gemellocattivo.com

10-26-2007
If the QV heads are even close, wonders can be worked with a grinder, a welder and a sand blaster to make it all look the same and hide the seams (if you need help with that, let me know) - that's why modern racing that requires stock parts often also requires the stock surface finish and they keep an OEM sample on hand to compare the finish - d*mn cheaters everywhere



The contact is:
David Yaeger
P: 215.239.7618
F: 215.359.0600
productdevelopmentfactory@netzero.com

There are specific mold and casting most geared toward designing the molds. The software I have will do draft, but I need to tell it where the parting lines are, and that really an experience thing knowing what makes a good parting line and what doesn't. Normally, draft is about the last thing added to the model because it's hard to know where the parting lines will be before you know what the pat looks like.

10-27-2007
This is pretty mild crazy by my standards

Here's the old engine numbers. The new engine isn't here yet, but I'll snap a pic when I get it.

10-27-2007
I honestly never even thought about it until you asked....I just wanted a V12

The new engine is 50% more cylinders, but not 50% more parts, so lets say it's about 100 lb heavier than stock. But the CIS is gone, that's got to be 20 lbs, 50lb OEM muffler will drop to say 25 lb aftermarket, and my fancy carbon-carbon clutch is another 10 lb savings. So a 45 lb gain almost right over the rear axle. Stock weight is 3200, 35/65 split putting 2080 on the rear axle stock. It will now be about 2125 with a total weight of 3245, making the f/r split 34.5/65.5. Not too bad.

Before I started this project, I had a supercharger mounted to the V8. When I boxed it up and shipped everything to the new owner, it was over 100 lbs. So the V12 should be almost exactly the same weight as the supercharged V8 and the car handled pretty well with the old engine, well enough to win in the street modified 2 class at a few autocrosses. And no matter what I do, it's still better than a 911

10-27-2007
That's a good question.

I'm doing my best to make drawings and will see if it makes any sense to offer the parts for the conversion. Final price would depend on standard engine or if head conversion stuff is needed and a few other things, but I suspect the basic stuff to install a standard 365/400/412 engine will end up running around $5k-$8k and it might be that much again to add the TR heads and final drive ratio change and such.

Should I just go ahead and make 2 or everything then so it's ready for you?

10-29-2007
I started working out the throttle body respacing tonight and it seems pretty straight forward with 1 small exception. The fuel rail has a 0.178” ID, which seems absolutely tiny to me. I normally use ½” ID fuel rail on everything I do. In a quick search I didn’t turn up anything about the bikes running crazy fuel pressure, but I did find a bunch of larger aftermarket fuel rail kits. So I’ll make up the TB spacers like I was planning, but I’m going to make new larger fuel rails so I know I won’t have any problem. I’m going to try to get everything ordered for it tomorrow.

I’ve also decided to go ahead and fab the intake instead of casting…I just don’t see how I’d ever justify the mold cost. So I’m going to get that material on order too. I’m going to try to get the TBs and manifold knocked-out before the engine gets here.

Michael out at http://www.ferrariservice.com where i bought the engine (and also the TR heads) has been pretty busy I guess, but says the engine will go this week for sure, so 1 more week before the real fun begins.

10-30-2007
In a quick sidetrack Paul got me thinking about variable valve timing. I can conceive how I could roll one of both of the cams around, but I can’t get my engine software to tell me it helps very much. I spent a hour trying all the viable timing options. What it says is that there is the right timing +/- 1 degree where I pick up about 3 or 4 hp on top at the expense of 3 or 4 down low and then the wrong timings where I loose on both the top and the bottom. Surprisingly, the right timing is….. exactly factory euro spec.

I also played around with lift and duration numbers and the answer is…..factory euro spec again. At least with the flow numbers from the ported QV heads. Adding more flow adds hp everywhere which is not a surprise since the QV head flow came out a little low for a 375cc cylinder, so it’s even more low for a 400cc cylinder. If I could get the flow up to optimal, I can reduce the cam duration about 5-10 degrees and gain about 30hp from idle to redline.

So, the computer things I should spend my time on porting the heads and leave the cams and cam timing alone.

10-31-2007

car serial number is 50761

10-31-2007
I can plug anything you find into the software and see. I went as far as 118 LSA and down as low as 100 and got nothing but bad results. I’m starting to thing the car companies are selling bunk with the variable time stuff.

I’ve read a lot of stuff from tuner type places that say roll the cam this way for low end or that way for better top end, but I’ve never seen it work. A buddy of mine does flow work and a lot of Harleys. In putting together his kit he bought I think 12 or 15 cams with the timing moved around in 2 degree steps and it did exactly what the computer said it would. Rolling 1 way chop top end power with no low end gains, moving the other way chops low end with no top end gains….when I said no gains, he got 1% to 2% gain at the expense of 3ish % on the other end, and once it was 4 degrees out of position there was less power everywhere.

I think the simple variable valve timing systems are designed to reduce emissions with increased LSA preventing fuel from escaping out the exhaust at pollution test loads, then they roll the cam back to the correct location to make power…..at least that’s how it looks to me. One thing I can’t get off the computer is I think big cams may be smoother down low and idle better with more LSA which might make it a better mannered driver…I’ll have to think about that one.

The BMW, and Ferrari systems change the valve lift and duration and then change the manifold tuned length to match, doing that on the computer I see some improvement down low, 10% ish….but I have no clue how I would change the valve lift and duration

I've seen lots of 2v heads outflow 4v heads too. Air prefers 1 big hole to 2 small ones because there is less total perimeter. The problem is that 1 big valve needs to open a lot further than 2 small valves do, about twice as far. To do that, you either have to move it twice as fast which just hammers the valve train or you need to give it more time (duration). Generally you find they do some of each, with a 2 v engine running about 20 degrees more .05 lift duration than a 4v engine for any given rpm range. The extra duration makes the engine a little less efficient and harder to pass emissions with.

A 3 valve makes quite a bit of sense since the exhaust valve is already significantly smaller than the intake, so there is much less to be gained by putting in 2 tiny ones. Something like 75% of the advantage of a 4v comes from the intake side, but it’s only ½ the cost increase of going 4V.

10-31-2007
My car looks like in needs a paint job

Yes, I bought it oh, 7 years ago from Fred Hooper.

10-31-2007
Since the computer keeps say "it's all about the flow stupid", I ordered a buch of stuff to build a flow bench. Now just I need to find a scrap TR head to practice on.