M20 B3x Naturally Aspirated Stroker build past, present and future

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • digger
    replied
    It’s been quite long size I’ve posted anything of substance so here goes…

    A rather important piece of the puzzle is the piston. When you want a custom set sometimes you have to design your own.

    There are a few basic fundamental things needed to lock in before getting into details:

    BASICS

    1) Bore
    2) Compression Height CH
    3) CR (gives the Piston dome/dish cc)

    To answer those I need:
    - Block Deck Height – mine is 206.2 mm so allow say 206.0 after machining.
    - Rod Length – 135 mm stock.
    - Stroke – 93.8 mm (throw 46.9 mm) Alpina B3 crankshaft
    - Deck Clearance – Target -0.9 mm (negative is above deck) gives nominally the recommended squish with gasket thickness below.
    - Gasket Thickness – I’ve assumed nominal MLS thickness of 1.90 mm (0.075”) I can adjust the squish clearance as there is 1.52, 1.73, 1.78, 1.91, 2.03 and 2.18 mm thicknesses available.
    - Gasket Bore – 0.5 mm larger than the bore is a safe bet so 86.5 mm.
    - Combustion Chamber Volume (cc) – Mine is 46 cc.

    1) Bore

    This is easy my current pistons are 86 mm, makes sense to keep it the same especially with a big valve head. Others might like to use 85 mm to be able to use an OE composite gasket. There are 86 mm pistons that work with an OE gasket by having a large chamfer but there are a few things I’ve never really liked with the idea.

    2) Compression Height

    This is simple maths
    CH = Block Deck Height – Rod Length – Crank Throw – Deck Clearance
    CH = 206 - 135 - 46.9 - -0.9 = 25.00 mm

    3) Compression Ratio

    For a street engine running on 98RON with a cam around 290 duration 11 to 11.5:1 is about the upper limit that is “recommended”, some will say more is ok some will say less is better, in reality it just depends there are many variables. Something around that value with the cam in question gives a dynamic compression ratio of 8 to 8.4. So I split the difference and aimed for 11.25:1. I may look to setup knock control as an added safety measure.

    Some more maths to work out the total combustion chamber size with

    Swept Volume per cylinder = pi/4 * Bore ^2 * Stroke = 544.9 cc (3,269 cc)
    Net Combustion Chamber Volume = Swept Volume / (CR-1) = 53.2 cc

    Again some more maths to work the dome/dish cc, it is fairly simple maths

    Piston cc = Net Combustion Chamber Volume – Cylinder Head cc – Gasket Volume – Deck Clearance Volume

    Cylinder head cc = 46 cc

    Gasket Volume = pi/4 * Gasket Bore ^2 * Gasket Thickness = 11.2 cc

    Deck Clearance Volume = pi/4 * Bore ^2 * Deck Clearance = - 5.3 cc (this is negative because the clearance is negative i.e. above deck)

    Therefore

    Piston cc = 53.2 - 46 - 11.2 - -5.3 = + 1.2 cc (i.e a net Dish, a negative would be net dome)

    Preliminary Piston Verification:

    Will the long stroke work?

    There are few issues with using the long stroke:

    i) The short CH:

    The required compression height is 25mm. This is quite short but not as short as some “off the shelf” pistons from MM.
    To do this I decided on a 20mm pin, it allows a bit more room for the ring lands and gives more clearance between the valve pocket and the top ring as well as better clearance between the piston boss and crank. It means getting the rods rebushed and honed to 20mm so it’s not overly difficult you just end up paying a little extra.
    Rings are:

    1st: 1.0mm Barrel (thermal spray coating)

    2nd: 1.2mm Napier. The napier ring is really good for added oil control as it scrapes the wall well.

    3rd: 2.8mm 3 piece Standard tension (inc oil support rail)



    ii) Piston Boss to Crank Counterweight Clearance

    The picture below shows the clearance, people would know that when doing the 2.8L budget stroker this is an issue due to the short rod and large counterweight crank. Fortunately the crank I’m going to use doesn’t have overly large counterweights. They are the same as the S52 and smaller than the M52b28 crank. Also the rods are longer so it’s actually less of an issue than on the budget stroker



    Clearance = rod length – crank throw – crank counterweight radius – pin radius – piston boss thickness
    = 135 – 46.9 – 70.5 – 10 – 5.5 = 2.1 mm which is plenty of clearance.

    iii) Piston deck thickness

    With the short compression height and a dish the little end of the rod limits how thick the crown can be



    The maximum dish that can be run depends on a few things

    The minimum piston crown (in the centre of piston) I’ve seen recommended is about 4.5mm for NA (opinion of people working in the piston manufacturing industry). I think allowing for 5 or 5.5mm is a better idea.

