|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> Ideal Engine /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1199770431 Message started by SteveRocket1 on 01/07/08 at 21:33:51 |
|
Title: Ideal Engine Post by SteveRocket1 on 01/07/08 at 21:33:51 If you could build the ideal engine using the Savage engine as a base. What would you put into it or do to it?. I'd say a Lancer Carb and Cam kit. But what else?. Please don't go too "Burt Munro" as I would like to make it a feasible thing for most to achieve. |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by verslagen1 on 01/07/08 at 22:23:52 Oil cooler and an improoved oil pump. |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by thumperclone on 01/07/08 at 22:53:04 if dollars were elm seeds.. stroke it,sleeve it,D port it,cam & carb,chain mod,id keep my hard krome muff....non engine mods..larger tank,forward controlls,alloys,custom saddle 4 my skinny arse,taller sissy bar and modded pillion for wifey,air shocks with on board compressor adjustable from handle bars,paint scheme,sound to light converter, etc etc |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/08/08 at 03:00:06 TC, I'll sell you the "Warp Speed" pod I got off Ebay from when Hans Solo parted out the Millineum Falcon. Seems like the only option you havent asked for. You might as well go all the way, huhh? |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by sluggo on 01/08/08 at 03:44:19 2F3036312C2B1A2A1A22303C77450 wrote:
really.... i got the ludicrist speed drive from spaceball one. so neener neener neeener......... :D |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by skrapiron on 01/08/08 at 04:52:26 He's gone plaid! :o :o :o |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by geo on 01/08/08 at 16:53:13 This 40 cubic inch engine with 4 valves and overhead cam with 94mm bore and stroke should be able to be easily modified to deliver 40hp. That's just 1hp per cubic inch. Most automobile engines today do better than this. My Honda gets about 1.78hp/cu-in, peak. The Chevy Corvette gets over 1hp/cu-in with 2-valves per cylinder and pushrod operated valves! :o What the heck limits the performance of this 650 engine? We have all modified the exhaust with dramatic improvements. The exhaust has no sharp bends, has plenty of pipe size. We have rejetted to throw more fuel at it. We still can't get better than 35hp out of this thing. We ought to be able to get about 50hp. What's the problem? Is it possible the valves are to small? Is it possible the stock carburetor isn't very good? :-/ Is there a better carburetor out there? Would fuel injection help? I suspect the valves are too small and the the flow passages in the cylinder head might have to be modified for better flow. That means a whole new cylinder head. Well, I don't think a performance cylinder head exists. While we're at it why don't we get rid of those silly forked rocker arms and go with 2 overhead cams? Sounds like a whole new engine project. Suzuki, I suspect wants to milk the S40 cash cow and spend there development money on the crotch rockets. :'( |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by thumperclone on 01/09/08 at 07:27:39 76696F6875724373437B69652E1C0 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by SteveRocket1 on 01/09/08 at 08:09:40 I have already sent off for the TARDIS upgrade. But which piston should I use with it? Apart from the Jokes ( which I like) I do have a spare engine and am thinking of rebuilding it bit by bit in the future and wondered what alternatives there were to stock. |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by thumperclone on 01/09/08 at 09:00:57 0126372437003D31393726520 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by SteveRocket1 on 01/09/08 at 09:22:33 "dont know what tardis is.. It comes from Dr Who it means Time And Relative Dimensions in Space. It was his Time machine/Spacecraft that was bigger in the inside than it was outside. |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by SteveRocket1 on 01/09/08 at 09:24:22 What does D porting mean. I have heard it mentioned but don't know what they do |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by thumperclone on 01/09/08 at 11:32:46 D porting.... material is added to the bottom of the ports and the shaped is changed to a D on its side, google D ports or D porting many thoughts on this theory...main theory is an increase in velocity and turbulence and scavanging in the ext for performance gains.... |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by verslagen1 on 01/09/08 at 11:38:22 So why D port? Why not smaller round ones? |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by thumperclone on 01/09/08 at 17:09:08 no expert here.. way i understand it turblance(help me here verslagen!)on the intake and scavanging on the exhaust..kinda like those add on plates for the carb with a venturi hole in them installed horz on the intake side of the carb u get a good mix of air and fuel..smaller the fuel perticles = more efficent burn = more go...more scavanging = more flow(?).. try this site mototuneusa has a page or so on D ports..also thing lancer did a D port job on one of his projects a while back should be able to find with the search function... |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by Ed L. on 01/09/08 at 17:40:15 I would like to see an adjustable ignition so you could advance the spark, better porting on the head, and a higher compression ratio. Changing the stroke might help but the piston is already moving as fast as it can without blowing apart so going long would be the thing to do. Of course this would kick up the torque but lower the max engine rpm. Adding a cam and one of Lancer's carbs would give the most bang for the buck for bolt ons. I still would like to try the ignition module advance mod, I bet that with the Lancer upgrades would get the engine close to 40hp. |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by LANCER on 01/09/08 at 18:17:31 From what I have seen of the inside of the cylinder head on the Savage, the exhaust ports are THE BOTTLE NECK in the entire system. The intake and exhaust valves may be a little on the small side but not so much for a street going bike. Unless you're going racing these valves will be fine. They will flow enough air, especially with the help of the Performance Camshaft, to make all the power needed for a street bike. And and increase in compression ratio has not even been mentioned yet. I was able to get 45 hp out of my engine with my Performance Carburetor Kit, Performance Camshaft, my custom made exhaust system (1 3/4" header with dual spiral core R&D muffler), and the cylinder with the silicone carbide treatment. The head was still virtually stock, with just a very litte opening of the exhaust port. Since then, the exhaust ports have been opened considerably more and the cylinder and head have been shaved a total of 0.040" to boost compression, which should result in a full point bump up to at least 9.5 to 1. I am expecting to see 50+ hp when it is back together. |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by SteveRocket1 on 01/10/08 at 08:06:22 This is getting very interesting. I would like to see a Super Savage like Lancers. I would think boring it out a little would also push the HP Steve |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by LANCER on 01/10/08 at 08:29:25 7D5A4B584B7C414D454B5A2E0 wrote:
This is just my opinion of course, but I have pretty much decided that I would not bore unless there was some damage to the engine that just made it necessary. I prefer putting the time & $$ into carb, porting, compression and exhaust to improve engine efficiency. Last year we talked a good bit about pistons to increase size and compression. Since we were never able to get the exact measurements needed to have the pistons manufactured, I have thought about the alternatives frequently. I needed a valve job on my newly ported head and decided to have the head/cyl shaved as long as it was in the shop. The cost of the shave was really cheap, about $40 if I remember correctly. This was done at a NAPA machine shop. Nice young fella there; willing to do different stuff other than the hundreds of auto parts he normally works on. He did say it was kind of challenging figuring out how to mount the bike parts on his machines. |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by Gary On A Savage on 01/10/08 at 08:42:14 50 HP, SWEET! Gosh, with all that extra power you are going to need that sportster wheel with the disk brake on the back to stop that puppy. Maybe duals on the front. And a bigger tank from tigman for the extra gas. |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by LANCER on 01/10/08 at 12:55:23 4442515A7C4C4D427C504255424446230 wrote:
Gotta tank..see... http://render1.snapfish.com/render2/is=Yup6aQQ%7C%3Dup6RKKt%3Axxr%3D0-qpDPfRt7Pf7mrPfrj7t%3DzrRfDUX%3AeQaQxg%3Dr%3F87KR6xqpxQQQaxJQexJlGxv8uOc5xQQQJallaPnJ0QqpfVtB%3F*KUp7BHSHqqy7XH6gX0QQQa%7CRup6lQQ%7C/of=50,590,442 http://render1.snapfish.com/render2/is=Yup6lQQ%7C%3Dup6RKKt%3Axxr%3D0-qpDPfRt7Pf7mrPfrj7t%3DzrRfDUX%3AeQaQxg%3Dr%3F87KR6xqpxQQQaxJQexJlGxv8uOc5xQQQJallaoQGnGqpfVtB%3F*KUp7BHSHqqy7XH6gX0QQPQ%7CRup6aQQ%7C/of=50,332,442 |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by verslagen1 on 01/10/08 at 13:13:37 I think I like your forward seat position. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by verslagen1 on 01/10/08 at 13:27:22 7B677A627F6A7D6C6360616A0F0 wrote:
I read the articles when (whoever) 1st posted. And I didn't understand the reason for a D port vs. a smaller round port then. I'm fine with the high speed flow and better mixing bit. Just not how they got there. No matter what the hole shape is, if you reduce the open area, whether round or D, you should get the same effect. Round holes are a lot easier to make. And you don't have to key the valve to keep it from rotating. |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by demin on 01/10/08 at 13:36:22 I have that same exact gas tank.I've been wondering what to do with it,paint wise.Kinda reminds me of futuristic look from the 70's. :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by LANCER on 01/10/08 at 14:07:16 746770716E6365676C33020 wrote:
The seat will be mounted a bit farther back, in the pic it is just sitting there ... nothing is attached yet. |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by LANCER on 01/10/08 at 14:14:14 6C6D656166080 wrote:
It reminds me of the "end view" of a WW2 fighter aircraft wing. http://render1.snapfish.com/render2/is=Yup6aQQ%7C%3Dup6RKKt%3AxxrKUp7BHD7Kofrj%3DQofrj7t%3DzrRfDUX%3AeQaQxg%3Dr%3F87KR6xqpxQQQaxJQexJlGxv8uOc5xQQQ0GlPnJleoQqpfVtB%3F*KUp7BHSHqqy7XH6gXPlo%7CRup6lQQ%7C/of=50,590,442 |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by fsmidt on 01/10/08 at 15:52:31 hi , i PM greg about this and reading this topic, i think it is time for a porting topic. i`m busy porting mine and like to have some feedback. http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h5/fsmidt/exhaust_big01.jpg inside dia of my raask is 49,5mm it is not ready yet..alittle more around the valveguide must dissapear and intake will be polished. |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by Gary On A Savage on 01/10/08 at 19:54:34 5D5C545057390 wrote:
What tank is that? What volume? |
|
Title: Re: Ideal Engine Post by LANCER on 01/11/08 at 01:44:09 7D7B68634575747B45697B6C7B7D7F1A0 wrote:
What tank is that? What volume?[/quote] 3.3 gal ,,, purchased on ebay, they should still be there. search for gas tanks for american v-twins, they have the standard shaped one and this version, cost about $149 or 129 I think. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |