|
Plus, it looks like they'd be easy to clock them at the 30° apart to get that sweet noise.
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
um excuse me posted:Just went through the thread and actually read it. Your ECUs clock rate is low enough where it isn't calculating every cycle. All it cares about is how much air it's getting, and how much fuel to give it. The ECU on an older car is basically designed to make the engine run away and explode if the throttle wasn't physically blocking air. The throttle position sensor is for calculating pressure which is used to figure out volumetric efficiency to determine how much fuel to use. That's the equation going on in the front half. You're overlooking spark advance/timing since the Duratec 30 has full sequential fuel injection, and running the engines out of sync will definitely lead to a loss of performance. Also knock sensing. The later ones have variable valve timing (06+).
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 21:17
|
|
|
Side by side? One in front of the other? I think the solution is to get two more engines and do both in one giant bank of engines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
QuarkMartial posted:Side by side? One in front of the other? If you are going to have 4 engines you got 4 wheels don't you? Use those unimog offset axles things so you can offset the engines and install 4 gas pedals and ditch the steering wheel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
Wrar posted:You're overlooking spark advance/timing since the Duratec 30 has full sequential fuel injection, and running the engines out of sync will definitely lead to a loss of performance. Also knock sensing. The later ones have variable valve timing (06+). Are still talking two ECUs here? Knock and timing are their own systems. If you share one ECU, yes, this will be hell unless you engineer the poo poo out of Barry and Larry's cradle. They should have no input on one engine loading another. Especially if they're throttle linked. That gives me an idea, the engines should have a giant dual carb throttle linkage between them, it would look kick rear end. um excuse me fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Jul 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
honda whisperer posted:4jz no poo poo. This but with 1JZs 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 00:05
|
|
|
Bajaha posted:Plus, it looks like they'd be easy to clock them at the 30° apart to get that sweet noise. Are you sure about the 30° number? If these are even-fire engines, they should be 60° apart - 6 firing pulses in 720° means they’re 120° apart. To split that would mean they’re 60° apart, not 30°
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
QuarkMartial posted:Side by side? One in front of the other? This question is answered on the previous page.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
charliemonster42 posted:Are you sure about the 30° number? If these are even-fire engines, they should be 60° apart - 6 firing pulses in 720° means they’re 120° apart. To split that would mean they’re 60° apart, not 30° This is correct. I think the 30-degree number is my fault for throwing it out a page or two back without calculating (I had a time constraint.) It was an incorrect recollection.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 19:45
|
|
|
QuarkMartial posted:Side by side? One in front of the other? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 00:06
|
|
|
Actually looking at the Detroit example got me thinking, while there's no off the shelf solution for blowering a Duratec it can't be that much more work to slap a pair of M90s off 3800s onto these lumps... the heads extend out so that the ports are all on a single plane, would make a pair of custom manifolds a piece o'piss.
Turbo Fondant fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Jul 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 00:17
|
|
|
M90s have that horrible long snout, and the cast-in throttle body mount. M62s are, as I recall, the same capacity, but short snout and a much friendlier TB mounting flange. This is not to discourage your idea in any way, however.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
Bibendum posted:GM has got it sorted. That must have sounded like a chorus of angels.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
Bibendum posted:GM has got it sorted. See, Bibendum knows what's up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
User Error posted:That must have sounded like a chorus of angels. Unfortunately being a two stroke diesel and set up for marine use you should imagine a 24 hour/day drone of c# played on the devils rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 04:32
|
|
|
Bibendum posted:Unfortunately being a two stroke diesel and set up for marine use you should imagine a 24 hour/day drone of c# played on the devils rear end in a top hat. And the oil leaks. Don't forget the oil leaks. Paint any surface Alpine Green, and it'll seep oil forever. I've spent my time around Detroit Diesels. Screaming Jimmy's. 12v149s, 671s, 12v71s, 8v92s, 453s, you name it. My vote is to install a 16-184 pancake motor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
Bibendum posted:24 hour/day drone of c# played on the devils rear end in a top hat. My new prog rock bandname, NumbersMatching320 posted:Actually looking at the Detroit example got me thinking, while there's no off the shelf solution for blowering a Duratec it can't be that much more work to slap a pair of M90s off 3800s onto these lumps... the heads extend out so that the ports are all on a single plane, would make a pair of custom manifolds a piece o'piss. I really only researched these engines once i got them, but they show up everywhere from 508hp twin turbo Rossion Q1s to 395hp/8700rpm N/A track cars. If one eats itself down the line, i would expect to slap 2 $100 ebay turbos on it and see what the other one has in it. I think money and health are going to be an issue for the next little while, but I'm going to try to keep moving forward with what i can. Right now it feels like Hal trying to change a light bulb, i have to finish R&Ring the deck so i know how much wood i have left over to build the table and engine cradle to work on everything, but first i have to clean everything up underneath it which involves moving a bunch of extra concrete pavers the POs let which means i might as well put them where they need to be, which involves a whole pile of lndscaping https://i.imgur.com/rQIb4Vw.mp4 I'm glad i started the thread early though, because i would have hosed things up so bad without you guys.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 05:49
|
|
|
Powershift posted:I'm glad i started the thread early though, because i would have hosed things up so bad without you guys. Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 06:31
|
|
|
Silly sounding but actually serious thought - depending on what you do for a coupling (chain coupling vs giubo vs whatever) if you have any debate about phasing angle between the two engines... just try different stuff. Mechanically and electrically (if they're on separate ECUs) it won't matter. Just think of say, using the chain coupling, fiddling it over by one tooth on the sprocket, starting, doing a couple revs, "Hm, it sounded better two teeth over..."
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 10:57
|
|
|
Powershift posted:I really only researched these engines once i got them, but they show up everywhere from 508hp twin turbo Rossion Q1s to 395hp/8700rpm N/A track cars. If one eats itself down the line, i would expect to slap 2 $100 ebay turbos on it and see what the other one has in it. I support anything in the range of 1-4+ turbos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 12:41
|
|
|
Powershift posted:I think money and health are going to be an issue for the next little while, but I'm going to try to keep moving forward with what i can. Right now it feels like Hal trying to change a light bulb, i have to finish R&Ring the deck so i know how much wood i have left over to build the table and engine cradle to work on everything, but first i have to clean everything up underneath it which involves moving a bunch of extra concrete pavers the POs let which means i might as well put them where they need to be, which involves a whole pile of lndscaping This is my reality. Cascading projects.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 00:05
|
|
|
Project Creep is just the intro.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 01:29
|
|
|
The final goal is a circle-jerk of projects feeding into one another, ad infinitum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
Darchangel posted:The final goal is a circle-jerk of projects feeding into one another, ad infinitum. Project Ourboros
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
kasteins' yard?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 06:25
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:kasteins' yard? Where's he been lately, anyhow? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
Beach Bum posted:Where's he been lately, anyhow? Thrashing on his
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
Yeah, he was posting about moving in the near future, which means the House of Theseus needs to be actually finished and sellable one assumes. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 07:41
|
|
|
There's regular updates on the house of But back to the V6*2, I think there's some really interesting discussion going on. Is it correctly understood that the crankshaft closest to the transmission will see double the torque? I can't quite picture it in my head...
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 09:01
|
|
|
The input will be equal to the output. Imagine an engine connected to a shaft about 2 feet long. The input torque is 250 ft lbs. What will be the torque at the other end? The answer is 250 ft lbs, because there is nother acting upon it. Now if the shaft happens to be the crankshaft of another engine, the result is identical, minus the torque the second engine is producing. If the first engine is identical to the second it can be expressed that the torque at the output will be 2x the input.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 09:06
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:The input will be equal to the output. Imagine an engine connected to a shaft about 2 feet long. The input torque is 250 ft lbs. What will be the torque at the other end? The answer is 250 ft lbs, because there is nother acting upon it. Now if the shaft happens to be the crankshaft of another engine, the result is identical,
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question? quote:...the result is identical, minus the torque the second engine is producing. If the first engine is identical to the second it can be expressed that the torque at the output will be 2x the input. Unless I'm misunderstanding, that "minus" should be "plus". The significance of the first and second engines being identical is that they would then both have the same output, so the result could be simplified to: "2x the input" rather than "inputa + inputb" ... which is what (I think) it actually is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:Unless I'm misunderstanding, that "minus" should be "plus". The significance of the first and second engines being identical is that they would then both have the same output, so the result could be simplified to: Actually, the front engine will be driving an alternator and power steering pump, so they will vary a little. There's still going to be ~400ftlbs of torque going trough the rear driveshaft, but they're forged driveshafts, so i'm really not worried about that. I think the most likely points of failure are abnormal main bearing wear, or weird vibrations transmitted to the valvetrain, I can see the transmission not enjoying the whole situation, but as far as i can tell, the internals are identical to the mustang GT's 5R55S, and there are dudes with 500whp on those. Also, front what i understand, both the Rossion Q1 at 508hp/521ftlbs, and the Juno SS3 V6 at 390hp and 8700rpm still use the stock crank. Powershift fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Jul 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:Unless I'm misunderstanding, that "minus" should be "plus". The significance of the first and second engines being identical is that they would then both have the same output, so the result could be simplified to: I think that's exactly what we was saying, just in a really nerdy engineer sort of way. He is equating the shaft in his comparison to the crankshaft of the rear engine, and saying that the torque measured on the output would be the same, except that you'd have to minus whatever torque the rear engine was producing (for it to be the same as the shaft). I did the same double take when I read it. We ain't minus'in no horsepowers here, boy! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 22:44
|
|
|
Unless i accidentally install one backwards. I've learned not to work on poo poo when i haven't slept so the percentage chance of that happening should be down into the single digits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Actually, the front engine will be driving an alternator and power steering pump, so they will vary a little. angryrobots posted:I think that's exactly what we was saying, just in a really nerdy engineer sort of way. Right? I'm not asking in a "I need to be right" sense, but I want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 01:04
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Unless i accidentally install one backwards. In which case, zero torque. Or you invent the first AC ICE engine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
I was going to chalk it up to a misspeak and move on, but since it's persisting I'll clarify that I was describing how the torque output of the lead engine will be indentical of the output torque of the trailing engine minus the torque of the trailing engine, ignoring efficiency losses. τtotal - τtrailing=τleading. Just another way of writing the equation for different perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
LloydDobler posted:In which case, zero torque. Or you invent the first AC ICE engine. External combustion engine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 01:34
|
|
