 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | 04-01-2008 |
| Location: | Sandefjord, Norway |
| Posts: | 617 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Your theoretical analysis of bearing dynamics mirrors my initial work. What opened my eyes was a technical article I read from Clevitte analyzing the performance of 180^, 270^ and 360^ bearing designs.
I found some other useful material on the Mahle Clevite web site, but I did not find that exact paper. Do you have a link to or copy of it?
What I did find, was a paper showing all kinds of bearing failures, and their causes, and that will come in very handy once or if I start tearing down the engine. The Chrysler bearing conversion, what model/part# should be used, and is that described somewhere?
Posting dyno plots is a somewhat dangerous thing because the values don't really mean anything. Also the values are totally meaningless unless the same dyno is used for every combination. What ends up happening is everyone starts arguing who's combination has "the most" HP.
A more productive posting would be normalizing the graphs to show the relative shape of the torque curves. I have a graphs from various sources including LotusBits.com (focuses on the results of their porting techniques), but my ultimate goal is to get ALL of the various combinations on the same dyno. As a diagnostic tool such graphs can help everyone understand the differences in cam timing, ignition timing, cam duration, header selection and carb jetting.
I completely agree with you, normalized plots are the way to go, and we should leave the HP race to the turbo boys blowing up their engines...