Team3S: 3000GT & Stealth Monday, December 30
2002 Volume 02 : Number 039
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 01:14:44 -0800
From: "dakken" <
dougusmagnus@attbi.com>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: RE: 800+ hp???
> Yes, but they are limiting the boost they can run.
>
> you
will make more power with higher compression, but in the end, the
> lower
compression motor WILL make more power because he can move a LOT
> more
air thru the engine.
>
> raising CR on a turbo motor is a compromise
for poor people. Add
> boost, not compression.
I think people would understand this better if we talk about compression
pressure instead of the compression ratio. Compression ratio is
static and never changes. Compression pressure changes with the
volumetric efficiency or in other words it changes with how much air goes
into the engine. You can have the same compression pressure with
different compression ratios.
Let's say we have 2 cylinders. One with a 8:1 compression ratio and
one with a 10:1 ratio.
The 8:1 cylinder has forced induction of 3.75 psi from a turbo and the 10:1
is naturally aspired. Both are 10 cubic inch cylinders.
The 10:1 cylinder will have compression pressure of 15 psi (atmosphere) X
10 (compression ratio) = 150 psi.
The 8:1 cylinder will have 18.75 psi (atmosphere + forced induction) X 8 =
150 psi.
Either way, you end up with the same amount of pressure in the cylinder.
You will have different amounts of air, though. The forced induction
cylinder will have 23% more air in it than the other cylinder.
Now the disclaimer: This is an overly simplified example. This
does not explain every element of a working engine nor does it mean that any
engine is supposed to work in this way. There are no engine with a
10:1 compression ratio cylinder and a 8:1 compression forced induction
cylinder in it.
Doug
92 Stealth RT TT
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:11:47 +0100
From: Roger Gerl <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: RE: 800+ hp???
At 19:59 29.12.2002 -0600, Geoff Mohler wrote:
>If its not a
percentage..then what is it?
>
>You mean, to move at all, I'm moving
about 100Hp into the drivetrain?
Absolutely right, it is a number that is different on the cars depending on
the oil, the wear and so on. No percentage that is valid at all for all
cars !! On my car the loss was about 85 - 100hp depending on the wheels
(stupid me had the car with winter tires on the dyno once) and ambient
temperature.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:58:26 +0100
From: Roger Gerl <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: RE: 800+ hp???
At 20:37 29.12.2002 -0600, cody wrote:
>I personally believe it's a
percentage, however not a certain
>percentage. I believe it changes
according to transmission and
>driveline speed and rate of
acceleration.
No it's not a percentage. Just think about this : "the loss of the drive
train is 20%". Now your car makes 300hp on the crank and therefore the loss
would be 60 hp through the drivetrain. Now you insert all the goodies and
increase power to 600hp and the loss is still 20% ... and it would be now
120hp ?? Just think, you change nothing to the drivetrain at all and the
increased wear and stress to the drivetrain is negligible.
Just think of that tests on the dyno :
a) 10 psi of boost, result : 300hp at 6500 and a loss of 80hp through the
drivetrain at 6500rpm.
b) 15 psi of boost, result : 355hp at 5800 and a
loss of 75hp through the
drivetrain at 5800rpm
Now, you see a lower drivetrain loss that is less than before ... why ?
This because the loss increases the higher the rpm becomes. Therefore to
calculating a percentage is bullshitting. a) would be 26% and b) 21 % ...
so this is what the non-dyno guys do...assuming ! And if you want to
calculate the percentage do the following :
Load my dyno chart
http://www.rtec.ch/17-05-00_1_l.gif
and read the almost
liner black drivetrain loss line (curve). Then calc the
loss with the
engine output at EVERY rpm. Just an example :
3000rpm :
loss is 19%
4500rpm : loss is 24%
6000rpm : loss is 32%
I think this exactly shows that speaking of a percentage is simply
bogus.
But this error is common because you guys are not able to measure the loss
if you don't have a dyno that you know how to operate. AAM has not been
able to measure the loss for about half a year and I guess the slips today
includes it now so they know where their race cars can be optimized
too.
Summarization :
- - power peak rpm is different on any car
- -
drivetrain loss varies with rpm (see the curve on the dyno chart :
http://www.rtec.ch/17-05-00_1_l.gif)
-
- drivetrain loss change is negligible when power is increased at the crank
-
- drivetrain loss does not change when crank power is increased
- - the loss
is a measured number that stays constant (varies with the ambient)
- -
talking of a percentage power loss is wrong because it varies from 15% -
35%
over the power band
- - loss for our cars is between 80 and 100hp around 6000
rpm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 06:29:45 -0600
From: "cody" <
overclck@satx.rr.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: RE: 800+ hp???
You said I was wrong, yet you backed up my own claim. It is
definitely a percentage, however the percentage varies at different points
according to rate of acceleration, and drivetrain velocity. Yes, it
varies, and that's exactly what I said, and exactly what you said. I
would find it hard to believe that the amount of loss would stay the same
for a 1000 hp car as it would a 150 hp car.
