Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...RAT Engine vs Russian N

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...RAT Engine vs Russian N

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Yak-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

schrick(at)pacbell.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...RAT Engine vs Russian N

By the way....The "RAT MOTOR" cyclinders and pistons are designed and made by the same guys that make the NASCAR engines. I would trust thier Dyno over anything the Russians have. Think of the money NASCAR has compared to the dying Russian motor producers.  

  

The Russians make a great and reliable engine. They do not have the money to design a higher HP engine.  

  

Sorry but that is the cold hard facts........... 

  

You want reliability buy Russian....You want more Horse power, By the RAT Engine.. 

  

SHREK 



 ---

mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:03 pm Post subject: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...RAT Engine vs Russian N

Actually, I am pretty sure that the guys in question have yet to Dyno

the M-14 Rat.  However, I think a 10% increase in horsepower by raising

the compression ratio, adding the rings, and prepping the heads, as I

saw done to Sergei's engine (before it bit the dust) could be a fair

assumption.  



You have to be careful though Shrek... The Russians have done some

interesting stuff with their M-9 engine and also fuel injection on the

standard M-14, which I am sure Richard can tell you all about.  



That said, you're right.  NO ONE IN THE WORLD CAN COMPARE TO AMERICANS

WHEN IT COMES TIME TO SOUP UP AN ENGINE, especially when you add in the

cost to do it. What's better than anything is that we can do it legally.

Mark Bitterlich

  



--

brian-1927(at)lloyd.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:42 pm Post subject: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...RAT Engine vs Russian N

On Mar 19, 2008, at 4:44 PM, Mark Schrick wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   By the way....The "RAT MOTOR" cyclinders and pistons are designed  

 and made by the same guys that make the NASCAR engines. I would  

 trust thier Dyno over anything the Russians have. Think of the money  

 NASCAR has compared to the dying Russian motor producers.



Mark: a dyno is a dyno. It measures torque at various RPMs. It doesn't  
	


matter who makes it and it doesn't matter if it is used to measure  

output of an M14P or a big-block chevy.



 	  Quote: 	
		   The Russians make a great and reliable engine. They do not have the  

 money to design a higher HP engine.


	


But that doesn't have anything to do with measuring the HP output.



Also, I didn't know you were working for the Russians and could speak  

to their various companies and development teams.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Sorry but that is the cold hard facts...........


	


No, that is your cold, hard opinion.



 	  Quote: 	
		   You want reliability buy Russian....You want more Horse power, By  

 the RAT Engine..


	


And I am *still* waiting for someone to tell me what the RAT engine  

is. Could someone who KNOWS please reply to me with FACTS! I am  

*serious* about buying another engine and I want to know if there are  

other options besides the obvious.



(Gawd, this is like pulling teeth!)



--

Brian Lloyd                         3191 Western Drive

brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com    Cameron Park, CA 95682

+1.916.367.2131 (voice)             +1.270.912.0788 (fax)



I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .

— Antoine de Saint-Exupéry



PGP key ID:          12095C52A32A1B6C

PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0  CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C

dstroud(at)storm.ca
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:18 pm Post subject: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...RAT Engine vs Russian N

Given the aforementioned off topic references to the auto style

Chev Rat motor , is it possible that the Chinese "Rat" motor might

just be a "hotrodded" and misnomered souped up version of the

Chinese engine? I think i've heard of rat bikes and rat rods, sometimes

just meaning some type of low cost build up of the type that looks pretty

ugly but goes like stink ?

David Stroud   Ottawa, Canada

C-FDWS  Christavia

Fairchild 51 under construction

---

jan.mevis(at)informavia.b
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:44 pm Post subject: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...RAT Engine vs Russian N

The Russians do have new engines: the M14R and the M9F give 450 HP or more. And it seems that they can also beef up these engines much higher when necessary. The Russian team in Spain last year at the World Aerobatics championships had a Sukhoi 26 M3 (Svetlana Kapanina flew it) with an  engine that was close to 500 HP (this is an uncontrolled statement, but it was a standard M9F that had been modified).  

   

Saying that they do not have the money to design a higher HP engine is also untrue. Due to their oil wealth, it seems that they can do what they want, IF they want to do it. For instance, the brand new Yak 18T’s with modern avionics and NEW engines (for very high prices unfortunately).  

   

Jan  

         

From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Schrick

 Sent: donderdag 20 maart 2008 0:44

 To: yak-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...RAT Engine vs Russian NEW engine  

  

  

     

By the way....The "RAT MOTOR" cyclinders and pistons are designed and made by the same guys that make the NASCAR engines. I would trust thier Dyno over anything the Russians have. Think of the money NASCAR has compared to the dying Russian motor producers.   

   

The Russians make a great and reliable engine. They do not have the money to design a higher HP engine.   

   

Sorry but that is the cold hard facts...........  

   

You want reliability buy Russian....You want more Horse power, By the RAT Engine..  

   

SHREK    

     

---

pilko2(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:41 am Post subject: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...RAT Engine vs Russian N

The Russians are certainly  capable of teasing out more horsepower ...... check out the photos taken a  few years ago in Russia............. the actual output is unspecified but with  full fuel injection and no accessories coupled to the vastly improved  supercharger output...... I bet it rocks ! TBO times of as little as 50 hours  are the downside of heavily modified competition motors.

  

 ********************************************************************************

  

 Incidentally the 'Rat  Motor' label is only correctly used to describe the Big Block Chevy series  as identified on the list by others. Also, as good as the 426 Hemi  from Mopar was it was incapable of producing better than one horsepower per  cubic inch in stock form...... even when blueprinted. In Hot Rod circles the big  displacement Chryslers were "Elephant" motors 

  

 The references to Grumpy  Jenkins is pretty accurate and I think the legendry T shirt cartoonist Ed Roth  was involved with the plagiarism of his "Rat Fink"  logo.  

 [quote]   ---

rear%20view%20of%20M9F%20-%20fuel%20injection%20system.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

77.87 KB

Viewed:

293 Time(s)

Impellers%20-%20left%20M9F%20-%20right%20M14P.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

118.97 KB

Viewed:

345 Time(s)

cjpilot710(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:57 am Post subject: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...RAT Engine vs Russian N

In a message dated 3/20/2008 6:43:02 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  pilko2(at)btinternet.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		     The Russians are certainly    capable of teasing out more horsepower ...... check out the photos taken    a few years ago in Russia............. the actual output is unspecified but    with full fuel injection and no accessories coupled to the vastly improved    supercharger output...... I bet it rocks ! TBO times of as little as 50 hours    are the downside of heavily modified competition motors.

    

   ********************************************************************************

	
  

 I don't claim to be a motor expert so some one please elucidate me.   Looking at the photos, I can see and understand the up grade of the super  charger.  However in looking at the "fuel injection" I can not see any  advantage.  The fuel is merely "injected" into the intake pipes up  stream of the intake valve.  

  

 As I understand "fuel injection" the fuel is injected directly into the  cylinder.  Here I understand the advantage, and particularly with the  'gami' (sp?) injectors that horizontal opposed engines use. 

  

 Where does the extra power come from?  Super charger changes in  shape or rotation speed, gapless rings, domed pistons, and valve design, I  can understand but I just don't see the advantage here.

  

 Of the different "changes" which one delivers the most horsepower?   The domed piston over the supercharger or just gapless rings?  

  

 No one has ever explained to me why injecting fuel into the intake pipe  produces more power and is any different than injecting it at the carb and my  limited cranial volume can't seem to comprehend it. 

  

 Jim "Pappy" Goolsby



Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

  [quote][b]

pilko2(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:55 am Post subject: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...RAT Engine vs Russian N

Because injection of  highly volatile Avgas direct into a hot combustion chamber would create  uncontrollable detonation. Petrol Fuel Injectors are always in the inlet  tract and not the cylinder. There are a tiny number of GDI (gasoline direct  injection) exceptions to that rule but these are not high performance designs,  they are only targeting low emissions.

 They have yet to appear  as volume main stream items.

  

 However Fuel Oil   or Avtur IS injected direct into Compression Ignition  Engine combustion chambers (or in some cases 'pre-chambers')......... yer  regular Diesel Engines.

  

 Petrol or Gasoline Fuel  Injection has huge performance advantages over Carburetors, any carburetor, even  the sophisticated Pressure Carb' on the M14. A Carb' can only ever be a  compromise component and fuel metering is far from precise. Actual  power/economy/emissions will fluctuate wildly according to prevailing  conditions. By contrast fuel metering and delivery from an Injection System  is almost infinitely variable, modern automotive engines have individual  metering to individual cylinders that is variable right down to individual  ignition strokes. In M14s in particular what the 'hot' cylinder wants as  compared with the 'cold' cylinder cannot be differentiated by a carburetor. In  the rear view the Injectors have dark pink tops. I cannot be certain but they  appear to be an electronic type strangely familiar to anybody with Bosch  Automotive experience, as such they are likely to be capable to differential  injection periods, cylinder by cylinder.

  

 I cant wait for the  "noise" this post will create !

  

 If you want proof look  at the black exhaust emissions as you pull-push the power of on any carburetor  equipped aero engine and then try finding similar on an injected  engine.

  

  

 [quote]   ---

ronwasson

Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 30

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:01 am Post subject: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...RAT Engine vs Russian N

Fuel injection gives about 8% more power. Direct injection at the the cylinder is best but even singe point computer controlled gives  more power. Carb is a very sloppy way to use fuel. It is only passing thru 14 to 1 on the way too lean or rich. Cars with carbs tend to use more fuel, worst emissions, harder to start, flat spots. Computer or even mech. injection keeps the fuel closer 14 to 1.  There is also  better atomization at 45 psi then sucking it out of a carb at negative or low psi in the case of a pressure carb. The far away cylinder will be lean  and rich on the close short runner one.  Carbs are painting with a BIG brush in a hurry. Injection is a paint sprayer close to its work.  	Anything that makes the engine flow more air and the fuel that comes with it will add power.



On Mar 20, 2008, at 7:51 AM, cjpilot710(at)aol.com (cjpilot710(at)aol.com) wrote:[quote]  In a message dated 3/20/2008 6:43:02 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, pilko2(at)btinternet.com (pilko2(at)btinternet.com) writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		    The Russians are certainly   capable of teasing out more horsepower ...... check out the photos taken   a few years ago in Russia............. the actual output is unspecified but   with full fuel injection and no accessories coupled to the vastly improved   supercharger output...... I bet it rocks ! TBO times of as little as 50 hours   are the downside of heavily modified competition motors.

   

  ********************************************************************************

	
  

 I don't claim to be a motor expert so some one please elucidate me.  Looking at the photos, I can see and understand the up grade of the super charger.  However in looking at the "fuel injection" I can not see any advantage.  The fuel is merely "injected" into the intake pipes up stream of the intake valve.  

  

 As I understand "fuel injection" the fuel is injected directly into the cylinder.  Here I understand the advantage, and particularly with the 'gami' (sp?) injectors that horizontal opposed engines use. 

  

 Where does the extra power come from?  Super charger changes in shape or rotation speed, gapless rings, domed pistons, and valve design, I can understand but I just don't see the advantage here.

  

 Of the different "changes" which one delivers the most horsepower?  The domed piston over the supercharger or just gapless rings?  

  

 No one has ever explained to me why injecting fuel into the intake pipe produces more power and is any different than injecting it at the carb and my limited cranial volume can't seem to comprehend it. 

  

 Jim "Pappy" Goolsby



Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

  	  Quote: 	
		  

href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	


[b]

pilko2(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:26 am Post subject: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...RAT Engine vs Russian N

Well said in fewer words than  me !

  

 What I was expecting was the  question "Why are the exhaust ports dubbed out in the photo ?" 

  

 I don't know the answer but  the ruskies airbrushed them out of the photos for a reason.

 [quote]   ---

Dale

Joined: 30 May 2007
Posts: 178

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:14 am Post subject: Re: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...RAT Engine vs Russi

The black exhaust areas that you say are airbrushed out in the photo are actually exhaust caps that screw on the cylinder to keep fod out.

brian-1927(at)lloyd.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:21 am Post subject: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...RAT Engine vs Russian N

On Mar 20, 2008, at 6:56 AM, ronald wasson wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Fuel injection gives about 8% more power.


	


I hate to jump on your Ronald but I must as people might get the wrong  

impression from your statement.



It is certainly possible that switching from a carburetor to a fuel  

injection system will result in the engine producing more power but it  

is impossible to give a fixed number for how much the improvement will  

be (if any). But I agree that there will likely be some increase.



That being said, the increase does not come from fuel injection  

itself. There is nothing magical about fuel injection that makes it  

provide more power. More power comes ONLY from getting more fuel/air  

mixture into the cylinder. There are two reasons why fuel injection  

might make this happen:



1. The throttle valve, fuel servo (mass airflow sensor), and other  

devices placed in the induction path provide less resistance to  

airflow than the venturi in the carburetor so more air can reach the  

cylinder. That allows us to inject more fuel and hence get more air  

and fuel into the cylinder.



2. Better matching of fuel to air at each cylinder ensures that all  

cylinders are running at the optimum (stoichiometric) mixture to allow  

all the cylinders to produce maximum power.



FWIW you can do this with carburation if you are so inclined to go to  

the effort but injection is a lot easier.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Direct injection at the the cylinder is best


	


Not necessarily. Injection upstream of a blower is better than  

injection at the intake to the cylinder as it allows for total fuel  

vaporization.



 	  Quote: 	
		   but even singe point computer controlled gives  more power.


	


No, computer controlled single point injection provides better mixture  

control. That *might* result in more power but there is no guarantee.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Carb is a very sloppy way to use fuel. It is only passing thru 14 to  

 1 on the way too lean or rich. Cars with carbs tend to use more  

 fuel, worst emissions, harder to start, flat spots.


	


You are right for cars as one is always changing the throttle. This is  

less of an issue for engines where the throttle spends a lot of time  

in one position. In that case the shape of the induction system will  

have far more effect on mixture distribution.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Computer or even mech. injection keeps the fuel closer 14 to 1.


	


Well, it does depend on the carburetor. You would be amazed at just  

how efficient a properly adjusted weber carburetor can be. The only  

hassle with them is having to change all the jets and emulsion tubes  

every place you go. Still, they work VERY well at providing a proper  

mixture to each cylinder.



(When I was racing sports cars many years ago I got really good at  

tuning weber carbs.)



 	  Quote: 	
		   There is also  better atomization at 45 psi then sucking it out of a  

 carb at negative or low psi in the case of a pressure carb. The far  

 away cylinder will be lean  and rich on the close short runner one.   

 Carbs are painting with a BIG brush in a hurry. Injection is a paint  

 sprayer close to its work.

 	Anything that makes the engine flow more air and the fuel that  

 comes with it will add power.


	


And THAT is the real bottom line.



--

Brian Lloyd                         3191 Western Drive

brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com    Cameron Park, CA 95682

+1.916.367.2131 (voice)             +1.270.912.0788 (fax)



I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .

— Antoine de Saint-Exupéry



PGP key ID:          12095C52A32A1B6C

PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0  CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C

mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:30 pm Post subject: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...RAT Engine vs Russian N

Oh... Sorry, misunderstood you Brian.  



What I saw for the M-14 was basically a top end kit.  It cost about $14,000 and consisted of 10 of everything (one being a spare).  Higher compression forged aluminum pistons.  Gapless rings.  New valves and valve guides with "O" ring seals on the guides, new guides, ported and polished ramps on intake and exhaust ports.  



When put on a fresh M-14PF, if you even BREATHED on the prop, it would start.  In fact, it did... Unexpectedly, but that is another story.  



The guys who put this thing together are also experimenting with fuel injection and who knows what else.  If you are serious, I'd suggest contacting Tom Johnson. 



Mark

 



--

mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:07 pm Post subject: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...RAT Engine vs Russian N

Good information KP!   



Only one problem.  As I said, I sat there and watched a stock restored

426 Hemi turn 830 HP right in front of my eyes on national television.  



You can say "bull" all day long, and I would not blame you because it

shocked the nonsense out of me as well, but you can disbelieve it all

you want and call them all liars if you want to.  I saw it and I really

do not think they changed all those figures and broadcast them on TV

just to favor the Hemi.  



They also ran a 427 Ford, and a horde of other engines.  The Chevy 409

ran 408 horsepower, and as you will remember, that was no great shakes

of a race motor.  The LS-6 ran well over 500 HP close to 600 as I

remember.  



My 502 runs 605 HP on a single 4 barrel on UNLEADED 93 octane pump gas

and a dual plane manifold with just under 10:1 compression ratio.  I

have the dyno sheets to prove it and a video of it when it ran on the

dyno.  Now consider a 426 Hemi with 12 or 13 to 1 compression, dual 4

barrels on a cross ram manifold, headers, wild lift cam and racing fuel.

Not over 426 horsepower?  Uh... Sorry... Of course it can.  



Chevy ADVERTISED 375 HP out of a 327 small block albeit fuel injected

with a primitive mechanical unit. The Hemi could be had with pistons up

around 12.5 to 1 easily special order from Mopor and an amazingly high

lift cam solid lifter cam.  Remember HP measurements are made at the

crank, with no accessories loading down the engine. 



I'll try to find the actual show for you.  I suspect it can be had on

the Internet. 



Mark Bitterlich

  



--

mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:20 pm Post subject: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...RAT Engine vs Russian N

Pappy, there are a lot of advantages to fuel injection, the most

important gain being the improvement in equal mixture control to all

cylinders.  Very few engines inject the fuel directly into the cylinder

chamber itself, but instead inject it right above the intake valve with

holes drilled into the intake manifold, so in truth, what they are doing

with the M-14 in this regard is close to what they are doing in your car

outside.  There are also some examples where one "injector" is used and

is placed directly in what normally would be called the carburetor, and

examples of that form are available for the M-14 as well.  



Remember that in the carb, the fuel is sucked into the airstream at the

venturi(s).  This fuel mixes with the air in what you hope is the right

combination.  But as it enters the intake manifold, it will be sucked

down into certain cylinders first with a shorter distance to travel than

others.  Air turbulence, temperature changes in the plenum's, porosity,

and a whole horde of other issues end up with the situation that each

cylinder ends up getting a slightly different mixture.  



In racing engines using carbs, extreme pains are taken to try to

eliminate this problem.  There are many many ways that have been

invented to attack this issue from Dual plane manifolds, to single

plane, to tunnel rams, to cross rams, etc.  Each different version has

trade-offs that impact the exact fuel ratios changing when you

transition from idle to wide open throttle.  Everything ends up being a

trade-off.  



With port fuel injection, if the design is done well, you improve the

exact fuel radio BALANCE to each and every cylinder and allow them ALL

to perform at equally (hopefully high) power levels.  



In an airplane engine remember that as you lean, you want to lean to the

MOST LEAN cylinder.  If you fail to do that and run one cylinder overly

lean... You know what happens.  Same thing in ANY other engine.  You

have to find the most lean cylinder to lean to... And that means not all

cylinders are getting the exact same amount of fuel, which means they

are not running equally OR evenly.  Add fuel injection.  Now you can

inject the exact amount of fuel you need.  Add a computer and you can

now adjust it on the fly.  Add a oxygen sensor (allow with a few others)

and you can have a system that REACTS to changing conditions

automatically.  This is called a closed loop system and it is why we can

now hop in a car and start it on a dead cold day and never have to mess

around with chokes anymore.  



So port fuel injection really just allows each cylinder to generate the

maximum power it is capable of, which you are always TRYING to reach

with a carb and any kind of manifold design.  



Mark Bitterlich

 



--

mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:23 pm Post subject: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...RAT Engine vs Russian N

Fuel injection on most horizontally opposed aircraft engines are

directly injected into the cylinder.  



Mark Bitterlich

 



--

mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:56 pm Post subject: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...RAT Engine vs Russian N

BULLSHIT ALERT!  I can't believe I said what I just said.  



RETRACTION!   RETRACTION!   



<Mark Bitterlich>



--

mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...RAT Engine vs Russian N

Go here.  Look at these engines.  Check out the compression ratios they

are using to get the numbers.  



Now take these same engines, go with a much wilder mechanical cam, and

bump the compression ratio up to 13 to 1 and add racing fuel, and do

some mental arithmitic on what is possible then.  



http://www.mopartsracing.com/parts/blocks.html#newhemi



Mgb





--

brian-1927(at)lloyd.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm Post subject: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...RAT Engine vs Russian N

On Mar 20, 2008, at 2:19 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,  

MALS-14 64E wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil>



 Fuel injection on most horizontally opposed aircraft engines are

 directly injected into the cylinder.


	


No. They inject at the intake port, right onto the intake valve  

itself. They do not inject into the cylinder proper.



--

Brian Lloyd                         3191 Western Drive

brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com    Cameron Park, CA 95682

+1.916.367.2131 (voice)             +1.270.912.0788 (fax)



I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .

— Antoine de Saint-Exupéry



PGP key ID:          12095C52A32A1B6C

PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0  CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C

jorgen.nielsen(at)mweb.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:32 pm Post subject: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...RAT Engine vs Russian N

Direct injection...



I drive an Audi RS4 which makes 420HP from a 4.2 litre engine.  Great car!

Really fun to drive hard, revs like a superbike.



It uses direct injection...see below for splurb from Audi:



What is new about the Audi FSI engine? Audi engineers have had to develop a

large number of new components and assemblies themselves, including: 



A high-pressure common rail fuel injection system with a demand-controlled

single-piston injection pump specially developed for the purpose; this only

supplies sufficient fuel to maintain the desired pressure in the system. 

A new cylinder head with four valves per cylinder and valve operation by

roller cam followers 

A further-developed version of the air-guided combustion process with

continuous control of charge movement 

An external exhaust gas recirculation system 

A further development of the exhaust emission treatment system, with a NOx

storage-type catalytic converter and NOx sensor. 

In the meantime, low-sulphur petrol has become generally available, so that

the full fuel-saving potential of these engines will be attainable in

day-to-day operation. 



The FSI engine's special combustion principle is critical to its efficiency.

On this engine, fuel is not injected into the intake port, but directly into

the combustion chamber. The injector, which is supplied by a single-piston

pump and common rail fuel line, is in the side of the cylinder head, and

controls the injection time to within thousandths of a second, at injection

pressures of up to 110 bar.

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Yak-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum