Dickmeyer Automotive's Mazda B3 Performance Valve Train Kit

[jawbraeka]

Sorry about the double post again..

[FestYboy]

At no time did I ever say anything about over boring .120. The measurement that I did come up with is a finished bore size of 2.875, which is .080. When developing products, such as pistons, there are several considerations to remember. It's not as simple as making a biggest piston that will fit. First & foremost, a bore size that will still retain sufficient cylinder wall rigidity. Secondly, a bore that will have a positive effect on combustion chamber configuration. Thirdly, and sometimes most importantly, is a bore size in which a quality high performance ring size is available in. On this engine, .060 & .080 accomplishes these things well. And in my opinion, a stroker kit would be worthless because of the cost. Most of you want a product that is easy to install & offers significant power gains. This is why I started with a cylinder head & valve train kit & header kit, as this addresses the B3's main deficiency. Simple bolt ons such as CAI's & high flow exhaust systems only work if the vehicle manufacturer left something on the table ( in terms of engine performance ). In the case of the B3 Festiva, this just isn't so. They just don't make a difference by themselves. That is why I think starting with the top end really starts to crack this engine open. I am considering a high performance intake manifold that would work with EFI or carb ( to make production more cost effective ).

ok, i stand corrected about the bore size, my appologies. so, with a +.080" bore, what wall thickness do you wind up with and do you see any corrilation to SBF/SBC minimum thicknesses? or can you go thinner due to the reduced side loads from the smaller (lower mass) piston?

as for the stroker end of things (you can see i'm kinda stuck on this idea for some reason), asside from the cost standpoint (knowing that the last time i saw a stroker crank for the B3/6 block went for $2400 each) what other detraments do you see from attemting such a mod? as i understand it, the longer stroke will produce a stonger intake pulse and allow the power produced to act upon the crank over a longer procutive period. and at the relativly low rpm limits of our ECUs, i can only see gains here.

thoughts? (please be patient with me, i'm good with theory but love to see the results of real world application, i'm really just wanting to learn)

oh and if you like, i have a spare G1 B6 head that i can send along with the cams for "other" developements (seeing that many members here also have B6 swaps and that they are so similar to the B3 as well. Note: this is NOT an attempt to move things in the B6 direction, but more a possible hybrid?)

[jawbraeka]

What is the link to the facebook page please?

[gergorian]

It is the first post of this thread..

[mattdickmeyer]

Would .040 pistons on the bottom be a performance improvement with
you doing all things necessary to our heads, or should we stick to normal
next biggest size to clean up the bore?

My opinion would be, if you are going to rebuild the bottom end, you might as well go with the largest bore possible. Be patient, options are coming!!!

[mattdickmeyer]

This is Insane... And quite an interesting read. Please let us know when a rebuild kit is available... Pistons, rods, valves and springs, head, intake and exhaust headers... or even if you actually will build a complete motor with the specs your talking about custom..... Watch yourself guys.. I can't help but drool over this.

I was just curious to know if you had plans for mixing supercharger and turbo combinations into the equation?

Makes me feel like im going to drown in my own spittle.

Cams, valves, springs & headers along with complete ready to install head is available as we speak. More parts are on their way & yes, I build & ship engines Internationally so that wouldn't be a problem.

[mattdickmeyer]

ok, i stand corrected about the bore size, my appologies. so, with a +.080" bore, what wall thickness do you wind up with and do you see any corrilation to SBF/SBC minimum thicknesses? or can you go thinner due to the reduced side loads from the smaller (lower mass) piston?

as for the stroker end of things (you can see i'm kinda stuck on this idea for some reason), asside from the cost standpoint (knowing that the last time i saw a stroker crank for the B3/6 block went for $2400 each) what other detraments do you see from attemting such a mod? as i understand it, the longer stroke will produce a stonger intake pulse and allow the power produced to act upon the crank over a longer procutive period. and at the relativly low rpm limits of our ECUs, i can only see gains here.

thoughts? (please be patient with me, i'm good with theory but love to see the results of real world application, i'm really just wanting to learn)

oh and if you like, i have a spare G1 B6 head that i can send along with the cams for "other" developements (seeing that many members here also have B6 swaps and that they are so similar to the B3 as well. Note: this is NOT an attempt to move things in the B6 direction, but more a possible hybrid?)

Just to let you guys know, I am not Pro-B3 only. I just assume that not much is being done with them because nothing has been available. I am just trying to make another option available to you. I am all for any engine combination and can produce cams & such performance parts for any engine, whether it be a B6T or BP. I have sonic tested the thickness of the bores & at their thinnest point is .241, so going .040 over would be .201, .080 over would be .161 thick. Even at .080 over this leaves more than enough wall thickness for bore stability, especially when combined with the light weight, low friction components that are coming.

[blkfordsedan]

The wall thickness is .241"? So wouldn't .040 over be .221"?

[Safety Guy]

"The wall thickness is .241"? So wouldn't .040 over be .221"?"

Depends on how you measure. Are we talking radius or diameter? I have no clue; I've read this phrase before many times but I'd never thought of this.

Karl

[mattdickmeyer]

The wall thickness is .241"? So wouldn't .040 over be .221"?

Matt says yes you are correct. This is his wife posting for him as he works. He forgot to divide by 2 when he told me what to write

[mattdickmeyer]

He is building another B3 engine for a customer right now that has been machined .040 He said the actual wall thickness is .201

[mattdickmeyer]

In 2013 I hope to have a few more performance products available for Festiva owners. One particular component I am sending out for durability evaluation ( ok, torture testing ) should be ready around February to release.

[blkfordsedan]

Matt says yes you are correct. This is his wife posting for him as he works. He forgot to divide by 2 when he told me what to write

So, not only does Matt have a fully equipped shop and get to play with building engines all day.....but he has a wife that posts on forums for him while he does it? When I die, I want to be reincarnated as Matt, LOL.

[Movin]

One of my FORMER engine suppliers has a minimum wall thickness of .080 and something
similar for decking heads. Engines from them that were at .090 had heating problems
in hot weather, long grades and high altitude.
Replacing those engines at my expense solved those problems. Other suppliers that are
more picky with their max limits and also more picky about which castings they will use
have been trouble free.

Based on the toughness of this block and these experiences I believe Matt is in very safe
territory. This is really cool stuff going on here, Thank you Matt for breaking new ground
here!!

[MiltonHavoc]

Might be sending you a head soon Matt. I can leave the engine attached if you want anything off of it...