| Author | Message | ||
| Russ Turner (Snj5)
Junior Member Username: Snj5 Post Number: 129 Registered: 2-2003 |
Back to the original practical street 300 hp from a 308 thread: It seems Bosch Kjet FI, while brilliant at what it was designed to do (emmisions) is one of the main reason the engines do not put out 300 hp for 2 reasons: Inlet track flow resistance Airmass plate sensing severely limits cam profile Note the way Ferrari improved the 308 kjet horse power was to increase the flow through the use of 4 valves, retaining basically the same came profile/durations. Oddly enough - the 288 GTO has a similar cam profile to the kjet 308, but has what? - TURBOS for increased flow. There are other detail issues, but the big idea is to most efficiently get fuel/air through the engine for a given compression - intake and exhaust. That's why forced induction works, and actually overcomes many of Kjet's inlet tract resistance (witness Porsche turbo, and Norwood turbo Ferraris). To reference the dark side  for a moment, 911 Kjet guys figured this out years ago (not afraid of concours judges I guess) hence the popular PMO weber conversions and later multi-throttle bodies. They say that the difference in throttle response alone is phenomenal. Optimizing flow out with better exhaust is intuitive. The bottom end is well proven to be more than adequate for a street engine. No mods neccesary. Summary: Improve the airflow through the engine as was said before by switching to carbs or throttle bodies; then if not enough you can add a more aggressive cam profile. Improve outflow with exhaust. Other details like ignition timing and comp ratio which optimize combustion are important, but best I can tell the airflow is the main area that is radily improvable in the injected 308/328s Hope this helps the original question. Of course, I could be all wrong. best to all rt | ||
| James Adams (Madmaxx)
Junior Member Username: Madmaxx Post Number: 113 Registered: 11-2002 |
I know the benifits of titanium, but it is way overkill for a street engine. Will you be reving to 8500RPM? No way. My main throw in to this thread was the use of forced induction. Titanium rods on an engine that's biggest drawbacks are size and inducton seems like a waste of money. 300hp NA? Sure no problem. Does that require titanium? No. Even very high boost applications do not need titanium. This is a motor thats 20 years old, not a F1 motor designed to run for a short time before it's scrap. Small motors need help when it comes to breathing. They aren't going to inhale like a 8L V10, so they usually rely on forced induction to help aid their small displacement. If anyone does decide to go w/ a titanium rod.. more power to ya. But in the end, don't you still have a 308 that weighs 3200lbs?  James | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 623 Registered: 4-2002 |
"Why titanium" Titanium can take a lot of heat (unlike aluminum). Titanium is light--reducing the reciprocating and rotating mass; Titanium is strong--allowing the increase of revs from the 7,500 range into the 9000 range. Titanium has decreased in cost as aerospace application abound, driving down the cost from 1970 levels to 'not so bad' cost structures of today. Without titanium, the only way to get astronomical revs (like motorcycles 15,000) is to use really short strokes (like motorcycles 43 mm). This requires really big pistons, and ends up with poor bore/stroke ratios, and a lot of emission issues with respect to surface area in the combustion chamber. | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 622 Registered: 4-2002 |
Actually, you are talking forged, alloyed titanium rods. The F355/F360 rods are titanium (with a touch of silicon and nickle to eliminate the work hardenting issues with unalloyed titanium). Titanium valvles and keepers are to reduce loads on the followers, cams and valve springs. This is more important with pentroof combustion chambers as none of the loads on the valves are at right angles to the cam, so significant side loading occur. But my point: take F360 materials, build quality, engine architecture, and use them to make a 3.0 litre engine, and you will have 320 HP with 100K mile reliability, a big fat broad TQ curve (for a 3.0 litre engine) and F360 service intervals*. Do less and you will have a peaky 320 HP engine for a while...run it hard and 'a while' gets shorter in duration. As to the tranny: it will need beefed up, but my guess is that modern materials, forgings, and machining would end up with gear clusters of about the same size, with perhaps a bigger oil cooler to keep the temperatures under control. Ratios would probably stay the close to the same as the increase in the rev limit would pretty closely correspond to the increase in top speed. Now if they could only get it down into the 2500 lb range of all up weight....... *you will also have the cost structure of an F360 engine, so this 3.0 litre engien will cost just about what a 360 engine costs. This may put it out of reach to those wanting a 300 HP 308-class machine. | ||
| James Adams (Madmaxx)
Junior Member Username: Madmaxx Post Number: 111 Registered: 11-2002 |
Damnit jim, quit posting before I can say my thoughts ;) James | ||
| James Adams (Madmaxx)
Junior Member Username: Madmaxx Post Number: 110 Registered: 11-2002 |
Why titanium? Way overkill. Are we still speaking of a forced induction, or are we back to NA? No offense or anything, but you can't compare prices for a motorcyle engine 20 years ago to things today. Who knows how much it would cost? Not me If someone is interested in doing it, they must keep a log so everyone else has an idea of the costs. Are 355 rods titanium, or just the valves? James | ||
| Jim Conforti (Lndshrk)
Junior Member Username: Lndshrk Post Number: 65 Registered: 8-2002 |
Yes Art, You are wrong. ;) The 300hp is not peaky at all, and a "dynojet" has nothing to do with it at all. It's merely a measurement device. The car ran one full race season (club racing) before the owner switched to a 6cyl car. Jim BTW: 1977 was 1977.. this is now, Ti is overkill for the application we're talking about, decent steels will handle the loads w/ no problems. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1516 Registered: 6-2001 |
James: I'm not talkig billet rods, I'm talking Titanium rods, the last time I checked, a set of those were in excess of 3,000. A set of Titanium valves, 32 of them are how much? To make a crankshaft for a twin was over 2000 in 77, I would bet that a vacuum forged steel crankshaft, after you pay for the special forging, get it machined, heat treat it, put on a hardener on the journals would be inexcess of $5,000.00. Then you have the hand work: On the twin, there was about 150 hours prior to assembly, multiply that by 4, and you come up with about 300 to 600 hours of making sure that everything fits, is as light as it can be, etc. Say 50 per hour for a competent mechanic to do that. Seems high doesn't it, but unfortuntely you need that level of detail to make sure that the motor makes the HP and is reliable. An example is the forged pistons: I've never seen one that could be lightened, as 4 to 5 hours each to make sure they carry no extra weight, and then lightening to a standard weight. I'd also want to use the best forgings available, and I would suspect that the pistons would be about 1,000.00 for that set, before you started working on them. Then when you have an assembled motor, you need to adjust everything: cam timing, jetting, etc. You may even need a new exhaust system to make sure that everything you've done works together properly. I know a lot of people who just bolt parts together, and don't understand why it doesn't perform to expectations. The difference is dyno time and adjustments. That's where the money figure I used came from. By the way, I have the people who did the work for me on the Ducati if you really want to do something like this. Art | ||
| James Adams (Madmaxx)
Junior Member Username: Madmaxx Post Number: 109 Registered: 11-2002 |
*Dawns flame suit* Well.. you could always drop a Chevy small block in it..... =-D JUST KIDDING! James | ||
| James Adams (Madmaxx)
Junior Member Username: Madmaxx Post Number: 108 Registered: 11-2002 |
A set of rods (billet) won't be more than 1500. Same goes for the pistons at any size, 4 valve relifed. Even if you had to get a new crank machined, wouldn't be anywhere near 50K total for the entire project. If you were going to change the gearbox, might as well to longitudinal mount and mate a ZF or audi. new fuel lines, water hard lines, motor mounts and crossmember would have to be put in. Firewall would have to be moved. But, even all of that wouldn't be anywhere near the tune of 30K. Same overall basic setup as the 288. Just my op James | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1514 Registered: 6-2001 |
