[v12-engine] Lightweight flywheel or not

In fact in 33 revolutions there will be 198 ignition events. Duh! But still
only 16 injection events.-----Original Message-----

However during this time, the engine has only turned 33 revolutions. That is
16 power strokes or hardly more than 1 ignition event per cylinder. Given
the batch fired nature of the injection and the crudity of the ignition

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

On the systems I have experience with (D-Jet and GM) batch fire occurs one per crank revolution. So that gives 33 injection cycles.

33 cycles doesn’t sound like a lot, but it is plenty to cover a 1000 rpm change in 1/2 second, since there is only a difference of about 30 RPM between succeeding calculations.A 30 RPM difference is a trivial calculation for even the earliest digital ECUs

My experience with programming EFI is that the mechanical lag in the system is more difficult. The MAP sensors have response time, the induction tract has pressure rise time, etc. So if you snap the throttle open at 1000 RPM, the ECU knows from the change in throttle position that something is coming, before the air even hits the intake valve! The trick is to calculate/guess just how much change is coming based on throttle position, throttle rate of change, current engine load, air temperature, coolant temperature, etc, etc.

And then smoothly back all of that out again as the MAP sensor comes online with updated values.

Its a complicated and dynamic system. The traditional way is to fudge it over with a generous sprinkling of extra fuel via a few lookup tables. Over the decades these transient fueling controls have gotten ever more sophisticated, improving both emissions and fuel economy as the need to over-fuel is reduced dramatically.

-Gary> On Oct 20, 2015, at 7:09 PM, Mark Eaton MEaton@Compuspec.com wrote:

In fact in 33 revolutions there will be 198 ignition events. Duh! But still
only 16 injection events.

-----Original Message-----

However during this time, the engine has only turned 33 revolutions. That is
16 power strokes or hardly more than 1 ignition event per cylinder. Given
the batch fired nature of the injection and the crudity of the ignition

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

Testing by the MegaSquirt guys showed no increase in power going to sequential unless one took the time to tune individual cylinder fueling. Given the design of the V12 intake and exhaust, there is most certainly some gain to be had in that area.

Sequential could provide smoother response in transient conditions. Batch injection is only going to calculate each time cylinder 1A hits TDC, so by definition, every other cylinder has too much or not enough fuel under any change in load or speed.

This is more a problem with added air than added RPM, as it is possible to go from 10kPa to 100kPa MAP than it is to go from 1000 to 6000 RPM…

The 90’s era GM systems I am familiar with attempt to overcome this by interrupting the normal injection schedule with additional “asynchronous” (i.e. right now) fuel shots in the event of throttle openings over a certain threshold.

-Gary

By the time you grab 2nd gear, the engine is likely spinning at least twice
as fast (3000 - 5000 rpm) hence twice as many injection and ignition events
and twice as quick to respond to changing fuelling demands. So most probably
much better responses could be expected in 2nd.

It could probably be argued that a switch to sequential injection might well
improve performance by an equivalent amount, without the flywheel change. Or
doing both would help prevent the engine “bogging down” on launch.

Rgds
Mark

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

In reply to a message from Mark Eaton sent Tue 20 Oct 2015:

Mark
It would be interesting to spin the flywheel up to 8000
RPM and see how highly stressed it is. Any mods to these
spinning beasties comes with an attendant increase in
stress in the metal…and failure would be a nasty event.
Matt–
The original message included these comments:

A rough model of a Jag flywheel has moment of inertia of 0.2 kg/m^2 while
the Fidanza alloy flywheel has inertia of 0.076 kg/m^2.


Matt Furness 85XJS-HE 5 Speed Manual
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

The twin mass flywheels fitted to AJ-6 and
probably post 1990 3.2/4.0L AJ6 are incredibly heavy.

Yeah, well, they’re addressing a purpose that the regular flywheels
do not. They’d actually be better called a torsional damper than a
flywheel.