One other quick statement - drivetrain loss is guesstimated on a dyno by
rate of deceleration with the car in neutral, falling from a certain RPM
to a stop correct? I would not think that was a perfectly precise
answer either. Maybe an estimate, but not 100% Accurate.
- -Cody
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:00:37 +0100
From: Roger Gerl <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: RE: 800+ hp???
At 06:29 30.12.2002 -0600, cody wrote:
>You said I was wrong, yet you
backed up my own claim. It is definitely
>a percentage, however the
percentage varies at different points
>according to rate of acceleration,
and drivetrain velocity. Yes, it
>varies, and that's exactly what I
said, and exactly what you said. I
>would find it hard to believe
that the amount of loss would stay the
>same for a 1000 hp car as it
would a 150 hp car.
Go to a dyno and check out by yourself. Have been on so many dyno sessions
yet with different cars so also you'd believe that drivetrain loss stays
close the same after a mod of more than 200hp to an Audi RS4 as an example.
The difference of the drivetrain was in the range of the dyno
variance.
So you think it is a percentage and you still believe in the myth that a
car with 60hp loss will have a loss of 120hp after doubling the engine
power output... come on, think straight, it doesn't work that way. Go to a
dyno, do two runs with different boost levels and check out the results.
You'll see that the percentage rule doesn't work out in the end. Just
accept that our cars drivetrain do have a loss as described in hp and
that's it.
>One other quick statement - drivetrain loss is guesstimated on a dyno
>by rate of deceleration with the car in neutral, falling from a certain
>RPM to a stop correct? I would not think that was a perfectly
precise
>answer either. Maybe an estimate, but not 100%
Accurate.
Yes, the dyno measures the resistance of the wheels against the drums with
a specific brake power applied to them.
But, if you drive 1 mile is this an estimate of the odometer (assuming it
is showing the correct amount) or is it a measurement ? And why the heck do
all the makers give the engine power and not the
vehicle-power-down-to-the-road power ? Nowhere I said anything about a
percentage of accuracy ... I'd even say that a dynos accuracy is in the 5%
(yes here you can tell about a percentage because it's small enough and
stays about the same over the rpm band) and this is why several runs should
be done to finally get an accurate result. So a 95% accuracy of such
measures is what I think is appropriate.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 08:36:16 -0500
From: "Furman, Russell" <
RFurman2@MassMutual.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: 800+ hp???
Steve the only problem with decreasing you static compression ratio (which
is what most people refer to when they talk about raising or lowering
their
C/R) you will have to increase revs to make the power band
streetable. And whoever mentioned about the block splitting under
high pressures/volumes is very correct any block if weakened to severely will do
this.
The above is the main reason my final engine specs are a .040 overbore,
8.5:1 static C/R, and a 9K redline.......
Russ F
CT
- -----Original Message-----
From: Steve Cooper
[mailto:scooper@paradise.net.nz]
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 1:48
AM
Boring the block increases the chance of the block splitting under high HP
as Nissan RB26 blocks do.
Why would you want to increase the CR? I would be lowering it instead to
put in more boost.
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 05:30:08 -0800
From: "Chris Winkley" <
Chris_Winkley@adp.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: RE: 800+ hp???
Doug...
My apologies if I missed part of the original thread. Your post caught my
eye so I responded to it. If it was Dennis that wrote the original
message, then my questions still apply to him.
However, I have not gone "ape" over any part of this, I'm merely curious as
to how people get these rather outrageous numbers with no evidence. Even
the new Ferrari Enzo, with a V12 engine, costing $760,000.00 is only
producing 600+ hp and isn't specified to be crank or wheel hp, nor is it (in the
Auto Week articles) clear if these are dyno numbers or "theoretical"
numbers that come from paper calculations.
As for shops that claim to be building monster VR4s, when I see a timeslip
that indicates they can do something with their calculated hp, I'll
believe it. Until then, they are "experimenting". This is a good thing, it
is how we have all learned from each other, both what to do and what to avoid. I
have personally met Arty and know him to be an honest and committed
individual with a serious goal. But in the final analysis, there are two
VR4s (to my knowledge) that have broken into the 10s and I don't recall either
of them claiming to be producing even 600 hp.
FWIW...in keeping with our list rules, I attempt to <snip> the
non-applicable text so the digest version members don't have to read page
after page of repeated text. My intent is certainly not to use any single
sentence out of context.
Looking forward...Chris
- -----Original Message-----
From: dakken
[mailto:dougusmagnus@attbi.com]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 12:55
AM
<snip>
The context of the thread is talking about drive train and engine upgrades
to handle the power. ((( I ))) never claimed that such a 3S car has
ever had 800 hp verified or if one even existed. Even GT Pro's
supposed 1000 hp car still doesn't have a dyno printout to prove it. I was
talking about the many 3S and non 3S cars that aspire to make big
hp. Open up any performance magazine and you will see that every
engine that makes the kind of power that was discussed in the original
thread has upgraded engine internals. I have yet to see a car that
has a stock engine make over 500 hp other than the exotic cars i.e.