Jim: I should have said useable power. I would bet that the 300 HP you're getting from a 2.5 liter engine is: 1.On a dyno jet, and 2. Very peaky. Am I wrong? Art | ||
| Jim Conforti (Lndshrk)
Junior Member Username: Lndshrk Post Number: 64 Registered: 8-2002 |
Art, not to disagree or anything, but I can get 300hp out of a 2.5l 4 cylinder motor spinning under 8000rpms. Set up properly, a street motor can see far beyond "100%" cylinder filling normally aspirated. There is no magic "285" limit in a 3 liter Ferrari. People have built/are getting over 300bhp from 3 liter Ferrari right now.. with CARBS. | ||
| James Adams (Madmaxx)
Junior Member Username: Madmaxx Post Number: 105 Registered: 11-2002 |
You can also lighten the car. Loose the emissions and the other junk. Euro were like 300lbs less than US spec correct? Even a set of 'glass or carbon body components will shed a good bit over the oem steel. James | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1513 Registered: 6-2001 |
this keeps coming up again and again. Can you make 300HP from a 308, sure but you will have to do a couple of things: 1. Increase intake flow, so that at whatever rpm you run it at, the cylinder get full. Once the cylinder is full, then you have to make sure that you turn the engine more rpm. Each cylinder of a 308 is 375cc or 1/2 of a 750cc twin. Some of the best 750 twins are the Hondas used for dirt track racing. The best of those make about 110 HP or so, and they turn them about 9500 rpm, a bit beyond the Ferrari. At 8000 rpm you can reasonably expect the Ferrari to make about 285 HP, assuming 100% cylinder filling. Unless you turbo the engine, you cannot get any more hp from that engine at that rpm, other than perhaps a slight gain from compression, but you can't use ultra high compression in a street engine, so 10 - 11 to one is probably about the limit. If you are going to raise the rpm to get more power, then you need titanium rods, valves, a special crankshaft of forged special alloy steel, etc. Having done most of those changes on a Ducati 750 some years ago, I think that I can estimate the cost of that at about $50,000.00 for a Ferrari. That doesn't include the head work necessary to ensure that you can still fill the cylinders at a 20% higher rpm. Then the fun begins: you now need to beef up the entire car to deal with the extra power you just got out of the engine, and because you've changed the rpm, you probably need new gearing in the rear end and gearbox so that everything matches up. I have no idea what that could cost, but again, I did something like that for a Ducati some years ago, and the motorcycle transmission gears were about 4k in 1977 dollars. Today, who knows. I would say that a special gearbox and rearend could cost another 25 - 30k. The point is, why not just buy a 355? Ferrari has already done the work. Art | ||
| James Adams (Madmaxx)
Junior Member Username: Madmaxx Post Number: 104 Registered: 11-2002 |
True. I think the focus of this thread got moved from 300hp street modified to a 600hp race block. 300hp should be no problem on the stock internals and trans. The increased power will be from proper breathing and spark. You may eat a clutch faster if you tend to abuse it off the line, but there shouldn't be any driveline failures from normal street cruising. James | ||
| Lucas Taratus (Karmavore)
Junior Member Username: Karmavore Post Number: 182 Registered: 12-2002 |
<yawn>.... kidding, of course. But seriosuly, how much? How much to give a 308 modern 0-60 and top speed numbers? Luke. | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 619 Registered: 4-2002 |
There is a different point to be addressed: street reliability. Let's just say one did create a 400+ HP 308 engine with all the good materials inside. Now let's drive that thing around at 65 MPH at partial throttle for (say) 50K miles. Would this engine wear "that much differently" than a stock engine driven around at similar throttle loadings? I belive not much (different in wear)! Its NOT how much HP you put in the engine that determines long term reliability--it IS how you use it! Spend most of you time below 80% redline and the components are lightly stressed and little wear occurs. Spend a lot of time between 80% and red line, and wear occurs rapidly. | ||
| James Adams (Madmaxx)
Junior Member Username: Madmaxx Post Number: 101 Registered: 11-2002 |
While all of this is quite interesting, the original thread was about 300hp QV motors I don't believe the intention of anyone was to create a 600hp RACE motor and expect it to live on the street. A street car isn't going to be living at 5K+ RPM for hours on end. A street car will see short blasts to the rev limits from time to time, but most people will stay within reason on the shifting. What was the life expectancy of the 288GTO motor? It is the same block (from what I've been told) as the rest of the 308/328 series. It's pushing 400hp on older turbo/efi designs, and was designed to be a track car. Does it break? Sure it does! But that doesn't mean it needs a full blown rebuild (JE piston comment) every year unless your running that sucker lean for hours on end at the track. Also, for the 300 mark, the trans should hold up fine. The clutch will take the brunt of it. Torque is usually what blows the gears apart, launching hard down low. The 308, even in modified form, doesn't produce a ton of torque due to it's displacement. Will the trans explode? Maybe...but doubtful. Will it if your running 2 big ol' garretts through it at 20psi? YUP! Using modern pistons/rods AND forced induction, there is no reason why the motor has to soar to 8500rpm to pull it's power. The strong bottom end and the correct turbo for the application should give the motor a healthy kick in the pants at a much lower RPM than winding out a NA car to the stratosphere. I say get the specs of the 288's rods/pistons and have a similar set made up by an aftermarket company. A combo that we know works on a turbo application. Anyone mated a modern getrag (audi 6spd) transaxle to an older application? ZF could handle a ton of torque, but they are expensive! G50 transaxles are very good, but also expensive. Many have had good luck with the audi transaxles. James | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 428 Registered: 11-2002 |
Sounds like you need some sleep Jim Heh I've just got home from another 11 hour day ... keep out of the IT profession its a killer. Anyway regarding my point: Lightness = performance = less reliability. Lets think about a bearing selection. Say a ball bearing type 6208 a nice and simple bearing for somewhere on you car. As we know the loads we are expecting and have our handy bearing catalogue, in a few minutes we can select our bearing BASED on how long we want it to last, ie. how many million revolutions approximately it will perform before needing replacement. For example (totally irrelevant figures, but what the heck and I have them here so I do not have to think too much): Expected Radial load, Fr = 3200n Expected Axial load, Fa = 1650n rpm = 650 Fa/60r (factor from catalogue) = 1650/16200 = 0.102 Therefore e = 0.29 (from catalogue also) Fa/Fr = 1650/3200 = 0.516 Fa/Fr > e, therefore x = 0.56 and y = 1.48 (also from catalogue) Pr = xFr + yFa = 0.56 * 3200 + 1.48 * 12650 = 4234n L10 = (Cr/Pr)^P = (22400/4234)^3 = 148.1 million revs or 3807.7 hours Now if we were not so worried about the weight of the bearing and thus the weight of the vehicle that is carrying this bearing we could select a larger bearing ... which would have a longer life, thus the car would be more reliable and have longer service periods ... OR conversely we could select a smaller and lighter bearing and suffer the reduced life! Thus as performance is effected by the weight of the whole vehicle (just like an engines performance is affected very much by the weight of the internal components) we have a very clear situation here where specifying the size and thus implied weight of a component DOES affect performance. Also, what do you think would happen to the life of that bearing type if you increased the axial and/or radial loads due to a performance modification ... the life would be reduced. Thus: Lightness = Performance = Less reliability, and also: Modifications that Increase loads on a component also reduce their life and thus reduce the overall objects reliability. Thus when Ferrari designers sit down and select their bearings, they have to select based on an acceptable performance and reliability, unlike Toyota who can select based on cost and reliability. This implies that a Ferrari designer probably will select a higher performing and thus less reliable component to make sure they meet their performance requirements set to them by marketing. This DOES explain why Ferraris need more maintenance, but does not excuse them for their crappy build quality. Now you could say that Ferrari should select bearings or other things made out of unobtainium, that is super light and will last forever ... Pete ps: It is not just bearings that are life'd. Note how F1 teams replace bolts and other components on a strict life cycle or ageing criteria. It is not just to waste money but to maximise performance based on the lightest components to just do the job. | ||
| Jim Conforti (Lndshrk)
Junior Member Username: Lndshrk Post Number: 63 Registered: 8-2002 |
Pete, We can make an engine light enough that "normal folk" wouldn't believe it. As to your axle assembly, you'd need to do some analysis to see if "solid round" is the best configuration, and not "hollow" out of something stronger. Ultra-strength axles for F1 are made of vacuum drawn steels now. Insane strength to weight ratio. G'nite.. I've spent the entire nite working out the algorithms for E46 M3 Secondary Air control in 68k assembler.. I'm scrambled. Next up, some work on a Porsche 962 for a FOAF. | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 427 Registered: 11-2002 |
And as you said Jim, if you rev the engine higher the rod strength will have to be looked at. Ferrari designed their motor to run to certain rpms and thus a certain rod strength is all that is required. Most performance modifications revolve around making the engine breathe and thus rev higher (and there is more to that obviously) ... thus you MAY need stronger rods. And this is where you get more power, ie. improve induction, thus breathing, increase compression ratio and cam specs, etc. ... again more to this. I cannot believe you think that just because we have advanced in materials science that we can for argument sake make an engine that weighs what ever we like. There has to be limits even today, no matter what material you use for the minimum weight you can make a particular hp engine. If not then we have the situation where we can make an engine weigh nothing. Just impossible. Yes I 100% agree that cost has an enormous part of engineering, but you can not make something so small and so light AND it will support anything. Even Be will have a design limit and thus have to weigh something. Now lets see. An axle that is made out of a particular steel (whatever) can handle X torque. Now if we made an axle out of exactly the same material but bigger it is going to be able to handle nX torque ... thus it is stronger, and heavier and will last longer than the first axle because it is not under the same stress levels. Now with an engine it is not that simple, because if you make a rod or piston heavier the motors performance abilities will reduce and thus not only will you reduce your revving ability you also will have reduced the stress acting on them anyway via the reduction in revs. So doubly you have increase the life of those components, ie. they are stronger and do not need to handle the same loads. Ageing of components, like everything else in the world, does apply to automotive engines, as does the fact that the less weight the more vehicle performance ... and the less the any components safety factor is the shorter it will last. Pete | ||
| Jim Conforti (Lndshrk)
Junior Member Username: Lndshrk Post Number: 62 Registered: 8-2002 |
Pete, You keep making statements like "have say made a conrod for their 308 QV to handle 235 hp" and this is why I keep jumping back in. Please explain to me how the strength of the conrod relates to HORSEPOWER. It DOESN'T. A conrod has basically two strength "parameters". 1) Strength in compression, to transmit the forces from the piston to the crank 2) Strength in tension, essentially proportional to the weight of the piston/pin and the rpm squared. Thus, depending on the motor, and a LOT of factors, the same "size" (aka material and cross-section) rod can handle wildly different HP. When an engine is designed, the usual limiting factor is the weight of the pistons/rpm and also the strength in tension of the rods and bolts. Take that same motor, and increase the Ve, which then increases the cylinder pressure, which of course BMEP being the average thereof, increases the engine torque. If you DON'T increase the engine RPM range, you very likely will not "overstress" the rod until some large amount of HP increase. Yet if you increase the maximum RPM by say 1000 rpm without strengthening rods and lightening pistons/pins, something likely will break. Of course in an of itself, higher RPMS do nothing to increase HP unless the motor is designed to BREATHE at those higher rpms This is why I keep saying that your "rules of thumb" simply aren't. You counter with "proofs" in reductio ad absurdum. As to your F1 example, make a large portion of your motor out of Beryllium and Ti alloys and it will be so light, you'd be amazed. Two problems: 1) Cost 2) Beryllium is toxic. Until recently Be parts WERE allowed in F1 !! Like I said previously.. it all comes down to materials science. Knowing when to use and when NOT to use certain materials. The whole notion of "reliability" really needs to be flushed down the loo, already. | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 426 Registered: 11-2002 |
Okay Ben I want an F1 engine that only weight 10lbs ... I have heaps of money go and design and make me one. There are phyiscal limits to everything, no matter how much money you have to through at. So thus you cannot just say that you can have strength and light weight to and it just costs money. It is all relative ... Even if F1 had no weight limit they would still have to weigh something. Thus strength and weight do have a relationship, and a components strength relates to reliability.
I do agree though that you need to do your homework as in many cases the stock component is strong enough, but lets think about this. Ferrari, for example, have say made a conrod for their 308 QV to handle 235 hp (er, actually the rquirements for a single cylinder). They do not want to spend too much money and thus the rod they make must have a limit otherwise they are crazy and are making way to good components and wasting money. This is what engineering is all about design things to do the job and no more ... because any more wastes money and weight. Thus you need to check what limits that rod can handle before you over stress it. Again we have all agreed that the stock 308 internals can handle 300 hp ... but Colin Chapman would laugh his way out of his resting place if Ferrari was making components so over strong that you can double the hp on any motor. F40 note: The F40 was designed as a racing car and obviously they designed it for its expected racing hp, not its street specs. But again I bet it costs more to maintain than a 235 hp 308. My point again the faster you want to go the more it costs to keep it on the road. Anyway you believe what you guys want. I understand where Jim is coming from and will leave it at that. Good engineering is about making a component do its job perfectly but no more ... when sizing a component you do heaps of calculations to estimate the age or life of that component based on the stress its subjected to. Thus reliability comes from OVER sizing a component ... Anyway I think I am talking too much at a pure engineering concept ... Pete | ||
| Ben Cannon (Artherd)
Member Username: Artherd Post Number: 304 Registered: 6-2002 |
Actually, the F40 responds very well to extra-HP modifications. The stock gearbox in particuliar is hugely strong. 6-700+hp cars with little more than oversized LM turbos are common, and pretty darn reliable. You can have strong and light at the same time. It just won't always be cheap. (eg F1 car engines, that put out 800hp, weigh 130lbs, and act as the rear chassis to boot.) It is all about specifically KNOWING what you are doing, what components are strong (and just HOW strong exactly?) and what aren't, and playing the balancing act of putting it all together in a fun road car. Generalizations like "it will over stress the stock parts designed for stock horsepower!" just don't sell me. | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 425 Registered: 11-2002 |
Jim,
Yep cool I agree with that. 100hp/lt nowadays is not considered high stress, with metallurgical (sp?) advancements, etc. As for:
I don't quite agree with, but can see what you are trying to say and thus agree on concept. Ultimate performance, such as F1 or drag racing engines, come at huge cost and are designed for their limited use life ... thus high maintenance and low reliability come as a cost. As we will see, when F1 moves to the one engine for the whole weekend rule, the engines will not produce as much power due to the need for longer life ... as parts will have to be heavier and ultimately the engine needs to be more reliable. This will slow the cars down. Anyway I think we see where we both are coming from now, so I'll leave it at that. I also would love to own a 300 hp 308 , and I have nothing but praise for the BMW M3, a wonderful example of what the GERMANS can do for the performance car market. Pete | ||
| Jim Conforti (Lndshrk)
Junior Member Username: Lndshrk Post Number: 61 Registered: 8-2002 |
Pete, the original discussion was "why can't the QV have at least 300hp". It can, with better than stock reliability. Cams, cyl head work, insulated headers, and to make the "greenies" happy Emitec metal-matrix catalysts with good EFI. 300hp, cleaner and more reliable than stock (Which, FWIW.. prior to sidetrack, was the original premise of this whole thread) I'd say 350hp, with stock reliability is also doable assuming a reasonable driver and without re-engineering the driveline. 600hp would require changing a LOT of materials in the driveline and suspension, but still can be had quite reliably. The problem here is price. Speed costs money, how fast do you want to go. Your comment that performance and reliability are "exclusive" isn't correct.. you can have any 2: 1) High Performance 2) Long life reliability 3) Low price Pick which 2 you want. If you'll notice, you rarely see (reasonably modern) Ferrari ENGINES self-destruct if they have been both used, and given proper maintenance. An exception would be the F355, where some motors were cursed with poor metallurgy, and some early "injected" 308's with a similar problem in the rings/cyl. walls, instead of the heads and valve seats/guides. An example of high performance with reliability is the S54B32 motor in the BMW M3.. excluding the few that had lubrication circuit contamination, the engine is bulletproof, capable of safe operation at 8500rpms, with a factory redline of 8000. It produces 333SAE in US trim, 338SAE/343DIN in ECE Trim and is very close to the bhp/l specific output from an F355/F360. It has chains, not belts and motors will last 100k+ with nothing but valve adjustments and lube changes. A little proper magic can increase the HP to around 365-370SAE whilst still maintaining stock driveability, reliability, and emissions. (I say "magic" because BMW's after all are what pay for the Cheese, eh' Grommit ;) | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 424 Registered: 11-2002 |
Jim, I cannot understand where you are coming from, and would love to be able to have a chat in a pub about this. I am absolutely sure you have build many more performance engines than I have. I am now an IT Consultant, but was an engineer. I am looking at this from an engineering point of view not a mechanics (automotive technician) or whatever they are called now adays. The reason I said a warm cam is because you mentioned this: and thus I have assumed that you were talking about installing and timing etc. cams that were not that hugely different to standard. It is a fact that serious cams are hard on valve train components. So I am not saying that designing the cam profile is not difficult ... never have done that I usually select from a catalogue, but I still state that a really serious cam like a full race cam will increase load on followers and guides etc. thus possible leading to reduced reliability. My primary school comment referred to INSTALLING a warm cam which is not hard, and there is no science about, er, unless you are playing around cam timing to gain torque ... Performance is the opposite of reliability. Otherwise they would not rebuild F1 motors every so many 100 miles. I think we are just having a mis-communicate with some of my flowery language ... like the warm cam comment. Please don't read my posts like a lawyer but read the point I am trying to make. Which is as you increase the performance of a vehicle, reliability will eventually suffer, and maintenance will become more expensive As for how many engines have I built? I don't actually know but it is probably only around 20, as my career has not been automotive but engineering and computers. As for modifications, I have raced cars for close to 9 seasons. Winning a series, etc. No it was not F1 but club racing. My last car I built completely. I have produced designs and drawings for a couple of concept only engines ... So yes you win on experience!, no contest. But to make comments like performance modifying an engine does not affect reliability confuses me. We have to talk about degrees of performance modification. Small performance enhancements yes I agree, no issues, but when you start upsetting the original components safety factors and intended design you very much affect reliability. Like I said somewhere else. We close to doubled the horse power on a Alfa Sud engine. Yep simple engine but all engines are just pistons going up and down and valves playing along somewhere. We had many issues that the STANDARD design could not cope with. The oil system could not handle the race situation, thus dry sumping solved this. The camshaft follower support/cambox design could not accurately support the cam followers for the full race cams we wanted to run ... and thus the alloy cam box would only last about 2 race meetings before we needed to replace it. Thus we redesigned it and solved this problem permanently. Part of this is the way Alfa decided to lubricate the cam and followers. We changed this to provide pressurised oil via the camshafts to the followers ... Alfa just relied on a oil spilling out from the cam bearing area to full a bath area and thus lubricate the follower. The problem is this oil did not get replaced quickly enough and thus got hot, and the followers were simply coming out of their support too far and thus stressing the cambox. We had to change the cambox significantly, and my engine was not the only Alfa Sud engine that had this problem ... but the only one to completely solve and make reliable ... race motor relative. We also had water pump pulley failure due to the loads that a V belt puts on a pulley at the much higher rpm we were using. Thus replaced with a timing belt and we slowed the water pump down. Infact so little was left of original Alfa parts ... only the block and head castings ... and crank. To continue the standard Alfa clutch could not handle the power and torque so we replaced with our own flywheel and twin plate ceramic clutch. Problem solved. We used a straight cut race box for the gearbox in my last car. Note when I classic raced this engine in a Alfa Sud it ruined the REBUILT standard gearbox in one season. Thus using another gearbox solved this problem. The STANDARD radiator was not efficient enough to cool this engine of nearly twice the hp ... so out went that replaced by a purpose built one. Then we had all the suspension work to do. Thus (I have talked about two different cars here ...) but as they were both 100% race cars, they got the strip down and rebuild before most meetings and thus their maintenance was huge. Thus please do not tell me that serious performance modifications DO NOT adjust maintenance and reliability schedules. This is plain wrong by the basis of engineering design (ie. correctly designing something to do a particular job and using safety factors, etc.) and also from my (admittedly limited) personal experience, backed up by my father's (and mother's) 40 something years in the motor trade. Your going to come back saying that if the performance work is done properly it will still be reliable. My response to that is it depends on how much performance you are after. You cannot make a 600 hp 308QV Ferrari as reliable as a 235 hp 308QV Ferrari no matter how well you do the work. FACT! Pete BTW: The machining and performance work that I could not perform myself was always done by one of NZ's best race engine builders who builds engines for all over the world, including Group A (which does not exist anymore) and premier single seater series. | ||
| Jim Conforti (Lndshrk)
Junior Member Username: Lndshrk Post Number: 60 Registered: 8-2002 |
Pete, In re: "Ofcourse making very minor changes will not make a difference, like a warm cam, but that is primary school stuff"... You have me curious. To wit: How many engines have you built? How many engines have you modified? How many have you designed? The science of a proper camshaft is complex enough that it is still considered a black art, and anything but "primary school". Some of the programs used, cost over $300k a seat just to closely (but not perfectly) model the gas dynamics. Still, you are left to the dyno to properly finish the design. As to most of the rest of your example.. I give you two words: "Materials science". It's quite a wonderful thing. | ||
| Mark Eberhardt (Me_k)
Member Username: Me_k Post Number: 493 Registered: 5-2002 |
