Arouse the DAMPFHAMMER!
No room for that size. The limit is the 45.25 mm radius, where it is already hard to get a 38.3 valve in, not speaking about the shrouding. What you can do is increasing the exhaust valve diameter but then you must reduce the intake valve diameter, just because you still need relevant valve overlap and no valve to valve contact in that period. 30 mm is the maximum at 38.3 mm intake valves and serious cam lobe center angles, the basis for NA engine power....would make me guess around 34.4-34.7 mm exhaust valve.
Very nice vision.Your Dad built you that car?
Theory is always helpfully to start something unexperienced to make it kind of experiencable 😉. That field is one of my favourites. The 330 flwhp are a beginning. I designed a Bonneville engine based on a 90x78.5 (1998 ccm) engine which would need a customized valvetrain (design finished) which would be able to push 380 [email protected],000 rpm on the dyno brake. The engine is very expensive, almost 30 k€, almost everything is customized. The approach I used is the same as for the 90.5x106 engine. The 2000 ccm displacement is just a much better fit to the K20 head. Valve cross section and the individual cylinder displacement matching so good for 8000-12000 rpm redline speed applications. That what you say, the torque get's nicely flat over a wide revving range. In terms of load and speed control very predictable because the power development is just linear, you know what comes next so easily if you let revv it just 1000 rpm more...all the way up to 11,500 rpm. A Bonneville Salt sea engine must be capable of some over revving when the cars fly over wet areas, so it has to be designed to go into +1500 rpm at least to peak power speed. Which makes this thing so expensive: 12,500 rpm is no joke for the long lever arms of the K-series valvetrain. Timing chain lenghtening can ruin your engine too as well as valve floating is biggest and most expensive challenge. Another issue is, what works on sea level optimal, doesn't work optimal on salt sea level at 1600 m altitude. Density goes down by a significant portion, mass impulse vs. pressure wave dynamic changing their weight among the best VE supporters over the revving band. Anyway, the 330 flwhp out of the 86x86 engine are nice, nice when it is there below 9000 rpm. The Bonneville engine would reach it at 8800 rpm and make it climbing all the way up to 11,000 rpm. My DAMPFHAMMER engine is planned to reach 310 [email protected] rpm, it's an Slalom application which needs huge torque all the way down to the left end of the high speed cam at 4500 rpm. Totally different engine. I really like that 2000 ccm displacement. As I said, distribute it to 8 cylinders you can decrease the stroke, use a flat tappet approach valvetrain with an belt and you can see with the right head and everything else 460 [email protected],600 rpm. Think of what a 2.4 Liter (80x60) engine would be capable of, the 500 flwhp border would be kicked to at least 540 flwhp at just the same VE level. So to say, the doubling of the I4 concept is the 2-Liter-heaven regarding power, not regarding a high torque. My DAMPFHAMMER reached at 5200 rpm already 274 Nm on the dyno, it will peak at 7500 rpm. The V8 won't get in that area, because when the air column is at optimal speed the time for combustion is already very short and the losses in the rotating parts are already so high that the gas forces, creating the torque, get eaten by them in a significant manner. Just power climbs with engine speed as the lower torque level can be kept by the huuuuuge valve cross section, which is needed to get the air into that thing beyond 10,000 rpm. BTW, Formula 1 need decades to get beyond 12,000 rpm, just because combustion was always to slow. That complexity of every process on the IC engine hands into another one and none of them can be pronounced to much as the optimum is a huuuuge compromise for the individual one makes it for me so fantastic, inspiring and interesting. No propulsion system is that complex as the IC engine. None of them. Every little discipline of physics can be found in that little system. None of them has the compactness and power range (0.005 hp to 80,000 hp). None of them has occupied so much engineers over 100 years. Just no they began to ring it down by the emissions limits. I already designed and tested zero bad emission IC engine using Hydrogen based on Gas engines of the company I worked for. BTW, it is the oldest series engine producing company of the world, over 110 years old. It's a tragic for me to see this kind of technology is no longer demanded by the next generations. When my daughter will leave the house, about in 6 years, we will see much more E-engines, Fuel Cells and less of IC engines. That will impact the race industry in some way, and of course my vision of developing many more high end concepts for the racing market.What interests me was the 326 HP 86mm x 86mm using the TSX Pro head. I like it so much I went out immediately and found a 100% complete one for $225. Using RR3 cams they managed to make a decent amount more mid-range and keep TQ linear close to redline. This tells me at least two things - they are harnessing air velocity extremely well pre mid-range. The fact that the 86mm stroke helps keep TQ after mid-range linear for 2000 rpm, gives the air velocity somewhere to go. And that accelerates the process of top-end volumetric efficiently, again the more "Umpff in the beginning" theory. NA 326HP at the crank from 86x86.
I am sorry for my long post. Thinking of that waves me from enthusiastic, to inspiration and a bit of blue feelings...
Sorry to hear that. I hope there is a light on the end of the tunnel....Things have been slow this week around here. My health isn't improving, getting harder to walk and work around alot.
Man, I am really sorry to read that. I whish you and your relative the strongness to stand this....My Sister had surgery last Thursday to remove a tumor from ovarian cancer. My grandmother was back into the ER from internal bleeding 9 days ago. She is now in a facility to build her back up again to go to her apartment. I am helping my Sister, so I have 4 kids I am homeschooling and assisting with virtual/home schooling (virtual is homeschooling really). I am busy.
I was also home schooling my daughter, just one. But I know it can be exhausting, especially if the kid need extra support to get things in a logic row of order, like our does need. But it was a great experience for me, I saw many of my lacking talents to teach one so that not only I understand it 😉...I learnt much about keeping patience and curiousity awake instead of let the frustration grow. But I am still worlds apart from a good teacher, which makes a funny and efficient kids teaching. My students at University where better customers for that 😅. How is your experience with that teaching, especially if those are your own kids in your own house?
YeahSometimes I don't mind the build being down. I get better ideas when I have to wait for them. This atuff I am doing isn't cheap, I do not want to waste money. At the same time I want to do the job right, not skip gaskets, have the new build go to poop while I am showing it off to my buddies. " Look at what I built. And oil is rivering out on their driveway...hahaha