The Lotus Cars Community banner

1 - 20 of 84 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,738 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I would like to thank Kris Valdez and crew from DRS (Dynamic Race Solutions) for all their efforts in helping develop a normally aspirated 2ZZ engine with power output very similar to a slightly modified Supercharged Cup Car (@252 HP).

Here is Kris working his magic on DRS's new dyno:


As some of you may know, I was looking for a reliable engine/transmission package that I could run all year long (I feared running my 260 wHP Exige S during the summer months due to excessive air intake temps). I have nothing against forced induction, but FI clearly wasn't a good fit for my race budget. My goal was less weight and simplicity but I didn't want to give up too much power - Kris was already working a solution for me.

It took us a while to sort out some of the issues we encountered along the way but that's all part of the R&D process. All the hard work finally paid off and it's hard for me to describe just how much more fun my car is now with 70+ lbs removed from the rear of the car. The car goes where I want, rotates predictably, and still has enough power to hold it's own with lighter and more powerful cars.

I had the opportunity to finally race the car at ButtonWillow with Lotus Cup USA folks. I missed out on a few sessions, so I had to learn the track fast as I've never done this configuration (CCW#1). My best lap for the weekend was 2:01.9 after only 1 hour of track time ... my sector best times had me at 1:58.6 which I think I could have reached if I had more practice and fresh rubber (I was running on donated used tires from fellow LC USA members - which BTW is an awesome side story in itself).

Enough of my ramblings, the proof ... Track tested, Race tested ... my in car video from Sept 22/23 Lotus Cup USA event (the oil temps are actually in F not C) - Ambient air temp was close to 100F but my max air intake temps were 127F with an average temp of 107F.

Sat Race 1 (3rd overall and 1st in class)

Sun Race 2 (2nd overall and 2nd in class)

Rob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,159 Posts
Very nice, car sounds great. Sequential + built n/a motor. :drool: Would have been interesting to see the director's cut of the second video.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,819 Posts
Wow, you were really charging around the track. It's hard to believe the two cars in front were able to pull away at the beginning.
The Krypton Green Elise towards the end of the video was going about 25mph. slower than you through the esses. It's amazing to see how stable your car was going through the esses at 118mph.
You have a PM, sir:)
Thanks for sharing.


Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app
 

·
shay2nak
Joined
·
24,979 Posts
very nice! did you ever post a dyno of the new motor? would be interesting to see it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,984 Posts
car sounds awesome & those are some very impressive NA #'s you are putting down (250whp NA is a different world than 250 boosted that's for sure)

i hate to ask since you probably already mentioned this somewhere, but what is all done as far as significant power adders to the engine to produce those kind of #'s NA? (iirc, its pretty hard to eclipse the 230whp mark on the 2zz NA, but you are healthily past that)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,738 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
car sounds awesome & those are some very impressive NA #'s you are putting down (250whp NA is a different world than 250 boosted that's for sure)

i hate to ask since you probably already mentioned this somewhere, but what is all done as far as significant power adders to the engine to produce those kind of #'s NA? (iirc, its pretty hard to eclipse the 230whp mark on the 2zz NA, but you are healthily past that)
250 HP is crank not wheel. 219 wHP equivalent on a DynoJet. There is more power to be made with a dry sump (I'm using OEM oil pump with SSC gears), and new block rather than a used block, and a new cylinder head rather than my very used original 2007 head. Kris also has a header designed specifically for this application which we didn't use yet. So there is probably another 10-20 wHP sitting on the table.

Kris's dyno is not a DynoJet, but since he knows most use DynoJet numbers he took the same car to a DynoJet to see what it would read so he could get an idea of the variance between his dyno and a DynoJet.

If you want more details on what was done, please do contact Kris directly at 562-694-2226 or Email him at [email protected].

The motor is a dream to drive and I've yet to explore it's full potential.

Rob
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,738 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)
Great fun Eddie, enjoyed it!

Thanks John, many long days and nights were put into this project from me and all the DRS crew (and when I say long I mean 72 hours straight with beer and pizza dinners at Midnight).

Oh yeah, forgot to add, because I can monitor airbox pressure with my EFI ECU, at some future point we'll probably do some type of RAM air setup ... would be great to do for LC USA Fontana event since speeds are in the 140-150 MPH range but may not have enough time.

It's a great package and we're just scratching the surface of it's potential.