– Kirbert

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !On 20 Oct 2015 at 11:52, PeterCrespin wrote:

The XJS system is somewhat unique in having the
MAP sensor mounted in another time zone. Ideally the AE (acceleration
enrichment) map would be programmed to cover this condition. On top of
that, WOT condition brings power enrichment into play, so there should
be more than enough fuel pouring in when you ´stomp it’. But perhaps
Jaguar did not bother to tune it at all, or kept it very lean for fuel
economy reasons. It would be simple enough to monitor the oxygen
sensor output and see if it goes lean under rapid acceleration.

I doubt if it goes lean. I suspect it goes rich! Which kills all
the power and contributes to the rather lackadaisical rate at which
these engines spin up in neutral.

– Kirbert

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !On 20 Oct 2015 at 14:59, Gary Evans wrote:

So if you snap the
throttle open at 1000 RPM, the ECU knows from the change in throttle
position that something is coming, before the air even hits the
intake valve!

As I understand it, the 6CU and 16CU ECU’s in the mid-80’s models did
NOT look at throttle position during accels other than to fire all
the injectors to simulate the action of a fuel pump. This is
apparently what Bywater does with his Super Enhanced ECU: He adds
the circuitry to switch the control of the fuelling over to the
throttle pot briefly during accels and then back to the MAP sensor
after it’s had time to get the manifold pressure signal. It worked
splendidly on my '83; the accels were dramatically improved. But
Bywater explains that it makes the condition of the throttle pot
critical; if it develops any flakiness, you can’t just keep driving
along like you can with the OEM setup. You’ve gotta fix it.

Its a complicated and dynamic system. The traditional way is to fudge
it over with a generous sprinkling of extra fuel via a few lookup
tables.

Yeah, that’s apparently another benefit of Bywater’s enhancements;
the base fuelling map is less rich, which means more power –
especially during snap accels and WOT operation where the oxygen
sensors aren’t doing any correcting.

– Kirbert

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !On 20 Oct 2015 at 22:04, Gary Evans wrote:

Any mods to these
spinning beasties comes with an attendant increase in
stress in the metal…and failure would be a nasty event.

Not necessarily. If you do your job right, modifying/lightening the
OEM flywheel could actually REDUCE the stresses on it. Holding all
that mass spinning around at the outer edge is what’s generating the
stress.

– Kirbert

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !On 21 Oct 2015 at 0:30, MattFurness wrote:

In reply to a message from Kirbert sent Wed 21 Oct 2015:

True, but it’s no coincidence those 3.6 engines were rough
for a six and launch was even delYed because of it. The
roughness was EFI and alloy-block related too, but if you
are after refinement, which was very high on Jaguar’s
priority list, heavy is good and heavier is better for a
smooth-driving sedan. Ironically, they applied similar
logic to the Getrag gearboxes themselves, which used
amassively-heavy gear knob on those early Jags to smooth
out the gearchange feel.–
The original message included these comments:

The twin mass flywheels fitted to AJ-6 and
probably post 1990 3.2/4.0L AJ6 are incredibly heavy.
Yeah, well, they’re addressing a purpose that the regular flywheels
do not. They’d actually be better called a torsional damper than a
flywheel.


1E75339 66 D, 1R27190 70 FHC, 79 S2 XJ12L
Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

I did an FEA analysis on it, and it wasn’t pretty. I don’t have the exact
data to hand. My recollection was the alloy flywheel was quite marginal
around the crank flange area. I am not 100% sure if the flywheel I reverse
engineered was a Fidanza, but it was machined for a 7 1/4" clutch, but
normal Jag ring gear. So there was very little “outer” mass.

This is why I am planning for a lightened steel flywheel.

It is the same reduced mass as the alloy, but has 30% less inertia (when
clutch fitted) and is 2-3 times stronger (and doesn’t require fancy inserts
for the clutch pressure plate).

Rgds
Mark

It would be interesting to spin the flywheel up to 8000
RPM and see how highly stressed it is. Any mods to these
spinning beasties comes with an attendant increase in
stress in the metal…and failure would be a nasty event.
Matt–

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

…but if you
are after refinement, which was very high on Jaguar’s
priority list, heavy is good and heavier is better for a
smooth-driving sedan.

That would make sense on the A/T – but the A/T doesn’t use a
flywheel! A flywheel is ONLY used on a M/T, and refinement isn’t
generally in the cards for a stick shift.

– Kirbert

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !On 21 Oct 2015 at 5:33, PeterCrespin wrote:

I did an FEA analysis on it, and it wasn’t pretty. I don’t have the
exact data to hand. My recollection was the alloy flywheel was quite
marginal around the crank flange area.

As in strength? So, just revise the design to make things stiffer
where needed! I don’t believe there’s a problem with clearance in
that area.

I am not 100% sure if the
flywheel I reverse engineered was a Fidanza, but it was machined for a
7 1/4" clutch, but normal Jag ring gear.

OK, I seem to recall that I put a 10-1/2" Chevy clutch in mine. The
OEM Jaguar clutch used on their 4-speeds was an 11" IIRC – and they
had durability issues. How the heck would you ever expect the size
clutch from a Honda Civic to do the job here? Is it a completely
different type of clutch, like a multi-plate or something?

– Kirbert

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !On 22 Oct 2015 at 15:01, Mark Eaton wrote:

In reply to a message from Kirbert sent Thu 22 Oct 2015:

fidenza flywheel is drilled for 10 1/2’’ or 11’'. I used 10
1/2 from mustang.–
The original message included these comments:

OK, I seem to recall that I put a 10-1/2’’ Chevy clutch in mine. The
OEM Jaguar clutch used on their 4-speeds was an 11’’ IIRC – and they


john rinaman '84 xjs 5 speed
zelienople,pa, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

In reply to a message from Mark Eaton sent Wed 21 Oct 2015:

Mark:

This is an interesting post- when I pull this engine to
replace with the build I am engaging now, I will carefully
inspect this for cracking of any sort. I am planning to
put more power here, although I don’t see that I will be
going much north of 5500-6000 RPM.

Mine is an aluminum wheel as used in the original Keisler
kit, when it was very early in production (the kit; I don’t
know how new the development of the aluminum wheel was at
that time).

Still, I do not want to court a problem with this wheel
bursting. You are making me want to install a scatter
shield or a Kevlar blanket, now!

Mind you, I am not a 'rev ‘er up and dump the clutch’ kind
of driver, nor am I spending a lot of time above 5000, but
I never the less would not want any condition under which
that wheel can come apart.

-M–
The original message included these comments:

I did an FEA analysis on it, and it wasn’t pretty. I don’t have the exact
data to hand. My recollection was the alloy flywheel was quite marginal
around the crank flange area. I am not 100% sure if the flywheel I reverse
engineered was a Fidanza, but it was machined for a 7 1/4’’ clutch, but


Mike, '90 5.3 XJS Conv., 5-spd+3.54, SE-ECU+TT F/R bars
Lakewood, OH, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

I am planning to
put more power here, although I don’t see that I will be
going much north of 5500-6000 RPM.

Just a guess, I haven’t run any numbers or anything, but I’d guess
that the lion’s share of the stresses on the flywheel come from
centrifugal effects, not engine torque.

I have experience with the design of jet engine disks, which are far
more highly stressed, the ones in the P&WA F-100 engine being
somewhat larger than our flywheel and turning a LOT faster, like
16,000 rpm for 4000 hours between overhauls. At such speeds, any
metal outboard of a particular radius is a negative – it adds more
stress than strength. A “hoop” larger than that would fly apart, the
metal simply isn’t strong enough to hold together as a hoop. The
strength comes from a much smaller, thicker hub at the ID of the
disk, and this transitions to a thin membrane that holds the OD in
place via radial tension.

Under such conditions, there are a few general guidelines to
remember:

  • The thinner and lighter the OD section of the disk, the better.

  • The ID section of the disk needs to be thick and strong. Of
    course, jet engine designers want to make it as light as possible, so
    very careful consideration goes into exactly how thick this “hub”
    section needs to be. It’s still generally the most massive part of a
    jet engine, though.

  • Holes are bad; they cause stress concentrations that will lead to
    cracks after many cycles (engine start/stop events). For a durable
    design, bolt holes near the OD would be fashioned as follows: They
    would NOT be threaded but rather would be a clean hole with the edges
    carefully rounded and polished. There might be a pair of smaller
    holes, one on each side of the bolt hole itself, so that the three
    holes form a o O o pattern aligned circumferentially around the
    flywheel.

When I looked at my Jaguar flywheel, I was a bit surprised to find
NONE of this thinking in its design. Clearly, centrifugal stress and
fatigue life are not significant players in piston engine flywheel
design. Still, those guidelines would inform my attempts to modify
or lighten this flywheel, if only to ensure that I was improving its
durability rather than shortening it.

I never the less would not want any condition under which
that wheel can come apart.

That’d be bad. If you look at many military fighter aircraft, you’ll
see they sometimes actually paint a red stripe around the plane
indicating where the turbine disks are. The stripe is a warning not
to stand in line with them. If they came apart, that’d be bad.

Waaaaay back in the day – this was probably the 1970’s or 1980’s –
a friend of mine who was in the car biz attended something called
“The Great Engine Blow”. Some shop that prepared BMW engines (inline
sixes) for competition had decided they were going to test one of
their racing engines to failure – run it until it came apart. As
long as they were gonna do that, they decided to invite pretty much
anyone in the car biz that wanted to come watch.

The engine was mounted in a dyno and was in its own room, connected
to a zillion instruments and sensors. The operator and the crowd
were watching from behind a bulletproof glass window. The engine was
started, warmed up, and then proceeded to run at higher and higher
RPM’s for quite a while. After perhaps an hour of stepping ever
higher in RPM, they reached 12,000 RPM. At this point, the flywheel
came apart and buried itself in the walls, three or four pieces.
Fortunately, it didn’t hit the glass; nobody knows if it would have
actually stopped it. Anyhow, the engine kept right on running! The
guy in charge, perhaps tired of running far faster than anyone in his
right mind would race this thing anyway, said “@#$% it!” and jammed
the thing to full throttle/no load. The RPM’s immediately pegged the
tach which only went to 20,000 RPM. There it sat for six minutes,
after which it just quietly came to a stop, totally seized.

I coulda told ‘em why it seized. An automotive oil pump won’t pump
oil at those RPM’s, it just cavitates hopelessly. If, during that
run, they had let the speed drop down to 5000 about once a minute to
let the pump send some fresh oil through the bearings, there’s no
tellin’ how long it might have run. What’s more, I coulda told 'em
how to design an oil pump that wouldn’t cavitate. But, again, nobody
would run such an engine at those speeds anyway, so it was moot.

It’s also worth noting that Bywater once told us that the limiting
factor in the Jaguar V12’s redline was not the engine but rather the
torque converter bolted to it. The OEM welded torque converter is
relatively soft steel, and running that fast will eventually cause it
to distort. When that happens, vanes inside that are supposed to
miss each other start to hit each other, and the tranny quickly fills
up with metal shavings. Ungood. That’s why those interested in
running an A/T that fast are advised to upgrade to “furnace brazed”
torque converter. There’s nothing inherently better about brazing
vs. welding, but brazing allows you to make the housing of the
converter itself out of much harder steel and not lose the temper due
to welding it together. It’s the harder steel that gives the torque
converter its strength to resist distortion at high RPM.

– Kirbert

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !On 22 Oct 2015 at 6:53, mike90 wrote:

In reply to a message from Kirbert sent Thu 22 Oct 2015:

Yes it is.

The rest of the world got lots of stick shift Jags and
thry aRe plenty refined. In fact when I was in the mode I
liked to try and make the changes slicker and less
noticeable than a slushbox, which is perfectly possible.–
The original message included these comments:

flywheel! A flywheel is ONLY used on a M/T, and refinement isn’t
generally in the cards for a stick shift.


1E75339 66 D, 1R27190 70 FHC, 79 S2 XJ12L
Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
–Support Jag-lovers - Donate at http://www.jag-lovers.org/donate04.php

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

It was a triple plate clutch. The smaller flywheel allows the engine to be
mounted about 2" lower in the car.

I just ran a quick FEA on the alloy flywheel and the Factor Of Safety is
0.57 at 8000rpm. That is NOT GOOD. It should preferably be better than 1.5
and ideally 3 or more.

At 6,500 rpm the FOS is 0.86. Still very bad.

This was with no engine torque in this simulation, which I think is minor in
comparison.

Rgds
Mark-----Original Message-----
Is it a completely
different type of clutch, like a multi-plate or something?

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

It was a triple plate clutch. The smaller flywheel allows the engine
to be mounted about 2" lower in the car.

Well, if you go with a smaller flywheel to match! I’m not sure
what the point of running a triple plate clutch with the OEM diameter
flywheel would be.

I just ran a quick FEA on the alloy flywheel and the Factor Of Safety
is 0.57 at 8000rpm. That is NOT GOOD. It should preferably be better
than 1.5 and ideally 3 or more.

Yeah, that’s not good. I’ve long wondered about the wisdom of
aluminum in this application. Perhaps your calculations indicate
it’s not really very wise.

– Kirbert

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !On 23 Oct 2015 at 11:09, Mark Eaton wrote:

Some recollection is coming back to me. The problem with the OEM
Jaguar V12 flywheel, really, is that the plane of the ring gear is
too far from the clutch face. Jaguar fills in that space with steel.

The way I was pondering lightening up the steel flywheel was to cut a
deep slot starting from the outer rim inward, effectively separating
the clutch surface from the ring gear with a gap. This keeps both
the ring gear and the clutch face attached to the ID of the flywheel,
each with its own radial web section. I’d also cut some of the OD of
the clutch face off, as I don’t think it needs to be as large as it
is, and I might scallop it between bolt holes as well. The section
of the flywheel holding the ring gear doesn’t need to be very thick;
in the A/T the ring gear is held only by a piece of sheet metal. I’d
want to leave the area where the ring gear is welded to the flywheel
unmolested, though. Meanwhile, the section with the clutch facing
needs to be a bit thicker, I’d guess 3/16" or so. Ideally, I’d taper
the thickness of this section, thinner at the outer edge but tapering
to thicker towards the center. This would make the deep slot get
narrower at its bottom. During assembly, the clutch plate would be
installed using nuts inside that slot.

Another idea I had was to cut about a half inch off the back side of
the flywheel, including slicing the ring gear clean off as well as
about 1/16" of the surface of the mating flange to the crank. Then
I’d install the flywheel along with the flexplate from the A/T to
provide the ring gear; the locating dowels and mounting bolts would
go through the flywheel and the flex plate into the crank flange.
The problem I had with this idea was that I don’t believe the
flywheel would be properly piloted on the crank. There’s one pilot
diameter at the OD of the crank flange mating to a lip on the
flywheel, but that lip would have to be sliced off to make room for
the flex plate. There’s another pilot diameter at the ID of the
flywheel – surrounding the pilot bushing – but I dunno if it stands
tall enough to reach past the flex plate and effectively piloting the
flywheel itself. If not, the ONLY thing holding the flywheel
centered would be the locating dowels. That might be good enough,
since they are very closely machined indeed.

– Kirbert

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !

That’d be bad. If you look at many military fighter aircraft, you’ll
see they sometimes actually paint a red stripe around the plane
indicating where the turbine disks are. The stripe is a warning not
to stand in line with them. If they came apart, that’d be bad.

– Kirbert-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even more bad in a commercial jet.
I always feel a bit nervous in a window seat opposite the front end of
an underwing engine.
Most folks have no ideas there is a big disc spinning right in line
with their seat.
In theory a ruptured disc is contained, I think that is part of
certification, but in practice . . . . .

Airlines should put a red stripe there and sell cheaper seats in the
line of fire.

Richard Dowling, Melbourne, Australia. 1979 coupe + HE V12 + manual;
1989 convertible; 2003 XJ350.

Visit the Jag Lovers homepage at http://www.jag-lovers.org for exciting services and resources including Photo Albums, Event Diary / Calendar, On Line Books and more !