23

Project Professional Awesome Time Attack Evo: Part 2 - Engine Details

by Daniel O'Donnell

We last left you with the chassis in progress and weeks worth of prep and fab ahead of ourselves to have the car ready to start bolting parts on to it. While this was going on in our shop, we had a whole new engine project being worked on by Steve Schmidt Racing Engines in Indianapolis, IN. The goal of the new engine was to improve reliability, make more power and try some new ideas we had been tinkering around with in our heads.

 

While we toiled away in the garage, grinding away tar and sealant in order to stitch weld the chassis the new engine was being assembled at a nearby engine shop.

Now the old engine setup, as you can read about in Part: 0, was a 2.4L 4G64 block/4G63 head hybrid. We were reasonably pleased with this setup, but the block was damaged in the Road Atlanta accident and a new engine would have to be started from square one. As any car enthusiast knows, when life gives you lemons, you max out your credit cards and buy new, better parts to replace what you had in there before. So began the decision making process in switching our setup.

 

I hope all MotoIQ readers realize the wealth of knowledge to be found in the pages of the unforunately deceased Sport Compact Car magazine. I knew Dave Coleman covered rod stroke ratio in an issue and I knew I had to find it to read up before building the new engine. Coincidently, that issue was July 2002, the first issue I ever purchased!

First, I grabbed the Manley catalog as we always run their performance products where possible because they are great supporters of the team and we’ve never had a single issue with anything they produce. Second, I went searching through my Sport Compact Car archives, which I assume all good readers of MotoIQ have, looking for the July issue of 2002. The significance of that 13 year old issue? Well of course it was Dave Colemen’s Technobabble entitled “Don’t Bother” that covered the importance, or lack there of, of rod-to-stroke ratio. I then brushed up on Kheim’s MotoIQ articles “Does Length Matter Parts 1 and Deux” to ensure I had covered all possible rod-to-stroke ratio bases.

 

Our previous 2.4L 4G63/64 with MA Performance's EF4 turbo before it got smashed into a wall. This setup proved very potent, although with room for improvement, and went through a few different iterations in its life. In this photo notice the second, external wastegate after the internal wastegate. This was done to support this inital wastegate actuator and hold boost at higher RPM. Eventually we switch the internal wastegate actuator to a Turbosmart design, making the secondary wastegate no longer needed.
Page 1 of 6 Next Page
Bookmark and Share
Comments
spdracerut
spdracerutlink
Monday, February 23, 2015 11:38 PM
Nice build!!! Lots of good thought put into it. Man, MIVEC head and some porting, you'll probably get 500rpm better spool plus be knocking on 700whp.
theneil
theneillink
Monday, February 23, 2015 11:42 PM
cool! but will the dry sump be added before it hits the track or bolted on along with a new shortblock to replace this one, fried from oil starvation?
Mike Kojima
Mike Kojimalink
Monday, February 23, 2015 11:43 PM
Not to mention 40 lb/ft of torque
rawkus
rawkuslink
Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:21 AM
We have modified our stock oil pan with a kick out to increase oil capacity as well as added screens and walls to keep the oil at the pickup tube during right handed turns, which is generally the Evo's issue. We monitor oil pressure and don't have the same oil drop issues that we had previously with the stock pan. Is it perfect? No. Do we want a dry sump? Yes. It's not a huge priority though as we've never had any indication of wear due to oil starvation.
Monkius
Monkiuslink
Tuesday, February 24, 2015 10:45 AM
How did you get the car onto its side like that without a rotisserie? It also appears to be sitting on its wheels. Did you just use junk ones to avoid worrying about damage or is there a cleverer solution going on?
rjnovak05
rjnovak05link
Tuesday, February 24, 2015 11:15 AM
As an Evo owner, love this series and the build. Also have to agree on the SCC research. I have just about every issue from about '01 until the end in a closet and have used articles from Dave, et al many times over the years!!
eeeen
eeeenlink
Tuesday, February 24, 2015 11:52 AM
Hell yea, always pumped to read about PA's TA progress. I am digging their new build.

Although I sure as shit didn't need another reminder of how stupid Andy Hope sounded as he pathetically tried to mask his own "shortcomings" with that of the Viper. And that comes from a die hard evo fan, lol.... The only thing slow in that article was the sub-par driver. The article should have been titled "A biased clown attempts to drive a Viper at Streets of Willow"

For reference...... a 100% stock Evo X mr went 1:13.85 at SoW, a Lotus Exige S 240 went 1:13.52, and the same model year Viper in ACR trim went 1:08.56 with a real driver behind the wheel ... compared to Hope's 1:24.488 in that modified Evo 8 and a 1:27.932 in the Viper. No room to talk shit about anything but your own lack of skill

The only thing that fell short was Andy Hope's "skills" ...
rawkus
rawkuslink
Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:19 PM
Regarding the flipping the car on its side comment... Yes, the rear wheel was crashed at Road Atlanta and is ruined, the front was crashed by a buddy on his 06 MR and dented, so they weren't of any value. Keep in mind there were no doors or fenders on the car, so we just flipped it up using man strength and rested it on stacks of tires and such against the cage and B pillar.
spdracerut
spdracerutlink
Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:49 PM
eeeen, there are a couple configurations for Streets of Willow. Andy's time was actually very fast for running the full configuration back then when the chicane was actually a chicane and had real curbing that would kill your wheels and suspension if you hit them. For reference, in 2008, a GT-R went 1:25.09.
eeeen
eeeenlink
Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:26 AM
I know there are different configs of SoW; but the track maps of both show the track configs were the same. Turn for Turn.

If I was using different track layouts to compare times, it would not make sense, the times would not be comparable. I'd be like the WTAC ignoring track differences to support my argument. Not my intention.

The times were from the same month in the same year, with similar track conditions, on the same track layout.
Rockwood
Rockwoodlink
Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:38 PM
Can we keep the vitriol about unrelated projects out please?
eeeen
eeeenlink
Thursday, February 26, 2015 4:50 PM
lol

Seems like "vitriol" would be a bit of a stretch, but if that is what you consider vitriol, point taken
Jasonrg77
Jasonrg77link
Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:03 PM
Does the changes in your powerband affect your gear selection? Would that be solved via final drive or in the gearbox?
kwengineering
kwengineeringlink
Friday, March 06, 2015 9:09 AM
Any reasons the head was not ported?
rawkus
rawkuslink
Friday, March 06, 2015 12:17 PM
We didn't port the head due to budgetary constraints. Regarding final drive and such, we do run a 4.0:1 final drive, but this didn't change with the power band. We'll have a future article on the drivetrain soon!
Post Comment Login or register to post a comment.

MotoIQ Proudly Presents Our Partners:



© 2018 MotoIQ.com