Blatman Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 But with nitrous, no? And *bags* of torque and power. Waaaaay more than Dave Edmands, which kind of makes my point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashBangWallop Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Not really a comparison but, my old carpet-laden, windscreen-weighted, lard-arsed driver 1.6 CVH done around 16 seconds. I'm looking forward to this year's attempt to see what the difference is (if any) in my carpet-vacant, TimD aeroscreened, with driver (minus 5kg) 1.6 CVH turbo? Neil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill shurvinton Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 But with nitrous, no? And *bags* of torque and power. Waaaaay more than Dave Edmands, which kind of makes my point... But cost about 20% of Dave's. Dave is sadly deluded when it comes to drag racing. IMNVHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Oh I don't know. I quite admire the fact that he's refused to use a turbo, a supercharger or nitrous to get his times. I'm not a drag race afficianado though, so I guess all the drag racers would laugh at me for saying that when all that matters is the ET. But I like to see a Nat Asp car doing what I think is a pretty good job without the horsepower enhancements that are allowed. Dellusional or not, lets not knock the times or the achievement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill shurvinton Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 So picking an engine that is clearly not the best choice for the job should be applauded? Or a cheesy gearbox that is not up to the job. To me its just another person with way more money than sense. [aside] one of the reasons I really didn't mind being chucked off blatchat was the number of people who really seemed to think that their virility could be measured in terms of the amount of money they had spent on their engines/gearboxes etc and would spout how expensive each rebuild was. [/aside] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 You're over analysing my sentiments Bill. I'm talking generally, rather than specifically looking at Daves car, other than as a time yardstick. Suitability or not, it's a nat asp doing low 10's. It's not to be sniffed at. How many other Se7ens can do that? The question was is XX.xx a good time and how do we compare? I was pointing out that there are some quick Se7en shapes about and that it takes time, money and a good deal of lateral thinking to get a Se7en shape to be quick. I agree that James car has probably had but a percentage of the outlay of Daves car spent on it, but when Daves car must be standing him at a figure that *has* to be well over 50 grand (assuming he's paid for lots of it) and probably/possibly more, then the potential outlay for James car number still isn't cheap motorsport when the track is but 400 metres long and has no corners... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill shurvinton Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Anyone who spends 50K on a se7en needs locking up in my book for their own safety. (Yes Nige I include you in that list ) I am glad that people do daft things like that, but applaud those who really get bang for the buck rather than the cheque book racers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gadrego Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Is that SBD 1.6 still around? Seem to remember that running low 10's as well. Not really my thing but I do admire the commitment Dave seems to have when it come to chasing tenths, regardless od his engine choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS WST Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 I did a quarter for the first time ever yesterday since I built the Westy. I managed a 11.07 at 138mph yesterday at elvington running just over 17 psi of boost. Looking to go into the low 10's once I've set the car up and turned up the boost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Seabrook Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 I did a 12.37 @ 113mph at Chivenor sprint a couple of weeks ago. The start line was not the best as it offered little grip unlike Pod or other proper drag strips that have a gery grippy start line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cng1 Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 Austen, What turbo are you running? My opinion is that you're extremely unlikely to get more power out by upping the boost. On my car we've spent a long time on the rollers and with the GT28RS that optimum boost is about 1 bar, compare and contrast with most cossie chips that run 1.7bar+. That said I've spent some time porting my head and cleaning up the airflow path so my engine doesn't need as much boost to do its best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
combatsapph Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 I always thought port work on a forced induction engine was pointless. Waiting to be corrected though........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 *Any* improvement in the flow, from simply removing flash lines to a full porting job is worthwhile, even on a turbo. You'd be amazed at how much improvement can be made to even a good standard head like the Vx or Cossie, simply by taking some time to smooth out the fuel/air pathways Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS WST Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 Austen, What turbo are you running? My opinion is that you're extremely unlikely to get more power out by upping the boost. On my car we've spent a long time on the rollers and with the GT28RS that optimum boost is about 1 bar, compare and contrast with most cossie chips that run 1.7bar+. That said I've spent some time porting my head and cleaning up the airflow path so my engine doesn't need as much boost to do its best. I'm running a slightly larger turbo than a GT28RS, I've had the compressor and exhaust housing's modified/ ported and also run an external wastegate. In all fairness the entire engine has been modified including big valve head, tapered bell mouthed inlet system, exteral wastegate, all steel internals etc. etc. I reckon the turbo I am using is good for 420 at 2 bar. A friend of mine made 525bhp at 2bar boost last week on Harvey Gibbs Dyno Cell on a Zetec Turbo running a Turbonetics T66 (I'm running a Zetec turbo engine) The physics behind why you are not getting much more power out of your engine at higher boosts is that the AR ratio is probably small or your trim wheel is a small diameter and cannot release the exhaust gas fast enough, possibly your intercooler cannot cool the air volume above 14.7psi? On the compressor side it is only using a small 2.75" cover too. The GT28RS is a small turbo and designed for good spool up and response, not loads of power. Probably the real reason why you noticed that 1 bar gave the best results is that after this amount of boost you start to get wheelspin on the rollers? Kit cars are so light that they cannot grip properly on rollers above 300bhp IMO unless you are using 12" slicks. This has been proven by myself on Dennis Vessey's Rollers many times and I'm using super sticky Avon ACB 10's in a 245 width. I have also done a few weeks worth of engine dyno cell work on my engine a few years ago at Vessy's with a more restrictice turbo and inlet set up and it made 350bhp at 6600rpm and 360 ft/lb at 3800 rpm at 24psi before it ran out of fuel on the injectors i was using at the time, this is why I am now using an eight injector set up. IMHO the more boost the better for making power if the engine and turbo are spec'd correctly to cope. More air + more fuel = more power FACT There does become a limit however on when the turbo starts to become unefficient Head porting on a turbo car "does work" and is a proven fact. It allows more air into the cylinder much like a NA car but is amplfied by the fact your pumping more air into it from the turbo. (less boost needed to generate the same power). There is a bit more technical stuff behind this on large bhp motors which is down to air speeds but I don't want to bore people to death. A friend of mine from Scunthorpe, Andy Nichols who works for AET turbo's in Wakefield is running a Rover ZZR with a 220 Tomcat turbo engine in it. This engine is very similar in design and spec to mine, (Zetec) other than he runs a huge turbo. (GT3540) with a giant external progate. Andy made over 610 bhp at the wheels at only 2 bar boost with no gas on AET's brand new Dynopack hub dyno which is accurate to 1/4 of a horsepower. Recently some cossie owners have been seeing 750bhp flywheel horsepower running large turbo's. (Martin Hadland for example) Also be very carefull when porting heads as it is a black art. I have seen heads that have been ported by so called tuning companies that make big claims only to find that they flow less air than a standard head. This was done on a friends superflow head flow bench. Just my tenth pence worth anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Ashcroft Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 And Breath Morning Mate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.