Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Konig meets OMC snowmobile Engineering

  1. #1
    Team Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Minocqua WI
    Posts
    55
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Konig meets OMC snowmobile Engineering

    Just a little back ground on this subject. In 1969 OMC introduced a 437 cc opposed cylinder snowmobile engine rated 25 HP. Now we all know (some of us anyway) that both Evinrude and Johnson have built 4 cylinder opposed engines in the past. Sooooooooo, Snowmobile engineering was asked to put two 25 hp together and see about a possible production 50 hp+ sled. Ok, now we have a 874 cc 54 hp prototype is fan cooled engine, and the next question is how does this compare to our competition? But we have no competition, there are no snowmobile 4 cylinder engines. Enter Konig with a claimed HP of 90 HP @8000 RPM.

    The following test was run at OMC Resarch in Milwaukee on 11/11/69 by James Danahue.

    Konig VC rotary valve 4 cylinder opposed water cooled racing outboard motor. Bore 2.11 in./ 53.5 cm, stroke 2.13 in/54 cm, displacement 29.64 cu/in, 492 ccm.

    Port timing - exhaust port opens at 88.5 degrees atdc, back port opens 107.5 degrees atdc and transfer port opens 114.5 degrees atdc. Rotary valve starts opening 126 degrees btdc, full open 75.5 degrees btdc, starts to close 6 degrees atdc, full close 59 degrees atdc.

    Now the big one, - 82.5 CBHP @8500 RPM with stock Konig mufflers, no expansion chambers.

  2. #2
    Team Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    559
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default origin of Konig tested?

    Not that it makes any difference all these years later, but because several OMC employees were engaged in Alky racing in this time frame, do you know if the motor tested was one that was purchased specifically for that purpose by OMC, or borrowed from an employee who would get a fee dyno test out of the deal?

  3. #3
    - Skoontz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Encinitas, California
    Posts
    581
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    If they did that rather than build the twin alternate cylinder 650cc junk that blew head gaskets every chance it got, they might be still building snowmobiles!
    Bill Schwab
    Dirty Deck Brewing
    Company

  4. #4
    Team Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    76
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    82.5 would be just a number to OMC, their next question would be where's that coming from? that's a full strip down & measure, that's the chapter I'd love to read.

    The next chapter if there is one, is the really informative one & could involve disecting the cylinder to find where it's clever & where there might be more power gained from a production/liner or casting mod.

    Did they spend that much money, or was this just a looksee to estimate how much it would cost them to design something with a similar output per cubic inch?

    Thanks.

  5. #5
    Team Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Minocqua WI
    Posts
    55
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default So many Questions

    Just remember that I am 67 years old (my god where did the time), and my memory is not the best. As far as I know, one day in November '69 the door open at the lab and a Konig was rolled in. Where it came from and who owned it, I do not have clue. I know I had it for a week or so to evaluate physically. You all ready know the port timing etc. Konig uses a press crank, so they can run a much tighter crankcase. Let me step off this for a min. Crank case compression is often referred to as "primary compression ratio". From worst to best is a range of 1:1 -1.4:1, the OMC opposed twin was measured at 1.14:1. And again if my memory is right, the Konig was 1.28:1. OMC believed, at that time, high port timing would would not be good for a production engine. That being the lack of good torque and fuel eff. Looking at OMC and inline Mercury's, one can see that they would have lower Primary compression #'s. How ever the V engines should be better due to the seal rings used on their crankshafts. Some things I did notice about the the porting used on the Konig, was they looks like they where hand ground and varied up to 2 degrees between cylinder. Just know that there is a lot of little things different between a 6000 RPM engine and a 8500 RPM engine, but then you already knew that.

    I will address the alternate twins later.

  6. #6
    Team Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    559
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default port timing difference between cylinders

    The comment about several degrees difference in porting between cylinders on the Konig tested by the OMC lab brought to mind something that Harry ZAK used to do first thing when someone brought a Konig to him back in the late 60's/early 70's to rebuild or try to improve performance on.

    He was an admirer of Dieter Konig and his engines in a lot of respects, in fact most respects, but the thing he was never able to understand was some of the little things that were either overlooked or not seemingly cared about in assembly of the engines before exporting to the US. One of these was that he would invariably find the porting on each cylinder of a 4 cyl motor different from another in the same engine. Not ever off by a lot but just not that last little bit to make sure all cylinders were given the best chance to work evenly with the rest so as to have the engine develop maximum power. That and finding the cranks out a few thousandths and not firing the cylinders exactly 180 apart. Another problem, especially after the engine had been run a season or two, would be a intermittent misfire that was very difficult to find. This could usually be traced (after exhausting the other more common problems such as ignition, etc.,) to a poor fit between the bottom of the sleeve flange and the cast block on the exhaust port side, allowing water to leak and be drawn into the cylinder. This was very hard to find because except in the worst cases, it did not happen until the engine reached operating temperature and expansion of the block and/or sleeve in that area allowed a passage for the water to go from water jacket to combustion chamber. I did see several in this time frame that were so bad though, that water would pour into the cylinder while the engine was at rest. This could be determined very easily by hooking a hose, at normal city water pressure, to the inlet side of the cooling system and turning it on and then watching that area with the header removed so as to be able to see around the exhaust port. Some folks tried "water glass" and other types of sealer, but the very best method was to remove the sleeves, face the sleeve flange mating surface on the block casting as flat as possible, and then put an 0 ring groove in the bottom of the sleeve flange so as to seal that surface in the best way possible with a high temp 0 ring.

    Just these fixes (which should have never been a problem to start with) could really bring a Konig to life, and the best ones usually had been gone thru in this or a similar manner, checking all the little stuff and making the engine the way it should have been before it was inported into the US.

