Xu9J4 Oil Starvation Prevention (Never Heard That Before?!)

[Kitch 4]

Hi guys, I'll give a very brief rundown of why I'm making this post.

 

I work for a kit car specialist. We manufacture our own Seven-style model. We make the chassis, put kits together and sell them. We also build them for customers, as well as Ultima GTRs, Cobra reps....you name it. We've even got a 190bhp K-series powered Rochdale Olympic in at the moment!

 

Since working there I have longed to build my own car. Being that we manufacture them, I've actually got the opportunity to BUILD my own car; chassis, body, drivetrain....the lot, rather than just assemble a kit.

 

The first stipulation I decided on is that it must be Mi16 powered I work in a world where Ford engines are king, but they do nothing for me personally. There are obviously a number of hurdles to overcome - gearbox (sorted), engine angle and mounting position (sorted), oil starvation being that the engine will be mounted north to south, not transverse (not sorted!) I can build my own custom chassis to suit the engine, so no issue there.

 

Up until recently I have been basing this project around the notion that I will be coughing up for a dry sump kit. However when all is said and done, this is likely going to creep near £2k and to me that is sheer madness in a world where I could build the entire car for that! It's likely I'll sell the car after a few years, purely because it'd be a toy and like all toys people get bored. If it had a conventional engine setup, it'd cost less to make and consequently I wouldn't be too out of pocket when I sold it. But I worry all my hard work would be wasted if I tried to sell an Mi16 powered Seven as no one really wants one and the engine would be the only desirable item. Like many top end Mi16 powered projects, it could end up being broken as without the engine, the chassis would be useless. I realise you don't do this to make money, but the world we live in revolves around it so it needs to be taken into account.

 

I'm getting nearer and nearer the point of switching the build to feature a K-series instead. My heart isn't in that, but it is alot more sensible and although not as cheap as you'd think, it's still cheaper and a proven setup. They're very light and very easy to work on.

 

So my question is, what are my options regarding oil starvation in a north/south installation? Is it dry sump and nothing else, or are there options? I think I'm right in thinking the issue is the oil draining back into the sump from the head, so will a dry sump be an absolute cure? I'm guessing experimenting with Accusumps and baffled Xu10 trays will likely end up in burnt out bearings?!

 

Any advice appreciated!

Edited March 31, 2012 by Kitch

[dcc 855]

Hi

[welshpug 1,657]

HI!

[Kitch 4]

Lol that went fairly wrong!

[Kitch 4]

Just to show, it can fit!

 

[welshpug 1,657]

dry sump and you can lower the engine's centre of gravity

 

I dont think it has to cost quite as much as you think, look for wardy18's posts/threads, I think he sorted some discount with pace, the expensive bits that often spiral away are the pipe and fittings rather than the oil pan and pump.

[Kitch 4]

We can get DASH fittings etc quite cheap at work, although I'd have to have a custom tank made for it to sit in front of the scuttle (which ruins my low COG!) But my main worry is all this money spunked on an engine that although we all love, isn't going to be vastly different from any other 4 pot twin cam. The big ticket things you notice in cars like that is wind, noise, wind, buffeting and wind. But.....something about the Mi!!

[Cameron 16]

I have to ask.. why an Mi16? There are much better engines out there you can use, it's not like you need to keep a loyalty to Peugeot or anything as this is a ground-up build. If I were building my own Caterham style car then I'd do what all the other guys do and fit a Duratec, since they respond much better to tuning than a tired old Mi ever will.

[welshpug 1,657]

how about an EW10? or even 12.

[Kitch 4]

I have to ask.. why an Mi16? There are much better engines out there you can use, it's not like you need to keep a loyalty to Peugeot or anything as this is a ground-up build. If I were building my own Caterham style car then I'd do what all the other guys do and fit a Duratec, since they respond much better to tuning than a tired old Mi ever will.

 

Mainly because I like them. I have no intention to tune the engine, 150bhp or there abouts is fine in 550kg as far as I'm concerned. The Mi16 is also a fair few kg's lighter than a Duratec as an engine/transmission package. The Duratec doesn't take the Type 9 easily, meaning serious transmission tunnel mods to make an Mt75 fit. The Mi16 doesn't take a Type 9 either, but the box it does take will (just about) fit the tunnel.

 

If I was going to go more modern and sensible, I'd simply go K-series. Very light, very easy to maintain and work on and the chassis wouldn't need altering at the front end to allow it to fit.

 

For its era I think the Mi16 engine was outstanding, oil issue aside. I'm not going to be a tool and compare it to more modern machinery, but I Lamborghini Miura isn't as good as a Gallardo. But I know which one makes me drool more!

[Kitch 4]

how about an EW10? or even 12.

 

Weight and management. I'd run the Mi16 on either bike carbs and Megajolt, or bike T.B's and Megasquirt. The EW10 has VVC, which limits you to high-end management systems to run it. Plus I'd loose the weight advantage the Mi16 was giving me.

[kyepan 291]

Some people tap the head and help it drain back to the sump and or run solid lifters to help reduce the amount of oil that's up in the head.

 

Granted the simple things are xu10j4rs sump with the spacer plate to extend the depth, extended tig welded pick up, 26 tooth sprocket. Sumps and sprockets are cheap, pickup is perhaps 100 quid.

 

Then there are better baffles that help reduce surge, if you are handy with a welder, you can find photos and build your own. Hopefully someone who knows where links to photos of existing ones may be able to help.

 

Gti6 wind age trays can also be welded to the spacer plate, I believe.

 

I love the k series, super light engine, fair play for wanting to do something different, mi-16s sound great.

[Cameron 16]

You seem to know a fair bit about the weights of these engines, care to share them with us? Would be very interesting to know!

 

If all you want is 160-ish bhp, you could keep an EW10J4S on the standard management and have 180.

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

No-one's asked the main question here - does anyone have proof that the surge issues happen in a longitudinal setup? You're now sloshing oil left/right across a very narrow sump and assuming the engine angle is correct for best oil pickup, surely surge would be a lot less of an issue? It'll also be very low and the car will undoubtedly roll less, which might count for a little.

 

Kitch - I've got a Robin Hood with a K-Series I transplanted into it. I don't think changing the engine away from the original manufacturers plans is necessarily a bad thing. If anything it might add that 'individualism' that kit cars are all about, and might attract just the buyer you're after. Noubt wrong with an mi16 although if I was doing it from scratch, with the talk recently on this forum about the EW10 I'd probably give it serious consideration.

[welshpug 1,657]

didn't some supertouring spec 405's have the engine more upright?

 

other than packaging I can;t see why the engine needs to stay at its original angle if a dry sump is used (or a modified sump+pickup), I think its pretty common for the GM engines to be placed vertical in RWD cars like escorts where they usually sit at 15 degrees iirc

[Cameron 16]

Brumster - I guess the problem is that your axes are flipped round when using it longitudinally, so the problems you have during cornering now happen under braking / acceleration. Braking won't be so bad as the oil will be forced towards the pickup, but acceleration (when engine load is at it's greatest!) will draw oil away from it.

[welshpug 1,657]

braking will force oil PAST the pickup, my engine died on a l/h bend!

[Cameron 16]

Well.. the pickup is closer to that side of the engine, and the loading is next to nothing.

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

Hmm, fair point, but you're not going to sustain hard acceleration enough to force the oil all the way to the back of the sump are you? Even in a 550Kg Lotus 7 replica ;-).

 

What's the most longitudinal g (in acceleration and braking) you can realistcally expect, compared to lateral g is a transverse setup like the 205? Are they comparable?

Edited April 1, 2012 by brumster

[Cameron 16]

True, I guess with fairly conservative bhp you won't be accelerating at the same g that you could corner at in a well-sorted 205. I remember someone put a g-g diagram from a race 205 up once that showed peaks of around 1.2-1.3g cornering, you won't get that under acceleration with 160bhp.. but then acceleration is more sustained than cornering is. I dunno.. it's a tough one!

 

Anyone hazard a guess at what a road / fast road 205 could corner at? It's possible to surge with a mild setup, I'd guess capable of around 1.0g.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Cameron

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

Well, if you trust this article (and I hate just blindly referencing websites, but...)

 

http://physics.info/acceleration/ (echoed at http://www.splung.com/content/sid/2/page/acceleration)

 

...then it looks like accelerative G would be lucky to go much past 1g, and with a road car on road tyres I suspect you're looking more around 0.5. Even without looking at the website, I'd always been of the understanding that cornering g is a lot easier to build up than accelerative (or braking) g...

 

Hey, I've nothing substantial to prove anything. But I would be less worried about an XU surging in this configuration, put it like that.

 

Kitch, go for it, and report back here when you spin a shell

[Cameron 16]

I don't trust that at all, mostly because F1 cars are capable of 5g in braking and cornering, and modern road cars can be capable of 1.2g quite happily.

 

A rule of thumb I was taught at uni was that without downforce you can expect around 0.8 * lateral as your limit of longitudinal g, obviously dependant on a lot - power being the big one!

 

I can tell you a transit van is capable of much more than 0.5g.

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

<chuckle>

[Cameron 16]

Without giving too much away, a fully laden Transit with an extra 150kg on the roof (high roof version) is capable of 0.6g before it becomes unstable.

 

Working on suspension for a living has it's upsides.. you guys should really start trusting me more.

[welshpug 1,657]

is that the wibbly mk6/7 or the MK5 rotboxes that actually handles way better?