Who knows of an Engine Importer

[Swindog]

put the 3.6 crank in, forge it up with short rods, twin turbo it and enjoy massive torque at low revs.

[Koom]

Actually after doing some maffs. I reckon just turbo'ing the EZ30R is a betterer idea. Your rpm limit (i.e. keeping g-forces equal between 3.0L and 3.6L) will be higher with the EZ30R to the point where it makes up for the lack of capacity.

For example; the EZ36 internals are undergoing 4000g's at ~7670rpm. The EZ30R at 4000g's is doing ~8350rpm.

I may need to check my calcs later when I haven't been sampling from a Heineken Keg.

sidenote: the more I've stared at the EZ36 rods tonight the more I've noticed that they're not bent at all. The shank of the rod still goes straight between the big and little end centres. The cap on the big end is rotated ~30 degrees. Would be interesting to see what clearance issues there is in the bottom of that motor to necessitate making odd rods. Or is the crank really offset? Thats some more maths that I'm trying to work out right now to see if it would be a good thing. Have found no evidence to say yay or nay on this for the EZ36 though.

[Koom]

Now I'm wondering if the rotated caps are just to help installing the rods into the motor?

Cause how are the other 6 cylinder motor's assembled? i.e. the 4 cylinder motors have the bungs to put the gudgeon pins in through the side. Do you assemble the pistons onto the rods and then put the caps on the big end of the rod once they're in the motor on the 6 cylinders? Or do they somehow get built like the 4 cylinders with the crank and rods installed and then the pistons afterwards?

Anyone know where there's a manual for either the EZ30R or EZ36? I'd love to have a read.

[Guest keltik]

I believe the wrist pins get installed by the same method as on the 4 cylinders. You just spin the crank 180 degrees so the center piston is below the 2 outside ones - then use some freaky long tools to slide the pin home and attach that clip thingy.

If you want some nice exploded diagrams of the bottom end, download that massive PDF for the 1998-2003 Liberty. It has the H6 engine in it.

[Guest boostin]

The EZ30 is assembled the same as the 4's, and yes, getting the gudgeon pin into the centre piston is a mission!!

I know the diesels have the same rotated rod caps, and that you drop the complete rod and piston assembly into the bore and bolt the cap on after. I can only assume the EZ36 is the same.

[Koom]

I'd make the assumption then that the rotated rod cap allows the piston to travel further down the bore because there is no longer a hole through the side of the bore so it won't mess with the oil rings anymore. As well as being assembled from underneath. Would still make life really "fun" trying to find a way to bolt up some fat aftermarket rods.

[Guest boostin]

I'll check out the service manual on monday, see whether it's got those access holes or not.

[Koom]

I have been doing some more maths today and drawn some graphs. If you offset the crank from the centreline of the bore, you get some really interesting results i.e. piston reaches TDC well after crank, can maintain piston rate of acceleration for longer and most interestingly, using the EZ30R as the basis, you could make a 3.6L engine with the same crank and boring it from 89.2mm to 91mm (as Subaru have done) if you offset the crank by 60mm.

If it is inline with the bore, it gives 3190cc. But with the 60mm offset, you can use 10mm longer rods (for better rod ratio) and the geometry means that the piston travels through an 89.4mm stroke (even though the crank is only 80mm).

Now I just wish that the CNC machines at work were capable of machining a block from a billet of alloy!

[Guest boostin]

You have waaaaay to much time on your hands!!

[funkytown]

thats pretty cool.. but maffs on a sunday is banned or should be

[Guest boostcut]

yeah, i was going to say the same. damn engineers with brains. you and clunt should start some sort of disassemble subaru engines with your brain type of business

[Koom]

Tell me about it! Can't spend money on my car's til I've returned from a trip to Ireland so have to fill in my time somehow

And just sitting round drinking beer was making me fat, so at least now I have achieved some results whilst getting fatter.

[Koom]

 boostcut']

yeah, i was going to say the same. damn engineers with brains. you and clunt should start some sort of disassemble subaru engines with your brain type of business

I want a CAD system that works off brain waves so I can design stuff while I'm sleeping. Then use my awake time for more useful things.....like doing maths haha

[quote name='funkytown said:

thats pretty cool.. but maffs on a sunday is banned or should be

My maths is like a milkshake, it brings all the girls to the yard.

[Koom]

Just because everyone likes pictures here's some graphs of what I've discovered tonight.

The crank offset of each line can be seen in the legend on the left (-80mm to +100mm in relation to the direction of rotation).

The bold red line is what the graph should look like if the crank was directly centred on the bore (as per normal).

The piston acceleration through one crank rotation;

Here you can see that the more negative the crank offset, the longer the piston maintains a positive acceleration after TDC. Green line.

Also in the case of 80mm offset [both positive and negative] (i.e. in this case offset=stroke, the maximum positive and negative accelerations are balanced whereas normally the acceleration at BDC is ~1/2 the max acceleration)

The piston velocity;

Here you can see the "normal" piston is stationary at TDC (velocity=0). If the crank is offset in a negative direction (green line), the piston reaching TDC is offset to well after the crank has passed 0 degrees. Positively offset cranks increase the maximum piston velocity quite alot. This will cause issues with the heads reaching choke velocity (i.e. airspeeds above mach 0.5 and approaching mach 1.0).

If the crank is negatively offset, the velocity stays positive for longer and doesn't increase above "normal" maximum positive velocity too much, if at all, and instead the negative velocity [right hand side of graph] (i.e. speed of piston pushing air out the exhaust valves and driving the turbo) increases which would help greatly in spooling turbo's as the air will have a greater momentum and this air has also been accelerated more rapidly than normal from BDC.

And the magical one, the piston position (0mm means that its at TDC);

Here's where I freaked out a bit as I realised that the crank offset increased the capacity of the engine without changing the stroke at all. All these lines are modelled with an 80mm stroke and as you can see, the "normal" piston (red line) travels 80mm from the datum in one rotation yet by offsetting the crank you can make the piston travel through a stroke of over 100mm with an 80mm crank.

The rod length changes as shown below (this is calculated by keeping the deck height the same for all models)

Offset Rod Length

1 -80 149.24

2 -60 141.69

3 -40 136.10

4 -20 132.66

5 0 131.50

6 20 132.66

7 40 136.10

8 60 141.69

9 80 149.24

10 100 158.53

Which gives a better rod ratio.

I still need to develop the spreadsheet to show maximum horizontal forces on the piston amongst a few other parameters that I want to map out.

I have a similar spreadsheet showing a comparison of many popular turbo engines as I'm trying to find out why Mitsi's make power more easily. At the moment, out of all the different configurations, the Subaru engines are all in the top half of the list for rev happiness (which also means they will have higher boost thresholds and need to be revv'ed to make power). Which is where oiling comes into play as I am currently guessing that the oiling system will cause issues before the forces on the parts are as high as they are in something like a B18C or a stroked 4G63.

And thats the end of Engine Physics 101 for tonight ;D

[Old Skool Subbie]

 Koom']

Just buy an EZ36 crank and stuff it into your EZ30R Clint. Gives you 3.4L, will pull like a schoolboy but probably won't scream as hard when you're giving it a thrashing cause you'll need to use a short rod which will reduce your rod ratio quite a bit.

The 36 crank will not work.. Because the EZ30 and the EZ36 are almost completely different.

The crank will not fit in a EZ30. Since the oil pump drive is in a completely different place... If you look futher down the thread it shows the guy compairing the EZ30/36 parts.

[quote name='sponaugle said:

As mentioned in this thread and a few others, Cobb no longer has an engine program, so EZ30R Cobb parts are not available. The crank pictured in this thread is a modified EZ36 crank. Unfortunatly this crank is not a direct drop in for the EZ30. Not only is the oil pump drive different, but the additional stroke requires a very special rod.

Take a look at a Post I made last year:

(pulled from url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?p=24087432&highlight=EZ30R#post24087432[/url])

Here are a few things to look at:

As you can see, the change in the oil pump location (which is now in the oil pan), makes the EZ36 crank incompatible with the EZ30/EZ30R case. This prevents the use of the 3.6 crank (which has longer stroke) in the EZ30 application.

You can also see the new EZ36 rod, which is very unusual. The asymmetrically design is needed to clear the case with the longer stroke. This rod is required to get the stroke to fit in the 3.6 case, and would not be usable in the 3.0L applications.

So, in short, nearly everything is different. The heads are not compatible due to a change in the coolent passages, so the only option is a complete 3.6 buildup. Given the rod limitation, this looks to be very difficult.

The stroke in the 3.6 is 91mm vs 80mm in the 3.0, and the bore is 92mm vs 89.2mm. So both more bore and stroke.

Yep, I hoped it would work, but it looks unlikely. The change in the oil system makes crank swapping very difficult! You could over-bore the 3.0R motor, but it would make the liners even thinner then they currently are.

Given the rod limitation, I think you could handle much more power with the 3.0 with aftermarket rods. I had little trouble breaking a stock 3.0R rods at the 400whp level, and the rods in the 3.6 look even weaker.

More to come..

Jeff Sponaugle

Also another guy I was talking too, Owned a new EZ36 powered Legacy and he said It didnt like to run at higher Revs.

[Old Skool Subbie]

I would love to see some one do A EZ36 turbo build ive only seen one place attempt it in the States?

They ran in to troubles with the motor and that was the last I heard.

[Koom]

 Old Skool Subbie']

[quote name='Koom said:

Just buy an EZ36 crank and stuff it into your EZ30R Clint. Gives you 3.4L, will pull like a schoolboy but probably won't scream as hard when you're giving it a thrashing cause you'll need to use a short rod which will reduce your rod ratio quite a bit.

/quote]

The 36 crank will not work.. Because the EZ30 and the EZ36 are almost completely different.

The crank will not fit in a EZ30. Since the oil pump drive is in a completely different place... If you look futher down the thread it shows the guy compairing the EZ30/36 parts.

Meh thats nothing a CNC machining centre and a dry sump setup couldn't solve though. And don't worry, I never thought that our beloved Vice pres would actually follow through with anything that I've told him to do. He knows better than that

And until someone can show me some measurements of whats going on inside an EZ36, I'm going to stick to my earlier thoughts that he should turbo his EZ30R.

[Guest boostin]

One thing I just realised is that the new Legacy with the 3.6 has an entirely different engine mounting system, so you will have to make sure it's a 3.6 from a 08 or 09 Tribeca, as they still used the old style mounts.

[DRFVDR]

 boostin said:

One thing I just realised is that the new Legacy with the 3.6 has an entirely different engine mounting system, so you will have to make sure it's a 3.6 from a 08 or 09 Tribeca, as they still used the old style mounts.

so is there a 3.6 litre Legacy RS ?????

[GC8E2DD]

http://www.subaru.co.nz/New_Vehicles/Legacy/3.6R/

[DRFVDR]

wot no wagon

[nt_a_foz]

 boostcut said:

yeah, i was going to say the same. damn engineers with brains. you and clunt should start some sort of disassemble subaru engines with your brain type of business

to bad clint doesnt know one end of the car from the other haha

[Guest boostcut]

or wrong from right. "damn strainer posts aye dad"