CP - Carillo Project X Platinum Kit - Advantages

Started by nesc103y, Feb 13 2012 10:35 AM
14 replies to this topic

  • nesc103y

Posted 13 February 2012 - 10:35 AM

#1


Looking at the CP - Carillo catalog they offer a their Project X Platinum kits which include longer rod and smaller piston pin for various model bikes.
For the 9-12 CRF they offer 2mm longer Carillo rod and 1mm smaller pin. There's really no explaination of the advantages.
I can see the smaller pin having less weight than the OEM pin, but what other advantages are there to this setup.

anbody???

Visit the ThumperTalk Store for the lowest prices on motorcycle / ATV parts and accessories - Guaranteed

  • JFRacing911

Posted 13 February 2012 - 10:39 AM

#2

this is used in conjunction with a stroker kit to help keeping the engine in one piece.

  • nesc103y

Posted 13 February 2012 - 10:59 AM

#3

View PostJFRacing911, on 13 February 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

this is used in conjunction with a stroker kit to help keeping the engine in one piece.

I don't think that is their intent

  • Ron Hamp

Posted 13 February 2012 - 04:43 PM

#4

it could be used for a stroker kit to help a bit along with a plate i dont see it as any advantage other wise any thing that can be done to the power curve by changing the rod length can be acomplished with the cam profile .

  • Grinstead_77G

Posted 13 February 2012 - 07:19 PM

#5

That Carrillo rod, with a smaller piston wrist pin, has to be matched up with the correct CP piston and pin and a Carrillo lower end rod bearing... I've also heard of a few folks running a Suzuki lower rod needle bearing. (Honda doesn't sell their lower rod bearing as a separate part, making cranks rebuilds a challenge). They claim an improvement in reliability over the stock rod setup. I also understand that when using the Suzuki bearing, the cage needs to be machined (narrowed) a bit to fit. Seems like a lot of work to me, but any small improvement in crank durability is probably worth the effort and may have been a response to some problems with the 2010 cranks.

As far as the effects of longer rod lengths, a longer rod length will put less side load on the piston wrist pin and reduce piston "rocking" loads when the piston is at mid stroke when the crank is at 90 degrees to the cylinder center line. Piston skits today are almost non-existent, so any reduction in side loads on the piston is a good thing. An additional 2 mm on the Carrillo rod would also raise compression unless the matching CP piston has the wrist pin positioned higher to compensate.

Does anyone know if the stock piston dome to wrist pin centerline is the same for 2004-09 as the 2010-2012s?
I'd really like to run an 82 mm Wiseco piston vs the Athena piston, but don't want to buy one just to measure it.

  • APE Jay

Posted 13 February 2012 - 10:36 PM

#6

The longer rod causes the piston to dwell longer at TDC allowing a complete burn without having to put a lot of ignition advance in it.

  • nesc103y

Posted 14 February 2012 - 05:18 AM

#7

View PostAPE Jay, on 13 February 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

The longer rod causes the piston to dwell longer at TDC allowing a complete burn without having to put a lot of ignition advance in it.

So what does this do for power? And what about the bang for the buck, In this case it seems like a lot of $ for minimal gains.
What started all this is I have a bike comming through the garage with this setup, in need of a piston due to ha hairline crack accross the crown. This is the first case I know of a honda cracking a piston. This was common when we had the older Kawi's. and you hoped the piston would not disintigrate.

  • nesc103y

Posted 14 February 2012 - 06:02 AM

#8

View PostGrinstead_77G, on 13 February 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

That Carrillo rod, with a smaller piston wrist pin, has to be matched up with the correct CP piston and pin and a Carrillo lower end rod bearing... I've also heard of a few folks running a Suzuki lower rod needle bearing. (Honda doesn't sell their lower rod bearing as a separate part, making cranks rebuilds a challenge). They claim an improvement in reliability over the stock rod setup. I also understand that when using the Suzuki bearing, the cage needs to be machined (narrowed) a bit to fit. Seems like a lot of work to me, but any small improvement in crank durability is probably worth the effort and may have been a response to some problems with the 2010 cranks.

As far as the effects of longer rod lengths, a longer rod length will put less side load on the piston wrist pin and reduce piston "rocking" loads when the piston is at mid stroke when the crank is at 90 degrees to the cylinder center line. Piston skits today are almost non-existent, so any reduction in side loads on the piston is a good thing. An additional 2 mm on the Carrillo rod would also raise compression unless the matching CP piston has the wrist pin positioned higher to compensate.

Does anyone know if the stock piston dome to wrist pin centerline is the same for 2004-09 as the 2010-2012s?
I'd really like to run an 82 mm Wiseco piston vs the Athena piston, but don't want to buy one just to measure it.

We tried the long rod setup back in our 85CC days, under the assumption - more intake volume would create a greater intake charge. I think this was more theory in the tuners mind than anything. We never saw any kind of a performance increase with the 85's. If anything it probably created more problems than the advantages it was supposed to have.

The KTM 250F lower rod bearing is the same size the Honda but I do not think the KTM uses side thrust washers so the washers still need to be sourced from somewhere.

  • Grinstead_77G

Posted 14 February 2012 - 06:22 AM

#9

Think of it in terms power transfer physics vectors. The greatest power is being generated during the mid-stroke burn where the rod is at the most radical angle to the cylinder centerline. The longer rod allows the power to be applied to the crank a little bit more vertically along the cylinder line vs. a more aggressive side angle. This thread has me curious of the actual angle differences. So I'm going to do some calculations later today to see just how much of a difference it might make. If the physics even adds a percentage point or two in more efficient power transfer to the crank, it could be worth another 1 to 1.5 hp. As far as the increased dwell at TDC or BDC, I don't think that would be of much value.

I believe the Project X Platinum Kit includes a thicker base gasket and a special CP piston to compensate for the longer rod length and is still running 14:1 compression. Have you had the opportunity to put a micrometer or set of digital calipers on the wrist pin to confirm it is 1 mm less than stock diameter? And are they running the ProX base gasket or have they switched to a stock one?

Just guessing here, but If this is the longer rod, and they were not running the thicker base gasket to back off the compression rise, they might be pushing 17:1 compression or more, and the piston may have been hitting the head. Both conditions are capable of cracking a piston dome. But, in my experience, your experience is the same as mine. this is very unusual.

  • nesc103y

Posted 14 February 2012 - 08:44 AM

#10

Physics - Now we're talking! I wish I didn't already know everything back in my school days, and took the time to learn about this stuff.


The bike isn't actually at the garage yet so I'm not quite sure what's in it. All I know for sure at this point is what I'm being told.

Just to be clear My references are all CP-Carillo Project X Platinum. Not ProX.

  • Grinstead_77G

Posted 14 February 2012 - 10:04 AM

#11

Understood that we are talking all Carrillo - CP Project X Platinum kit.

Here's what I have determined from my dimensional analysis.

A 2mm longer rod (127.3 mm center to center vs. 125.3 mm stock) on the 2010-2012's 53.8 mm stroke eliminates about 3 degrees of swing angle at the piston pin.The maximum deflection angle of the longer rod is about 1.42% less than the shorter rod, but the more interesting effect of the longer rod is the maximum deflection point and max leverage point on the crank is 77.8 degrees after TDC. Stock is right at 78.1 degrees after TDC. The max leverage point is where the centerline rod angle is exactly 90 degrees to the lower rod pin to centerline of the crank shaft. By moving the max deflection point and max leverage points up or down even a tiny bit, the center of the fuel burn will overlay, or at least get closer to, the max leverage point.

But what is even more interesting is the longer crank moves the max leverage point earlier in the burn cycle to a little over 44.65 % of the stroke distance - Stock is just over 44.81%. The difference is only .2 % in advancing the max leverage point on the crank. There are some scarey smart folks working at Carrillo-CP and I suspect getting the fuel burn max expansion point to match up with the max leverage point on the crank is probably what they are going for here. Miss the timing by a few thousanths of a second, and you loose some of the fuel burn power efficiency. Take into consideration also advancing the spark timing for pro racing engines and it all begins to make sense that you would want to have your max leverage point on the crank a bit earlier in the power stroke.

The advantages in the vector analysis alone aren't worth much because the angular differences are pretty small, but the entire package, from my perspective, might add an additional quarter to half HP. I figure the real reason is reliability vs. power. Way too expensive for a guy like me to pursue, but for the pro level race teams, where cost is secondary to performance, it probably makes sense.

Here is my creative way of expressing the relationship...

"When cubic inches must remain the same, cubic dollars will win every time."

BTW: I have editied this post throughout the day as I have refined the dimensional models. What I though was originally a big difference turned out to be relatively small.

  • mixxer

Posted 15 February 2012 - 09:41 AM

#12

i personally cant see any measurable advatage with the small changes made in the kit...

smaller diameter pins need to be thicker walled to handle the same pressures....

a millimeter here an there doesn't make for a difference that even a dyno could pick up

  • Ron Hamp

Posted 18 February 2012 - 04:10 PM

#13

mixxer is right and im running into problems with pins @ there stock diameters with the hp this engine is capable of .

  • DH367

Posted 18 February 2012 - 04:33 PM

#14

View PostGrinstead_77G, on 14 February 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Understood that we are talking all Carrillo - CP Project X Platinum kit.

Here's what I have determined from my dimensional analysis.

A 2mm longer rod (127.3 mm center to center vs. 125.3 mm stock) on the 2010-2012's 53.8 mm stroke eliminates about 3 degrees of swing angle at the piston pin.The maximum deflection angle of the longer rod is about 1.42% less than the shorter rod, but the more interesting effect of the longer rod is the maximum deflection point and max leverage point on the crank is 77.8 degrees after TDC. Stock is right at 78.1 degrees after TDC. The max leverage point is where the centerline rod angle is exactly 90 degrees to the lower rod pin to centerline of the crank shaft. By moving the max deflection point and max leverage points up or down even a tiny bit, the center of the fuel burn will overlay, or at least get closer to, the max leverage point.

But what is even more interesting is the longer crank moves the max leverage point earlier in the burn cycle to a little over 44.65 % of the stroke distance - Stock is just over 44.81%. The difference is only .2 % in advancing the max leverage point on the crank. There are some scarey smart folks working at Carrillo-CP and I suspect getting the fuel burn max expansion point to match up with the max leverage point on the crank is probably what they are going for here. Miss the timing by a few thousanths of a second, and you loose some of the fuel burn power efficiency. Take into consideration also advancing the spark timing for pro racing engines and it all begins to make sense that you would want to have your max leverage point on the crank a bit earlier in the power stroke.

The advantages in the vector analysis alone aren't worth much because the angular differences are pretty small, but the entire package, from my perspective, might add an additional quarter to half HP. I figure the real reason is reliability vs. power. Way too expensive for a guy like me to pursue, but for the pro level race teams, where cost is secondary to performance, it probably makes sense.

Here is my creative way of expressing the relationship...

"When cubic inches must remain the same, cubic dollars will win every time."

BTW: I have editied this post throughout the day as I have refined the dimensional models. What I though was originally a big difference turned out to be relatively small.

and all fuel is not created equal so if you dont have the burn duration correct for the piston dwell you wont have max power anyway , the math is correct but it wont work if the fuel is not correct and it is not lit at the correct time

  • Grinstead_77G

Posted 20 February 2012 - 04:12 PM

#15

Precisely the point! Everything has to be so accurately timed, that it has to be a complete package approach, which is why I really respect folks like Ron Hamp, Scott Venning, and George Babor. They understand the need to approach performance from the complete package, not just one component.



  1. ThumperTalk
  2. → Dirt Bike
  3. → Make / Model Specific
  4. → Honda
  5. → CRF250R
If you enjoyed reading about "" here in the ThumperTalk archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join ThumperTalk today!