# Interesting stuff from AMS



## ANDYR35 (Sep 1, 2008)

As you know, AMS has been hard at work pushing Tim Sanders’ ALPHA 12 GT-R to extreme, unseen limits. Admittedly, it hasn’t exactly been an easy road

Recently, we tested Tim Sanders’ ALPHA 12 GT-R on the AMS Mustang Dyno. The car made 1000ft-lbs of torque on the dyno when it started to push water. We pulled the engine to see what was going on and how things were holding up. For the most part, things looked good but the VR38 Engine was starting to show points of weakness. We made some modifications and prepared to test again.

This week we headed to the track for some test passes and to put a little more R&D into the Alpha package. We started the day running [email protected] on about 950 whp and steadily increased it to almost 1000Whp (Mustang Dyno) where we ran a best trap of 163mph. It was then that we broke our first rear axle on a GT-R. Thanks to Ivan’s quick work, we swapped it out and continued testing.

To push the limits, we turned up the power a little more and managed to get a [email protected] But, at about the 145mph mark, we blew a head gasket and lost a bank. It looks like we’re reaching the limits of the stock architecture of the GT-R VR38 and discovering its week points one-by-one.

Disheartened but never defeated, we headed back to the shop to work on improvements.

So, what have we learned so far?

So far, we can tell you that just installing a better head gasket won’t solve the issue, Presently, it seems that a reliable limit of the VR38DETT (with upgraded pistons and rods) is around1000 whp and 900 ft-lbs torque on a Mustang Dyno, and just about 1100 whp and 1000 ft-lbs torque on a Dynojet. We’ve definitely made more power and torque than that before but in our opinion, it’s going to be a little risky until the internal engine issues are addressed.

Which is what we’re doing right now, addressing the issues.

You might be asking yourself, “why the full disclosure?” AMS values the GT-R community and greatly respects its opinion. Unlike others, the GT-R community is a close-knit family and we want you to be “in the know” on what we’re doing.

We are pushing the GT-R to unseen limits. As you witness us reach these limits, we want to keep you informed on the type of research and engineering that we’re putting into resolving these issues. And, thanks to customers and friends like Tim Sanders we can push the envelope and bring a better and more powerful product to the GT-R community.

You might also be asking, “why are you having problems at this HP when others are not?” Historically, our Mustang Dyno has read incredibly low. When we went 163mph at the drag strip, our dyno was only recording between 980 and 1000whp. Others have claimed 100+whp yet their Trap speeds have been in the mid-150s.

Obviously there is a major difference in the way our dyno reads compared to others. It’s not that one dyno is right or wrong, they just read differently.

And, as we all know, the absence of information about a problem doesn’t necessarily mean a problem doesn’t exist. We’re just being upfront with what’s going on so that you are fully informed.
So, it’s back to work for us. You can rest assured that we are going to work harder than ever to continue pushing the limits of the VR38 and to use this information to produce the best possible parts for your GT-R.



Will be good to know KK at SVM's take on this, considering the "Hulk" should be pushing the same sort of figures.


----------



## asiasi (Dec 22, 2007)

Will the fact that SVM are using stroked 4.2,compared to AMS stock 3.8 make any difference ? time will tell.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

I wouldn't have thought so!

They didnt have a rotating mass problem, they had a block sealing problem.

Head lifting etc.

Thanks AMS for the info. Very interesting reading.


----------



## Alias23 (Nov 25, 2010)

Really good announcement this open attitude will do the whole community good and will work wonders for AMS's image.


----------



## AndyBrew (Feb 2, 2011)

1000ft/lbs sounds like enough to me pmsl!


----------



## asiasi (Dec 22, 2007)

Adamantium said:


> I wouldn't have thought so!
> 
> They didnt have a rotating mass problem, they had a block sealing problem.
> 
> ...


Bit worrying then for the big power boys :nervous:


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 16, 2010)

WE have heard of these issues before, maybe wrong gasket choice ? head security?
wire ring choice ? 
yes we are using 4.2 lt with darton sleves not oem
98mm greddy gaskets (not conectic) maybe wire rings?
and l19 lrp head bolts...ft

id like to know what ams opinion is on why this is an issue? 
gasket design, maybe their piston design and squish 

each tuner has their own designs..will we all come to a sticky end? time will tell.

what max boost level is probable the key
bhp can be gained without just increasing boost presure, each method requires investigation

we believe larger capacity, bore, stroke,throw,larger pipework.throttles all will help with volumn of air at our chosen power

will it work? we hope so, !!!

hats off to ams for pushing so hard , "they are world class"
and good luck to them , we can all learn from all the fantastic r35s from across the pond

kk


----------



## bobel (Jul 26, 2010)

No mention of cylinder liners, and from reading that I assume it's a stock head and stock gasket with new cams? To be honest it's hardly suprising to see a head warp or head gasket go when your pushing 100% over stock power, great to see this kinda innovation and R&D taking place, anything like 1,000ft/lbs though is surely counter productive as the traction issues would likely see the greater percentage of this lost.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 16, 2010)

i presume your talking about the ams car...
as we have modified the above

including/axles/difs/cams/valves/heads/rods/bolts/sealing methods/water cooled liners/ just about everthing ...we can think of lol

kk


----------



## GTRSTAR (Nov 26, 2009)

Its good that AMS are being so forthcoming about this kind of data, and Im sure that if youre copying AMS engine builds this may be useful, however, KK's HULK spec is a custom design, so I dont see how this information is necessarily relevant or useful as its not a like for like build nor does it give any indication as to the cause.. :repost:

