Auto engine marinization

Backhoe Engine for Diesel Land Speed Record

Maybe we will have a new candidate for marinizing?

Descendants of backhoe engine try for diesel land speed record

The JCB DIESELMAX vehicle, developed by U.K.-based heavy-duty construction equipment manufacturer J C Bamford Excavators Ltd., aims to break the world land speed record for a diesel-powered automobile in August 2006 at the Bonneville Salt Flats, Utah. Powered by a pair of advanced 4-cylinder, 5-liter JCB444-LSR (land speed record) diesels, developed with the support of vehicle system and powertrain technology provider Ricardo, the JCB DIESELMAX boasts the world’s highest specific power diesel engines used in any automobile application.


Interestingly, the JCB444-LSR engines exhibit many of the technologies that are likely to form the basis of the next generation of high-performance, low-emissions diesel engines in both automotive as well as heavy-duty applications. At the same time the JCB DIESELMAX engines retain excellent fuel efficiency and very low emissions through the use of advanced combustion control and diesel particulate filter technology.

JCB originally approached Ricardo plc in 1998 with a brief to design a totally new engine, the JCB444, to power JCB products. The design targets called for robust construction, a long stroke to facilitate high torque at low engine speeds, reduced noise levels, and future-proofing for the next steps in emissions legislation. The land speed record engines are developed from, and share many components with, the standard JCB444.

Ricardo applied its state-of-the-art powertrain computer aided engineering software to the task of assisting JCB in the development of the advanced JCB444-LSR engines which power the JCB DIESELMAX. Ricardo was also able to draw upon extensive knowledge and experience of the engine architecture as a result of its previous role as concept engineering partner on the production JCB444 engine.

“These were worthy aims for an engine intended, among other things, to use its weight to balance a backhoe, but on the face of it, some of them were contradictory to development of the unit as a racing engine,” says Ian Penny, Ricardo’s global director of diesel engines.

Therein lies the technological fascination and validation inherent in the JCB DIESELMAX program, which was built around the racing engine using the standard block, cylinder head, and bedplate (albeit with some lightening) in order to showcase the extraordinary versatility of the standard engine.

“Our intention all along was to use a standard block, cylinder head, and bedplate,” explains Dr. Tim Leverton, JCB group engineering director with board responsibility for JCB Power Systems. “I wanted it to have exactly the same fundamental architecture as the JCB444 engine.”


The standard engine — the only one of its kind in the world designed specifically for its industrial application — has already set new marks for power output and reliability in service.

During the course of development of the LSR version, the standard engine demonstrated the ability to cope with the very high cylinder pressures generated by the two-stage turbo-charging necessary to boost the normal 120 bhp power to the 750 bhp that will be needed to push the twin-engine JCB DIESELMAX streamliner beyond 300 mph.

“The whole project has been a fantastic engineering challenge,” Penny says. “Once we had defined the engine concept in January 2005, our effort then focused on validating and refining that concept. Initially we tried single and then two-stage turbo-charging, having taken the view to avoid more esoteric methods of boosting power. As a result, we have advanced technology in the engine, particularly in the combustion chamber design where Ricardo has deep experience, that will filter through to JCB products, and to proprietary production cars, within the next five to 10 years.”

Matt Beasley, Ricardo’s project director with specific responsibility for the JCB444-LSR engine’s development, says of the project, “The greatest challenge was how to get sufficient air and fuel into the engine to increase its power, and to manage that air and fuel flow and the associated heat generated by two-stage turbo-charging at six bar.”

Besides the block, head, and bedplate, the JCB444-LSR engine also uses the standard valve train, but with stronger springs and different exhaust valves. The crankshaft and camshaft are lightened, while the pistons and connecting rods are bespoke.

“One of the major areas of development has been the piston design,” Beasley adds. “The engine places very high mechanical and thermal loadings on the aluminium pistons, and we spent a lot of time refining the design. Aluminum normally degrades rapidly with such high temperatures. We experimented with a number of profiles. Since then we have focused on refining the other key areas — the lubrication and fuel systems. The former is totally new as the engine is inclined at 10 degrees from the horizontal for optimum installation in the car. There is a lot of oil flow, up to six times what you would expect in a normal diesel engine, and the oil circulates around the engine every five seconds.


“The fuel system is also remarkable. We have achieved 750 bhp after going to gold fuel pumps in place of the previous red pumps, and by very careful attention to the injection system. We are putting a tremendous amount of fuel through very small orifices in the injectors, and are doing so at massive pressure — 1,600 bar — hence the magnitude of the engineering challenge in that area.”

Test “mule” engines ran for as long as 12 hours during the development phase, and some were stressed to destruction in order to see where the limits of individual components were.

“They were impressively high,” Penny says.

The definitive JCB444-LSR engine displaces 5 liters, weighs 382 kg (dry), and produces 750 bhp at 3,800 rpm on a relatively low 10.5:1 compression ratio and in excess of 1,500 Nm of torque at 2,200 rpm.

“I am confident that the JCB DIESELMAX will easily be the cleanest and most efficient land speed record car ever built,” Ian Penny adds. “The car has twice the power and more than four times the weight of an F1 car, yet half the fuel consumption.

http://www.jcbdieselmax.com/html/home.php

http://www.ricardo.com/

 

Why are you planning on running compression so low? Are you going to run forced induction?

BTW, GM no longer makes the pink rods - they use sintered metal instead, even stronger than forged. They come from the factory balanced to +/- 1 gram on each end.

 

turbo

Yup. Going with twin mitsu 12A turbos.

 

You sure you want to run factory rods? I would have thought you'd be better off with some H-beams on a twin turbo setup like that.

 

Greetings! Just finished reading this entire trend. So, I had to join ! Guess I'm the new kid on the block ( if 60 is a kid?) Well, I might be the worlds oldest living teenager anyway !!

This trend has been very interesting, to say the least. And it just so happens that My son and I are putting a car motor in a boat so I am all ears.

The last one that I did was my 19 ft that came with a 307 225 hp chevy OMC I put a car 400 smallblock bored 30 over. and used the "151" chevy cam (350 hp 327 cam). The 307 had the 300hp 327 "929" cam. I used flat top pistons. the extra cubes didn't seem to make much difference, it still does about 50 mph. And yes, I tried different props. Anyway.........

Son just bought a 1988 20 ft. with cracked 305 and we are putting in a 1991 305 car engine. We are making the necessary changes to marinize it but I am unsure as to the cam profile to use. The 1988 motor uses a hydrolic flat lifter and the 91 motor has a roller cam. The IO is a OMC cobra and It calls for 4000 - 4400 WOT RPM. The 88 motor had a double roll timing chain and I cannot seem to find one that will fit the roller cam. From my last experence with the 400 - 307 changeover , it seems that OMC used a oem chevy camshaft but not the same one that would normally be installed in a 307 for a car. I have no desire to purchase an aftermarket cam. I would like to stay with GM parts. Will the 91 car 305 rollercam perform ok? Or did OMC use a different cam? I presume that at some point in time OMC must have started using the roller cam in their Chevy cams. Any suggestions? Many thanks.

 

Oh boy this should be good (pulls up chair closer to lap top). Do you know what you have just done? You have lit a fuse !!!

But why do I think you know that? welcome to the forum.

 

Yeah, I know what I done! I figured I'd come in with a BIG BANG!!!:!:

 

or a BIG SPLASH !! Thanks for the welcome

 

Try Summit for the roller timing sets.

For the cam, you might try Crane. Crane Cams is the OEM supplier to GM, and they have a pretty good selection of both automotive and marine cams. Their online help is pretty good, too. www.cranecams.com If you want to stick with a GM spec cam, however, you might look at the GM Performance Parts cam p/n 14097395. It's got short duration but a tight lobe separation angle, and makes big, big torque.

 

Yup, torque is what you want, since you aren't winding the motor to 6k rpms, I'd think you'd want your torque peak right around the cruise rpm or a few hunderd rpms lower, right? That's the most efficient point in terms of volumetric efficiency. The torque/hp relationship is:

HP = (torque x rpms)/5252

so you might see higher hp numbers at higher rpms, but you'll never use those high rpms (at least not for long - bang-clank-clank-clank).

I think you might find a better cam choice for the 400 than the stock GM car/truck cams. And why fool with another 305-307 at all????

 

Try Summit for the roller timing sets.

For the cam, you might try Crane. Crane Cams is the OEM supplier to GM, and they have a pretty good selection of both automotive and marine cams. Their online help is pretty good, too. www.cranecams.com If you want to stick with a GM spec cam, however, you might look at the GM Performance Parts cam p/n 14097395. It's got short duration but a tight lobe separation angle, and makes big, big torque.


Thanks Stonebreaker, I'll call Summit tomorrow. As far as cams, I am aware that Crane is making GM cams and I have already called their tech dept about a week ago. They reccomended cam and lifter set PN 113502. for my boat with the 400 cid. I am leary of taking someone elses openion on cams. I once had a bad expierence years ago. I tried a Compatition Cams 278H , I think it was, in my 64 SS IMPALA Conv. 327 4 speed , 202 valve fulie heads Forged crank and pistons , Torker intake etc etc. The guy at the speed shop told me it would make my car really go. All the cam did for me was idle kinda rough . I pulled it and installed a chevy "151" cam and the car screwed! And the idle was smooth! Beleave it or not, I used to beat big block Camero's with that heavy car! For this reason, I installed the "151" in my 400 in the boat. The boat with the 400 and "151" cam does pretty good (50MPH) but I feel it could do better and the problen might bee the cam due to the 151 being a higher rpm cam. I think I might need a cam that makes peak torque around 3800 - 4200 RPM. Does this sound right to you and what cam would you suggest? According to my books, the 151 makes peak torque of 360 ft.lbs. at 3600 rpm and thats in a 327 cid with 11/1 CR and fulie heads etc. In a 400 inch engine with flat tops and 75cc chambers,I suspect the peak torque is at a lower rpm.

As far as the cam number you suggested, I tried to find it in my books but can't. Do you have the specs on it? Is it a roller cam? We are talking the 305, right? I really need some good tecnical input in the cam thing as I feel strongly that picking the right cam is vital. The rest of the motor is done right (I know what I am doing) . Just the cam thing gets confusing and I havn't the extra money to go tring different cams till I find the right one. One question is , if top rpm for both boats is 4400rpm then at what rpm do I want to make peak torque? And the 400 cid boat has to have a smooth idle down to about 550rpm as it has electric shift. Many thanks for everyones efforts to help.

 

Bang - Clank - Clank

THANKS EDDY, but my motors don't blow! And peak RPM will not exceed 4500rpm . But I am one of those guys that rarely cruses. I want SPEED!!
Currantly, the boat with the 400 does 50mph with a 21 pitch cupped prop.
and one person on board. it is 18.5 ft long. I would like to see at least 55 MPH! And more is better but I would be happy with 55. I also don't want to use more gas than it uses now. I think I would want peak volumetric efficiency at a little higher RPM as the boat isn't babied. I live on a lake and sometimes I trailer it to the salt water.

Why bother with a 305? Cause!! I was able to pick up a 305 much cheaper than a 350 and 400s are getting rare. And the 305 boat doesn't need to go that fast. 35 - 40 mph is fine for this boat. Economics was the main reason and the cracked 305 has many good parts in it. It had just been rebuilt just prior to the freezeup. New .040 over pistons etc. Soooo if I need to rebuild the new 305, I already got the parts! I think thats a pretty good reason to "bother" with a 305. Otherwise my choice would have been a 4 inch bore. As far as 307, it wasn't a bad motor at all! It was a 283 block with a 327 crank (3.25) A 307 will walk all over a 305 and it has heavier walls etc.

Many thanks for your thought and efforts.

I REALLY DO NEED HELP CHOSING THE RIGHT CAM FOR BOTH THESE BOATS!

 

Bobby,

Take a look at http://www.gmgoodwrench.com/perfpartsjsp/_res/pdf/gm_performance_parts_catalog_2006.pdf this is the online GM Performance Parts catalog in Adobe format. Cam 14097395 is used in GM's 383 high torque crate motor. It's very similar to the cam that came in the 94-96 impala ss LT1 engine. It has a little more duration and a little tighter lobe separation, and is probably what GM would have used in the impala stock if not for emissions. It's listed as 196 intake 206 exhaust at .050 lift, with a 109 LSA. The GMPP catalog says the High Torque 383 is good to 5000 rpm.

Some other cams to look at for the 400 are GM part numbers 12370845 and 12370846. The 845 cam is good to about 5500 rpm, and the 846 cam is good to about 6000 rpm. The 846 is the cam used in the ZZ383 engine. The numbers for the 845 are 214/222 at .050" and 112 LSA with 5 deg advance ground in, and the 846 is 222/230, also with 112 LSA and 5 degrees of advance. I ran the 845 in a 350 ci LT1 in the impala, and it idled nicely at 750 rpm and got 22 mpg on the highway. It also passed emissions on a treadmill afte we set the idle to 950 rpm. Some of my friends ran the 846, and it has a nice, cammy idle but I think it was a little large for the 350 - it didn't make the car any faster than mine with the 845 in it.

I'm currently running Crane's part number 109227 in the impala. 210/224 duration at .050", 112 LSA and 5 deg advance ground in. It idles smoother than the 845 - you can't even tell the engine has a cam at 650 rpm - and has about the same rpm range as the 845. In my 350 LT1 with ported heads, it makes 362 ft/lbs of torque at the rear wheels at 3200 rpm and 320 rear wheel hp at 5500 rpm. The car has run a best of 12.6 at 108 mph at a race weight of 4500 lbs on pump gas.

 

Wow !!

All those above figures look pretty impressive to me. And I did find the specs on the 395 cam while you were posting. It looks like a perfect cam for the 400 but, but! my 400 isn't set for a roller cam And I have to have a smooth idle down to 500 - 550 rpm. I am willing to bet that the ramps are steep on this cam and even if I had those specs ground onto a flat tappit cam, it probably wouldn't last long without rollers. And I bet that if I used it in the 305, it would have a choppy idle. What do you think?

After some thought, maybe that 395 cam could work in the 400 with special after market rollers. At any rate its the most interesting profile I have seen for a long stroke motor in a boat that will not see over 4500 rpm.

The other profiles you have mentioned are very respectable but not a whole lot unlike the 151 cam that I have currantly installed in the 400. The LSA for the 151 is 114 which accounts for the smooth idle. As you probably know, the 151 is the only cam ever used by chevy that is single pattern which , to my knowledge, doesn't mount to a "Hill-O-Beans"

 

Bobby,

Putting the roller cam in the engine is worth it. Nevermind the improved performance; the roller lifters cut wear down to almost nothing. When I pulled the 845 cam out of my engine, it had 75,000 miles on it. I gave it to a friend, and he had it spec'd before he put it in his engine. It had no measureable wear, according to the machine shop. He dropped it into his car about 4 years ago, and it's been his daily driver ever since.

On the matter of single pattern vs. dual pattern, the modern GM heads have an exhaust flow of 65 to 70% of the intake flow. I don't know what your 400 heads flow, but you should stick with a dual pattern cam for the 305.

On the matter of the cam for the 305: I would suggest logging in to either the 94-96 impala ss forums or one of the 9c1 forums (9c1 is the factory designation for the caprice police package) and seeing if you can find anyone with a stock 94-96 impala or caprice LT1 cam for sale. You should be able to pick one up for about $50 or so. You might find one on ebay, too. It's very similar to the 395 cam: 192/196 duration, 111 LSA, and 5 deg of advance. The impala had a 0-60 time of 6.7 seconds stock, but with a free-flowing exhaust, such as you'd have on a boat, the 0-60 time dropped down to about 6.2 seconds. Max torque with this cam occurs at about 3000 rpm, with peak horsepower occurring at 4800 rpm. This was with an LT1 intake, which has even shorter runners than a single plane. If the 305 has the usual dual plane intake on it, you should see torque and horsepower peaks at about the same rpm as occurs on the LT1.

Good luck with the build.