You can definitely get yourself into a lot of trouble when you start modifying. Big cams beat up valve guides, the blower drive loads wear the front crank bearing, turbos make a lot of underhood heat and heat/degrade your oil. The car will wear out faster. There is always the next weakest link. Getting it worked on can become impossible. The part that was the hot ticket this year fails and is unobainium next year, so it�s another redesign. It�s not a game for everyone�.but it can be fun and the risks can be managed. It�s like investing, how much risk are you comfortable with? An exhaust or air cleaner help some and are pretty low risk, a blower at 20 psi is a LOT riskier�..and fun | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 423 Registered: 11-2002 |
So to continue on with my: Performance = less reliability and more maintenance. Looking at the 600hp 308QV example again. Okay the owner has now blown the motor up (the one with the original pistons and rods, etc.) and thus now has won Lotto and wants to do it properly. Thus first we look at the motor. He sources a lovely performance crank that is made out of superior steel than the original and infact is even ligher ... cool a win win situation. He replaces the rods with Carellos (again lighter ... thumbs up) and gets JE to manufacturer some slipper racing pistons that also work out lighter. Thus we have a nice strong bottom end now, but lets have a look at the design life for all these components. The JE pistons are beautiful but he is told that they should be replaced every season of racing ... again if JE made a heavy piston it would last a long time but it would be too heavy to obtain the revs and power our owner wants. Now lets look at the gearbox. Our owner gets Getrag to make some replacement straight cut gears for the box but they work out heavier and the gearbox housing has to be modified to strengthen some weak areas (this is theoretical BTW) and he also sources strong axles which also are heavier. Thus now the car has to push around the heavier gearbox and axles ... thus reducing the performance capability slightly. So more weight DOES reduce performance and more weight is usually required for more reliability and less maintenance as the component will be stronger. So if you are designing a car from scratch and your goal is to make a very high performance car, you are going to try and reduce the weight of everything as much as you can ... this means reducing the safety factors and this means that you are reducing the life of those components and also this leads to more maintenance as these components have to be replaced more often. So if you want the ultimate performance car you cannot have the ultimate maintenance free and reliable car ALSO. In conclusion a Ferrari road car is NOT the ultimate performance car because they have to have an acceptable level of reliability and almost reasonable maintenance costs ... otherwise they would not sell as many. Pete ps: For example I bet a F40 takes a hell of a lot more maintenance than a 308 due to its extra performance goals ... not just because Ferrari was slack on the job. ps1:
Because the modifications over stressed the components and reliability went out the window. Even once the dyno runs and other modifcations have been done correctly the motor is now much higher stressed ... and things will wear out faster. There is no such thing as a free lunch! | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 422 Registered: 11-2002 |
Okay, lets start my opinion comments again. I have no issues with originality, unless you want to build a Concours Queen ... and that is what I would do with my Ferrari. But if you want to go faster or replace components with superior modern components then yep go for it. This ofcourse (depending on what is replaced) will improve reliability as the modern component should be superior to what was done 20 years ago. Okay I agree with that, but that is not what I am talking about. Lets talk about replacing standard cams with higher lift and longer duration cams. Longer duration cams have steeper ramps and thus DO put more sideways load on to the cam follower and thus support structure (cylinder head or cam box ... depending on design). Higher lift cams mean that the valve is less supported when completely open than it was before. Now this PROBABLY will not cause any problems OR reliability concerns BECAUSE the original component was design with a large safety factor and thus you still have enough safety factor after these modifications to obtain reasonable mileage. BUT you are stressing these components more. Like I stated before I am an ex-engineer and everything, even a crapily built Ferrari, should be designed to what it is expected to be used for and thus the corresponding safety factors. If you, via your modifications, significantly reduce this safety factor OR make a component do something that it was NOT designed for then you will have reliability problems. This everybody has to agree with as this is the basis for design, whether it is a nuclear power plant of a Toyota Camry. Thus a 300hp Ferrari will stress some components more BUT will get away with it because of the large safety factors that Ferrari designed in. BUT many components ultimate life will be reduced ... this maybe very little and only the 3rd next owner will find out Thus lets go to extremes to help explain my point. Lets say somebody chucked 2 turbo chargers on his 308QV and intercoolers and all the works and extracted 600hp from this baby. Now we have a block, cylinder head and crank, etc. that was designed for 235hp having to hold together and work at these much higher stresses. Thus if this motor is still using standard pistons, rods and crank, their life will be very short ... maybe as short as the first lap of a race track , because they WERE NOT designed for that power. Now lets move on to the clutch and gearbox ... that gearbox will sound like a concrete mixer very quick because the young Italian Ferrari designer did not intend his beautiful gearbox to every see 400hp let alone 600 ... thus the gears will not be large enough to handle the torque. Now we get to the axles ... again designed for the original torque now with this huge torque curve of this lovely turbo'ed motor we have splines on the axle, or CV joints (whatever, I do not know the exact details of a 308QV) getting very stressed because the OEM supplier was told to supply joints for a maximum of X torque NOT 2X. Thus I am at a loss to why you guys cannot see that up to a certain point you will get away with INCREASING performance but after that point reliability becomes an issue and more maintenance is required (ie. replacing axles more frequently, or tuning a less fault tolerant ignition and fuel system). Ofcourse making very minor changes will not make a difference, like a warm cam, but that is primary school stuff and NOT what I consider a modification worth bragging about ... Naturally if you blue print a motor you will increase reliability as you are CORRECTING the manufacturers mistakes ... this is NOT a performance modification (or though you probably will gain some performance) but a doing the job right practise. Pete ps: Regarding Dave's 550, I am not saying that any of his issues were not because of Ferraris slack design. I am saying that if I have an issue with somebody or a company I talk to them first before slagging them off to everybody else. That is called treating people with respect. I am also saying that he bought a Ferrari, and again never, ever known for building a quality comes first product ... and I thought everybody knew that! | ||
| Mark Eberhardt (Me_k)
Member Username: Me_k Post Number: 491 Registered: 5-2002 |
If you click on my profile you can see my SC308 QV, there�s a link to an mpeg to see/hear it on the dyno too. It runs 10 psi from a roots blower with a haltech E6K ecu which worked fine. It makes 305 RWHP (350-360 crank) on 93 octane pump gas, I ran it that way for about 15k miles without a problem. Just the purchased parts cost over $4k and the installation took a few hundred hours. If you can build a kit for $4500, god bless you. That�s about the price kits sell for on car that don�t need a whole new fuel/ignition management system. I sold my used system for $4300 without the ECU. I�m currently switching to a Lyscholm screw type SC with an intercooler to push the boost into the ridiculous realm of 20+ psi. $2400 for the compressor, $1500 intercooler (water/air installed in the intake), water pump $100, heat exchanger $200, throttle body $400, fuel injectors $400, bigger fuel pump $250�..it adds up fast. Plus another few hundred hours to install it all. If I had to pay for labor, I think a 355 upgrade would be cheaper. The real problem with the QV engines is that the stock injection will not tolerate valve overlap, so the cams are quite mild. 300 is a good number with decent cam, that means higher compression pistons and a new fuel system, plan on spending at least $10k. | ||
