Re: 250 RWHP....My goal...can this get my here...?

[shift1313]

ive already emailed him and the spare motor was sold to sakura.  go figure. i heard sakura paid $15000 for a head made of solid billet and now he bought this motor.  Wish i had that kind of cake to drop, it wouldnt be on a billet head but i can think of a few things i want:)

[Christobal65]

ive already emailed him and the spare motor was sold to sakura.  go figure. i heard sakura paid $15000 for a head made of solid billet and now he bought this motor.  Wish i had that kind of cake to drop, it wouldnt be on a billet head but i can think of a few things i want:)

For $15K I'd buy a 3000GT VR-4....oh wait i am:D

[Grbii87quest]

:oHay where can i find more on this

HKS produced 16 or so fully built race motors with prototype DOHC 16-valve heads on them they porduced over 250hp  with out a turbo

 

Thank You

 George

[shift1313]

george, hks produced the heads and ralliart tuned the motors.  there is only one motor out there as far as we know. 271hp NA.  here is the link to some pics.

http://www.geocities.com/chad86tsi/IMSA_Starion.html

i think you'll find what you want to know.

[92TsiTalon]

alright, i come from the E/T/L world and im lookin at gettin a starion/conquest but you guys are really discouraging!!! A 20G that can only produce 250HP!! My 14b does that with an upgraded fuel pump and a few supporting mods at 17psi.  Technically if the 20g is rated at 380-400 hp on a talon, and it flows the same 650cfm on a starion, with the same air/fuel combo you should be able to get similar power output. I know the starion packs lot more torque, but does it really damper the power THAT MUCH! If it does, I think I'll stick to getting another talon.  I was hoping to get the same 350hp out of an 18g on a starion as you could on a talon. Maybe you veteran starion owners can elighten me on the strengths and weaknesses of the starion so I know what to look for if I want 350hp.  According to the 325cfm of the 12a turbo, if you supplement that with the right amount of fuel you should be able to pull as much as 220 out of the engine (by using simple air/fuel combination and excluding major restrictions that I dont know about on a starion motor).

[chiplee]

alright, i come from the E/T/L world and im lookin at gettin a starion/conquest but you guys are really discouraging!!! A 20G that can only produce 250HP!! My 14b does that with an upgraded fuel pump and a few supporting mods at 17psi.  Technically if the 20g is rated at 380-400 hp on a talon, and it flows the same 650cfm on a starion, with the same air/fuel combo you should be able to get similar power output. I know the starion packs lot more torque, but does it really damper the power THAT MUCH! If it does, I think I'll stick to getting another talon.  I was hoping to get the same 350hp out of an 18g on a starion as you could on a talon. Maybe you veteran starion owners can elighten me on the strengths and weaknesses of the starion so I know what to look for if I want 350hp.  According to the 325cfm of the 12a turbo, if you supplement that with the right amount of fuel you should be able to pull as much as 220 out of the engine (by using simple air/fuel combination and excluding major restrictions that I dont know about on a starion motor).

 

yeah you should probably stick with another DSM.  Those restrictions aren't the only thing you don't know about a starion engine.  Sorry but you don't seem to understand the relationship between torque and HP in general, so you'll be met with disappointing results forever when you try to supertune a 2.6.  If an engine doesn't rev it will be HP limited. plain and simple.  But I submit to you that if you ask the 18g AWD Talon TSi owner who got destroyed by my 265hp quest how much HP matters on the street, you'll hear a resounding "not much".   Or you could also ask the 345hp Firehawk owner that I pulled 10 lengths on how he feels about his big number and you might be surprised.  Hear this.  Torque is not just everything on the street, it's the only thing.  HP is nothing but a number.  It's a representation of work done over time from which you can gather little knowledge about how a car feels on the street.  An S2000 makes pretty good HP but revs to the moon.  Where my car is making over 300ft/lbs at the wheels by 3k RPM, the S2K is making about 65ft/lbs.  What the 2.6 can do that your 2.0 can't is very little so again, I recommend you stay with what you like, but does your 2.0 begin to spool a 20g with an 8cm2 housing at 1600rpm?  Doubt it, but I seriously don't know.  There are more design improvements to the 2.0 internally than I know enough to talk about as well so I won't try.  I'm sure someone will chime in with more detailed info about just why that little 2 liter makes so much better HP.  I'm sure the DOHCs doesn't hurt, nor the improved combustion chamber design.

[92TsiTalon]

first of all, i can tell you that there is a relationship between torque and horsepower and that the numbers in gasoline engines are generally close to the same. i can tell you that torque is equal to the force times the radius arm. therefore, stroked engines have a higher torque rating because the stroke or radius of engine revolution is longer. its sort of like using a socket wrench to turn a bolt rather than your fingers (this is all simple physics).

 

so, if you take a certain amount of horsepower and cause the engine to rotate, the actual force of the engine is transformed into torque where the rubber meets the road.  of course, horsepower is the root of torque. in the case of the 2.6 turbo, you have a much longer stroke (not only is it a 2.6 but it is a bigger block in general) than a 2.0 so that's probably why there is such a difference in the torque and horsepower ratings of your car.

 

if you want to get technical, even if you have 265hp and crap loads more torque (im guessing around 320) for your car and you race a built talon with an 18G with 350-375 hp and similar torque (the turbo would be at full boost by about 2.8-3k) you would definitely not win. im saying all of this hoping your car doesnt run 11's in the 1/4 mile

 

anyway, the point of it all is that i did some searching and found out that trying to get power (and torque for that matter) is like trying to tune a geo metro (not near that bad, just to create an analogy). props to all of you guys that do it successfully. the fuel system is horrible, the exhaust is horrible, the head is horrible, etc.  but at least i was able to research the car before i got it because if i didnt, i wouldnt have been able to resist the looks of the car......they're beautiful!!

 

well, theres my two cents - people who's cars make gobs of power see power as the key component, and people who's cars make gobs of torque see torque as king. the truth is, neither horsepower nor torque is king of the hill simply because one is the product of the other.  just try to make either or both numbers good, that's what tuning is all about.

[Boosted_One]

I ike the DSMS too, but the 2.6L shouldn;t be discredited like that!

 

The stock turbine housing and exhaust manifold are limiting what we can get on oir power outputs. Not enough flow.

 

I got a guy in our local DSM club with a GSX turning 12.6's on a 16G. Yes very impressive. But that doesn't mean you can;t get good times from a 2.6L!

 

And don't ever compare modding this car to a Geo!  

[chiplee]

so, if you take a certain amount of horsepower and cause the engine to rotate, the actual force of the engine is transformed into torque where the rubber meets the road.  of course, horsepower is the root of torque.

lol, keep researching if that's what you came up with.  Horsepower is not a physical thing, torque is.  HP is a calculation.  No dyno EVER measures HP, EVER.  Not even engine dynos.  Engines produce torque and torque alone.  HP is numerical representation of how much torque is being produced at what RPM.  Simply put, the more HP an engine makes, the faster it can rev while still producing good torque.  Don't feel bad, I've had this conversation with dyno operators who insisted I was wrong too.  The 2.6's only HP limitation, is upper RPM breathing.   I will admit that it's better to make torque later than earlier because you can take advantage of gearing, but that's for a 1/4 mile race, not a street car.  If an engine has a higher Torque peak than HP peak it's because it revs higher than 5252rpm while still making reasonable torque.  Read this grasshopper http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html  

[92TsiTalon]

jeez guys....you pick apart everything i said except for my initial post when all i asked for was simple differences and what to look for.  all i got in response is smart-a** remarks and people that think they know everything. read carefully chiplee, i said torque is what matters where the rubber hits the road - THE PHYSICAL PART.  

 

anyway, im done debating with you guys on hp and torque.  im a nuclear engineer for the navy - I KNOW WHAT TORQUE IS.  

 

i didnt discredit the 2.6, i just said that from what i found it was a lot harder to tune

i figured you guys would respond nicely like people on dsmtalk and actually give me some info on the engine rather than your beliefs on hp and torque because originally this post was about how to get power out of this particular engine.

 

i just wanted info, not this bs.....is there anyone out there that can describe the advantages, disadvantages, strengths and weaknesses of the motor....i would appreciate that very much. Thank you.

 

(please dont continue with this ridiculous argument, its a lost cause and not on topic)

[Boosted_One]

Big +'s in my book on the 2.6L are:

 

The bottom ends on the 2.6ls are bullet proof. I have never heard of crankwalk on any 2.6l.

 

The rear end is very strong

 

The 88-89 trannies can handle a decent amount of torque

 

The rods are very strong.

 

The low end torque is excellent

 

Large displacement

 

An excellent FMIC that any car manufactor has manufactored

 

 

 

What sucks:

 

TBI

intake manifold design

46mm TB

Jet valves

 

If your looking for the 2.6L  to be on par or better than  the 4g63 your going to be disappointed. There's way more upgrades out there for the 4g63 and with an MPI fuel system to start it's already got the edge.

 

I like a challenge. This car is a challenge. A lot of people can just slap together a 4g63 and throw some bald tires on a GSX and go low 13's all day long. That ain't going to happen in the Starion world.

 

Take the Skyline and the 300ZX-TT and compare them. Ya the Skyline has the edge. Modern day electronics and AWD. Different beasts, but some of  Nissans best works.

 

Chip and the others are really great guys and I don't think they meant to come across sharply.

 

What you will find are an excellent group of diehards here. We know the potentials of the G54B's and also understand we got a bad rap way back when which still plagues us to this day.

[chiplee]

Generally anything I post has your best interest at heart.  On occasion I shoot a little too straight for the average bear.  There's hardly enough time for me to get here to post at all lately, so there is certainly not enough time for me to make sure your feelings aren't hurt about what you do or don't fully understand.  In fact puting the word "sorry" in front of whatever I say is about as far as I usually go when I know the following will be received as criticism.  Sorry, but that's how I am.  Your posts revealed to me a common misconception about HP.  I took the time to attempt to correct that misconception because I know that if you set out to mod the 2.6 to 300hp with the stock manifolds attached, then you'll be disappointed, just like I told you in the first post.  I sincerely do not care if you think I'm a smart a** because I gave you the straight dope, or if you think I think I know it all.  Since you've never seen my reaction to being told that I don't understand something I don't think you have any way to know if I think I'm a know it all.  We've seen your reaction to being told you don't fully understand something.  Even now you're trying to come off like there is not one flaw in your concept of torque vs. HP.   You've tried to prove yourself and spout off about your job to lend credability to your intelligence level, and in doing so you come off as a person who thinks he knows it all.  I say you need to get a thicker skin and be more open to criticism, which will naturally make you more open to learning.  I have something of an affiliation with the Navy myself.  Where do you work.

[Joel]

lol, keep researching if that's what you came up with.  Horsepower is not a physical thing, torque is.  HP is a calculation.  No dyno EVER measures HP, EVER.  Not even engine dynos.  Engines produce torque and torque alone.  HP is numerical representation of how much torque is being produced at what RPM.  Simply put, the more HP an engine makes, the faster it can rev while still producing good torque.  Don't feel bad, I've had this conversation with dyno operators who insisted I was wrong too.  The 2.6's only HP limitation, is upper RPM breathing.   I will admit that it's better to make torque later than earlier because you can take advantage of gearing, but that's for a 1/4 mile race, not a street car.  If an engine has a higher Torque peak than HP peak it's because it revs higher than 5252rpm while still making reasonable torque.  Read this grasshopper http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html  

 

Chip, Let me pick this apart on you a little too  

 

"Simply put, the more HP an engine makes, the faster it can rev while still producing good torque."

 

I think you have that a little backwards, and theres still a little more to it.

 

If you make 30 ft/lbs of torque flat lined until 40 thousand RPM, you will NEVER redline. Same goes on a greater scale, especially when you start talking about dealing with aerodynamics (drag). A Honda is a perfect example of this. Lets take a car I used to own. an 2000 Civic SI, 1.6L 160HP@~7800 111 peak ft/lbs@7000RPM. Top speed you could get on this thing was 5th gear at ~6000RPM at my high altitude (5500ft ASL). Reason was, I had not enough torque to get past the 117-118 mark. Wind drag was way to much.

 

There are other factors, but I care not to go into such small details as its out of context.

 

Joel

[92TsiTalon]

are you serious????? did u actually read my first post???? ALL I WANTED TO KNOW IS HOW TO MAKE POWER ON THE ENGINE!!!!!!!!!!! For some reason you think that because I dont own a starion/conquest that i dont know what torque is, but that's beside the point. I was asking you and everyone else in here for advice on how to tune a motor that I dont really know very much about. Yes, yes you are a smart-a** because you could not give any real answer without trying to sound like a bad-a**. I DO NOT CARE WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT HP AND TORQUE, so please, do not elaborate on what you THINK you know about me or torque. I dont care if your affiliated with the Navy "in some way". I do not care if you think I think I know it all, because I came to you with a simple question, and no, it wasnt about torque and hp. all i have to look at for proof is the stats. you know where tristarion.com is and if you look at those et's and trap speeds, they're horrible. maybe its a street car, but a 1/4 mile is only up and down my street so its not like i want to test the car on the autoban for a few miles. you, sir, think you know everything about everything - and all i wanted to know is how to tune my PROSPECTIVE starion/conquest. boosted_one had a good answer, but your remarks did nothing for the average car tuner nor did they even get close to answering my question. that's all i have to say to you, and if you want to rant and rave about how torque is generated - go to the nearest community college and take FUNDAMENTALS OF PHYSICS 1305 and you'll learn what you need to know. OR, you could just read what I posted.

 

Anyway, thx boosted_one for the info, and does anyone else have info on the starion/conquest. lets change the question. I want to run low 12's or high 11's - what should I do?

[chiplee]

Edit: Joel

I re-read it and I don't think that line you quoted is clear.  I don't mean that HP makes an engine rev better.  I mean that from HP one can make certain assumptions about an engine's ability to rev.  Like say peak HP is higher than Peak Torque.  From that you can assume it revs past 5252, to say the least.  Further assumptions can be made upon further examination of the ratio of HP to torque, and also the RPM at which each peak occurs.

 

If you make 30 ft/lbs of torque flat lined until 40 thousand RPM, you will NEVER redline.

 

This part must be over my head 'cause I don't have a clue what you mean. 30ft/lbs of torque flat lined? Until 40 thousand RPM, you will never redline.? What are you talking about? what's redline mean what's flatline mean? both questions apply to context. Meaning, in the context of your post, what does redline mean, or what does it matter? What do you intend for me to take from your post and what do you think I have backwards? You quoted me saying "Simply put, the more HP an engine makes, the faster it can rev while still producing good torque." then you said I have it a little backwards. If the clarification above doesn't change your mind that's fine and I'd like to know how I have it backward, but I couldn't gather the "how" from your post, like at all. It's a mathematical fact that you can assume an engine that makes 400HP at 5250rpm also makes 400ft/lbs at that RPM. I know you know that. The generalization I made (the one you quoted) refers to the fact that if HP continues to climb after 5250 it can be assumed that torque is not dropping off rapidly. I just simplify it by saying that after that 5252, RPM becomes a multiplier for HP, rather than a divisor. I understand that an engine could make say 1700ft/lbs of torque at only 1200rpm, like a Caterpilar engine or something, and still make 388HP. But by God if that engine could just hold that output to 6000rpm it would be belting out 1942HP. The only case that can be made for HP is that you can vary the torque applied to the wheels with gearing. So the goal should be to build the highest HP output possible, and fix whatever lowend problems you have with gearing.

 

 

Seriously though, tell me what you think I have backwards

[chiplee]

For some reason you think that because I dont own a starion/conquest that i dont know what torque is, quote]

 

ok, sorry I bothered.  man I think someone is a little unstable.  It has nothing to do with what you drive friend.  It's this line that dimed you out.  "Technically if the 20g is rated at 380-400 hp on a talon, and it flows the same 650cfm on a starion, with the same air/fuel combo you should be able to get similar power output."  It probably hasn't even been a year since I wondered the same thing and it was Mike K who set me straight.  I had assumed, as you did, and just as incorrectly as you did, that 650cfm was 650cfm and at the right A/F ratio power output should match the DSMs.  Well it doesn't and whether directly or indirectly my posts have explained, at least in part, why that is the case.  You also asked about the limitations of the 2.6.  So I told you about them.  There is no answer for your question about power.  Stick around and learn with us.  New ground is being broken as we speak.

edit:  So where do you work?  Norfolk?

[Joel]

are you serious????? did u actually read my first post???? ALL I WANTED TO KNOW IS HOW TO MAKE POWER ON THE ENGINE!!!!!!!!!!! For some reason you think that because I dont own a starion/conquest that i dont know what torque is, but that's beside the point. I was asking you and everyone else in here for advice on how to tune a motor that I dont really know very much about. Yes, yes you are a smart-a** because you could not give any real answer without trying to sound like a bad-a**. I DO NOT CARE WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT HP AND TORQUE, so please, do not elaborate on what you THINK you know about me or torque. I dont care if your affiliated with the Navy "in some way". I do not care if you think I think I know it all, because I came to you with a simple question, and no, it wasnt about torque and hp. all i have to look at for proof is the stats. you know where tristarion.com is and if you look at those et's and trap speeds, they're horrible. maybe its a street car, but a 1/4 mile is only up and down my street so its not like i want to test the car on the autoban for a few miles. you, sir, think you know everything about everything - and all i wanted to know is how to tune my PROSPECTIVE starion/conquest. boosted_one had a good answer, but your remarks did nothing for the average car tuner nor did they even get close to answering my question. that's all i have to say to you, and if you want to rant and rave about how torque is generated - go to the nearest community college and take FUNDAMENTALS OF PHYSICS 1305 and you'll learn what you need to know. OR, you could just read what I posted.

 

Anyway, thx boosted_one for the info, and does anyone else have info on the starion/conquest. lets change the question. I want to run low 12's or high 11's - what should I do?

 

If you are looking for a car with 10 thousand internet-made go fast recipies for you to get go-fast 1/4 mile times and horsepower out of, you came to the wrong car. There is no current go-fast ready made recipes. The DSM, WRX,  (soon) EVO VIII are obviously better choices if you don't like to be challenged (and perhaps wasting energy/money) on going fast. There is nothing you can do to prove that wrong, sorry.

 

The 2.6 is a challenge. End of discussion. No one has that magic bolt on that finishes the job. Its tough to be the underdog.

 

You can also compare horsepower and torque numbers with your lossy DSM AWD drivetrains, the FWD DSMs, and the RWD starion, and you can talk until your blue in the face. Fact is, you'll never get an equal comparison under any circumstance. You could have a DSM that puts more HP down, and you go faster in the starion, or you can compare 1/4 mile times and notice that the cars have nothing in common. About as much in common as your average 13 second V8 does to a DSM. Nothing, except they both have turbos, 4 wheels, 2 doors and some glass to keep the wind out of your face.

 

Joel

[Joel]

Edit: Joel

I re-read it and I don't think that line you quoted is clear.  I don't mean that HP makes an engine rev better.  I mean that from HP one can make certain assumptions about an engine's ability to rev.  Like say peak HP is higher than Peak Torque.  From that you can assume it revs past 5252, to say the least.  Further assumptions can be made upon further examination of the ratio of HP to torque, and also the RPM at which each peak occurs.

 

HP does not coorelate with an engines ability to rev. It CAN lead you to assumptions that total horsepower is due to higher redline. Depends on how much torque you are really making. You can always ASSUME many things, and GENERALLY you would be correct, higher horsepower (on a 4 cylinder) usually means a higher redline.

 

This part must be over my head 'cause I don't have a clue what you mean.  30ft/lbs of torque flat lined?  Until 40 thousand RPM, you will never redline.?  What are you talking about?  what's redline mean what's flatline mean?  

 

You missed a comma and then when you were paraphrasing my quote you miss placed it. I'll break it down a little so its more clear;

 

You have an engine that produced 30ft/lbs "flatlined" until 40kRPM. This means you will make 30ft/lbs at 100rpm, and 30ft/lbs at 35000RPM, and still at 40k rpm. Torque remains constant throughout the RPMs (bottom to top). You know what redline (max RPM) is already.

 

both questions apply to context.  Meaning, in the context of your post, what does redline mean, or what does it matter?  What do you intend for me to take from your post and what do you think I have backwards?  You quoted me saying "Simply put, the more HP an engine makes, the faster it can rev while still producing good torque." then you said I have it a little backwards.  If the clarification above doesn't change your mind that's fine and I'd like to know how I have it backward, but I couldn't gather the "how" from your post, like at all.  It's a mathmatical fact that you can assume an engine that makes 400HP at 5250rpm also makes 400ft/lbs at that RPM.  I know you know that.  The generalization I made (the one you quoted) refers to the fact that if HP continues to climb after 5250 it can be assumed that torque is not dropping off rapidly.  I just simplify it by saying that after that 5252, RPM becomes a multiplier for HP, rather than a devisor.  I understand that an engine could make say 1700ft/lbs of torque at only 1200rpm, like a Catapilar engine or something, and still make 388HP.  But by God if that engine could just hold that output to 6000rpm it would be belting out 1942HP.  The only case that can be made for HP is that you can vary the torque applied to the wheels with gearing.  So the goal should be to build the highest HP output possible, and fix whatever lowend problems you have with gearing.

 

Seriously though, tell me what you think I have backwards

 

Its NOT a mathematical fact that torque doesn't begin to drop (even rapidly) after 5252. In most cases torque peak will start to rapidly decay exponentially sometime withing 500-1000rpm's after torque peak. Your HP numbers will still go up.

 

What I think you "kind of" or have a "little" backwards is that HP means higher redlines are good. They are NOT. An equal balance has to be made for every engine.

 

What I mean by that 30ft/lb all the way up to 40k rpms scenerio is this: Put it in ANY car, give the option of ANY gearset, you will NEVER see redline. Reason: Theres not enough power to gear it up against wind drag and parasitic losses contained in the motor, in the drive train, and the road itself. The faster you go the more torque you are required to have to continue to accelorate at the rate you were going previously.

 

Force and frequency are two different things, as you know, and in order to maintain acceloration, you ALWAYS must maintain the torque. Horsepower is just a mathematical representation, as you know. Lets take for instance that 1700ft/lb cat motor. Lets put that up against a 500hp Talon. Which one will move 5 tons of wieght in a trailer? The cat! (duh). Why? Torque for the gear needed. So think about it, What is the difference between a pulling weight like a trailer, verses one that is a pushing weight (wind drag) and the frictional losses on tires, drivetrain etc? Nothing. Physically the same energy is required.

 

Joel

[92TsiTalon]

hey chip, i still dont know why you have to be an a-hole about everything. im not interested in your comments on the subject anymore. fortunately, someone sent me a message giving me some details about the car's engine and commented on how lame you were acting. i got the info i wanted, so just give it up already and stop trying to drag the argument on and on and on........and on.........and........on.

