What's new
By:
Filters

Future of KOH 4400 chassis/car development?

Bebop said:
The details on this thing are horrendous.
It looks cool but you can definitely tell that dude builds road going cars and has no offroad experience.
Click to expand...
www.scarboperformance.com

Scarbo Performance

Scarbo Performance is a design and manufacturing company which utilizes modern tools to produce competitive products. Our innovative approach to design is evident in each of the products we develop.
www.scarboperformance.com www.scarboperformance.com
 
Oh holy hell that's a $1.5 million truck. I had no idea. The idea of building an offroad "supercar" is interesting though, I wonder if there's a (small) emerging market for that kind of thing
 
AgitatedPancake said:
Oh holy hell that's a $1.5 million truck. I had no idea. The idea of building an offroad "supercar" is interesting though, I wonder if there's a (small) emerging market for that kind of thing
Click to expand...
1.5 million with a switch pros :laughing:

mobil1syn said:
www.scarboperformance.com

Scarbo Performance

Scarbo Performance is a design and manufacturing company which utilizes modern tools to produce competitive products. Our innovative approach to design is evident in each of the products we develop.
www.scarboperformance.com www.scarboperformance.com
Click to expand...
I know exactly who he is.
I've been following him and Trevor Lee Harris for years.
He built a Nissan Titan prerunner with a weird swingset that had 0 bumpsteer through both travel and steering angle. I believe we already mentioned it on this board at least once.
 
Bebop said:
He built a Nissan Titan prerunner with a weird swingset that had 0 bumpsteer through both travel and steering angle. I believe we already mentioned it on this board at least once.
Click to expand...

I remember those posts but can't remember what thread it was in. Might have even been this one but there are way to many pages to search for it now.
 
Tech Tim said:
Click to expand...



Here's your non-belt driven dry sump pump:flipoff2:


018-1926.jpg
 
Think of the other accessories trying to live from 1000 to 12,000 RPM. Even at 8K rpm we are thinking two speed pulleys for alternators. elec for water and hydro. Send one over..........
 
While it's very cool and a radical design........it's a drag racing engine. It probable never sees anything below 8k rpm in a run. Which is pretty damn impressive in itself.

Found the specs on it.........

Equal 8 Engine Specifications
Block: Aluminum 90-degree V8 Wet Sleeve
Bore: 4.500-inches
Stroke: 3.470-inches
Displacement: 441 cubic inches
Deck Height: 8.50-inches
Cam Journals: 1.687-inches
Main Journals: 2.560-inches
Crankshaft: Winberg Billet Steel
Connecting rods: Steel
Rod Journals: 1.850-inches
Camshaft: Lift 1.100-inch; Exhaust 1.0-inch/Duration 289-degrees intake; 304-degrees exhaust
Cam Drive: External Jesel Belt Drive
Cylinder Heads: Slawko Racing Billet Aluminum
Valves: Intake 2.400-inches, 9-degree angle with 3-degree cant; Exhaust 1.720-inches -2-degree angle, 1.5-degree cant
Rockers: Jesel Pro Steel, Intake 1.95:1 Exhaust 1.90:1
Compression Ratio: 16:1
Pushrods: Intake 7.5-inches Exhaust 8.7-inches
Horsepower: 1,285 at 12,200 rpm
Torque: 713 @ 8,500 rpm
Redline: 12,500 rpm


I'd like to know how long the connecting rods are, because with that short deck height that doesn't leave a lot of room for a longish rod with much compression height on the piston.

The speed that those giant 4.5" slugs are accelerating at has to be insane.

Was also expecting to see much shorter pushrod lengths. But then again those heads look pretty tall all by themselves.
 
gt1guy said:
While it's very cool and a radical design........it's a drag racing engine. It probable never sees anything below 8k rpm in a run. Which is pretty damn impressive in itself.


Camshaft: Lift 1.100-inch; Exhaust 1.0-inch/Duration 289-degrees intake; 304-degrees exhaust

Valves: Intake 2.400-inches, 9-degree angle with 3-degree cant; Exhaust 1.720-inches -2-degree angle, 1.5-degree cant
Rockers: Jesel Pro Steel, Intake 1.95:1 Exhaust 1.90:1
Click to expand...
 
gt1guy said:
While it's very cool and a radical design........it's a drag racing engine. It probable never sees anything below 8k rpm in a run. Which is pretty damn impressive in itself.

Found the specs on it.........

Equal 8 Engine Specifications
Block: Aluminum 90-degree V8 Wet Sleeve
Bore: 4.500-inches
Stroke: 3.470-inches
Displacement: 441 cubic inches
Deck Height: 8.50-inches
Cam Journals: 1.687-inches
Main Journals: 2.560-inches
Crankshaft: Winberg Billet Steel
Connecting rods: Steel
Rod Journals: 1.850-inches
Camshaft: Lift 1.100-inch; Exhaust 1.0-inch/Duration 289-degrees intake; 304-degrees exhaust
Cam Drive: External Jesel Belt Drive
Cylinder Heads: Slawko Racing Billet Aluminum
Valves: Intake 2.400-inches, 9-degree angle with 3-degree cant; Exhaust 1.720-inches -2-degree angle, 1.5-degree cant
Rockers: Jesel Pro Steel, Intake 1.95:1 Exhaust 1.90:1
Compression Ratio: 16:1
Pushrods: Intake 7.5-inches Exhaust 8.7-inches
Horsepower: 1,285 at 12,200 rpm
Torque: 713 @ 8,500 rpm
Redline: 12,500 rpm


I'd like to know how long the connecting rods are, because with that short deck height that doesn't leave a lot of room for a longish rod with much compression height on the piston.

The speed that those giant 4.5" slugs are accelerating at has to be insane.

