K Series S/C kit

[KingK_series]

Interesting post bob, even more looking forward to a shotty of yours now.

Craig I am astounded with it , I will get it remapped in the new year and and get the bodywork sorted then I will pop down to see you

Here is a thought -

http://www.dyno-plot.co.uk/dyno/dynoplo ... /index.htm

It seems the VVC is not achieving much, and has the risk of flying to bits above 7,500 rpm. -

[hiscot]

Interesting post bob, even more looking forward to a shotty of yours now.

Craig I am astounded with it , I will get it remapped in the new year and and get the bodywork sorted then I will pop down to see you

Here is a thought -

http://www.dyno-plot.co.uk/dyno/dynoplo ... /index.htm

It seems the VVC is not achieving much, and has the risk of flying to bits above 70500 rpm. -

Thing is Simon the problem I find with dynoplot is there is never enough detail on the build to compare like for like . for instance what boost is rob using and on the original tt260 it used the std length vhpd rods that raised the c/r and gave them good figures.
0.8 on a fresh charger gave nearly 300bhp .Sadly the rod (imo was not strong enough for the torque ) often went through the block hence TT used shorter rods but lost power in the process I believe approx 240ish with the shorter rods ( but I may be wrong ) I have a tt260 with the shorter rods , in this case std k turbo rods but have also seen and have a photo of the tt spec lower rods and they are rubbish too !( same as a turbo k rod with turbo technics cast on )
My engine has the std length but stronger custom made rods with custom pistons to suit, but it is a trade off to how far I can lower the c/r and keep a strong piston / rod combo
hence I run a highish c/r ,low boost setup

[KingK_series]

Thing is Simon the problem I find with dynoplot is there is never enough detail on the build to compare like for like . for instance what boost is rob using and on the original tt260 it used the std length vhpd rods that raised the c/r and gave them good figures.
0.8 on a fresh charger gave nearly 300bhp .Sadly the rod (imo was not strong enough for the torque ) often went through the block hence TT used shorter rods but lost power in the process I believe approx 240ish with the shorter rods ( but I may be wrong ) I have a tt260 with the shorter rods , in this case std k turbo rods but have also seen and have a photo of the tt spec lower rods and they are rubbish too !( same as a turbo k rod with turbo technics cast on )
My engine has the std length but stronger custom made rods with custom pistons to suit, but it is a trade off to how far I can lower the c/r and keep a strong piston / rod combo
hence I run a highish c/r ,low boost setup

TT270 ran at 0.7 bar, think RobC's is the same, the difference is more cam lift, running just 9.38mm VVC inlet lift on a 31.5mm valve is a waste of valve and untapped potential.

- did you see OE rods in TT conversions break??? - don't think so

The story I had directly from TT was that they didn't like the B/E machining - I have no doubt the mixed rods and caps, because that criticism would have shopping trolly engines throwing rods in every Sainsbury's car park, but consequently did their own rod.


FYI the OE K turbo rod is the same forging as NA 1.8L engines and the centers are only fractionally different [ not quite sure what it is but 0.5mm?] despite this the rod angle was sufficiently acute to cause the rev limit to be dropped by 500 rpm on the low pressure cars. The engines suffered a knocking at BDC christened "dub dub' at Longbridge - 3mm shorter rods in the TT conversion or the new revamp is just just asking for problems, and silly because a little though and engineering would find a solution without shortening the rod.

[tut]

I remember following the thread of David Brown many years ago. TT were going for their ultimate conversion on an S1 Exige aiming at 280hp. His car was in for a year before he got it back after all the problems, and he sold it shortly after.

Not sure if they attempted any others after that.

tut

[KingK_series]

I remember following the thread of David Brown many years ago. TT were going for their ultimate conversion on an S1 Exige aiming at 280hp. His car was in for a year before he got it back after all the problems, and he sold it shortly after.

Not sure if they attempted any others after that.

tut

Do you remember what the problems were?

- I mean really it should not be hard to do -

but using a short rod is chucking a spanner at it, and it would seem the same is true again....

[hiscot]

Simon I have never seen a tt 260 rod break but have read the horror stories from owners that had them all a very long time ago I believe the tt260 used std length rods but changed to the shorter rods because of problems
and yes they where set for .7 bar but with a fresh rebuild have seen .8
also simon is your dynoplot with the std length rods or the short version, again my point about dynoplot is where is the spec , we can work out rob c, c/r ratio off his post on seloc but again where is it on dynoplot I also know you have guessed his boost is at 0.7 so again we cannot compare the two graphs with out the missing info do you not agree ?
my tt260 engine made 272 at 0.7 but with a rpm cut at 7900 and whilst I agree the vvc cams are not the best imo nor where the vhpd having such a large overlap I would not use either off them for forced induction

[hiscot]

I remember following the thread of David Brown many years ago. TT were going for their ultimate conversion on an S1 Exige aiming at 280hp. His car was in for a year before he got it back after all the problems, and he sold it shortly after.

Not sure if they attempted any others after that.

tut

Do you remember what the problems were?
rods through the block and crank problems his engine got line bored if i remember he put up with it for quite a while as when it went it went very well ,the one 340 r only lasted a week before he gave up

- I mean really it should not be hard to do -

but using a short rod is chucking a spanner at it, and it would seem the same is true again....

it was a quick fix that worked as tt where loosing money , only about 7 tt260 got built but every one gave problems and tt stood by their warranty

[KingK_series]

Simon I have never seen a tt 260 rod break but have read the horror stories from owners that had them all a very long time ago I believe the tt260 used std length rods but changed to the shorter rods because of problems
and yes they where set for .7 bar but with a fresh rebuild have seen .8
also simon is your dynoplot with the std length rods or the short version, again my point about dynoplot is where is the spec , we can work out rob c, c/r ratio off his post on seloc but again where is it on dynoplot I also know you have guessed his boost is at 0.7 so again we cannot compare the two graphs with out the missing info do you not agree ?
my tt260 engine made 272 at 0.7 but with a rpm cut at 7900 and whilst I agree the vvc cams are not the best imo nor where the vhpd having such a large overlap I would not use either off them for forced induction

I am told that all the TT270 engines ran 8.4:1 CR

[tut]

Been looking for the posts in my Database Simon, but it was back in 2003 and not traced it yet. This is what I posted at the time:-

"It turned out 270hp. Turbo Technics used David’s car to do the development work on, but in the end it took them nearly a year, and each time it came out there was something wrong. I think they sorted it out in the end, and one of the Mags did a review of it.

However he sold it shortly after."

tut