Adam vs. Shaman: Episode I - Battle of the Cylinders

[ctenche]

Are light 4 cylinder cars better track cars than the big iron from Detroit? Not everyone agrees. Certainly not Adam and Shaman. Adam thinks that a light 4 cylinder car is more nimble and given enough power can handle itself more readily around the track. Shaman thinks there's more to taking corners quickly then just light weight. He's a firm believer in the 'no replacement for displacemnt' adage.

Who will win the duel?

http://www.chipheads.com/images/confused%20guy.gif

Read the arguments and the rebuttals and vote for the winner.

Rules
1. Adam will get the first chance to state his argument. Then it will be Shaman turn to voice his thoughts.

2. Next, we'll give Adam a chance at a rebutall followed by a rebuttall from Shaman.

3. The discussion will then be closed and we'll all take a vote.

Let the battle commence!

[Bubblecar]

Go Adam Go . . .

Get your points in early - I hear from the other thread - He's over at Hooters parking lot waiting for me.

Nick

[Shaman]

You're not afraid of daisy shorts, are you Nick? :)

[ADAM]

racing is weight.....NOT only for acceleration..but for stopping and cornering..given equal power to weight ratios..the car with the least mass will be a faster track car...

so it comes down to a light boosted (turbo) car..

vs

a heavy but more powerfull v8 powered car...

[ctenche]

That's your arument? Okay.

You realize you're only allowed two posts right?

[Shaman]

That's a bit simplistic.

It's about a combination of weight to power ratio, the ratio of tire contact to weight of the car, the height of the instance of centre in the car, the capability of the suspension to deal with hard cornering, the amount of time taken to stop from speed, the balance of the car under cornering extremes, available traction and the drivability of the car with the throttle.

Get it all right, and you have something. That's why Corvettes, Vipers, Supras, Camaros, 300ZXs, Skylines, etc. all can turn very commendable lap times even though they are all more than 3,000 pounds.

[Bad Karma]

What?? Nobody else allowed to weigh in on this argument?

Damn, and I enjoy a good debate like this one (having been on BOTH sides of the argument already...).


Anyhow, I'm going to throw in a couple of points just to annoy the contestants somewhat...


A) Engines have to be reliable as daily drivers; no 6-hour F1 motors or one-weekend wonders. Engines have to last an average of say, three seasons of lapping days, Solo 1 and 1/4 mile runs, plus daily driving (no trailer queens).


B) Cars / Engines have to do well at both at road course (lapping, Solo 1) AND 1/4 mile times. No one-hit wonders....


This is the real test I've always wished some magazine would sponsor somehow....take 2 teams, give them each $20,000 to purchase a used car, and the remainder of the money goes towards modifications to make the car quick on both the 1/4 mile AND the road course.

Damn, now we're probably going to get into the whole FWD vs RWD argument as well.....


Pat

[Shaman]

Well, FWD is always the wrong answer for performance if you have something else available. RWD is superior on pavement, AWD is superior on loose surfaces. Which is why FWD cars are classed together - and they probably have the best competition of all the classes, IMHO.

Oh yeah, 11.84@128.7 with my full interior, a tank full of Sunoco 94 and 12 CDs in the stack on street tires. ;)

At the end of this year, I'll have my car back to mostly reliable. It turns out that there is a machining mistake in my motor that Agostino is going to fix for free - he's replacing the whole block, rings and bearings as well as all the labour involved. That will cure 95% of the problems I had last year (and this spring). I taught the classes this spring largely so I could pound on my car and prove once and for all that it was ingesting coolant in the oil. OK, I would have done it anyway.

[ADAM]

ok...than lets look at a say....
rustang(mustang)
flaming chicken (firebird)
corvette z06
vs
240sx
acura type r

and who wins what (taking power out of the equation)

tires contact to weight of car....
240sx 225/50/15=900 / 2700lbs=3
typer 225/50/15=900 /weight?=? (someone please fill in)

rustang(please fill in)
flaming chicken(please fill in)

if big cars with big tires were so great why are they not disproportionately killing the smaller cars with smaller tires...
day 2 from DDT
1=acura type r driven by alec 69.788sec has 225's and approx 200bhp
2=240sx driven by me.... 68.781sec has 225's and 246bhp
3=z06 vette driven by blair.....68.043 has 295's and 335's..and 385bhp

so...
car 1 has 900mm of tire, and 200bhp 2700lbs
time69.788
car 2 has 900mm of tire, and 246bhp 2700lbs time68.781
car 3 has 1260mm of tire and 385bhp 3100lbs time68.043

all on R tires

now between these 3 cars there is a 1.74sec difference.... yet there is a %30 difference in contact patch on the ground...and a 48% difference in power levels BUT and this is the BUT..only 13% difference in weight....do you think your theory still hold true based on the above evidence....you would think that the larger and more powerfull corvette would be killing the other very underpowered cars...it does not seem that way to me...so there must be more to this than raw V8 power and huge tires like you say...


comments....

(i picked the above 3 cars since they came 1st in thier classes and represent the type of cars we are bickering about)










Originally posted by Shaman
That's a bit simplistic.

It's about a combination of weight to power ratio, the ratio of tire contact to weight of the car, the height of the instance of centre in the car, the capability of the suspension to deal with hard cornering, the amount of time taken to stop from speed, the balance of the car under cornering extremes, available traction and the drivability of the car with the throttle.

Get it all right, and you have something. That's why Corvettes, Vipers, Supras, Camaros, 300ZXs, Skylines, etc. all can turn very commendable lap times even though they are all more than 3,000 pounds.

[Shaman]

Well, for starters, it's very hard to make much of power on the DDT. I often find that I can't get through a whole gear between any two corners, which doesn't make very good use of power. You picked one of the least likely tracks to show differences.

I pick the Pro track @ Shannonville.

Z06: 74.710
Miata: 80.730
Type R: 78.770
'97 Z/28: 78.380

You can see more of the effects of power here. The weight to power ratio of the Type R and the Camaro aren't that far apart, one is a 14.6 second 1/4 mile car, the other a 14.1 second 1/4 mile car. As you can see, their lap times were quite close even though the Camaro outweighs it by something like 1,000 pounds. The Z06, on the other hand, is 4 seconds a lap faster.

I've run 74s on the Pro on street tires during a lapping session, but for some reason I've never run it in Solo-1 competition. :confused:

[ADAM]

well then if you pick the pro track we might as well be comparing 1/4 mile times..since its mainly a big straught away....and 1/4 mile does not have much to do with road racing....

[Bad Karma]

Originally posted by ADAM
well then if you pick the pro track we might as well be comparing 1/4 mile times..since its mainly a big straught away....and 1/4 mile does not have much to do with road racing....

Which only serves to prove the point that certain tracks have characteristics which can make one car faster than another, in spite of *numerical* (statistical) superiority of one car over the other.

Nelson is a great equalizer for small, underpowered cars. Mosport (the big track) tends to let big HP cars show their stuff much better, given the long, uphill back straight.

Laptimes don't necessarily relate much truth either, as an inexperienced driver in a very fast, easy to drive car (such as the Z06) can turn excellent laptimes, while a more experienced driver might turn the lap of his/her life in a smaller, underpowered car.

It almost needs to be the same driver in both cars, or ones of equivalent, measurable skill.


Now, completely off the record, I'm not a fan of forced air engines on the track (unless factory built, such as the WRX, Porsche Turbo's etc...), due to reliability problems, and general peakiness of the engines.

Naturally aspirated all the way....


Pat

[ADAM]

forced induction is the ONLY way to go...why..because it increases the thermodynamic efficency of the engine..why..cause it uses the 33% of wasted heat energy that comes out your tail pipe to power the turbo which in turn forces more air into the engine....lets not even argue this one....

or maybe the best aspect of turbo...you can change the power levels with a button :)

lets say a pesky flaming chicken is breathing down your back..or a rustang...and you are running 9psi...push the boost controller button..20psi, and let computer take over...voila..see the flaming chicken eat your exhaust..big V8 and all

[Bad Karma]

Ok, now you've got me started on the forced air issue.


Two major problems with forced air. One, specific to turbos rather than blowers, is the rather *sudden* nature in which boost can come on. This can be moderated to some extent, but having your torque curve take a sudden jump with your car in the middle of a corner often has dramatic, and disasterous results.

Secondly, I've seen several guys with BMW M3's and blown head gaskets, heat soak, burned pistons, all because they were attempting to force more air into a motor not designed for it from the factory.

Once again, I'll compare the Solo 1 scene to regular driving schools and lapping days. 3 hot laps probably doesn't cause any problems; 1/2 hour or full hour of hot lapping will put a lot more abuse on a boosted engine than on a N/A one. Try some BMW-CC days where 5+ hours a day are spent lapping at Mosport. I know one particular Club Racer who used to bring multiple blowers AND multiple head gaskets to every race with him, because he knew he's smoke at least one every weekend. He finally gave up, and went back to N/A motors.

Now, enough money can solve essentially all problems, but the $$$ required to make a non-factory boosted engine as reliable as a factory boosted engine probably puts the price / performance curve out of whack.

Enough money spent on a N/A car with better suspension and brakes can often run laps around big $$$ boosted cars with minimal suspension work. Given the limited choice, I'll take suspension over HP anyday.

Pat

[ADAM]

guess you have been out of the turbo loop for a couple of years.....

ever heard of speed proportional boost control? it controls the boost according to speed of the vehicle...so lets say...

0-40kph 7psi
40-80kph 10psi
80-110kph 12psi
110kph+ 20psi

and even then turbo is a soft power as far as i am concerned..NA is more violent..and NOS the most violent

ever heard of mass air flow systems....they tell a computer to add the proper amount of fuel as boost increases...

so as long as you use the right fuel and stay below the detonation level of that fuel..you are ok....there is no excuse for blown motors these days ..other than exceeding the physical limitations of the pistons/rods/block

as far as reliability goes..it comes down to 1 thing... HEAT MANAGEMENT...

if you were to look at my car you will notice..i have a radiator that would put all of your v8 rads to shame..and make them cry :)

plus an oil cooler....
plus a huge 27x7x3 intercooler
plus all kinds of heat wrapping and shielding..and air ducting...

re: bmw m3's ..they are lucky to get thier motors to run NA without blowing up let alone boosted :)

lets remember that the meturlagy found in the import motors is usually vastly superior to detroit iron....

and BLOWERS have nothing to do with turbos they should be obsoleted along with the pushrod v8's
:)

it comes down to...if things are built and tuned correctly...they work correctly :)

he he he he he

[Jay]

One issue that I think has been touched on but not elaborated on in the battle of the cylinders is the mass of the vehicles involved.

A large displacement, high powered, many cylinder engine is inherently found in a car that will accommodate the big heavy fire breathing V8. This means that the car will probably be larger in size, have heavier cross members, and just generally be more massive. (Obviously there are exceptions to the rule…. F1 engines)

So who cares that the big V8 car is heavier???? Just up the power until the Hp/Weight is favorable! Not so easy…

As Adam mentioned earlier it is not only acceleration (The common word that we throw around to mean fast in a straight line) that matters… but lateral acceleration around corners, deceleration under braking etc….. F=MA stuff. That larger mass that will inherently accompany a big heavy 8 cyl engine is gonna mean that cornering and braking are going to suffer as a result.

If you can squeeze a lot of power out of a smaller lighter engine that will PROBABLY be found in a lighter car… then you are in a good place. After all isn’t that how the shifter karts often set FTD? (Outside of the fact that those boys seem to be missing some critical neurons)


BTW Adam... The correct spelling is Metallurgy. Ya dolt :p

If it makes you feel any better Adam I voted for you. Not because your argument was more valid (You and Steve have both presented a great debate) I just wanted to stir the pot by briniging the vote tally closer to 50/50 ....Tee hee

[Bad Karma]

As a guy who drives a race car that is completely stripped out, I whole-heartedly suppor the notion that mass is the enemy on the race track. The lighter the car, *generally* the better it will perform on the track, all other things being equal (which often isn't the case).

As to problems with the BMW motors, I can't really think of any recently, outside of guys who miss a shift....

However, there is no way that a well built NA engine has a more violent torque curve than a turbo engine; low compression and minimal boost at low RPMs (sub 3000) tend to keep the torque curve more peaky than with a NA motor.

And yes, as an engineer, I'm fully familiar with MAF, and the various other portions that go into building an engine. However, engine management doesn't always depend on MAF (several aftermarket EFI management systems rely upon TPS and RPMs to maximize power output, which helps to create big power, but often leads to burned pistons).

I'd be curious as to how much track time your car actually sees, and compare reliabilty stats a year or two down the road. Nearly every track junkie I know has rebuilt a boosted engine within 2 or 3 years after seeing some serious, annual track time (upwards of 30 or 40 days)(A BMW-CC weekend is 3 full days of track time).

I agree, forced air is certainly efficient for getting more power out of an engine, but on the road course, the vast majority of aftermarket add-on systems tend to fail, unless the owner has really gone to market with cranks, con-rods, bearings, cooling etc. To properly build a forced air engine, I'd suggest the turbo-kit is only about half of the required cost to make it reliable.

Pat


PS Besides, no turbo motor ever gets that V-8 rumble....

[ADAM]

thanks hindgrinder...

thats what you get for university education and no spell checker :)


but in a nut shell you have my whole arguement...MASS is our enemy....and i feel the lighter car is better...cause accelerating is only 1/3 of the battle

whats your take on turbo, now that it has been thrown into the pot as well :)

[Shaman]

I addressed the mass point. It can be largely nullified (to a certain point) with larger tires. Vehicles like Karts are a whole other story... you are talking about a factor of 15+ times there.

I agree with the idea of a lighter car being faster. But I also know from experience that a large, heavy car can also be made fast. Your milage may vary.

Incidentally, the Skyline, Supra, 300ZX are all heavier than my car with about half the displacement. Their turbo systems and heavily built blocks more than make up the difference.

[RacerRobb]

Hey Steve;

Not sure if that was a full 180 degree, but it's in at least in the 165 - 170 degree range.

What Gives?

Robb

[Shaman]

Nah, I agree with the idea that a lighter car is faster. In application, it doesn't always work out.

[Brent]

Until I see the Z06s being beat by 4 cylinder cars on a real race track I'm going to have to say there is no replacement for displacement. This is from a 4 cyl car driver. Want to know why I race a 4 cylinder car? Because I can't afford a real car. I would much rather be competing in a heavy new ACR Viper than my nice light neon. If my Viper ever got beat by a 4 cyl turbo car, I would put a twin turbo kit on my 3500 lb viper and with 1000 hp and 1000 lbs torque give them whiplash as I lap them.

Yes 1000 hp. You can't get 1000 hp from a 4 cyl motor for more than a couple seconds. Thats all there is to it. When taken to the limit a 4 cyl motor cannot compete.

A 4 cyl car that was extensively prepared may be able to compete with the Z06's etc, but only if they are stock. Do the same work to the Z06, viper, etc and the 4 cyl car will not be able to compete.

Hell, I want to put a larger 4cyl motor in my neon. Honda guys want the bigger acura motors and the fastest hybrids run stroker kits. It's all just displacement envy.

[Shaman]

Forced air induction is about artificially adding displacement. :D

And yeah, you can have a 1,000hp Viper that runs pump gas. Good lord. And they're just starting to get their forced induction chops together for new V8 and V10 cars.

[Bad Karma]

Now, just to play Devil's Advocate, I'd be surprised if you could get a Viper to put out 1000 HP *reliably* on pump gas as well...

It's much easier to get 1000 HP out of an 8.0L motor, but it's still OHV, pushrod technology.

I'd say you could get a reliable 700-800 HP out of the Viper motor; 1000 HP might be pushing it. I haven't followed everything the Viper tuners have been doing lately, but 1000 HP is double the factory output.

By reliable, I mean reliable enough to be a regular driver, and usable on the street.

I'm discounting any use of NOS in this situation, since it doesn't apply to the road racing scene, and is essentially strictly 1/4 mile or for the F&F crowd.

Be careful when you say *4 cyl motor*. I've worked on a few *4 cyl motors* that easily put out thousands of lb-ft of torque....

Mind you, they were very large displacement 4 cylinder motors, but the number of cylinders isn't the important piece, it's how much they displace. :D

Pat

[Dave Barker]

Steve , I drive the 97 Camaro which at 3500 lb without me in it ,I believe is the heaviest car competing in Solo 1 ( Some prize to win huh? ) . As you point out the well driven and prepared Type R was within 0.4 sec of me at the pro track and beat me at the DDT with the lower kink . OTOH I had no problem beating Alex at Cayuga or on Fabi and on the big track at Mosport I am significantly faster than the Type Rs due to my higher speeds between 3 and 5 as well as up the back straight. Power to wgt ratios are within 1 lb per hp between my car and a type R . My car only ran on 265 /45 tires , which is to say not alot of tire for 3500 lb but the torque pulled me out of some of the slower corners better , although I'm sure my cornering speeds were actually slower than any type R .

The point is , the track dictates which car will do better .

BTW Adam , I don't want to follow you on any track for fear of not seeing the potential oil slick behind you .

Now if only I could get 300 lb out of my car ...

[Bad Karma]

That's the whole problem with discussions like these; nobody can ever win.


To build the ideal track car from the ground up, you're shooting for XX weight, YY track, a certain amount of HP, a certain amount of torque etc, etc.

I know some guys who would bring 4 or 5 diffs to each BMW Club Race, because depending upon what track they were running, he'd need to swap diffs to get the gearing (and subsequent torque) he wanted. That's a little extreme for the average guy...

As an example, comparing a completely race prepped car (full cage, stripped, etc) to a Fox generation Mustang. There were four at the last BMW Club event; two that were well prepared, two not so well.

On the big track, the one Mustang was essentially the fastest car in the instructors group, using a N/A 5.0L V-8 in it. It's certainly not a *great* handling car off the showroom floor, but with some work done to it, the car excelled at Mosport, showing a bunch of new and some prepped BMW's it's taillights, lap after lap.

Another factor to consider, is that many V-8s aren't significantly heavier than big 4-banger motors, especially when one factors all the boost gear that has been added on (intercoolers, turbo, plumbing, big rad, etc etc needed to make them reliable).

The BMW 4.0L V-8 weighs roughly 50-60 lbs more than the big 3.2L inline six from the M3. On a car that's stripped down to 2700 lbs, those 50-60lbs can easily be balanced out elsewhere, and is significantly less weight than a turbo system might add on.

As well, the low-end torque from the V-8 is hard to beat; the car has easily 125 lb-ft of torque more than the N/A six; all available from roughly 2000 RPM (no waiting for boost to come on).

Mass is the enemy, but torque is your friend.


Pat

[ADAM]

RE: BMW MOTORS...
here is a whole site on how good the new M3 motor is :)
http://members.roadfly.org/jason/m3engines.htm


Originally posted by Bad Karma
As a guy who drives a race car that is completely stripped out, I whole-heartedly suppor the notion that mass is the enemy on the race track. The lighter the car, *generally* the better it will perform on the track, all other things being equal (which often isn't the case).

As to problems with the BMW motors, I can't really think of any recently, outside of guys who miss a shift....

However, there is no way that a well built NA engine has a more violent torque curve than a turbo engine; low compression and minimal boost at low RPMs (sub 3000) tend to keep the torque curve more peaky than with a NA motor.

And yes, as an engineer, I'm fully familiar with MAF, and the various other portions that go into building an engine. However, engine management doesn't always depend on MAF (several aftermarket EFI management systems rely upon TPS and RPMs to maximize power output, which helps to create big power, but often leads to burned pistons).

I'd be curious as to how much track time your car actually sees, and compare reliabilty stats a year or two down the road. Nearly every track junkie I know has rebuilt a boosted engine within 2 or 3 years after seeing some serious, annual track time (upwards of 30 or 40 days)(A BMW-CC weekend is 3 full days of track time).

I agree, forced air is certainly efficient for getting more power out of an engine, but on the road course, the vast majority of aftermarket add-on systems tend to fail, unless the owner has really gone to market with cranks, con-rods, bearings, cooling etc. To properly build a forced air engine, I'd suggest the turbo-kit is only about half of the required cost to make it reliable.

Pat


PS Besides, no turbo motor ever gets that V-8 rumble....

[ADAM]

he he....you noticed my black smog i create under boost.... here is a color chart

white smog=bad
blue smog=bad
black smog=safe

currently i am running 11:1 fuel ratio under max boost, so its nice and safe, probably losing 10-20rwhp due to the over richness..and it goes thru plugs quicker, but better that than burnt pistons and wrecked motors..i am not really pushing the motor i am shifting at 5800rpm, and running rich...



Originally posted by Dave Barker
Steve , I drive the 97 Camaro which at 3500 lb without me in it ,I believe is the heaviest car competing in Solo 1 ( Some prize to win huh? ) . As you point out the well driven and prepared Type R was within 0.4 sec of me at the pro track and beat me at the DDT with the lower kink . OTOH I had no problem beating Alex at Cayuga or on Fabi and on the big track at Mosport I am significantly faster than the Type Rs due to my higher speeds between 3 and 5 as well as up the back straight. Power to wgt ratios are within 1 lb per hp between my car and a type R . My car only ran on 265 /45 tires , which is to say not alot of tire for 3500 lb but the torque pulled me out of some of the slower corners better , although I'm sure my cornering speeds were actually slower than any type R .

The point is , the track dictates which car will do better .

BTW Adam , I don't want to follow you on any track for fear of not seeing the potential oil slick behind you .

Now if only I could get 300 lb out of my car ...

[ADAM]

what do we get when this happens? :) i think dave pratte and i have a good chance of this happening this year....

watch out ZO6's :)

note...i don't see any mustangs, or camaro's rising up to the challenge..where are all those v8 cars?

the 4cyl's will be victorious :)


Originally posted by Brent
Until I see the Z06s being beat by 4 cylinder cars on a real race track I'm going to have to say there is no replacement for displacement. This is from a 4 cyl car driver. Want to know why I race a 4 cylinder car? Because I can't afford a real car. I would much rather be competing in a heavy new ACR Viper than my nice light neon. If my Viper ever got beat by a 4 cyl turbo car, I would put a twin turbo kit on my 3500 lb viper and with 1000 hp and 1000 lbs torque give them whiplash as I lap them.

Yes 1000 hp. You can't get 1000 hp from a 4 cyl motor for more than a couple seconds. Thats all there is to it. When taken to the limit a 4 cyl motor cannot compete.

A 4 cyl car that was extensively prepared may be able to compete with the Z06's etc, but only if they are stock. Do the same work to the Z06, viper, etc and the 4 cyl car will not be able to compete.

Hell, I want to put a larger 4cyl motor in my neon. Honda guys want the bigger acura motors and the fastest hybrids run stroker kits. It's all just displacement envy.

[ADAM]

well reliability is an issue..but in our series we only go around 4 laps :) ..my car is 80% track 20%street, from testing that others have done in the usa it can take 15psi max without failures..thats a good old truck engine for you :)

guess this season will tell...whether forced induction is the way to go...

re: electronics for turbo systems....this is the key..proper tuning and engine management..you can either tune on the safe side..or the power side..i chose the safe side :)


Originally posted by Bad Karma
As a guy who drives a race car that is completely stripped out, I whole-heartedly suppor the notion that mass is the enemy on the race track. The lighter the car, *generally* the better it will perform on the track, all other things being equal (which often isn't the case).

As to problems with the BMW motors, I can't really think of any recently, outside of guys who miss a shift....

However, there is no way that a well built NA engine has a more violent torque curve than a turbo engine; low compression and minimal boost at low RPMs (sub 3000) tend to keep the torque curve more peaky than with a NA motor.

And yes, as an engineer, I'm fully familiar with MAF, and the various other portions that go into building an engine. However, engine management doesn't always depend on MAF (several aftermarket EFI management systems rely upon TPS and RPMs to maximize power output, which helps to create big power, but often leads to burned pistons).

I'd be curious as to how much track time your car actually sees, and compare reliabilty stats a year or two down the road. Nearly every track junkie I know has rebuilt a boosted engine within 2 or 3 years after seeing some serious, annual track time (upwards of 30 or 40 days)(A BMW-CC weekend is 3 full days of track time).

I agree, forced air is certainly efficient for getting more power out of an engine, but on the road course, the vast majority of aftermarket add-on systems tend to fail, unless the owner has really gone to market with cranks, con-rods, bearings, cooling etc. To properly build a forced air engine, I'd suggest the turbo-kit is only about half of the required cost to make it reliable.

Pat


PS Besides, no turbo motor ever gets that V-8 rumble....

[ADAM]

larger tires?? so on top of a heavy car..you want even more rotational unsprung mass? no way..if that was the case we should all be running on 19 inch 335's....

give me small light tires/rims..that grip......again..we have to start and stop with these things..and big and heavy is not the way to go



Originally posted by Shaman
I addressed the mass point. It can be largely nullified (to a certain point) with larger tires. Vehicles like Karts are a whole other story... you are talking about a factor of 15+ times there.

I agree with the idea of a lighter car being faster. But I also know from experience that a large, heavy car can also be made fast. Your milage may vary.

Incidentally, the Skyline, Supra, 300ZX are all heavier than my car with about half the displacement. Their turbo systems and heavily built blocks more than make up the difference.

[Bad Karma]

Originally posted by ADAM
RE: BMW MOTORS...
here is a whole site on how good the new M3 motor is :)
http://members.roadfly.org/jason/m3engines.htm




North of the border, we haven't seen much in the way of problems with the new M3 motors.

However, it IS a pretty high strung motor, and a LOT of the DME's are showing over-revs (over 8000 RPMs...).

No motor built today can withstand a mechanical over-rev if one really wants to force it to....a lot of these guys who complain about their engine blowing simply missed a shift on the highway; despite their protests that they did.

The E36 (previous generation) M3 motors we've had minimal issues with, provided they're properly maintained. I don't care what BMW says about 15,000 mile oil changes; I'll change mine every 3,000 miles anyway...

Pat

[Shaman]

Ever seen the tires on a F1 car, Adam? Monstrous. Huge. You take your tradeoffs sometimes, but I'll almost always pick a significant percentage of traction over a few pounds of unsprung weight.

[ADAM]

ahhhh thats cause they have something called DOWNFORCE..we don't

and they are running small rims as well ...

[Chris P]

Adam, wider is better. F1 run smaller rims becuase of regulations, not choice. I think you should stick with the 4vs8 debate.
Unsprung wieght be damned i want my rubber! If i had enough power and could FIT larger tires then i would. That's usually what limits tire size.

[Brent]

The 1000 hp figure came from here www.supervipersystems.com/Performance_Programs/Engine_Upgrades/engine_upgrades.html
Supposedly you can get 115 hp from intake/headers/exhaust.

[Bad Karma]

Originally posted by Brent
The 1000 hp figure came from here www.supervipersystems.com/Performance_Programs/Engine_Upgrades/engine_upgrades.html
Supposedly you can get 115 hp from intake/headers/exhaust.

Interesting stuff, but I like how they term *tame the 1000 HP* for street use with an adjustable wastegate.

Possibly meaning they blow off a bunch of boost for street driving, only to allow you to max it back out again for 1/4 mile runs?

Doesn't sound like regularly driven, street reliabilty to me. It *sounds* to me like they're playing a little bait and switch; 1000 HP for drag runs; 800 HP for street driving. I'm not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me to see something like that.

The big thing I have against many so called *super tuners* (like Hennessey, Dinan etc) is the general lack of credibility they have. Dyno plots that are fake, or just Powerpoint generated, instead of actual scans etc. Being an engineer, I need somebody to prove it first, before I'll necessarily believe it.

115 HP from intake, headers and exhaust sounds a little extreme, but on the flip side, IT IS an 8.0L motor, so more breathing can certainly free up more HP than on a 2.0L motor...I'd more easily believe 115 HP from that kit than a similar kit claiming 50 more HP from a 2.0L Honda engine....

Back to topic;


Three things a race car can NEVER have too much of....

You can never have too much brake.
You can never have too much grip.
You can never have too much power.

Given the choice, I'll take prodigious amounts of grip over anything else. I can brake early if I need to, and with tons of grip, I can carry more speed through corners anyway.

With a lack of HP (which I have...), tons of grip allows me to carry more speed anyway, so it becomes a momentum track, rather than a HP track.

Having massive HP or eye-popping brakes absolutely cannot make up for a lack of grip. Basically, I want to put AS MUCH rubber down onto the road as my car (and class) will legally allow.


Pat

[Shaman]

Hear, hear. I had two year old street tires and year old brake pads + fluid on my car last time I was out on the track. Ugly. :) But still fun!

[ADAM]

soooo..then you have concluded...a better handling car ..with good brakes...not so much power is needed for a great race car? is that what you are now agreeing to?

if so ..debate over...4cyl wins

[Shaman]

You're persistent, at least. :)

Nah, if you're going to persist with that idea, I say rotary engine wins. Who needs those porky multi-valve jobbies?

[Bad Karma]

Originally posted by ADAM
soooo..then you have concluded...a better handling car ..with good brakes...not so much power is needed for a great race car? is that what you are now agreeing to?

if so ..debate over...4cyl wins

Ahh...the classic example of fallacious reasoning. Extrapolating information based on your own assumptions...


As an example, let's take a look at the ALMS. GT class, BMW M3 GTR vs Porsche GT2 cars.

Porsche is lighter, more aerodynamic, and has a higher top-end. General HP is similar, but the torque from the BMW V8 is significantly greater.

Most of the ALMS races last year saw the BMW factory teams (PTG and AC Schnitzer) finish 1-2-3-4, with the Porsches behind them.

So, smaller, lighter H-6 vs bigger, heavier V-8. Both are FULLY race prepped cars...no holds barred.

This is at least one example where the 4 (or 6) cyl WINS theory goes out to lunch...

In the GTS class, no 4 cylinder motors there, and none in the 900kg class either (Audi R8 is a twin turbo 3.6L V8).

So, where again does the 4 cylinder win?


Pat

[Chris P]

Formula Alantic :p Reliable too

[ADAM]

how many production turbo 4cyl are even in the current market now?

thats why you don't see any :)

maybe if the nissan s15 were avilable in north america they would field a car?

now..if they allowed 1700lb civics with 400-500rwhp turbo motors in that class you described...who is going to win?

bahh humbug on BMW's and porches..they have very little to offer in the way of speed as far as i am concerned...and from the factory suck in terms of sheer speed...a z06 will spank most of the bmw's and porches rigt out of the box..for far less money

[ADAM]

so we are all bickered out already ?

:)

dave where are you ..

[ctenche]

Yeah, I think that's just about it (I hope). I know I've certainly had enough of this discussion/debate.

It was funny/interesting at first but now it's just getting tired/boring.

Time to move on to another topic and let this one rest, at least for a little while (like at least 6 months)

[ADAM]

yeah it has been beaten to death already...guess some time passed will make it fun again.. :)

thanks for setting up the poll ....

[Bad Karma]

Originally posted by ADAM
how many production turbo 4cyl are even in the current market now?

thats why you don't see any :)

maybe if the nissan s15 were avilable in north america they would field a car?

now..if they allowed 1700lb civics with 400-500rwhp turbo motors in that class you described...who is going to win?

bahh humbug on BMW's and porches..they have very little to offer in the way of speed as far as i am concerned...and from the factory suck in terms of sheer speed...a z06 will spank most of the bmw's and porches rigt out of the box..for far less money

The Porsche GT2 didn't exist until it was required for Le Mans homologation....no reason Honda / Nissan et al couldn't BUILD a GT / GTS class car, and develop a street model to sell based on the race car.

Besides, it wasn't about stock BMW's and Porsches vs Z06 (your example, and a V8 under the hood....).

Name a production, 4 cylinder car available at retail in North America which can compete with a stock M3, or 996 C2? (On the track...) Domestic, import, doesn't matter. Turbo, blower, doesn't matter. As long as it's FACTORY ordered....not aftermarket.

Once you get into the aftermarket, it simple becomes a matter of who spends to most money; it's not always the best driver who wins, but the guy who has the most expensive team....


Pat

[ADAM]

the nissan s15 would hold its own against those 2 cars..but its only in japan...not here...as i said there really are no 4 banger turbo cars being sold right now..that does not mean you can't custom make them :)

here is a link to them...

http://silverstone.fortunecity.com/bertone/244/s15.htm

0-60 5.5 sec
1/4 mile 13.80 out of the box :)
not bad for a 4 banger

http://www.importdriver.com.au/Coupe_Targa.htm

[Bad Karma]

Yeah, the Skyline would do pretty well, but once again, not based here in North America (though supposedly the Skyline in one version or another will make it's way here next year....).


The ONE point I will make in defense of the BMW's is this; Sorensen's car is lapping ~2 seconds slower than the Z06s, which have a 200+ HP advantage, similar weight, longer wheelbase, more torque etc.

How much faster would Chris be with 200 more HP?


Pat

[ADAM]

sorry skyline does not count it has an inline 6..the s15 has an inline 4..there are many highly powered skylines rb25dett around 1000+hp rb25dett..and many sr20det motors around (s15) 600hp+

christian would be really fast with 200hp more...

though the zo6's are on kuhmos and christian is on hoosiers....i would think that is worth .5 at least....

but then again to get 200hp more out of that inline 6 bmw motor...whoo hoo you could almost buy a z06 :)

not much bang for your buck there...

whereas..take a wretched evil civic...turbo charge it for 10grand and lay down 200-250rwhp, and your off to the races and easy 12 sec time slips :) for under 20k cdn

[roooo]

All this talk of cylinders is bollocks. Everyone knows rotary will take it either way in the end :p

FWIW, a Hyundai Accent beat a Skyline R34 in 1/4 mile ( http://www.hyundaiwrc.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/headlines.newsid/newsid/63/cfid/1131286/cftoken/705303 )

There are some MR-S's and Imprezas competing vs M3's, 911's and Ferrari 360's in GT300 in the Japan Touring Car races ( http://www.jgtc.net/ ) so 4-cyls can definitely hang with 6 and 8.

You can't really compare the "from the factory" Euro cars we get in North America vs. Japanese cars because as far as I can tell the Euro cars are basically the same here as you would get across the pond, whereas the majority Japanese models we get are significanly detuned.

I would think that a STi Impreza or Lancer Evo would have a good chance vs. an M3... maybe?

So currently there is only one 4-cyl turbo car available in the Impreza WRX .. by next year there will be Lancer Evo and even the Mazdaspeed Protege (although it is not in the same class of car).

But I thought the debate was to be about race prepared cars, not factory-stock ones? ;)

[Bad Karma]

Sorry, I thought the Skyline and S15 were the same car; not much of a Nissan fan (since the late, great 280Z).

Even the new 350Z is a bit of a porker in my mind (as is the new BMW M3....).

The only reason I mention factory vs factory, is to keep it simple. Once you get into one race-prepped car vs another, it's simply a matter of how much money someone wants to spend.

That's why this argument will never actually be won; whoever spends the most money wins! Adam can build a 4-banger to run in the 8's or 9's, or some of us can build V8s that go into the 8s or 9s; it's all about how much money we want to spend.

On the road course, mass is the enemy, but there is more to a fast track car than merely a good HP/weight ratio... Suspension design (and not just spring / shock rates...), wheelbase, gearing, turn-in, axle (IRS, solid rear etc), caster, camber adjustments and a whole host of other things can affect how a car works.

Some cars may very well be small, lightweight, and have a decent powerplant, but can't handle, simply because they have 30 year old suspension design in them. Old BMW 2002's are like this; sub-2000 lbs, 200 HP out of an updated inline 6, but still only turn high 1:40's low 1:50s on the big track at Mosport. Christian, with 200 HP and 3100+ lbs of weight manages to turn mid to low 1:40s at Mosport...

Food for thought....

Pat

[Brent]

Adam

The 2003 neon srt will have a 2.4L turbo engine.

[ADAM]

ahhh..thats a STOCK skyline against a prepped WRC car... :)



Originally posted by roooo
All this talk of cylinders is bollocks. Everyone knows rotary will take it either way in the end :p

FWIW, a Hyundai Accent beat a Skyline R34 in 1/4 mile ( http://www.hyundaiwrc.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/headlines.newsid/newsid/63/cfid/1131286/cftoken/705303 )

There are some MR-S's and Imprezas competing vs M3's, 911's and Ferrari 360's in GT300 in the Japan Touring Car races ( http://www.jgtc.net/ ) so 4-cyls can definitely hang with 6 and 8.

You can't really compare the "from the factory" Euro cars we get in North America vs. Japanese cars because as far as I can tell the Euro cars are basically the same here as you would get across the pond, whereas the majority Japanese models we get are significanly detuned.

I would think that a STi Impreza or Lancer Evo would have a good chance vs. an M3... maybe?

So currently there is only one 4-cyl turbo car available in the Impreza WRX .. by next year there will be Lancer Evo and even the Mazdaspeed Protege (although it is not in the same class of car).

But I thought the debate was to be about race prepared cars, not factory-stock ones? ;)

[Shaman]

Here's an interesting car. (http://www.m3supercar.com/v8.html)

:D

[Bad Karma]

I'm gonna call a little BS on that dyno graph, and some of the comments they make. The dyno graph doesn't apply, mathematically.

First of all, why would they get wheelspin on a dyno at 3250 RPM and 5250 RPM? Makes no sense; on a dyno, you're not shifting gears...


Secondly, at 5252 RPM, the torque curve and HP curve don't meet up. The graph shows 280-290 HP at ~5200 RPM.

Based on every formula I've ever seen, HP=(Torque*RPM)/5252.

At 5252 RPM, torque=HP. It has to...there is no other way for it to work. HP isn't a measured value, it's a computed value based on torque output. They *claim* 511 HP, but if you look at the dyno plot, the car is producing 475 lb-ft of torque at 8000 RPM. That works out to 723HP !!!.

Sorry guys, but the M3 / Chevy V-8 is a BS car....I doubt it exists.

Pat

[Shaman]

Hey, what can I say, I just report the stuff. :)

I'd agree that they're more likely to slip the clutch than the tires on the dyno.

[ADAM]

does that type of V8 even rev to 8000rpm?

[Bad Karma]

That's my other thought on the whole thing. An OHV V-8 revving to 8000 RPM; not likely, unless it's a 10 hour motor.

Once again, I call BS on the whole Chevy V-8 into M3 car....

Obviously the guys on the website have minimal car knowledge; any dyno plot where the torque curve and HP curve don't cross isn't valid (unless the scales on each side are completely different).

The new M3 engine revs to 8000 RPM, and it's DOHC. Even then, the more I research, the more I look at the E46 M3 motor and think BMW has got a bomb on their hands with this one (ok,a point to Adam on that one....). The previous generation 3.2L and 3.0L engines have been essentially bulletproof. Generally, only a mis-shift, or oil starvation have caused them to grenade.

At the track on Sunday we were talking about that, and this *may* have been the "rush a new M3 out the door to continue sales" type car for BMW, just until the V-8 powered M3 comes along in 3 or 4 years. I think I'll be saving my pennies for that car instead....


Pat

[soloZ]

What about Saab Vigen,some volvos, GTI 1.8l? T ,audiTT those are few turbo factory cars

[Bad Karma]

Originally posted by soloZ
What about Saab Vigen,some volvos, GTI 1.8l? T ,audiTT those are few turbo factory cars

Not a single one will compete with the BMW M3 or a Porsche 996 C2 on the track...

The WRX is an interesting option; on a very tight, technical track, it does quite well for itself. In wet weather, it will often come out ahead.


Pat

[ADAM]

i don't think the WRX is a very feasable platform...it already runs 14psi boost and feels very slow as far as i am concerned....realistically even with a much larger turbo you don't want to race around with over 15psi ...

if its only putting out 227bhp with 14psi...? what can it do with a larger turbo?

does anyone know what turbo it is currently using?

[Shaman]

It's no problem to get 300hp reliably out of a WRX, Adam. Over that you need to take your care and know your stuff, but isn't that true of any car?

The modified Impreza I was in this spring had a fair bit of grunt, as I recall, over 300hp.

I really should go over the Solo rules with a fine comb because if I could go back to stock CID and turbocharge without bumping classes, the question would become "how much power do you want to make?" Think Perry'd let me on the track with 900 crank hp? :D

Corollary: think I'd survive it?

[toadee23]

Well Adam, what you have to consider with the WRX (and any other turbocharged car) is not simply psi, its *flow at psi*. 14psi on a Mitsu 14b turbo for instance is not going to even come close to the flow at 14psi of say, a T-76 and consequently not the power. So now, while the Subie is making 227 crank at 14psi on a teeny tiny stock turbo, look at what happens when Forced Performance takes the stock turbine housing and just ports it, bores it and adds a new compressor wheel: 247hp at all four wheels -- well over 300 crank hp (and hey still looks stock too so keep your warranty :D).

Also, why not much more than 15psi? There are 4g63's running 17-20psi reliably on the street (though 20 is really pushing it for the gas anyhow).

Point really being all boost is not created equal.

[ADAM]

boost is boost..you are bringing heat into the issue :)

yeah a little turbo like it has stock.. i would assume could not be pushed much further than 14psi, without generating alot of heat...plus the car has a very silly top mounted intercooler...so to get any more power out of the car...you need minimum....

much larger turbo..t3...t4.. $800
FMIC...............$1000
piping for FMIC.....$700
new turbo manifold....$1000
new fuel system......min $1500

thats 5k that i could think of tons of cars i would rathr drop the money into and still spank the WRX all over the road...IMO

[Shaman]

$5K = ported heads + cam + headers + catback system for a LS1 f-body. 430rwhp through the exhaust and daily drivability if you want it, with none of the issues of a complex boost system.

[ADAM]

give me 5k to spend...

coilovers....$2500
3 inch thru exhaust....$600..since it seems no one is paying attention to the noise rules this year..and i got forced to add a silencer to my exhaust system 2 years ago..

[toadee23]

You missed the point Adam. First of all boost is NOT boost. Boost just tells you how much you are compressing the air. Flow tells you how much compressed air you are moving.

And, btw Adam, your pricing is ridiculous there.

Why would you put a T3 or T4 (or perhaps you mean T3/T4 Hybird? Im starting to wonder how much you know about turbo's here) in? There are much nicer turbo's from Forced Performance (the stock TD04 upgrade I had mentioned previous for 600 bucks and about 340hp worth of potential), or, the IHI VF30, or the IHI VF22, which are both more in the 900-1000 range. Not only are they nicer, they bolt to the stock manifold.

Now a new fuel system is nowhere near "minimum 1500". Thats laughable. Even going with f'ing HUGE 565cc STi injectors, those and a 255lph fuel pump come to.....729. Thats a far cry from 1500. And will very safely feed way more than 15psi of boost.

$1000 for a manifold? What are you on crack? Sure, for the HK$ tubular headers that WILL crack after a while, Ill give you that. But you can get your stock manifold ported to match whatever new turbo you decide on for more like $300. And thats going to flow plenty for everything but the extreme (like JUN's 600+hp WRX, seen doing 205mph in the rain at www.exvitermini.com).

Id also bet you can put the plumbing in on an intercooler for alot less than 700, but yah, Id figure at least $1000 for the front mount.

And, since you stated you "can't get any more hp outve the car without...", you might want to read Sport Compact Car sometime, they dyno tested 41hp at the wheels with Vishnu's Stage 0 kit for the WRX... which comes out to $1000, and thats probobly not even your best bang for the buck.

[ADAM]

first of all....whats wrong with garret turbochargers....they are all the same crap..different name...same crap..do you think "forced performance" actually makes turbos...ha ha ha..they just throw them together...turbine here compressor there....there are only a few actual manufacturers of turbos in the world who cast the housings and exducers and inducers..

now as soon as i see you say..."340hp" worth of potential...i know you don't know what you are talking about...turbo chargers are built for specific pressure ratios, and specific running parameters....

i can see you are building a cheap street machine..if you are only spending $700 some odd dollars on your fuel system upgrades...

anyway..i took a few minutes to calculate a very close estimate of what the WRX would need...if you want to get into the nitty gritty of air density..then we can...however using a good FMIC with at least 80% efficiency..we can keep the air density issues to a minimum..and by choosing the CORRECT compressor trim..we can also keep heat to a minimum as well...

Guess its time to do some maths then
this is what we know...
1=we have a 2.0l (118ci) motor with an approx red line of 6000rpm
2= air weighs .0765lbs per cubic foot (approx) at sea level, if we must get into density corrections then so be it..but for now we will work at sea level..

so... to use the graphs we have to know..how much air it flows..and what pressure it will be flowing
at...
so first lets figure out the pressure ratios...this will give us the one side of the compressor maps.....

pressure ratio =
14.7+boost
_____________
14.7

so...
3psi=1.204
5psi=1.34
7.5psi=1.51
10psi=1.68
20psi=2.36

these are some pressure ratios we can play with..

now..comes air flow...

cidxrpmx0.5xve
_____________
1728

so displacement x rpm x 0.5(cause its a 4 stroke) x volumetric efficiency
over (divided by) 1728 (coverts cubic inches to cubic feet)
gave the WRX a good 80% VE

so.....you can now also see why 2 stroke and high rpm motors are powerfull..reminds me of my
RZ500 i used to have ..anyway...

at 50% rpm the wrx NA cars make= 81.94cfm
at 100% rpm the wrx NA cars make=164.88cfm

whooohoo..not much air ehhh

now here is where boosting comes into play..since we are cramming more air into the engine than it
would normally use...

at 50% rpm...
3psi=98.65cfm (7.54lbs)
5psi=109.79cfm(8.23lbs)
7.5psi=123.72cfm(9.46lbs)
10psi=137.65cfm(10.53lbs)
20psi=193.37cfm(14.79lbs)

at 100% rpm
3psi=198.51cfm(15.18lbs)
5psi=220.93cfm(16.90lbs)
7.5psi=248.96cfm(19.04lbs)
10psi=276.99cfm(21.19lbs)
20psi=389.11cfm(29.76lbs) (getting into v8 territory) he he
(using the .0765 conversion to get cfm into lbs/min)

so...now it is as simple as plotting the 50% and 100% numbers on the compressor graph..and see where they lay

from briefly looking at some compressor maps for the WRX at 20psi of boost it looks that a nice straight T3 with a 60 trim compressor or possibly super 60 compressor would be very nice….at both 50% rpm and 100% rpm, the compressor stays within 70% heat efficiency which is ok…and at all times stays below compressor surge levels… http://www.turboneticsinc.com/comp_maps/fig4.html

at 100% rpm we can get some estimates on power output and fuel consumption..

approx 1.5cfm= 1hp
approx .60lbs of fuel/hr=1hp


389cfm=259hp..using 155lbs/hr of fuel..so we would need a minimum of 4x 38lbs fuel injectors running at 100% duty cycle..changing that to 80% duty cycle we find we need 45.6lbs injectors..or x10.5 to get to cc… 4x 478cc injectors to run at 20psi of boost safely…...obviously with tuning this can be bettered..and i was guessing at the engines VE to be 80%..which it might be slightly higher..this would be a conservative estimate..which is the way to go..

adam

[ADAM]

ohh also..the engine itself dictates "the flow"..the turbo is what changes the "pressure" thats why the CI and VE of the engine are very important....thats why the V8 guys have an advantage..cause they have CI...all we can do with our little motors is increase VE and rpm(which change flow), and pressure(which the turbo changes)....



Originally posted by toadee23
You missed the point Adam. First of all boost is NOT boost. Boost just tells you how much you are compressing the air. Flow tells you how much compressed air you are moving.

And, btw Adam, your pricing is ridiculous there.

Why would you put a T3 or T4 (or perhaps you mean T3/T4 Hybird? Im starting to wonder how much you know about turbo's here) in? There are much nicer turbo's from Forced Performance (the stock TD04 upgrade I had mentioned previous for 600 bucks and about 340hp worth of potential), or, the IHI VF30, or the IHI VF22, which are both more in the 900-1000 range. Not only are they nicer, they bolt to the stock manifold.

Now a new fuel system is nowhere near "minimum 1500". Thats laughable. Even going with f'ing HUGE 565cc STi injectors, those and a 255lph fuel pump come to.....729. Thats a far cry from 1500. And will very safely feed way more than 15psi of boost.

$1000 for a manifold? What are you on crack? Sure, for the HK$ tubular headers that WILL crack after a while, Ill give you that. But you can get your stock manifold ported to match whatever new turbo you decide on for more like $300. And thats going to flow plenty for everything but the extreme (like JUN's 600+hp WRX, seen doing 205mph in the rain at www.exvitermini.com).

Id also bet you can put the plumbing in on an intercooler for alot less than 700, but yah, Id figure at least $1000 for the front mount.

And, since you stated you "can't get any more hp outve the car without...", you might want to read Sport Compact Car sometime, they dyno tested 41hp at the wheels with Vishnu's Stage 0 kit for the WRX... which comes out to $1000, and thats probobly not even your best bang for the buck.

[ADAM]

re: pricing...yes you are correct you can do things...the cheap way..or the correct way..depends what you are building..since this is on a race forum i assumed that we are building a race car...

4x 550cc RC ENGINEERING injectors...$152ea us
1x aeromotive or holly...get a half decent fuel pump...$800
1x possible fuel rail? don't know if you can get drop in's for the WRX
1x..way to control these larger injectors?
1x possible new MAF..or if MAP then new MAP
1x new turbo..ok pick one that fits on the stock crappy manifold....$700
1x FMIC spearco...$1100
1x piping..lets use stainless...10ft at $10/ft plus labour..min $600
1x all the fuel lines..10an with fuel filter and 10an fittings from front to rear...$700
1x labour to do all of the above...?

and what about a external wastegate..or boost controller, or possibly more gauges..since we are boosting over stock now...all good ideas..and not even included...there could be tons of parts needed to do this power increase correctly...

or we could..just pull the wastegate actuator hose, and use some 116 fuel and RRFPR and hope for the best..cost.. $200 for the regulator..boost ? whatever that little turbo can put out...heat..lots of it..engine life span? who knows..lets wait until it detonates..then we know :)

[SlowMo]

4 cyl turbo vs v8 - you gotta see this!

http://media.racingflix.com/videos/lingenfelter_vs_dsm.mpeg

[Brent]

Wow.

I gotta win a lottery.

[Shaman]

That 'vette is actually a Doug Rippie heads + cam car, not a Lingenfelter as the filename implies. I'd like to Rippie on it. :)

[ADAM]

it really smoked that poor talon....i would like to see it go against nicks car :)

[Shaman]

Nick's car is no longer really a Talon. That's hardly fair. :)

[Avi Koifman]

"Jay" wrote:

After all isn’t that how the shifter karts often set FTD? (Outside of the fact that those boys seem to be missing some critical neurons)

====================================================================================================

Hey!

And after I helped you bleed your brakes!

:p

[Avi Koifman]

"Jay" wrote:

After all isn’t that how the shifter karts often set FTD? (Outside of the fact that those boys seem to be missing some critical neurons)

====================================================================================================

Hey!

And after I helped you bleed your brakes!

:p

[Jay]

Haha... Yeah Avi.... I meant all the OTHER Shifter kart guys are crazy.... not you! :D