mAJJJORD Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 DR. RX : I agree with your theories and whatnot, but I dont quite understand your idea that its hard to make HP out of a boxer.. the only thing i can see that bugs you is the undersquare nature of the engine.. thats fine, but that dosn't stop people getting 500hp from an un stroked EJ20T.. and if it is stroked, only enough to raise capacity to 2.2L. some of the bigger strokers, up to 2.4L in some case get way beyond that, the toughest EJs around here have between 400-500+ HP at all 4. well more than that at the engine as im sure u can work out. BTW i wish we could quote power at the wheels for these conversations, it would make things so much simpler. for the record a STOCK 2Litre STI (not the 2.5s we dont get them here! damnit. ) , will pull around 185-200HP at the wheels depending on dyno and mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. RX Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 DR. RX : the only thing i can see that bugs you is the undersquare nature of the engine.. HHHUUUUHHHHH?????? Where did that come from, I wasn't the one who increased the engine size to increase horsepower, the manufacturers did. I actually prefer short stroke, big bore engines, they rev faster and higher. My 96 WRX STi pulls 187.9hp at the wheel. It was dyno'd last weekend, it was low because of heat and humidity (the testers comments, not mine). It is a stock EJ20G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJM Posted August 20, 2004 Author Share Posted August 20, 2004 HHHUUUUHHHHH?????? Where did that come from, I wasn't the one who increased the engine size to increase horsepower, the manufacturers did. I actually prefer short stroke, big bore engines, they rev faster and higher. My 96 WRX STi pulls 187.9hp at the wheel. It was dyno'd last weekend, it was low because of heat and humidity (the testers comments, not mine). It is a stock EJ20G. I need 88 more WHP. EDIT: Lets all get along. Pending approval from the bank for a small peice of plastic...im gonna start builing this setup soon. lately ive only been cast off and blown off by 99.9% of the people i know about the potential of the car. If you notice, my tone in all of my "ultimate EA82T" threads, its in a rather pissed off tone....most of time time i post it to relieve my anger. But still....i strongly believe I can build up the wagon to be faster than a USDM stock WRX for 4~6 thousand. Hopefully...I will be able to start on that when i get back from Germany in October. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorganM Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Yep, talk is cheap... that's why comments are only worth 2 cents :cool: Enough talk; its time to just do it or stop BS'n about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAJJJORD Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 HHHUUUUHHHHH?????? Where did that come from, I wasn't the one who increased the engine size to increase horsepower, the manufacturers did. I actually prefer short stroke, big bore engines, they rev faster and higher. My 96 WRX STi pulls 187.9hp at the wheel. It was dyno'd last weekend, it was low because of heat and humidity (the testers comments, not mine). It is a stock EJ20G. ok , so if you prefer short stroke big bore engines... then why is it hard to achive power without increasing capacity... i dont see any other weak point in the boxer configuration... im not talking specific engines here now.. just the boxer configuration vs inline , or V. and yes lets get along Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subyrally Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 ok, ill be the first here to get started on a wrx killer, it will start out slow cause i need the car to last for a little while, atleast till next summer when i gradualte from lincoln tech. sidenote, i have a 4.0 and nearly perfect attendance, i never had that in highschool. but with the rx, ill be starting out with the turbo upgrade as well as bigger injectors and fuel management, prolly in the form of an APEXi s-afcII, i think. so it will be bigger turbo, bigger exhaust, bigger injectors, new custom headers, xt intake manifold and xt6 tb, wrx intercooler, rising rate feul pressure regulator. thats the first step, eventually ill be getting new cams, then maybe a port and polish, stronger pistons, find a better head gasket(if possible) and ill prolly figure out what ill do from there, but thats going to be a while down the road, im poor at the moment. i do how ever hhave just about all the parts to do my turbo upgrade, i just need a few more parts and to get hte car to fun again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. RX Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 ok , so if you prefer short stroke big bore engines... then why is it hard to achive power without increasing capacity... Seems that you forgot the second part of what I said. Yes, you can increase power without increasing capacity, but doing so decreases reliability. I said that manufacuruers increase displacement to increase horsepower, and maintain reliability. As for the boxer engine, it was once thought that a boxer engine could never exceed 3.0 liters in size because of rotational mass, but Porsche proved that wrong with it's 3.2, 3.4, 3.6 and now 3.8 liter engines. There are other eliments of the boxer engine that experts says are short comings, like the reason why it is called a boxer and not a 180 degree V engine (like Ferrari's). It is thought that the stagered throws on the crank are limiting factors, but all it will take is someone to come along who didn't know the assumption, and prove the experts wrong. Will just might be one of those individuals, only time will tell. I wish him luck in accomplishing his goal. But don't blame me for being sceptical, I'm in good company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJM Posted August 20, 2004 Author Share Posted August 20, 2004 It is thought that the stagered throws on the crank are limiting factors, but all it will take is someone to come along who didn't know the assumption, and prove the experts wrong. Will just might be one of those individuals, only time will tell. Please exaggerate on the "stagered throws"...please. Ive never heard of this, and I would like to know more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baccaruda Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 carefull with that credit card, i've been trying to conquer mine for years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorganM Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Please exaggerate on the "stagered throws"...please. Ive never heard of this, and I would like to know more. It fires like a boxer punches... the old 1-2 punch! The EA82 fire order is 1 3 2 4. It fires one side than the other. The fires are not in a perfect sucession but rather in a staggerd pattern. This is why its a "boxer" engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJM Posted August 20, 2004 Author Share Posted August 20, 2004 It fires like a boxer punches... the old 1-2 punch! The EA82 fire order is 1 3 2 4. It fires one side than the other. The fires are not in a perfect sucession but rather in a staggerd pattern. This is why its a "boxer" engine. interesting....i wonder if there is a way to change the firing order and cams to suit a 1 4 3 2 order....or somtin... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. RX Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Thanks Moprgan. WJM, the answer is, "No without major rework." A new crank will have to be ground, new cams ground, a new distributor, those are the major thing, there are quite a few minor things that will need to be changed also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWX Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 All you would need (theoretically) is a CAS (crank angle sensor) that you can modify, then grind up a couple of cams and then the crank, right? Cause WJM did want to go to a distributorless(sp) ignition system anyways, right? ess ignion system) system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Might as well forge a new block while your at it:rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJM Posted August 21, 2004 Author Share Posted August 21, 2004 forget that...im gonna pretend i didnt understand/care/even read about that staggered throws thingy. I can see where it might have its drawbacks...BUT...i think its very minimal, and I would think that ONLY at the VERY EDGE....could there be that final last gain for a few tiny more ponies....if the firing order was re done....but then again, I could be wrong. Still, firing order stays stock...but engine management does not. MS+DIS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. RX Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 All you would need (theoretically) is a CAS (crank angle sensor) that you can modify, then grind up a couple of cams and then the crank, right? Cause WJM did want to go to a distributorless(sp) ignition system anyways, right? ess ignion system) system Gee, the only difference between what i said a you said was that Will might use a distributorless system. Do you think getting a new crank ground correctly will be inexpensive?? How about the camshafts??? Will, it would be much smoother and less destructive on the engine to have the even firing. Creating that much horsepower will necessitate quite an explosion in the combustion chamber, not once on every other side, but twice in a row on each side, how long do you think the bottom end will take that? But like I said, go ahead, prove us wrong, I'll be the first to congratulate you if you are sucessful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racer-x Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 ok, ill be the first here to get started on a wrx killer, it will start out slow cause i need the car to last for a little while, atleast till next summer when i gradualte from lincoln tech. sidenote, i have a 4.0 and nearly perfect attendance, i never had that in highschool. but with the rx, ill be starting out with the turbo upgrade as well as bigger injectors and fuel management, prolly in the form of an APEXi s-afcII, i think. so it will be bigger turbo, bigger exhaust, bigger injectors, new custom headers, xt intake manifold and xt6 tb, wrx intercooler, rising rate feul pressure regulator. thats the first step, eventually ill be getting new cams, then maybe a port and polish, stronger pistons, find a better head gasket(if possible) and ill prolly figure out what ill do from there, but thats going to be a while down the road, im poor at the moment. i do how ever hhave just about all the parts to do my turbo upgrade, i just need a few more parts and to get hte car to fun again. You might want to invest into devlar head studs (the kinds used in Porsche race engines with lots of comp. or boost) and maybe see if there is any one who makes a metal head gasket. (most of my experiances are from building Porsche and vw engines) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subyrally Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 thats what i have been lookig into getting eventually, the metal gaskets and head studs. i just need to figure out where ill be getting em from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWX Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 hey, I never said it wasn't going to be expencive, but it wouldn't be THAT hard. subyrally, there is a place to get them (the head gaskets) WJM got a set awhile back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bajavwnsoobnut Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 www.paeco.com they produce the good stuff including the copper head gaskets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. RX Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 hey, I never said it wasn't going to be expencive, but it wouldn't be THAT hard. JWX, did I ever say that creating an even firing Subaru would be hard?? Re-read my posts, the word 'hard' is not in them when I was talking about creating an even firing engine, that was your word. I don't mind having a lively discussion, but I don't like being misquoted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THAWA Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 How would it be possible to have a 1432 firing order? When the #1 piston is fired (compression), #4 would have to be finishing the intake stroke in order to be fired (compression) next right? So once #4 fires (compression, #3 would have to be finishing the intake stroke in order to fire next. However, if #4 is firing aka compression stroke(or even exhaust stroke for that matter), #3 will HAVE to be at or near TDC, in this case on the exhaust stroke, simply by the design of the boxer engine. So if you had it firing in that order, it would look like, compression, compression, intake, intake, compression, compression, intake, intake, compression, etc Where that would be 1, 4, 3, 2, 1, 4, 3, 2, 1 respectively. So unless I'm wrong, you'd have to change the crank design so that both the cyls on one bank are at TDC at the same side. Somehow I think that'd produce WAY more vibration that any engine needs to and it would be a worse situation than before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. RX Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 How would it be possible to have a 1432 firing order? When the #1 piston is fired (compression), #4 would have to be finishing the intake stroke in order to be fired (compression) next right? So once #4 fires (compression, #3 would have to be finishing the intake stroke in order to fire next. However, if #4 is firing aka compression stroke(or even exhaust stroke for that matter), #3 will HAVE to be at or near TDC, in this case on the exhaust stroke, simply by the design of the boxer engine. So if you had it firing in that order, it would look like, compression, compression, intake, intake, compression, compression, intake, intake, compression, etc Where that would be 1, 4, 3, 2, 1, 4, 3, 2, 1 respectively. So unless I'm wrong, you'd have to change the crank design so that both the cyls on one bank are at TDC at the same side. Somehow I think that'd produce WAY more vibration that any engine needs to and it would be a worse situation than before.Like I said, a different crankshaft would have to be ground, you can not get an even fire using the current crankshaft. The idea is to have the firing sequence be left, right, left, right, not left, left, right, right, that way there is a balance to the firing. An even firing engine is not called a "boxer". A note: This gets more critical the more cylinders you have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THAWA Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 okay I'm retarded, I didnt connect the "New crank" thing . So how is it going to be better? Isn't there going to be more vibration made from having most of the weight being thrown side to side? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baccaruda Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 nah, it'll be more like half the weight twice as often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.