|
Post by thruxton on Feb 23, 2017 10:00:31 GMT
Hello all. First ..... Howard . STOP!
I admire your enthusiasm, I do. But this has to be an affordable kit of parts. Not a Rock****.
Ok, moving on. I've just come off a phone call with a very knowledgable and interesting woman who is going to make my clutch for me. We have agreed upon building one to start with to a specification we have decided upon. This will allow me to test that all is well with both road and track use. It is very important that the clutch not be harsh in operation or grab upon release.
I start from an advantageous point if you think about it. This is why.
My flywheel is larger in diameter than the MX-5 1.8 unit. This allows for a far greater amount of friction material to be my driving force interface. The diameter is suitable for a 240Bhp and 220Ft/Lbs torque engine pushing along a car some 400 Kg heavier than the MX-5. Dial into that it's also percentage + factor that Jaguar will have done and it becomes readily obvious that an ordinary easy to use organic plate is the way forward. Even a non sprung unit. And such a unit give faster momentum to the car.
I've not weighed the dual mass flywheel that I'm throwing away in this kit, but it's bleeding heavy, because I lent over a bench to pick it up at arms length and was immediately shocked by the fact that I had to put it down and walk around the bench to pick it up. I'm thinking it could be around 30Lbs +. Yikes!
My flywheel on the other hand is from 18lbs to 9Lbs depending upon what is asked for. I will use the 9Lbs unit. For you young guns that's about 4.1Kg
More for you as and when. Regards. Rich.
|
|
|
Post by Vindi (Russell) on Feb 23, 2017 12:08:57 GMT
More and more interesting ... like the lightened flywheel idea especially, getting the engine to rev easily makes such a difference to the feel of the engine
Russell
|
|
|
Post by thruxton on Feb 23, 2017 14:57:04 GMT
Hello all. Well, another very good day.
The exhaust system. The stainless steel manifolds with bolt up flanges have arrived, they are very nice. I've been to see a custom exhaust builder very close to where I live. Old guy, very knowledgable and easy to deal with.
He showed me some catalytic converters that come in 100, 200 and 400 cell format at only 4" outside diameter and 13" long. They are all rated for up to 5.9litre engines, amazing. Last time I looked at catalytic converters they where huge.
I've been speaking with some engine tuners that race the AJ-30 engine and they have all advised me with the same information as to exhaust style and internal diameter of the system to get the best from this engine. That will be a single pipe to rear and exiting as the standard MX-5. A twin system would require bodywork and two silencers. My proposed system requires no bodywork and only one silencer.
The plan is to get the "mule-car" over to the exhaust specialist and build the system right the way back to the rear. Take the car away get it running and then go back to the exhaust specialist to choose and tune the silencer to get the "note" that I want. I want aggressive but not too loud and no motorway droning. The exhaust chap knows exactly what I'm talking about here.
Also to build the system with flanges. Such as one to unbolt and make way for dropping the starter motor out and stuff like that. The system will be made form 2mm wall thickness stainless steel. This is important as a thinner wall thickness often sound nasty.
I will then take the car away, take the exhaust off and make a welding jig unit for it. The exhaust supplier will then furnish me with all the parts as required and I can get it welded up on my jig.
Regards. Rich.
|
|
|
Post by thruxton on Mar 13, 2017 19:50:24 GMT
March updates. Research, my thinking and developments. After speaking more with people who have raced the AJ-30 engine and getting to look at some RR dyno prints out graphs things became clear. I would have to make the Jaguar manifold work. It's the way to make the goal of 220Bhp at the wheels. Other ideas I looked into resulted in a power delivery compromise which I am not accepting. Here is why. Below is a picture, on the right is shown a Mondeo ST200 2.5lt V6 inlet manifold. This runs a 55 mm dia TB. On the left is a Mondeo ST220 manifold. This runs a 60 mm dia TB. The AJ-30 runs a huge 75 mm dia TB. As you now know from my previous posts I thought that I would not be able to use the Jaguar inlet manifold. Well, after some work I am delighted to tell you that I can use it. This is a picture of it with modifications, yet to be finished of course but the point is it fits in under the standard bonnet line. I have been able to achieve this WITHOUT CUTTING the standard subframe. And retaining the p/s rack so more good news there. I am not a fan of creating a "special" sub frame. I've never seen a good one yet. Now the Jaguar manifold uses a fly-by-wire TB so a cable operated 75 mm dia TB needs to sourced. This I can do. The starter motor I have decided to fit as Clair does on her KL 2.5V6 Mazda unit. That is on the gearbox side. This eliminates to need to site the s/m low down. And it keeps it well away from anything. It also allows me more room for my exhaust collector and steering shaft situation. Again I believe I have resolved that already. I will know for sure next week. Onto the clutch. Here is a picture of the Mazda MX-5 clutch, on the left and the Jaguar one on the right showing the increase in diameter to accommodate the extra torque of the AJ-30 engine. I have now a working solution to the clutch/flywheel situation. Interfacing the AJ-30 engine to the standard MX-5 gearbox and using the standard MX-5 clutch release bearing and all associated components. I have created and machined a special part to achieve this. So, not only is Photobucket being a nightmare I'm having trouble with the edit function here. Tomorrow I start on the sump pan. Regards. Rich Sent from my iPad
|
|
|
Post by minty on Mar 14, 2017 7:58:07 GMT
Fascinating stuff Rich, hope you keep posting as you progress
|
|
|
Post by AutotestAddict on Mar 14, 2017 11:18:55 GMT
Words cannot describe how exciting this is...
|
|
|
Post by thruxton on Mar 14, 2017 12:09:29 GMT
So I'm at the workshop mulling, it's still legal. I've decided to buy a generic TB at 80mm dia. I shall then blend out the Jaguar inlet manifold throat from its current 78.5mm to accommodate the 80mm TB. Reason for this is I might at some point in the future go for performance camshafts. They hike it up to close on 300Bhp and 275Ft/lbs of torque. And that is without having to change the fuel injectors or any other parts. I've also I think/hope now devised a way to allow me to use an unmodified Jaguar inlet manifold and retain its two motorised torque enhancing valves that sit within the inlet manifold. Here's a picture of them in the manifold. I will know after lunch about that one. Dropping out the sub frame now and then creating a sump pan. Regards. Rich.
|
|
|
Post by minty on Mar 14, 2017 12:36:15 GMT
Is that an old Citroen bread van in that pic??
|
|
|
Post by martiny on Mar 15, 2017 13:50:27 GMT
Is that an old Citroen bread van in that pic?? It was the crusty looking chassis legs that held my gaze, but yes, it looks like it. Interested to see the sliced neck of the manifold but very little if anything taken off it. And then a teaser that an unmodified manifold might yet fit. Exciting stuff.
|
|
|
Post by thruxton on Mar 15, 2017 14:25:34 GMT
Hi all. Short day today at the project.
Standard unmodified manifold with working inlet valves under the bonnet ..... er yes, sort of.
Explanation here. As you all know I really want to get the standard inlet manifold working. Without it the torque will suffer a decrease, I'm not having that.
I spent some time spacing the subframe off from the underside of the body tub by 12mm. That is a solution of sorts, but I really didn't like that. Nothing wrong with it from an Engineering point if done correctly but I just didn't like it. It's a right mare of a job as well and a bit ...... big hammer to crack a nut type solution.
This kit has to be well engineered, affordable and simple. So the above is a no go. It would have involved spacers new threaded components blah blah.....
Do you remember the MGC and the Triumph TR4A? They both had a lovely "tear-bulge" in the bonnet. So, included in the kit will be a delicate aesthetically sympathetic to the visuality of the car aluminium small "tear-bulge". Not some e-bay USA style Disaster. This can be bonded, riveted or welded into position. This will then give clearance to the upper motorised valve. It will also mark out the MX-5 V6 Predator from the crowd. Well I'm still playing with names.
The manifold can be used with that valve blanked off and no "tear-bulge" if preferred. But I'm looking for every bit of torque there is in this motor as it comes.
Now tomorrow I can concentrate on modifying the Jaguar sump pan. Seeing so this comes with the engine I'm going to use it. I will need to "wing" the sump to gain back the volume of oil required. At the same time I can baffle it.
I did try the Mondeo sump but that didn't help at all and they are £100 each to buy secondhand and would still need carving up.
Hope you are still interested. Regards. Rich.
|
|
|
Post by martiny on Mar 15, 2017 16:26:37 GMT
I thought the valve looked sufficiently low profile that just cutting away the bracing under the bonnet would be enough to make space for it, but I just noticed that you also carved off quite a thick collar of alloy under it, so it seems it needed to lose a good couple of inches to make it fit. That's a pity. It's always nice to have your cake and eat it too. I do appreciate your determination to make the clever Jag manifold deliver all the power it can, but I can't help thinking it would be an easy experiment later to pop that top valve out, blank it off and compare the torque curve with and without. Just for, you know, anyone else who might be interested.
|
|
|
Post by thruxton on Mar 15, 2017 17:37:47 GMT
Hi there. Yes, I agree. See what's what in the real world. But of course I have to start with the bench mark of all of it working for the base figures. Maybe not a lot would be lost and I could then do away with the "bump". Also interesting to know what if the top one is out but the rear one is in and working, or neither in.
But at least I'm slowly moving forwards with the project. Next week I'm back to building my new house so I'm stuck doing that.
Regards. Rich.
|
|
|
Post by Rickster on Mar 15, 2017 18:13:19 GMT
I'd be interested to know what would be lost without the bump, with a 3 litre powered car this light what you might see on a dyno may not make a whole lot of difference to driving experience. Also without the bump you have a bit more of a sleeper!! probably good to have a choice It is all still very interesting, keep up the good work
|
|
|
Post by myothercarsa2cv on Mar 15, 2017 23:36:57 GMT
This is looking amazing. This gets me seriously thinking about a V6...
|
|
|
Post by mxfiver on Mar 17, 2017 14:15:11 GMT
Nice progress Rich. This is all trundling along nicely. Good job.
Cheers,
Guy
|
|