I havent seen another GTR build with the same 4.2 configuration as Kev's HULK spec to date. :smokin:

Kev's bore and stroke calculations are one of the things that make the HULK spec unique, this is where I Think the Turbo Man From Telford will come up Trumps! :flame:

*Make Her Fly Kev, Make Her Fly!!!* :thumbsup:


----------



## bobel (Jul 26, 2010)

Yep was talking about AMS, can't think of much left on the HULK that's OEM...LOL


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 16, 2010)

alex all info is helpfull , ams are no fools and very experianced

lets just hope we get the goals we aim for

and take note of what has happend with respect to ams

kk


----------



## martin320 (Aug 29, 2009)

GTRSTAR said:


> Its good that AMS are being so forthcoming about this kind of data, and Im sure that if youre copying AMS engine builds this may be useful, however, KK's HULK spec is a custom design, so I dont see how this information is necessarily relevant or useful as its not a like for like build nor does it give any indication as to the cause.. :repost:
> 
> I havent seen another GTR build with the same 4.2 configuration as Kev's HULK spec to date. :smokin:
> 
> ...


Don't get to cocky until your putting down suposedly 1200 bhp!!!!
your last upgrade was supposed to be 850 bhp yet only made 720bhp
i really hope you achieve your 1200 brake and 8 sec quarter which kk asures us! you and him will have.after all he advertises 1200 bhp conversions so he can't be wrong can he?????


----------



## GTRSTAR (Nov 26, 2009)

SVM said:


> alex all info is helpfull , ams are no fools and very experianced
> 
> lets just hope we get the goals we aim for
> 
> ...


AMS are top dogs without question, I admire their work :bowdown1:

With regards to the statement, its seems somewhat of an empty gesture, a smoke screen after blowing up Tims car..

OK, the same thing could happen to any of us, and fair play to them for pushing the envelope, but this appears to be nothing more than a PR stunt :blahblah:

Its mildly disappointing then although entirely understandable that they dont give any clues as to a solution to the problem. 

Despite this, NUF respect to AMS! :thumbsup:


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 16, 2010)

alex they wont tell us how to do it !!

thats for us to work out lol

im on it kk


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

I think we are pushing the limit with the VQ 35 (350Z) block and I know what we are having to do to keep the motors together. When your pushing th elimits you will blow motors up , it isnt worth thinking you wont. Matter of fact you will full stop.

It is all about the strength of the block when you start making big torque figures. These things moved around.

The head gaskets aren't the problem we have found on the VQ , the block distort.

Time to think about strengthening the block I feel.


Mark


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Maybe they simply haven't solved it yet and would rather allow everyone opportunities to try different solutions in the hope that shared costs will make the issue easier to solve.

The liners will certainly help if they are just on a stock block, especially if they are seeing evidence of hydraulicing. Stiffer liners will reduce the all important distortion that leads to poor sealing.

There are many options for ringing the block, with wire being the oldest. Wills rings might be a more modern option. Then there's options for gasket material in combination with a ring solution, then there are alternative liner materials, but the price starts to get prohibitive.

This is part of the reason why I mentioned high tech piston crown design, as it's a classic example of getting more power with needing to raise the boost. I'm sorry to say it but by changing the geometry of the engine any conclusions drawn can't really be applied across the board.

Rod length due to gudgeon pin height for a given stroke will have a signficant effect on piston dwell time, whcih changes the pressure profile of the combustion event. This also affects the rocking of the piston and hence the side loading. These can be exacerbated by the increased stroke.

KK could find he has no problems at that power level, but then he could find he has far more.

The only way to determine is a lot of controlled and probably expensive testing, preferably on an engine dyno, with components swapped across to find out which combination works.

Most people won't be bothered by this and will just be happy with 1000bhp not realising that the odd tweak in the development process could have given them 1100.

It really is diminshing returns as few will be able to feel the difference, unless you start accurately and repeatedly timing things.

how did the RB26 contain head lifting at these kind of power outputs?

I'd imagine on a straight six it had 7 pairs of head bolts for 6 cylinders, whereas on a v6, has at least 4 for each bank of 3. Straight away it should be on a better footing, surely?


----------



## christer (Jul 16, 2010)

Adamantium said:


> Maybe they simply haven't solved it yet and would rather allow everyone opportunities to try different solutions in the hope that shared costs will make the issue easier to solve.
> ?


The way I read this is that they are basically just testing these motors to destruction in order to find solutions, why do people expect them to already have solutions for what they are testing - doesn't make sense to me? Whether they will share solutions is going to be interesting to see, however SVM haven't shared their results either when they presumably tested their kits to destruction......or maybe I missed it?


----------