Ferrari, Lamborghini, Vector etc.
Geeze, take one sentence out of my lengthy post and go ape over it.
<sigh>
Doug
92 Stealth RT TT
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 05:40:20 -0800
From: "eK2mfg" <
eK2mfg@attbi.com>
Subject: Re: Team3S:
RE: 800+ hp???
I did a dyno run with my NA, Two sessions actually to measure a mod I built
and sold. I was told to be accurate with the drum dyno's before and after
things like air pressure in the wheels comes to play as well, makes sense
since a car with 35 psi runs harder than a car with 28 psi. It takes more ponies
to turn the 28 up to the 300 whp mark than the 35psi tire. I was told you
could expect a "percentage" from 15%-45%. You guys can go back and forth
all day on this but even what type of fluid your diff, transfer, trans have will
account for some. Not much but some. The one I like the best is the claims
of proven numbers not theory number CIA, now how do you check that on a
wheel dyno? Place a 60mph fan with outside air into the tube? Nobody is
going to pull the motor out to get a crank number, well maybe the guys
that are touching 10's but the average Joe and even the above average Joe
will simply do the wheel run. I think claiming the number you got with
what you got seems more than enough for us to take it for what it's worth.
Even the lighter plug dyno's are good tools as long you don't claim true
numbers from that and only a ref point. When I did my runs I came up with
169 BWP, at the wheels, front wheel drive. Seems low, well take 25 percent from
the 222 and figure a stock motor with 110k on it. Seems very reasonable
then. The 45% I was given was from a 4X4 Ford truck with diesel motor.
Very new, very stock, very 45%. - it was a dually also.
bobk.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 07:48:47 -0600
From: AINut <
ainut1@telocity.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: RE: 800+ hp???
Wow, driveline loss of 100 hp sounds incredibly high. That much
absorbed force
sounds like it would melt the driveline
components. How did you measure to
determine that? Macinnes in
his book says that normal driveline losses are just
a few percent.
AI Nut
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 08:28:28 -0500
From: "Furman, Russell" <
RFurman2@MassMutual.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: RE: 800+ hp??? (was: Just posted this on 3SI)
Chris it is not just the PSI or pressure going into a turbo'd motor it is
also CFM or volume that has an affect (or is it effect?) on HP and
Torque
production. Take a pair of 15G's @15 psi and take a pair
of 17G's at 15psi
which do you think will make more WHP.....
This is basic engineering and mathematics... Nothing else
Russ F
CT
93 VR-4 "sleep my precious, soon you will decimate
most"
- -----Original Message-----
From: Chris Winkley
[mailto:Chris_Winkley@adp.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 3:23
PM
Doug...
I know you didn't start this thread or claim, but who has a dyno'd 800+ hp
VR4???
You can read my mods list below, they are pretty close to matching what
Roger Gerl has done to his VR4 in Europe. He's had his car dyno'd several
times and, as I recall, it's putting out 450 or 475 hp at the wheels. What
would a person have to do to DOUBLE that hp at the wheels??? Note that most of
these mods are designed to improve handling and an increase in boost,
virtually NONE of them add hp by and in of themselves. Nitrous might buy
you another 100 hp, but no amount of forged or balanced this, ceramic
coated that, is going to increase hp. The only thing that will increase hp
in our cars is more boost. The "standard" formula that I've read in
several books is that you net around 100 hp for every 10 psi of boost. To
get from stock 320 hp to 800 hp would require going from 10 psi to 60 psi (or a
combination of different fuels and monster boost). While there are people
like Arty who are building trailer queens and expect (hope?) to exceed
1000 hp (at the
wheels?) and break into the single digits in the 1/4 mile, I
don't know of anyone who has 800+ hp that's anything other than a dream.
Do you???
Looking forward...Chris
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 07:57:32 -0600
From: AINut <
ainut1@telocity.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: RE: 800+ hp???
It would seem to me the only accurate method is to measure horsepower
output
from the engine only, then that same engine in the car measured at
the wheels.
Has anyone done this? 100+ hp converted into heat is an
enormous amount of energy!
AI Nut
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 08:02:40 -0600
From: AINut <
ainut1@telocity.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: RE: 800+ hp???
I must be missing something here. The test you describe, Roger,
sounds like the
dyno is actually testing torque and not horsepower.
Acceleration capability
would have to be measured to account for
horsepower. Or are they maybe
"deducing" the horsepower by using the
torque versus rpm formula (which doesn't
apply in all cases?) Don't
ask me what the exceptions are, that was from too
long ago 8-(.
AI Nut
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 06:11:55 -0800
From: "Chris Winkley" <
Chris_Winkley@adp.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: RE: 800+ hp??? (was: Just posted this on 3SI)
Russ...
