caz wrote:

Well my long hair hangs down quite a bit!! How are you managing on a morning, get a torch and dress under the duvet, save banging your bits Shmoogle!!

I've actually convinced the Mrs to stop having the blackout blinds down over the bedroom windows now that the mornings aren't likely to provide bright sunshine streaming in through the curtains. It means I'll get a few days of unbanged bits in the morning before it gets too dark... then I'll have to get a job where I don't need to wake up at silly o'clock to go to work. Or preferably win the lottery....

How you lot in the frozen wastes put up with 24hr darkness in the winter I'll never know... 

2009 Outstanding Contribution Award - Joint Runner Up
2009 'Tech-Head Of The Year' Award - Runner Up

Like it here? Then Donate to RRSPORT!!

To be honest we haven't got a lot of options! No wonder everyone suffers from SAD from lack of sunlight.

I hear the lottery is a sore subject Shmoogle..............just think of what could have been.....silly me I bet you do most mornings when your banging your bits!!

It was a long time ago, Caz... and if you can't make light of it you'd only have to slit your wrists

Right... off to bed for me, I have to do some actual w**k tomorrow which is obviously going to take it's toll. Night, Caz!!  

2009 Outstanding Contribution Award - Joint Runner Up
2009 'Tech-Head Of The Year' Award - Runner Up

Like it here? Then Donate to RRSPORT!!

Night night Shmoogle, sleep well!

Interesting to hear what TC and LRT have to say. I am fairly confident that the SC will not be dropped. The 2007 version has variable cam timing and should be marginally more economical, and one of the grapevines has suggested a further develpment of the SC theme on a more distant horizon.

LRT is right about the challenge of the torque limiting features, and just so that you know, all three of the following monitor the torque and can ask the throttle to be closed a bit : (a) the engine itself in two ways, (b) the main transmission ECU, (c) the E-diff ECU. Now my SC car does not have an E-diff, but it is an optinal extra. These limiters have different effects on the torque curve in all the different gears, so a rolling road test is not a very useful way to measure the power output whether standard or modified.

LRT's interpretation of this does not agree with our experience, but it is not far off. To say much more would be giving away commercialy valuable secrets, I'm afraid.

We are just assembling a 5.1 litre SC engine to run on a dyno, using a non-LR ECU and larger intercooler assemblies. We're probably about a month away from getting some results (probably a large heap of engine parts in the dyno cell ), but even if we get great results, a lot of it will be lost to the transmission and engine ECU torque limitations in the car. There are other applications for this excellent engine, however . . . . .

JE,

I now have a solution for Denso ecu which will may save you a lot of 'heartache' with engine management alterations.

PM me

Regards

Chris

JE Engineering wrote:

The 2007 version has variable cam timing and should be marginally more economical:

JE, are you saying that the 2007 Supercharged will have variable cam timing? Do you know if the 1st batch of 2007's will have this feature? Any idea when they will be out? Thanks in advance.

Sorry to say we must have been misled on this. There is no mention of it yet in anything official, but one grapevine was absolutely certain about it a few months ago, maybe it will come along soon, or maybe the usual big-company arthritis has set in and they are leaving it another year.

As engineers with considerable supercharging experience, JE would question the need for VVT because you cannot run a S/C engine with much valve overlap (especially a twin cam, where the valves are opposite each other) because the S/C can blow unburnt fuel and air straight across into the exhaust valves and thence onto the cats which promptly overheat due to all the combustion which then takes place . You cannot run any real overlap at all, so VVT would be quite restricted, but maybe still worth it in some small way, or maybe the plan is to vary both cams together, without altering the overlap. That could be done witha single VVT drive device on the crank pulley , rather than anything up in the cylinder heads. This could get to be a very long and technical treatise, so I am going to stop now.

Booooo............
Back to the petrol pumps, then! RRS 4.2 S/C. Zermatt. Tints. Stormers. 150+ paint defects, wonkey bonnet, scratches, detached doorseal. suspension faults. To sum it up, a �60k pile of cr4p!

JE Engineering wrote:

Interesting to hear what TC and LRT have to say. I am fairly confident that the SC will not be dropped. The 2007 version has variable cam timing and should be marginally more economical, and one of the grapevines has suggested a further develpment of the SC theme on a more distant horizon.

LRT is right about the challenge of the torque limiting features, and just so that you know, all three of the following monitor the torque and can ask the throttle to be closed a bit : (a) the engine itself in two ways, (b) the main transmission ECU, (c) the E-diff ECU. Now my SC car does not have an E-diff, but it is an optinal extra. These limiters have different effects on the torque curve in all the different gears, so a rolling road test is not a very useful way to measure the power output whether standard or modified.

LRT's interpretation of this does not agree with our experience, but it is not far off. To say much more would be giving away commercialy valuable secrets, I'm afraid.

We are just assembling a 5.1 litre SC engine to run on a dyno, using a non-LR ECU and larger intercooler assemblies. We're probably about a month away from getting some results (probably a large heap of engine parts in the dyno cell ), but even if we get great results, a lot of it will be lost to the transmission and engine ECU torque limitations in the car. There are other applications for this excellent engine, however . . . . .

shmoogle wrote:

I expect it's true that the TDV8 will impact SC sales more than TDV6 sales, but to bin it completely? There will always be people who lust after a petrol V8, let alone supercharged...

I was just looking up on the technical website for something about valve sizes and noticed that in 2007 MY 4.2 SC manual it says "In certain markets some engines are fitted with VVT (Variable Valve Timing)", so the JE grapevine was at least partially working . I cannot find any mention of it in brochures or the main LR website, but I would guess that UK and Europe would be the first markets.

Elsewhere it says that the VVT helps power by optimising valve timing at high rpm, economy by improving low speed torque, and also emissions by assisiting EGR, or something like that.

As I said in a previous post, the benefits of VVT on a SC engine are more limited than on a NA engine, but there must be some benefits !