I have a feeling as the K turbo conversion is gaining in popularity you might find more people asking for headwork like this. I'm an admin on the K turbo owners forum on FB, I know of at least two other people who would be after similar headwork.Mr Ring,
No, I do not. It went to France.
You're the second person to ask this in the last week.
I would have made more if I knew there was demand.
That's a shame we haven't heard more - it would be great to know whether your efforts paid off or not? Offset on one of the squish jets duly notedDr Bell,
The squish jest were not mirrored - one was offset to create more near-TDC swirl.
I use Photobucket for my pictures and I like it.
Not much other than just afterwards. C'est la vie.
When one approaches this level of modification, objective testing is important, but also really rather expensive as you say! Probably not in the realms of us mere mortals sadly. But 270bhp is pretty impressive from a K-series! I'd have thought that block rigidity would start to become an important part of reliability at this level though?I did a great deal of research (well funded company research, not garage research) back in the day on in-cylinder events and mixture preparation across a lot of engine types (SI and CI), placing squish lips amongst other things, and it is my opinion that these types of modifications would work well on the VVC engine in n/a form due to it's already fantastic 3D flow characteristics (tumble + swirl), but as I have no access to the kinds of equipment to establish such things it would only ever be an opinion.
I'm doing it to my own head certainly, but without the back-to-back testing of standard head and a jetted head, or more importantly for me, a modified head and a modified and jetted head I just can't be sure, and i'm not going to do it due to cost and aggravation.
It is interesting that the K-series evolved from having a closed block to an open block design. Is this a question of production expediency, or were there other design considerations at play? Yes, early 1.4 K-series "low port" engines had closed block designs, and 1.4 turbos have made massive power... including in the Land Speed record MG EX-F.The rigidity of the block is inherent in the girdle type construction that these engines have - the bottom end is quite stiff in comparison to it's contemporaries, but the loose liners and open deck would be where the concern comes in.
I mentioned once before that a commercial block filler from someone like Moroso could be used carefully to build up a better base for the liners, but ideally a closed or partially closed deck would be the best solution to improve the mode behaviour of the upper block.
I've so far not seen anyone close a deck, although I believe the 1.4 engine had a variant, so the people running these high output engines, such as Mr Andrews customers for Lotii and Caterhams, must be okay as they are.
Although when we consider that the French fellow could have had über boost and gotten really good torque at normal engine speeds, but with large bending stresses from the direct forces, whereas an 8500rpm n/a engine will have relatively low pressure loads, but hugely higher inertial loads (increase with square of speed) and high resulting 2nd, 3rd, 4th order forces, it could be argued that they are really different problems.
Maybe both are okay.
Where is the extra bracing in the TCi-tech engines?