I agree, basic engineering and math. The answer to your question is that
both engines will produce equal WHP at 15psi at 4K rpm. However, I think
what you might be getting at is that the 17Gs spool up more slowly, yet
can hold the 15psi further into the rpm range. Hence, if you want low end torque
and fast spooling you'd buy the 15Gs. If you want continued 15psi boost
all the way to redline (and beyond), you would choose the 17Gs. There's
also a basic assumption that the 17Gs will be able to produce more psi than the
15Gs and higher into the rpm range. True?
15 psi is 15 psi (I think this is a fact). If we want to produce more hp at
the wheels, we have to increase boost, across a useful rpm range. This
also means adding more fuel and, assuming we want to keep the engine in
one piece, modifying other internal components to withstand the increased
pressure. Which is perhaps where this all started, that is, if you wanted
a hypothetical 800 or 1000 hp engine you'd need to do quite a bit of
engine modification to get it out of your garage without breaking something. My
point (and I'm going to quit now) was that ceramic coated pistons,
hardened crankshafts, etc. will not produce more hp. All they "might" do
(provided you can create the mythical 800+ hp) is keep your engine from blowing
to pieces the first time you take that 6K rpm launch down the 1/4 mile. In
the meantime, I would be seriously concerned about the ability of the rest
of the drivetrain (from the clutch outwards) to hold up under this same
800+ hp. This is why *all* the cars in Super Street, Turbo, Sport Compact
Car, etc. that claim high hp numbers fail to do two things:
1. Show a dyno chart that validates their claim.
2. Show a timeslip that
proves they can survive one trip down the 1/4 mile without breaking
something.
The cars that are running single digit 1/4 mile times are not licensed
street cars, they are stripped down vehicles with highly modified engines,
drivetrains, and chassis' with some sort of shell that may be recognizable
as a particular model of car.
FWIW...it's "effect" ("affect" is a term used in psychology to
describe
a type of behavior). :-)
Looking forward...Chris
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:24:52 EST
From:
StealthCT@aol.comSubject: Re: Team3S:
RE: 800+ hp???
For what it is worth, my car dynoed 650HP at the wheels at 21PSI and Mike's
car dynoed 690HP at the wheels at 28PSI. I would suggest that both of
these
cars have over 700HP at the crank. Regards Chuck
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 07:33:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Casey Rayman <
theturbodog@yahoo.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: RE: 800+ hp??? (was: Just posted this on 3SI)
> 15 psi is 15 psi (I think this is a fact). If we want to produce more
> hp at the wheels, we have to increase boost, across a useful
rpm
> range.
This is incorrect. Boost itself has little to do with power
production(a common misconception). The only thing boost itself does
is raise the dynamic compression ratio which may raise the engines efficiency
a little bit(just as going from 9:1 to 12:1 pistons does in a N/A
car). People often confuse boost with MASS FLOW. If you
increase the boost SOMETIMES the mass flow is increased, but this is not always
true. Often raising boost puts a turbo well out of its efficiency
range where the air is heated dramatically. The mass flow can actually go
DOWN in this case.
Casey
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:42:04 -0500
From: "Furman, Russell" <
RFurman2@MassMutual.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: RE: 800+ hp??? (was: Just posted this on 3SI)
Thank you casey that was what I was getting at from my original reply
(see
below)
>it is not just the PSI or pressure going into a turbo'd motor it is
>also CFM or volume that has an affect (or is it effect?) on HP and
>Torque production. Take a pair of 15G's @15 psi and take a pair of
>17G's at 15psi which do you think will make more WHP.....
In both these cases the specific turbo's should still be will within their
efficiency ranges on pump gas but the 17G's should produce more wheel
torque and WHP due to the larger amount of mass air flow or CFM........
This is why you typically see flow ratings for turbos measured at either
15psi or 1.00KG (depending on country) Although flow ratings and
compressor maps are not the end all be all indicator of power production
in a forced induction application.......
Russ "learned too much while trying to sort his car out" F
CT
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 09:42:18 -0600
From: AINut <
ainut1@telocity.com>
Subject: Re:
Team3S: RE: 800+ hp??? (was: Just posted this on 3SI)
The way I remember which to use is to think of 'effect' as a noun, and
'affect'
as a verb 8-).
AI Nut
Chris Winkley wrote:
>
Russ...
<<<snip>>>
> FWIW...it's "effect" ("affect"
is a term used in psychology to describe
> a type of
behavior). :-)
>
> Looking forward...Chris
>
<<<snip>>>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 15:45:02 +0000
From:
mjannusch@attbi.comSubject: RE:
Team3S: RE: 800+ hp???
> 2. There's also a HUGE difference between
> talking streetable
cars and trailer queens
> that are built for the 1/4 mile. Does
Brent
> Rau's car pass the emission tests in any
> state in the
country? .....
I wasn't bringing up Brent's car for the sake of being a legal street
vehicle
or not, or whether it is reliable or anything like that. I
only brought it up
as a data point that you can* extract big power from
small motors. His has
33% less displacement than ours and makes crazy
power numbers (and the numbers
are REAL dyno and race-proven numbers, not
made-up magazine numbers like many
import racers like to share). It
was meant only to make an example that we as
a group shouldn't say things
like "you'll never see an 800HP 3/S" when in the
DSM arena the naysayers
used to say you'd never see more than 400HP from a
4G63 motor setup.
I think it'll maybe happen - but the cost of doing it is much* higher on
this
platform of car, so it will take much longer (and already has).
Things may
speed up a little now that these cars are easier to acquire
financially and
the people with them now are more willing to mod them up
than the original
owners who paid $40,000 for the car.
Street legal or not, I believe big power can be made from a well set-up
relatively small displacement motor like ours. That was the only point
I was
trying to make.
8-)
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:52:41 EST
From:
StealthCT@aol.comSubject: Re: Team3S:
RE: 800+ hp???
At around 3500 RPM I can peg the boost gauge and I have ran 2 Bars without
breaking anything. If however you are getting on it from a roll it
does take
a second or two for the turbo's to spool up and then you need to
be sure you
have your headrest in place because you are going to get a hard
jerk. I have
not broken anything yet, knock on wood, however with the
18g's I have had
problems getting off the line. With 15g's I was able
to run 1.6 60' times
regularly, however now I am having difficulty. I
have just installed a line
lock and am installing a KOMEX LSD this week in
hopes of improving my 60'
times. Most of my mods can be found at the AAM web
page under "Chuck's Car"
if you are interested. The 18g's are awesome
and are streetable. I do have
the pit road M cam's and the motor has
been built, however I do believe even
with a stock motor the 18g's set up
will provide you with massive HP at much
lower boost than any TD04 set
up. Regards Chuck
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 09:09:15 -0700
From: "Moe Prasad" <
mprasad@uswest.net>
Subject: Team3S:
Spare tire size
Can someone with sec gen VR4 with 18" tires take a look at their spare tire
size and give me the size on it. I just got 18" rims and tires and I
need to get a new size spare.
I think it should be "e-08a t135/80d17 103m toyo" but just want to
make sure before I buy it.
Rgds
Moe
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:21:23 -0500
From: "Darren Schilberg" <
dschilberg@pobox.com>
Subject: RE:
Team3S: Spare tire size
Moe - I have that exact spare tire sitting idle in my basement if you want
it. Just reply off-list. I'll go take a look to confirm.
Yep, confirmed this is a "Toyo E-08A T135/80D17 103M" spare tire for a
second gen (1995-1/2) VR-4 with 18" wheels.
- --Flash!
- -----Original Message-----
From: Moe Prasad
Sent: Monday, December
30, 2002 11:09
Can someone with sec gen VR4 with 18" tires take a look at their spare tire
size and give me the size on it. I just got 18" rims and tires and I
need to get a new size spare.
I think it should be "e-08a t135/80d17 103m toyo" but just want to
make sure before I buy it.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 08:23:28 -0800
From: "Chris Winkley" <
Chris_Winkley@adp.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: RE: 800+ hp???
Matt...
OK, I said I was going to shut up now, but I take it back. I hope no one
read a statement from me that looked anything like:
"...we as a group shouldn't say things like "you'll never see an 800HP 3/S"
when..."
I was merely asking who has one of these and why someone thought that
having ceramic coated pistons or a hardened crankshaft would create 800+
hp?
Personally, I'd love to have a street legal 800+ hp VR4. There may be
others that would be equally happy to have an 800+ hp trailer queen but,
if I can't drive it to the open track, dragstrip, work, AND on a vacation
on public highways, it's not within my personal goals. When someone figures out
how to achieve a street legal VR4 producing 800+ hp at the wheels, I'll be
the first in line for the magic parts. In the meantime, I have one of
those $40K cars, I have invested another $20K in mods, and I still doubt I'll be
the third person to make it into the 10s. Regardless, I still wouldn't
give up the experience of driving (safely, IMO) 150+ mph on I-5 south of
Redding, CA!!!
Looking forward...Chris
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 08:47:29 -0800
From: "Andrius Masiulis" <
andrius@vb.lt>
Subject: Re: Team3S: RE:
800+ hp???
Hi
Do you know Maclaren F1 the most expensive production car in the
world ? It cost something like $1.600000. It has BMW V12, engine bay
plated with gold, probably all suspension is from titanium, even the tool
set. And it's still produces only 625HP or something. So maybe
it's better to increase performance not just buy adding hp but like
changing brakes to (plastic or
something) like in Formula 1, titanium wheels
and suspension and so on. In this case you will have better reliability at
least.
andrius
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:58:01 +0100
From: Roger Gerl <
roger.gerl@bluewin.ch>
Subject:
Fwd: Re: Team3S:Drivetrain loss and hp calc (was : 800+ hp???)
>Al, this is correct. The drum motor applies a specific brake resistance
>to the wheels what equals a specific horsepower loss.
>
>All
power figures are calculated as power itself cannot be measured at
>the
wheels (due to the missing time variable). Therefore the
following
>formula is taken to calculate hp :
>hp = (rpm * torque) /
5252
>
>This is where every dyno shows the same value for ft-lbs and
hp at 5252
>rpm ! Note, this is for uncorrected figures, no DIN no SAE
correction. I
>did an excel sheet with these calculations and entered my
torque figures
>measured on the dyno (Nm to ft-lbs and kW to hp
converted). The result is
>exactly the same hp line as on my dyno sheet
(without the resolution of
>course). I wanted to attach a
small XLS file so you can play with it but
>this did not come through :-(
So email me if you like to have it.
>
>Now as torque is measured on
the wheels while accelerating it is also
>measured after depressing the
clutch. During the acceleration, the dyno
>learns the speed to the rpm
(rpm is taken from the ignition wires). The
>coast down method then
delivers torque and speed what results in the power
>loss vs. rpm curve.
Therefore you measure the same value what then can be
>directly deducted
from each other. This results in the final rpm / hp /
>torque curve for
the engine and the power brought to the drums.
>
>It's pretty easy
and straight forward and no percentage included at
>all.
>It's
simple measurement of torque that results in hp with the formula
>applied. The result is the correct power of the engine and the
drivetrain
>loss... nada percentage :-)
>
>Roger
>93'
& 96'3000GT TT
>www.rtec.ch
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:29:59 +0000
From:
mjannusch@attbi.comSubject: RE:
Team3S: RE: 800+ hp???
> OK, I said I was going to shut up now, but I take
> it back. I
hope no one read a statement from me
> that looked anything like:
>
> "...we as a group shouldn't say things like
> "you'll never see
an 800HP 3/S" when..."
Ooops, my fault there. I didn't mean the quotes to mean that you had
said
that, but rather the Austin Powers style quotes like 'we'll call it the
"Allan
Parson's Project"'. Sorry 'bout that!
> I was merely asking who has one of these
> and why someone
thought that having
> ceramic coated pistons or a hardened
>
crankshaft would create 800+ hp?
I hear that... :-)
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:44:25 +0000
From:
mjannusch@attbi.comSubject: Re:
Team3S: RE: 800+ hp???
> Do you know Maclaren F1 the most expensive
> production
car in the world ? It cost
> something like $1.600000. It has BMW
V12,
> engine bay plated with gold, probably all
> suspension is
from titanium, even the tool
> set. And it's still produces only
625HP or
> something.
Yes. What's your point? I don't see the relevance. For
their design and
performance goals, 625 horsepower fit their design.
> So maybe it's better to increase performance
> not just buy
adding hp but like changing
> brakes to (plastic or something) like
in
> Formula 1, titanium wheels and suspension
> and so on. In this
case you will have
> better reliability at least.
Not a lot of the wear parts in Formula 1 (or any other kind of racing) are
built with long-term reliability in mind. It only needs to last for
one race
and then gets replaced. Titanium and carbon fiber are not
magical elements
which increase reliability on their own. You switch
to lighter materials to
reduce weight, not generally to increase
reliability.
- -Matt
'95 3000GT Spyder VR4
------------------------------
9k eh..you got big bank.
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Furman, Russell wrote:
> Steve the only problem with decreasing you static compression ratio
> (which is what most people refer to when they talk about raising or
> lowering their
> C/R) you will have to increase revs to make the
power band streetable. And
> whoever mentioned about the block
splitting under high pressures/volumes is
> very correct any block if
weakened to severely will do this.
>
> The above is the main reason
my final engine specs are a .040
> overbore, 8.5:1 static C/R, and a 9K
redline.......
------------------------------
That's not so bad..you're also losing about 40-80Hp inside the motor just
to turn the sucker too.
Not that you could..but add in an auto tranny, and you could lose another
100Hp..ive _seen_ 100Hp disappear on 700Hp cars with the simple addition
of an auto -vs- 5spd.
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, AINut wrote:
> Wow, driveline loss of 100 hp sounds incredibly high. That much
absorbed force
> sounds like it would melt the
driveline components. How did you
> measure to
> determine
that? Macinnes in his book says that normal driveline losses are just
> a few percent.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:21:55 -0500
From: "Furman, Russell" <
RFurman2@MassMutual.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: 800+ hp???
Not really, just shot-peen, deep cryo treat, and 4 way balance the rods
(crowers). Then after that you just have the rotating assembly
balanced (now that part is going to be expensive)
If I do a stage 2 motor for this car (not likely) I am going to aim for 10K
and run that on stock bore (to help reduce the likely hood of con
rod
stretch)
- -----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Mohler
[mailto:gemohler@www.speedtoys.com]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 1:13
PM
9k eh..you got big bank.
------------------------------
But, you're gonna/should invest in completely different valvetrain hardware
for that kinda RPM...and perhaps even engineer for non-interference.
