983038 Investigation of a Ford 2.0 L Duratec for Touring Car Racing

SAE TECHNICAL PAPER SERIES 983038

Investigation of a Ford 2.0 L Duratec for Touring Car Racing

Pat Morgan, Ray Kach, Curt Hill, Dan Demitroff and Bruce Monroe Ford Motor Company Tom Dettloff, Wiley McCoy and Dean Battermann McLaren Engines, Inc.

Reprinted From: 1998 Motorsports Engineering Conference Proceedings Volume 2: Engines and Drivetrains (P-340/2)

Motorsports Engineering Conference and Exposition Dearborn, Michigan November 16-19, 1998

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE’s consent that copies of the paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition, however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sec- tions 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for resale.

SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected books are abstracted and indexed in the Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA 983038 Investigation of a Ford 2.0 L Duratec for Touring Car Racing

Pat Morgan, Ray Kach, Curt Hill, Dan Demitroff and Bruce Monroe Ford Motor Company

Tom Dettloff, Wiley McCoy and Dean Battermann McLaren Engines, Inc.

ABSTRACT CAE tools, and the configurations generated were tested on both an air flow bench and dynamometer. A Super This paper summarizes an investigative study done to Flow 600 (3) air flow bench was used to collect the air evaluate the feasibility of a Ford Duratec engine in 2.0 L flow data. A Froude AG-250 HS dynamometer equipped Touring Car Racing. The investigative study began in with McLaren Engines data acquisition was used for early 1996 due to an interest by British Touring Car engine performance testing. The benchmark for our test- Championship and North American Touring Car Champi- ing was a current competitive V-6 (Figure1). Testing was onship sanctioning bodies to modify rules & demand the done in two phases each consisting of separate engine engine be production based in the vehicle entered for configurations. Problems for each of the two Phases competition. The current Ford Touring Car entry uses a encountered will be described. The North American Mazda based V-6. This Study was intended to determine Touring Car Championship regulations (2) were used as initial feasibility of using a 2.0 L Duratec V-6 based on the the parameters for engine design. A complete listing of production 2.5L Mondeo engine. Other benefits engine related rules are found in the appendix. expected from this study included; learning more about the Duratec engine at high speeds, technology exchange CORRECTED BENCHMARK POWER AND TORQUE CURVES between a production and racing application, and gaining 350 high performance engineering experience for production engineering personnel. 300 In order to begin the Duratec feasibility study, an initial 250 analytical study was done using Ford CAE tools. Addi- tional analytical work was done with respect to the basic 200 effects of bore, stroke, and per cylinder displacement on the air speed, filling capability, piston speed, and friction 150 of the engine. Benchmarking and other considerations CORRECTED TORQUE/H-P were given to surface to volume ratio, compression ratio 100 and combustion chamber shape, overall engine package, etc. 50 Cor. Torque Cor. H-P

Though the resulting paper studies yielded a basic indi- 0 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 cation that the Duratec engine would not be competitive RPM in 2.0L form for Touring Car Racing, many lessons were learned about the limits of the engine. This paper Figure 1. describes the results of the actual development program and their correlation to the analytical work. DEFINITION OF THE DURATEC ENGINE

INTRODUCTION The Duratec V-6 is a 2.0 liter version of the 2.5 liter production V-6. The reduced displacement resulted from The objective of this paper is to document the study of changing the stroke from 79.5 mm to 62.4 mm. The Vee converting a Ford 2.5L Duratec V6 to a 2.0L for Touring angle is 60°. The engine is a 4 valve per cylinder, with 4 Car Championship competition. This paper will consider chain driven overhead cams. The oiling system is dry rules, (1,2) packaging and component design. The com- sump type. puter modeling of the engine was conducted using Ford’s

1 FOCAL POINTS

MANDY INTAKE/EXHAUST FLOW SIMULATION-POWER OUTPUT 89MM BORE The following rules as taken from the Sanctioning Body 300 were to become the focus of the overall study. 250 1. Engine must be same make as the car (block and head). 200 2. Maximum capacity 2.0 liters. 150

3. The position and axis of the ports must remain as per BRAKE H-P original production. 100 4. The axis and angle of the valves must remain as per 50 original production. START FINAL

5. Port sizes may change, but the port centers at the 0 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 manifold must remain the same +/- 2mm. RPM 6. Camshaft position and number must remain the Figure 2. same as per production, otherwise open. 7. 8500 rpm limited engine speed. PHASE 1 AIRFLOW vs. TARGET AIRFLOW @ 10" H20 Of these rules listed the most challenging was #4. The included valve angle of the Duratec engine is 50°. The 160 valve spacing is 38 mm. In addition to the rules the 140 benchmarked engine was 11.3 kg. lighter than the 120 Duratec. The first cut at the Duratec (with alternator) weighed 137 kg. 100

80 CFM APPROACH FOR PHASE I 60 Target Intake Airflow @ 10" H20

Phase 1 Average Intake Airflow @ 10" H20 The Production Ford Duratec V-6 engines come in two 40 Target Exhaust Airflow @ 10" H20 Phase 1 Average Exhaust Airflow @ 10" H20 displacements 2.5 liters and 3.0 liters, with bore sizes of 20 82.4 and 89.0 mm respectively. Ford’s CAE tools 0 MANDY (4) with its coupled dynamic optimizer (5) was 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Lift in mm used to determine best bore size. However, the optimization showed no significant increase in peak power, and Figure 3. the optimizer would not move in any direction to improve the performance (Figure 2). The reason for this is the low Compression ratio was calculated at 11.15:1, due to mean piston speed 15.13m/s with the 89 mm bore, and chamber geometry the piston dome volume was maxi- the port velocities were too low. This meant that the mized at 12.2 ccs. This volume was achieved while response surface was very flat so that the program did maintaining a minimum piston to valve clearance of 1.5 not find any real direction to move to improve the perfor- mm. The shape and surfaces were irregular, and there- mance. Consequently, a bore size of 82.4 mm, the size fore, not optimum for both spark sensitivity or flame of the 2.5 liter V-6 Duratec engine, was chosen as the travel. Combustion chamber shape for Phase I was mean piston speed was 17.68m/s. Not very high, but still asymmetrical, this due to the stock 2.5 Duratec chamber. better than that with the 89 mm bore. Once the bore size Chamber volume for Phase 1 was 41.5 ccs. was decided, the corresponding stroke was calculated to Camshaft choice was based on competitive Benchmark achieve the proper 2.0 liter displacement. engine profiles (which operate a bucket style system). Cylinder head work concentrated on increasing air flow These profiles were converted into roller follower geome- (Figure 3). Baseline air flow tests were conducted at two try. The camshaft was a single pattern grind for both the different differential pressures 10” and 28” H20. Intake intake and exhaust. Roller finger followers were and exhaust port air flow targets were based on air flow machined out of billet to increase stiffness, durability, and information from the benchmark engine and MANDY pre- retained the ratio of 2:1. Hydraulic lash adjusters were dictions. Intake throat diameter was at 90% of valve used initially. These adjusters were found to be collaps- diameter. The area at the flange of the intake port was ing (witness marks were observed on the retaining cap of 2292mm2. The area at the intake throat 1237mm2. the lash adjuster where the roller finder follower con- Exhaust throat diameter as 82% of valve diameter for an tacted it). These were replaced by a solid version for fur- effective throat area of 189.4mm2. Exhaust porting in ther testing. general was conservative due to port wall thickness con- cerns.

