Picco TORQUE versus Novarossi topic
10-31-2011, 04:14 AM
#31
10-31-2011, 05:29 AM
#32
Crankshaft opening and intake are different (much larger) than Novarossi.
See the many Novarossi models and the one Picco:
http://www.euronet.nl/users/tooms/timings/timings.jpg
See the many Novarossi models and the one Picco:
http://www.euronet.nl/users/tooms/timings/timings.jpg
I just measured our Torque Edo (2 of them) and both cranks open at 28 ° and close at 35°
10-31-2011, 06:57 AM
#33
I took mine apart and noticed that the rod is definately longer than the R7 rods used in the 35 plus and Kangaroos as well which in turn will help produce more bottom end power as well.
10-31-2011, 07:04 AM
#34
Stefan, how do you like the Picco TQ engine?
10-31-2011, 07:11 AM
#35
No, Shepherd (though a Mugen clutch).
My 35+21 felt like it might have had a bit more in the middle range but the Picco felt better on the bottom and oddly on the top as well. At least until I tried my old standby 9886 pipe on it which seemed to make the top fall flat for some reason so I went back to the 2013.
My 35+21 felt like it might have had a bit more in the middle range but the Picco felt better on the bottom and oddly on the top as well. At least until I tried my old standby 9886 pipe on it which seemed to make the top fall flat for some reason so I went back to the 2013.
10-31-2011, 07:40 AM
#36
No, Shepherd (though a Mugen clutch).
My 35+21 felt like it might have had a bit more in the middle range but the Picco felt better on the bottom and oddly on the top as well. At least until I tried my old standby 9886 pipe on it which seemed to make the top fall flat for some reason so I went back to the 2013.
My 35+21 felt like it might have had a bit more in the middle range but the Picco felt better on the bottom and oddly on the top as well. At least until I tried my old standby 9886 pipe on it which seemed to make the top fall flat for some reason so I went back to the 2013.
10-31-2011, 07:56 AM
#37
Hi Brent
I am the Picco USA distributor for Torque line engines.
You can find us at www.kevcoracing.com or email me at [email protected]
Kevin Hutchinson
I am the Picco USA distributor for Torque line engines.
You can find us at www.kevcoracing.com or email me at [email protected]
Kevin Hutchinson
10-31-2011, 07:59 AM
#38
Yes, same gearing and clutch set-up.
Motor was very easy to tune and held it all through the week. No flameouts except for the couple times I ran it out of fuel. No detonation and no destroyed plugs.
Motor was very easy to tune and held it all through the week. No flameouts except for the couple times I ran it out of fuel. No detonation and no destroyed plugs.
10-31-2011, 08:15 AM
#39
PERFECT! Thanks for your input and data. It encourages my decision even more to know that you do like it.
10-31-2011, 12:11 PM
#40
So I measured mine, and the are different.
I love the Torques, aside from some bearing problems we had early in the year.
It seems that it was only one of the very early batches (January -February) because later engines didn't have that problem.
The thing you need to get used to is the very low compression these engines seem to have when they are cold.
Some guys wanted to trash them, despite they were running awesome.
Just old Nova habits
The Torque has a different piston material that seems to expand when the engine gets to operating temps and then works great.
Very easy to break in and easy on the rods.
10-31-2011, 01:45 PM
#41
Hi Brent, I know about the timing. Roelof has posted engine timing a bit further down. where the Torque is listed with 30 -70 = 220° crank timing, which looked strange, especially in light of the awesome fuel consumption of these engines.
So I measured mine, and the are different.
So I measured mine, and the are different.
The only thing I can imagine is that this guy has many Torque engines, part sponsored and part bought and probably has mixed a crankcase with a different crankshaft.
11-01-2011, 04:04 AM
#42
Hi Brent, I know about the timing. Roelof has posted engine timing a bit further down. where the Torque is listed with 30 -70 = 220° crank timing, which looked strange, especially in light of the awesome fuel consumption of these engines.
So I measured mine, and the are different.
I love the Torques, aside from some bearing problems we had early in the year.
It seems that it was only one of the very early batches (January -February) because later engines didn't have that problem.
The Torque has a different piston material that seems to expand when the engine gets to operating temps and then works great.
Very easy to break in and easy on the rods.
So I measured mine, and the are different.
I love the Torques, aside from some bearing problems we had early in the year.
It seems that it was only one of the very early batches (January -February) because later engines didn't have that problem.
The Torque has a different piston material that seems to expand when the engine gets to operating temps and then works great.
Very easy to break in and easy on the rods.
What was your timing measurements on your compared to what Roelof posted? Now from those numbers though and what I measured on my Kangaroo, the Torque definately should make more HP and RPM's up top. The exhaust timing could be a little higher for more top end RPM but I am not so sure that the bottom end would suffer from raising it though.
11-01-2011, 04:46 AM
#43
Lol, I know you know about the timing and all, I was just saying in simple terms for those that may be reading, what your information meant.
What was your timing measurements on your compared to what Roelof posted? Now from those numbers though and what I measured on my Kangaroo, the Torque definately should make more HP and RPM's up top. The exhaust timing could be a little higher for more top end RPM but I am not so sure that the bottom end would suffer from raising it though.
What was your timing measurements on your compared to what Roelof posted? Now from those numbers though and what I measured on my Kangaroo, the Torque definately should make more HP and RPM's up top. The exhaust timing could be a little higher for more top end RPM but I am not so sure that the bottom end would suffer from raising it though.
we have raised the sleeve on a Torque by 0.1 and 0.2 mm in order to gain top end.
We did, but it hurt the fuel consumption.
I rather gear the Piccos a bit longer than Novas to get the same top speed.
What also helped to gain some revs w/o hurting fuel consumption is using the Nova medium conical header with the Picco 2033 pipe.
My son is still running with a pretty smooth gas finger (will probably be spoiled soon) and he makes 5 minutes with the Torque, doing the same lap times as other people who run NR Flash and only make 3:30.
This has given us the edge in several races this year and I will try to conserv that advantage as long as possible.
Once he is going completely "point & shoot" and won't make the 5 min anymore, I will start modding the Torque towards top end...
11-01-2011, 05:11 AM
#44
I think many people will switch to Picco if the EFRA AGM will decide to go back to 5 minutes qualify without fuelstops. Next saturday we will know....
11-01-2011, 10:00 AM
#45
