SETA-Motorblock + 284/272 Nockenwelle

[eugeman]

Ich habe einen 129PS SETA-Motorblock 1988, ein "I" Kopf rasierte 0.5 Millimeter, Schrick 284/272 Nockenwelle. Ich suche nach der ungefähr 9.5:1 Kompression.

Wieviel muß ich weg vom zylinderkopt oder (vorzugsweise) vom Motorblock rasieren, zum 9.5:1 zu empfangen, und wieviel muß ich in die Ventilentlastungen im Kolben schneiden, um Störung zu vermeiden?

Traurig für meinen armen Deutschen und wenn möglich, informieren Sie mich bitte auf englisch. Viel Respekt von Kanada, Eugene.

 

I have a 129PS 1988 SETA engine block, an "I" head shaved 0.5 mm, Schrick 284/272 camshaft. I am looking for approximately 9.5:1 compression.

 

How much do I have to shave off the cylinderhead or (preferably) engine block to receive 9.5:1, and how much will I have to cut into the valve reliefs in the piston to avoid interference?

 

Sorry for my poor German, and if possible please let me know in English. Many regards from Kanada, Eugene.

[jenad]

Let's see, if I got you right.

 

You have got an engine block from en ETA. From which car did it came from? 122 HP is the one, you will need.

 

But the engine you are trying to build would not be far better performing than an average 325.

 

By grinding this much, you will need an adjustable camshaft-wheel as well.

 

Maybe you can have a look here: http://wp1016621.wp027.webpack.hosteurope.de/fotost/f00080/f00080.htm

 

If you don't understand it correctly, I can help you translate the important parts.

 

Cheers from germany

[Gast Spiggy]

The compression ratio is then begin at about 8,5:1, exactly as in the series motor, which for optimal performance, but too little. By saving of the cylinder head can be a summarization of approx 9,0:1 reached. Significantly higher values are initially not possible, largely because of Abfräsen block or head to the danger of collision valve / piston. It may only about 0.3 mm from the head or block removed, then Quetschspalt is 0.8 mm which is a lower limit represents

 

Translated by Google

[eugeman]

Der Motorblock ist von 1988 325 (129PS), Zylinderkopf von einem 1987 325i, mein Auto ist ein 325i 1990. Würden nicht die Kolben 129PS ein besseres Design für Verbrennung sein? Ich habe bereits den 129PS Motorblock bereits, also plane ich nicht auf dem Ändern zu den unterschiedlichen Kolben.

Da er rasiert worden ist, 0.5mm bereits weg vom Zylinderkopf, den ich denke, daß ich nah an 9.0:1 bereits bin, aber, wie nah?

Ich stelle daß ein justierbares Nockenwelle Zahnrad fest, zum in der Nockenwelle richtig zu wählen. Wieviel denken Sie das Nockenwelle TIMING sind heraus vorbei, nachdem das ganzes Maching erfolgt ist, um 9.5:1 zu empfangen? Viel Dank!

 

The engine block is from a 1988 325 (129PS), cylinder head from a 1987 325i, my car is a 1990 325i. Wouldn't the 129PS pistons be a better design for combustion? I already have the 129PS engine block already, so I don't plan on changing to different pistons.

Since it has been shaved 0.5mm already off the cylinder head I think I am close to 9.0:1 already, but how close?

I do realize that an adjustable camshaft gear to dial in the camshaft correctly. How much do you think the camshaft timing will be out by after all the maching is done to receive 9.5:1?

Many thanks!

[eugeman]

Andere 0.3 Millimeter so ist zu rasieren das Maximum zum nach der 9.5:1 Kompression zu erreichen, die ich mit meiner Maschine Kombination suche?

Dieses läßt mich sicher mit dem minimalen 0.8 Millimeter Abstand korrekt?

Muß ich die Ventilentlastungen in den Kolben erhöhen, wenn ich andere 0.3 Millimeter rasiere? Dank wieder!

 

So shaving another 0.3 mm is the maximum to reach the 9.5:1 compression I am looking for with my engine combination?

This will leave me safely with the minimum 0.8 mm gap correct?

Will I have to increase the valve reliefs in the pistons if I shave another 0.3 mm? Thanks again!

 

 

[jenad]

What spiggy trie to explain you, is that you can't grind more than 3mm.

 

Compression ratio would be 9,0:1. Because the lower limit for the clamper-edge (I don't know the correct word in english) is 0,8mm.

[Gast Spiggy]

Ich weiß auch nicht was Quetschspalt heißt und Google auch nicht

 

 

A compression of 9,5:1 is not possible because the gap between piston and cylinder head no.

If one 0.3 mm decreases about 9,0:1 be achieved. Every tenth longer means a very high risk for piston and valves.

[eugeman]

Es erhalten, Dankherren. Wieviele Grad rücken vor, oder Verzögerung würde mein Nockenwelle TIMING sein, wenn ich entscheide, andere 0.3 Millimeter weg vom Motorblock zu rasieren + 0.5 Millimeter (bereits erfolgt) = eine 0.8 Millimeter Gesamtmenge?

Auch, wenn Ventil zur Kolbenstörung ein Problem ist, nicht könnte ich die Ventiltaschen im Kolben vergrößern?

 

Got it, thanks gentlemen. How many degrees advance or retard would my camshaft timing be, if I decide to shave another 0.3 mm off the engine block + 0.5 mm (done already)= 0.8 mm total?

 

Also if valve to piston interference is a problem, couldn't I enlarge the valve pockets in the piston?

[cabbiman]

you need an adjustable (nockenwellenrad?!? -->) camshaft time gear (ie http://www.dbilas.de)... you can't moove the drive belt one tooth (i hope you know what i mean *G*), because this will be a bit too much...

some guys modificate the original camshaft time gear:

 

http://www.joewerkstatt.de/43,0,aufbau-des-2-7l-motors,index,0.php#bild7

http://www.joewerkstatt.de/43,0,aufbau-des-2-7l-motors,index,0.php#bild7

 

gruß cabbiman

[Gast Spiggy]

Das Nockenwellenrad nützt Ihm nix weil die 129PS Kolben den Ventilen guten Tag sagen bei 9,5:1

Er kann nicht soviel abnehmen ,es können nur rund 0,3mm von Kopf oder Block abgenommen werden, der Quetschspalt beträgt dann 0,8mm was eine Untergrenze darstellt. Da hilft ihm auch ein verstellbares Nockenwellenrad nicht weiter Die Steuerzeiten sind garnicht sein Problem nur das weiß er nicht.

 

The adjustable Nockenwellenrad benefit him nothing because the 129PS Eta piston valves to say hello

It can only around 0.3 mm from the head or block removed, then Quetschspalt is 0.8 mm which is a lower limit represents.

[eugeman]

Ich möchte mich weg vom Motorblock rasieren, um 9,8:1kompression zu erzielen. Ich stelle fest, dass, wenn ich so tue, ich die Ventiltaschen auf die Kolben vergrößern muss. Wie viel ungefähr rasiere ich mich weg vom Motorblock, um diese Kompression zu erzielen?

 

I would like to shave off the engine block to achieve 9,8:1 compression. I realize that if I do so, I will have to enlarge the valve pockets on top of the pistons. How much approximately do I shave off the engine block to achieve this compression?

[julian8587]

google translation ist so für den arsch, ich möchte mich weg vom motorblock rasieren...

 

der hat ja schon mehr "rasiert" 0,5 so wie ich das verstandeb hab.

 

gruß

 

julian

[eta4life]

Soll ich meine Dienste als Übersetzer anbieten? Dat kostet aber

[eugeman]

Wieviel kostet?

[eta4life]

Just joking, its my profession, or to be precise my future profession. Therefore it might just be a good practice for me... So, please DO NOT use Google Translations any more... That's more than awkward...

 

Just write in English, and if necessary for our engine experts, I will provide a sophisticated translation, as long as you don't write a 300-page novel

[eugeman]

see below

[eugeman]

O.K. Great! My situation is this: I have an 885 "I" cylinder head which has been ported and polished and already has 0.5mm shaved off the mating surface. (I still have the machining limits dimples showing on the bottom so I know that the head has not been shaven beyond what is allowable.) In this modified head sits a Schrick 284/272 camshaft.

 

The short block or bottom end of the engine is from an 1988 325 which is also know as the "SETA". Before the cylinder head was shaved I would have an 8.5:1 compression. Now that my cylinder head has been shaved 0.5mm, I believe I should be ~9.0:1 compression.

 

I do understand that my camshaft timing will be retarded so I have bought an adjustable camshaft gear to bring it back the timing to 0 degrees. Another point which I understand is that the valve reliefs or pockets that are already in the top of the SETA pistons, will have to be enlarged to compensate for the excess decking of the bottom end PLUS the higher lift/longer duration Schrick camshaft.

 

My question is how many mm do I have to shave of the bottom end of the engine to achieve a 9.8:1 compression ratio? I have read that an additional 1.0mm shaved off the bottom end (plus the 0.5mm already shaved off the cylinder head = 1.5mm total), would give me ~9.6:1 which is close to what I am looking for, but I can't seem to get a 100% accurate amount.

 

Thanks from Canada for all your help!

[eta4life]

I don't think we need a translation for that, I think our "experts" already understood you

 

Why do you always call it "SETA"?! I can't imagine that you call the nice "ETA" in Canada "SETA"

 

And our experts told you already, that if you remove to much, your valves will collide with your pistons....

[eugeman]

There is a difference between an "ETA" and a "SETA". The eta engine, at least in North America, was made between 1984-1987:

 

325e Kat (bis 12/86)

Verdichtung 9:1, 122PS bei 4250 U/min, 230 Nm bei 3250U/min, Zweigeber Motronic, Ventilteller- durchmesser: 40/34, Nockenwellenlager: 4, flache Kolbenboden mit tiefer ebener Mulde in der Mitte die an die Brennraumform angepasst ist, Ventiltaschen vorhanden, nur einlassseitig als solche zu bezeichnen, Quetschkante flach durch flache Kolben & Kopf mit kleinerem Brennraumdurchmesser als Zylinderbohrung

 

 

The "SETA" was made for the 1988 year only:

 

325e Kat ab (12/86)

Verdichtung 8,5:1 (teilweise werden auch 8.8 angegeben, nach unseren Erfahrungen 8,5), 129PS bei 4800 U/min, 230 Nm bei 3200U/min, Eingeber Motronic, Ventilteller- durchmesser: 42/36, Nockenwellenlager: 4, Kolbenform am Rand halbrund ansteigend, dann eine seitlich liegende entgegengesetzt gewölbte linsenförmige Mulde, große Ventiltaschen für große Ventile sind deutlich zu sehen, Quetschkante entsprechend der Kolben- und Kopfform schräg

 

 

I DO realize that the valves will collide with the pistons, which I will rectify by cutting bigger valve reliefs in the top of the pistons for the proper 0.8mm clearance, that is not my concern. What I can't seem to get an answer for is how much I will have to shave off the engine block to achieve a 9.8:1 compression ratio? Cheers!

[Gast Spiggy]

For a compression of 9,8:1 you need other pistons. When the top of the piston touchs the cylinderhead

you will have 9,8:1 .It is simply the wrong pistons for such a high compression because its hollow is too deep.

To a summarization of 9,8:1 you need to reach at least the Pistons from the 325i with Catalyst

You have this piston

 

http://wp1016621.wp027.webpack.hosteurope.de/fotost/f00080/129ps.jpg

 

and you need this

 

http://wp1016621.wp027.webpack.hosteurope.de/fotost/f00080/k_171.jpg

[eta4life]

I DO realize that the valves will collide with the pistons, which I will rectify by cutting bigger valve reliefs in the top of the pistons for the proper 0.8mm clearance, that is not my concern. What I can't seem to get an answer for is how much I will have to shave off the engine block to achieve a 9.8:1 compression ratio? Cheers!

 

Übersetzung:

"Mir ist völlig klar dass die Ventile mit den Kolben kollidieren, was ich durch größere Ventiltaschen in den Kolben beheben werde, um den entsprechenden Quetschspalt von 0,8mm zu erreichen. Aber worauf ich bisher keine Antwort erhalten habe ist, um wieviel ich den Zylinderblock abfräsen muss um eine Kompression von 9,8:1 zu erreichen? Danke"

 

That should be sufficient, the answers have to delivered by the experts... the invoice for my services will be sent to you by mail

 

And the engine you call "SETA" is usual only called "Eta" or in some cases "Super-Eta", i think thats what "SETA" refers to... at least in Germany

[eugeman]

O.K. thank you gentlemen. If I leave the Schrick 284/272 camshaft in the cylinder head, and assemble the engine the way it is with the ~9.0:1 compression that I have now, would the engine be a disappointment, or would it still be fun to drive?

 

I never race the car, my objective with this project is to have a fast, fun, street car. So the idle and low-mid range torque characteristics of the engine have to be civilized, but I don't mind to have it 'a little rough around the edges'. Would I be better off with putting the stock 885 "I" camshaft back instead of my current setup? Which is:

 

-Super-eta motorblock 2.7i with ~9.0:1 compression

-ported and polished 885 "I" head

-Schrick 284/272 camshaft and Schrick valve springs

-#19lbs Bosch injectors from a M30b35

-ported intake manifold with a big bore throttle body

-Bavarian Autosport long tube header (deleted cat)

-6.6kg 323i flywheel

-modified tuning chip for the above