answer to GM's VVT on the 2.4L head...
LE5 Marine use
Quote:
Variable Valve Timing
A vane-type phaser is installed on the cam sprocket to
turn the camshaft relative to the sprocket, thereby adjusting
the timing of both intake and exhaust valve operation.
The vane phaser is actuated by hydraulic pressure from
engine oil, and managed by a solenoid that controls oil
pressure on the phaser. The phaser uses a wheel or rotor
with four vanes (like a propeller) to turn the camshaft
relative to the cam sprocket, which turns at a fixed rate
via chain from the crankshaft. The solenoid directs oil to
pressure points on either side of the four phaser vanes;
the vanes, and camshaft, turn in the direction of the oil
flow. The more pressure, the more the phaser and camshaft
turn.
For all its design and production efficiencies and
multitude of applications, the Ecotec 2.4L VVT succeeds
for one reason. It’s a world-class four-cylinder engine
that delivers excellent performance without sacrificing
durability, economy or smooth, quiet operation.
The Ecotec 2.4L VVT is built at GM Powertrain’s Spring
Hill, Tennessee, Engine Manufacturing facility.
so it doesnt seem so much like a cam switch like the Vtec does, but more like it kicks the cams into a faster rate of rotation or something. it does mention that when activated it basically adjusts the intake and exhaust cam timing. also, depending on how the solenoid for the VVT is actuated, mechanically by oil pressure or electrically by ECU, may make it easier to work into your system. but for the sake of simplicity (like this job your tackling is even remotely simple) it would be easier to go with the 2.2L head and 2.2L ECU rather than 2.4L head and 2.4L ecu. although, it is possible you could use your HPT EIO to actuate the solenoid as well on the 2.4L head if it is electronically controlled by the 2.4L ECU. this may save you being able to use the 2.2L ECU and, not sure how the EIO can be set, allow you to adjust what rpm and by how much that phaser that actually works the VVT opens by.
1997 Cavalier Z24 - 15.647 @ 88.02 MPH
Could you cnc a custom water neck?
--------------------------------------
04 Cavalier LS Sport SE- Red with factory silver stripes.
16.186 @ 86.98mph
I'm also wondering about why you're keeping the L61 head vs the LSJ. I'm sure theres a good reason, but we eco-amatures are not seeing it
I do remember a while back you posted the differences of the two heads and noted similarities and incompatibilites.
Also, as noted above, the VVT technology used in the LE5 and LNF are very different from the traditional VTEC honda uses. VVT allows +/- 25 degrees of intake and exhaust cam timing advance or retard independently. It does not change lift, however. So you get a very wide range of control of overlap - you can control where your powerband is and essentially move it on the fly...
Good luck - when you're done you should have a senior position with GMPP!
the machined water neck isn't worth it... I'm just going to swap to the L61 waterneck and ditch the oil cooler.
vtec and gm's vvt works very differently... like oldskool stated... vvt phases the cams, whereas Vtec engages a different, more aggressive lobe on the cam basically having an A and a B option.. whereas vvt can constantly adjust the timing of the camshafts, but you're stuck with their profiles.. its basically like having an electronic adjustable cam gear.
but on with today's updates:
I pulled apart the L61 and the F23 to check out where my oil leak was coming from. found a LOT of oil on the inside of the bellhousing. the clutch was ok, and the block was relatively clean.. so I'm kind of confused as to where all my oil went.
I can only think of one explanation: I had a leaking/faulty clutch actuator AND cracked my oil pan thus leaking oil out right at the trans/engine interface. the car's so low, i've bottomed out quite a bit which could have cracked the trans casing (another gem I found) and the oil pan in the same instance, causing the oil leak. meanwhile the actuator got faulty from bad clutch fluid or age.
I also measured the jbody clutch as it came out of the F23.. and compared to the LSJ clutch. from the backside of the flywheel to the tip of the springs, it is almost identical.. within 1/16-1/8" which means I don't have to make a spacer for the clutch actuator. Which is a good thing, because I wouldn't be able to anyway (the back of the actuator is a seal for the input shaft of the transmission).
so basically.. the formula thus far is
L61 head + LSJ block + L61 thermostat housing + stand alone = skwirlly's new setup.
also, the LSJ does have a slightly lower compression ratio at 9.5:1 but ben ran a mid 13 or so with 8.9:1 pistons so I think I'll be ok until I order my higher compression pistons from karo
I'm taking pictures of the oil filter boss tomorrow to illustrate my troubles there for you guys.. and to further document the differences between the L61 and LSJ
Tinytim12333 wrote:Could you cnc a custom water neck?
Sure, if we had a $10,000 cnc machine setup and the time/knowledge to use it....
Or wanted to pay someone else to and then wait weeks and weeks to get it. I consider myself pretty gifted with our manual vertical mill at work, given the fact that I've never had any formal machinists training, but I wouldn't even think of taking on something that complex where the engine's longevity would end up depending on how well I made it... PJ's blown up enough engines on his own I don't need him blaming me for one
Arrival Blue 04 LS Sport
Eco
Turbo
Megasquirt
'Nuff said
Previous discussions with PJ have given me the idea for a 2.4 Bottom end with a LSJ head running off the stock LSJ PCM for my cobalt, i see no reasonable reasons it shouldnt work and be more awesome, im not revving beyond 7000
Theres no replacement for displacement
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
whitegoose( RedR-ZedR) wrote:yeah they only thing stock i expect to see under that hood is the wind shield washer fluid reservoir...
i didnt realize that the VVT would make for such a compatibility issue for that head/block combination. and i see your point on the idea of disabling vtec/VVT, i guess it makes it hard to setup an engine when you virtually much have 2 completely different cam / motor profiles to deal with. on the other hand though, looking at the new Civic Si (K20Z3),the way that motor is set up stock uses vtec very well. also, for those people that use the Hondata reflash for those cars, the vtec band is shifted around a bit to utilize it better. but even from the factory, when you shift up a gear, it pretty much drops you 500 rpm above or below vtec, getting you right back into that power band again.
2 weekends ago now, when i was at the track a friend of mine took out his 08 Si and even for the times he was running seemed to be trapping high trap speeds. his best run was a 15.07 at (around, dont remember exact) 97-98 ish mph. that trap speed seem fairly high to me for that time, would vtec be to blame for it?
anyways, like i said above, i can understand why VVT would be a pain in the ass because when you are doing an all out build it may be harder to build the rest of the motor when you have 2 very distinct profiles to deal with. but for some one not going on as all out of a build as PJ is, would having the VVT head be beneficial (assuming that they are or can be made to be compatible).
VTEC is beneficial for all street driven cars that see under 5000 rpm regularly and Is hardly ever "done away with"... The only motor setups that i am aware of that doesnt have Vtec is to reduce mass in the valvetrain to achieve Higher Rpms (around 110000)... Now on a K series, which is I-vtec equipped, the
cam gears that advance and retard the cams are sometimes Ditched when running HUGE cams because of valve clearance issues but the actual Vtec lobe on the cams are hardly ever deleted. (I remember someone was talking about VTEC being disengaged often which is false)
anyways here is a graph of the 2.0 with and without VVT because im bored at work.
_________________________________________________________________
EFFICIENCY DETECTIVE
Fast cars. I respect them ALL. Brand elitism is for fanbois and benchracers
daily: 99 civic Si
deceased: 95 cavy '00 LD9 auto swap (vandalized)
Quote:
Note how most honda race cars have VTEC disabled/removed
I said most race cars, not that its disabled often
I know its a plus in a street car, but for a car thats launched at 5000+rpm and never sees it again, its not doing much. Just clearing that up
I just have the advantage of knowing PJ, and thus knowing that he will approach this somewhat like putting a funny car motor in a ford festiva.... no concept of, nor concern for street manners
Arrival Blue 04 LS Sport
Eco
Turbo
Megasquirt
'Nuff said
Scarab (Jersey Jay 1.8T) wrote:Quote:
Note how most honda race cars have VTEC disabled/removed
I said most race cars, not that its disabled often I know its a plus in a street car, but for a car thats launched at 5000+rpm and never sees it again, its not doing much. Just clearing that up I just have the advantage of knowing PJ, and thus knowing that he will approach this somewhat like putting a funny car motor in a ford festiva.... no concept of, nor concern for street manners
Sorry, that wasnt meant to be directed at you, I just wanted to get my point across
_________________________________________________________________
EFFICIENCY DETECTIVE
Fast cars. I respect them ALL. Brand elitism is for fanbois and benchracers
daily: 99 civic Si
deceased: 95 cavy '00 LD9 auto swap (vandalized)
so today's developments:
I've decided to try and research into eliminating the power brake booster- especially since I won't have enough vacuum to run it anyway.
I'm looking into two possible setups and need the .orgs input...
the first setup would be a remote mount 'tandem' master cylinder with dual reservoirs / brake circuits (front and rear.. just like stock) plumbed to the distribution block and the rest of the system would be OEM save for stainless steel lines at the corners.
the second option would be a remote mount master cylinder with a single outlet, plumbed to a T which has one side go straight to the front input on the distribution block, and the other would goto a proportioning valve then to the rear input on the distribution block.
my question is this: does anyone know the ratio of front to rear output on the factory master cylinder
and second, which would you rather do? dual circuit master cylinders (front and rear kept seperate) are safer since if you spring a leak you still have half of your brakes functioning... whereas the single circuit would be easier to plumb and a cleaner install, and easier to tune but more risky in terms of leaks.. I still have the e-brake
opinions? insight?
I'm looking at wilwood stuff.
For the brakes I would use wilwood dual master with a bias valve, and be able to adjust the grip on the front and rear on the fly with a cable. I did one on a friends datsun 280ZX. You dont need power brakes. we actually saw improved distances without power.
Yeah, last I checked, if a line blows out on your stock master, you've still got no braking cept for engine and ebrake, so the single manual is just as reliable as stock... probably more so with how many times I've seen oem boosters fail.
Arrival Blue 04 LS Sport
Eco
Turbo
Megasquirt
'Nuff said
update with pictures:
where'd the engine go?
they constantly fall out...
L61 oil boss
close up L61
LSJ oil boss
close up LSJ
these pictures illustrate the differences in the oil bosses between the two. just wanted to clarify
Quote:
and second, which would you rather do? dual circuit master cylinders (front and rear kept seperate) are safer since if you spring a leak you still have half of your brakes functioning... whereas the single circuit would be easier to plumb and a cleaner install, and easier to tune but more risky in terms of leaks.. I still have the e-brake
opinions? insight?
I don't know what uses you do with the car, if it's going to be pretty much for use solely at the track then you can probably forget just about anything that I say.
I wouldn't take the master cylinder off if the only reason is that you won't be making enough vacuum for it. The position for your heater relies on vacuum as well, and from experience in mine without having the line hooked up if you need to defog/defrost the windshield it takes a helluva long time to do it with your vents stuck in the middle. Perhaps maybe an electric vacuum pump? We have electric forklifts at work that have vac. assisted brakes and have a small pump for the job.
As far as changing the cylinder, I would go with the dual master cylinder if the car is going to be used on the street. That's the point in them anyways. Granted you can probably use your e-brake and engine in event of a brake failure to stop, but in traffic that little bit of extra time it takes to figure out "oh @!#$ my brakes don't work" which probably comes after pumping on them a few times would probably result in an accident alone. Plus the fact that your now shorter stopping available stopping distance coupled with only your e-brake and engine to stop you could cause a slight overreaction and skid the car sideways, putting you at more risk of injury if you do wreck.
Also to mention, most newer cars are not set up with the fronts one one master and the rears on the other. They're usually a criss-cross type of deal where you have a left front and right rear on one master and the right front and left rear on the other. This way if you do spring a leak and lose half your brakes, you still have a front (which is designed for most of the stopping power anyways) and a rear brake to stop you.
Another thought on your 58x wheel compared to the 7x wheel. I remember someone at the bash last year that mentioned that problem on the ECOTEC engine when going to Megasquirt (which needs the 7x wheel). He was the dude with the white Fiero that was there. So, perhaps the Fiero guys know the way around this. I don't remember exactly what the whole thing was, but i'm pretty sure it was with the ICM. Something about using an older ICM for it because the newer ICM's don't have a brain in it like the older ones do and using the old one made it work with the MS. I don't know the exact details, but i'm sure the info is around out there.
whitegoose( RedR-ZedR) wrote:so it doesnt seem so much like a cam switch like the Vtec does, but more like it kicks the cams into a faster rate of rotation or something. it does mention that when activated it basically adjusts the intake and exhaust cam timing. also, depending on how the solenoid for the VVT is actuated, mechanically by oil pressure or electrically by ECU, may make it easier to work into your system
Yup, not like vtec. It is however almost exactly like BMW's VANOS, which has been on bimmers since late 1992.
-MD- LD9 wrote:I believe others have blocked the oil squirters with no negative effects.
If I understand correct oil squiters are added to turbo engines to help cool the pistons, so blocking then in a NA application shouldnt hurt anything. Though if you were doing something like endurance racing the pistons might like to have the extra cooling.
_________________________________________________________________
Looking for something new? How about an off topic forum where you can truly express your opinions without interference of mods or admins?
Join verbalwarfare.com
http://www.verbalwarfare.com/forum.php?referrerid=86
Ronin J wrote:-MD- LD9 wrote:I believe others have blocked the oil squirters with no negative effects.
If I understand correct oil squiters are added to turbo engines to help cool the pistons, so blocking then in a NA application shouldnt hurt anything. Though if you were doing something like endurance racing the pistons might like to have the extra cooling.
Agreed. Alot of N/A honda guys remove them, and have read of some Ecotec peeps removing them aswell.
PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO
ohh pretty master cylinder!
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
-MD- LD9 wrote:Ronin J wrote:-MD- LD9 wrote:I believe others have blocked the oil squirters with no negative effects.
If I understand correct oil squiters are added to turbo engines to help cool the pistons, so blocking then in a NA application shouldnt hurt anything. Though if you were doing something like endurance racing the pistons might like to have the extra cooling.
Agreed. Alot of N/A honda guys remove them, and have read of some Ecotec peeps removing them aswell.
Oil squiters are used to cool the pistons and to ensure proper oilling.
I'd go with the dual chamber willwood with a prop valve. I'm not really sure why you would need the stock distribution if you had a rear prop valve. It would be super simple as well. You might want to adjust the pedal ration to give your self a hand with the braking as well.
No one has seem to answer the question of why you are using the L61 head and the only reason I can think of is that you have an aftermarket one that you want to use and that the LSJ is set up for direct injection and that is hard to tune for and upgrade from what I hear. Is this your reason? What is your static compression ration going to be with this head and block setup?
the LSJ is not direct injection, the LNF is
I cannot use the LSJ head because of the intake flange. I could modify it to work, but I don't see any real advantage of one over the other.. other than the metalurgy. Not really an issue at my power levels (comes into play around 500hp or so)
please refer to my LSJ vs L61 head thread somewhere in this forum for more information on the differences between the two
Great progress so far hun, cant wait to see it put back together so you can get your ass back up here
