More New Scrambler Details
#151
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: More New Scrambler Details
just for the record, awd tsi's and other stock turbo'd with that particular
engine (the new EVO for isntance) vehicles can usually break into the 11's
without too much trouble.
the older chrysler turbo 2.2's have more than a few minivans in the high 12's
with no more modding than a homemade dawes device to let them up the boost, and
maybe an aftermarket fpr.
yes all else being equal (ie: build the larger engine up to handle 20psi of
forced induction) i would still put my money on the larger engine. but ANY
vehicle in the 11's with under 1,000 in mods (total cost to get most of the
chrysler/mitsubishi turbo motors into the 11's, or 12's with the heavier
minivans) is pretty impressive...
It just seems too many on the boards get worked up over any possible threat to
their "american muscle" and refuse to just look at the facts out there. (and
yes, a properly built 4g63 (engine code for the tsi in question) with maybe 5k
in mods will outrun many if not most of the naturally aspirated v8's out there
(it will be in the 10's down the 1320 - however they tend to have a lot of
trouble keeping their trannys together at that point)
but as with most turbo vehicles, you are correct... as for low end torque, an
engine designed around a turbo usually doesnt have much. Take the new wrx's..
great rally car - if you keep it above 3500 rpm. below that a motor scoorter
with a leaf blower engine could outrun it.
but you would be surprised at what could keep up with (gasp blasphemy) even a
TT'd 5.0 (me and a buddy are working on one right now in fact. dual super60's
with 400cc secondary injectors, on a windsor block with 8:1 pistons (handle
more boost) and whatever else he had done before i got invovled) you know the
difference between a 1000HP mustang and a 600hp mustang? theyre both gonna run
within .4 seconds of eachother, they key problem being traction.. one will have
a trap speed in the high 120's tho, the other in the 11x's.
i've owned several of both types of engines (and the cars surrounding them)
from a stock jeep, to a built 305 camaro (yah i know "built" and "305" dont get
mentioend in the same sentence much haha) to my current vehcile, a built turbo
rx7 (no pistons) that spins to 9,000 rpm... i appreciate both applications,
and where each would be better suited... i agree wholeheartedly that offroad i
prefer a torquey off idle engine. the new generation of smaller turbo engines
however are being built to take ungodly amounts of boost and are easy/cheap to
upgrade.. letting them hang quite comfortably with naturally aspirated cars of
much greater displacement
>As for smoking a 5.0 Mustang, there are several levels of tune
> for that engine. Some of them wouldn't let the TSi get close
> enough to see if there is a rear license plate. With a twin
> turbo in the mucking fustang, it probably couldn't even get
> close enough to recognize it as a mustang.
>
>--
>My governor can kick your governor's ***
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-Steve 98 TJ
engine (the new EVO for isntance) vehicles can usually break into the 11's
without too much trouble.
the older chrysler turbo 2.2's have more than a few minivans in the high 12's
with no more modding than a homemade dawes device to let them up the boost, and
maybe an aftermarket fpr.
yes all else being equal (ie: build the larger engine up to handle 20psi of
forced induction) i would still put my money on the larger engine. but ANY
vehicle in the 11's with under 1,000 in mods (total cost to get most of the
chrysler/mitsubishi turbo motors into the 11's, or 12's with the heavier
minivans) is pretty impressive...
It just seems too many on the boards get worked up over any possible threat to
their "american muscle" and refuse to just look at the facts out there. (and
yes, a properly built 4g63 (engine code for the tsi in question) with maybe 5k
in mods will outrun many if not most of the naturally aspirated v8's out there
(it will be in the 10's down the 1320 - however they tend to have a lot of
trouble keeping their trannys together at that point)
but as with most turbo vehicles, you are correct... as for low end torque, an
engine designed around a turbo usually doesnt have much. Take the new wrx's..
great rally car - if you keep it above 3500 rpm. below that a motor scoorter
with a leaf blower engine could outrun it.
but you would be surprised at what could keep up with (gasp blasphemy) even a
TT'd 5.0 (me and a buddy are working on one right now in fact. dual super60's
with 400cc secondary injectors, on a windsor block with 8:1 pistons (handle
more boost) and whatever else he had done before i got invovled) you know the
difference between a 1000HP mustang and a 600hp mustang? theyre both gonna run
within .4 seconds of eachother, they key problem being traction.. one will have
a trap speed in the high 120's tho, the other in the 11x's.
i've owned several of both types of engines (and the cars surrounding them)
from a stock jeep, to a built 305 camaro (yah i know "built" and "305" dont get
mentioend in the same sentence much haha) to my current vehcile, a built turbo
rx7 (no pistons) that spins to 9,000 rpm... i appreciate both applications,
and where each would be better suited... i agree wholeheartedly that offroad i
prefer a torquey off idle engine. the new generation of smaller turbo engines
however are being built to take ungodly amounts of boost and are easy/cheap to
upgrade.. letting them hang quite comfortably with naturally aspirated cars of
much greater displacement
>As for smoking a 5.0 Mustang, there are several levels of tune
> for that engine. Some of them wouldn't let the TSi get close
> enough to see if there is a rear license plate. With a twin
> turbo in the mucking fustang, it probably couldn't even get
> close enough to recognize it as a mustang.
>
>--
>My governor can kick your governor's ***
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-Steve 98 TJ
#152
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: More New Scrambler Details
just for the record, awd tsi's and other stock turbo'd with that particular
engine (the new EVO for isntance) vehicles can usually break into the 11's
without too much trouble.
the older chrysler turbo 2.2's have more than a few minivans in the high 12's
with no more modding than a homemade dawes device to let them up the boost, and
maybe an aftermarket fpr.
yes all else being equal (ie: build the larger engine up to handle 20psi of
forced induction) i would still put my money on the larger engine. but ANY
vehicle in the 11's with under 1,000 in mods (total cost to get most of the
chrysler/mitsubishi turbo motors into the 11's, or 12's with the heavier
minivans) is pretty impressive...
It just seems too many on the boards get worked up over any possible threat to
their "american muscle" and refuse to just look at the facts out there. (and
yes, a properly built 4g63 (engine code for the tsi in question) with maybe 5k
in mods will outrun many if not most of the naturally aspirated v8's out there
(it will be in the 10's down the 1320 - however they tend to have a lot of
trouble keeping their trannys together at that point)
but as with most turbo vehicles, you are correct... as for low end torque, an
engine designed around a turbo usually doesnt have much. Take the new wrx's..
great rally car - if you keep it above 3500 rpm. below that a motor scoorter
with a leaf blower engine could outrun it.
but you would be surprised at what could keep up with (gasp blasphemy) even a
TT'd 5.0 (me and a buddy are working on one right now in fact. dual super60's
with 400cc secondary injectors, on a windsor block with 8:1 pistons (handle
more boost) and whatever else he had done before i got invovled) you know the
difference between a 1000HP mustang and a 600hp mustang? theyre both gonna run
within .4 seconds of eachother, they key problem being traction.. one will have
a trap speed in the high 120's tho, the other in the 11x's.
i've owned several of both types of engines (and the cars surrounding them)
from a stock jeep, to a built 305 camaro (yah i know "built" and "305" dont get
mentioend in the same sentence much haha) to my current vehcile, a built turbo
rx7 (no pistons) that spins to 9,000 rpm... i appreciate both applications,
and where each would be better suited... i agree wholeheartedly that offroad i
prefer a torquey off idle engine. the new generation of smaller turbo engines
however are being built to take ungodly amounts of boost and are easy/cheap to
upgrade.. letting them hang quite comfortably with naturally aspirated cars of
much greater displacement
>As for smoking a 5.0 Mustang, there are several levels of tune
> for that engine. Some of them wouldn't let the TSi get close
> enough to see if there is a rear license plate. With a twin
> turbo in the mucking fustang, it probably couldn't even get
> close enough to recognize it as a mustang.
>
>--
>My governor can kick your governor's ***
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-Steve 98 TJ
engine (the new EVO for isntance) vehicles can usually break into the 11's
without too much trouble.
the older chrysler turbo 2.2's have more than a few minivans in the high 12's
with no more modding than a homemade dawes device to let them up the boost, and
maybe an aftermarket fpr.
yes all else being equal (ie: build the larger engine up to handle 20psi of
forced induction) i would still put my money on the larger engine. but ANY
vehicle in the 11's with under 1,000 in mods (total cost to get most of the
chrysler/mitsubishi turbo motors into the 11's, or 12's with the heavier
minivans) is pretty impressive...
It just seems too many on the boards get worked up over any possible threat to
their "american muscle" and refuse to just look at the facts out there. (and
yes, a properly built 4g63 (engine code for the tsi in question) with maybe 5k
in mods will outrun many if not most of the naturally aspirated v8's out there
(it will be in the 10's down the 1320 - however they tend to have a lot of
trouble keeping their trannys together at that point)
but as with most turbo vehicles, you are correct... as for low end torque, an
engine designed around a turbo usually doesnt have much. Take the new wrx's..
great rally car - if you keep it above 3500 rpm. below that a motor scoorter
with a leaf blower engine could outrun it.
but you would be surprised at what could keep up with (gasp blasphemy) even a
TT'd 5.0 (me and a buddy are working on one right now in fact. dual super60's
with 400cc secondary injectors, on a windsor block with 8:1 pistons (handle
more boost) and whatever else he had done before i got invovled) you know the
difference between a 1000HP mustang and a 600hp mustang? theyre both gonna run
within .4 seconds of eachother, they key problem being traction.. one will have
a trap speed in the high 120's tho, the other in the 11x's.
i've owned several of both types of engines (and the cars surrounding them)
from a stock jeep, to a built 305 camaro (yah i know "built" and "305" dont get
mentioend in the same sentence much haha) to my current vehcile, a built turbo
rx7 (no pistons) that spins to 9,000 rpm... i appreciate both applications,
and where each would be better suited... i agree wholeheartedly that offroad i
prefer a torquey off idle engine. the new generation of smaller turbo engines
however are being built to take ungodly amounts of boost and are easy/cheap to
upgrade.. letting them hang quite comfortably with naturally aspirated cars of
much greater displacement
>As for smoking a 5.0 Mustang, there are several levels of tune
> for that engine. Some of them wouldn't let the TSi get close
> enough to see if there is a rear license plate. With a twin
> turbo in the mucking fustang, it probably couldn't even get
> close enough to recognize it as a mustang.
