Design me a Product Dynamics 2 \'Super Eta\' Analysis and Report

Background:\r\nA common performance upgrade for the BMW E30 from the mid-eighties is to build a \'stroker\' version of the M20\r\n\'baby-six\' engine using many original components. Several versions of the M20 engine were produced by BMW with\r\ncapacities from 2.0l to 2.7l. The largest of these (known as the \'eta\' engine) was built during the oil crisis of the early\r\neighties, and consequently is focused on fuel efficiency.\r\nTo produce an efficient engine, BMW increased the stroke of their existing 2.5l engine (from 75mm to 81mm) and\r\ndesigned the head and camshaft to produce a large amount of torque at low RPM. The high torque engine was very\r\nefficient for general driving, however the design was very limited in terms of outright power (the original \'eta\' engine\r\nwas electronically limited to only 4800RPM).\r\nAn M20 \'stroker\' or \'super eta\' is built using an \'eta\' crankshaft and a \'2.5i\' head and valve-train. If done properly,\r\nthis provides a high revving, larger capacity engine (2.7lt as opposed to 2.5lt) that produces significantly more power.\r\nWhen building a \'super eta\', three options are available in terms of connecting rods;\r\nOption 1:\r\nThe original \'eta\' connecting rods can be used. These have a length of 130mm.\r\nOption 2:\r\nConnecting rods from a 2.5i engine can be used. These have an equivalent strength as the \'eta\' connecting\r\nrods and a length of 135mm.\r\nOption 3:\r\nConnecting rods from a more modern M3 (US version) can be used. These have the same geometry as those\r\nfrom the 2.5i engine (i.e. 135mm), however they are around 10% stronger and slightly lighter.\r\nIn each case, after-market pistons are readily available to maintain the same \'deck height\' and compression ratio.\r\nThe 5mm difference does not sound like much, however there is significant debate over how much impact it has. \r\nMost of this debate is on internet forums and tends to be fairly unreliable. Conventional wisdom suggests that the\r\nlonger connecting rods are preferred as they provide less side loadings on the bores and produce motion that is\r\ncloser to sinusoidal.\r\nThe engine builder has posed the following questions to you;\r\n1. What is the impact of using the shorter con-rods, and is it something he should be concerned about?\r\n2. Are the M3 connecting rods worth trying to source? How much benefit in terms of extra RPM could be\r\nexpected?\r\nScope:\r\nYou are to analyse the kinematics and kinetics of the engine components and provide advice back to the engine\r\nbuilder on your findings.\r\nIn particular, your report should address the following questions;\r\nDoes the choice of connecting rod length dramatically change the maximum side loading between the piston\r\nand the cylinder wall?\r\no Does the choice of connecting rod length dramatically change the maximum forces experienced by the\r\ngudgeon pin or journal bearing?\r\no Is the profile of the velocity and acceleration of the piston over each cycle significantly dependant on the\r\nchoice of connecting rod?\r\no In your opinion, is it acceptable to use the shorter connecting rods, and under what circumstances should\r\nthey be avoided?\r\no If it is accepted that a standard \'eta\' engine is capable of revving to 7000RPM, what maximum RPM do you\r\nrecommend for engines built with the 2.5i and M3 connecting rods.\r\nYou may neglect any forces produced by combustion. Make sure you outline your assumptions and the limitations\r\nof your analysis in the report.\r\nRelevant Data:\r\nParameters for an M20 \'stroker\' are as follows (see Figure 1):\r\n