Page 1 of 12

CQ center armrest installed. pic

PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:01 am
by pkw
i will first outline some goals and discuss the compromises involved and my way of dealing with them. i will illustrate my path through this project.
hopefully soon

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:42 am
by pkw
1 hold max heat- my rectangular section means that runners can share walls so heat loss will be minimized. and rectangular instead of sq. so i can tuck the runners close to each other to help transition to the collector area, and from there to the rect. opening of my t3 flange. i have internal flow directors in my manifold. keeping it short also helps minimize heat loss. good hp will be made with boost, not that hard, so i am concentrating on getting into boost asap.
2 smooth flow with min bends
3 needs to fit
4 equal length....would have been nice, but then i would not get the other three. i feel as though the turbine wheel, to a large degree, dampens the pulse tuning effect so i decided to go with the first is not a very good pic of underside of manifold, but the rect. section is equal to the section of round so as much as these runners look skinny in this view from the side they look that tall....[/img]

Attachment ( 2508 ) : DSC01121_030.JPG

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:55 am
by audifreakjim
Wow, there's something I never thought of.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:11 am
by AudiRocco
Did you WELD the manny to the head!? :wtf:

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:13 am
by cuatrokoop
Er, no, he's got a flange there....

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:15 am
by Audilard
Different and interesting....

PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:16 am
by pkw
i thought it was worth keeping the stock 7a intake. i am using a low compression 2.2 so runners tuned to boost low end are a good idea. i will make good hp by using boost so peak hp was not my number one concern. i designed an exhaust manifold to make all the stuff work and this ended the chain of events that would eventually cause me to have issues with rad, p.s. pump, ac etc. it does, however cause a small problem in that the ic i want to run now needs a tricky front support design to hook up to my tb that is in the stock location. so that was my compromise (oh and more heat shielding than most need) for me, it should work well.
p.s. from looking at it, the 7a i.m. probably cost about 5% out put compared to a short, straight im.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:45 am
by pkw
some may wonder why i say low cr, 2.2. well, do some machine work to an mc2 and you end up with strong pistons, rods (w/ big pin), crank, and mls head gasket compatibility for just the cost of that machining. you also get the oil cooler stuff with your choice. the downside is the best you end up with is about 7.5 cr which can be fixed with more boost and that 7a im. so, if you are okay with that, it is like one stop shopping. it should work for me. if i need more response i may build a ev based engine. hmm, 7.5 cr + pump gas will be pretty high boost. hmm + water injection (still just pull up to the pump) would = more boost . hmm, + i could bite the bullet and run race gas or race gas in a separate fuel cell for those high boost runs. that is...ought, ought, carry the 1 ...holy crap that is like 10 million psi i can run. i may need a bigger turbo than first calculated :P

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:29 pm
by pkw
i think i will stick around my project thread a bit more and post my thoughts here, where i feel the most comfortable (this space is the closest thing to being mine). i will clear a few things up, i am not just a poor speller that sputters out sentence fragments in all lower case, with a lack of proper punctuation thrown in for good measure. this is how i choose to converse, to me it sets a casual mood for chat about, er, stuff - like when you are hanging out with car buddies, talking about cars in a garage or parking lot, no need to be pretentious here. as for spelling, my logical brain totally rejects it and i would like to throw out our language and start my own. it would be very logical and intuitive just with more words in it than English so that no two sounds would be ever spelled in different ways... another day perhaps.
the following is just a rough outline of what i did and why i did it. it may not be right for you and i welcome both positive and negative comments. really i do. i am not going to sugar coat anything in MY thread and nobody else has to either. and to think i actually feel as though i do in other people's threads-scary huh? but really if we talk freely we can all go further and learn from each other. i think i can learn form everyone here and i offer my thoughts to all, hoping somebody finds value in it. i took it upon myself to dig into some stuff and come up with some answers that to me were not available around here and i will post some of my findings and offer some of my solutions. BTW for a day job i am a mechanical designer, i have been in the biz since 1986 and checked my first mechanical design in 1989. i have done work with some pretty big names and have had some pretty neat brains at my disposal to pick. in my personal life i have numerous friends into various forms of the mechanical side of motor sports, some hold world records in multiple classes and i have had, and continue to have good conversations with these guys. i do not know everything mechanically, but maybe some info i post will be of value. well time to go home and eat now though. more to come...

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:15 pm
Maybe a little late here, but I don't think that's going to hold the most heat. With that set-up you have way more exposed surface area. The more exposed area the more heat will be drawn off. It's the same idea as a large radiator or intercooler.

The heat concentrations on the walls become stress concentrations with the large heat deltas...not generally thought of as a good thing. Luckily, it's nice short runs!

Very interesting idea though and if it works in the space, it works.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 3:11 pm
by pkw
thanks for input- hmm, i do not see way more exposed surface area. the flange locations are a given, a collector is a necessity, and the rectangular section runners are as short as can be without any radical bends. i see equal or less than, in all aspects relative to conventional designs. explain please?....... as with any design, when done you still have to hope for no cracking :-)

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:12 pm
by pkw
some misc FYI that i gathered because imho the available info seemed sketchy or non existent you find that my info may not jibe with what has been out there so feel free to take it as you wish although i will say i personally went through the act of finding this stuff out:
1) 7a stock (afaik) head only volume: approx. 43cc
2) compressed head gasket thickness .062 (3 i have measured) javad has measured different but i noticed that audi gaskets have come in three different thicknesses for the diesels at least. is it possible that Audi did some select fitting at the factory to achieve optimum squish? or folks have the diesel gasket of the correct thickness after decking a block? shrug.
3) my piston sets in AFAIK an untouched short block were all proud above the deck surface by about .027" i have measured as much as .035 on a short block of Steve ankney's and yes IMHO that is too much and i would run a thicker gasket to fix it. unfortunately, the gasket that motor came with was not around anymore.
4) rod bolts...i was going for arp bolts for my project and they supposedly make them but during the course of about 5 phone calls, i got about 5 different part numbers. so i passed :frustrated: and really i am not wild about a reversed engineered rod bolt design versus one made using original part print dims. there is a given radius under the head and head design considerations along with a special fit with the originals in the rod and cap and if that is not exactly the same the rods should really be reconditioned. think they are same with the arps?
5)so i buy some factory rod bolts and find lots of confusion as to what is offered and what it is to be torqued to. they used to sell a one time, and reusable design, and have a way to tell them apart listed in the Bentley. now there is only one part offered, i bought it and looks like what would be called a reusable design according to the Bentley. MAYBE it is not though, and they simply adopted the cheaper to produce look of the other bolt since they only sell one now at days anyway. shrug just saying it could be that way shrug. but anyway. what is toque?is it (all in ft/lbs) 22 + 1/4 turn, 44, 33, or other. i have only seen the 33 in a Chilton and i can not believe that to be correct. it sounds too low. so now we are looking at the Bentley and i am thinking okay i bet those two specs are actually close when all is done. koop says he ran into a problem by over tightening the low torque bolts and says this was confirmed when his engine did not turn over after tightening. wow, i just can not picture that even being possible if all was put together right, but i may have miss understood something (shrug) so i read some stories and my fear grew. i even talked to sjm about it he was guessing the same thing about them being about the same final tq just a different procedure. and no, the dealer's info can not confirm the history of this mess because their info does not go back that far. so i started at the 22 + 1/4 turn and ended up at about the other torque so i may not be right but in my mind, the model i will go with is they end up the same it is just that the 22 + 1/4 will always be a better way of defining the spec.
6) valve clearance: the rule of thumb is .06/.08 i/e clearance, .02 tighter if you know what you are doing and have a good reason for it.
on my 7a i got the magic .08 when i checked them, BUT that is with the cam timing ADVANCED ONE TOOTH ! so if you can put a timing belt on right, the extra depth for the 1 tooth too advanced error clearance in a stock Audi piston is just a waste that does not do the piston any good. in my case i knew i could do a belt right, but that i may run it half a tooth off because of the decking and because i may want more low end power. i put my clearance in there not as deep as the stockers because i wanted the strength, and the compression, so i have .08 when i am advanced 1/2 a cam tooth. with the cam timing on zero the intake would clear a non relieved piston by about .02-not enough. now i know this to be true but i get guff when i ask if anyone has added relieves to those ng and nf bottoms using the 7a head i have not seen those pistons up close but from pics the slight relief that is in them is not even in the right place. but hey, i am :bashtard: i would check it out if i were you guys :tard: (anyone know of a nf/7a motor down on power?)

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:46 pm
by pkw
7)...and (like i did not just write a flippin' book up there) the mc piston has .484" material above the top ring land. that is a lot so i figured i would chop that down by about .160" for a still conservative .324 (imho the industry std is about .250) there are up sides to the .250 figure but since i am not designing the piston from the ground up with that .250 dimension, and because i do not care about emissions, in this case .324 is better than .250.
i also had the block decked by .160 i believe this to be pretty conserative too. the most scary part is the area of block casting that flows from the outer edge of the block to the 3 and 6 o'clock positions of the bores. this area is iirc like .400 thick max on the stocker and is a "D" shape section rotated 90 degrees. i wanted to keep this, and if i am going to keep it i do not want it to crumble away after the block has seen the stress of 400-500 hp. i feel like my .160 decking leaves enough strength in this area. probably if the whole area were removed it would be okay as i feel there is a good chance its existence is for casting reasons and not required for strength. then again i am conservative so i did what i did. could i have taken off another .06" and had it be strong enough? i would guess it would be okay. could i have taken off that .220 total and just trimmed that little bridge out of there? probably. BTW that would give me about 7.7:1 instead of my 7.5:1 .... your call when you do yours.
8) what will my engine feel like off boost going from 2.3 with 10:1ish to 2.2 with 7.5:1 with those rev happy cams in the 7a? my guess-lame. now it is different from engine design to engine design but it could, at worst, be as bad as putting a stock 1.8 16v vw 4cyl. in my 3100 lbs CQ then when the boost comes on, BAM but if that is as bad as it gets it will still be worth doing and more than a little bit of fun. i already have neat ideas for a eurovan build as well, so that is probably next no matter how the mc/7a turns out. recently, i agreed to buy this one guys 7a head and cams for what he wanted for them, so we had this deal, and he told me he would get back to me on shipping details via phone. then after a bit he PMs me he sold the stuff. i never found out what went wrong but that is why i have not started on the stroker from hell build of mine. :wtf:

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:02 am
by pkw
piston pics, including intake valve reliefs for a 7a with 1/2 cam tooth advance for .062 valve clearance. i also blended the remaining "knife blade edge"

Attachment ( 3904 ) : Pete's valREL.jpg

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:10 am
by pkw
pic of "D" shaped bridge area that gets thinner when decking my .160 but i think it may have been as thick as .500 anyway i feel it is still thick enough. this just shows the area i am talking about (under the screw driver tip), not the actual cross-section.

Attachment ( 3905 ) : Pete'sdeckbridge.jpg

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:18 am
by pkw
mc oil filter housing plus CQ ac bracket equal crash so i made some dowel pins that are offset by .040" to clock that housing a little differently. that got the filter to miss the bracket then i milled the bracket to give me clearance for my tighten bolt for the ac.

Attachment ( 3906 ) : Pete'sfilterACbrkt.jpg

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:34 am
by pkw
how to take up that extra slack in the timing belt.
i drilled and tapped an extra hole for that bolt on the left.

Attachment ( 3907 ) : Pete's idlerbrkt.jpg

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:38 am
by pkw
then comes the backing plate

Attachment ( 3908 ) : Pete's idlerbackplt.jpg

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:43 am
by pkw
then comes the seal (free mouse pad when you sign up for Verizon dsl..fools)

Attachment ( 3909 ) : Pete's idlerseal.jpg

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:49 am
by pkw
modified, belt, backing plate ....

Attachment ( 3910 ) : Pete's tbback.jpg

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:14 am
by pkw
now i can adjust t.b. tension with my slotted idler bracket without disturbing the water pump, and its sealing ability

Attachment ( 3911 ) : Pete's tbassy.jpg

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:42 am
by JShadzi
Very cool, nice work man. 8)

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:08 am
by Shawn M.
freaking love the TB tensioner..great idea and nice execution.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:59 pm
by Marc
nice diy solution :)

I paid the $20 for the dealer part tho, call me lazy 8-)

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:55 pm
by pkw
a4kquattro wrote:nice diy solution :)

I paid the $20 for the dealer part tho, call me lazy 8-)
for what part?