Ap aspirado 230hp motor, 209hp nas rodas.
-
pois é ka, existe sim uma relação muito importante com a fabricação, diagrama e curso do virabrequim. ed iskenderian fez um artigo muito interessante sobre isso em 1992. vou achar aqui e te enviar.
[snapback]615065[/snapback]
putz, será de grande valia
-
serve o gol do nen? (peninha street)?
nas rodas:
178,3 cvs @ 6200 rpm (205 cvs no motor)
22,1 kgm @ 4800 rpm
motor: 2.1 com bloco alto
taxa: 16:1
combustivel: metanol
[snapback]615048[/snapback]
205 no motor? não>>>>>>>>>>> no minimo 235 cv no eixo, nas tais 6.200 rpms. o evandro pode confirmar isso.
ta ai uma coisa que pensei a mto tempo mas não consegui concluir meu racioc?nio. imaginei isso mesmo q vc disse, q o curso do vira tem ligação direta com o enquadramento e até com a construção do comando.
[snapback]615059[/snapback]
exatamente. o curso do vira muda todo o posicionamento do motor. outro dia mesmo fizemos um 2.2 gasolina chevrolet virar alcool com pistões do alcool ,um omega,mandei um profissional competente do abc paulista chipar a central para usar alcool e taxa 13 e depois de duas chipadas mal sucedidas ele chipou copiando o acerto original da suprema 2.0 alcool, claro que não funcionou e tive que explicar a ele que com curso de 2.2 contra os 86 mm do curso da 2.0 a posição do pistão em relacão ao ponto morto superior é varios mm diferente durante o trajeto.
alias o 2.2 alcoolizado com pistoes cabe?udos do 2.0 alcool injetores da suprema alcool velas8e bomba idem ficou muito bom estradeiro e economic?o.
preparação de leve…evandro o que da pra fazer nesse carro a mais?um comando para mudar a pressão para cima e depois dar mais ponto na baixa media pra vir torque ali? o carro é pesado para andar na cidade com tanta pressão a 2.500 giros, o ponto vem pra baixo via sensor de detonação. esse comando do omega 2.2 gasolina é bom na gasolina mas totalmente inadequado no alcool com quase 4/1 de taxa a mais.
-
putz, será de grande valia
[snapback]615066[/snapback]
e vou te dizer mais ka, tamanhos de bielas influenciam muuuuuuiiiito mais no diagrama do comando
-
putz, será de grande valia
[snapback]615066[/snapback]
olha ai…
oi ka, veja só a diferença só no tamanho das bielas e curso.
why do people change connecting rod lengths or alter their rod length to stroke ratiosó i know why, they think they are changing them. they expect to gain (usually based upon the hype of some magazine article or the sales pitch of someone in the parts business) torque or horsepower here or there in rather significant chunks . well, they will experience some gains and losses here or there in torque and or h.p., but unfortunately these chunks everyone talks about are more like chips .
to hear the hype about running a longer rod and making more torque @ low to mid rpm or mid to high rpm (yes, it is, believe it or not actually pitched both ways) you d think that there must be a tremendous potential for gain, otherwise, why would anyone even bother? good question. let s begin with the basics. the manufacture s (chevy, ford, chrysler etc.) employ automotive engineers and designers to do their best (especially today) in creating engine packages that are both powerful and efficient. they of course, must also consider longevity, for what good would come form designing an engine with say 5% more power at a price of one half the life factor? obviously none. you usually don t get something for nothing - everything usually has its price. for example: i can design a cam with tremendous high rpm/h.p. potential, but it would be silly of me (not to mention the height of arrogance) to criticize the engineer who designed the stock camshaft. for this engine when i know how poorly this cam would perform at the lower operating rpm range in which this engineer was concerned with as his design objective
yet, i read of and hear about people who do this all the time with rod lengths. they actually speak of the automotive engine designer responsible for running such a short rod as a stupid sob. well, folks i am here to tell you that those who spew such garbage should be ashamed of themselves - and not just because the original designer had different design criteria and objectives. i may shock some of you, but in your wildest dreams you are never going to achieve the level of power increase by changing your connecting rod lengths that you would, say in increasing compression ratio, cam duration or cylinder head flow capacity. to illustrate my point, take a look at the chart below. i have illustrated the crank angles and relative piston positions of today s most popular racing engine, the 3.48 stroke small block 350 v8 chevy in standard 5.7 , 6.00 , 6.125 and 6.250 long rod lengths in 5 degree increments. notice the infinitesimal (look it up in the dictionary) change in piston position for a given crank angle with the 4 different length rods. not much here folks, but oh, there must be a big difference in piston velocity, right? wrong again it s a marginal difference (check the source yourself - its performance calculator).
to hear all this hype about rod lengths i m sure you were prepared for a nice 30, 40, or 50 hp increase, weren t you? well its more like a 5-7 hp increase at best, and guess whaté it comes at a price. the longer the rod, the closer your wrist pin boss will be to your ring lands. in extreme situations, 6.125 & 6.250 lengths for example, both ring and piston life are affected. the rings get a double whammy affect. first, with the pin boss crowding the rings, the normally designed space between the lands must be reduced to accommodate the higher wrist pin boss. second, the rings wobble more and lose the seal of their fine edge as the piston rocks. a longer rod influences the piston to dwell a bit longer at tdc than a shorter rod would and conversely, to dwell somewhat less at bdc. this is another area where people often get the information backwards.
in fact, this may surprise you, but i know of a gentleman who runs a 5.5 rod in a 350 small block chevy who makes more horsepower (we re talking top end here) than he would with a longer rod. why? because with a longer dwell time at bdc the short rod will actually allow you a slightly later intake closing point (about 1 or 2 degrees) in terms of crank angle, with the same piston rise in the cylinder. so in terms of the engines sensitivity to reversion with the shorter rod lengths you can run about 2-4 degrees more duration (1-2 degrees on both the opening & closing sides) without suffering this adverse affect so much for the belief that longer rod s always enhance top end power
now to the subject of rod to stroke ratios. people are always looking for the magic number here - as if like pythagoras they could possibly discover a mathematical relationship which would secure them a place in history. rod to stroke ratios are for the most part the naturally occurring result of other engine design criteria. in other-words, much like with ignition timing (spark advance) they are what they are. in regards to the later, the actual number is not as important as finding the right point for a given engine. why worry for example that a chrysler hemi needs less spark advance that a chevrolet wedge combustion chamber? the number in and of itself is not important and it is much the same with rod to stroke ratios. unless you want to completely redesign the engine (including your block deck height etc.) leave your rod lengths alone. let s not forget after all, most of us are not racing at the indy 500 but rather are hot rodding stock blocks.
only professional engine builders who have exhausted every other possible avenue of performance should ever consider a rod length change and even they should exercise care so as not to get caught up in the hype.
-
205 no motor? não>>>>>>>>>>> no minimo 235 cv no eixo, nas tais 6.200 rpms. o evandro pode confirmar isso.
exatamente. o curso do vira muda todo o posicionamento do motor. outro dia mesmo fizemos um 2.2 gasolina chevrolet virar alcool com pistões do alcool ,um omega,mandei um profissional competente do abc paulista chipar a central para usar alcool e taxa 13 e depois de duas chipadas mal sucedidas ele chipou copiando o acerto original da suprema 2.0 alcool, claro que não funcionou e tive que explicar a ele que com curso de 2.2 contra os 86 mm do curso da 2.0 a posição do pistão em relacão ao ponto morto superior é varios mm diferente durante o trajeto.
alias o 2.2 alcoolizado com pistoes cabe?udos do 2.0 alcool injetores da suprema alcool velas8e bomba idem ficou muito bom estradeiro e economic?o.
preparação de leve…evandro o que da pra fazer nesse carro a mais?um comando para mudar a pressão para cima e depois dar mais ponto na baixa media pra vir torque ali? o carro é pesado para andar na cidade com tanta pressão a 2.500 giros, o ponto vem pra baixo via sensor de detonação. esse comando do omega 2.2 gasolina é bom na gasolina mas totalmente inadequado no alcool com quase 4/1 de taxa a mais.
[snapback]615074[/snapback]
vixe, da para fazer um mundo de coisas, mas eu iria de cabeçote e coletor bem feitinho, borboleta de 65mm, e uma nova configuração no enquadramento do comando e novo chip. sou contra comando de válvulas de maior duração em veiculos com muito peso em ordem de marcha, ainda mais com pouca preparação.
-
205 no motor? não>>>>>>>>>>> no minimo 235 cv no eixo, nas tais 6.200 rpms. o evandro pode confirmar isso.
exatamente. o curso do vira muda todo o posicionamento do motor. outro dia mesmo fizemos um 2.2 gasolina chevrolet virar alcool com pistões do alcool ,um omega,mandei um profissional competente do abc paulista chipar a central para usar alcool e taxa 13 e depois de duas chipadas mal sucedidas ele chipou copiando o acerto original da suprema 2.0 alcool, claro que não funcionou e tive que explicar a ele que com curso de 2.2 contra os 86 mm do curso da 2.0 a posição do pistão em relacão ao ponto morto superior é varios mm diferente durante o trajeto.
alias o 2.2 alcoolizado com pistoes cabe?udos do 2.0 alcool injetores da suprema alcool velas8e bomba idem ficou muito bom estradeiro e economic?o.
preparação de leve…evandro o que da pra fazer nesse carro a mais?um comando para mudar a pressão para cima e depois dar mais ponto na baixa media pra vir torque ali? o carro é pesado para andar na cidade com tanta pressão a 2.500 giros, o ponto vem pra baixo via sensor de detonação. esse comando do omega 2.2 gasolina é bom na gasolina mas totalmente inadequado no alcool com quase 4/1 de taxa a mais.
[snapback]615074[/snapback]
205 cvs no motor. a transmissão desse carro acusou ~15% de perda. dados do próprio teste feito pela dynojet (sp).
qto a diferença no mapeamento de um motor injetado, tb tenho algumas dúvidas, inclusive qdo se troca o comando por um bem mais alto, pois a sincronia entre admissão e injeção é alterada.
e vou te dizer mais ka, tamanhos de bielas influenciam muuuuuuiiiito mais no diagrama do comando
[snapback]615075[/snapback]
sim, isso eu ja estudei, e muuuuito
olha ai…
oi ka, veja só a diferença só no tamanho das bielas e curso.
why do people change connecting rod lengths or alter their rod length to stroke ratiosó i know why, they think they are changing them. they expect to gain (usually based upon the hype of some magazine article or the sales pitch of someone in the parts business) torque or horsepower here or there in rather significant chunks . well, they will experience some gains and losses here or there in torque and or h.p., but unfortunately these chunks everyone talks about are more like chips .