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Furman, Russell wrote:
> Not really, just shot-peen, deep cryo treat, and 4 way balance the
> rods (crowers). Then after that you just have the rotating
assembly
> balanced (now that part is going to be expensive)
>
> If I do a stage 2 motor for this car (not likely) I am going to aim
> for 10K and run that on stock bore (to help reduce the likely hood of
> con rod
> stretch)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:33:35 -0500
From: "Furman, Russell" <
RFurman2@MassMutual.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: WAS 800+ hp?? NOW 9KRPM engine
Yup the pistons are floating wrist pin design and have valve relief's cut
into them (part of the reason they cost me 900 bucks :/ ) My only
issue now as I told Jim Floyd earlier is what to do about lifters (I know
stockers will collapse when combined with pitroad M cams at that RPM, but I do
not have the skills to set up DR adjustable....) As soon as I sort out
that previously mentioned issue I will be good to go (I hope.....)
Does anyone know of a direct replacement for our lifters that is not
adjustable, or a way to increase the durability and tensile strength of
our stock lifters (3rd gens would be ideal)
Russ F
CT
- -----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Mohler
[mailto:gemohler@www.speedtoys.com]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 1:24
PM
But, you're gonna/should invest in completely different valvetrain hardware
for that kinda RPM...and perhaps even engineer for non-interference.
------------------------------
Moe,
Mine is a T135 / 80D17 103M
Give me a call.
> Can someone with sec gen VR4 with 18" tires take a look at
their
> spare tire size and give me the size on it. I just got 18"
rims
> and tires and I need to get a new size spare.
>
> I
think it should be "e-08a t135/80d17 103m toyo" but just want to
>
make sure before I buy it.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:21:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Baldwin <
mbaldwin@alumni.tufts.edu>
Subject:
Team3S: X-fer case recall; Bay Area owners
Has anyone in the Bay Area taken their car in for the recall? Can someone
recommend a reputable dealer?
Thanks
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 19:21:19 -0000
From: "Jeff Lucius" <
jlucius@stealth316.com>
Subject:
Team3S: Misconceptions regarding boost, CFM, and turbo ratings
Sorry Russell, but your post makes several misstatements.
Here is the reality.
1) The flow rating of a turbo is not related in any sense to how much air
(CFM or otherwise) flows through our or any engine. Mass air flow is exactly
same at a given RPM, displacement, volumetric efficiency, air temp, and air
pressure (or boost) regardless of what turbo is used. In fact, the above
parameters *define* mass air flow through the engine. However, this does NOT
mean better turbos produce the same engine power as smaller turbos at a
given
RPM and boost level.
2) Good to excellent intercoolers make almost any difference in compressor
adiabatic pumping efficiency (that is, differences in air temp exiting the
turbo) insignificant in all practical circumstances.
3) A larger turbo is not necessarily more "efficient" than a smaller turbo.
It depends completely on the particular combination of pressure ratio and
effective air flow and the *design* of the wheel and its housing. For
example, TD04-13G turbos are much more efficient the TD04-15G turbos over
much of their output range.
Further detailed discussions and examples are on my web page below.
- ---------- Original Message -------------
Subject: RE: Team3S: RE:
800+ hp??? (was: Just posted this on 3SI)
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:42:04
-0500
Thank you casey that was what I was getting at from my original reply
(see
below)
>it is not just the PSI or pressure going into a turbo'd motor it is
>also CFM or volume that has an affect (or is it effect?) on HP and
>Torque production. Take a pair of 15G's @15 psi and take a pair of
>17G's at 15psi which do you think will make more WHP.....
In both these cases the specific turbo's should still be will within their
efficiency ranges on pump gas but the 17G's should produce more wheel
torque and WHP due to the larger amount of mass air flow or CFM........
This is why you typically see flow ratings for turbos measured at either
15psi or 1.00KG (depending on country) Although flow ratings and
compressor maps are not the end all be all indicator of power production
in a forced induction application.......
Russ "learned too much while trying to sort his car out" F
CT
------------------------------
Russell,
What is four way balancing ?
> Not really, just shot-peen, deep cryo treat, and 4 way balance the
> rods (crowers). Then after that you just have the rotating
assembly
> balanced (now that part is going to be
expensive)
>
> If I do a stage 2 motor for this car (not likely) I
am going to aim
> for 10K and run that on stock bore (to help reduce the
likely hood
> of con rod stretch)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:33:52 -0700
From: "Jim Floyd" <
jim_floyd7@earthlink.net>
Subject:
Re: Team3S: WAS 800+ hp?? NOW 9KRPM engine
Russell,
See if this guy can help - Paul's e-mail is
[3s@DiabloEnterprises.com]
Also I remember someone in Florida having solid lifters available.
> Yup the pistons are floating wrist pin design and have valve relief's
> cut into them (part of the reason they cost me 900 bucks :/ ) My
only
> issue now as I told Jim Floyd earlier is what to do about lifters
(I
> know stockers will collapse when combined with pitroad M cams at
that
> RPM, but I do not have the skills to set up DR adjustable....) As
soon
> as I sort out that previously mentioned issue I will be good to go
(I
> hope.....)
>
> Does anyone know of a direct replacement
for our lifters that is not
> adjustable, or a way to increase the
durability and tensile strength
> of our stock lifters (3rd gens would be
ideal)
------------------------------
You hang a rod by the fat end..and get the all the same weight. You hang it
by the small end, ditto. You now support it on one flat side..and even
them all up on the "right" side. You then do the same thing on the "left"
side.
The left rod, is halfway thru 4-way balancing...note how material was
removed on the left and right sides...in different amounts. The rod
on the right is stock.
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Jim Floyd wrote:
> Russell,
>
> What is four way
balancing ?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:59:48 -0500
From: "Furman, Russell" <
RFurman2@MassMutual.com>
Subject:
RE: Team3S: 800+ hp???
Thank you Geoff I was trying to figure out how to explain it without
sounding totally clueless ( only partly knew what 4 way balancing was, but
understood it was very beneficial to keeping my motor together and
preventing viewing ports from being created in the sides of the block at over 8K
rpms)
- -----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Mohler
[mailto:gemohler@www.speedtoys.com]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 2:52
PM
You hang a rod by the fat end..and get the all the same weight. You hang it
by the small end, ditto. You now support it on one flat side..and even
them all up on the "right" side. You then do the same thing on the "left"
side.
The left rod, is halfway thru 4-way balancing...note how material was
removed on the left and right sides...in different amounts. The rod
on the right is stock.
------------------------------
Attn Jack T (aka Xwing) could you email me off list I have a few questions
for you about your torque plate. You were one of the first to reply
to my thread on 3SI.org
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 21:10:26 -0800
From: "Riyan Mynuddin" <
riyan@hotpop.com>
Subject: RE: Team3S:
Leaky oil cap
I never did see the original post regarding the leaky oil cap. But I did
see the response, and here's what I have to say:
I had the leaky oil cap. I replaced my PCV valve and it didn't help,
although PCV valve is something that you want to consider. It sure is
pretty cheap and easy to replace too. Don't buy FRAM PCV valves though.
I've heard that sometimes they put the spring in backwards...yikes!
Alternatives: Purolator, Mitsu OEM
Onward.
My leak didn't go away until I bought a new oil cap. I'd urge you to fix
that cap soon, because at least if you have a TT car (I don't know about
the other models)... the oil drops straight into your alternator! Yes, it
drips down the valve cover and into the alternator. After seeing this charred
gunk all over the alternator casing and inside, I decided to replace mine
for preventative maintenance at my 60k tune-up even though it still
worked. Don't get yourself into that position. I spent a hundred something bucks
just because the previous owner of my car didn't fix that oil leak. I'm
not saying that I needed to spend that money, but I sure don't want a fat
question mark over my head...that I may be stranded any day when my
alternator fails.
'nuff said.
Riyan Mynuddin
93 Stealth RT TT
Stillen Intake, Stillen Downpipe, ATR SingleShot Catback, "Improved" main
and front pre-cat, 450cc injectors; cleaned and matched, MBC @ 12 PSI, EK2
Fuel Rail mod, EK2 EGR "upgrade", U.P. Cold Air Box, S-AFC, Boost, A/F,
and Fuel PSI gauges, TurboXS H-34 Bypass Valve, FP resistor bypass+hotwire, U.P.
Front and Rear S-Bars
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:08:04 -0800
From: "Riyan Mynuddin" <
riyan@hotpop.com>
Subject: Team3S:
unhappy on cold start
Hello all,
Sorry to interrupt the amazing 800hp discussion. I wish I had something to
add... but it's really not my place :( I sure am learning a thing or two
:)
Ever since my 60k tuneup and all my mods, I've been experiencing an
"unhappy car" on cold start. Until the engine warms up, it will lose power
for a split second once in awhile.
I'm driving down the street and I suddenly lose power momentarily. When I
do, I also hear an audible "click". The click is probably my driveshaft
carrier bearings since when the engine suddenly stops delivering power for
that split second, the driveline snaps back. This problem is much more
pronounced if the car's been sitting for more than a week and gets even
worse if it's cold outside. The good news is that after the car warms up
it always runs like a dream. I have all the below mods plus coppers gapped @
.035"
One more thing to note...
On my cold starts, I give very little throttle
until she warms up. I keep it under 10% throttle and under 2500 rpm (yes,
the drivers around me get pretty mad). But I do this to get more life out of my
engine. I suppose if I had a heavier foot on cold start then it would help
with the problem. I'd rather not do that though.
...still, I don't think the car should be acting this way. Anyone have any
suggestions or experience a similar problem on cold starts?
Riyan Mynuddin
93 Stealth RT TT
Stillen Intake, Stillen Downpipe, ATR SingleShot Catback, "Improved" main
and front pre-cat, 450cc injectors; cleaned and matched, MBC @ 12 PSI, EK2
Fuel Rail mod, EK2 EGR "upgrade", U.P. Cold Air Box, S-AFC, Boost, A/F,
and Fuel PSI gauges, TurboXS H-34 Bypass Valve, FP resistor bypass+hotwire, U.P.
Front and Rear S-Bars
------------------------------
End of Team3S: 3000GT & Stealth V2
#39
**************************************