Was also expecting to see much shorter pushrod lengths. But then again those heads look pretty tall all by themselves.
Click to expand...
The longest rod possible should be about 5.65". This winds up with a 1.6ish rod ratio. Not bad at all.
 
bdkw1 said:
The longest rod possible should be about 5.65". This winds up with a 1.6ish rod ratio. Not bad at all.
Click to expand...

So you were using 1.1"ish for compression height?

I'm going to have to disagree. A stock SBC rod is 5.7", stock BBC is 6.135". That 4.5" piston is taking a beating and there isn't a lot of compression height on it.

I know there's two completely different camps when it comes to rod lengths. Camp 1 says the rod just connects the piston to the crank and don't care about length. Camp 2 wants the longest rod possible because it will dwell longer at TDC, have less side loading on the piston and less acceleration (G's) when changing directions.

Jesel obviously went with the first camp. I bet it was more of a "other things are more important right now and the rods fall where they fall".

But being a drag engine it only needs to last a couple miles at a event. I'm not knocking what Mr. Jesel has accomplished at all. It's bad ass.

I just always want to know why the smartest folks in the industry make the compromises they do when and where they build things.
 
gt1guy said:
So you were using 1.1"ish for compression height?

I'm going to have to disagree. A stock SBC rod is 5.7", stock BBC is 6.135". That 4.5" piston is taking a beating and there isn't a lot of compression height on it.

I know there's two completely different camps when it comes to rod lengths. Camp 1 says the rod just connects the piston to the crank and don't care about length. Camp 2 wants the longest rod possible because it will dwell longer at TDC, have less side loading on the piston and less acceleration (G's) when changing directions.

Jesel obviously went with the first camp. I bet it was more of a "other things are more important right now and the rods fall where they fall".

But being a drag engine it only needs to last a couple miles at a event. I'm not knocking what Mr. Jesel has accomplished at all. It's bad ass.

I just always want to know why the smartest folks in the industry make the compromises they do when and where they build things.
Click to expand...

You know people build 3.4" stroke 8.2" deck height Windsors all the time, right? My 347 rotating assembly has 5.4" rods with 1.102" compression height pistons. .070" more stroke with .300" more deck height doesn't sound crazy to me at all.
 
gt1guy said:
So you were using 1.1"ish for compression height?

I'm going to have to disagree. A stock SBC rod is 5.7", stock BBC is 6.135". That 4.5" piston is taking a beating and there isn't a lot of compression height on it.

I know there's two completely different camps when it comes to rod lengths. Camp 1 says the rod just connects the piston to the crank and don't care about length. Camp 2 wants the longest rod possible because it will dwell longer at TDC, have less side loading on the piston and less acceleration (G's) when changing directions.

Jesel obviously went with the first camp. I bet it was more of a "other things are more important right now and the rods fall where they fall".

But being a drag engine it only needs to last a couple miles at a event. I'm not knocking what Mr. Jesel has accomplished at all. It's bad ass.

I just always want to know why the smartest folks in the industry make the compromises they do when and where they build things.
Click to expand...
It only has 3.47 stroke! Rod ratio is right there in stock vehicle range. My opion, stick to the middle. To short and lots of side loading and bigger ports needed. To long and it gets lazy unless you have small ports which hurt top end. Boost throws a lot of this out the window.
 
'84 Bronco II said:
You know people build 3.4" stroke 8.2" deck height Windsors all the time, right? My 347 rotating assembly has 5.4" rods with 1.102" compression height pistons. .070" more stroke with .300" more deck height doesn't sound crazy to me at all.
Click to expand...

At what bore size and are you turning 12,000rpm with it? That makes a big difference.

I know fuck all about Ford engines to be honest.


bdkw1 said:
It only has 3.47 stroke! Rod ratio is right there in stock vehicle range. My opion, stick to the middle. To short and lots of side loading and bigger ports needed. To long and it gets lazy unless you have small ports which hurt top end. Boost throws a lot of this out the window.
Click to expand...

Yes, it only has a 3.47" stroke.....but.....it also has a 4.5" bore AND is turning 12k rpm.

It never sees the rpm range (or is used at) where a longer rod is a detriment. But being over bored by quite a bit and spinning 12k is generally where you'd expect to see the longer rod.
 
gt1guy said:
At what bore size and are you turning 12,000rpm with it? That makes a big difference.

I know fuck all about Ford engines to be honest.




Yes, it only has a 3.47" stroke.....but.....it also has a 4.5" bore AND is turning 12k rpm.

It never sees the rpm range (or is used at) where a longer rod is a detriment. But being over bored by quite a bit and spinning 12k is generally where you'd expect to see the longer rod.
Click to expand...
Think of it as an oversized motorcycle engine. They share similar bore stroke ratios. They do not use long rods either. The piston speed is the killer, it's like 50% over what you would normally see. That to me is what makes it a drag motor, everything else is negotiable.
 
So I guess we all agree that this is not the engine of choice for the hypothetical ultimate offroad racer. :flipoff2:
 
gt1guy said:
Besides the 15:1 compression. Which in itself isn't the end of the world. High boost can see that overall ratio, but your stuck with race fuel which I'd assume most are running anyway.

The article says the motor need a refresh after 100 miles and new valve springs after 50 miles.

Those would be long pitstops:flipoff2:
Click to expand...

Nascar style valve springs and pistons/rings solves those issues.

Hell, why aren't we using an SB2.2? Those are good for 800hp and will run all day at 10k RPM....
 
SLOWPOKE693 said:
Nascar style valve springs and pistons/rings solves those issues.

Hell, why aren't we using an SB2.2? Those are good for 800hp and will run all day at 10k RPM....
Click to expand...
Wait, who was the guy on here that had a billet Dart block stroker SB2 built? It was for a street car but still.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh