EFI straight eight Buick

[maguromic]

One of my friends that was a crank designer for Bryant did the analysis for another friend of mine building a V4F and found nothing wrong with it.  But in the final analysis they decided to add the extra intake ports and tilt the valves a bit.  Tony

[RichFox]

The crank for my Dodge Bros. cost about $2600. I really would have had to step up for a billet crank in any instance. I needed the journals at a size that worked with bearings that fit the bores and I needed counterweights. Drilled for oil and destroked to make the class. So price was not the issue. Fear of the unknown must have been it. I think somebody else should try it and report back.

[johnneilson]

Didn't someone in Top Fuel try 180º crankshafts?
Had to go to the Dentist to have the fillings replaced.

I think Velasco wants about $3300 for a billet crank in the B motor.

J

[RichFox]

Mine came from Crower. The 180 degree crank in a V8 is a totally different animal than a two up two down banger crank. Different purpose different idea. In fact the only advantage I can see in a 180 V8 crank is it's easier to make. The V4 idea is to even out the intake pulses on siamese ports

[johnneilson]

Rich, I think you are correct on the v8 180 crank.

So for the V4, is the only problem with siamesed ports fuel distribution? Or is there also an issue with VE?
My question comes from running Miata motors quite a bit, the intake port configuration feed two valves simultainiously (oval port shape).
Not the same application, but much easier to reshape the V$ ports than to plug and add.

The fuel distribution could be fixed with a sequencial injection setup, VE is another issue.

J

[Milwaukee Midget]

Yeah, intercylinder robbing, especially with a big overlap cam.  VE suffers on the second cylinder of the shared pairs.  You can time the fuel, but the air is going to take it's own best path.

With a Winfield design, you get an intake pulse every 360 degrees per intake port, whereas in a 1342, the second cylinder of the shared port gets short changed, 180 - 540, which is compounded by a long duration, big overlap cam.

If you have separate exhaust ports for each cylinder, the Winfield design is pretty hip, but it does require extra care in balancing.  I'd thought about it for the 970, but with only 3 exhaust ports, I'd wind up with scavenging and reversion issues on the 2-3 exhaust strokes - the two cylinders which tend to run warmer, anyway.


 

[NathanStewart]

Nathan,

What are you using for the trigger pickup?

I was thinking about using a Haltech full sequencial setup on one. (4 injectors, 2 ports, independent FP adjustment per inj).

John

AEM makes a great hall effect 24/1 crank/cam engine position module.  We just adapted one to our Model B and we're driving it off the front of the cam.

[NathanStewart]

I remember you talking about five main bearing cranks. If you were having a crank made it wouldn't cost anymore to get a two up two down crank so that the timing events would be equal for each cylinder. Did you think about doing this. I did think about it for the Dodge but just couldn't go for it. If it worked for Winfield why wouldn't it work now?

EFI will be many times cheaper and easier in the end.  Also, from our research, the two-up-two-down engine didn't just have a little vibration.  I think it about jumped out of the car the first time it ran.   

[panic]

If it's that bad, and that much of an advantage, I'd consider an external (chain-driven?) balancer. The usual is 2 counter-rotating weights at 2 × engine speed; is this still correct for this firing order?

[johnneilson]

Yeah, intercylinder robbing, especially with a big overlap cam.  VE suffers on the second cylinder of the shared pairs.  You can time the fuel, but the air is going to take it's own best path.

With a Winfield design, you get an intake pulse every 360 degrees per intake port, whereas in a 1342, the second cylinder of the shared port gets short changed, 180 - 540, which is compounded by a long duration, big overlap cam.

If you have separate exhaust ports for each cylinder, the Winfield design is pretty hip, but it does require extra care in balancing.  I'd thought about it for the 970, but with only 3 exhaust ports, I'd wind up with scavenging and reversion issues on the 2-3 exhaust strokes - the two cylinders which tend to run warmer, anyway.


 

I was afraid this was the situation. I was thinking about ovaling the port and building a semi divider into the intake port with seperate injectors per cyl.
So, what is the preferred method to fill the existing port-waterjacket inorder to make 4 ports? aluminium?
Is there any information available on doing the 4 port mods?

Thanks, J

Nathan, sounds like a good piece.

[Milwaukee Midget]

I was thinking about ovaling the port and building a semi divider into the intake port with seperate injectors per cyl.
So, what is the preferred method to fill the existing port-waterjacket inorder to make 4 ports? aluminium?

Intuitively, one would think that dividing the port, or making a knife edge to direct the air/fuel mixture would work, but from what I've read in David Vizard's book, "Tuning the A Series Engine" (the BMC A-Series engine, not the Ford), it actually creates obstruction.  Panic and I have dogeared copies of this book, and perhaps he can chime in with a more technically detailed assessment of my general statement, but I've got to believe that the fundamentals apply to just about any engine.   

I'm not sure what engine you're working on, John, but another consideration is the distance between the push-rods or valves and the ports.  Does the class you're running permit anything other than a stock port configuration?  Be careful not to open up the port into your valve train.

If you can open 'em up, I'd think bronze might be a good choice for reconstructing a new port.

One last thought - again, the A series book - you're not trying to equalize power output per cylinder, you're looking to maximize each cylinder's output.

Cheers! 

Chris

[johnneilson]

Chris, All,

Sorry to hijack this thread, maybe we should start a new one.

Back to point, Chris, the motor(s) I am looking at are A's and B's Ford.
I have seen a couple of motors that have been modified to a 4 port design, much work to close off the existing port and water jackets must have been filled.
I have been mulling the design over for some time now, and looking for some ideas, or better yet, who has tried what and why.

First things first, I need to concentrate on the car/chassis and get a rolling platform to test with.

Thanks, John

[saltfever]

John, your thoughtfulness about "Thread Jacking" is greatly appreciated but it seems this thread is "on-track".  GH wisely listed the original post under Technical Information/EFI Questions and that theme has been carried throughout the 15 pages.

There have been some extremely valuable and thought provoking postings! I would hate to see the subject drift to another category or a new post and we loose track of the collective wisdom so far. 

[GH]

We tore the Buick down yesterday, here is some photos of the damage.

[RichFox]

Your not supposed to do that.