HELP! Blew headgasket on dyno night before event!

Post by **DJpowerHaus** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:19 am

I need the Mitsubishi part number for a 6bolt (4G64 DOHC) 87mm bore headgasket. I heard that there are overbore headgaskets for the 4G63 that should work as well.

Yeah.. so I got back to the dyno with the new ignition system (Autronic R500 CDI) and we were around 18psi making about 400hp when the head gasket went out (Cometic) and started blowing my coolant out. This is the NIGHT BEFORE AN EVENT and I'm trying to track down a headgasket.

Also looking for the socket I'll need for ARP head studs. I konw its 12pt, but what size?

I'LL BE UP FIRST THING IN THE MORNING TO HUNT FOR PARTS. ANY HELP WOULD GREATLY BE APPRECIATED!!! LIKE.. TYPED IN CAPITAL LETTERS APPRECIATED.

Robert Venable · Post by **Robert Venable** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:34 am

Sorry to hear about that man. Wish I could help.

Post by **DJpowerHaus** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:50 am

Kane, Are you sure that the 94 galant gasket will work with a 6 bolt block.. or a RWD 6 bolt block for that matter. I'm sure you checked when putting your's together.

We did do a compression test afterwards and were getting from 1-4, 145, 165, 165, 165 so it did look like only cylinder 1 was leaking and not a breech between cylinders. I know Matt, you were suspecting that might happen, looks as though it did not.

I'll be calling York Mitsubishi in a few minutes and then I'm off to get 12 sockets, a plastic scraper and 2 headgaskets.

screemin eagle · Post by **screemin eagle** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:27 am

ive used cometic head gaskets on 3 motors and havent had a problem i use the copper spray and usually go little higher on the torque specs. they all have over 10k miles on them and are ok i guess it should be something to keep and eye on.

DJ thats good power at those boost levels. is that on pump gas or race gas?

Post by **DJpowerHaus** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:30 pm

Oh well. I'm not driting this weekend:

Looks like a leak on cylinder 1 channeled lots of heat to the water port on the head. This eroded away some of the head around the gasket. Going to need to get a new head, or maybe get my uncle to weld this one and deck it a little bit. Guess who's never using a Cometic again...

and here is how you pull a head with minimal work:

I did have to lower the crossmember a few inches to tilt the engine so that I could pull the head off the ARP studs.

Post by **DJpowerHaus** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:40 pm

This was the last full dyno run. This was on wastegate spring pressure around 15psi. We were making much more power (400 or so) un the run when the headgasket went. The timing, fuel and EGTs are all very conservative.

Post by **DJpowerHaus** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 6:50 pm

Downtime! Haha. I have to have this thing at a car show next Saturday. We did find the 1994 Galant DOHC headgasket part number (MD189436), but I'm not sure if a 7bolt headgasket will work on a 6 bolt engine. Any input on that?

People on DSMtuners.com are saying that the 2.0L Ralliart metal head gasket work (MD349347) but I dunno.

Here is some bore info as well. I'll have to add this to the main site especially since my search function isnt working on here at the moment.

6 bolt 4G64 in millimeters
Stock Bore 86.50
.020" over 87.00 <-- Wisco Pistons most of us use.
.040" over 87.50
Deck Clearance .20
Block Height 235
Head Gasket Thickness 1.10

6 bolt 4G63 in millimeters
Stock Bore 85.00
.020" over 85.50
.040" over 86.00
Block Height 229
Head Gasket Thickness 1.10

screemin eagle · Post by **screemin eagle** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:59 pm

on the 2.0 6 and 7 bolt motors they share the same head gasket. alot of the mitsu parts are inter changeable between different cars and motors.

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 7:05 pm

Kane was right when he recomended ' o-ring' the block, coolant leak or no coolant leak, your just pounding compression in that engine.
from the pic's I don't see any pre ignition ( it would look sandblasted like) and the tune looks well balanced by the color of the exaust valves ( brown) , it's also fair to say your injecter sizing is good, but if you look closely at the cylinder head, you can see where all the cylinders were leaking under the exhaust side, look closely at the pick of the cylinder head on its end, there is carbon in the same spot on all those cylinders.
If you are cranking out 145 lbs compression @ crank speed, your overboosting what that gasket can take, if you fix the head gasket, rods and bearings will be damaged next time

Post by **DJpowerHaus** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:16 pm

What do you mean by "overboosting what that gasket can take"? Isnt this gasket supposed to be able to take 30psi +?

My uncle noted that there looked to be leaking on both sides of cyl 1 and wondered if there was something effecting just this cylinder. I'm investigating the possibility of a blocked coolant passage, or maybe an injector not flowing enough fuel.

Think it just lifted the head and the "blowout" on cyl 1 was just the path of least resistance? Should have retorqued these ARPs.

The plan now is to pull my 2.0L head, get it cleaned and decked, swap over my springs and retainers and install valves stem seals and then reinstall with an OEM 2.4L gasket.

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:36 pm

Dont mill that head, its a waste of money, replace it, you dont want it any thinner than it already is, make sure and test your head bolt / stud ariangment for proper hiegth, you may be running out of threads before you get proper clamping force ( add an extra washer under the nut)
The turbo coupled with compression @ 145 - 165 lbs is gonna build way too much pressure, you gotta take one or the other, turbo boost or piston compression ratio, you cant have both.

When you crank the engine slow, it has its highest compression from the pistons, because it has the most TIME at slow speed to pull air in the cylinder, when that engine runs at idle the compression will drop from 165 to about 90 psi @ idle because of piston speed. the engine does not have enough time to fill its volumetric efficiency at that speed, thus the turbo, the turbo packs air into the cylinder , regardless of engine speed, but you have to build up exhaust speed to spin the turbo hard enough, thus turbo lag. the trick in building a good turbo set up is matching all that up which also brings in the valve overlap at the cam and on, and on, and on,

Balance is everything

This engine is strong enough to handle 165 lbs across the board @ idle, @ mid range, @ high RPM's the turbo should keep the psi at all those RPM ranges, not 90psi @ idle, 160 @ mid range and 200 at high RPM's that is overboost and destroy's the engine

Post by **DJpowerHaus** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:07 pm

Bill, these numbers are right where they need to be from the factory. This engine has been built numerous times before by other people using this same compression ratio. Its not like this is some wierdo engine (like a G54B 2.6 with Toytota 22R pistons) like some people have built in the past. There are literally hundreds.. possibly thousands of 2.4L engines out there running this same compression ratio. 90% of them are using a head that was pulled from a used 2.0L and machined clean.

Check the OEM compression test numbers: http://www.dsmgrrrl.com/FAQs/compression.htm

My compression ratio is around 8.5:1 and will likely be a little higher after decking.

Milling the head is done all the time. Why would I need a new head. That's overkill. Why dont I just buy a new OEM block and crank? That's just crazy talk.. that's why.

Sorry to sound so heated, but I havent heard such silly stuff from you before.

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:06 am

I aint bein funny, I spoke the truth, the article you point out uses a 7.8 comression ratio, your using 8.5
Even with that being said, the factory boost is about 6 lbs, your trying to use 15 lbs @ 8.5 c/r thats a lot.
Every time that compression ignites in the cylinder, it creates a huge vibration, if the head is made thinner, it can't absorb the vibration and the headgasket becomes a shock absorber, as soon as it starts to shake it looses its clamping force and blows out .
Every time you mill the head, you make the head bolts LONGER , when you try to torque the head, the torque wrench is 'seeing' the twist of the bolt against the bottom of the threaded hole, instead of the compression of the head gasket.

Post by **DJpowerHaus** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:15 pm

I called the Mitsu dealership and orderd 2 4G64 DOHC gaskets (part number is above). They should be in on Friday morning. I'm aiming to have the head together by then ready to be installed. Engine bay should be painted (and dried) by then too.

I also pulled my 4G63 2.0L head from my trusty old white car. Had it stripped down in about an hour. Had lunch. Stripped down my "bad" head. Even had time to drill 32 holes into a board so I can keep my valves in order if I need to take them anywhere.

Also, here are some oddball differences between 90 and other 1G heads:

Notice how they are labelled 'L' and 'R' instead of 'I' and 'E' Hope I dont forget which side is which.

There is also a difference with the oil delivery body in the heads:

compared to a 91-94 1G head:

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:58 pm

This is an artice from Lotus engineering team, they are not my words,

All BMWs Hondas, Toyotas , Fords etc are made of cheap 226. LM25 is much stronger - so you use much less of it to get the required mechanical strength. About 40% less - hence the weight advantage compared to the "Industry standard " engines, but in order to get that strength LM25 undergoes a heat treatment - a quench. That treatment gives it it's strength but is also it's Achilles heal. If the operating temperatures and hence the temperatures the engine sees are not carefully controlled, the metal loses it's quench, it's hardness and goes soft - and over a period of time the fire ring frets it's way into the head surface. This results in a loss of clamping force, allowing cylinder gasses to escape and pressurise the coolant system, forcing water into the cylinders and oil, and oil into the water - and that's when you get the classic symptoms of "HGF". The reality is that failure is a slippery slope and occurs long before symptoms become visible.

The gasket may go on to get hot and come free from the core plate, but that's a secondary failure. The head is what fails, and once it is soft no amount of new gaskets or skimming will ever prove more than a short term prop. The head is dead. Only a new hard head can repair it.

The new MLS gasket (Multi Layered Steel Gasket was never a solution to "HGF," it was however part of a number of new measures that helped the engine survive the stresses it underwent in use. The new gasket is if you like, a bigger fuse, but the problem is the uncontrolled temp gradients that occur with the original stat location. The remote stat is an improvement,
Consequently no head should be fitted without a hardness test. New heads register 110-120 Brinnell, I would never use one less than 100 Brinnell, less than 95 would be foolish. Most of the heads I have collected here from failed engines have hardness ratings between 70 and 80. On failed cylinder heads following HGF, clear indentation rings are often to be seen on the exhaust side (and therefore hottest side ) of the cylinder head where the fire ring had pushed into the head and therefore has consequently leaked cylinder pressure

Why is this an Achilles heel? Well 226 alloy, as used in all other 4 cylinder petrol engines, is not a heat treated alloy

A classic mistake made in the repair was to weld up heads around the fire ring. As we've already established that excess heat is the last thing that a quenched LM25 alloy cylinder head needs in terms of maintaining its surface hardness, it is clear that welding is possibly the worst thing anyone could do to a head; a head so treated is sadly practically guaranteed to fail in short order! So beware dodgy eBay adverts

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:27 pm

I had said your engine looked to be in proper tune, and I suggested repairing your cylinder head was a waste of time and money, I also explained that milling the head caused problems with clamping force in the head bolts.

I may be very wrong and I will gladly admit to that but, the 4G64 is a truck motor and the RG63 is the turbo model I don't know this to be true but you are using a longer stroke crank than the turbo was designed for, if this is true, your compression ratio is much different than advertised because the C/R is an average of piston @ BDC and @ TDC the extra stroke would 'inhale' much more air if this is true and change the advertised C/R the pistons are labeled with and the extra volume would create more heat and work load on the rods, bearings and head gaskets

Post by **DJpowerHaus** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:43 pm

The compression ratio that I have is calculated for this exact application:

http://www.nolimitmotorsport.com/wiseco ... bishi.html
Look for "4G64 w/ 4G63 head - 21mm Pin 88-92"

This combination of head, block and crank is done so often its an off the shelf part from Wiseco.

Also, we're not using LM25 alloy.

Well 226 alloy, as used in all other 4 cylinder petrol engines, is not a heat treated alloy

It would be interesting to get a hardness test though and compare a new head to a "normal" head to my blown headgasket head. Dont think that is going to happen though.

Robert Venable · Post by **Robert Venable** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:38 am

About the hardness of the heads. If this is a problem, would cryo or (if possible) nitriding help???

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:27 am

Well, here I go again, at the risk of being the ass hole of the year I am gonna tell you a secret.

when you change the stroke on the Mits engine you create an ' undersquare' engine. Undersquare reffers to the fact that you have a longer stroke then circumfernce of piston. This is not to your advantage.
It is alsways best to have an 'oversquare' engine where the circumfernce of the piston is larger than the stroke, why? because you can induct more fuel mixture into a bigger bore, because you can run larger valves? you ask ? yes, thats part of it, but also because of the longer rod assembly.
when you create more stroke with the same connecting rod, you have to moved the wrist pin higher in the piston to get the right deck hieght, when you moved the rod higher, you loose leverage on the crankshaft and lessen the work being done by the connecting rod through mechanical leverage. AHHHHHHHHH you say, but the crankshaft is longer and the leverage is still there, well kinda. You also raised the piston speed, the piston is traveling at a faster rate to compensate the longer stroke, the longer stroke lessens the TIME it takes to induct a fuel charge, this slower time also creates more turbo lag because the less incoming charge the slower the exhaust speed @ lower RMPs .
Well, the turbo outta balance out the time factor, right? kinda, an oversized turbo is going to push extra fuel charge into the combustion chamber, but that takes time because the turbo has to ' spool up' to speed from midrange RMP's to high RPM'S ( lose of torque) and now that you have spooled up the turbo on top end, with the increased piston speed,the piston travels much faster to compress the fuel mixture. now its easy to overboost.
Now comes into effect is timing. The camshaft is indexed ( or timed) for a 2.0L. Turbo engine, you have changed this to a 2.4 liter by stroking the engine, you put everything out of time, including the induction length of the intake plentium, the hedder length,and the valve overlap in cam design and valve duration of the cam. that all has to be done with a degree wheel to be correct
If and I say IF, your turbo cam is designed for a 2.0 Liter Turbo and you are running it on a 2.4 stroked engine, the valve opening and closing can be effecting your C/R by closing the intake too early and opening the exhaust too late.
Building a race engine is a lot more then peices that "fit" there is a lot of homework and understanding that goes into it.
balance is everything

Mike · Post by **Mike** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:49 pm

Not going to jump into any of the theories here, but to reference Robert Young from Forced Performance: the FP1 and FP2 are designed for the 88mm stroke, the FP2 being more aggressive, while the FP3 and FP4 are designed for the 100mm stroke, the FP4 being more aggressive.

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/showthr ... ost1311599

"The 2.0 engine cams are finished. FPCam3 and 4 are intended for 2.3 and 2.4 engines. They take advantage of the fact that RPM is limited to 8500 or less on these engines and take advantage of the higer piston speed to move more air. The lobes are different to get the most out of the 100mm stroke.

I don't know how they would work on a 2.0, but that isn't part of the design criteria. The advertised specs don't look drastically different than the FPCam2, all the difference occurs at the nose of the lobe. Advertised numbers and even the .050 numbers won't show the diference in the profile in this area."

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:42 pm

I knew I was getting into trouble when I opened my mouth, but here is the problem

The original problem was tha DJ blew a head gasket, I said : Kane was right when he said to O ring the block: that lead into guys saying the headgasket should be ok.

sooooooooo then I had to screw up and spuot off about the over square and under square theory

well here is the deal,

when you increase stroke and maintain rod ratio, you increase piston speed, this is a fact. 70 to 80 % of all friction losses generated in the internal combustion engine comes from piston/ring package "drag" on the cylinder wall. thats a fact
If a 1" stroke engine running @ 8000 looses 10 HP due to cylinder wall friction the exact same displacement engine with a 2 " stroke losses 25 Hp
Thats a fact not theory. it progresses on to a 6" stroke on the same displacement engine to loose 120 HP @ 8000rpm crank speed these are Horse power losses that have to be over come just to drive the piston. that is 120 HP in HEAT that has to be overcome BEFORE you make horse power
I am not saying the increase in stroke is that drastic in this engine and I am not saying its a poor choice, I am explaining the extra heat problems in this design.
what is happening is that the engine runs into a brick wall ,trying to produce horse power as the RPM's raise because its generating so much heat, that heat has to be dissapated into the cylinder wall and into the cooling system.
Don't forget that when you compress air with the turbo, you are also heating the air fuel /charge coming into the cylinder head, a great deal of attention has to be paid to the sizing of the intercooler to cool down this incoming charge, that alone should help the head gasket problems.
the crankshaft from the 4G64 is from a naturaly asperated engine, not a turbo engine, I don't know if its Nitrate treated or not to handle the extra load on the rods and mains, I just voiced a concern about that.

The bottom line was, the dyno test found a weak link in the design, thats fact, not theory. to properly repair the problem the headgasket design should be changed to an 'O-ring' design, the next problem is to aviod this from happening again, thats going to come from keeping the cylinder head temp down, coolant by itself may not be enough so I would suggest a cooler charge getting into the engine.
I gotta pull out some old notes on the induction timing and valve timing problems associated with increase in stroke, as the turbo design has gotten better and cylinder fill has improved I know the valve overlap has increased past 40 defrees lately, so I will have to look those up.

Robert Venable · Post by **Robert Venable** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:31 pm

Bill Hincher wrote:Well, here I go again, at the risk of being the ass hole of the year I am gonna tell you a secret.

I don't think most people consider you an ass hole for what you are saying, I think that most of us just don't aggree with you on some points.

when you change the stroke on the Mits engine you create an ' undersquare' engine. Undersquare reffers to the fact that you have a longer stroke then circumfernce of piston. This is not to your advantage.
It is alsways best to have an 'oversquare' engine where the circumfernce of the piston is larger than the stroke, why? because you can induct more fuel mixture into a bigger bore, because you can run larger valves? you ask ? yes, thats part of it, but also because of the longer rod assembly.
when you create more stroke with the same connecting rod, you have to moved the wrist pin higher in the piston to get the right deck hieght, when you moved the rod higher, you loose leverage on the crankshaft and lessen the work being done by the connecting rod through mechanical leverage. AHHHHHHHHH you say, but the crankshaft is longer and the leverage is still there, well kinda. You also raised the piston speed, the piston is traveling at a faster rate to compensate the longer stroke, the longer stroke lessens the TIME it takes to induct a fuel charge, this slower time also creates more turbo lag because the less incoming charge the slower the exhaust speed @ lower RMPs .

First of all, he is not creating an undersquare motor, he is simply using one that Mitsu built and designed them selves. NOT to mention the fact that the 2.0 is ALSO an undersquare motor (85mm X 88mm Stroke).

I don't aggree with you on the over vs undersquare. I think that they both have there advantages and disadvantages, but I personally prefer the extra torque provided at lower rpms that the undersquared motor offers. Now if we are talking about an engine turning 8500 rpms or more, then thats different. Besides, if undersquared motors were such a dissadvantage I would think that all of the engines that are powering our Diesel Trucks, ships, generators (some with fuels other than diesel), etc. would not use it.

Yes, you can run larger valves with the bigger bore, but the valves on this particular set up are identical. And the Valve shrouding is not an issue because he is actually running a larger bore, with the same size valves, that all of those 2.0 engines are running.

I have no clue where you are getting that a stroker crank has LESS leverage. That is completely backwards to me. And the the "time charge" theory is debatable. You might have less time (measured in miliseconds), but you still have the same amount of time that the valve is open in crankshaft degrees. Not to mention that there would be a STRONGER vaccum signal from the faster, and farther, moving piston that is sucking air in(not under boost) on it's intake stroke.

Well, the turbo outta balance out the time factor, right? kinda, an oversized turbo is going to push extra fuel charge into the combustion chamber, but that takes time because the turbo has to ' spool up' to speed from midrange RMP's to high RPM'S ( lose of torque) and now that you have spooled up the turbo on top end, with the increased piston speed,the piston travels much faster to compress the fuel mixture. now its easy to overboost.

You are saying that the compression, of the compression stroke, under boost is whats causing problems with his head gasket blowing, right? I just don't understand how, as per your example in a previous post, 200 psi would cause a problem when during the power stroke this same area is receiving pres. well over 1000 psi.??

Now comes into effect is timing. The camshaft is indexed ( or timed) for a 2.0L. Turbo engine, you have changed this to a 2.4 liter by stroking the engine, you put everything out of time, including the induction length of the intake plentium, the hedder length,and the valve overlap in cam design and valve duration of the cam. that all has to be done with a degree wheel to be correct

Someone has aready spoke about the cam timing, so I will not respond to that. As far as the induction length goes, all this would do is move the peak Torque around in the RPM range. The reversion pulse would be stronger, due to the larger signal from the larger displacement engine, and probally faster. So this would, like it normally does, speed up where peak torque comes in and lower the RPM at which it would occur.

If and I say IF, your turbo cam is designed for a 2.0 Liter Turbo and you are running it on a 2.4 stroked engine, the valve opening and closing can be effecting your C/R by closing the intake too early and opening the exhaust too late.
Building a race engine is a lot more then peices that "fit" there is a lot of homework and understanding that goes into it.
balance is everything

Again, not trying to show any discrespect or call you any names. I'm simply trying to give you reasons for my disbelief in your statements/theories.

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:01 pm

debate is good.............its the best way to learn. the information I am talking about is from a book called ' desk top dyno's page 46. its a work book with software that allows you to choose varables as you build the engine on a computer design. it goes on to explain that longer stroke = more torque is a myth on page 49
Its available through SA book Part # ISBN 1-884089-23-2

these are not my words, they are directly from the engineers of this software

http://www.proracingsim.com/index.html

Bill

Post by **DJpowerHaus** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:35 pm

Sure there are losses from the higher friction (probably increases square of the speed), but when it comes down to it there is no replacment for displacement.

And intercooling was not an issue on the dyno. I cant wait to post logs. The Intake Air Tempature was logged and the intercooler was doing an AMAZING job of keeping the air cool.

Robert Venable · Post by **Robert Venable** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:25 am

Bill,

IF that's true then explain how a 383 motor(probally the most popular Stroker motor in the world) can wax a built 350???

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:57 am

I would go with a truely excellent synthetic oil , DJ, we are thinking too much about coolant doing all the work for heat and not paying attention to the oil. If the numbers are correct on the friction losses with the increased piston speed, then the next logical step would be to try and reduce the friction.
There used to be lots of ' synthetic additive ' oils out there , but the only true synthetic at the time was Mobil-1, it was a pure ' castor' based oil, it worked great but the break in period had to be done with standard petrolium oil to get the rings to hokk up well before racing it.
the piston has to be able to transfer the heat to the cylinder wall to be dissapaited, so I don't know if more piston clearance would make sense
maybe a larger oil cooling system/heat exchanger could be the way to control the heat , did you have a probes on the oil temp @ the time?

Post by **DJpowerHaus** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:43 pm

No we were not monitoring the oil temps, but the car does have a mammoth oil cooler fed by -8 lines from an OEM oil filter housing.

Check out the new black paint! Two "coats" and by coats I mean the first day I painted it with probably 20 THIN coats of Rustoleum.. yes Rustoleum cut with with 50% mineral spirits and sprayed with a gun... Followed by sanding with 1000 grit paper the things I wanted to look really good. Then a second "coat" of 20 thin coats the 2nd day.

Its not perfect, but it sure beats what it was... and it only cost $10. And if I ever need to repaint I can find rattle cans of gloss black that'll match ANYWHERE.

Mike · Post by **Mike** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:07 am

I've rolled on about 8 coats of the same for my motorcycle tank. Need to get the spirits mixed just right or it orange peels bad.

Post by **DJpowerHaus** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:29 pm

I busted my ass all week to get my car ready for a Mitsubishi meet. I woke up at 8AM today with a bare head. I assembled it, put it in the car and all that stuff. Just too much for 1 guy to do in the time I had.

I thought I could catch the last hour or the meet. I got there at 8:30 and everyone was long gone. What a disappointment.

I could have made it had I not ripped out the threads of the stock turbo oil feed blockoff. I had to carefully drill and tap it. I wasnt very careful though. The tap only wanted to go in crooked. Now I have a Teflon taped bolt in the hole with an o-ring. I'll have to fix this soon. I also have to put the upper metal timing belt guards on.

What a huge let down. Missing this meet after all this work was just as bad as missing the drift event last weekend.

Other than that. Head is back on. Hope its okay to have dripped some oil from the head onto the gasket. I dont see how I could avoid it. I did look at the other head's valves. They look white only on cylinder 1. Not sure what this means. I'll post pictures tomorrow.

Post by **DJpowerHaus** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:53 pm

All in due time. I want to have Kevin diagnose my white exhaust valves first.

Until then... HARD PARKING:

I'm going to DC in a few minutes to see Jenny Lewis. I'll call to see if your home and pick up that stuff.

Robert Venable · Post by **Robert Venable** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:22 am

The valves are white because the water steam cleaned them when your head gasket blew.

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:47 am

3 things to tell you engine problems, white is water , oil is blue and gas is black

screemin eagle · Post by **screemin eagle** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:05 pm

NOS makes white valves also

Post by **DJpowerHaus** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:40 pm

Bill Hincher wrote:

3 things to tell you engine problems, white is water , oil is blue and gas is black

Isn't that only for smoke colors?

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:35 pm

no, when you leak coolant into the cylinders it usually gets into the crankcase, when coolant mixes in with oil it turns into a creamy white color you usually see at the crankcase breather ( PCV valve)
and THAT turns into an epoxy and ruins the rings.

Black = carbon exssive fuel ( I am speaking of combusion chamber only)

If you do the math , you should find the maximum ' lbs per hour' of fuel the engine is capable of proscessing and work backwards from the hedders to be used, to the injecters at the inlet and how much air you have to have available, then read the burn at the plugs

Blue= oil consumption, it will form a layer on the top of catylitic converters, we learned to turn the cats upside down and wash them out with running water ( backwards) and that cleans them up pretty good

Robert Venable · Post by **Robert Venable** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:29 pm

mattmartindrift wrote:White exhaust valves are heat, clean metal is water, steam cleaning rarely leaves that sort of color. It leaves nice clean metal since all of the water is flash evaporated.

I don't see how this is possibly, more heat normaly means more power. How would you produce more heat and more power from a combustion chamber that was not sealing well? And about the water, cleaning the metal you are right, with water injection. But he had coolant in his combustion chamber, not pure water or a mixture of alchol or methonal.

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:39 pm

extra water in the combustion chamber increases the compression because it takes up space, we used to see 6/71 GMC desiels run like a raped ape but have a headgasket blown, same thing with piston engine aircraft, when they needed an extra boost at altitude the would squirt water into the cylinder, later they used nitrous ,thats where Smokey Yunnick found out about Nitrous........flying B-17s over Europe

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:26 pm

All your points are well done >;o) and well thought out Matt.

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:53 am

from what I can read, the heat in the piston has to be delt with differently in turbo boost engines

this is from the book ' supercharged' by Corky bell

two ways of controling heat are viable, ceramic coating the piston top and oil squirting the bottom of the piston on the exhaust side.

Also the piston ring lands should be much wider then naturaly asperated engines

oil squirting is preffered . I wonder if a main bearing could be tapped and a spray system could be built.

On two stroke engines, we used to drill two small holes on each side of the exhaust port , in the piston skirt, below the lower ring to allow oil to spash up into the cylinder wall under the exhaust port, but in a two stroke the crankcase is under pressure and the 4 stroke is not

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:41 am

what kind of exhaust temps was he running at the hedder? its directly related to A/F ratio
Judging by his pictures, his turbo is closest to #1 cyl, the initial hedder length carries away most of the heat, that hedder may be the shortest to the collector
Injecter sizing could just be desguising the problem by dumping in extra gas and making it run cooler

Donno for sure, but the gasket blew OUT so you know it either has too much compression/boost or it cant get rid of the spent gasses fast enough and it backed up

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:28 am

well....the proof is always in the pudding >;o)

I guess its a matter of information. I like it when the guys with the most money dont win, the guy that makes the best choices does.
you seem to be very well informed, maybe the next dyno run will go well

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:30 pm

all I said was

what kind of exhaust temps was he running at the hedder? its directly related to A/F ratio

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mattmartindrift
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:54 am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And you're very very very wrong about EGTs EGTs are not directly related to anything, they're dependant upon AFR, and TIMING MOSTLY!!!!!
I'm just not understanding a lot of your rationale

Post by **DJpowerHaus** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:27 am

Message from Kevin finally:

quick reply so you know, when I blew up my VR6 the bad cylinder was washed clean just like your valves. I'd say it was from the coolant.

next time we run the car, we could read the fresh plugs to look for det and add fuel if necessary, no problem.

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:49 am

I agree with Matt about the timing controling the heat, the assumption here is, that all cylinders are doing equal work, but they are not. each one of your cylinders are complete seperate units connected by a crankshaft. The ECU is ' supposed ' to be grouped, but you cant tell. the ignition coil is signaled from the ECU and the injecter duty cycle is controled by the ECU ' individually' the only way to tell if the ignition signal is working properly is to degree the harmonic balancer ( after its checked for index) to all 4 cylinders and testing ignition advance control at all RMP ranges on each cylinder individually, same thing with the duty cycle to the injecters, they have to be checked one at a time, after the duty cycle is verified, then you can ' balance' your injecters to tune the engine , taylor made to its needs

Post by **DJpowerHaus** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:57 pm

My ECU does have the ability to trim fuel differently on each cylinder so I might try to fine tune it in the future. I'd be working off of comparing spark plugs though.

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:59 pm

I am not quite sure but I think it sequential up to 2500 RPM and then it switchs to batch, at least that is how the ones I have worked are, that way they fire twice over 2500 Rpm
The useful life of a transister is 10 years, there should be 4 individual drivers ( transisters) driving the injecters and 4 individual switchs (drivers) signaling the coil to fire ,
each transister is going to be slightly different and that driver could case major preignition is it is ' leaking'

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:52 pm

Check this site out, this guy has got it figured out pretty good, I know its about a stealth, but it is aslo how a Mits should be set up

http://www.stealth316.com/2-fuelinjection.htm

Robert Venable · Post by **Robert Venable** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:36 pm

What computer are you using??

Robert Venable · Post by **Robert Venable** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:40 am

Which do you preffer and why??

Post by **DJpowerHaus** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 11:16 pm

Autronics interface isnt easy for me to use, but when Kevin was using it.. wow. Its designed to NEVER require a mouse. A good operator like Kevin can zip around with the keyboard faster than anyone swtiching between a keyboard and mouse.

And my ECU has 4D tuning.. not sure what all of them are, but that's how it was described on the Autronic board before. I think later models when higher than that with maps for throttle position, temp, load, exhaust backpressure, etc etc.