Finally Mapped...

[Grahamrally 0]

Ok well the power figure is tosh then because you didn't claim to provide him with an estimate to what it would produce.

 

I have formulated an opinion from the posts I have seen, the engine spec that is there, the information that you have provided, so perhaps that's zero information in your mind. Everyone is quite entitled to their own opinion which is all I'm stating here.

 

The facts so far:

The engine produces 166bhp

Sean wants to improve the power and torque as he was perhaps expecting more

Your cylinder head wasn't flow bench developed possibly indicating substandard porting, but was budget so should be expected.

He tried a longer duration cam and didn't get much of an increase.

 

My opinion:

The cylinder head isn't the best it could be so the engine results will be dissapointing compared to a head that has been flow bench developed for top notch performance.

It could well be in properly set up engine tune or such like, but perhaps he needs to try a different rolling road tuner just to double check.

 

Graham

[Robsbc 0 1 Cars]

will be assembled correctly and initially work correctly."

 

It certainly initially worked after 1 track day it's @ Matt's being repaired...

 

What's your definition of initially work correctly is that on start up only after it's been installed? Quite a wooly statement in your contract.

 

I do agree the parts should have all been sourced by you as that is what I've done with SBC, they don't like using unknown parts/sources.

 

Rob

Edited December 17, 2006 by Robsbc

[Batfink 201]

Yes Dave I have decided your head is no good and by your own admission you've just said it isn't very good compared to what you could have done. The point is you gave a very well known forum user a head of yours which was likely to get a lot of talk. Talk of 175bhp was thrown about and now you're trying to say that it isn't the head that is the problem?

 

I'd love to get a big valve Longman's head and just show you how much better they are, as for comparing your flow to hiflow heads, they produce good heads but not to Longman's standard which would put you in the 'not as good' group.

 

I can well believe if you did a head on your flow bench and spent a long time developing it you would be able to produce much better results. But the original point I made was that the varied torque on the graph and the difference in expected power and actual power may be due to the head work.

 

Mathematics would say yes you would only see a max 8bhp increase from a BV head but I'm not just comparing my power at peak either, looking at my torque and power graph and comparing that to the quite different version on Sean's mine looks a look smoother and consistent. I will try and put them both in excel and post them.

 

Thanks, Graham

 

so if i go to longmans and ask for a budget head i get a full monty race spec head for cheap? nice!

so when you do compare this longmans head you should evaluate that on the price you pay over DB's as that makes a big difference. You can only compare heads that have been designed for the same engine spec as peak flow means jack unless that peak flow is in the powerband of the engine its been designed for. A £2k longmans race head may be better than what Dave made but then thats not what Dave was trying to achieve. Talk of the fact Sean is a regular forum member does not mean Dave should have done a better head for free to show what he can do.

[PumaRacing 1]

It certainly initially worked after 1 track day it's @ Matt's being repaired...

 

It was repaired many months ago. It required one valve, one valve spring and a collet. The cam had a small mark on it unconnected with the other items and was fine for reuse. Sean chose to change it and also the valve spring system. He chose not to rely on the written warranty I gave as part of the deal. You'll have to ask him why not me.

 

What's your definition of initially work correctly is that on start up only after it's been installed? Quite a wooly statement in your contract.

 

I do agree the parts should have all been sourced by you as that is what I've done with SBC, they don't like using unknown parts/sources.

 

Rob

 

If someone brought a load of second hand bits to you, asked you to assemble them and then after the event said you were also required to warrant them for any use and abuse over and above what they had been designed for but for no extra money what would you do? The engine was originally meant to be run on the standard inlet manifold and a road cam. That was what I quoted for. Sean then decides to use a race exhaust and throttle bodies. How do you expect I can magically make the bits I've been given work any better or last any longer just because the customer has changed the deal?

[PumaRacing 1]

My opinion:

The cylinder head isn't the best it could be so the engine results will be dissapointing compared to a head that has been flow bench developed for top notch performance.

Graham

 

You appear to be saying that a customer should be able to walk into a car showroom, proffer the money for a Reliant Robin and then walk out with a Rolls Royce just because a better car exists?

 

The head I did, despite being an off the shelf version, is exceptional. Better than anything you'd be able to buy almost anywhere in the world. Better than anything Matt has ever seen. Sure I can do better still with enough funds but why should being a member of this forum entitle someone to anything for free?

 

There's no logic in your argument at all. You say you 'could' have built a more powerful engine than mine 'if' you'd done this and 'if' you'd done that but you haven't!! Go out and bloody do it and then come back and talk. Go and build your 170 plus bhp engine with the same cam as mine and you'll be in a position to debate things with. Until then it's just hot air and whatever personal biases you seem to have. As it stands you've used similar components to mine, your own choice of cylinder head expert and you're still a country mile off my power figure. I can't for the life of me work out what you think you can prove by this.

 

Clearly you don't intend to darken my door as a paying customer. That's absolutely fine. I have more people wanting my work than I can currently deal with so you can take your best guess as to just how much your custom will be missed. Why you let that bias your opinion to such an illogical extent is something I don't understand though.

 

Look at what Sean actually contracted for, look at what he paid, peanuts compared to what many would have charged him, look at what he got for that and what the power targets on my website say and then tell me what on earth he has to complain about.

[Sandy 189]

The head I did, despite being an off the shelf version, is exceptional. Better than anything you'd be able to buy almost anywhere in the world.

Quote of the year, where's the proof?

[Grahamrally 0]

Dave I think you've miss understood my argument. Or perhaps I've miss understood the previous posts about the torque and power of this engine.

 

I'm not saying you should be able to pay a budget price for an amazing cylinder head. Not at all. I don't know how you developed the cylinder head and how much work you put into it and how much money he paid. I'm simply saying I would have expected more from it. But perhaps I'm wrong, I don't mind admitting that If I put a BV head on mine with the same cam and it turned less power that I'd have talked rubbish throughout my postings. However for the spec of the engine build and the comparitive cost of the build to mine I would have assumed this engine would be leagues above in power and torque with the graphs not only the peak.

 

You said in one post this head could easily be knocked out the water by another one you develop more thoroughly. Isn't that the point though? With the reputation you convey with your postings you should be able to produce mind boggling power results. So why do a budget job when you know the results won't be as good as you could do? It also sounds like a job you didn't want or should have done due to changing of plans, items and equipment which ultimately ended up in this debate! lol

 

This all is drawing into an argument about your work and your reputation that really isn't relavent when my point initially was to give my opinion as to why he wouldn't get anymore power than he already has! If he was to spend the full value on a BV head from anywhere including Puma to an exacting standard that has been maticulously prepared on a flow bench I would expect a higher result. But I'm probably wrong.

 

"You appear to be saying that a customer should be able to walk into a car showroom, proffer the money for a Reliant Robin and then walk out with a Rolls Royce just because a better car exists?"

I was actually trying to say that if you developed the head for his specification then him trying to exceed that and expecting more power is not going to happen without re-development, because it wasn't developed for more than what he's got.

 

Batfink: Longman's don't do budget heads, they have set prices for the standard and BV heads so no you wouldn't! Comparing like for like doesn't happen in engines does it unless we use Sean's engine and try different heads on it! I'm sure he'd love that! lol

 

Graham

Edited December 17, 2006 by Grahamrally

[Rippthrough 98]

it might seem like sean payed a lot of money to you, but don't forget there's the labour charges there not just for his engine, but for stripping down and inspecting two knackered ones beforehand.

 

As I said in the other thread, make sure the mapping is spot on and take it from there.

[Robsbc 0 1 Cars]

Look at what Sean actually contracted for, look at what he paid, peanuts compared to what many would have charged him, look at what he got for that and what the power targets on my website say and then tell me what on earth he has to complain about.

 

Yes and then engine gave up a short time afterwards! Is that what you get when you buy on the cheap from you...

[Batfink 201]

Yes and then engine gave up a short time afterwards! Is that what you get when you buy on the cheap from you...

 

what are you saying. That Dave on purpose fitted a wrongly manufactured valve spring? Do you really know what caused it to fail because its a bold statement to make if you are ignorant to the facts

[Robsbc 0 1 Cars]

what are you saying. That Dave on purpose fitted a wrongly manufactured valve spring? Do you really know what caused it to fail because its a bold statement to make if you are ignorant to the facts

 

Nope just stating that the engine failed very quickly...

[Owain1602 0]

Its not nice reading this post is it.

I really dont know what the problem is, becuase I quote right from the start of the post "Yes, actually it has exceeded my expectations, the mid range is truly amazing, literally from 3k to 8k it's just constant hard acceleration"

That sounds to me like the owner is over the moon with the performance.

I believe that a lot of people dont want to admit that Dave Baker is right because he can be a bit cranky sometimes.

I dont know the details of the valve train failure problem but it can and does happen, im sure this was a manufacturing defect or something of the like.

Anyway I think DB is good, thats my oppinion, but its not nice to turn technical posts in to a bitching one especially when you're slating someone's livelihood when you dont really know what youre saying.

[smckeown 1]

I'm prepared to warrant the head/cam combination will stand any normal use for a period of six months provided obviously there are no exceptional circumstances such as detonation caused by incorrect set up. As you intend to use the bottom end for track use at much higher revs than the standard parts were designed for and as most of the parts were supplied to me rather than by me I can't warrant any part of that other than that it will be assembled correctly and initially work correctly."

 

Quite right, I have just re-read your original email and I have always had in mind you provided a very thin warranty on the bottom end. My current problems are not related to the head so that's no use to me now.

 

Agreed when the valve spring went I could have returned it to you under warranty. At the time as it was at matt's I decided to go with him. You were the last person on earth I wanted to communicate again with, especially regarding the at the time personal insults you were throwing, hardly meakes for good after sales support

 

said that the power figures on my website have changed when they haven't and a host of other things that are either blatantly untrue, half lies or innuendo. Perhaps I'll just have to take that up with him in court.

 

Anyone who has read that site knows they have changed, but I couldn't give a hoot, just pointing it out that's all.

 

It was repaired many months ago. It required one valve, one valve spring and a collet. The cam had a small mark on it unconnected with the other items and was fine for reuse. Sean chose to change it and also the valve spring system.

 

Don't forget the piston it marked. Do you think I know enough about cams to choose between re-using that one or getting another new ? QEP advised me to scrap the cam. I said I wanted to explore the possibility of generaling a little more top end (without losing significant mid range) and they advised me on the new cam. As we're being so open, you even agreed on the phone when Matt ordered the new valves off you that it may indeed liberate a sligtly better top end. I've kept that off the board until now, but as your being insulting again i'll disclose that

 

then tell me what on earth he has to complain about.

 

For a self confessed intellectual you sometimes are very stupid. What exactly am I complaining about ? Nothing is the answer. If I want to take the project further and try and generate a slightly better torque curve then that's my right (especially as it looks like the bottom has to be dismantled anyway). As I posted on another thread, you yourself have stated the power target can be improves WITHOUT any head work. I seriously doubt that however

 

Here are your quotes

 

"So in an afternoon the cam can be swapped, a thin gasket fitted and no further machining is required. I thought this was a fairly elegant way of maximising the utility of the engine and allowing it to be raised to a higher state of tune with very little work. Perhaps we can then all find out sometime what one of my big valve heads will do with a full race cam and TB's fitted." from http://forum.205gtidrivers.com/index.php?s...hl=mckeown]here

[smckeown 1]

Its not nice reading this post is it.

I really dont know what the problem is, becuase I quote right from the start of the post "Yes, actually it has exceeded my expectations, the mid range is truly amazing, literally from 3k to 8k it's just constant hard acceleration"

That sounds to me like the owner is over the moon with the performance.

I believe that a lot of people dont want to admit that Dave Baker is right because he can be a bit cranky sometimes.

I dont know the details of the valve train failure problem but it can and does happen, im sure this was a manufacturing defect or something of the like.

Anyway I think DB is good, thats my oppinion, but its not nice to turn technical posts in to a bitching one especially when you're slating someone's livelihood when you dont really know what youre saying.

 

The same has happened SO many times on this board.

 

I post something (never insulting or slating his work), people stir, puma gets his back up and throws insults my way, thread gets removed. Boring! Therefore puma's insults are removed just in case he loses any credibility. Luckily I keep them to remind people of his bas manners

[Daz_C 8 1 Cars]

It certainly initially worked after 1 track day it's @ Matt's being repaired...

 

What's your definition of initially work correctly is that on start up only after it's been installed? Quite a wooly statement in your contract.

 

I do agree the parts should have all been sourced by you as that is what I've done with SBC, they don't like using unknown parts/sources.

 

Rob

 

 

Even with Sbc engines the warranty is void when used in competition/racing or record attempts !

I would generally class track days as one of the above.

 

Yes and then engine gave up a short time afterwards! Is that what you get when you buy on the cheap from you...

 

I don't think thats really fair Rob any part of any engine can give up at any time if it has a defect or for any other reason which Dave wasn't given the chance to investigate and find the cause. Something like that is out of anybodys control I think.

 

 

I'm not saying you should be able to pay a budget price for an amazing cylinder head. Not at all. I don't know how you developed the cylinder head and how much work you put into it and how much money he paid. I'm simply saying I would have expected more from it.

 

From what I have heard and I don't live too far away from Hitec Motorsport, if Sean had it on there rollers it would probably have made the power you expect !

 

I don't know alot about engines but I do know that this engine has a Very Good power output for an 8v built using second hand parts mainly, and a budget of £2200 with all the messing about that came with it ! IMO

[S33GAV 0]

I'd be ecstatic to have waited a year for my engine then have it fail twice.

 

Hope it gets sorted soon though

Edited December 17, 2006 by S33GAV

[smckeown 1]

Just as an aside, and I've refrained from mentioning this before, when Matt had my cylinder head in his workshop he couldn't resist the temptation to flow test it. It beat every other XU9 head he'd ever tested including a Hiflow BV one and his own flow developed BV one.

 

Ive been told the actual flow was less than an XU10 but port speed was of the scale. This is why I assume it runs out of puff so quick; in the event of any better explanation. I hope to achieve nearly as much mid range with a bit better top end in the future. Also on those flow results there's no way as you said you could swap to the PT28 and alter CR to get a much better top end. Doesn't seem to flow enough to get good top end results. So was that buls*it you were spouting or I have I got it all wrong ?

[TB_205GTI 1]

I have a question, it's really not *that* much on topic, but since we are discussion ported heads here..

 

Dave if the head was made for a mild cam, std. inlet and std. exhaust - why have you gone down the BV route? As I see it, a BV head will always suffer from lower gas speeds, but the total flow will increase - right? In order to get a good middle range and low down torque you need to have the gasses flowing fast - but will you not ruin this by using bigger valves and bigger ports? In order to gain the full potential of the bigger valves, then you must surely need to open up the throats - thus giving lower gas speeds, but higher flow. Am I right, or have I gotten this all wrong?

 

You all talk about the total flow the head can produce as if this was the holy grail - Well if the head has been designed for a mild cam and std. inlet and exhaust - then I think the DB head is a _really_ good designed head.. come on 198Nm on an ancient XU 8v..

But if you only look at the pub'ish top end - then even I can make a head that can flow enough for it, it's just a question about how many revs the engine can take..

 

I genuinely do not understand why you focus so much on the maximum power this engine can produce..

 

 

Horsepowers do not win the race, torque and revs win the race

[Rippthrough 98]

I have a question, it's really not *that* much on topic, but since we are discussion ported heads here..

 

Dave if the head was made for a mild cam, std. inlet and std. exhaust - why have you gone down the BV route? As I see it, a BV head will always suffer from lower gas speeds, but the total flow will increase - right? In order to get a good middle range and low down torque you need to have the gasses flowing fast - but will you not ruin this by using bigger valves and bigger ports? In order to gain the full potential of the bigger valves, then you must surely need to open up the throats - thus giving lower gas speeds, but higher flow. Am I right, or have I gotten this all wrong?

 

You all talk about the total flow the head can produce as if this was the holy grail - Well if the head has been designed for a mild cam and std. inlet and exhaust - then I think the DB head is a _really_ good designed head.. come on 198Nm on an ancient XU 8v..

But if you only look at the pub'ish top end - then even I can make a head that can flow enough for it, it's just a question about how many revs the engine can take..

 

I genuinely do not understand why you focus so much on the maximum power this engine can produce..

Horsepowers do not win the race, torque and revs win the race

 

 

BV heads generally produce more flow at higher lifts, generally with some loss down low, although PR's work before has shown he can negate that (confirmed by QEP might I add), which is great for warmer cams. Plus the ports are quite big to start with. There's got to be a limit somewhere on everything, otherwise everyone would just fit wilder and wilder camshafts from more power.

[huckleberry 0]

I don't think any of these topics makes the actual case any clearer for the people reading the forum and that's why everytime some topics opens up about it people are all making points that somehow don't make any sense. I personally don't get it at all.

 

At some point Sean asked for a Xu10 8v head and 1900 bottom end. It all ended up different with a 1900 BV head and a lot of standard parts and I'm not sure if the cam was changed during or before the build. It seems the build took too long, things got nasty. Then the engine was ready. It made a whooping 166 bhp and 198 nm which was quite a lot in my mind for a 8v without it being an all out race engine. Then it broke down, Sean took it to QEP and I read somewhere between the lines it broke down again? What confuses me even more is that Sean seemed to be very impressed with the engine when the car ran and before the first break-down. But everybody else is having a go at the engine. But the most confusing thing of all is that nobody on this forum has of had a NA xu9 8v engine which makes or made more bhp and nm's. Only people know someone who should have one or could build one.

 

I don't see how anybody could have a say about the engine or the situation. I believe I've read every topic about it and have no clue who's fault what is. Only Matt could have actual info about it but he keeps his mouth shut (very smart I might add).

[Sandy 189]

The results seem to me to be good rather than "exceptional". It pushes slightly over 180psi BMEP from 4500-5000rpm (not bad for that head), but drops off alot either side.

 

Don't be sucked in by claims that a Pumaracing head is as good as the best you can get. He's been very keen to point that out to me recently, and I quote: "or maybe because the first TU engine I get involved in blows away everything you've ever seen before." but in reality that engine (Assuming it's Garry's 1.4 8v he's referring to) made a peak of 180psi but held it longer than Seans, and the last TU 8v I did with a QEP head held 195-204psi from 3000 to 6000rpm, with lower CR than Garry's. In fact Sam's 1.6 made well over 180psi on carbs with distributor ignition and a less than ideal inlet manifold.

 

I hope this doesn't get removed, because I think it's important that people know how DB uses his arrogance to override the facts.

Edited December 18, 2006 by sandy309

[PumaRacing 1]

I have a question, it's really not *that* much on topic, but since we are discussion ported heads here..

 

Dave if the head was made for a mild cam, std. inlet and std. exhaust - why have you gone down the BV route? As I see it, a BV head will always suffer from lower gas speeds, but the total flow will increase - right? In order to get a good middle range and low down torque you need to have the gasses flowing fast - but will you not ruin this by using bigger valves and bigger ports? In order to gain the full potential of the bigger valves, then you must surely need to open up the throats - thus giving lower gas speeds, but higher flow. Am I right, or have I gotten this all wrong?

 

The head was done to suit the actual cam and induction that the build finally evolved into.

 

You assume I use bigger ports. I don't. The std port is plenty large enough to support the big valve and so gas speed goes up the more flow I get. Throat size is also critical and again you assume I make these bigger. I'm not saying exactly what I do in that area except that my goal with any head is to always achieve the highest possible gas speed without actually losing flow. That's why the torque this engine produces is so high.

[PumaRacing 1]

The results seem to me to be good rather than "exceptional". It pushes slightly over 180psi BMEP from 4500-5000rpm (not bad for that head), but drops off alot either side.

 

Don't be sucked in by claims that a Pumaracing head is as good as the best you can get. He's been very keen to point that out to me recently, and I quote: "or maybe because the first TU engine I get involved in blows away everything you've ever seen before." but in reality that engine (Assuming it's Garry's 1.4 8v he's referring to) made a peak of 180psi but held it longer than Seans, and the last TU 8v I did with a QEP head held 195-204psi from 3000 to 6000rpm, with lower CR than Garry's. In fact Sam's 1.6 made well over 180psi on carbs with distributor ignition and a less than ideal inlet manifold.

 

I hope this doesn't get removed, because I think it's important that people know how DB uses his arrogance to override the facts.

 

Your maths is in error. Sean's engine produces a peak of 77 ft lbs per litre which is just over 190 psi BMEP. That's pretty exceptional for a small bore long stroke 2v engine.

 

You claim you've built an 8v TU with 204 psi / 2.47 = 83 ft lbs per litre? Sorry but I'd like to see that checked on someone else's dyno.

[smckeown 1]

if only dave baker would answer the question he's been asked a few time on here. As part of the head design should the torque be falling off so quickly after 5k revs ? So far you have contradicted yourself regarding the head geing the same, the head can take a PT27 etc. So how about a clear view on the matter.

 

graph here

 

Is it possible top maintain the current (or thereabouts) existing mid range and gain a little more top end ? It maybe that there are other factors causing the torque to tailoff so quick, therefore your opinion on the head would be positive

Edited December 18, 2006 by smckeown

[TB_205GTI 1]

The head was done to suit the actual cam and induction that the build finally evolved into.

 

You assume I use bigger ports. I don't. The std port is plenty large enough to support the big valve and so gas speed goes up the more flow I get. Throat size is also critical and again you assume I make these bigger. I'm not saying exactly what I do in that area except that my goal with any head is to always achieve the highest possible gas speed without actually losing flow. That's why the torque this engine produces is so high.

 

 

Ok, I just assumed that the throat needed a bit of opening to give more flow around the bigger valve.