what do we know about serious engine tuning?
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 139

Thread: what do we know about serious engine tuning?

  1. #26
    MWF
    MWF is offline
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wolverhampton
    Posts
    3,229
    Drives
    XR4i 3.1 Stage-2
    Wow you get all the best stereotypical myths on the Internet.

    Firstly American tuning is in no way as prehistroic as people think, they just have different fundementals behind what they consider performance. The small block Chevy is just the American equivilent of our Pinto, it's old popular technology but doesn't not represent the cream of the crop. The comments about petrol consumption and American v8's make me laugh, how many people actually think a 500bhp 2.0 turbo uses less fuel then a 500bhp v8? Laws of thermodynamics anybody? The recent American V8s get just as much power per litre than our fourpots and with fuel injection are just as effcient.

    Everyone rants on about the Japanese tuning market, consider this. It costs tens of thousands to get 1000bhp from a Skyline engine, it will be laggy and generally hard to drive. For a tenth of that price you can buy a brand new big block V8 and a supercharger and have 1000bhp in a more drivable form. It wont be using anymore fuel and will be a lot more reliable. Spend a little more and you go for Aluminium block, heads and intake and be laughing as it will weigh no more than the 6pot and hairdryers.

    Also lets not forget the real ace in the pack, the Rover V8. Weighs less than a Minis A-series lump and can be made to give huge power on a cheap budget.
    //LowAndWide.net//
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Duckworth RIP
    It's better to be un-informed than ill-informed

  2. Remove Advertisements
    MigWeb.co.uk
    Advertisements
     

  3. #27
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Middlesex
    Posts
    9,232
    Drives
    sideways
    Matheus makes a good point:
    Example, you have a C20Let with 204hp @ 5.600rpm and 0,8kg/cm² of pressure. You put a phase 4 example, you lowering the CR and put 1.8kg/cm² of pressure, big intercooler, and make 350hp @ 5.600rpm. Ok, lets think now, put high duration cams in this same engine, like 288 inlet and 282 exhaust(low cross), good work in the head, big turbine(.80). With the same pressure, you can make 450hp @ 7.200rpm(example), then, why use "only turbo" for make power?
    We are stuck in a rut. Just like why I posted my frustrated post the other day about how people just say, stick a let in it. Stick a phase kit on it if you have to. Thats hardly pushing the boundries for tuning. The phase kits are OK, but they are one guys attempt at tuning the LET. Together on here you/we should have been making those sort of powers long ago.

    Stop snubbing tuning talk, and let those who want to do things differently do it. Give them a hand if you can.

    But on a lighter note...... lmao
    Brian Sidebotham.

  4. #28
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Herts
    Posts
    5,972
    Drives
    Grale, Mustang, 535i
    Originally posted by MWF
    Wow you get all the best stereotypical myths on the Internet.

    Firstly American tuning is in no way as prehistroic as people think, they just have different fundementals behind what they consider performance. The small block Chevy is just the American equivilent of our Pinto, it's old popular technology but doesn't not represent the cream of the crop. The comments about petrol consumption and American v8's make me laugh, how many people actually think a 500bhp 2.0 turbo uses less fuel then a 500bhp v8? Laws of thermodynamics anybody? The recent American V8s get just as much power per litre than our fourpots and with fuel injection are just as effcient.

    Everyone rants on about the Japanese tuning market, consider this. It costs tens of thousands to get 1000bhp from a Skyline engine, it will be laggy and generally hard to drive. For a tenth of that price you can buy a brand new big block V8 and a supercharger and have 1000bhp in a more drivable form. It wont be using anymore fuel and will be a lot more reliable. Spend a little more and you go for Aluminium block, heads and intake and be laughing as it will weigh no more than the 6pot and hairdryers.

    Also lets not forget the real ace in the pack, the Rover V8. Weighs less than a Minis A-series lump and can be made to give huge power on a cheap budget.
    Well said.

    If American lumps were all such old technology, then why would so many small UK manufacturers want to use the new quad cam Mustang V8 (other than cost of course ).
    The difference is that because fuel costs are so low there, there has been less need (until recent years) for highly efficient small engines. If you wanted more power, you made it bigger.
    If I didn't pay for my petrol, I would rather have a 400bhp lightly stressed V8 with 400+lb/ft of torque than an overstressed turboed 2.0 lump.
    There is a place that sells ex-NASCAR engine bits - for $18,000 you can build yourself a 650bhp, 8,000rpm small block that will run all day, every day (NASCAR engines are designed to run at 9,000rpm, so there is a nice safety margin.)

    Mike

  5. #29
    MWF
    MWF is offline
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wolverhampton
    Posts
    3,229
    Drives
    XR4i 3.1 Stage-2
    And in America you can go to a Ford, Chrysler or GM dealer and pick up a real Motorsport catalogue. None of this fancy alloy wheels, trendy sideskirts, look at my shiny alloy gear knob ladies. These catalogs are full of brand new engines designed for motorsport use from 5-7.5 litres in various states of tune. AND then you have the tune up options for those engines from enlarged throttle bodies, to heads, to superchargers!