| James Adams (Madmaxx)
Junior Member Username: Madmaxx Post Number: 99 Registered: 11-2002 |
I don't think you would need a full blown motec on a 308 motor. Would be fun though I've seen many very well built road and drag cars using systems other than a 7K motec. Just because it's a Ferrari motor doesn't mean the rules do not apply. ....whats that viper comment supposed to mean? ;) hehehe Tuneing is expensive, but 40 hours on a dyno seems excessive to me for a one-off. James | ||
| Jim Conforti (Lndshrk)
Junior Member Username: Lndshrk Post Number: 59 Registered: 8-2002 |
In a S/C system all of that would be removed and of course replaced with new bits. Especially all the "hardlines" and other K-Jet stuff (yuk!). The Roe S/C for the viper uses an add-on fuel cal system. While it "will do for the Viper" you'll want a real EFI system for any Ferrari. Real = Modified OEM, Motec, Tag, Bosch, etc. Add another $3000++ (as in 3000 to infinity) If this is a DIY one-off.. add $2000 for a decent wideband lambda meter you can trust.. or add $15000+ for the engine you will be replacing. Add 20-40 dyno hours... etc etc etc. Tuning is expensive.. it's like that motor oil commercial: "you can pay now, or pay later". Why do you think all those forced induction Ferraris are always being sold as "just replaced motor". There *is* a reason ;) | ||
| Lucas Taratus (Karmavore)
Junior Member Username: Karmavore Post Number: 175 Registered: 12-2002 |
I'm not an engineer, so for me it comes down to cost vs. performance. vs. the cost of the car. I could justify spending maybe 20% of the purchase price on engine mods, so perhaps 5-6K for a 308, but any more than that and I'd be better off buying a more expensive, faster, car since I won't see the mod money as sale time. Luke. | ||
| James Adams (Madmaxx)
Junior Member Username: Madmaxx Post Number: 98 Registered: 11-2002 |
Anyone tried a centrifugal blower? I don't know how strong the bottom end of the 308 motors are, some cars don't fair well when putting that much stress on the crank snout. Exhaust plumbing is one big drawback of a turbo car. However, a turbo puts no external stress on the crank snout. You can change boost on a turbo by adjusting the wastegates, just as easy as changing a pully on a blower. If you had a cheap boost controler, it could be done from the cocpit. Even a APEXi fuel controler would work well in enriching the mix. James | ||
| James Adams (Madmaxx)
Junior Member Username: Madmaxx Post Number: 96 Registered: 11-2002 |
A grass-roots system (a one-off home built) wouldn't be that expensive to R&D. Wolf3D or SDFI would work well on an F-car application. The PITA is when you get into V10/V12 configs. My Viper had 2 T3 hybrids which produced damn near instant boost (4L 5cyl feeding each one LOL) and I still ran an intercooler to be safe. For a production system.. R&D will be high. Why cast parts? I do not belive Roe casts his (they look billet) and his entire system delivered is 7500$ From pics i've seen, the QV has individual hardlines for fuel feeding each injector. OUCH! Has to be a PITA to work around eh? The TB sits pretty low, would be hard to fit a fuel rail in there. Perhaps a 1" spacer on the plenum? James | ||
| Ben Millermon (Brainsboy)
Member Username: Brainsboy Post Number: 296 Registered: 5-2001 |
James, I think a blower would be more practical and reliable. Unlike a turbo you can change the drive ratio on a blower just by changing pulleys. Also the cam setup may be in favor of a blower vs a turbo. Not to mention all the exhaust plumbing you would have to do for a turbo. | ||
| Jim Conforti (Lndshrk)
Junior Member Username: Lndshrk Post Number: 58 Registered: 8-2002 |
Bob, I've been thinking about the same thing, and we even might have the same car (if the PPI on the '85 Euro QV I'm looking at turns out).. but... Don't kid yourself.. parts cost will be the most expensive $4500 you've ever seen. Just a good EFI system will be over $3k with all of the wiring harness/sensors/etc. Having designed a few S/C and T/C systems, the R&D costs alone will hit around $50k if you're lucky. The problem is the manifold.. the final units will need to be cast/finish machined to be somewhat cost effective, the originals get machined out of billet. Lots of machine time, lots of expense, and probably why we have our own CNC mill in the shop. Once the original is done and tested and all that, then it's off to the pattern-maker to get the casting molds ready. Also, skip the ever-so-popular intercooler unless you plan on running over 6-7# of boost, run a more efficient S/C instead. Pick a Lysholm-type instead of a Roots-type. Me, I'm a normally aspirated guy.. I think I might just try to find a "spare" motor to play with. Again, assuming I can find a nice car to buy that is presently in good condition and not too "molested" by the P/O. ;) | ||
| James Adams (Madmaxx)
Junior Member Username: Madmaxx Post Number: 95 Registered: 11-2002 |
A turbo might be a better solution than a blower. I'm not sure how the crank pully is setup on the 308 motor. Is it keyed? For the DIY guys, intake manifold fabrication isn't that hard. If you have access to some machine equipment, a press and a decent MIG/TIG setup it's easy. Assuming your making a replacement for the original, not a mating surface for a screw style blower. A turbo app or centrifugal application could use a whole new manifold. If anyone needs tips on construction (non-engine specific) drop me a line. For a good example of a screw style blower application, check out Roe Racing's Viper blower. 6psi yeilds 650+ hp, non intercooled on stock internals. www.roeracing.com (IIRC). James | ||
| Rob Baylor (Baylor308)
New member Username: Baylor308 Post Number: 13 Registered: 11-2002 |
There was a thread a while back about a supercharged 308 but I don't know if there is a kit available. Rob Baylor | ||
| Lucas Taratus (Karmavore)
Junior Member Username: Karmavore Post Number: 166 Registered: 12-2002 |
Sounds very cool and very resonable. I don't think any 'kits' exist at this time, do they? | ||
| Rob Baylor (Baylor308)
New member Username: Baylor308 Post Number: 11 Registered: 11-2002 |
I've been thinking about making a supercharger kit for the 308/328 engines to include: 1) modern electronic fuel injection and ignition system 2) new intake manifold with integrated intercooler(aluminum/carbon fiber) 3) new intake runners 4) supercharger 5) all belts/pulleys etc... I'm not sure how much it would cost, it would depend on the volume that I thought I could sell to help spread out the development costs. I guessing hardware costs alone without labor etc... would probably be in the $4,500 range. Are other people serious about this kind of upgrade? HP increase could be anywhere from a mild 300-350hp (no internal engine modifications required) to over 600hp (internal engine modifications would be required). Rob Baylor | ||
| Lucas Taratus (Karmavore)
Junior Member Username: Karmavore Post Number: 165 Registered: 12-2002 |
Assuming some one else is doing *all* the work, how much would it cost -- including parts and labor -- to extract 300hp out of a 308QV and what kind of performace (Top Speed, 0-60) could be achieved with that power? Luke. | ||
| James Adams (Madmaxx)
Junior Member Username: Madmaxx Post Number: 92 Registered: 11-2002 |
Nitrous isn't dangerous... idiots with nitrous are dangerous I don't think they're talking about having the motor run a 9K RPM for 3 hours, thus mowing down the valve springs here. Turbocharging/Supercharging/Nitrous can be the greatest ways to add power. However, people who do not know what they are doing, or adopt the "more is better" mentality quickly end up with a pile of aluminum and steel. Throwing 30psi on a stock short block dangerous? HELL YEAH it is. However, low boost in a controlled environment (RPM specific timing/fuel curve, and the correct intercooler for the application) will yield a motor with no more problems than the OEM of the same config. Just my .02 | ||
| James Adams (Madmaxx)
Junior Member Username: Madmaxx Post Number: 91 Registered: 11-2002 |
Always have to watch out for the guys with torches and pitchforks yelling "BLASPHEMER!!" ;) In some circles, deviation from OEM (even down to the correct screws..) is heresy. I tried that game once before, and didn't like it. James | ||
| Jim Conforti (Lndshrk)
Junior Member Username: Lndshrk Post Number: 57 Registered: 8-2002 |