Rob

EDIT: This tune was done with 100 unleaded.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,182 Posts
Forgive me as I am not to knowledgeable on the LCU classes. Is this a class that requires natural aspiration?

I will say it sounds VERY nice! And the simplicity has to be nice as well. I miss that about my NA setup. Intake --> Engine --> Exhaust. Nice, light and simple, and yea didn't suffer from heatsoak. However I will say forced induction destroys the power output of NA (even more so per $$) even with it fully heatsoaked.

Keep us posted if you ever do add some sort of a RAM-air setup. Be curious to see how you integrate it into the body.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
750 Posts
We're very pleased with the NA engine program so far. Some of you may recall that this has been a work in progress dating back for some time, and what Rob has now is the latest iteration.

We can't disclose all of the details of these engines, but I will share the general concept. We use Cosworth pistons, 14:1 CR, 82mm bore, we lighten the reciprocating parts, we improve the airflow of the cylinder head, the intake is via individual throttles and we are working on an improved header design. The engine mapping is a large component, and we use the EFI Technology ECU with specific control strategies for the NA platform.

The powerband is very smooth and the torque is flat from 5k rpm onward. These engines are not 'torque-less wonders' like other small high revving engines, so there is plenty of grunt for pulling out of corners. RPM is also kept within reasonable range up to 9,200 revs.

The purpose of this engine program is to offer an alternative to those who are looking to retain lightness, simplicity, improved handling and have competitive power levels.

Inquires are welcomed and these engines are available for sale as complete units with intake, exhaust, and ECU w/ 2 maps included.

Kris
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,738 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Forgive me as I am not to knowledgeable on the LCU classes. Is this a class that requires natural aspiration?

I will say it sounds VERY nice! And the simplicity has to be nice as well. I miss that about my NA setup. Intake --> Engine --> Exhaust. Nice, light and simple, and yea didn't suffer from heatsoak. However I will say forced induction destroys the power output of NA (even more so per $$) even with it fully heatsoaked.

Keep us posted if you ever do add some sort of a RAM-air setup. Be curious to see how you integrate it into the body.
Not sure what you mean by "destroys the power output of NA"? Like I said, this setup is generating the same power output as a supercharged Cup Car only 70 lbs lighter and no heat soak and is simple.

If you are talking about maximum potential output, sure FI will accomplish that, but there again so would a small block chevy V8. This package is all about simple reliable power with a throttle response that lets you really play with the car.

Take a look at Jack's car (Red 2-11), 300 wHP BOE setup @ 1780 lbs with driver vs. me 1964 lbs @ 219 wHP -- I wouldn't exactly say it "destroyed" my car down straights, faster yes, destroyed no. Take a look at Jack's video with Brent driving, he hits about 121 mph into T1, I hit about 116 mph, Brent hits about 118 mph into Phil Hill I hit about 115 mph -- now I realize Brent wasn't pushing it, but I also missed out on 2+ days of practice. Point being, it's not all about power ... if you have to feather the throttle (or delay) a lot coming out of corners you aren't using all the power you have ... so in high HP cases, your options are to go with bigger tires ... ok so now your into wide body kit, more expensive rubber, bigger wheels, bigger hubs to support the bigger wheels, etc. etc. -- trust me, I've done all this before in other cars and is exactly why I went this NA route.

This motor development (and transmission for that matter) has nothing to do with LC USA class rules (in other series if you stay NA you can do just about anything you like without taking weight penalties or class bumps) ... it's all about finding reliability without sacrificing lap times. It's basically the path of least resistance, as I've experienced and seen other's experience, adding more and more power means evaluating every aspect from the transmission to axles to differentials, to heat extraction, and a continued process chasing failures and finding solutions ... if you can afford that, go for it -- it can be rewarding also if you got the cash to do it.

RAM air setup will most likely come from some modifications to the roof scoop running ducts inside the cockpit and directly to the TB.

Rob.
 

·
Plug Whisperer
Joined
·
6,305 Posts
I think the DRS NA setup is really cool by all measures. That said Rob, you're comparing a car with a sequential to those 211a with a standard H pattern with crappy ratios, etc. You and I both know that sequential tranny is worth no less than 5 seconds on a typical track. Put that same tranny in Jack's 211 and he'll be several MPH faster down the straight and again several seconds faster...

DSM is right, $ for $, can't beat FI. Reliability at the 300whp on these motors is no big deal, IMO...

-PV
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,182 Posts
Not sure what you mean by "destroys the power output of NA"? Like I said, this setup is generating the same power output as a supercharged Cup Car only 70 lbs lighter and no heat soak and is simple.

If you are talking about maximum potential output, sure FI will accomplish that, but there again so would a small block chevy V8. This package is all about simple reliable power with a throttle response that lets you really play with the car.

Take a look at Jack's car (Red 2-11), 300 wHP BOE setup @ 1780 lbs with driver vs. me 1964 lbs @ 219 wHP -- I wouldn't exactly say it "destroyed" my car down straights, faster yes, destroyed no. Take a look at Jack's video with Brent driving, he hits about 121 mph into T1, I hit about 116 mph, Brent hits about 118 mph into Phil Hill I hit about 115 mph -- now I realize Brent wasn't pushing it, but I also missed out on 2+ days of practice. Point being, it's not all about power ... if you have to feather the throttle (or delay) a lot coming out of corners you aren't using all the power you have ... so in high HP cases, your options are to go with bigger tires ... ok so now your into wide body kit, more expensive rubber, bigger wheels, bigger hubs to support the bigger wheels, etc. etc. -- trust me, I've done all this before in other cars and is exactly why I went this NA route.

This motor development (and transmission for that matter) has nothing to do with LC USA class rules (in other series if you stay NA you can do just about anything you like without taking weight penalties or class bumps) ... it's all about finding reliability without sacrificing lap times. It's basically the path of least resistance, as I've experienced and seen other's experience, adding more and more power means evaluating every aspect from the transmission to axles to differentials, to heat extraction, and a continued process chasing failures and finding solutions ... if you can afford that, go for it -- it can be rewarding also if you got the cash to do it.

RAM air setup will most likely come from some modifications to the roof scoop running ducts inside the cockpit and directly to the TB.

Rob.
Just was wondering if there was a natural aspiration class. I figured you may have built it for that, that was all. :shrug:

As for the destroys the power, agreed its all subjective. Not sure of what other way to put it. In your own words your car made 220whp, the supercharged one you are comparing it to made 300whp. Whatever that equates to at the end of a straight at X track, in comparison to some other vehicle, I dunno. As you pointed out there are a million variables that go into speed at the end of a straight away on some local track.

Just saying it is typically "easiest" to extract power via forced induction. Building reliable NA power is always pricey, and that's where the real difficult engineering comes in. Race gas, 14:1, big cams, ITBs, lots of head/valvetrain work, tuned exhaust headers, good EMS tune, etc. Versus Stock motor + supercharger + tune. I know in my case I'll bet I spent more money to build a 285whp NA setup than a 385whp supercharged setup. Ironically the supercharged setup has been far more reliable and even if it does break I just go out and grab another used TSX engine from the boneyard for $1500. Not trying to turn it into a debate of NA versus supercharging just stating a point that its typically "easy" (and cheap) to make power from an FI setup.

P.S. There are lots of ways to skin a cat and truth-be-told I am an NA lover at heart. Especially in this chassis! I really do think its cool to see someone compete with an NA setup. And clearly the combination of driver, powertrain, chassis, suspension, etc. are doing well so congrats. :up:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,738 Posts
Discussion Starter #17 (Edited)
I think the DRS NA setup is really cool by all measures. That said Rob, you're comparing a car with a sequential to those 211a with a standard H pattern with crappy ratios, etc. You and I both know that sequential tranny is worth no less than 5 seconds on a typical track. Put that same tranny in Jack's 211 and he'll be several MPH faster down the straight and again several seconds faster...

DSM is right, $ for $, can't beat FI. Reliability at the 300whp on these motors is no big deal, IMO...

-PV
Sequential doesn't give you more power ... slightly less drivetrain loss, but not huge, it does shift faster. So you are saying that Jack needs to swap out that crappy tranny then? ;)

I don't have Apple to Apple data to confirm the Quaife was 5 seconds faster ... the Quaife still requires heal/toe on downshifts so it's not that huge an advantage. The only data I have of before and after included other changes to my car such as rubber and wheels ... my Infineon data showed 4.1 second improvement, but I was running Hankook C71 on Monolites vs. Hooser R6 on stock LSS wheels ... according to my Apples to Apples Fontana data I gained 3.5 seconds from wheel/tire change alone (all pre-Quaife). So factor that data in and that would indicate to me the Quaife gained me about 1 to 1.5 seconds ... certainly not 5 seconds - wishful thinking perhaps (and I admit I'm guilty of that wishful thinking also).

So how's your OS Giken differential holding up Phil? More wiped cams? Exploding oil pump gears? I can go on and on but having a debate with you is pretty pointless.

I think $ for $ I just did beat FI ... lets see how it pans out long term before you start making those speculations.

Just sayin'

Rob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
750 Posts
Just was wondering if there was a natural aspiration class. I figured you may have built it for that, that was all. :shrug:

As for the destroys the power, agreed its all subjective. Not sure of what other way to put it. In your own words your car made 220whp, the supercharged one you are comparing it to made 300whp. Whatever that equates to at the end of a straight at X track, in comparison to some other vehicle, I dunno. As you pointed out there are a million variables that go into speed at the end of a straight away on some local track.

Just saying it is typically "easiest" to extract power via forced induction. Building reliable NA power is always pricey, and that's where the real difficult engineering comes in. Race gas, 14:1, big cams, ITBs, lots of head/valvetrain work, tuned exhaust headers, good EMS tune, etc. Versus Stock motor + supercharger + tune. I know in my case I'll bet I spent more money to build a 285whp NA setup than a 385whp supercharged setup. Ironically the supercharged setup has been far more reliable and even if it does break I just go out and grab another used TSX engine from the boneyard for $1500. Not trying to turn it into a debate of NA versus supercharging just stating a point that its typically "easy" (and cheap) to make power from an FI setup.

P.S. There are lots of ways to skin a cat and truth-be-told I am an NA lover at heart. Especially in this chassis! I really do think its cool to see someone compete with an NA setup. And clearly the combination of driver, powertrain, chassis, suspension, etc. are doing well so congrats. :up:
Several good points.

I think we all agree that the intent of this thread is not to compare NA to FI. It's obvious that FI makes more power easier. How well it is excuted is not always so obvious.

The purpose of this thread is to demonstrate the potential of the 2ZZ naturally-aspirated. To also demonstrate that it is a viable alternative option with it's own set of unique benefits specifically for Lotus chassis in a road racing environment.

What has value to one racer may not to another, and that's OK everyone's needs or wants and finances are not always going to be the same... The cost of one of our built NA engines is nominaly more than a properly built FI engine for roadrace use (different than a street only engine). And then you have to account for the costs of the FI systems with intercooling. So if looking a the big picture NA does cost less (for a 2ZZ used for racing).

Also, to be clear, when I refer to racing I mean racing wheel-to-wheel for at least 20 min. Track days and time trials do not exert the same work and abuse to an engine (really the whole car in general). For example, when we raced with LPL in World Challenge our engine had to last for 50 min sprints (plus many practice hours and qualifying). We know first hand what it takes to make them live (and it's not cheap $), the same engine from Long Beach 2010 is still in that car running now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,115 Posts
I think the DRS NA setup is really cool by all measures. That said Rob, you're comparing a car with a sequential to those 211a with a standard H pattern with crappy ratios, etc. You and I both know that sequential tranny is worth no less than 5 seconds on a typical track. Put that same tranny in Jack's 211 and he'll be several MPH faster down the straight and again several seconds faster...

DSM is right, $ for $, can't beat FI. Reliability at the 300whp on these motors is no big deal, IMO...

-PV
i would find 5 sec. or more very hard to believe, certainly F1 cars did not see that huge a jump (although not apples to apples as such race cars would already be geared to use every gear in the box)... 2 or 3 seconds sure, but 5 or more??? thats A LOT of time...

actually the gears in the transmission DO make power :) try driving around in sixth only and tell me the ratios don't "make power" that is their job. mechanical force amplification. (or reduction). "a bigger leaver"

for a N/A car the advantage would be even bigger (no doubt why you saw the need to change) so that you can maximize an rpm range. (use all six? gears) it wouldn't surprise me if the 2/11 are using only 4 gears (edit: i just watched andy's video and he only using 3 gears, and looks like you are using 4...).... but the low end torq. of the F/I can probably get away with it with less consequences on lap times than a N/A car would suffer.

i can see a lot of advantages with a sequential box in this case, i am not convinced 5 seconds or more worth. but 2 or 3 i could see that. but probably less so for the F/I cars that can pull the wider gears.

2 things that don't impress about 2/11's... the transaxle, and the sump...

but i love them still :)

btw - the esses are crazy fast ccw !!!

regardless, great car / project! and great race event. keep it up guys!
 
1 - 20 of 84 Posts
Top