Читать книгу Aston Martin Engine Development: 1984-2000 - Arthur Wilson L. - Страница 14

The creation of Aston Martin Tickford (AMT) in the early 1980s had provided a means to offset vehicle engineering development and certification costs to AML by selling our engineering expertise to other manufacturers as AMT, as Porsche and Lotus had done. It also helped to finance a much larger engineering department, with the top specialist engineers and the high-tech equipment required to compete in the modern engineering age. That arrangement had worked well initially, with a number of high-profile projects for major motor manufacturers, and could so easily have been the solution that AML needed. But unfortunately, after a few good years, it was decided that AMT should be separated off to go it alone, eventually to become Tickford Engineering.

Figure 5.1 Early days at Aston Martin Tickford – the 1982 endurance race engine on the test bed with Trevor Morley. The engine was still on carburettors at this time, it was only used for early shakedown testing of the Nimrod race car in this configuration. The Lucas Mk 2 mechanical petrol injection was used thereafter.

Figure 5.2 February 1982 – Nimrod shakedown testing at Silverstone with Ray Mallock in the driver’s seat. This was with the carburettor engine shown in Figure 5.1.

During my time with AMT, I worked on a number of varied and interesting engine projects, including the 1.3-litre Frazer Metro, the 2.8-litre Tickford Capri and marine engines, as well as race and road AML projects. The 1,000 horsepower racing marine engine and the twin-turbo Bulldog are mentioned later in this book.

The AMT Group C endurance race engine project was a three-year project started in 1981 for the 1982 season, and was aimed at the new fuel limit regulations that were to be introduced for the 1984 race. I don’t think anyone expected too much from the first year, the car was new and the engine would also be new as a race engine. Getting the two to work together while developing cooling systems, engine mounts and intake and exhaust systems matched to the aerodynamics of the car, etc. – there were bound to be teething problems and there were bound to be engine casualties while developing the car. Nobody goes into racing at this level expecting a free ride. In 1982, the first year of racing, we had our problems – such as the distributor rotor arm breaking due to vibration; this was easily solved and further to that the distributor was moved to the centre of the V for 83. There were also losses during cooling system testing in the car, and one car stopped during its first race at Silverstone due to the timing chain tensioner coming loose. But we had one problem that we didn’t expect and that was that we could experience valve spring breakage after six or seven hours of race conditions. It only happened in the car, we couldn’t break springs on the test bed even after running the equivalent of two 24-hour races. The only way that we could replicate the failure was to run a cylinder head test rig at 7,800 rpm continuous. At the time the engine was limited to 7,500 rpm. The test rig was based on a cylinder block, with an electric motor driven dummy crankshaft driving the standard half speed chain drive to the camshafts of the test cylinder head. Understandably things were getting a bit frantic as the 1982 race season was already underway, so we ran the test rig night and day to arrive at a solution. Everything was thrown at resolving this totally unforeseen problem, including burning a lot of midnight oil. The eventual solution involved new special surface treatment Schmitthelm valve springs, stronger valves with a reduced dish in the head and stronger top spring retainers. The last two parts were to ensure that the fitted spring length did not open up and allow the springs to go into surge. Despite this concern the car – entered by Lord Downe and run by Richard Williams – did very well in its first season, coming third in the championship. It ran very well at Le Mans that year, running consistently in fourth place for some considerable time until, in the early hours of Sunday morning, the engine started to use a lot of oil and eventually lost a cylinder. But with some careful coaxing by the RSW team it got home in a creditable seventh place overall, the fourth Group C car.

I did an inspection report on that engine when we got it back to AML after the race. I have to say that it is the only time that I have ever seen a completely wornout Aston Martin engine. Valve guides were worn, piston rings were rattling around in their grooves and pistons were worn in the bores. The crankshaft was not too bad. It seems that – due to some aerodynamic effect – the air intake for the engine was vacuum cleaning the race circuit, taking in road grit to the engine in the process with the inevitable result.

For 1983 the engine was extensively redesigned and lightened. It also became used as a stressed member for the EMKA race car. Further improvements were made to the valve gear, and peak power rpm was reduced to 7,000 rpm in the interests of durability. The EMKA was a beautiful car, built very close to the regulation weight. It was prepared and run by Michael Cane Racing and had a great deal of potential but needed development – it was its first year after all.

Figure 5.3 The EMKA with the AMT engine installed.

So 1984 was supposed to be our year, but our threeyear project to win the Le Mans 24-hour race was thrown out of kilter when the fuel efficiency regulations that we had been aiming at were relaxed at the last minute. More fuel available meant more power could be used, more than we could reliably make from our engine in normally aspirated form. So the engine was turbocharged for the 1984 season. I didn’t do the development work on the turbocharged engine as I was about to leave Tickford to take up my new position in charge of engines at AML.