Cooper's Engines

[SamSheepDoq]

Fine with me
Edit: right now I do not have access to my computer, I am just on my tablet, so I will only be able to go off of the pics you send me for a while.

Ah, then I'll send the file later. Also, when I said "V8", I should've put "I6". I hated the V8 (for no apparent reason). Anyways, here's the I6.

Pickup - 5.2 Litre I6.jpg (98.51 KiB) Viewed 4635 times

[gt1cooper]

That is a great engine for a truck. May I ask why it is so expensive? Is it just the quality settings needed to go with the low friction cast pistons? (Most of my big I6's end up at about $1400) Nice job, though. Your torque never falls below 300 lb/ft. And if this engine is for a 1/2 ton pickup, you may want to lower the service costs, I am guessing you put a performance intake on there? That is why none of the modern truck manufactures put those high performance intakes on their trucks, and go with the standards.

[gt1cooper]

Alright, you can send the file I will give it a shot to tune it.

[SamSheepDoq]

That is a great engine for a truck. May I ask why it is so expensive? Is it just the quality settings needed to go with the low friction cast pistons? (Most of my big I6's end up at about $1400) Nice job, though. Your torque never falls below 300 lb/ft. And if this engine is for a 1/2 ton pickup, you may want to lower the service costs, I am guessing you put a performance intake on there? That is why none of the modern truck manufactures put those high performance intakes on their trucks, and go with the standards.

I used your (brilliant) method of large stroke, small bore. I imagine the service costs are high because it's an I6 and V8's tend to be cheaper (depending on build of course). It's still a standard intake, and I understand how unreliable "performance" intakes can be. Standard intakes also reduce overall engine noise, which is another reason they use them.

[SamSheepDoq]

Alright, you can send the file I will give it a shot to tune it.

Alright, I'm open to suggestions. Here it is.

Pickup - 5.2 Litre I6.lua

(40.54 KiB) Downloaded 206 times

[gt1cooper]

Alright, here is what I did.

What I have found is that with these motors, high (and I mean really high) timing gives you much more torque, at the cost of some cooling. It also improves fuel economy. I also went to a high-flow three way cat, as this seems to be a fairly premium motor with those service costs.

I also took it off of the titanium con-rods, and made the power come a little earlier and stronger, so I could drop the rpm limit 200 rpm, giving it a fairly similar mtbf as with them.

Changes:
Power: +12 hp at 200 RPM lower
Torque: +8 lb/ft at 600 RPM later (However, while it peaks later, it reaches your power output earlier, and makes 350 ft/lb at about 1600 RPM)
Redline: -200 RPM
MTBF: -500 Miles
Responsiveness: +4
Smoothness: -3 (from the removal of titanium con-rods and switch to cast crank)
Cooling: +12 Kj/s (Timing)
Weight: +7 Lbs (Cast crank)
Emissions: -7
Economy: + .6%
Man hours: -1.1
Cost: -$400

I tend to avoid the Titanium con-rods in all applications that do not require a high revving engine. My pickup almost never revs past 4000 rpm unless I wanna hear that Ford Scream at 9000 RPM, for which I have my Mustang .
Edit: Link and Pic

Also, there is a little graphical glitch where the 350 line is missing.

[SamSheepDoq]

Alright, here is what I did.

What I have found is that with these motors, high (and I mean really high) timing gives you much more torque, at the cost of some cooling. It also improves fuel economy. I also went to a high-flow three way cat, as this seems to be a fairly premium motor with those service costs.

I also took it off of the titanium con-rods, and made the power come a little earlier and stronger, so I could drop the rpm limit 200 rpm, giving it a fairly similar mtbf as with them.

Changes:
Power: +12 hp at 200 RPM lower
Torque: +8 lb/ft at 600 RPM later (However, while it peaks later, it reaches your power output earlier, and makes 350 ft/lb at about 1600 RPM)
Redline: -200 RPM
MTBF: -500 Miles
Responsiveness: +4
Smoothness: -3 (from the removal of titanium con-rods and switch to cast crank)
Cooling: +12 Kj/s (Timing)
Weight: +7 Lbs (Cast crank)
Emissions: -7
Economy: + .6%
Man hours: -1.1
Cost: -$400

I tend to avoid the Titanium con-rods in all applications that do not require a high revving engine. My pickup almost never revs past 4000 rpm unless I wanna hear that Ford Scream at 9000 RPM, for which I have my Mustang .
Edit: Link and Pic

Also, there is a little graphical glitch where the 350 line is missing.

Wow, that's a lot of improvement! I think I'm going to use your method from now on.

[SamSheepDoq]

Okay, so I did a little tweaking and decided to lower the displacement by 0.2 litres. I also decided to have a larger, power-packed 5.7 Litre V8 that has 402 (IIRC) horsepower and 403 ft-lbs with a broad, flat torque curve. I lowered the timing on the 5.0 Litre I6 and found that it produced more power using 57 timing and 11:1 compression with a slightly larger cam (45). I also made the decision that being a gas engine for a half ton pickup truck, it won't be towing/hauling constantly, so MTBF wouldn't really matter which led me to raise the RPM while keeping the same steel conrods. The results add up to a 5.0 Litre I6 with 372 hp@6000 RPM, 351 ft-lbs@4300 RPM (though it makes 345~ ft-lbs@3000-5000 RPM), 27.75% efficiency, and an MTBF of 46,306 miles.

Pickup - 5.0 Litre I6.jpg (100.14 KiB) Viewed 4831 times

Pickup - 5.0 Litre I6R.lua

(40.45 KiB) Downloaded 233 times

[gt1cooper]

Good engine Guess you are part of Cooper's engines now? Haha

[SamSheepDoq]

Good engine Guess you are part of Cooper's engines now? Haha

Might as well make a partnership at this point. Hehe

[gt1cooper]

Tell you what, lets make a new thread, for us to work together. What would be a good name?

[SamSheepDoq]

Tell you what, lets make a new thread, for us to work together. What would be a good name?

I wouldn't know, "G&H" came from my last name and my friend's last name. Also, how would we both get editing permissions? Or would we just reply to the base thread to introduce new engines?

[gt1cooper]

Yeah, just do replies. I will make the original post in a couple hours, and we can link the new engines within the original post.

How would you like to do the engine nomenclature? Use mine, or what?

[SamSheepDoq]

Yeah, just do replies. I will make the original post in a couple hours, and we can link the new engines within the original post.

How would you like to do the engine nomenclature? Use mine, or what?

We can arrange it similar to Japan's method of naming. I believe their method is a bit different than this, but here's what I mean:

First letter - Engine type (I, V, B, F, etc)
Two numbers - Engine size (in litres)
Third/fourth letter - Fuel injection method (DI, SI, MI, FC (four barrel carburetor), TC (two barrel carburetor), etc)
Fifth letter - Valve lift method (O (OHV), C (OHC), S (SOHC), D (DOHC))
Sixth letter - Forced induction (N (N/A), T (turbo), TT (twin turbo), S (supercharged))

So, lets say we have the I6 above. We'd name that an I50DISN. Sound simple? Or is it too complicated?

[gt1cooper]

Good enough And if we want to make multiple similar engines, we can use my E, ES, S, RS, R type of nomenclature. Making it now