2 Two cam drive systems were designed for the engine. Table 1 The original choice was a silent link style. The engine Phase 1 Test Matrix was originally assembled using this chain drive. After Intake Exhaust Valve experiencing an early failure of a chain guide the roller Dyno Run # Chain drive Length Length Train Peak Torque Peak H-P chain was installed. This system ran the rest of Phase I 6M8918 Silent Link style330 mm 914 mm Hyd. 147 @ 8000 224 @ 8000 6M8922 Roller 330 mm 914 mm Hyd. 154 @ 8000 235 @8000 and all of the Phase II testing. (See SAE paper on 2.0 6M8927 Roller 330 mm 914 mm Solid 153 @ 8000 233 @ 8000 cam and valve train design.). 6M8929 Roller 330 mm 914 mm Solid 153 @ 7500 227 @ 8000 6M8930 Roller 330 mm 914 mm Solid 156 @ 7500 224 @ 7500 Durability issues that were discussed in Phase I included 6M8932 Roller 222 mm 457 mm Solid 146 @ 7000 233 @ 9000 6M8935 Roller 330 mm 457 mm Solid 148 @ 8000 225 @ 8000 the following: 6M8936 Roller 222 mm 914 mm Solid 148 @ 7500 232 @ 9000 • Piston oiling – .76 mm diameter jets were installed 6M8938 Roller Staggered 914 mm Solid 151 @ 7500 227 @ 8000 beneath the bulkheads and directed to spray onto the Figures 4 and 5 graph the performance curves compar- crown of the piston . ing exhaust length while keeping intake runner length • Cam drive chain lubrication was directed through the constant. Figure 4 shows the engine configured with 330 tensioners and tension arms onto the chain. mm intake runner length and compares 457 mm primary • Cam follower lubrication – Jets were installed in cylin- exhaust length vs. 914 mm primary exhaust length. Fig- der head oil galleys to direct a stream of oil onto the ure 5 shows the engine configured with 222 mm intake roller follower / camshaft interface. These jets were runner length and also compares 457 mm primary .10” diameter. Cylinder head oiling was routed to the exhaust length vs. 914 mm primary exhaust length. back of the cylinder head and pressure controlled manually. Power & Torque Curves Corrected to 77° & 29.31 in Hg

• Main oil feeds – Galley feeds to #2, and #3 main 250 250 bearings was increased to 7mm. Several considerations were made in Phase 1 to allow for 200 200 rapid testing. The slide throttle intake system was capable of being configured in 2 separate aspects, injector 150 150

position and throttle length. The exhaust primary and HP Torque secondary length was also adjustable. The following is a 100 100 list of considerations and variables.

50 50 • Injector location – above throttle/below 6m8927 Cor. HP 6m8935 Cor. HP 6m8927 Cor. Torque • Trumpet length above the throttle. Trumpets were 6m8935 Cor. Torque 0 0 fastened to the throttle by (2) ¼-20 bolts and were 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 completely interchangeable. Speed • Exhaust headers were fabricated in such a manner Figure 4. that an additional 18” of primary tube could be easily added. Secondary lengths were also outfitted for POWER AND TORQUE CURVES CORRECTED TO 77° AND 29.31 " Hg quick length additions. • The timing gears to all 4 camshafts had individually adjustable hubs. • The spark and fuel control system was open to full calibration accessibility. • The front cover had a clear window installed for observation, thus allowing the operator to quickly shut down the engine after the first chain guide fail- CORRECTED H-P/ TORQUE ure. • A remote secondary oil filter protected the major 6m8932 Cor. Torque 6m8932 Cor. HP 6M8936 Cor. Torque components from damage in the event of a failure. 6m8936 Cor. HP

The testing matrix used for Phase I listed in table 1. 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 RPM Figure 5.

3 RESULTS PHASE I very low suggesting that the fresh charge was drawn into the exhaust during valve overlap. This phenomenon • Engine performance was less than predicted both resulted in reduced exhaust temperatures. To provide torque and horsepower more support for this argument MANDY was used to pre- • By altering the intake runner length a wider torque dict exhaust temperatures. and power curve could be achieved, but with this MANDY INTAKE/EXHAUST FLOW SIMULATION - VOLUMETRIC EFFICIENCY INITIAL MANDY configuration power dropped off substantially after PERFORMANCE PROJECTIONS 8000 rpm. 140

• Improved performance was achieved using the 914 120 mm primary exhaust pipes (with either the 222 mm or 330 mm intake trumpets.) 100

• Exhaust gas temperatures remained relatively cool 80 approximately 1350°F even under a lean best torque fuel calibration 60 VOLUMETRIC EFFICIENCY (%) • The engine was more responsive to throttle changes 40 with the injectors located under the slide throttle, this 20 Base Dimensions due to the difficulty in adjusting individual throttle Dyno Data Modified Prediction

openings within the slide. 0 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 • The engine produces (2) distinct torque and power RPM peaks. Figure 7. PHASE I CONCLUSION Since thermocouples measure heat transfer to and from the bead a model had to be developed to predict the Measured dynamometer brake torque and power data exhaust temperature in the manifold primary runner near showed significantly less torque and power than pre- the head flange. During blowdown gas velocities and dicted by MANDY. However, Figure 6 shows MANDY temperatures are much higher in the exhaust primary predicted the same level of engine airflow as measured pipe than during the rest of the engine cycle. To better on the dynamometer. This suggests that the low mea- simulate a thermocouple the exhaust gas temperatures sured engine performance was due possibly to a short predicted by MANDY were averaged using the mass circuiting of the intake charge directly to the exhaust port, average. Although not rigorous, this approach will pro- and not a shortfall in airflow. The curve labeled “base vide an estimate of the response of a thermocouple. Fig- run” was made with geometry data as provided. Increas- ure 8 shows the mass averaged exhaust temperatures ing the intake runners 2.44 cm and using an exhaust predicted by MANDY at the exhaust head/manifold flange header that had runner 90 cm long with a 47.6 mm I.D. in comparison to the measured data. Above 7500 rpm (2.0 in OD tubing) resulted in the curve labeled “modified” MANDY predicts no residual exhaust gas in-cylinder indi- in Figure 7. This shows the sensitivity of this engine to cating that some of the intake charge flowing into the cyl- both intake and exhaust tuning. inder flows out the exhaust. Figure 8 shows that under these conditions the exhaust temperatures fall within the MANDY INTAKE/EXHAUST FLOW SIMULATION - VOLUMETRIC EFFICIENCY range of the measured data. This further supports the 140 lack of horsepower was due to the intake charge being drawn directly out the exhaust port. 120

100 HEAD-MANIFOLD EXHAUST TEMP CHART 1450

80 1400

1350 VOLUMETRIC EFFICIENCY (%) 40

Base Dimensions 20 1300 EXH Pri-1 " Dyno Data

0 EXHAUST TEMPERATURE (F) 1250 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 RPM

Figure 6. 1200 MANDY PREDICTED EX TEMP 6M8927 6M8926

To verify short circuiting of the intake charge was the rea- 1150 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 son for the lack of power, the exhaust temperatures were RPM analyzed. The measured exhaust temperatures were Figure 8.

4 APPROACH FOR PHASE 2 Flow box comparison @ 28" H20 (Intake Port) Phase 2 took an approach that without making significant 300 performance gains the engine would not be competitive. 250 Therefore, the following changes were made to the

Phase 1 engine configuration. Table 2 reflects these 200 changes.

150 Table 2 CFM

100 Phase 1 Phase 2 Flow box #1 Flow box #2 Block Piston oiling on Piston oiling off Flow box #3 Compression Ratio 11.15 12.3 50 Flow box #4 Cylinder head intake port Modified geometry with Flow box #5 configuration divider 25.4 mm down Flow box 5 symmetrical 39.8 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Combustion chamber asymetrical 41.7 cc cc Lift in mm Intake valve size 33 mm 31 mm Cam timing intake centerline 99.5° ATDC 107° BTDC Cam timing exhaust centerline 95.5° BTDC 102° BTDC Figure 9. Valve train Roller Slipper (slider) Header diameter 50.8 mm 41.3 mm Throttle diameter 54.4 mm 41.1 mm OVERLAP AIRFLOW @ 28"H20 Oil Sump Shallow race style Deep 90

80 In an effort to increase torque several new cylinder head configurations were established. Five air flow boxes were 70 modeled using different intake port flange and throat 60 openings. Also an analysis of air flow during valve over- 50 lap. Table 3 defines the five different air flow models. CFM Standard flow testing procedures were used to evaluate 40 the five intake port configurations. Overlap air flow test- 30 ing required the following procedure: 20 Phase 1 • Assemble engine with all pertinent hardware (i.e. pis- 10 Phase 2 ton, head, valves, cam drive valve train, intake mani- 0 fold headers) -20(btdc) -15(btdc) -10(btdc) -5(btdc) 0(tdc) 5(atdc) 10(atdc) 15(atdc) 20(atdc) CRANKSHAFT DEGREES @ OVERLAP • Install degree wheel Figure 10. • Time camshafts • Connect air flow bench to exhaust header To take away sump windage issues the piston oiling was • Rotate engine to 20° BTDC (overlap) disabled and a deep sump oil pan as installed. Cylinder • Set air flow bench to intake operation head port configuration was changed to reduce port area and volume. Combustion chamber shape became sym- • Flow @ specified pressure drop metrical, also material was added to the area between • Turn off air flow bench the intake and exhaust seats to reduce pull over. This • Record data and calculate CFM resulted in slight increase in compression ratio. Intake • Rotate engine to next test point and repeat valve size was reduced to 31 mm. The exhaust cam profile remained the same for both Phase 1 and Phase 2. Table 3 Unfortunately the intake camshafts were destroyed when

Definitions: Flow box #1 ---- Valve size 31 mm, Throat diameter 80% of valve diameter (24.8 mm), the valve train type went from roller follower to slider type. Flange area = [(Throat diameter + 15%x1/2)]2 x 3.1417 x 2 The intake cams had a similar profile to Phase 1, but the = (28.5 x 1/2)2 x 3.1417 x 2 = 1276 mm2 Port volume 106 cc centerline changed to 107 ° Header diameter was Flow box #2 ---- Valve size 31 mm, Throat diameter 85% of valve diameter (26.4 mm), Flange area = (30.4 x 1/2)2 x 3.1417 x 2 =1447 mm2 reduced to 41 mm O.D. Throttle diameter reduced from Port volume 110 cc Flow box #3 ---- Valve size 33 mm, Throat diameter 80% of valve diameter (26.4 mm), 54.4 to 41.1 mm. Two new sets of intake trumpets were Flange area = (30.4 x 1/2)2 x 3.1417 x 2 = 1447 mm2 fabricated for Phase 2. One set was tapered from 47.25 Port volume 130 cc Flow box #4 ---- Valve size 33 mm, Throat diameter 85% of valve diameter (28.1 mm) mm to 41.1 mm over a 168 mm span. The second set Flange area = (32.3 x 1/2)2 x 3.1417 x 2 = 1640.4 mm2 Port volume 131 cc was derived from MANDY optimizing, and was defined by Flow box #5 ---- Valve size 31 mm, throat Diameter= 75% of valve diamete (23.1 mm) a 77.3 mm diameter tapered to the 41.1 mm throttle over Flange area = (26.6 mm x 1/2)2 x 3.1417 x 2=1123 mm2 Port volume 105 cc a 198 mm span. Engine testing in Phase 2 was slow due to camshaft/slider interface issues that destroyed several sets of camshafts. (see valve train paper). The following test matrix was used to run Phase 2 testing (Table 4). Phase 2 performance graphs are found in Figure 11.

5 Table 4 Phase 2 Best Run vs. Phase 1 Run # 6M8927

Phase 2 Test Matrix 250

Chain Int. Ex. Valve Peak Dyno Run # drive Length Length Train Torque Peak H-P 200 6M9009 Bicycle 311 mm 914 mm Solid 149 221

6M9011 Bicycle 349 mm 914 mm Solid 150 223 150 6M9013 Bicycle 349 mm 559 mm Solid 154 231

100 Horsepower/Torque

PHASE 2 PERFORMANCE Phase 2 Best Run Torque

250 Phase 2 Best Run Horsepower 50 Phase 1 Dyno Run 6M8927 Torque

Phase 1 Dyno Run 6M8927 Horsepower 200 0 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 RPM

150 Figure 12.

100 Many lessons were learned from a project of this nature. Cor. Horsepower / Torque 6m9009 COR TOR LB-FT To determine the feasibility of doing this program, all of 6m9009 COR PWR HP 50 6m9011 COR TOR LB-FT the design restrictions had to be methodically reviewed 6m9011 COR PWR HP 6m9013 COR TOR LB-FT up front, this helped to eliminate losses in both time and 6m9013 COR PWR HP money in tracking down unanswered questions. Race 0 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 rules, regulations, technologies and packaging restriction Speed information is mandatory. With this information the team eliminated ideas that could not be applied, thus saving Figure 11. time. Ford engineers were meeting with McLaren personnel on a regular basis. When necessary other Ford All engine testing was conducted under LBT/MBT condi- experts were asked to provide direction, with high regard tions (6) (lean best torque/minimum spark best torque). to making best use of their limited time and not to inter- fere with their regular jobs. RESULTS PHASE 2 A. Project Management

• Testing Revealed that the performance level was still 1. Up front planning of possible design change require- considerably lower than predicted. ments (define all design restrictions) • The engine responded to the MANDY derived intake 2. Weekly afternoon meetings, individual assignments trumpets and status reports • Taking the best of the intake configurations and 3. Open discussion of ideas and considerations applying the 22” primary exhaust system produced 4. Individual cross training in areas that would improve the best run data for Phase 2. knowledge and communication. • Exhaust temperatures remained relatively cool. 5. CAE tools provided reduced timing. • Even though static airflow was reduced significantly 6. Ford – use of air flow bench to evaluate port designs. from Phase 1 to Phase 2 the peak performance lev- 7. Published list of item by item component responsibil- els remained remarkably similar. ity defined and timing established. 8. Detailed list of who/when and why component deci- CONCLUSION sions were made. Both CAE and dynamometer data produced by this study B. Component Design retained a constant correction factor. 1. Component protection to insure efficient use of parts, The two Phases are difficult to compare due to the num- time and funding. ber of component changes between them. Although 2. List possible test failure scenarios and the ramifica- Phase 2 had a lower breathing capacity on the flow tions prior to start. bench, the performance levels remained fairly constant 3. Chain drive system – Requested test parts from (2) with Phase 1. This due to increased port velocity in the tier 1 sources to judge their response and engineer- Phase 2 design. ing capability. Test source knowledge of rapid failure mode possibility led to fabrication of plastic front cover window and use of Video camera during testing.

6 4. Oil System - Screens installed at all cylinder head 10. Incorporate as many known robust parts as possible. drain backs to protect the base engine from possible 11. The use of proven after market parts in areas that failures in the cylinder head areas. Use of Oberg Fil- were not a concern. ter system with regular inspection of screen. Remote oil lines with a control valve were added to insure oil This yielded a less than competitive first iteration engine, flow to the valve train. Mazda oil jets used to cool the based on package and weight reasons. The use of light- pistons. The #2 and #3 main oil feeds were drilled weight components was not considered at this point. out larger. Design deep sump oil pan, windage tray, This saved time and money during the initial feasibility screen and method to check for cavitation. investigation. Estimated component weight reductions yielded a competitive engine based on weight. 5. Assigned responsibilities in each area of investigation with timing requirements. REFERENCES 6. Up front thinking of: select group of people required, Engineering expertise in valve train/Mandy modeling/ 1. FIA Regulations “Article 262 for Super Touring Cars (Group Base 2.5L engine history/high performance engine ST)” FIA Motorsport Regulations 1995 builds/air flow/racing programs/engine component 2. “North American Touring Car Championship Regulations” expertise contacts. 1996 3. “SuperFlow SF-300-600 Instruction Manual” copyright 7. Develop list of parts and assemblies and assign risk 1976 assumptions. 4. Novak, J.M., Kach, R.A., “Computer Optimization of Cam- 8. Outline precautions to take for the testing of high-risk shaft Lift Profile, For A NASCAR V-8 engine With Restrictor Plate” SAE Paper 962514, 1996 parts. 5. Principles of Optimal Design Models and Computation, 9. Determine methods to detect early warning of possi- Panos Y. Papalambros, Douglass J. Wilde, copyright Cam- ble failures on high risk components to protect bridge University Press 1988 6. Race Engine Management System Version 2.0, EFI Tech- unique part and down prevent down time and nology, Inc. increase project costs.

