Ignition system - By turborides
- Camshaft with triple cam used
- Switching valve integrated in oil circuit
- Anti-rotation device in tappet guide
- ECU with data map for controlling switching valve
why need to change terminal if change to CRV plug cable
Engine control unit / Engine management
Strengthen cast iron crankshaft - shot peening
Setting the ignition timing
Timing advance is required because it takes time to burn the air-fuel mixture. Igniting the mixture before the piston reaches top dead center (TDC) will allow the mixture to fully burn soon after the piston reaches TDC. If the air-fuel mixture is ignited at the correct time, maximum pressure in the cylinder will occur sometime after the piston reaches TDC allowing the ignited mixture to push the piston down the cylinder with the greatest force. Ideally, the time at which the mixture should be fully burnt is about 20 degrees ATDC. This will utilize the engine's power producing potential. If the ignition spark occurs at a position that is too advanced relative to piston position, the rapidly expanding air-fuel mixture can actually push against the piston causing detonation and lost power. If the spark occurs too retarded relative to the piston position, maximum cylinder pressure will occur after the piston is already traveling too far down the cylinder. This results in lost power, high emissions, and unburned fuel.
The ignition timing will need to become increasingly advanced (relative to TDC) as the engine speed increases so that the air-fuel mixture has the correct amount of time to fully burn. Another reason for advancing the timing is because as the engine speed increases, fuel consumption increases. Since more fuel is present in the cylinder, the time required to fully burn the air-fuel mixture will be longer. Poor volumetric efficiency at lower engine speeds also requires increased advancement of ignition timing. The correct timing advance for a given engine speed will allow for maximum cylinder pressure to be achieved at the correct crankshaft angular position. When setting the timing for an automobile engine, the factory timing setting can usually be found on a sticker in the engine bay.
pressure differential _ by turbo rides
Unlike a supercharger that is driven directly form the crankshaft, a turbo is driven by exhaust gas velocity. Turbochargers are an exhaust restriction (which raises the exhaust gas pressure), but since they use energy that would otherwise be wasted, they are much more efficient than a belt driven supercharger. Normally when the exhaust valve opens, there is still useable pressure in the cylinder that needs to be dumped so it will not resist the piston trying to go back up the bore. That pressure makes high exhaust gas velocity. With a turbocharged engine, this is the energy that is used to spin the turbine.
With a well matched turbo / engine combo, boost pressure should be higher than exhaust gas pressure at the low side of the power band (near peak torque). As the engine nears peak hp, the pressure differential will get nearer 1:1. At some point the pressures in the intake and exhaust will be equal then crossover making the exhaust a higher pressure than the intake. At peak hp there will usually be more exhaust gas pressure than boost pressure. The ultimate goal is to have as little exhaust backpressure possible for the desired boost.
If the turbocharger is matched well to the engine combination, the camshaft selection will not need to be much different than that of a supercharged engine. The problem is that most factory turbo engines have turbo's that are sized too small and will usually have more back pressure than boost pressure over much of the useable power band. Car manufactures do this in an attempt to reduce turbo lag. When a turbocharger is too small, it will be a bigger restriction in the exhaust, causing more back pressure. A big mistake of turbo owners is to crank the boost up as high as they can thinking they are going faster, but in reality, chances are that they are just killing the efficiency of the turbo and most gains are lost. If you want to run higher boost levels and back pressure is a problem, cam timing can be altered to give respectable power increases for much cheaper than a new turbocharger. Before you go increasing boost and changing cams, remember that the oxygen content into the engine will increase power, not boost pressure. A good flowing head with a good intercooler can make a lot of power without high boost. You may not need more boost to get the power you want.
Valve Overlap
If you're one of many factory turbo car owners with a turbo sized too small, there will be higher exhaust pressure than intake. You should see that if both valves are open at the same time, the flow would reverse. Any valve overlap is a no-no if you're looking for higher boost with a restrictive turbine housing. The exhaust valve will usually close very close to TDC, but there is will still be more pressure on the cylinder than in the intake. You must allow the piston to travel down the bore until the pressure is equalized. If the cylinder pressure is lower than the intake manifold pressure, no reverse flow will take place. This means that the intake valve needs to open 20-35° ATDC, depending on the amount of boost you're using. Most street turbo's will work well when the valve opens close to 20° ATDC, only when boost gets near 30 psi will you need to delay it as much as 35° ATDC. In low boost applications (under 15 psi or so), opening the valve closer to TDC and maybe keeping the exhaust valve open a little after TDC is a compromise for better throttle response before the boost comes on. As you increase boost, you will need to delay the opening of the intake valve to avoid reversion. You want the intake valve to open as soon as possible, in an ideal situation, the intake valve should open when the pressure in the cylinder is equal to boost pressure. This can cause a little confusion with cam overlap. If the exhaust valve closes before the intake opens, the overlap will be considered negative. If the exhaust valve closed at TDC and the intake opened at 20° ATDC there would be -20° of overlap. In this type situation, pumping losses are quite large, although the turbo will still use less power than a crank driven supercharger.
If you have a well matched turbo for the engine and application, it is a different deal altogether. A well matched turbine housing on the turbo will usually work well with cams with a lobe separation in the 112-114° area. If there is more pressure in the intake than in the exhaust, a camshaft suited for superchargers or nitrous will usually works well. When the exhaust backpressure is lower than the intake, reversion is not a problem, actually just the opposite is a problem. More pressure in the intake can blow fresh intake charge right out the exhaust valve. This can be a serious problem with a turbo motor since the charge will burn in the exhaust raising temperatures of the exhaust valves and turbo. This is also a problem with superchargers, which is why supercharger cam profiles usually work well with turbo's. In this type situation, the power required to turn the turbine is nearly 100% recovered energy that would have normally been dumped out the tailpipe, basically free power. Many will argue that nothing is free and you need pressure to spin the turbine and this must make pumping losses. They are wrong because a turbo is not getting anything for free at all, it is just making the engine more efficient. It is true that there are pumping losses, but on the other hand there are pumping gains as well. If the exhaust back pressure is lower than the intake, the intake pressure makes more force on the intake stroke to help push the piston down. At the same time another piston is on it's exhaust stroke. So the intake pressure is more than canceling out the exhaust pressure. Not free, just more efficient.
Valve Lift
By delaying the opening of the intake, the duration of the cam will be much shorter. A short duration intake works well with a turbo, but the problem is that sufficient lift is hard to get from such a short duration. This is where high ratio rockers can really pay off. A cam for a turbo engine can delay the intake opening by over 40° compared to an cam for a normally aspirated engine. This makes for much less valve lift when the piston is at peak velocity (somewhere near 75° ATDC), any help to get the valve open faster will make large improvements.
Roller Camshafts
Turbo motors place a large flow demand at low valve lifts, and roller cams cannot accelerate the valve opening as fast as a flat tappet. They do catch up and pass a flat tappet after about 20° or so, but up until that point the favor goes toward the flat tappet cam. The area where rollers really help in turbo motors (and supercharged) is cutting frictional losses. Any forced induction engine will need more spring force on the intakes. If you run a lot of boost, you'll need quite a bit more spring force to control the valves. As spring forces gets higher, the life of the cam gets reduced. A roller tappet can withstand more than twice the spring pressure as a flat tappet with no problems. On the exhaust side, it's not the springs that put the loads on the cam lobes. The problem there is that there is still so much cylinder pressure trying to hold that valve closed. This puts tremendous pressure on the exhaust lobes. So when high boost levels are used, consider a roller cam. I would definitely consider a roller cam on engines making more than 20 lbs. of boost.
Piggy back or fuel management system for campro BOT
Rotational Rationale by circle track
http://www.circletrack.comCrankshaft technology has evolved in both form and materials for the various professional racing series, even to the extent of creating significant power increases.
From the racer's point of view, a crankshaft's stroke would seem like the only dimension of any real importance. It may be, but we should not relegate the crank's other dimensional attributes to the realm of inconsequential. A crankshaft's No. 1 job is to convert the linear forces applied by combustion on the piston to rotational motion. All the power the engine is ever going to make is created above the piston crown. As a major part of the rotating assembly, a crank's job is to transmit power, as efficiently as possible, from the cylinder to the flywheel. The key words here are: as efficiently as possible. What we will examine in this article is how a crankshaft's configuration can affect its ability to efficiently convert linear power and motion to usable rotational power.
Efficiency First, let's look at crank efficiency. All too often, it is claimed that a long-stroke configuration will make more torque for a given displacement. The reason this is often quoted is that the engine has a longer lever arm with a long stroke. Although this may be true, it has sacrificed piston area, and that cancels out the stroke advantage. A longer stroke has more cylinder bore friction and limits the rod length. A long stroke signifies a shorter rod and greater friction-inducing side thrust on the cylinder wall. These factors cut output everywhere in the rpm range. These two factors alone tell us that, within limits, a short-stroke, big-bore, long-rod engine is the way to go.
Short-stroke cranks with a longer rod are mechanically more efficient than short rods and a long stroke. For a given gas pressure (A), the force pushing the piston into the cylinder wall (B) is greater when rod angularity (C) goes up (as it does with shorter rods).
Windage For the budget-orientated classes, the rule book often states that the crank cannot have knife-edged or rounded leading edges for reduced windage. I'm sure many racers have wondered just what advantage an aero crank has over a square-faced, counterweight design with a stock pattern. Some years ago, the opportunity arose to run such a test in a 383 engine. Here, Scat 331/44-inch stroke cranks of each design (aero and regular) were used because the longer stroke would more clearly show what the difference was. Also, the oil used was 20-50 Mobil. That's probably a grade thicker than what might normally be used in a typical near-stock race engine. The results (Figure 1), though almost certainly showing bigger differences than would be seen in an engine with a shorter stroke, strongly indicate the advantage of an aero crank over a regular crank.
A point to note here is that if the crankcase has a vacuum drawn on it, the advantage of an aero crank diminishes. The results in Figure 1 tell us that aero cranks are good for power output.
Coatings About 25 years ago, coatings with various properties began to find their way into the top echelons of racing. Slowly, but surely, these have developed into one more weapon in the professional engine builder's speed arsenal. Thermal barriers for heads and intakes are a common feature of many race engines, but we are looking at cranks here. The ticket here is oil-shedding, Teflon(r) based coatings. Do they help power output? Working with Calico Coatings, I ran tests-again in a 383-and got the results, which are shown in Figure 2. Conclusion: Coatings deliver, but not until fairly high in the rpm range.
This Scat cast steel aero crank has been detailed with emery rolls and given an oil-shedding Teflon(r) based coating by Calico Coatings. Our dyno results showed an increase in top-end output.
Journal Diameter For about the last five years, with no-holds-barred race engines, the trend has been to reduce rod and main bearing journal diameters wherever and whenever possible. The obvious point of this is reduced frictional bearing loss. Just how much, you may ask, can that amount to? More than you might think, as bearing loss goes up much faster than diameter does. This tends to come down significantly faster as journal size is decreased. A move some years back was to drop the normal small-block, 2-inch, big-end journal size to 1.88 inches. Although the feedback numbers vary somewhat, it seems that a gain of 5 hp at 9,000 rpm is about average. But there is more to it than just the reduction of the bearing loss. The smaller big-end journal weighs less and, as a consequence, needs less counterweight to balance it. At first, you might think it's a direct trade-off, but that actually is not the case in most circumstances. Since the counterweight is spread out over a considerable arc, much of the weight is not fully effective. Consequently, it takes more weight to balance the effect of the more compactly located mass of the piston, rod, and big-end journal. The upside of this is that if the weight is removed from either end of the counterweight (instead of removing it right at the heavy spot), a lot more counterweight mass can be removed than is lost at the big-end journal side. By keeping a close watch on piston, rod, and journal mass, significant reductions in overall crank weight and moment of inertia (MOI) can be made. Since any short and medium circle track is substantially about accelerating off the turn, a lower MOI translates directly into better acceleration. Rear wheel dyno acceleration tests of high versus low MOI rotating assemblies show that efforts put into reducing the MOI of the crank, rod, and piston assembly can easily amount to another 10 rear-wheel horsepower. The faster the acceleration rate, the bigger the difference.
Bearings and Clearance Although coatings have had some acceptance as oil-shedding mediums, the place they have found most favor is in bearings. At this point in time, it would be true to say that probably better than 50 percent of the Cup car engines are utilizing coated bearings. Personally, I hardly ever build an engine these days without coated bearings, as they have shown to take the continued abuse of extended dyno sessions and come out almost unscathed. Exactly how coatings improve bearing life is not clear, but evidence indicates that coatings not only allow the oil to flow around the journal/bearing clearance volume more easily to maintain an intake film, but also have a small amount of surface porosity that causes the oil to soak into the coating just enough to effectively combat minimal lubrication conditions. Whether that is the case remains to be seen, but not knowing how they work certainly doesn't detract from the fact that they do work.
Reduced main bearing journal size means less weight, as do hollow journals. Contrary to what might be expected, a hollow journal with the correct geometry can deliver a greater fatigue life than a solid one.
With the need to minimize the amount of oil flying around inside the crankcase, efforts have been made to keep bearing clearances down to a minimum. The smaller the bearing clearances are, the thinner the oil needed to get the job done. This means taking far more care when measuring everything and making sure the clearances are accurate. The problem for the guy on a limited budget who is building engines at home is that measuring tools can be expensive. To establish bearing clearance, two pieces of measuring equipment are needed: an internal and an external micrometer. An external micrometer can be acquired at a very reasonable price from any mass tool and equipment merchandiser, such as Harbor Freight. What seems unavailable at any price under about $600 is an internal micrometer, which measures main bores and big-end rod journal bores. At a lower price, but still far from a giveaway, is a dial-bore gauge. Many engine shops use this, but it is not exactly easy to use. Give one to 10 engine builders inexperienced with their use, and you are likely to get a main bearing measurement at 10 different sizes. The internal micrometer, on the other hand, is about as close to a sure-fire deal as it comes, regardless of how much experience the builder has with this tool.
So, where does this leave those of us building our engines at a home workshop with less-than-professional shop tools? Well, there is Plastigage. This stuff is about as cheap as it comes, but it is looked down upon by almost every Cup engine builder I've ever mentioned it to. Why? Because it is not as accurate as the more correct (and expensive) tools for the job. However, I think there may be an element of techno-social climbing going on here. Having used all three of the methods mentioned, here is my take on it. First, Plastigage accuracy is not as bad as some pros would have you believe. Testing this for yourself is easy. All you need is two machine parallels and two 0.002-inch feeler gauges. Just place the two feeler gauges side-by-side on one of the parallels and place a strip of the Plastigage between the feelers. Next, place the other parallel on top and squeeze the pair in a press or vice. When you measure, the now-spread Plastigage will have a reading that is really close to the 0.002 inch that it should read. The not-so-good news is that when applied to a curved bearing and journal, things are not quite that close. Generally, the results are within about +/-0.0002 inch (i.e., 2 ten-thousandths of an inch). Maybe this is not perfect, but it is good enough for most of us if the bearings are about middle limit. Now we come to the best part of using Plastigage. If the bearing being measured is out of tolerance, it will be obvious. If the bearing clearance is wrong, especially if it is on the tight side, it will instantly show up, thus preventing serious engine damage.
Now we know how to measure bearing clearance, but how much of it should we have? For most V-8s, a good working figure is 0.002 inch (2 thousandths) for the rod journals and 0.0025 inch (211/42 thousandths) for the mains. Going up half a thousandth on this is no big disaster. In fact, I have used as much as 0.004 inch (4 thousandths) on the mains when it has been a case of "use the crank or don't race." If you are building an engine that has good components, then these nominal figures can drop by half a thousandth (0.0005 inch). If you are building for a small-engined four-cylinder class, the clearances can also stand to be about half a thousandth (0.0005 inch) less than V-8 clearances.
The amount of crank-to-bearing clearance used also influences the weight of oil needed. The closer the clearances, the lighter (thinner) the oil needs to be. This is good news if you are reducing windage and crankcase scavenging losses are a priority.
Conclusions We have seen the advantage gained from coated aero cranks with reduced MOI in wet-sump engines, but there isn't necessarily a direct carryover to dry-sump engines pulling a lot of crankcase vacuum. The more vacuum pulled on the crankcase, the greater the tendency for oil to drop out of suspension. Sure, coated aero cranks are still an advantage for dry-sump engines, but not necessarily by such a margin. One direct carryover from wet sump to dry is the reduction in MOI. This is good, regardless of what type of engine you are running.
Scat 331/44-inch Stroke Crank Test
Stock Square-Face Counterweights vs. Aero Counterweights.RPM TQ1 HP1 TQ2 HP2 TQ diff. HP diff. 3,500 422.3 281.4 422.7 281.7 0.4 0.3 3,750 441.0 314.9 441.4 315.2 0.4 0.3 4,000 450.3 343.0 451.0 343.5 0.7 0.5 4,250 452.1 365.8 453.2 366.7 1.1 0.9 4,500 451.9 387.2 453.1 388.2 1.2 1.0 4,750 447.7 404.9 449.9 406.9 2.2 2.0 5,000 442.8 421.6 445.2 423.8 2.4 2.2 5,250 434.1 433.9 437.0 436.8 2.9 2.9 5,500 426.3 446.4 429.6 449.9 3.3 3.5 5,750 419.9 459.7 424.2 464.4 4.3 4.7 6,000 403.8 461.3 408.6 466.8 4.8 5.5 6,250 388.8 462.7 394.2 469.1 5.4 6.4 6,500 364.6 451.2 370.6 458.7 6.0 7.5 6,750 341.2 438.5 347.5 446.6 6.3 8.1 7,000 312.6 416.6 319.5 425.8 6.9 9.2 7,250 286.4 395.4 293.6 405.3 7.2 9.9 Figure 1: Shown here are the results of some very carefully run dyno tests. These numbers are the average of a substantial number of runs, with the best and worst of each discarded. By using this technique, the effects of the scatter of 2 or 3 lb-ft on each dyno run can be minimized. As the results indicate, there is a trend for the aero crank to show (as expected) a bigger increase with increasing rpm.
RPM TQ1 HP1 TQ2 HP2 TQ diff. HP diff. 3,750 408.0 291.3 408.3 291.5 0.3 0.2 4,000 426.3 324.7 426.8 325.1 0.5 0.4 4,250 438.8 355.1 440.0 356.1 1.2 1.0 4,500 463.7 397.3 463.4 397.0 -0.3 -0.3 4,750 469.0 424.2 469.0 424.2 0.0 0.0 5,000 460.9 438.8 461.5 439.4 0.6 0.6 5,250 486.7 486.5 488.5 488.3 1.8 1.8 5,500 478.2 500.8 481.3 504.0 3.1 3.2 5,750 470.5 515.1 473.4 518.3 2.9 3.2 6,000 463.3 529.3 466.6 533.1 3.3 3.8 6,250 449.3 534.7 452.5 538.5 3.2 3.8 6,500 443.6 549.0 447.8 554.2 4.2 5.2 6,750 435.5 559.7 439.7 565.1 4.2 5.4 7,000 423.3 564.2 427.7 570.0 4.4 5.8 7,250 408.1 563.4 413.0 570.1 4.9 6.7 7,500 390.8 558.1 396.4 566.1 5.6 8.0 Figure 2: Using the same test procedure as per Figure 1, these results were obtained from a fairly high-output, flat-tappet cammed, 383-inch small-block Chevy engine. The coatings appeared to be worth a reasonable amount of power in this wet-sump test engine, but not until engine speed had exceeded about 5,000 rpm.
I almost forget to introduce my electrical supercharger or E-turbo that has installed for year . Since i going to bolt on turbo , i going to let go this stuff at Rm1800 (included installation ) . Prefer campro owner as buyer , if other car model also welcome but need to spend extra for piping . Welcome to drop message at shoutbox if you have inquiry . Above is the images of the machine .