 

for anyone else who cares to have a civil conversation, this is what im looking at doing. lets say we change the original question from power to the timeslip. i want to get well into the 12's and this is how I'm gonna try, tell if you think it will work (and no i dont make a kajillion dollars so i wont be getting mpi unless you know of a cheaper, yet effective way to do it)

 

-18g turbo

-3" turbo-back

-Top End Performance AIC Kit

-Midwest Turbo Street/Strip Head

-Rising Rate inline FPR

-South Florida Performance Header

 

i heard of using a "megasquirt" to compliment an mpi setup but i dont know what that is. also, will i need a bigger TB? If so, what size and who (website) can I get it from.

 

i was actually able to test drive an immaculate '88.  just as you guys have been sayin, power dropped at about 4.5-5k rpm, but i figure that an 18g and a 284 cam along with that exhaust manifold will help build some top maybe until 6k.

 

Let me know what you think

[92TsiTalon]

chiplee, sorry we got off on the wrong foot. my real name is james, and im down in ft. worth right now at carswell, but ill be goin to charleston, sc in may. im tryin to get the car situation figured out bfore i go.

 

i dont want you guys to think that i believe the engine in these cars is horrible, its just hard to tune. i also didnt say i didnt want the car, because why would i be in this forum if i didnt. i want to do something different, its just so hard to go from the dsm powerplant that ive studied for well over two years to an engine with a little less technology that I know almost nothing about.

 

i WANT a starion, and im convinced these things can perform just as well as dsm's, i just want to know how to do it. i guess relating it to the 2.0 wasnt a good choice since thats not the engine in your cars. i will probly buy the '88 that i test-drove because the thing is VERY WELL maintained - stainless steel braided everything, 1g bov, k&n fipk, 2.5"cat back with first cat gutted (still passed a recent smog), a couple gauges, mbc, new tires, struts, brakes, and it comes with an extra 12a, 3000gt cd player and 6-disc changer that will work with steering wheel controls all for the low price of $3000.

 

oh yea, what's the highest efficient boost that a 12a will run. i know the 13g isnt really good past 14-15, but i know that both the turbine and compressor wheels are different in the 12a, not to mention that a 13g uses a TD04 compressor housing (piece of crap).

 

anyways, hope we can all get along, i mean, we all love cars, dont we? tell me what you think of my parts list and the car im gettin (what should i look for on this used car).

[Joel]

If anyone is feeding you information on how to get to the 12s or better, or make "the" setup to make power (at least 300whp+), they are full of tiny peice of smelly....

 

Your friend chip here is likely the closest 300whp car you'll find right now thats still running properly on the same engine/setup that was dyno'd. The rest have been changed and no dyno plots have been shown and no track times (my favorite) have been posted either.

 

12a is less efficient then a 13g, and thats aweful. 'nuff said. With the setup you posted, you could likely hit 12s... Most people that have done it are were on the fringe or did blow up. Sorry. MPI seems to be the only way to do real fuel mods (upgraded injectors).

 

...And I can't believe the number of people that want a megasquirt based on someone elses opinion when they themselves haven't the first damn clue about electrical engineering. You build the ECU yourself, it will have a shorter life, period. OEMs put alot of effort and time into those ECUs putting up with changing environments. The MS will fail at some point in time IF you make it work to begin with.. and when it DOES work, it is not what I would consider "worth while" in modified for speed/power applications. Perhaps a great way from some of you to cheaply move to MPI for GAS milage? Perhaps is really is an excellent system for the money, however, not but a FEW that know what they are doing are going to do it right. Come on, I have a standalone, I'm not rich by any means. Save your pennies, thats what I'm STILL doing just to get mine on the road. Looking back on it now, I've spent more money on the car SINCE the purchase of my Haltech then actually ON the haltech. Can we GET ANY CHEAPER THAN THIS?!

 

Joel

[chiplee]

Joel I think I'm gathering that you simply created a hypothetical situation to illustrate the potential for my statement to be false.  I agree whole heartedly that your "hypothetical" 30ft/lb 40k RPM engine wouldn't have the torque to hit redline.  And I see the relevance of your point.  I'm glad you agree however that "generally" my assumptions about RPM and HP would be correct.  How else would turbo motorcycle engines make more HP than 60ton dump trucks?  No one would say that the motorcycle engine could do more work than the dump truck engine, but the HP numbers would say so.   That is an example in the opposite extreme, where torque is rediculously high but RPM can never climb, so not much HP is made.  It is for that reason that I feel niether number by itself can give a person much knowledge about an engine's performance.   For evaluation purposes, the two numbers must go together and include the RPM at which each peaks.  

[chiplee]

hey chip, i still dont know why you have to be an a-hole about everything. im not interested in your comments on the subject anymore. fortunately, someone sent me a message giving me some details about the car's engine and commented on how lame you were acting.

If they sent the message to you instead of posting it, that's because they didn't want their views known publicly.  Believe me I've had people send personal support while I debated or argued certain points in the past but not once did I come here and post publicly about what someone told me in private.  

 

i got the info i wanted, so just give it up already and stop trying to drag the argument on and on and on........and on.........and........on.

for anyone else who cares to have a civil conversation, this is what im looking at doing.

Wow if you think that was uncivilized you should see me get pissed.

 

About your parts list I don't know about high elevens.  the only part in there that even lets me think you'll have a chance at seeing 12s is the SFP header.  But BillTSG only managed low 12s with MPI and a 20g like mine on the SFP header.  So I'd have to say the AIC ain't gonna' cut it.  It will be a fun street car, but there's very little evidence (Danzig) of a starion 2.6 making it into the 12s on the stock intake manifold, and that was high 12s with a 20g.  So I'd be more likely to predict 13s for you with that setup.  Do it right the first time and you won't waste money.  I tried the AIC thing and got nowhere.  Hell the AIC from TEP will be so over priced that if you skip it and apply that money to your MPI fund you'll be way ahead of the game.  The benefits are huge, beyond just performance.  Longevity appears to be improved, but that is yet to be proven.   And likely never will be since we won't have OEM testing facilities to make a full on failure threshold determination, but Lizzord's car has racked up thousands of hard miles on a stock bottom end with this MPI.  I'd venture to guess that alot of people will find the same results if they just get one injector per cylinder spraying into this engine and a dry manifold of any design.  Every problem the 2.6 is known for can probably be credited in one way or another to poor fuel distribution.  

[conquestpa]

Joel I dont know where your getting your info from. In my opinion, someone with electronics skills can build a better ECU the an OEM. You take your time and put a MS together properly and it will last easily 10 years.  No you dont need a EE degree to build one. Everyone with degrees think there so high up on their horse.

 

You should check out the post of the megasquirt yahoo message board. Try telling the hundreds of people that have upgraded to the MS and MPI on that message board that the only practical reaon for doing is for gas milage. Try telling the guy on there thats running a 1.5L VW 4cyl thats making 190LBs of TQ and over 200HP, and when he gets the MS to run his water injector and turns up the boost and changes the timing to get a leaner burn that the only practical reason for upgrading to MS is for GAS milage.

 

As far as Im concerned your the one feeding people little peices of s*** about The MS ECU.

 

 

The conquest was made to compete with the corvette. I think what chip needs is my daddy's corvette to blow his a** away and then he'll really know what TQ is

;D

[ESIrType?]

The reason I thought of using Megasquirt is for my motorcycle. The stock 38mm mikunis suck!

FI would be a better route. I need to get new emulsion tubes for my carbs. That's like $110 for a set of 4. Now for a little more money I could get everything and put a MS setup on my bike. It would be alot easier to tune than the carbs are.

No one can tell me that my stock carbs are a better setup than a MS.....they're not!!

 

Shawn