APPENDIX

1996 North American Touring Car Championship Engine 7. Main caps are open. Regulations (2) 8. Ladder reinforcement frames, inside the block and A. General following the bearing supports, are permitted. 9. Pistons, rings, pins, and securing components are 1. Must be the same make as the car (block and head) open. 2. Engine must have annual certified production of at 10. Connecting rods and crankshafts are open but must least 2500 units (both block and head). remain ferrous. 3. Maximum 6 cylinders. 11. Bearings are open but must be of the same type. 4. Maximum capacity 2.0 liters. 12. Gaskets are open. 5. Two stroke engines are not permitted. 13. Flywheel is open. 6. The engine position and mountings are open, pro- 14. Engine mounting and position are open, but sheet vided the orientation and axis of the engine retains metal forming the engine/gearbox bay area must the same orientation and axis within the engine com- remain as in the original car. Manufacturers original partment as the original engine in the production car drivetrain configuration must remain the same. and any other requirements herein are compiled with in full. Within these and other requirements herein, 15. Firewall must be capable of preventing passage of engine revolution direction is open. fluid or flame into cockpit. B. Block C. Cylinder Head 1. Bore and stroke may be changed to achieve 2000 1. Cylinder head and block do not have to be from the ccs. same production vehicle but must meet all other requirements jointly and individually. 2. Bore must be cylindrical, stroke linear. 2. The position and axis of the ports must remain as per 3. Axis of the cylinders may be moved but must remain original production. parallel to the original. 3. Axis and angle of valves must remain as per original 4. Sleeving or re-sleeving is permitted. production. 5. Sleeving material is open. 4. Port sizes may change, but port centers at manifold 6. Machining of all surfaces is allowed, material may be must remain original (+/- 2 mm) added.

7 5. Addition and or removal of material is permitted sub- 2. Number of spark plugs must remain as per original ject to other restrictions herein. standard production vehicle. 6. Number of valves must remain as per manufacturer F. Cooling standard production on the cylinder head used. 1. Method of cooling must remain as per original stan- 7. Compression ratio is open. dard production vehicle. 8. Gaskets are open. 2. Thermostat and housing are open. 9. Fuel and induction system is open subject to the fol- 3. Water pump must retain standard housing and loca- lowing limitations: tion, but internals are open. a. no water injection G. Lubrication b. no substance or device to reduce the temperature of the mixture 1. Lubrication system is open. c. no fuel or fuel additive other than specified herein 2. Dry sump is permissible. may be injected or in any way used. 3. Additional oil pumps, fans and coolers may be 10. Induction system, location of injectors, number of installed. injectors are open. H. Exhaust 11. Fuel electronics and injector types are open. 1. Generally exhaust system and layout is open. 12. The installation of a rollover/impact throttle pedal butterfly system so as to disconnect the current to the 2. Noise may not exceed 110 dba at 50 feet on either ignition system to discontinue fuel flow in case of side of the car. Measures taken to meet the maxi- impact or in case of a stuck throttle is required in all mum noise limit requirement must be of a permanent race cars. This device may include a reset provision nature and must not be removed by exhaust gas that is in easy reach of the driver. pressure. For example, a butterfly valve in the exhaust manifold is not permitted. 13. Air filter assemblies and pipes are open, but no variable length trumpets are permitted.. I. Supercharging 14. Camshaft(s) position and number must remain as per 1. Any system of forced induction is prohibited. Ram standard production, otherwise open. Number of induction created by the forward motion of the car, or bearings is open. Belts, pulleys, chains are open tuning of the induction or exhaust pipe length is per- including layout. Variable valve drive is permitted mitted. within the stipulations of other regulations herein. J. Fuel 15. Valves are open including material and shape. 16. Basis of valve operation (spring-hydraulic) must 1. Unleaded pump fuel will be provided to all competi- remain as per original standard production vehicle, tors by a championship specified fuel supplier. as must angles of valve axes. 2. Only fuel supplied by this supplier may be used dur- 17. Cups, cotters, guides are all open. ing any official on track championship session. 18. Shims may be added under valve springs. 3. No alterations to the composition of the championship specified fuel is allowed and no additional sub- 19. Hydraulic cam followers may be changed for solid stances of any type are permitted. ones. 4. Fuel pumps are open. 20. Valve lift is open. 21. Valve seat material is open. 22. The number of valves must remain as per original standard production (and per homologation). 23. Rocker arms and tappets are open. 24. Cylinder head covers are open, including material, provided they have no other function than covering the head. D. Race 1. The engine used during qualifying must also be used in that same car during the race. E. Ignition 1. All cars must install a North American Touring Car Championship specified RPM limiting device installed to limit engine rpm to 8500 maximum.