Paar rida NA tuunijatele.

[jeff01]

Olen puht sportlikust huvist hakanud lappama cal-looki foorumis PURE RACING osa kus otsitakse vastust küsimusele kuidas saavutada suurim liitri jõud. Sest tegelikult on kadumas võimsad vabalthingavad seoses interneti tuleku ja "out of the box" mõttevõime vähenemisega. Liialdamata 90% projektidest saavad alguse nii, et tehakse kellegi koopia sest nii on lihtne. Teine suur põhjus on selles, et mujal maailmas pole võistlusklassid enam sellised nagu eestis kus töömaht on otseses seoses miinimumkaaluga nagu see vanasti oli.
See teema ei pruugi teile vajalikku infot anda kuid postitan siia siiski mõningaid valemeid, mõttekäike jne mida pean vajalikuks kuhugi talletada et need vajadusel üles leida. Jätan need esialgu originaal keelde, et välistada võimalikud valesti tõlgendamise võimalused.

Miks Bore on liitri jõu taga ajamisel olulisem kui stroke:
John Maher:

Increasing bore and reducing stroke delivers two significant benefits to a high rpm race engine… the shorter stroke reduces piston speed and the larger bore makes room for bigger valves…..

Imagine a theoretical drag race series dictating a maximum capacity of 2276cc (normally 82mm x 94mm). If the rules allow any combination of bore and stroke I’d be looking at say a 101.6mm bore rather than 94mm, and reducing stroke from 82mm to 70mm (2270cc). A set of suitably modified 101.6mm heads would easily outflow anything you could fit on a 94mm bore engine.

Second major gain is a reduction in piston speed. At 7000rpm, an 82mm stroke motor has an average piston speed of 3766 feet per minute. Reduce stroke, the piston has less distance to travel in the same time and speed falls to 3215 feet/min for the 70mm crank at the same rpm. Therefore higher rpm is on the cards with the 70mm stroke and the bigger ports and valves of the 101.6mm heads can make some serious power, assuming they’re teamed up with suitable cam, induction, exhaust etc

Horsepower lost to friction is also a factor with approx 75% of an engine's friction hp being caused by ring to cylinder contact. The reduction in stroke more than offsets the extra contact area of the larger diameter rings so more power is being used to turn the engine than being lost as heat.

Currently there’s no real incentive to persuade someone to build a short stroke, big bore n/a engine because having a higher bhp/litre ratio isn't going to win you the race if the guy in the next lane has more total bhp. But if you're looking to maximise bhp/litre, IMO this would be the route to explore.

[jeff01]

Johannes Persson (Rootsist ) on 1 vähestest kes jagab ka oma kasutatavaid valemeid ja neid sooviks samuti siia kopeerida kuna asjasse vähegi süvenedes saab aru mis on tehtud valesti ja kuidas oleks õigem. Sest selliste asjade läbi arvutamises mitte teiste järgi ehitades peitubki jõud mitte ebay hp (Selle all pean silmas seda et oleme keskendunud peak hp-le mitte sellele, et mootoril jaguks jõudu üle terve käigu tõmmata.)
Rootsimaal elab ka Fredrik Grönlund kellel minuteada võimsaim ~1600ne....vähemalt siinpool maakera. Tal on ka isiklik dünopink kus eranditult vaid volkareid tõmmatakse ja kuigi ta on turbokatele pühendunud siis püüab ta alati ise asjad läbi mõelda / arvutada / katsetada mitte kedagi teist kopeerida ja tema L/HP ületab juba mikidemaa pärleid.

Grönlund:

In common we have small but a very interesting VW sceene here in vasa. One example is that Last year we had first VW dyno day (in vasa) and most powerfull "stroker" engine where in the range of 160-170 WHP..
One year later the max power output has rise already to 195whp..
What it comes to blown engines we have turbo/compressor engines between 180-390whp and now when we have got the magic E85 fuel there are moore to come...

Pole nagu väga julm onju? aga see 390hp jutt käib 1600se mootori kohta

Perssoni tulevase mootori spec + arvutused kust mina küll paar head valemit leidsin.

I have decided to build a "mouse motor" with almost only original parts and by using some simple math and sience.

Engine spec:

Case: original AS41
Crank:German stock
Rods:German stock
Pistons:JE 86mm 24mm comp hight
Cylinders:Stock 85,5mm honed to 86mm
Heads:043 40x32mm valves
Compression:12,0:1
Rockers:Jpm two stud 1,5:1 ratio
P-rods:Manton 3/8" cromoly
Cam:Fk45in/Fk44 ex
Cam gears:Magnum
Oilpump:26mm
Deepsump:1,5lit
Flywheel:180mm stock lightend
Clutch disc:cush lock
Pressure plate:Kennedy
Header:Custom made 1 5/8" tuned length
Manifolds:Custom made tuned length(second order)
Carbs:IDA 48

The most expensive parts in this concept is the JE pistons, but I feel they are nessecery if the calculated power should be optained.

All the parts will of course be inspected and modified(linebored,shuffle pinned,balanced,fullflowed etc..........) to take the higher output.

Heads:

The heads will recive a little welding in some areas and ported to achive as high flow as possible in the limitations of the calculated port size.

Cam:

I will use a cam with split duration, fk45 intake and fk44 exhaust.The less ex duration will give a superior midrange without loosing top end, if the ex port flows enough, a good choise when using a "Hi-Po" engine on
the street.

I have decided to use a 40mm intake valve because of the 86mm bore, and the valve will not be moved to the center of the cylinder,a bigger valve will be to much shrouded from the cylinder wall.

Calculation:

The formula I will use to see how much rpm the 40mm valve will be good for is:

RPM=3300000xPort dia xPort dia/BorexBore xStroke

This formula is based on a mean port velocity at 110m/s or(360ft/s), and the Port dia is the smallest area in the port.

As this engine is going to be used as a street engine the smallest port size I will use is 0,88 x valve dia(0,88x40=35,2mm)

RPM calculation:3300000x35,2x35,2/86x86x69=8012rpm

The teoretical rpm where peak power will be is 8012 rpm.

Now we have the RPM,diplacement but not the Bmep, a realistic Bmep is between 12-13 bar(171-185psi), so I choose 12,5bar Bmep.With this information we can calculate the POWER of the "mouse motor".

Formula:

P=Displ x rpm x Bmep/910

POWER=1,603 x 8012 x 12,5 / 910 = 176,4hp

This is the power that could be expected from the "mouse motor" if everything is properly done.


With properly done I mean everything like heads,compression,cam timing,exhaust length,intake length,friction etc..................... .

I will start on this project in the next week but as I run a company it will take some time to finish it, probably in mars 2008.

During that time I will keep you updated with pictures and info as the project continous.

When the "mouse motor" is done there will be som serious dyno testing and tuning, hopefully we will see the numbers that i come up with in the calculations above.

To me,this is what I belive is "Thinking outside the box" and "The next level".

[jeff01]

Kolvisõrme nihutamisest tuleneva HEA :

1: You do not get that much piston "rattle" when the the piston pin is closer to the rings,means less blow by.
2: It is very important to get as short push rods and cyl studs as possible, when rpm is going up a shorter(stiffer,lighter) is extremely important and the rgidity of the cylinder and heads are improved a lot, (better valve control).You also end up with a narrower engine that fits better in your car , win win situation.

Ta unustas muidugi ka kaalu vähenemise

EDIT: Kune eelmine postitus on niigi pikk siis lisan siia osa mis eelmise postiga kokku sobib:

BMEP (brake mean effective pressure) is a useful way of comparing efficiency of various engines, regardless of capacity or manufacturer.

BMEP formula below calculates AVERAGE pressure (psi) acting on the piston during the entire four stroke cycle.

BMEP =(2471.174 x Torque) / engine cc

To find torque from Johannes calculations (176.4bhp @ 8012 rpm)....

Torque (ftlb) = (bhp x 5252) / RPM

so.......

Torque = (176.4 x 5252) / 8012 = 115.6ftlb i.e 115.6ftlb @ 8012rpm

Plug the torque value into the BMEP formula and you have...

BMEP =(2474.174 x 115.6ftlb) / 1602cc = 178.5psi = 12.3 bar

The maths and physics used to calculate the engine's power potential are sound. Now it's simply a matter of making it reality.

[jeff01]

Kuna mulle kohutavalt meeldivad ammu-ammu ehitatud mootorid (Sest siis polnud kõike saada ja pidi kombineerima ja leiutama) siis lisan ühe 80nendate rallikrossi mootori siia mis umbes sama liitri/hobujõuga nagu need mida taga otsime. 1585cc/160 hp

Nagu näha siis meh pritse ja dry sump

[jeff01]

Kui ülalpool rääkisin kolvisõrme nihutusest siis JE kolbidel on asjaga üsna ekstreemsuseni mindud ja just neid Persson oma järgmises 1600se projektis kasutabki.

Kes suudab omale stock 1600se kolvi silme ette kuvada on vahe ikka metsik.


Kuna eesmärgiks on ka hea throttle response ja tänaval nõutav mugavus pole olulised siis juhin tähelepanu hoorattale


Aga üldises pildis soovitan vaadata nii, et ei plokikaaned, väntvõll, kepsud või midagi sellist pole siin midagi siinmaal nägematud vaid täiesti standardsed asjad. Kasutab lihtsalt uusi asju, kuna soovib, et asi koos püsiks. Sellised tõukurvarda torud on lihtsalt vajalikud kuna mootor tuleb mitu-mitu sentimeetrit kitsam et see 8000 pöördega koos püsiks (lühemad tõukurvardad, plokikaanepoldid jne jne annab kõik lisatugevust) Ahjaa....hooratas kaalub 3,2kg
Kaaned keevitusse, et neid saaks korralikult portida:





Väike tera kah juurde seoses selle põlemiskambri kujuga mis saavutati:

..... note how close the camber wall is to the valve on the none sparkplug side, this is to get the extension of the intake port shaped as a venturi.This boosts the flow from 10mm lift and up it also improves the quality of incomming mixture, in my experience, unshrouding the vale at this side will improve the flow on low lifts but will decrease the power.

Ja kaane flow bench tulemused mis on veidi paremadki kui Persson ise lootis:

Flownumbers CFM at 25"H2O.
lift(mm) Flow(intake) Flow(exhaust)
2 42,6 39,5
4 81,3 73,3
6 111,4 96,5
8 136,7 115,5
10 159,4 130,3
12 177,5 141,8
14 188,2 148,5
16 194,9 152,5

The Port velocity(intake) meassured in the center of the port at the flange is 298ft/s this is where the port is the biggest.
Same measurements on the ex port is 324ft/s.The outlet is only 34mm, going too big on the outlet will slow down the speed and the overall power will drop.
First I did some tests with an old head to see what intake flow numbers I could reach, when I saw the unexpected high numbers I had to increase the ex valve from 32mm to 35,5mm.

[jeff01]

Väheke võrdlevaid pilte:



ja mootor ongi koos:


Nice Response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPVqYRrQ ... r_embedded[/video]

Meistri vastused väljalaske pikkuse ja response kohta:

Beetlebug:using a too long header will hurt the top end power, the torque curve will drop earlier in the rpm range.
If the rest of the engine is tuned at a high rpm a too long header hurts the output a lot.

67-indeed/DVK:It is a combination between light rotating parts and good cylinder pressure that makes an engine snap.

Kunagi kulunuks mullegi selline rida ära kuid selle teada saamiseks kulus vähemalt aasta :

The size of the counterweight has nothing to do with the balancing job. The counterweight helps prevents flexing of the crank. The ideal counterweight for a VW crank is much heavier than is physically possible. In other words, they are never big enough.

Esimene düno tulemus:

POWER:138,8kW 188.7hp/7670rpm
TORQUE:192.4Nm/6100rpm(138,7lbs)

Ja teise tõmbega saavutati väike lisa:

The engine responded really good with an improvement from 138,8-143,3kW or 188,7-194,9hp the torque increased from 191-195Nm (138-141lbs).

195hp / 195 NM
122heppa liitri kohta ja olemegi leidnud selle mida otsisime kuid mis 80nendail ja 90nendail veel nii tavaline oli

Ja nii, nagu meil hinnatakse vaid peak HP-d siis samamoodi hinnatakse ka nukkvõlle kuid kui läbi lugeda see annab see asjale hoopis teise valguse ja kõlab igati loogiliselt:

The camshaft is a fk45@108 and I dailed it 105deg intake centerline, too much advance will hurt the the overall performance because the exhaust changes too in a negative way and at a point the intakevalve will close too early and you lose a lot of top end power.I use to look at the closing point for the intake valve regarding to how good the heads are and the displacement of the engine, too late closing point will hurt the all over performance.If your heads are good you can close the intake valve earlier without losing top end power because the heads will still keep the VE high as the rpm goes up and your midrange will be superior.So from my experience the hardest part in chosing a cam is to determine when the intake valve should close, when you have desided the closing point chose duration so the intake valve does not hit the piston at tdc including the depth of your valvepockets.
Hopefully you see my point.