    Harry used to get aggravated with the way a lot of the Konigs were when shipped here, as he was, as most know who knew him, a perfectionist, and he just did not understand how someone could not know these problems existed, and if they did, why they were shipped here for sale to US boat racers in that condition..He used to say (only half jokingly) that there must be two big boxes at the factory, one for all the parts that would be used in engines built for European use, and the other for the not so good parts. We got the engines assembled from that box. That was an exaggeration I know, but I also know he used to find a lot not right that should not have been with a brand new engine.

    There were also water leakage problems with Flatheads also, just so nobody thinks he was picking on Konigs. I remember Stan Leavendusky Sr. cussing that problem several times with various customer engines.

    If you take the dyno figures achieved at OMC, add expansion chambers to the mix, there is probably no doubt that 100HP was achievable with a good 500 CC Konig equipped with them. And that was just with the standard porting at that time, not even the later models that improved on that considerably with more ports and more efficient porting to go along with the increase in intake area, more radical rotary valve disc cuts such as mentioned in another thread and used by Wayne Baldwin, Tim Butts, etc., the motors developed an amazing amount of HP for the time.

    As an example of how that engine design, now 40+ years old has held up competitvely, you only have to look at the Konney engine which is almost a duplicate of the basic Konig design, although with the latest porting technology, pipe design, and intake track goodies. That design still does it's very fair share of winning in PRO racing today, and if Dieter were still here it would be very interesting to see where the engines would be today with the competition provided in PRO racing by GRM and VRP. You only have to compare the Kilo record set by McKean recently to the 500CC 127MPH pass by Dan Kirts with a non-capsuled/laydown Schumaker boat way back in the late 70's/early 80's at Moorehaven, Florida, to see that the engines were plenty powerful back then. Who knows what speeds would be "normal" today in the PRO Category.

    We might have capsules mandated in 250CC hydro today, if not for a motorized glider/ultralite airplane accident some years back.

  7. #7
    Team Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    76
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Was the opposed twin a common crankcase twin or 2 singles firing at the same time, in 69 this would be cross scavenged with fractured steel rods wouldn't it?

    High crankcase compression seems to have been an European/Japanese fashion little practiced in the states, whereas I can't think of one manufacturer in Europe that used fractured steel rods, & they were way cheaper when you added in the cost of the crank.

    Was the Konig a gasoline model?

    If we were having a memory loss race, I probably would be in front of you & I'm 9 years younger.

  8. #8
    Team Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Tomahawk, Wi
    Posts
    50
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    SeaGull 170,

    The Konigs were all methanol powered. Back in the early 70's, I had the opportunity to go to a dyno session with Harry Zak, Ray Hardy, John Winzeler and Tim Butts. Ray Hardy owned a hard chrome plating business in the Chicago area and had a shop that could accommodate the dyno that Harry had constructed for the Konigs. With the original "round block" 3 port 4 cylinder Konigs with Harry's expansion pipes, a 350cc was pulling between 78-82 HP. We changed powerheads to Ray's 500, and saw numbers similar to what Bill has mentioned. They were in the low 100's. We were only able to make 2 runs with the 500 when it ate a piston and stopped very abruptly. The crown separated from the ring groove up. Damaged the dyno in the sudden stop. As Bill mentioned, there was a lot of undeveloped potential in the first generation Konigs. It would be very interesting to find out who owned the Konig that was tested at OMC.

    Dan

  9. #9
    Team Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Minocqua WI
    Posts
    55
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default More questions

    A methanol and caster oil mixed a 20:1 ratio was used on the Konig dyno run.
    The OMC opposed twin has a common crankcase w/out a full circle crank shaft and uses cracked rods. We referred to it as the pumpkin crankcase. I would like to add some personal thoughts on some of the design features that came down the road to us from Marine Engineering. We where forced to use the small dia. wrist pin that had been use from the late 50's. When working on the prototype Alternate twins' we ran to piston skirt cracking due to wrist pin flexing. We wanted to increase the pin dia. but was told we had to use that pin. Because of that we had to due a major piston redesign. In 1974 Marine Engineering went to a larger wrist pin. Marine engineering introduced in 1971 a new piston ring that was used the 3 cylinder and 125 HP v-4. It was called a pressure back ring and they wanted us to use it also. The ring groove dimension was hard to control and we encountered much higher engine failure rate. I believe that there is a ring flutter problem. And as you know Marine Engineering has move the ring high and low on the piston and is still having a ring problem. Just my .02 cents.

    All this is bringing back a flood of memories, some good and some real bad. It makes me feel good that some of you are interested in my history with OMC.

  10. #10
    - Skoontz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Encinitas, California
    Posts
    581
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Was there any truth to the rumors we heard that the opposed snowmobile engine was sort of morphed from the 600cc Rockwell JLO opposed motors?

    We had one and setting next to the 437 OMC, other than the shrouds, there was not a whole lot of difference. Also, do you know of the HP gain when the 2 barrel 125 V-4 carb and manifold was added to the 437cc engine? I put ours around a tree after we added the manifiold and a set of pipes...
    Bill Schwab
    Dirty Deck Brewing
    Company

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. OMC’s 4-Rotor Wankel Racing Engine - The Real Story
    By LIQUID NIRVANA in forum Outboard Racing History
    Replies: 250
    Last Post: 12-14-2022, 02:52 AM
  2. Hey Sam!! Konig's History Is Here!!!
    By Jeff Lytle in forum Outboard Racing History
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-07-2011, 04:54 PM
  3. Konig vs. Quincy Flatheads
    By Bill Van Steenwyk in forum Outboard Racing History
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-13-2009, 07:13 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •