FFF Cylinder Head vs. Standard Engine Rebuild
Discussion
I'm just writing this because my TVR Tuscan MKI (2001) hasn't yet had an engine rebuild. I am torn between whether to spend that extra money on getting the FFF Cylinder Head from Racing Green or whether to just have an engine rebuild. I would be very appreciative if some PHer's would be able to reply to this and maybe give me some pointers of positives and negatives of the FFF Cylinder Head.
Also, if anyone has one and would recommend buying one then feel free to reply.
Many Thanks,
Tom Barker
Also, if anyone has one and would recommend buying one then feel free to reply.
Many Thanks,
Tom Barker
SAGRIFF said:
plus you might want to wait till someone sticks a RG head on a Power 4.5 Supersport, should be interesting.
I doubt this would actually work though. The 4.5 has its revs limited and the FFF head is all about using the full rev range, especially at the top end, exactly the point at which the 4.5 is restricted.
You might be able to increase the cc a bit but I suspect not by stroking which I think both the 4.2 and the 4.5 do.
My thinking is that the reason why Power limit the revs is likely to be a reason as to why sticking a FFF head on top could lead to more munching than at a Weight Watchers convention.
Doubt that I'm the person to tell you to go for the FFF option, because I do have a bit of a special setup in mine
But still... I'd definitely check with RG, if you're close to them, go and see them, and ask for a ride in their demonstrator. You'll be surprised at how much faster the car feels with the FFF2 head, and how more refined it is (smoothness, absence of "sewing machine noises" thanks to the FF-less head).
If you opt for the VCT that Ryan is working on, you'll have a peach of an engine, even in NA form
And for the record: even though I've been defending RG and their product for a very long time, I'm no sales guy for RG, just my personal opinion on it.
But still... I'd definitely check with RG, if you're close to them, go and see them, and ask for a ride in their demonstrator. You'll be surprised at how much faster the car feels with the FFF2 head, and how more refined it is (smoothness, absence of "sewing machine noises" thanks to the FF-less head).
If you opt for the VCT that Ryan is working on, you'll have a peach of an engine, even in NA form
And for the record: even though I've been defending RG and their product for a very long time, I'm no sales guy for RG, just my personal opinion on it.
My understanding is that RG do do a full rebuild, not just swap the heads, or that they at least recommend some bottom end/block improvements... you could have Indian rods for example that need swapping out...
FFF gives you the high revving speed 6 behaviour.
Power 4.3 and 4.5 rebuilds (stroked and stroked/bored) give much more torque lower down and rev less.
I have neither but apparently they are both fantastic improvements over standard but deliver the power/torque differently. You need to drive both and see what you prefer.
FFF gives you the high revving speed 6 behaviour.
Power 4.3 and 4.5 rebuilds (stroked and stroked/bored) give much more torque lower down and rev less.
I have neither but apparently they are both fantastic improvements over standard but deliver the power/torque differently. You need to drive both and see what you prefer.
You can just swap heads. They are totally compatable. Esc12 has done this.
Don1 has done similar plus a few other bits.
Mine was a complete new build from scratch.
You can just have the head and then add as much as you want like the Syvecs system, Simplex chains, bottome end build, lightened flywheel and ultimately the VCT system.
I think that most would say that to get the most put of the FFF head you would want to factor in the Syvecs management system.
The full package is a startling unit.
Don1 has done similar plus a few other bits.
Mine was a complete new build from scratch.
You can just have the head and then add as much as you want like the Syvecs system, Simplex chains, bottome end build, lightened flywheel and ultimately the VCT system.
I think that most would say that to get the most put of the FFF head you would want to factor in the Syvecs management system.
The full package is a startling unit.
Racing Green and TVR Power have gone down two very different paths.
TVR Power have chosen the traditional 20th Century route of boring and stroking to increase power and torque, and uprating parts with stronger and better quality equivalents. Nothing wrong with that and fair play to Dom for it.
Racing Green have chosen the more 21st Century approach of trying to redesign, improve and rework. The FFF2 ditches the Finger Followers in favour of Jaguar-style inverted bucket cam followers and adds extra oil and coolant pathways. They also fit a simplex timing chain that removes over a kilo from the valvetrain.
You can have just that done, but it would probably be pretty lumpy as they put a more aggressive cam in. Really you want to couple that with the Syvecs ECU which is what pretty much everyone has done, myself included. The Syvecs is a very clever bit of kit, not least from supporting full sequential ignition, knock sensors and switchable traction control. Having had an engine grenade due to detonation, the knock sensors were of huge interest to me.
As Pascal says, you lose the "demented sewing machine" noise and you get a much smoother engine for it. And I know this is completely subjective, but it just *feels* stronger.
I guess which you choose depends on what you want from the car. To me, I felt that simply boring the engine out and making it stronger didn't address what I personally saw as fundamental issues in the engine. Many people disagree with me on that, but I view it as a matter of opinion.
For me, Racing Green are pursuing a somewhere McLaren-esque approach, whereas TVR Power are more blood & guts and in keeping with the Peter Wheeler ethos. And if Dom is reading, that's meant as a complement.
Whichever way you go it's a huge amount of money so you have to go where your heart (or head) leads you.
TVR Power have chosen the traditional 20th Century route of boring and stroking to increase power and torque, and uprating parts with stronger and better quality equivalents. Nothing wrong with that and fair play to Dom for it.
Racing Green have chosen the more 21st Century approach of trying to redesign, improve and rework. The FFF2 ditches the Finger Followers in favour of Jaguar-style inverted bucket cam followers and adds extra oil and coolant pathways. They also fit a simplex timing chain that removes over a kilo from the valvetrain.
You can have just that done, but it would probably be pretty lumpy as they put a more aggressive cam in. Really you want to couple that with the Syvecs ECU which is what pretty much everyone has done, myself included. The Syvecs is a very clever bit of kit, not least from supporting full sequential ignition, knock sensors and switchable traction control. Having had an engine grenade due to detonation, the knock sensors were of huge interest to me.
As Pascal says, you lose the "demented sewing machine" noise and you get a much smoother engine for it. And I know this is completely subjective, but it just *feels* stronger.
I guess which you choose depends on what you want from the car. To me, I felt that simply boring the engine out and making it stronger didn't address what I personally saw as fundamental issues in the engine. Many people disagree with me on that, but I view it as a matter of opinion.
For me, Racing Green are pursuing a somewhere McLaren-esque approach, whereas TVR Power are more blood & guts and in keeping with the Peter Wheeler ethos. And if Dom is reading, that's meant as a complement.
Whichever way you go it's a huge amount of money so you have to go where your heart (or head) leads you.
JonRB said:
a good summary.
Is there any reason why dropping the finger followers in favour of buckets is necessary except that they're quieter and so help the syvecs detect knock? Plenty of modern engines out there running finger followers at high speed so it's almost as if the original reason why RG went down this route isn't the case anymore? Being the sceptic that I am, it seemed like they went to buckets simply to pander to those who thought the early reports of engine failures was down to the use of followers?
Aside from the lairy cam, and the timing chain mods, is there any other work they do to the head which is why they seem to prefer to be revved?
If I had the money then I prob would have gone for the RG option based on my preference for a rev-mad engine,but it appears on the surface that you need the syvecs to really make any gains over a normal rebuild offered by str8six or Power for example?
I'd love a passenger ride in an FFF car if anyone's near Berkshire? (Happy to do the same once my 4.3 is on the road!)
MrChips
MrChips said:
Is there any reason why dropping the finger followers in favour of buckets is necessary
Not to my knowledge with what I've heard over the last few years. It's all pretty much down to the quality of the components as to whether they fail... buckets made in the same poor quality way as some of the fingers were made will wear out and fail, giving rise to the same problem.Buckets are a lot quieter I gather, and I think it's true that you don't have to have tappet clearances checked/adjusted ??
MrChips said:
Is there any reason why dropping the finger followers in favour of buckets is necessary except that they're quieter and so help the syvecs detect knock?
Plenty of modern engines out there running finger followers at high speed so it's almost as if the original reason why RG went down this route isn't the case anymore? Being the sceptic that I am, it seemed like they went to buckets simply to pander to those who thought the early reports of engine failures was down to the use of followers?
Aside from the lairy cam, and the timing chain mods, is there any other work they do to the head which is why they seem to prefer to be revved?
If I had the money then I prob would have gone for the RG option based on my preference for a rev-mad engine,but it appears on the surface that you need the syvecs to really make any gains over a normal rebuild offered by str8six or Power for example?
I'd love a passenger ride in an FFF car if anyone's near Berkshire? (Happy to do the same once my 4.3 is on the road!)
MrChips
If you think about the timeline of when the FFF concept was first delivered then it was very much a solution to the then chocolate FFs you're right. Plenty of modern engines out there running finger followers at high speed so it's almost as if the original reason why RG went down this route isn't the case anymore? Being the sceptic that I am, it seemed like they went to buckets simply to pander to those who thought the early reports of engine failures was down to the use of followers?
Aside from the lairy cam, and the timing chain mods, is there any other work they do to the head which is why they seem to prefer to be revved?
If I had the money then I prob would have gone for the RG option based on my preference for a rev-mad engine,but it appears on the surface that you need the syvecs to really make any gains over a normal rebuild offered by str8six or Power for example?
I'd love a passenger ride in an FFF car if anyone's near Berkshire? (Happy to do the same once my 4.3 is on the road!)
MrChips
The original head was just a factory one with buckets.
The 2nd gen FFF is completely different. It has been redesigned from scratch and is very different. Especially when it comes to how they are made using start of the art processes so the tolerances are vastly improved as well as redesigned oil channels and air flow.
For starters you get none of the pressure drops you get with the factory units and they are silky smooth.
I would also agree that the best thing you could possibly add to the standard engine is the Syvecs system. It's unbelievable what it does. FFs don't matter as the noise they make is a different frequency so the Syvecs picks it out all too easily.
I'm a bit confused here with the 4.5 not revving??? wheres the redline on a FFF 4.0? the redline (rev limited) on my 4.5 with syvecs is 7250 rpm so how much more does the FFF let the engine rev?
Peak HP is at just over 6700 RPM on my 4.5, again where is the peak HP on a 4.0 7200 to 7700
Are people getting confused with the fact a 4.5 isn't recommended to have a lightened flywheel?
Found the answer to one of my questions
Peak HP is at just over 6700 RPM on my 4.5, again where is the peak HP on a 4.0 7200 to 7700
Are people getting confused with the fact a 4.5 isn't recommended to have a lightened flywheel?
Found the answer to one of my questions
Edited by Getsis on Tuesday 28th February 08:23
Edited by Getsis on Tuesday 28th February 08:49
Getsis said:
I'm a bit confused here with the 4.5 not revving??? wheres the redline on a FFF 4.0? the redline (rev limited) on my 4.5 with syvecs is 7250 rpm so how much more does the FFF let the engine rev?
Peak HP is at just over 6500 RPM on my 4.5, again where is the peak HP on a 4.0 FFF?
Are people getting confused with the fact a 4.5 isn't recommended to have a lightened flywheel?
I think it comes from several owners saying theirs had been limited. Peak HP is at just over 6500 RPM on my 4.5, again where is the peak HP on a 4.0 FFF?
Are people getting confused with the fact a 4.5 isn't recommended to have a lightened flywheel?
Edited by Getsis on Tuesday 28th February 08:03
Edited by Getsis on Tuesday 28th February 08:16
There was a thread discussing this and why a while back.
The whole point of the 4.5 is to deliver the real power much earlier, more like a v8 so there is probably little point in revving the nuts off it as like with the RV8s you're probably giving speed away at that point while jeopardising/wearing the engine.
There was talk of the longer stroke and heavier pistons possibly being risky at very high rpm. To be honest I can't recall the reasonings in that discussion.
On mine I can't quite recall but at present peak power is over 7000 and it revs to about 8.
Gassing Station | Speed Six Engine | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff