| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Greg Fletcher |
|
||||||||||||||
| JH Restoration update | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: 09-29-2005 10:24 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
Harkes Member 
|
It has been a while since the last update, but here is what i have done till now: Sanded floorboard undersides down to bare metal, prepped and repainted with POR 15 black. After i have reinforced the front frame rails (where the front sway bar will be mounted), then the complete underside gets a topcoating POR 15 Chassis Coat Black. I resprayed the engine bay Malaga blue. The front valence took a lot of work, but is looking good again. Now building up again. I have put the front wheels on the subframe and its is now waiting for the 2.2L engine, which will come early october. The 2.2L engine has been dyno-ed. I'm still waiting for the sheets but here are some figures: Top peak power of 210 BHP @ 6250 rpm, top torque of 175 lb ft @ 5000 rpm! And 135 lb ft torque @ 2500 rpm! Very torquey engine with the top torque at 5000 rpm is awesome, whereas normally it is found at 5500 rpm. I still need to do a few things. I'm awaiting aluminium fuel tank, new 3 core radiator, su fuel pump. Then i need to weld stainless steel u-frames over the current frame rails. Top coating the underside. Toyota 5sp gbox conversion...that will take most of the time. Then last but not least, lift the car and roll engine/gbox together with subframe in position and drop the car right over it. well no more words, have a look http://jhppg.com/gallery/album69
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: 09-29-2005 11:01 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
pc Member
|
Harkes wrote:...The 2.2L engine has been dyno-ed. .... Top peak power of 210 BHP @ 6250 rpm, top torque of 175 lb ft @ 5000 rpm! And 135 lb ft torque @ 2500 rpm! Woooo hooo! Yeah baby! PC.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: 09-30-2005 02:08 am |
|
3rd Post |
|
Judson Manning Member 
|
Erik, After looking at your gallery, I couldn't help but think how ironic it was that while I chose to mate a 907 top-end to a 910 block, you chose to mate a 910 top-end to a 907 block! To each his own as long as 2.2 is achieved! It appears your pistons are zero-deck-height? I remember Jim at Delta telling me he has a couple of sets he sent over to the UK. I'm using the slightly shorter pistons, but I had to mill the deck .009" for flattness, so I have NO idea what compression I'm running... Did you ever get the cam specs on your engine? Please do post the dyno plots when you get them, I'd like to compare them to my 2.2 and cam selection. Judson
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: 09-30-2005 08:12 am |
|
4th Post |
|
Harkes Member
|
i'll surely post the plots as soon as i get them. Garry Kemp decided for the 907 block mainly because there would be less work involved for me, as it requires serious alterations to the subframe i believe. Also in terms of strength, Garry assured me when 10 doweling the block it will be more than adequate for my purposes and a strengthening plate is absolute not necessary he said unless i am using it for the track/races. So he put baffles in the sump and a perforated plate on top to solve the oil problems 907 are known for and of course a restrictor in the head. The perforated plate is a novalty. The 2.2L head has been gasflowed and i chose for the HC cam carriers because the improved design prevents oil leaks and because i think they look good (matter of taste). My pistons are JE 11:1, but I believe the compression i'm running is more like 10.9:1 and Garry installed a X-drilled Lotus crank. When Garry comes over, which will be very soon, i'll ask him the specs of the cams. Meanwhile, i have some work to do before the engine comes. Thanks
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: 10-04-2005 09:17 am |
|
5th Post |
|
Harkes Member
|
Judson, i have some info on the cams for you. Let me tell you first that my aim for the engine (i took Garry's advice) is a fat torque curve throughout the whole rpm range and not so much top end speed (peak power). So initially we were thinking 104 In and 107 Ex But Garry wouldn't be Garry if he didn't have an even better solution: To protect low-end torque Garry used 107 cam for Exhaust; 252° and .378" lift and for great performance and peak power his own version of the 104. The lotus 104 is: 272° and .410" lift. Garry's own 104 is: 268° and .425" lift. Together with the JE 11:1 pistons and x-drilled lotus 2.2L crank and 45E dellortos with 38 venturis, Garry managed as he already knew and expected the engine to have a very torquey low end (135 lb ft @ 2500 rpm) and a very torquey high end (178 lb ft @ 5000 rpm). So we concluded that our goal of having a fat torque curve throughout the whole rpm band has been achieved whilst still having 210 BHP at 6250 rpm and 210 BHP at 6750 rpm (curve is practically flat) I'm now waiting for aluminium fuel tank to arrive and some other stuff (new 3 core radiator, electronic state SU fuel pump) and the engine is coming over very soon, so i'll have lots to do. (i'm waiting for the dyno sheets to be faxed) talk to you soon erik
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: 10-04-2005 02:42 pm |
|
6th Post |
|
Judson Manning Member
|
That's what I was looking for...some good emperical data vs all the ideas that have been floating around. By comparison I'm running 272^ cams w/ .388" lift and 36mm chokes. The idle is a bit lumpy which is why I went w/ 36mm chokes. I'm betting my power is a bit less and the power band is more peaky than your's (not that I'm complaining!). I think your data pretty much settles the argument Garry made years ago that high duration cams really don't work well for the 907 and high-lift is the way to go.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: 10-04-2005 07:00 pm |
|
7th Post |
|
Harkes Member
|
hi Judson, do you have any info on your peak power @ ...rpm and peak torque @ ...rpm? I am very curious as to what your engine does. Do you run 272 duration and .388 lift on both Inlet and Exhaust? Or did you not dyno your engine? on the dyno we started out with 36 chokes (those were installed when i bought my brand new dellortos'), but Garry already said in advance he expected the 38 or 39 chokes would be better. And the 38 chokes on the dyno showed indeed overall a much better performance than the 36 chokes. This is of course with my cams, so yours might indeed be better off with the 36. I can't tell you how well or not my engine will idle, but i'll let you know as soon as i can. happy motoring. erik
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Current time is 09:58 pm | |
| > Jensen Healey & Jensen GT Tech > Miscellaneous > JH Restoration update | Top |