With the 39mm venturies the mains are 160,air180 and still F7 E-tubes, at low and midrange the A/F is too fat that is why there are small bumps around 4-5k rpm, maybe with F-16 or F-9 E-tubes I can get rid of those.The F-7 E-tube is a very fat tube at low and mid range the F-16 or 9 is a lot leaner.

you should open the intake valve early because you want as much flow available as possible when the piston accelerates down(more flow area under the curve), but there are mekanical limitations you have to deal with(valve hitting piston).
I decided to cloce the intake valve 57deg abdc @ 0,05", then the fk45 became a good choise together with 1,55:1 rockers.
I am close to 6mm lift @ tdc so the valvepockets are pritty deep.

[jeff01]

Ja kui numbrid kokku lüüa....

Most of the parts are from CB performance but some from CSP in Germany, CSP in Sweden and JPM.

IDA carb kit 1099,95
Heads 043 bare pair 211,9
CB Ti valves 503,6
OTEVA 75 valve springs 185
JPM ti retainer 173
JPM rockers 1046
Push rods 49,95
Push rod tubes 167 CSP
Cam 104
Lifters 22,95
Cam gears Magnum 172 CSP
Bearings 39,85
Oil pump 27,95
Pump cover full flow 28
JE pistons 1206
Cylinder kit 165
Fuel pump block off 4,95
009 dist 109,95
Compufire 63,95
Cables 27,95
Valve covers 12,95
Clips 5,95
Gasket kit 9,95
Oil sealing flywheel 3,95
Clutch disc 29,95
Pressure plate Kennedy 180mm 179
Flywheel bolt 56
Deep sump 105
Lash caps 12,95
Pully 18,95
Pully bolt 4,95
Cyl studs 119
Header S&S 1 5/8 332
Old engine 155


Total parts 6454 USD.

Hopefully I did not forget too many parts.

The time I spent on the total build is aprox 100 hours(night hours).

Regards

5k euri 1600se juppide alla kõlab haigelt sest 200 heppa ja 200nmi sain ma ju miski 3x odavamalt kätte turboga aga kui teemaks on autosport kus loeb mootori ehitamise oskus siis see on tegelikult odavalt käes ja turbo vs NA sama jõu korral on mõttetu võrdlus....turboga 200hp saavutamine on ju BS ja aja raiskamine kui teine seda vabalthingavana suudab

See mootor pandi sellisele raskele kerele:

ja tulemuseks 11,58s/177,01km/h üle 750kg kaaluvas autos + juht. selle töömahuga võiks auto kaaluda koos juhiga 690kg ehk et autot võiks ~ 150kg kergemaks teha mis võiks selle auto panna 11,2 sõitma mis poleks eesti rekord A klassis kuid tuletan meelde et see siin on aus arvutus reaalse kaalu ja cc-ga mitte see mis meil siin toimub kus 2,7L põrnikas valetati 1,8 saseks et a klassi mahtuda jne jne.

Minu arust on see super tulemus arvestades kui palju kasutati originaal osi ja oma tööd + inseneri oskusi. Oleks võinud ju osta juba niiviisi hingavad kaaned:

Aga tundub, et neil kel on raha pole mõistust ja neil kel on mõistust pole nii palju raha ka vaja

Lisaksin siia huvitava ja mõtlema paneva arvutuse väntvõllile põhjustatava stressi kohta:

Ex:69mm stroke,8500rpm,5.4"rod and 565g piston(std) F=19276N
Ex:69mm stroke,8500rpm,5.4"rod and 375g piston(JE) F=12793N

(kõik peale kolvi kaalu on sama ja kolbideks on võetud siis stock vs need JE kolvid)
stock kolb tirib tinglikult vänta 2 tonnise jõuga ja kergem kolb 1,3 tonnise jõuga Ei maksa ju imestada miks originaal vändad originaal kolbidega katki lähevad. Tõmbejõud on võrdsed 6800 vs 8500 pöörde juures (stock vs kergem) Kokkuvõtvalt võib öelda, et mina olen oma väntvõlli piinanud originaal kolbidega 6500 pöördeni ja samapalju stressi saaks ta nende kolbide korral üle 8000 pöörde minnes.

[jeff01]

...Selle 1600sega on siis selleks korraks kõik ja panen siia paar rida Perssoni järgmistest projektidest:

1795cc, mag case, 043 heads and ida 48 carbs.

228,3hp/7990rpm and 231Nm(166.9lbs)6200rpm corrected(Din).

My 1915 producing 242hp/8600rpm has MS230, it will be updated with my new valve train and EFI for this season.

I have another "Mouse motor"(1735cc) going on for my self that will be designed for peak power at 10500rpm, it will also have my MS230.

Ja siinkohal 1 video 1915nesest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0o4Yt6e ... r_embedded[/video]

69mm Demello
JE pistons
5.4" rods
MS230 46x36 valves
11.2:1C/R
Raptor valvetrain
F1 throttle bodies
Motec M4 ecu

annab talle koguni 248hp mis teeb ~130 heppa liitri kohta VABALT HINGAVANA

This engine was built for at least 4 years ago as an R&D project.
It is designed to have peak power at 9000rpm and 14bar bmep, if I can hit this goals it will pump out 265hp or 138.4hp/lit.
Only small changes has been made since first build, it has mostly been sitting on my shelf but the plan is to race the engine for next season.

The pulls on the video is up to 9700rpm where the rew limiter kicks in, the power is 248hp at 8900rpm.
No special oiling mods are done, just ordinary full flow with 26mm pump and oil return into main gallery.

New header was tested today, 252hp at 9000rpm and keeps the power almost to 10000rpm.
There was also a 8hp increase at 7000rpm, I have only made the calibration of A/F maybe some improvements could be expected from calibration of the ignition curve which I will do the next days.

Next change will be "top shot" injectors, after that a custom made piston, which will raise the comp ratio to hopefully about 13:1.
I still have 13hp up to reach target, a 3-4% increase could be expected going from 11.2-13:1 in CR.

BTW I only use my std size OTEVA75 dual springs, valve lift is 16.3mm(0.641").

The OTEVA75 springs I use in my 1915 has 150-160lbs installed pressure and 350-360lbs at over the nose.
The cam is one of my Raptors which has 280+ deg at 0.05" and about .430 lift.
All my Raptors are brand new profiles, no copies from V8 or others.
They have all been designed to suit the valvetrain of acvw, that is why it's possible to reduce the spring pressure.
I design the valve lift profile in a very advanced computer software and from that file created the lobe is cnc machined.
That means that I can design a custom grind for a special performance goal and combo like yours in very short lead time and a fair price.
Most cam grinders copies a "master lobe" when grinding cams, to make a new master lobe is very expensive.
I don't have to do that when dealing with cnc grinding.

Mul pole lihtsalt sõnu see mees on uskumatu. Siinkohal pole mul midagi enam edasi lugeda ja tuleb tema tegemiste kohta vaid uut infot oodata. Kuuldavasti on siiski lisa tulemas

252 heppa 1,9sasest @ 9000PRM ja see tõmbab 10k pöördeni ....132 heppa liitri kohta kuid ta pole ikka veel rahul ja loodab 13 heppa lisaks leida, et oma maksimumi arvutusteni jõuda

[Teet]

Aga tundub, et neil kel on raha pole mõistust ja neil kel on mõistust pole nii palju raha ka vaja

sorri, aga siin vaatad maailma liiga kitsa pilu läbi. Ei pea kõik nui neljaks DIY olema ja ei pea kõike ise nn käepäraste vahenditega kättejuhtuvast materjalist (originaalkaaned pole just parimast materjalist?) aretama. Mispärast hakata nullteadmistega aretama asja, kui aega on vähe, tulemus oluline ning kvaliteetne valmiskaup on mingi kopka eest saadaval? "Kopika" väärtused on juba erinevad - ühel mehel on "odavam" nt 50h, teisel on "odavam" nt 500eur: ühel piirab tengelpung, teisel aeg.
sel teemal vinti üle keerates võib ju ka suht tehasekorras Suprade-Porschede omanikke lolluses süüdistada: õige mees võtab liitrise moto ning vankrivedrustusega pilli ja teeb sellest universaalse kiirendus+rinkamasina
on ka inimesi, kellele on oluline ainuüksi tulemus ja selleni jõudmise protsessis ei soovigi osaleda. Ei ole nad seepärast kohe nõrgamõistuslikud.

päikest ja tolerantsi,
Teet

[jeff01]

jah see konkreetne rida võib sellise asja üles kiskuda küll.
Ju ma olin sellest nii eufoorias, et 1 mees keevitab täis originaalkaaned ja freesib sealt välja sellise põlemiskambri nagu tema mootorile vaja on ja teine mees ostab porditud 044ljad millel on suured klapid ja cnc pordid ja 3-5 raadiust ja kõik mis vaja aga flow on ikka kehvem kuid mis teha...

selle konkreetse rea võtaks tagasi kui saaks kuid kõike muud ei saa ma kõrvale jätta ja 130 heppa liitrivõimsust ei tule ei ameerikas ega eestis kahjuks ka 10 000$ mootoritest ja siin on lihtsam valetada kuna ei tea ma ühtegi juhust kus dragil või lõppkiirusvõistlusel oleks kellegi mootoril kaan maha võetud mõõtmisteks.

ingmaril on ka 1914/1915 mootor kuid see arendab parimal juhul 100hp mitte 250 hp. Kui see lahti võtta ja sinna veel 1k eur panna siis saab 150hp kuid siiski 100 vähem kui siin teemas olev mootor ja seda viimast sadat jõudu ei osta ka 5k euri eest sinna oma mõistusega sest teadmistest jääb lihtsalt puudu ja osa asju tuleb selle saavutamiseks paratamatult ise teha. Ja kui mina tahtsin kunagi samasugust NA mootorit ehitama hakata kuid targetiks seadsin 200hp siis usa foorumis naerdi mind välja kuna ameerika on täis ebay mootoreid mis lubatud 200 jõu asemel 100-130 produtseerivad ja kui nende alla pannakse palju raha siis ollaksegi sellega harjunud ja ei taheta ju välja öelda et näe, oleks võinud ise süveneda asjasse ja omale selgeks teha et suur klapp, suur kolb või stroke ei anna õudu vaid kogu komplekt peab ideaalselt kokku sobima ja olema ingile kindlale pöördevahemikule ja jõule mõeldes ehitatud.. Ei räägi veel siinkohal sellest, et 1915nele ei luba ka keegi mitte 200 vaid selle jaoks on seal 2,5L tarvis.

Selle teema mõte oli pigem selles, et Igalpool maailmas mäletatakse kuid reeglina ei osata enam ehitada 80nendate võistlusmootoreid mis 130 jõudu liitrist tootsid kuna internet, ebay, aftermarket jupid ja kõik muud head asjad on tegelikult soodustanud valmis juppide kokku kruvimist ja kui on vaja 250 jõudu siis ei mõtle keegi enam et võtan selle 1915nest sest midagi ise mõtlemata saab sama jõu ka niisama kokku keeratud 2,7mesest. Samas suunas on asja tõuganud dragi reeglite muutmine kus kedagi enam ei huvita töömahust saadud jõud vaid klassid on ilusad ümarad (steet ehk lookers / big guns / big guns supercharged) Eestis on tegelikult ehitamist soosivad L/kg klassid kuid olen minagi loll oma oskamatuse tõttu seda kirunud nägemata selles midagi head.

Mul on lihtsalt kahju, et selline know how nii vähesel määral saadav on ja kui see kätte sadakse siis sellest midagi ei sünni. 80nendail võistelnud mehed on juba üsna vanad ja nende peale suhtkoht vilistatakse kuna 3 aastakümmet on väga-väga palju varuosaturgo avardanud kuid põhitõed ja füüsikaseadused ei ole ju muutunud.

Eesti drag on kahjuks nii tore, et vabalthingavate klassis EI OLE meil isegi ÜHT võistlejat enam välja panna sest turboga on ju lihtsam jõudu saada (Eks ma ise olen selles samuti süüdi)

[Indrek]

Vägagi tervitan sellise knowhow säilitamist

Omaltpoolt selline inff: veermku tuuning

So to sum up for a Swingaxle:


FRONT
2 Sway-A-Way adjusters top and bottom. Cofap or KYB Gas shocks
2 extra-eccentric camber adjusters.
Front –2 degrees negative camber
At least 3 degrees (preferably 5) positive caster
5mm (6/32-7/32”) Toe-out
18mm (3/4”) Sway bar
195/60/14 tires
Front MUST be 1” higher than the rear ride height.


REAR
Sway-A-Way Camber Compensator. Cofap/KYB Gas shocks only
-2 deg negative camber
2-3mm (3/32-1/8”) Toe-in
205/60/14 tires
Shimmed up Z bar
Rear MUST be 1” lower than the front ride height.

[pppp]

jeff01, viskad äkki tsitaatidele lingid kah juurde?

Aga muidu: tõukurvarrastega bokserid, mis käivad nagu baigimootorid, müstika...

[jeff01]

jeff01, viskad äkki tsitaatidele lingid kah juurde?

Aga muidu: tõukurvarrastega bokserid, mis käivad nagu baigimootorid, müstika...

Minu senised viited tulevad kõik sellest teemast: http://cal-look.no/lounge/index.php/topic,3257.0.html
esimeselt 20nelt leheküljelt. Tahtsin tegelikult seda juba ammu teha aga foorum oli maas ja ei saanud linki kätte.