    I arn't even going to go into the prices, the term "Cheap as chips" springs to mind.
    //LowAndWide.net//
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Duckworth RIP
    It's better to be un-informed than ill-informed

  6. #30
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Heathrow
    Posts
    200
    Drives
    Cavalier 4x4
    Thread Starter
    I think you missed the point, or maybe I did not make myself clearer, I was refering to turbo engines and the examples I gave were of 4 cyl engines now big fat v8's with can guzzle gallons of fuels in seconds, and like mahtues says there is a lot of potential from a tunig point of view in the LET and it doesnt have to cost an arm and a leg either.

  7. #31
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Gloucester
    Posts
    17,968
    Drives
    3MW B18iS
    Well engine tuning hasn't really changed that much over the years. Most max power readers don't have the money or dedication to do proper tuning. When you look at proper tuning, then it's a matter of cost and reliability, and diminishing returns etc. that ,mean that most don't bother beyond 100BHP/litre on a NA engine. USA engines are large capacity, but their street fuel is low Octane, limiting CR and power outputs.

    Oh anddd
    3-2-1 Manifold, and decent through flow exhaust.
    3-2-1 manifold? What a great idea LOL? What about the 4th port? Connected to hose pipe back to interior?
    Do you want to install and run "Adobe Flash Player 9"?
    No, now f*** ***.

  8. #32
    MWF
    MWF is offline
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wolverhampton
    Posts
    3,229
    Drives
    XR4i 3.1 Stage-2
    Every engine in the world has potential to be more powerful, but developing the parts to do so is always going to be a case of supply and demand. The LET has missed the boat in this regard as it was never used in racing like the Cosworth YB lump and the Cav is not a trendy car to own anymore.

    It's like the throttle bodies on the XE, they only exist because of competition kit cars.
    //LowAndWide.net//
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Duckworth RIP
    It's better to be un-informed than ill-informed

  9. #33
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    1,675
    Drives
    Opel vectra '93 c20xe
    my mate have an impreza gt station (211 bhp)
    He just put an apexi (the newer), a full stainless handmade exhaust with race cat (not exhaust manifold), and increased the turbo pressure at 1,2 bar.
    Also he putted a nos wet system for +75 bhp.
    The car was in magazine rewiew and he did these times.
    0-62mph 4.57 sec
    0-160 mph 10.6 sec
    This times came with two people in car and 1/2 fuel.
    My mate is 130 kg
    The car was 285 bhp without nos and 360 bhp with nos.
    So simply, with not a lot of money!
    nitrous P O W E R! ! !

  10. #34
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Northeast Kent
    Posts
    30,548
    Drives
    thats 20 stone, are you suuuure ?

  11. #35
    MWF
    MWF is offline
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wolverhampton
    Posts
    3,229
    Drives
    XR4i 3.1 Stage-2
    0-160 mph 10.6 sec
    Miss typed that bit I assume? Should be kmh?
    //LowAndWide.net//
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Duckworth RIP
    It's better to be un-informed than ill-informed

  12. #36
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    1,675
    Drives
    Opel vectra '93 c20xe
    Yes i wrote it wrong
    0-100 mph is the correct.
    Sorry.

  13. #37
    MWF
    MWF is offline
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wolverhampton
    Posts
    3,229
    Drives
    XR4i 3.1 Stage-2
    On that subject the editors of Performance Ford told me when selecting feature cars they look for something which stands out, if a car only stands out in performance they only consider cars which can do 0-100 in less than 10secs
    Last edited by MWF; 18-11-2002 at 15:05.
    //LowAndWide.net//
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Duckworth RIP
    It's better to be un-informed than ill-informed

  14. #38
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Bracknell
    Posts
    6,720
    Drives
    Mondeo, MR2, Manta
    Bring out the gimp er manta
    Originally Posted by Brian_S: Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

  15. #39
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Brazil, São Paulo
    Posts
    2,890
    Drives
    Astra GTE 2.0 8V Tur
    Well.. here in Brazil, my friend have a Ford Maverick, with 302 V8 engine(5.0L), all stock, bi-jet carb, stock cams, etc, its make 135hp, and the consumption of fuel is badder than my other friend with VW 8V 2.0 Turbo with 380hp.

  16. #40
    MWF
    MWF is offline
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wolverhampton
    Posts
    3,229
    Drives
    XR4i 3.1 Stage-2
    Well.. here in Brazil, my friend have a Ford Maverick, with 302 V8 engine(5.0L), all stock, bi-jet carb, stock cams, etc, its make 135hp, and the consumption of fuel is badder than my other friend with VW 8V 2.0 Turbo with 380hp.
    I don't deny that's true, but the same SVO lump in GT-40 spec can push 345hp and get 30mpg.
    //LowAndWide.net//
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Duckworth RIP
    It's better to be un-informed than ill-informed

  17. #41
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Brazil, São Paulo
    Posts
    2,890
    Drives
    Astra GTE 2.0 8V Tur
    Is true. And specs of maker is not true. I don't know about miles per gallon, because here in Brazil we use other metric for know the consumption of fuel.
    But here the VW 2.0 turbo of my friend make 4,5km per litre of alcohol in normal use, and the Maverick make 4 km per litre of alcohol in normal use too. And my friend use the Maverick only to 2.000rpm(because have a good torque), and my friend of VW turbo use about 3.000rpm. Is easy to explain that. The VW of my friend have 950kg of wheight, the Maverick have 1.700kg of wheight, you need get out of inertia much more wheight, and for it, you have more consumption of fuel.

  18. #42
    MWF
    MWF is offline
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wolverhampton
    Posts
    3,229
    Drives
    XR4i 3.1 Stage-2
    Plus your friend with the Maverick clearly has a less effecient engine, hence less power and less economy.
    //LowAndWide.net//
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Duckworth RIP
    It's better to be un-informed than ill-informed

  19. #43
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Herts
    Posts
    5,972
    Drives
    Grale, Mustang, 535i
    Originally posted by Matheus428
    Is true. And specs of maker is not true. I don't know about miles per gallon, because here in Brazil we use other metric for know the consumption of fuel.
    But here the VW 2.0 turbo of my friend make 4,5km per litre of alcohol in normal use, and the Maverick make 4 km per litre of alcohol in normal use too. And my friend use the Maverick only to 2.000rpm(because have a good torque), and my friend of VW turbo use about 3.000rpm. Is easy to explain that. The VW of my friend have 950kg of wheight, the Maverick have 1.700kg of wheight, you need get out of inertia much more wheight, and for it, you have more consumption of fuel.
    Solution - V8 in a Golf lmao

    Mike

  20. #44
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Brazil, São Paulo
    Posts
    2,890
    Drives
    Astra GTE 2.0 8V Tur
    uahuehauehauheauheuahehlmao

    Oh yeah.. V8 in a Golf will "lowering" the front so nice..hehehehehe

  21. #45
    MWF
    MWF is offline
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wolverhampton
    Posts
    3,229
    Drives
    XR4i 3.1 Stage-2
    It's been done, got a copy of Golf from Jan 98 with a Blue Mk1 Golf with a twin turbo 4.2 Rover V8 and 4x4 cossie running gear.
    //LowAndWide.net//
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Duckworth RIP
    It's better to be un-informed than ill-informed

  22. #46
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Blackpool
    Posts
    1,060
    Drives
    Calibra Turbo 4x4 19
    Alcohol, gives you a BIG advantage, with turbos,

    Altough calorific value is much lower, more gaseous expansion, meaning more energy to turbine but cooler, if you see.

    A properly flowed head, well prepared valves, (and if very high boost to be considered, inlet valve springs?).

    If though not given to cooling exaust port area of head could become a problem.

    Sequential turbos, how does that work?

    Would healthy unit fitted with M2.7, and proven lambda work very well with up to 20% Nitromethane? (assuming full time lambda based controle).

    Some thoughts

    DOUGAL
    EVERY ACTION HAS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION.

  23. #47
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Brazil, São Paulo
    Posts
    2,890
    Drives
    Astra GTE 2.0 8V Tur
    Hello Dougal..
    I think the best advantage of alcohol in turbo use, is the resists high CR or DCR. You there in Europe need lowering the CR with others pistons, thicker gaskets and etc.. Here in Brazil don't need this, we use gasoline engines with 9,5:1 of CR, and put turbo and convert to alcohol.. The most here don't use intercooler... the risk of detonation with alcohol is so less if you compare with gasoline.
    Sequential turbos, i think is not necessary..

  24. #48
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Heathrow
    Posts
    200
    Drives
    Cavalier 4x4
    Thread Starter
    alcohol sounds nice where can we get some in the uk?lmao i am serious though!!

  25. #49
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Brazil, São Paulo
    Posts
    2,890
    Drives
    Astra GTE 2.0 8V Tur
    Yeah man!! Is vegetable fuel, don't need petrol! Make so less polution than gasoline.. and make more power.. is perfect.

  26. #50
    MIGWeb User
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    638
    Drives
    Astra GSi 2.0 16v
    From a non-UK outsider's point of view? Two words:-

    Developmental Costs

    That's keeping the C20let engines from making silly power with reliability.

    From my limited knowledge of UK's racing scene, there doesn't seem to be as extensive an application of this powerhouse in motorsports than the cossie turbos.

    In contrast, the WRX engine (as an example) is raced everywhere around the world. Not only Europe and Japan, but even Australia develops their own serious tuning parts for the car 'cos its used at grassroots racing everywhere.

    Being overshadowed by Cossie power, the C20let has lost its chance for further development. The time has passed it given that its no longer a production engine.

    Who then would spend heaps of money in research, trial and error in the quest to find 400 reliable horses from it? Even if they did, there's no promise that enthusiasts and racers would come by or partake in the tuning. Hence the dearth of serious tuning parts and tuning for the C20let.

    I would however emphasise that this is strongly based on my impression that the c20let saw comparatively little racing...
    The ONLY white Astra GSi on the island!!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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