it seems to me for a self-proclaimed "advanced" board, y'all don't talk much about
reducing pmep.

 

let me guess...there's no Japanese maker right?

 

Like polishing oil passages and coating the internals of the engine?

My friend(a hardcore Supra guy) swears by this anti friction coating. He coats all his internals.He says it helps "shed the oil" off the rotating assy. to effectively reduce the weight...
I dont know what all you can do to improve this w/o spending a bucketload of $$

 

I have seen some discussions about knife edging the crank here before, but nothing much beyond that.

I would love to see some talk about some of the other methods builders have, but rarely discuss.

Tear dropping oiling holes, porting the oil pump, opening up bearings, etc

Dry sump no doubt is the ultimate way to go about it, but the practicality and cost seems to deem it unreasonable.

 

Michael, you tell me your secrets first and I will tell you mine.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Michael Delaney &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">let me guess...there's no Japanese maker right? </TD></TR></TABLE>

doh... that was a low blow I'm still reading to make sure that I have a good understanding of bmep and imep.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by DonF &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Michael, you tell me your secrets first and I will tell you mine.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Secret #1 is that his name isn't Michael.

OK, for my initial and limited contribution to this thread, how about crank scrapers? It's rare that a "performance part" being peddled on eBay is given serious consideration in a tech forum, but Honda & Acura crank scrapers have somewhat recently shown up there, manufactured by a company called Ishihara-Johnson. They seem to be a relatively inexpensive (about $50) method of reducing windage losses, and the company also claims several additional benefits. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any specific downsides there would be to running one of these, so for the price, they might be worth investigating.

 

I actually have one, sitting in my closet and have been planning on doing a before/after dyno with one for some time. I have been putting it off because of the hassel of installing one at the shop the same day, so I could have an accurate test.

Just looking at it, I worry about its ability to properly seal. It bolts to the bottom of the block, then the pan bolts to it. Not to mention it is going to lower your oil pan down slightly (about 1/4") so I don't know how that would effect the oil pickup/level/etc.

Any thoughts?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by StyleTEG &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I actually have one, sitting in my closet and have been planning on doing a before/after dyno with one for some time. I have been putting it off because of the hassel of installing one at the shop the same day, so I could have an accurate test.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Those results should be interesting -- I look forward to seeing them (although I don't blame you for putting off the hassle of a same-day test).

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by StyleTEG &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Just looking at it, I worry about its ability to properly seal. It bolts to the bottom of the block, then the pan bolts to it. Not to mention it is going to lower your oil pan down slightly (about 1/4") so I don't know how that would effect the oil pickup/level/etc.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I think the main concern would be that the mating surfaces of the unit are completely even and true. As for the oil itself, from some <u>very</u> quick and rough calculations, the piece would increase the oil capacity by somewhere around 1/3 of a quart, assuming one wanted to maintain the original oil level in relation to the crank/block. Maintaining the level at the usual position on the dip stick should eliminate any issues with the pickup (even though the difference would be very slight, and there's definitely a bit of safety room) and the company also claims that installing the piece has the benefit of helping to keep more oil in the pan during cornering, somewhat like a baffle of sorts.

 

Padawan, the comment on secrets was not to you, but Michael, who started the thread. The crankscrapers do not leak, just use RTV, Honda-bond between them and the block, then the gasket. They are only .125 thick, and do take grinding to fit as the cranks very in counter-weight thickness.

 

so are you gonna talk about it? I noticed that you have quite a few aritcles on TI, which I intend on reading soon, do you have new stuff for us?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Michael Delaney &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">it seems to me for a self-proclaimed "advanced" board, y'all don't talk much about
reducing pmep.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

Wow... Welcome here TUAN , i love this guy article very much..

it just my smart *** oppinion:
-pumping losses , may be with gasported pistons : so when the piston go up for compresion it'll seal maximum, and the pistons goes down on intake stroke the rings would reduce the drag itself.
-windage losses: micropolishing cranks , and rounding shape the front face of the counter weight that hit the oil first.

BTW , Im using your calculation method in ignition timing for my thesis about thermal efficiency of honda motor.
I found out that the flame speed of your method on turbulence flame travel was 2,2 meter / second , and the travel was from plug to piston top ( 0,89mm) ... but when i found the other reference such as eng-tips.com most peeps say that the fastest turbulence flame speed was near 50meter/second, so im using it for my thessis and the travel was the plug to the bore radius wich is = bore/2. correct me if im wrong Michael...
Im just i smart ***
Im sorry if my language little bit confusing , but i think you got what i mean

 

Is there any effect of windage loss with a lighter rotational mass, i.e. a flywheel or a lighter crank pulley?

 

How much of a benefit is a crank scraper on an engine such as our I4's vs. say a domestic V8 for example were the crank sits down further protruding more so into the oil pan?

 

bisi has posted on other d series boards explaining his dynos of a knife edged crank showing gains up to 5whp.

 

To the top for another good discussion from Tuan.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by rochesterricer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">To the top for another good discussion from Tuan.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Up for any discussion from Tuan.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by civdx94 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">bisi has posted on other d series boards explaining his dynos of a knife edged crank showing gains up to 5whp.</TD></TR></TABLE>
could you give us the link ?

 

pics of a crank scraper?

 

 

Pics at crank-scrapers.com

 

Thank you....I actually pulled a google search after I asked the question. Thanks for posting the pics though, for other uninformed people like myself.

So how does it work?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Padawan &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

</TD></TR></TABLE>

What material is that made from? Looks like gasket material from the picture?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by WAFFLES &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
So how does it work?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Scrapes excess oil off the counterweights of the crank thus reducing rotating mass and keeps more oil down in the pan.

Affects are arguably minimal but every little bit counts.

 

JG has been doing that since the 80s.