No Pete, we are "not communicating well" Posibly because I and some knowledgeable others here, are telling you how it is, in the real world and you keep arguing otherwise. Sorry, bud.. Higher lift cams don't make an engine" less reliable". Never have, never will. I can take a 240hp, BMW S50US motor, throw in "higher lift" cams, do some other tricks, extract 310hp out of it, and watch the engine last at LEAST as long as a stock motor. WHY? Because increasing the Volumetric Efficiency (aka VolEff) of an engine doesn't increase the "stress" of any component beyond it's limits. (assuming natural aspiration, of course) Even turboing a motor, done right, doesn't "hurt" the motor.. problem is almost NO ONE does it "right" except the OEM's themselves. This includes some of the "big names" who I'll leave unnamed at the moment. Unfortunately, even a Ferrari motor from the factory is a series of compromises that the OEM had to make. I could sit here and give you a list of intentional things done to many motors to limit the power. Not for reliabilities sake, but for marketing or other corporate goals. It takes just a bit of engineering saavy to undo many of these "limitations" and produce more power. A good "tuner" will do that without taxing the other systems in the vehicle. FWIW, OEM's don't always know what's best, and thats why they pay consulting firms (like the one I'm retained by occasionaly) to make things work. Like I've said before, you're off base with your assumptions. | ||
| Ken (Allyn)
Member Username: Allyn Post Number: 859 Registered: 10-2001 |
I'm with James. The 'C' word is great for garage queens and museum pieces but anyone who's driving a 25+ year old sportscar a lot will want some upgrades. Even simple things like an electric fuel pump and pointless ignition will make having a carb car a lot more driveable and fun, and *gasp* adding a passenger side mirror isn't a bad idea either if your car lacks this. | ||
| James Adams (Madmaxx)
Junior Member Username: Madmaxx Post Number: 88 Registered: 11-2002 |
I feel that ANYTHING can be improved upon from OEM. I would take modern injection and suspension over any system any day! How is using modern components going to shorten the life of a car? The chassis was not designed to be exact down to the thousandths of an inch... heck, most of the welds are sloppy by any standards Using modern materials such as poly bushings and mounts, new control arms and spindles will actually improve on a car. The whole pro-touring movement is based on this fact. You can have the classic lines of a car, but with some modern enhancements underneath the skin. Personally, when I purchase my 308 (which I have decided will be my first f-car) I will ditch the OEM ignition and fuel system. Actually, the emissions equipment will also be striped off and the OE wiring will be removed. In it's place will be a modern 12v system a modern fuse box. I have wired many cars up with a modified painless wiring system and it works GREAT! No fears of burning a car to the ground with the 10 splices made by the PO. If original is your goal, then everything I've said is heresy. But, if your looking to extract reliable power and performance out of an aging car, then there are MANY options out there! James | ||
| Dave328GTB (Hardtop)
Member Username: Hardtop Post Number: 530 Registered: 1-2002 |
The 70's and 80's were automotive "DARK AGES". Emissions standards sapped performance from all cars, not just 308's. In fact, the QV was one of the fastest cars of the era. Dave | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 611 Registered: 4-2002 |
With modern materials, there is little problem in extracting 100 BHP/litre. However, many of these materials were not 'usefully' available 25 years ago when the 308 was put into production. Titanium con rods, valves, keepers; 4 or 5 valves per cyclinder; pentroof combustion chambers; closed loop computer controlled engine management systems; lead free 93 octane gasoline. All of these are required to attack the 110 BHP/litre design point with emissions and 100,000 mile service life. Now, If there were a fully engineered 300 BHP 308/328 styled car, you would also need to bring the suspension up to date, and underbody aerodynamics. Do this and you would have a winner (BIG winner). | ||
| Ben Cannon (Artherd)
Member Username: Artherd Post Number: 301 Registered: 6-2002 |
"In my opinion most cars are MORE reliable when kept as the manufacturer intended. After all they usually know more about THEIR product than we do." I completely disagree. For just one example, relivant to Jim (who maybe can provide more detail here.) modern engines run lean for emmisions sake. Simply enriching the mixture will not only make more power, but do so at cooler combustion tempratures. Yes, a 13:1 compression race motor is gunna fail sooner than an 8:1 1970s mechanical injection mill However, replacing those "over-stressed" parts of yours, and being reasonable with compression (around 10:1 with EFI and modern computer knock-sensor controls.) can yeild a much more powerful motor that is MORE reliable than the stock version. Ever been stranded by distributors/points/can-coils/ignition-modules, etc? coil-on-plug (or just coil packs in any TEC-II & III) gets RID of those parts. They can't fail then, can they? ;) | ||
| Sean F (Agracer)
Junior Member Username: Agracer Post Number: 114 Registered: 2-2003 |
Psk, My FF2000 car cost $1500 per weekend to race. And that factors in tires, fuel, oil, entry, food, lodging, and year end engine rebuild (divided over 8-weekends). If I used my 4-cycle tires from the previous race, the bill went down to $900. You can spend more and some did, but I did the maintenence that was required (with NO exception), won a few regional races, best finish 4th at the National level and only had 3-DNF's (and two of those were "driver error" so to speak). FF is a relatively inexpensive class to race. Production cars however are another story! | ||
| Jeff Edison (Euro308guy)
Member Username: Euro308guy Post Number: 326 Registered: 7-2002 |
If you think the 308 shoud've been built with more power, just call Norwood Autocraft. They can fix this issue! | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 401 Registered: 2-2003 |
Pete, Dave's issues were not maintenance issues, they were design issues. Big difference. They can be well engineered and still break, just like any other car. The factory is going to cut every corner then can. Would you roll over and pay the bill as just another maintenance bill or find out if its a real quality control issue and hold FNA responsible? Dave, good for you for speaking up as a concerned owner (consumer)!! Sunny | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 421 Registered: 11-2002 |
Mike B, Not really, but I am a little surprised that he made these issues public BEFORE giving FNA a chance to come to the party. Not how I would have played the game. I am also surprised that anybody buys a Ferrari and is shocked at maintenance problems. Note I am glad they have been solved for him. Jim, We just are not communicating well are we So here you are saying that Ferraris are better after modifications and yet on Dave's 550 thread they are reliable performance cars???, sounds like a small contradiction to me. Why modify if they are soooo reliable in the first place ... hence back to my original point (backed up by JRV, that Ferraris have never been and never will be Toyota type reliable ... performance come first, and that is what you are buying ... eyes open and all) In my opinion most cars are MORE reliable when kept as the manufacturer intended. After all they usually know more about THEIR product than we do. But sometimes they cock up and yes a modification can fix issues. BUT major performance modifications, like raising compression ratio to 12:1, changing cams to increase lift and duration and thus pushing the power/revs up DOES reduce reliability and increase maintenance because the components are under higher stress. Then you have this extra power going throught he clutch and gearbox, designed for the original specs ... thus more modifications required or a clutch and gearbox that will wear out quicker. Along with increased cooling requirements ... Changing your spring rates to stiffer springs to make your car turn in quicker, etc. for that 1 second lap time gain ALSO wears the car faster as the loads transferred to the chassis are higher and thus the suspension bushes get a harder time, and so does the cars body. So yes if you do such SMALL modifications that they are hardly worth doing in the first place the modification will not reduce reliability, but it depends on what modification you do. I think on a site like this it is better to imform the posters of the real issues, and open their eyes to what performance CAN cost. Plus I am sure that you advise your customers accurately of what a performance modification will do to their lovely standard car ... if not your definition of modification does not agree with mine ... as a 1 hp gain means things are being stressed more and if the hp gain is high enough those components will need more maintenance or possible even be replaced at shorter intervals. I would think that a 65 hp gain would be a significant power increase going through a standard clutch, gearbox and rear axles ... that is a 27% increase. Now theoretically if a 308QV can happily handle this power increase then Ferrari made it TOO strong (extra strength means extra weight) ... and thus it is unnecessarily heavy and thus we have a performance compromise Pete | ||
| Jim Conforti (Lndshrk)
Junior Member Username: Lndshrk Post Number: 56 Registered: 8-2002 |
Pete, FWIW, there is no "inherant lack of reliability that modifications cause".. in fact, if "originality" isn't an issue, there are MANY modifications that could be made to any 308/328 that will both increase performance AND reliability. For posterity, let me say it one more time.. there need be no TRADEOFF between "performance" and "reliability". | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Junior Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 169 Registered: 12-2002 |
Psk, I can't believe what I am reading. Are you cracking on Dave because he's pissed at his car's failures? As I remember, it was motor mounts, shocks, and AC compressor. What do the motor mounts and AC compressor have to do with performance? Do you REALLY think Ferrari uses an ultra-lightweight version that saves a lot of poundage? Come on - I bet it's no different than any other. Same with the motor mounts. I mean hell, one place you DON'T want to skimp is motor mounts. As for shocks - call up Koni, Bilstein, Penske, or any of the big companies and ask them if their racing style shocks have a shortened life and if a failure at 15k miles would be normal. I already know what they will say. Dave was a victim of bad luck. But Ferrari is guilty of not doing enough testing. I am in manufacturing and I know that when making anything, you can test to a certain point of confidence in a part. Testing costs time and money and designing more robust parts costs in machining time and material costs. "Quality" is, by and far, something that comes down from management. As long as Ferrari has the budgets they do, and the quality processes they have, and the time and disclipline they allow, then Ferraris will always be the way they are. In Ferraris defense, why should they spend more time and money on testing when they have a backlog of ever car they sell? Reliability usually only comes to bite one in the a$$ when they rest on their laurels and years hence the brand gets a bad rep and when sales slip, all of a sudden those "fringe buyers" who WOULD be turned away by reliability become a whole lot more important. But by then it's usually too late to change. | ||
| Henryk (Henryk)
Member Username: Henryk Post Number: 664 Registered: 8-2001 |
I also agree with Jim. However, to do it right, will be expensive....money you will never get back. Your best bet would be to sell the car and buy a 328. | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 420 Registered: 11-2002 |
Agree with Jim, Ferrari when they designed the 308QV 20 years ago (?) made it the best they could back then with a level of performance and reliability they required. Things have changed since then and thus more power with similar reliability could be obtained due to improvements in materials and control systems, etc. Ferrari still have to make these decisions with their new cars ... but the goal posts have been moved higher. Thus if originality is not important for you, and the inherant lack of reliability that modifications cause is cool with you then go for it, soup that baby up. Once you get the glitches sorted you will have one kean 308QV Pete ps: the life cycle of all components is a big part of the design phase ... no matter whether you are designing the latest US flying weapon or a shopping trolley. To make more hp (via more revs) you have to lighten revolving components ... which reduces the life cycle, or even change to Titanium rods and valves, etc. which also do not last as long ... Also increasing your compression ratio puts more stress on your pistons/rods and crank ... thus again reducing the life of those components ... but if you buy the right performance parts, like Jim said you should have a nice little motor. In the end 100hp/litre is not hard now-days. I've made a 125hp/litre Alfa Sud motor which only had 2 valves per cylinder (on carbs) so a 308QV motor should be easily about to obtain 100hp/litre. | ||
| ARIE BONSELAAR (Arie)
New member Username: Arie Post Number: 43 Registered: 5-2001 |
any hope for my 79 308 gtb 225 / 245 hp? what can i do? my c5 vette walks all over it, even my 70 t/a spanks it like a step child. HELP!! | ||
| Ben Cannon (Artherd)
Member Username: Artherd Post Number: 300 Registered: 6-2002 |
Jim said it, with modern injection and computer controls (and probally new cams and high-compression forged pistons, possibly crank, etc.) Nothing too radical, no new cylindar heads etc. And non-emmisions complaint setup (on a seperate line because it's such a huge deal for automakers! No 4-valve engine has any excuse not to produce 90-100bhp/liter and do so for 60-100k+miles. Best! Ben. | ||
| Jim Conforti (Lndshrk)
Junior Member Username: Lndshrk Post Number: 55 Registered: 8-2002 |
Ken, It's the technology. You can easily make the QV put out a RELIABLE 300+hp (which will meet emissions) if you are willing to: 1) Lose the original fueling system 2) Lose the original ignition system 3) Change the cams and maybe: 4) Increase the compression to 10:1 Done properly, you'd have a MORE reliable car than you had previously, and much more powerful. Your 308qv was the pinnacle of technology in the late 70's when it was DESIGNED. Jim Conforti | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 418 Registered: 11-2002 |
Err, I think this one comes under the 'what do you want' question ... thus refer to Dave's 550 maintenance thread. Again you cannot have performance and reliability at the same time. Thus Ferrari limited the engine to 235hp for emissions and an acceptable level of reliability. Yep you can tune them to 300hp (I believe) but then you will be doing race car type services every month ... and it appears most of the owners on this site want reliability BEFORE performance ... or believe that you can have both, which is just not possible in the real world. The F550 and F360 are amazing cars that have huge performance and (I think) amazing reliability and service requirements ... but they still require heaps more maintenance than a Toyota Camry (for example) because they are not fault tolerant and with such huge performance ... big accident potential. Thus we could have even faster new model Ferraris but they have to draw the line somewhere ... and if they are TOO slow nobody will buy them ... even Dave. Thus it looks like Ferrari cannot win, not enough power here and not enough maintenance free-ness on Dave's 550 thread!. Man, I am glad I don't sell/service Ferraris ... I would have to sit down and explain in very small simple words that you are buying a performance FIRST car and thus make sure you have wallets that fill quickly to keep the thing on the road ... Do you guys know how much it costs to maintain a real racing car ... huge expense, even at my lowly level I was spending more than I earned keeping the thing going (hence I no longer race ). I believe even Formula Fords (simple single seaters with no wings) cost around $10,000 AUS per race meeting ... In the end if you want to go fast it is not just petrol you need to supply, costs add up everywhere! Pete | ||
| Frederick Thomas (Fred)
Member Username: Fred Post Number: 702 Registered: 2-2001 |
If they had 300 hp not many people would want to trade up. The car is so damned good looking. | ||
| Jack Habits (Ferraristuff)
Member Username: Ferraristuff Post Number: 391 Registered: 4-2003 |
I think emissions play a big role too. Kinda answers the question why Ferrari doesn't chip-tune their cars to the max as well. Jack | ||
| Ken Ross (Kdross)
Member Username: Kdross Post Number: 337 Registered: 2-2002 |
After researching the engine in the Ferrari 308QV, I am very disappointed that Ferrari limited the hp of the engine. Ferrari could have easily made the 308QV produce close to 300hp without any problems. So why does the engine only produce 235hp? My thinking is that while Ferrari could have easily made the engine produce close to 300hp, this would have slowed the sales of their newer cars. If the 308QV produced close to 300hp, then the 328 would have had to produce over 300hp, the 348 would have to have 350hp, and the 355 over 400hp. Using this logic, it would appear that Ferrari is intentionally limiting the output of their engines. If they max out the potential of each engine, the question of "what do we do next" becomes a big problem. Do others agree with this theory? Ken P.S. The 308QV with 280hp-300hp would have been an incredible car. As it stands, it is a great car. |