw lathe, but very time consuming. I am building a program actually for my CNC 4th axis mill, for a straight eight buick crankshaft, that is a nine main bearing crank, as they were 5 from the factory.
bandmzcars.com
Specializing in L series head building and Intake fabrication.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users