Welcome to the SR20 Community Forum - The Dash.
Register
SR20 forum logo

Thread: 4CW vs 8CW vibes

+ Reply To Thread
Posts: 11-20 of 32
2009-07-01 01:08:15
#11
hmmm so it kinda comes down to, do ya wanna rev faster.. or higher..
2009-07-01 22:07:40
#12
Originally Posted by se-riousclassic
the 4cw crank only makes sense in a cvt transmission. It will not be smoother in high rpms. I actually feel that the 4cw crank with an 8.8lb flywheel is too light and hurts the first to second shift. The a 8cw crank with a lightweight flywheel feels alot smoother and seems to keep better momentum between shifts. I will have an sr16 trans on my car soon so the gearing will help out the issue keeping momentum from the 1st to 2nd shift.



Very interesting. Can you post some more facts to back up what you are saying? Even though you said you 'feel'.

I have a 170+hp Sr20ve set-up and planning to go lightened flywheel but this throws a spin into the whole decision.

Already I was pondering, cause my present flywheel is a bit lighter than stock SR20. It's 16lbs or so since it's from my old SR16ve motor.

Peace
2009-07-01 22:18:14
#13
Originally Posted by niZmo
Very interesting. Can you post some more facts to back up what you are saying? Even though you said you 'feel'.

I have a 170+hp Sr20ve set-up and planning to go lightened flywheel but this throws a spin into the whole decision.

Already I was pondering, cause my present flywheel is a bit lighter than stock SR20. It's 16lbs or so since it's from my old SR16ve motor.

Peace


Don't let all this talk scare you. I have had my ve with 9lb flywheel and UR crank pulley since I bought the motor three years ago. I have since put around 80k on the already used 40kish motor. Over 100 runs at the strip and good abuse on the street, still running strong. Revving to 8K BTW
2009-07-01 22:25:50
#14
Originally Posted by niZmo
Very interesting. Can you post some more facts to back up what you are saying? Even though you said you 'feel'.

I have a 170+hp Sr20ve set-up and planning to go lightened flywheel but this throws a spin into the whole decision.

Already I was pondering, cause my present flywheel is a bit lighter than stock SR20. It's 16lbs or so since it's from my old SR16ve motor.

Peace


Facts? Clearly, you understood I said the feel so how would there be facts. I gave results of how the setup was perceived. Go ahead and do the same setup and you will find out for yourself. 1st gear revs so quick that shifting to 2nd with a stock gearing de box loses momentum and almost hesitates or floats at the same rpm for a time. Shorter gearing (as i was saying before) would not be an issue and would make it alot more enjoyable.
2009-07-01 22:26:56
#15
@ Jer 760,

No it doesnt scare me. My friend with a lightened flywheel in his sr20ve admits that his car is ver aggressive in 1st gear. So I wouldnt say scare me.

I know it's a very good upgrade but each mod comes with pros and cons.

Really dont wann de-rail the thread though and hope we can stick to the topic. Maybe we can pm each other on this.

Maybe I am just looking some justifications to stick with my sr16ve flywheel. LOL

Peace
2009-07-01 22:28:51
#16
he said he had a sr16ve before.. so maybe he had the sr16 trans, an there for has a different ratio..
2009-07-01 22:30:20
#17
Originally Posted by se-riousclassic
Facts? Clearly, you understood I said the feel so how would there be facts. I gave results of how the setup was perceived. Go ahead and do the same setup and you will find out for yourself. 1st gear revs so quick that shifting to 2nd with a stock gearing de box loses momentum and almost hesitates or floats at the same rpm for a time. Shorter gearing (as i was saying before) would not be an issue and would make it alot more enjoyable.


Thanks for the clarity.

Please ignore my asking for 'facts'.

I have 2 friends using lightened flywheels with their sr20ve but both are using sr18 trannies which have shorter ratios. Guess you are using longer ratio SE-R tranny?

Think I will stick with my sr16ve flywheel - at least for now til I can afford a lightened flywheel. LOL

Peace
2009-07-01 22:32:45
#18
Yes, I'm using an se-r tranny , but have an sr16 trans waiting to go in. I'll chime in on how that feels when the time comes
2009-07-02 04:03:13
#19
Originally Posted by Coheed
It is worth mentioning that K20s come with both cranks as well. The 160hp version of the K20(A3) is a 4cw and revs to 7K rpm. The Fun K20 (The A1, A2, Z3 etc) rev to 8 and 9K and have 8cw cranks.


The 4cw is the future. Most current 4 cylinder engines already have them.

The new Duratec from Mazda (Miata)/Ford (Focus) is 4cw, so is GM's Ecotec. These "world engines" are use all around the world under different Makes: Saab, Volvo.

There's a SAE paper written about the 4cw vs. 8cw. The conclusion was the 4cw has more positives than negatives, better fuel economy, power, throttle response, cheaper. The 4cw did vibrate more but it was negligible, too small to matter.

What does it mean for us? Have fun with your engine, rev it out. Just replace the rod bearing when you do a rebuild.
2009-07-02 04:14:48
#20
from someone that knows far more than most:

Originally Posted by bigtoe
Folks,
From what I have seen the Bearing Beam (Girdle) holds the crank in the plane parallel to the main bearing centerline. Because the Block is a deep skirt design there is no need for a Girdle (by definition: main caps part of the assembly).
It is proven that the combination of a deep skirt, registered main caps, a bearing beam and a torsional "external mass" damper gives the best overall control of crank vibration.
This is the method Nissan used on the SR20 for noise and vibration control, by extension it gave rise to a rock solid bottom end.

The discussion on 4 vs 8 CTW is a nice one. From what I have seen with my motors and others;
The 4 CTW tends to "vibrate" the NO.4 Main Cap and bearing.
The effect of this is seen on the NO.3 Rod Bearing.
I have not seen evidence of the same on the 8CTW.
I have felt the 4CTW come through a distinct harmonic for a very brief period in the rev range (solid mounted motor and solid all welded chassis).
There is also another thing that happens on an inline 4 motor and that is the fact that on this engine combination two cylinder fire right next to each other (3 and 4). What happens here is that by extension from the leverage forces of the rod journal, the Main journal between the two is twisted at a very high frequency from the unloading of one (exhaust stroke) to the re-loading of the same (power stroke on the other). It typically manifests itself on main bearing NO.4. This is something that every V configuration motor has to take into account in their crank designs (like Porsche got wrong on the first generations of the 928 V8 Motors). There is a lot more to this discussion because the only time it is evident is when the motor is "fired" and live under load, and not static for an imperical calculation on balance of individual components.

My recommendation would be for an 8 CTW for a car that will be pulling through a fairly wide rev range.

Now SUMITUMO under financing of various japanese OEMS studied the dynamics of 4 vs 8 CTW cranks and actually came up with the 4 CTW being better for any specific 4 cylinder motor. HOWEVER, the counter weigts are not egual mass in their design. SUMITOMO was chosen because they make the bulk of the Japanese crankshafts.

Again from my own experience: The Bearing Beam takes power away due to windage in the crank case and obstruction of the attomised oil around the crank. I have not seen this on my Dry Sumped negative pressure sump motor.

Later tonight I will post the two SAE Paper numbers for the crank design and for the vibration analysis on four cylinder engines for any one interested.
+ Reply To Thread
  • [Type to search users.]
  • Quick Reply
    Thread Information
    There are currently ? users browsing this thread. (? members & ? guests)
    StubUserName

    Back to top