ATMO Tuning

Or a V5????

Or what about those weird H-16 engines in the Donnington museum or were you to drunk to remember...

I was pretty drunk!!!!! How about a straight 5....love the sound of the Fiat version (as seen in Bravo and Coupe)

I was driving!!!

Mental engine tho.

...and I thunk the Scooby engine was a flat 4, not a V ?

It is!

Just seen David`s post of 1 Nov and compared the rolling road test with my 24 valve.

At 210 km/h along the horizontal axis, the graph line goes well past 240 KW on the vertical axis and just touches the top of the graph area. Sanspeed said this equated to 225 bhp at 6500 rpm.

The engine internals are standard apart from no balancing shaft!, no cat, custom made tubular manifolds & exhaust.

Iain

No torque graph to hand, though you can backward map it if you work out wheel speed against the gear to get revs, then divide the power figures on the plot by 5252..

What you roughly mentioned about the torsional rigidity of the PRV verses inline 6's and inline 4's in in the PRV engine design technical paper on this site..

http://www.renaultalpineownersclub.com/ ... manual.pdf

Yes, and more lateral loading etc on the bores too on the 3.0. The 2.5 is a lovely short stroke, and the rod to stoke ratio is good too. Easier to tune ignition for torque too as the piston spends more time around TDC..
No direct comparisons, but you could enter the data into any engine modeling software and see the piston accelleration differences. In the real world its not really worth commenting on, as compared to other engines, the stroke on both is still very low, and as they dont rev that high, its all quite marginal...

Yes agree. Whilst talking about rotating things however, do you have the spec side clearance between a pair of the rods and the big end journal thrust faces 2.5 T? :

Not to hand, but yes it is 'lots' Don't worry about it, its normal, about half a mm is about right..

Solving for radiated losses Qr=5.77e[((ts+273)/100)^4-((tw+273)/100)^4] where e=0.9

Qr = 30000(W)/0.78 = 5.77x0.9x[((ts+273)/100)^4-((21+273)/100)^4]

Ts = 657 deg C Impossible you shout!!!! – check it.

I really should have something better to do

QUITE

Tyres and tyre pressures make a huge difference, it's all friction and all part of the total transmission loss.

It's not necessarily the gearbox that's the cause of the 50 odd bhp going missing. 255 section tyres don't exactly help!

I think I was -slightly- misquoted there - the "we know it" bit was the start of the next sentence. Tony's was measured at 43hp loss on the dyno