Very OT: ZO6

[DIYNut42]

CTS-V fo sho

Getting in on this thread late, but this post summed up my response anywho.

[Taran]

I've never found the 13b to be unreliable unless you parked them for ages and the apex seals dried. I will agree with f3ds body being sexy

[mattsk8]

The E36's S52B32US makes a less-than-awe-inspiring 240HP stock. The european version made ~300, and was a markedly superior product; however, we didn't get it.

Anyone claiming to push a 240hp stock engine to 400HP via turbocharging is taking risks. Supercharging - which places a significant additional load on the engine to drive the compressor , easily another 50-70HP - is even more absurd. However, pushing a 240HP engine to 400HP is just bollocks unless you're replacing the pistons, crankshaft, cam, and a bunch of other bits that go "crunch."

I wouldn't be surprised if you can push the ~360HP S54 from the E46 to 400HP via a bit of software, but I suspect emissions will be compromised and more power always means more engine wear. Even then, you still have an engine that weighs approximately the same as an LS3 with reduced power and significantly less torque. And costs a lot more.

Incidentally, it's worth noting that the S54 is running much closer to the limits of N/A volumetric efficiency than the LSx engines. Unless you raise the redline or add some boost, you can't get that much more power. However, as stated earlier, 500+HP at the crank from an LS engine is relatively easy.

To be honest, I don't think I'd ever buy a Corvette. Even assuming I ever had the money for one, it's not a vehicle I'd care to spend hours in during rush hour traffic. It's not my kind of car. However, the folks here do like them very much, and it seems a bit odd to crap over a perfectly respectable sports car

Sorry to bump a 3 day old thread, but I couldn't let this go.

While your connotation is very poetic, it's also complete nonsense.

I've had plenty of turbo charged and super charged cars. For example, an 87 Buick Grand National, my Saab 9-3, a Shelby Charger, a Bonneville SSEi. I realize those came from the factory w/ either a turbo or a super, but playing w/ them taught me a LOT.

I helped my cousin first build his WRX STi. When he got bored w/ that he sold it and purchased an 05 Acura RSX type S. We took the stock Vtech 4 cyl and supercharged it. I can't remember what the dyno'd hp was, but factory the car ran the 1/4 mile in about 15 seconds. WITHOUT PULLING THE HEAD OFF THE ENGINE, completely stock pistons, cam- all internals STOCK, the car ran 11.90.

His most recent car is a 2011 Mustang w/ the v6. Stock hp is around 261 at the wheels. Without pulling the heads off (bone stock internals), we supercharged it (w/ meth injection) and the engine now makes a RELIABLE 491 hp at the wheels (not guesstimated, that's dyno'd).

These aren't "absurd claims", these are facts.

And to say the American M3 made a "less than awe inspiring 240 hp" doesn't make any sense either. Back in 95 there weren't many cars that tracked as well as the American M3 here in the states that were in it's price range. I realize these days 240hp isn't huge, but lately cars have been making a lot more hp. Back in 95, even in light of the fact that the euro version made 316 hp, that still doesn't mean the American version isn't quick and fun to drive. Have you ever driven one? I've had plenty of cars and the American M3 is still very fun to drive in comparison.

Even this statement "Supercharging - which places a significant additional load on the engine to drive the compressor , easily another 50-70HP - is even more absurd" is waaaay out of the realm of reality.

[johnnyrichards]

Sorry to bump a 3 day old thread, but I couldn't let this go.

While your connotation is very poetic, it's also complete nonsense; you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

I've had plenty of turbo charged and super charged cars. For example, an 87 Buick Grand National, my Saab 9-3, a Shelby Charger, a Bonneville SSEi. I realize those came from the factory w/ either a turbo or a super, but playing w/ them taught me a LOT.

I helped my cousin first build his WRX STi. When he got bored w/ that he sold it and purchased an 05 Acura RSX type S. We took the stock Vtech 4 cyl and supercharged it. I can't remember what the dyno'd hp was, but factory the car ran the 1/4 mile in about 15 seconds. WITHOUT PULLING THE HEAD OFF THE ENGINE, completely stock pistons, cam- all internals STOCK, the car ran 11.90.

His most recent car is a 2011 Mustang w/ the v6. Stock hp is around 261 at the wheels. Without pulling the heads off (bone stock internals), we supercharged it (w/ meth injection) and the engine now makes a RELIABLE 491 hp at the wheels (not guesstimated, that's dyno'd).

These aren't "absurd claims", these are facts. You should quit listening to other people's "absurd claims" when they don't know anything about what they're talking about, and also quit watching so many car tv shows and step out into the real world and give it a try sometime.

And to say the American M3 made a "less than awe inspiring 240 hp" doesn't make any sense either. Back in 95 there weren't many cars that tracked as well as the American M3 here in the states that were in it's price range. I realize these days 240hp isn't huge, but lately cars have been making a lot more hp. Back in 95, even in light of the fact that the euro version made 316 hp, that still doesn't mean the American version isn't quick and fun to drive. Have you ever driven one? I've had plenty of cars and the American M3 is still very fun to drive in comparison.

Even this statement "Supercharging - which places a significant additional load on the engine to drive the compressor , easily another 50-70HP - is even more absurd" is waaaay out of the realm of reality. Quit discussing things you know nothing about.

Don't be a dick, and you will be amazed how many friends you make.

[mattsk8]

Don't be a dick, and you will be amazed how many friends you make.

Not sure I'm w/ you on that. You wouldn't correct me if I was making claims about speaker design when I know I don't have a clue? My goal wasn't to be a dick, just stating the facts.

[Brewski]

When I first read your post I was going to do chalk it up to trolls being trolls, but now I'm not sure.

No That's the way Roman feels I've chatted with him on the subject before. I've got a 93 T/A 6 speed hard top with strano springs and koni shocks that I thoroughly enjoy tossing into corners. I've put about 25K on it and had good luck with it so far although it's approaching 150K. As for interior rattles I've never had or been in an F body that didn't rattle.

Take it easy
Jay

[johnnyrichards]

Not sure I'm w/ you on that. You wouldn't correct me if I was making claims about speaker design when I know I don't have a clue? My goal wasn't to be a dick, just stating the facts.

You can state a fact without being a dick. Try it sometime.

[DoubleTap]

About the E36 being unreliable at 400hp, that is nonsense. I used to own an Estoril Blue '99 M3 Convertible with a custom turbo kit using a GT35R dual bearing turbo and of course a lot of supporting pieces. At 8psi it did 386rwhp, 10psi was 414rwhp, and 13psi which I only ran when on race fuel it did 446rwhp. I daily drove that car for probably 40,000 miles with the kit on it and was nothing but reliable. The only extra expense from adding the kit was rear tire replacement, regularly!

BTW, that is the only non-rotary powered car that has been MY daily driver since 16 years old. What feels right to you is a very personal thing of course, but having driven countless Vette's over the last 20 years, I've never been behind the wheel of one that felt right. Probably the closest was a friends '04 Z06 with brake and suspension upgrades, perfect amount of road feel and predictable. In comparison, I recently drove an '09 I think Z06 that had engine/exhaust upgrades but brakes/suspension were stock and it just felt detached from the road.

For many it's not about the horsepower numbers game, balance is far more important. That's why my current daily is an RX-8, and my weekend car (if I ever get it back) is a track prep'd single turbo '95 RX-7. The only other cars I've driven that give the feel I'm looking for are some M series BMW's, and the Lotus Evora. C5's and C6's can come pretty close, but they're not close to that way off the showroom floor.

[spasticteapot]

I mostly stepped in because people making somewhat strange claims about very old BMWs weren't being particularly nice to people who like Corvettes. It's worse than Lowther-bashing.

Even this statement "Supercharging - which places a significant additional load on the engine to drive the compressor , easily another 50-70HP - is even more absurd" is waaaay out of the realm of reality.

This number was based off of the spec for a screw-type supercharger on the supercharged SLR. I could be misremembering, of course, but compressing many hundreds of cubic feet of air to high pressure takes a lot of power. A 500HP 3.2L engine losing 10% is not unreasonable.

EDIT: Top Gear suggested more than 70 for the SLR, which produces a bit over 600 at the crank from a 5.4L V8.

S
I've had plenty of turbo charged and super charged cars. For example, an 87 Buick Grand National, my Saab 9-3, a Shelby Charger, a Bonneville SSEi. I realize those came from the factory w/ either a turbo or a super, but playing w/ them taught me a LOT.

Cars designed from the factory for forced induction generally have a lot more overhead on parts than cars that do not.

His most recent car is a 2011 Mustang w/ the v6. Stock hp is around 261 at the wheels. Without pulling the heads off (bone stock internals), we supercharged it (w/ meth injection) and the engine now makes a RELIABLE 491 hp at the wheels (not guesstimated, that's dyno'd).

I'm really genuinely very curious as to how you've done that. Assuming you haven't increased the redline significantly, you'd need to put twice the fuel and twice the air inside the piston, if not more. Methanol injection can help prevent detonation, but unless you're running on leaded racing fuel, I doubt it would prevent it that much. Even assuming an engine producing twice stock horsepower will survive 100k miles of heavy use, there's also the rest of the drivetrain. The gearbox on the new Mustangs has a less than stellar reputation; goodness knows what happens if you have that much power.

Am I an automotive engineer? No. However, I do know that GM uses a ~6.2L V8 with a supercharger to produce ~500hp at the wheels, and if I'm not mistaken, using uprated components from the N/A LS3 and nifty technology like dry-sump lubrication. You can't push things that far out of spec without consequences.

Can you push a 240HP engine (especially one de-rated from a 300HP engine) to 400HP for ~40,000 miles? Maybe. But it's not going to be as reliable as an engine designed to do it from the factory, it'll eat high-octane fuel, and I wouldn't trust it to take me to work every morning. The C6 is severely flawed, but anyone claiming their 15-year-old BMW is a superior vehicle is making quite a claim.

[PWR RYD]

Now to take my own thread in a completely different very OT direction

After looking at my Mustang last weekend... sitting there in the garage all covered in MDF dust from not being driven in over a year... here's my current thought process:

- Yes, for sure, without question it was fun to slowly build a 1000+ HP drag car that ran 8.80's at 165 mph in the 1/4 mile and was still a streetable car (i.e. all functioning lights, wipers, power windows, and could go 150+ miles in the city or on the highway without over heating). However it rides and handles like a hay wagon, and is pretty loud inside Not to mention the cost of C16 race fuel

- With a 45 hour/week job, a wife and 2 kids the time required to maintain the car and to go to the track and actually win races, AND design and build DIY speakers is quite impossible.

- All of my SFI safety gear is out of date. It would take a significant amount of money to have my cage recertified, replace the belts, window net, SFI balancer/flexplate/bellhousing/trans shield, etc.

- In all honesty the most fun I had driving my car was when it was only an 11 second car with a small Vortech S-trim and the factory 5 speed that ran on pump gas.

- I might be able to sell some of my go fast parts on Ebay.

- Return the car back to where it was when it was running maybe high 11's and still rode nice and handle pretty well.

What say you?????? It's not like I'm selling it. Heck, it's the only car I have ever bought brand new

[Brewski]

- In all honesty the most fun I had driving my car was when it was only an 11 second car with a small Vortech S-trim and the factory 5 speed that ran on pump gas.

I guess my question would be if there were mods done for safety/speed etc that would prevent the car from being as being as enjoyable when you were converting it back to an 11 second car. For example was the A/C removed and would that be a comfort that you'd want be back?

Taking the emotional connection out of it would it be more cost effective to sell it as an 8 second car and build an other 11 second car? Than converting it back to an 11 second car.

Take it easy
Jay

[spasticteapot]

My general thoughts on cars so incredibly bonkers as to be unsuitable for a trip to Harbor Freight is that you may as well have a Caterham-style kitcar. They're not so pretty as the various Cobra knock-offs, but the track times produced are worthy of attention.

After all, if a helmet is mandatory, who needs a windshield?

[PWR RYD]

Taking the emotional connection out of it would it be more cost effective to sell it as an 8 second car and build an other 11 second car? Than converting it back to an 11 second car.

Take it easy
Jay

You have a very valid point Jay. And you are
almost certainly right. However it would be nearly impossible for me to emotionally disconnect from this car. I mean I bought it brand new bone stock. I went through numerous setups (heads, cams, blowers, etc.) to get it where it is. Not to mention that I did all of the work. I bent/notched/welded the cage, built the engines (sans block machining and balancing), rollerized/built the trans, custom fab'd my own suspension parts, etc, etc, etc. It would be MUCH easier to sell it if I just wrote checks to have other people/shops do the work... but I have a gazzilion hours of blood, sweat and tears (some scars too!) DIYing this crazy machine

[spasticteapot]

I've seen a few DIY Caterham-alikes and Cobra clones based around Ford small-block V8s. Why not keep the greasy bits you worked so hard on and build a new car around it?

There are quite a few documented builds of Lotus 7-derived cars around fox-mustang drivetrains. They're not pretty, but if you can weld a quality cage, you can weld a Lotus 7 chassis.

http://www.locostusa.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1586
http://www.locostusa.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3054

[jheizer]

A 7 kit by some one like FF that has their ducks in a row is like my dream car build at some point in my life. Right now I have been staring at a TT kits and dreaming.

[Brewski]

You have a very valid point Jay. And you are
almost certainly right. However it would be nearly impossible for me to emotionally disconnect from this car. I mean I bought it brand new bone stock. I went through numerous setups (heads, cams, blowers, etc.) to get it where it is. Not to mention that I did all of the work. I bent/notched/welded the cage, built the engines (sans block machining and balancing), rollerized/built the trans, custom fab'd my own suspension parts, etc, etc, etc. It would be MUCH easier to sell it if I just wrote checks to have other people/shops do the work... but I have a gazzilion hours of blood, sweat and tears (some scars too!) DIYing this crazy machine

I get it that's why I was asking.... Tracking down the A/C parts for the 18+ year old T/A is why I brought up the cost of converting it back to a street car. At some point I still need to track down a doughnut and jack for the car and get NOS moved to a more convenient location than where the spare used to be.

Take it easy
Jay

[mattsk8]

I'm really genuinely very curious as to how you've done that. Assuming you haven't increased the redline significantly, you'd need to put twice the fuel and twice the air inside the piston, if not more. Methanol injection can help prevent detonation, but unless you're running on leaded racing fuel, I doubt it would prevent it that much. Even assuming an engine producing twice stock horsepower will survive 100k miles of heavy use, there's also the rest of the drivetrain. The gearbox on the new Mustangs has a less than stellar reputation; goodness knows what happens if you have that much power.

Am I an automotive engineer? No. However, I do know that GM uses a ~6.2L V8 with a supercharger to produce ~500hp at the wheels, and if I'm not mistaken, using uprated components from the N/A LS3 and nifty technology like dry-sump lubrication. You can't push things that far out of spec without consequences.

Can you push a 240HP engine (especially one de-rated from a 300HP engine) to 400HP for ~40,000 miles? Maybe. But it's not going to be as reliable as an engine designed to do it from the factory, it'll eat high-octane fuel, and I wouldn't trust it to take me to work every morning. The C6 is severely flawed, but anyone claiming their 15-year-old BMW is a superior vehicle is making quite a claim.

You should stop trying to call me out, I know what I'm doing when it comes to cars and I don't talk trash about things I know nothing about. I've been working on cars since I was old enough to hold a wrench. Just end this and admit you're babbling about something you know nothing about.

Here's a link to the car and it's performance mods http://mustangforums.com/forum/2010-...-body-kit.html It makes a legitemate 491hp at the rear wheels (on pump gas, not leaded racing fuel). What you said about Mustang's drivetrain is true, but Ford uses the MT82 trans on the v8 Mustangs as well so I'm not quite sure where you were going w/ that statement.

And the second statement you're making about pushing it to 40k miles kinda contradicts your previous statements (especially the one where you falsely corrected me when you said "no you can't"), wouldn't you agree? People do it all the time (yes, people I know, not people on shows I've watched). And they do it reliably, beyond 40k miles. Not just w/ BMWs, w/ all kinds of other manufacturers. And I never claimed my 17 year old M3 was superior to the (C5) zo6, actually quite the opposite. I stated that my dad's 2003 zo6 would "annihilate my M3 in every way". Go ahead and go back to page 1 and check. That doesn't change the fact that my M3 is still fun to drive, and corners (even in this day and age and especially after the suspension upgrades) better than a lot of cars on the road today.

As far as the LS engines go, I'm fully aware of their capabilities as well. I helped on a coworkers LS1 5.7 build in his 02 WS6. I didn't help w/ this, but a friend just did a chevy 4.8L swap in his 02 Jaguar XJ8 (which he plans on turbo charging as well).

I hold to my previous statement that you watch too much tv and don't know what you're talking about.