    The minimum clearance I’ve seen recommended for the rod to underside of the piston is 1.25mm (JE data sheet)

    https://www.jepistons.com/PDFs/TechC...instrc4032.pdf




    The rod has a radius of 16.25mm (drawing provided by the manufacturer)



    So the maximum dish = Compression height – rod little end radius – underside clearance – crown thickness

    25.00 – 16.25 – 1.25 – 5.5 = 2.00 mm

    Piston Design


    Dome Design


    this is the data for the OE pistons



    The OE design has the angled squish pad for generating turbulence in the combustion chamber which helps with the burn speed and reducing knock. It also has the dish offset towards the spark plug and exhaust valve.
    With a donor 9.7:1 slug some simple radius gauges you can learn quite a bit







    You can also see where the centre of the dish is by looking at the machining marks so you can measure the dish offset
    So this is how the stock 9.7:1 m20 piston dome is constructed
    Spherical dome (not a hemisphere) approx R100





    Subtract a spherical dish approx R106mm
    the centre of the sphere is offset in two directions from the bore axis (towards the spark plug) as well as being offset in the piston axial direction





    section view showing dish



    So in actual fact the squish is not a chamfer it’s slightly radiused. Same with the head the machined part is radiused (concave) to match the piston



    Then there is adding in the valve reliefs



    The reliefs need to be bigger to account for the bigger valves and deeper to account for the different cam. I ended up designing it for 45/37mm valves even though the exhaust is only 36mm, just in case. I also made the depth bigger to suit a higher overlap cam than I will actually be using first off again just in case. The cam I am using is pretty conservative so I can see something with more overlap being used later.
    One issue with a smaller diameter piston such as 84.0, 84.5, 85.0 etc is the larger intake valve pocket get too close to the top ring groove so it needs to be lowered which then makes it harder to fit the rings in the short compression height




    Dish Design

    Given I need a 1.25cc net dish if I have a dome of -3.15cc then the dish needs to be 4.4cc which needs to be achieved while adhering to a limit of 2mm depth. This required having a modified spherical dish with a small flat section in the centre of the dish. Having a definitive flat section will help with setup of deck clearance when it’s at the machine shop

    This is the final dome design done which is basically the same as OE with a few changes to get the CR where I wanted



    So it was time to do a few mockups to check the dome to see if the squish pads were correct and that valve relief locations and depth were correct. So I had some 3D printed (with the bore 84mm) so it would fit into the spare block that has stock bore size.
    This one was done with one the cheap machines by a mate but wasn’t quite accurate enough for my liking so I had a second one done





    I also had valve relief checking device printed to check radial clearance and axial clearance.




    Now I had proof on concept I contacted Mahle MS and gave them drawings and a 3D model step file so they can add on the slipper skirt details etc

    There was a choice of 2618 (M-SP25), 4032 alloy (M124) & the proprietary Mahle M142 alloy. The latter was only possible with a billet piston due to the restriction of the M142 forging. The billet was $700 more expensive and the difference was judged to be not worth the extra cost as the mechanical property differences are pretty subtle as shown below. The added cost is presumably because of the added machining time.

    I settled on 4032 as it’s a street engine that isn’t an extremely severe application and the better wear characteristics and being able to run a tighter piston to wall with a short piston height were the main deciding factors.





    FINAL SPECS

    Mahle MS pistons
    Bore = 86.00 mm
    Compression Ratio = 11.25
    Pin = 20 mm with an offset towards the thrust side (for quieter running). Offsetting the opposite way does make a little more power.
    Install clearance = 0.0020” (coated)

    They come standard with
    - slipper skirt with grafal coating,
    - phosphate coating (reduces micro welding and is actually only needed on ring grooves and pin)
    - accumulator groove between 1st and 2nd ring grooves and
    - backcut 3rd ring land
    - wire clips with tang

    The piston mass is = 276 g
    The pin is 50L x 20D x 5.0t mm and the mass is = 92 g
    The mass of the rings is = 26g
    The total mass is = 394 g
    Stock piston mass is 375 g and pin 105 g = 480 g excluding rings (est 510g with rings)









    So there is no excuse for someone using a flat top with the 885 head ever again

    EOM
    Last edited by digger; 09-29-2018, 04:07 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • LJ851
    replied
    Originally posted by digger
    with a bit of luck santa might be coming early and some parts might be arriving
    Oh, baby !

    Leave a comment:


  • digger
    replied
    with a bit of luck santa might be coming early and some parts might be arriving

    Leave a comment:


  • 318aye
    replied
    Glad you caught it!

    Leave a comment:


  • digger
    replied
    had a near miss the other day. coolant light came on, a quick check of temps and knew there was a real issue rather than a pesky little leak. shut it down pretty quick temps hadn't reached 1 pm but without coolant you never know whats happening in the head. hose had come off after atleast 5 years of not being touched and lost all the coolant really fast.

    thankfully looks like i saved it in time, but need to keep an eye on it....

    ironically i was on my way for the annual road worthiness check to get registration for another year so was close to my mechanic and had it towed there and he sorted it out
    Last edited by digger; 08-15-2018, 02:45 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • digger
    replied
    Originally posted by BUDNUNTA
    Just emailed them and they said they are hardened chrome moly

    $200Usd plus shipping

    Not too bad really
    well there you go, 4130 steel

    Leave a comment:


  • BUDNUNTA
    replied
    Just emailed them and they said they are hardened chrome moly

    $200Usd plus shipping

    Not too bad really

    Leave a comment:


  • digger
    replied
    Originally posted by BUDNUNTA
    When you made the crank spacer, did you use the 24v boss and machine it down?

    Do you think that crank seal surface should be hardened?
    crank spacer? do you mean the thick washer that is machined down or the spacer for the oil seal?

    i would harden the oil seal surface as that's not something you want issues with. the recommendations I've seen are minimum 30-35 HRC and some say 45 HRC or even 60HRC for high surface speeds etc here are some links

    http://eriks.nl/documentatie/afdicht...n/oilseals.pdf pg 16

    https://www.parker.com/literature/En...stems/5350.pdf pg 21



    http://www.dichta.com/dms/site-dicht...ft%20Seals.pdf pg 10

    https://www.timken.com/pdf/10175_%20...TechManual.pdf pg 6

    you'll notice that there are also some quite specific surface finish requirements

    last time i use a MM piece, i don't know if they harden theirs ( i would guess they do) but its definitely a quality piece, but spendy

    Leave a comment:


  • BUDNUNTA
    replied
    When you made the crank spacer, did you use the 24v boss and machine it down?

    Do you think that crank seal surface should be hardened?

    Leave a comment:


  • digger
    replied
    Originally posted by E30 Wagen
    Really looking forward to seeing how the roller rockers and cam affect engine performance. It would be very interesting to see a comparison between two standard b25 engines with the only difference being the roller rocker cam setup. I even wonder if stroking beyond 81mm is worth the extra cost and effort if the most sufficient gains are from head/valve train improvements? Maybe just depends on your wallet, what you have access to, and what you'd be satisfied with?
    to be honest you wont know for sure what effect that they have as you only see the result of the entire system.

    the simulations i ran showed that for the 3.3L the same duration the RHD cam is worth about 15-20 hp due to the more area under the lift curve compared to an off the shelf cam designed for the OE rockers. it delays when the torque starts falling over so it makes more topend but does not negatively influence the torque at the bottom end either.

    The simulations showed the same gains would not be realisedon a smaller engine as a smaller engine just doesn't need as much lift as a big stroker...

    As i recall the original motivation for Rama was for the roller design to be more durable when you move to aggressive cams as some of the aftermarket stuff was rubbish and the pads were wearing excessively.

    Leave a comment:


  • E30 Wagen
    replied
    Really looking forward to seeing how the roller rockers and cam affect engine performance. It would be very interesting to see a comparison between two standard b25 engines with the only difference being the roller rocker cam setup. I even wonder if stroking beyond 81mm is worth the extra cost and effort if the most sufficient gains are from head/valve train improvements? Maybe just depends on your wallet, what you have access to, and what you'd be satisfied with?

    Leave a comment:


  • digger
    replied
    l will be having mine replaced. i have a few sets of spares. even if parts go NLA any engine builder/machine shop worth their salt will be able to buy some material and machine up their own

    Leave a comment:


  • ForcedFirebird
    replied
    It's not an overly difficult procedure to do the shaft bearings, not sure what that whole "let's hide part numbers" thing was about. BMW should have just treated them like standard pushrod cam bearings. No reason to have multiple sized shafts to fit the block, rather than have a tolerance like the cranks do. Ultimately, the m20's are just another engine in my eyes, shouldn't have over-complicated things from the get-go.

    Leave a comment:


  • digger
    replied
    My block for the build has 120k on it and the leading bearing looks partly fatigued bits flaked away etc but that may be damage post tear down idk

    Leave a comment:


  • nando
    replied
    That's awesome! Half these new kids wouldn't even know what the intermediate shaft is. :p

    Ok, a little confession. I never replaced the IM bearings of my M20 stroker. When I had the block tanked, I packed the bearings with grease and left an old shaft in there, and told them not to leave it in the hot tank for too long. Also, the block has something like 300,000 miles on it.. original bearings. I wonder what they look like now, lol...

    oh, there are little washers/needle bearings for the shaft that drives the oil pump. I have an extra set laying around if somebody is desperate. :p

    Leave a comment:

Working...