Advanced Engineering Tech For the more hardcore LS1TECH residents

Offset bores?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-13-2008, 01:23 PM
  #1  
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Drew04GTO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Offset bores?

I was reading some stuff the other day about the Honda Insight engine using offset bores to move the connecting rod inline with the piston during peak cylinder pressure. I know it would require a custom one off block and I'm not really interested in trying this out myself just curious to see if its ever been done on anything but this motor. Valvetrain would probably also be beyond wacky, when is GM supposed to come out with that OHC LS motor?


Stolen from InsightCentral.net
"The engine block has a unique, offset cylinder design in which the bore center is offset 14mm from the crank center. Maximum combustion pressure occurs at a point where the connecting rod is straight up and down in the cylinder. In this position there is zero lateral force so friction and piston slap are reduced.

As a result of the offset construction, the combustion pressure is used more efficiently since the rod is near it maximum leverage point with the crankshaft."


Old 03-14-2008, 09:48 PM
  #2  
TECH Fanatic
 
Old SStroker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 1,979
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Drew04GTO
...when is GM supposed to come out with that OHC LS motor?...
Not long after the highest ambient temperature in Hades is -1°C. Keep your eye on www.weather.com.



Jon
Old 03-14-2008, 10:14 PM
  #3  
TECH Fanatic
 
gun5l1ng3r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Laguna Niguel, CA
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Old SStroker
Not long after the highest ambient temperature in Hades is -1°C. Keep your eye on www.weather.com.



Jon
At least they are sticking to a proven, durable, design, instead of bending to those stupid car mag authors who seem to think that OHC is the only way to go...
Old 03-15-2008, 01:39 AM
  #4  
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Drew04GTO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by gun5l1ng3r
At least they are sticking to a proven, durable, design, instead of bending to those stupid car mag authors who seem to think that OHC is the only way to go...
Agreed, none of the OHC engines can go 200K+ miles without anything but an oil change and plugs. But I'm not debating how proven pushrods are. Is the offset bores thing too far outside of the box? Less piston slap and skirt scuffing as well as a few extra HP seems awsome if you can bring it in with the OEM design.
Old 03-15-2008, 08:24 AM
  #5  
TECH Fanatic
 
Old SStroker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 1,979
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts

Default

When GM decided to go with pushrods for the LS series of engines vs. Ford's Modular OHC approach, they committed hundreds of millions, perhaps a billion $ or more by now to the design, development and especially tooling to build the LS pushrod engines for many years. Perhaps it won't run 50 years like the Gen I SBC, but ya' never know.

I have not seen anything that would indicate an LS redesign for OHC. Rather GM has designed, developed and built other OHC engines like the HighValue 3.6L V6. The DI version @ 300+ hp is right in there with the rest of the world's similar engines. However, when bigger NA power or torque is needed, the LS family is avaiable. A 6.0L LS3 version in the G8 is about 1 second quicker in the quarter mile than the similar weight CTS 3.6L DI. The CTS-V is going to get a blown version of the (pushrod) LS engine. I guess we'll see if the 550hp CTS-V competes well with the DOHC entries from the other countries.

FWIW, that's my elaboration of "When Hell freezes over."

Jon
Old 03-15-2008, 10:09 AM
  #6  
On The Tree
iTrader: (13)
 
proelky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lubbock, TX
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

I was searching for rods yesterday and a couple manufacturers offer an offset rod too!
Old 03-15-2008, 11:02 AM
  #7  
TECH Enthusiast
 
HSV-GTS-300's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

I see the advantage for the power stroke......but wouldn't rod angularity, scuffing,lateral force, slap and friction also be increased (due to the offset) on both of the upstrokes ? No mention of that in the article.
Old 03-15-2008, 11:07 AM
  #8  
TECH Enthusiast
 
DanO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Old SStroker
When GM decided to go with pushrods for the LS series of engines vs. Ford's Modular OHC approach, they committed hundreds of millions, perhaps a billion $ or more by now to the design, development and especially tooling to build the LS pushrod engines for many years. Perhaps it won't run 50 years like the Gen I SBC, but ya' never know.

I have not seen anything that would indicate an LS redesign for OHC. Rather GM has designed, developed and built other OHC engines like the HighValue 3.6L V6. The DI version @ 300+ hp is right in there with the rest of the world's similar engines. However, when bigger NA power or torque is needed, the LS family is avaiable. A 6.0L LS3 version in the G8 is about 1 second quicker in the quarter mile than the similar weight CTS 3.6L DI. The CTS-V is going to get a blown version of the (pushrod) LS engine. I guess we'll see if the 550hp CTS-V competes well with the DOHC entries from the other countries.

FWIW, that's my elaboration of "When Hell freezes over."

Jon
Yup, just goes to show that a little "engineering" can make any design perform well in its application.

GM decided to take the so called 'old school' approach. Pushrod V-8 with a Supercharger. Just look how far they took that technology.. amazingly high flowing and efficient cylinder heads, used a 75+% efficient supercharger.. and made 550hp... and they certified it for 100,000+ miles.. That deserves some credit in my book. Just think what it took to have a 550hp engine 10-20 years ago.. there was no way it was going to be as fuel efficient or be as durable.
Old 03-15-2008, 12:22 PM
  #9  
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Drew04GTO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by HSV-GTS-300
I see the advantage for the power stroke......but wouldn't rod angularity, scuffing,lateral force, slap and friction also be increased (due to the offset) on both of the upstrokes ? No mention of that in the article.
Good call on that, I didn't even think of how horribly lateral the rod is going to be just after BDC of the up stroke.
Old 03-15-2008, 08:22 PM
  #10  
FormerVendor
iTrader: (2)
 
XtraCajunSS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Drew04GTO
Good call on that, I didn't even think of how horribly lateral the rod is going to be just after BDC of the up stroke.
Yes, but if my thinking is correct, piston speed and loading would be much lower when this occurs.

Shane
Old 03-15-2008, 11:25 PM
  #11  
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (19)
 
2002_Z28_Six_Speed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Wash, DC
Posts: 4,539
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post

Default

I think the offset argument is BS.

Expansion of the gasses is pushing the piston down evenly so no side loading or scuffing there. When the piston is moving down to fill the cylinder there is little loading on it compared to the power stroke so wear can't be as much even if the rod is making it scuff some due to geometry.

Something doesn't sit right with me. I know I took college classes a long time ago but I remember that even if forces are supposed to be transferred into the walls of the cylinder due to the geometry I think they can't if there is not alot of friction between them.

I would think due to its design and lubrication it acts mostly like a roller instead of heavily scuffing the cylinder walls. Oh well. I am not a mechanical. Just slightly interests me.


I still call the argument BS.
Old 03-16-2008, 08:44 PM
  #12  
TECH Enthusiast
 
HSV-GTS-300's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

It wouldn't be the first time Honda has designed and built something that had 1 advantage......despite the fact it may be a nightmare to tool up for,build,operate and maintain.

Does anyone remember the oval cylinder and piston NR500/NR750 race bikes ?

Old 03-16-2008, 08:46 PM
  #13  
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Drew04GTO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by HSV-GTS-300
It wouldn't be the first time Honda has designed and built something that had 1 advantage......despite the fact it may be a nightmare to tool up for,build,operate and maintain.

Does anyone remember the oval cylinder and piston NR500/NR750 race bikes ?

HAHA, yeah, talk about a nightmare.
Old 03-17-2008, 12:00 AM
  #14  
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (19)
 
2002_Z28_Six_Speed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Wash, DC
Posts: 4,539
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post

Default

Originally Posted by HSV-GTS-300
It wouldn't be the first time Honda has designed and built something that had 1 advantage......despite the fact it may be a nightmare to tool up for,build,operate and maintain.

Does anyone remember the oval cylinder and piston NR500/NR750 race bikes ?

A. How much for a set of rings on that bad boy.

B. What kind of cylinder head design?! What kind of advantage does it have? I would think with such an open design you have less control over turbluance and airflow... Seems very complex to plan for but interesting.
Old 03-17-2008, 02:13 AM
  #15  
TECH Resident
iTrader: (11)
 
ThirdGenLS1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Boston
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

well just by looking at it i would figure they did it so they could fit more valves per cylinder trying to get a better afr and burn.
Old 03-17-2008, 02:38 AM
  #16  
TECH Addict
 
chuntington101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,866
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by HSV-GTS-300
It wouldn't be the first time Honda has designed and built something that had 1 advantage......despite the fact it may be a nightmare to tool up for,build,operate and maintain.

Does anyone remember the oval cylinder and piston NR500/NR750 race bikes ?
DAM! never knew thay rad two rods. still 8 valves per cylinder would just take the p!ss lol.

but its ideas like this that move things on. they are not to be laughed at.

Chris.
Old 03-17-2008, 11:51 AM
  #17  
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (9)
 
Eskimo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by ThirdGenLS1
well just by looking at it i would figure they did it so they could fit more valves per cylinder trying to get a better afr and burn.
Actually, IIRC, the reasoning for it was a weight penalty (by the sanctioning body) for more cylinders.. They were wanting to run a V8 bike with tiny *** pistons so it would rev to 15k+, but the weight penalty was too much, but they figured if they siamesed the pistons together, viola'! It's just a V-4.

It was also a $60k+ bike back in the early 90's..

I lusted after that bike, even though I would never own one..
Old 03-17-2008, 12:56 PM
  #18  
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Drew04GTO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Eskimo
Actually, IIRC, the reasoning for it was a weight penalty (by the sanctioning body) for more cylinders.. They were wanting to run a V8 bike with tiny *** pistons so it would rev to 15k+, but the weight penalty was too much, but they figured if they siamesed the pistons together, viola'! It's just a V-4.

It was also a $60k+ bike back in the early 90's..

I lusted after that bike, even though I would never own one..
IIRC you're right on this. Here's what confuses the **** out of me though, if its 2 stroke why does it have valve reliefs?

*edit* Nevermind, it was a 4 stroke, was mistaking it for an NSR. The NR500 revved to over 20k in race trim though!


Last edited by Drew04GTO; 03-18-2008 at 11:57 AM. Reason: changed that enormous pictAr
Old 03-18-2008, 02:39 AM
  #19  
TECH Addict
 
chuntington101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,866
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts

Default

how did they keep that thing balanced?? and at those engine speeds!!
Old 03-18-2008, 11:50 AM
  #20  
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Drew04GTO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by chuntington101
how did they keep that thing balanced?? and at those engine speeds!!
Those engines actually had multi piece crankshafts with splined pieces that would press together. If you notice the rods are single piece and have ball/needle bearings where they ride on the crank. I don't think cylinder phasing is right on that pic with all the valves and stuff, I can't imagine anyone ever getting to ballance correctly like that. Would have atleast thought the other side of the crank would be 180 degrees off.

I can't imagine ballancing that was any worse than Honda's V-5 (yes, a V-5) MotoGP bike that used varrying bores and to ballance the rotating assembly. Its funny how quickly this thread has turned into a "look at all this crazy **** Hondas doing



Quick Reply: Offset bores?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:18 PM.