TSI and a couple of eco and sport engines

Sharing Engine Sharing Forum
21

ok, thanks!

22

I retweaked the engine again to make a “86” GT-APEX model this one though has one hell of a power band, I found even more horses hiding in the shed. total now is 230 HP; although it does use a little bit more fuel, it’s lighter and cheaper.

tell me what you think though.

[i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w548/dwelasri/Screenshot18_zps339d3e8b.png]()

23

how much is that 86 engine suppose to produce?

24

the 2012 86 with it’s 1998 CC boxer engine makes maximum 200 HP and 151 ft/lbs, and that’s with direct injection.

instead I think I made a Honda engine, more precisely the K20A. RPM peaks are very close. Power figures are also close.

25

I just finished reworking your BMW inspired straight 6 it’s not DI anymore or a 30 valve, but it does pack quite a punch.

410@ 8100 RPM

287@ 6700 RPM

and 397g/Kwh fuel economy

again I cut the power band (as usual) XD, but I did it to gain extra MTBF miles.

here is the piece de resistance:

[i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w548/dwelasri/Screenshot19_zpsff269e57.png]()

26

lol, quite a punch indeed, but its no longer an everyday sport saloon engine! :slight_smile: and the MTBF reduced by 9000km
you do teach me about cost efficiency though, please upload the engine so i can check it on tuesday when i will be at home. i will also upload the turbo version i made to this engine which makes 450hp@6300rpm if i remember right, but im not pleased with it, maybe you will make it better. (maybe by means of everyday use this time? XD)
the honda engine is dirt cheap its also missing some MTBF k’s :wink:

27

[quote=“headacheengineering”]I just finished reworking your BMW inspired straight 6 it’s not DI anymore or a 30 valve, but it does pack quite a punch.

410@ 8100 RPM

287@ 6700 RPM

and 397g/Kwh fuel economy

again I cut the power band (as usual) XD, but I did it to gain extra MTBF miles.

here is the piece de resistance:

[i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w548/dwelasri/Screenshot19_zpsff269e57.png]()[/quote]

try not doing that and go all out on this engine and what do you get on it if you do that?

28

@KD14:

MTBF is not an issue if it’s high on the priorities list. but it will cost a little bit more in man hours.

both engine are high rev & power for their size and specs.

I can do this both ways either:

  • cut RPM and Power band, the el cheapo solution.

or

  • increase quality in bottom end section.

the weak point in both engines is the rod, that’s what’s costing MTBF K’s

@Juno8: I want to balance Power, Consumption, MTBF, and cost in my builds.

but if all out that engine would make about 300 N/A for the 2.0L 4 banger; and 550 for the straight 6 N/A.

[i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w548/dwelasri/Screenshot20_zpsd37440bd.png]()

[i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w548/dwelasri/Screenshot21_zpsf2f25787.png]()

@KD14 here are the lua files:

I came up with a classification system for the engines example:

20B-16FI-VHR stands for 2.0 L, B means heads and block are of the same material, 16 valves, EFI, Value (cheap), HR means high response and rev
20B-16FI-VHRRev0.lua (51 KB)
35B-24FI-HRRev0.lua (48.3 KB)