to hear the hype about running a longer rod and making more torque @ low to mid rpm or mid to high rpm (yes, it is, believe it or not actually pitched both ways) you d think that there must be a tremendous potential for gain, otherwise, why would anyone even bother? good question. let s begin with the basics. the manufacture s (chevy, ford, chrysler etc.) employ automotive engineers and designers to do their best (especially today) in creating engine packages that are both powerful and efficient. they of course, must also consider longevity, for what good would come form designing an engine with say 5% more power at a price of one half the life factor? obviously none. you usually don t get something for nothing - everything usually has its price. for example: i can design a cam with tremendous high rpm/h.p. potential, but it would be silly of me (not to mention the height of arrogance) to criticize the engineer who designed the stock camshaft. for this engine when i know how poorly this cam would perform at the lower operating rpm range in which this engineer was concerned with as his design objective
yet, i read of and hear about people who do this all the time with rod lengths. they actually speak of the automotive engine designer responsible for running such a short rod as a stupid sob. well, folks i am here to tell you that those who spew such garbage should be ashamed of themselves - and not just because the original designer had different design criteria and objectives. i may shock some of you, but in your wildest dreams you are never going to achieve the level of power increase by changing your connecting rod lengths that you would, say in increasing compression ratio, cam duration or cylinder head flow capacity. to illustrate my point, take a look at the chart below. i have illustrated the crank angles and relative piston positions of today s most popular racing engine, the 3.48 stroke small block 350 v8 chevy in standard 5.7 , 6.00 , 6.125 and 6.250 long rod lengths in 5 degree increments. notice the infinitesimal (look it up in the dictionary) change in piston position for a given crank angle with the 4 different length rods. not much here folks, but oh, there must be a big difference in piston velocity, right? wrong again it s a marginal difference (check the source yourself - its performance calculator).
to hear all this hype about rod lengths i m sure you were prepared for a nice 30, 40, or 50 hp increase, weren t you? well its more like a 5-7 hp increase at best, and guess whaté it comes at a price. the longer the rod, the closer your wrist pin boss will be to your ring lands. in extreme situations, 6.125 & 6.250 lengths for example, both ring and piston life are affected. the rings get a double whammy affect. first, with the pin boss crowding the rings, the normally designed space between the lands must be reduced to accommodate the higher wrist pin boss. second, the rings wobble more and lose the seal of their fine edge as the piston rocks. a longer rod influences the piston to dwell a bit longer at tdc than a shorter rod would and conversely, to dwell somewhat less at bdc. this is another area where people often get the information backwards.
in fact, this may surprise you, but i know of a gentleman who runs a 5.5 rod in a 350 small block chevy who makes more horsepower (we re talking top end here) than he would with a longer rod. why? because with a longer dwell time at bdc the short rod will actually allow you a slightly later intake closing point (about 1 or 2 degrees) in terms of crank angle, with the same piston rise in the cylinder. so in terms of the engines sensitivity to reversion with the shorter rod lengths you can run about 2-4 degrees more duration (1-2 degrees on both the opening & closing sides) without suffering this adverse affect so much for the belief that longer rod s always enhance top end power
now to the subject of rod to stroke ratios. people are always looking for the magic number here - as if like pythagoras they could possibly discover a mathematical relationship which would secure them a place in history. rod to stroke ratios are for the most part the naturally occurring result of other engine design criteria. in other-words, much like with ignition timing (spark advance) they are what they are. in regards to the later, the actual number is not as important as finding the right point for a given engine. why worry for example that a chrysler hemi needs less spark advance that a chevrolet wedge combustion chamber? the number in and of itself is not important and it is much the same with rod to stroke ratios. unless you want to completely redesign the engine (including your block deck height etc.) leave your rod lengths alone. let s not forget after all, most of us are not racing at the indy 500 but rather are hot rodding stock blocks.
only professional engine builders who have exhausted every other possible avenue of performance should ever consider a rod length change and even they should exercise care so as not to get caught up in the hype.
http://www.iskycams.com/art/techinfo/ncrank1.pdf
[snapback]615076[/snapback]
obrigada, vou traduzir com calma
-
engraçado, parece q ja liiii esse texto
-
vixe, da para fazer um mundo de coisas, mas eu iria de cabeçote e coletor bem feitinho, borboleta de 65mm, e uma nova configuração no enquadramento do comando e novo chip. sou contra comando de válvulas de maior duração em veiculos com muito peso em ordem de marcha, ainda mais com pouca preparação.
[snapback]615080[/snapback]
65 mm? isso tudo? em relação ao comando de válvulas, concordo,mas na casa gmb tem uns comandos tipo o 1.8 alcool 84/86 que caberiam bem ali hein?
atualmente o carro tem pouco mais de 145 cv a 5 mil , fazendo as contas vc ve que falta acerto , 7,4s de retomada 80-120 terceira marcha no carro completo,pesado.
acho melhor rumar ele a maringa…..
-
205 cvs no motor. a transmissão desse carro acusou ~15% de perda. dados do próprio teste feito pela dynojet (sp).
qto a diferença no mapeamento de um motor injetado, tb tenho algumas dúvidas, inclusive qdo se troca o comando por um bem mais alto, pois a sincronia entre admissão e injeção é alterada.
sim, isso eu ja estudei, e muuuuito
obrigada, vou traduzir com calma
[snapback]615086[/snapback]
o dynojet faz calculo de perda na transmissão? acho que não, bom, pelo menos quando eu tinha a revista ele não freava a transmissão na desaceleração.
engraçado, parece q ja liiii esse texto
[snapback]615087[/snapback]
65 mm? isso tudo? em relação ao comando de válvulas, concordo,mas na casa gmb tem uns comandos tipo o 1.8 alcool 84/86 que caberiam bem ali hein?
atualmente o carro tem pouco mais de 145 cv a 5 mil , fazendo as contas vc ve que falta acerto , 7,4s de retomada 80-120 terceira marcha no carro completo,pesado.
acho melhor rumar ele a maringa…..
[snapback]615089[/snapback]
digo 65mm com um cabeçote e coletor nosso. venha que será bem atendido.
-
o dynojet faz calculo de perda na transmissão? acho que não, bom, pelo menos quando eu tinha a revista ele não freava a transmissão na desaceleração.
[snapback]615093[/snapback]
eu tb achei q não tinha o freio, mas outro dia postaram aqui q tem.
agora não entendi.
-
eu tb achei q não tinha o freio, mas outro dia postaram aqui q tem.
agora não entendi.
[snapback]615094[/snapback]
acho que não ka, só se ele comprou depois, posso estar enganado. pois até a full usa 20 a 25% de calculo magico para transferir potencia nas rodas para o motor….
-
muito bom..nivel arias motorsports(gol tomahalwk)….
evandro voce ja visitou o sr. juan aqui em interlagos...
ele ia gostar do capricho dessa montagem desse ap aspirado ..
-
muito bom..nivel arias motorsports(gol tomahalwk)….
evandro voce ja visitou o sr. juan aqui em interlagos...
ele ia gostar do capricho dessa montagem desse ap aspirado ..
[snapback]615107[/snapback]
obrigado. fiz a materia do gol deles, gostei de tudo naquele carro, principalmente o tanto que anda e faz curvas. não conheão o preparador pessoalmente, mas o cara sabe muito.
-
[snapback]615111[/snapback]
-
cc aproximados 2.1
taxa 16 no metanol
rpm de pico de potencia 6200
joga na f?rmula m?gica dá uns 235 cv mínimos/motor. nunca menos.
[snapback]615116[/snapback]
deixemos o fator de conversão m?gico pras revistas de tunnnning.
-
cc aproximados 2.1
taxa 16 no metanol
rpm de pico de potencia 6200
joga na f?rmula m?gica dá uns 235 cv mínimos/motor. nunca menos.
[snapback]615116[/snapback]
deixemos o fator de conversão m?gico pras revistas de tunnnning.
-
obrigado. fiz a materia do gol deles, gostei de tudo naquele carro, principalmente o tanto que anda e faz curvas. não conheão o preparador pessoalmente, mas o cara sabe muito.
[snapback]615112[/snapback]
falando em curvar,especialidade da casa aqui(rs), qual a receitinha b?sica pro focus duratec parar de sambar naquelas suspensões levantadasó alguem tem as molas da altura original ,do projeto original do carro em vez desse pulador de lombadas que sai da fabrica ?