>
>--
>My governor can kick your governor's ***
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-Steve 98 TJ
#153
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: More New Scrambler Details
Plus your blower gives you power instantly, no lag time like a
turbo, they have to count one thousand one, one thousand two, before
anything happens. On a five speed they spend more time un-powered upon
shifts as I do to clear the whole quarter mile drag.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
DougW wrote:
>
> Which is why I stuffed a blower on the 4.0 :)
> Turbos are good for high RPM boost but superchargers give
> you low end umph.
>
> I rilly want to stroke it out to 4.7, but that's going to have
> to wait.
>
> --
> -- DougW -- 93 ZJ 4.0 http://members.***.net/wilsond
> HESCO Supercharger - 300W IASCA Stereo - Edelbrock IAS Shocks
> Gibson Exhaust - rear DCpower - custom gauge install - Stillen Rotors
turbo, they have to count one thousand one, one thousand two, before
anything happens. On a five speed they spend more time un-powered upon
shifts as I do to clear the whole quarter mile drag.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
DougW wrote:
>
> Which is why I stuffed a blower on the 4.0 :)
> Turbos are good for high RPM boost but superchargers give
> you low end umph.
>
> I rilly want to stroke it out to 4.7, but that's going to have
> to wait.
>
> --
> -- DougW -- 93 ZJ 4.0 http://members.***.net/wilsond
> HESCO Supercharger - 300W IASCA Stereo - Edelbrock IAS Shocks
> Gibson Exhaust - rear DCpower - custom gauge install - Stillen Rotors
#154
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: More New Scrambler Details
Plus your blower gives you power instantly, no lag time like a
turbo, they have to count one thousand one, one thousand two, before
anything happens. On a five speed they spend more time un-powered upon
shifts as I do to clear the whole quarter mile drag.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
DougW wrote:
>
> Which is why I stuffed a blower on the 4.0 :)
> Turbos are good for high RPM boost but superchargers give
> you low end umph.
>
> I rilly want to stroke it out to 4.7, but that's going to have
> to wait.
>
> --
> -- DougW -- 93 ZJ 4.0 http://members.***.net/wilsond
> HESCO Supercharger - 300W IASCA Stereo - Edelbrock IAS Shocks
> Gibson Exhaust - rear DCpower - custom gauge install - Stillen Rotors
turbo, they have to count one thousand one, one thousand two, before
anything happens. On a five speed they spend more time un-powered upon
shifts as I do to clear the whole quarter mile drag.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
DougW wrote:
>
> Which is why I stuffed a blower on the 4.0 :)
> Turbos are good for high RPM boost but superchargers give
> you low end umph.
>
> I rilly want to stroke it out to 4.7, but that's going to have
> to wait.
>
> --
> -- DougW -- 93 ZJ 4.0 http://members.***.net/wilsond
> HESCO Supercharger - 300W IASCA Stereo - Edelbrock IAS Shocks
> Gibson Exhaust - rear DCpower - custom gauge install - Stillen Rotors
#155
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: More New Scrambler Details
Plus your blower gives you power instantly, no lag time like a
turbo, they have to count one thousand one, one thousand two, before
anything happens. On a five speed they spend more time un-powered upon
shifts as I do to clear the whole quarter mile drag.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
DougW wrote:
>
> Which is why I stuffed a blower on the 4.0 :)
> Turbos are good for high RPM boost but superchargers give
> you low end umph.
>
> I rilly want to stroke it out to 4.7, but that's going to have
> to wait.
>
> --
> -- DougW -- 93 ZJ 4.0 http://members.***.net/wilsond
> HESCO Supercharger - 300W IASCA Stereo - Edelbrock IAS Shocks
> Gibson Exhaust - rear DCpower - custom gauge install - Stillen Rotors
turbo, they have to count one thousand one, one thousand two, before
anything happens. On a five speed they spend more time un-powered upon
shifts as I do to clear the whole quarter mile drag.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
DougW wrote:
>
> Which is why I stuffed a blower on the 4.0 :)
> Turbos are good for high RPM boost but superchargers give
> you low end umph.
>
> I rilly want to stroke it out to 4.7, but that's going to have
> to wait.
>
> --
> -- DougW -- 93 ZJ 4.0 http://members.***.net/wilsond
> HESCO Supercharger - 300W IASCA Stereo - Edelbrock IAS Shocks
> Gibson Exhaust - rear DCpower - custom gauge install - Stillen Rotors
#156
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: More New Scrambler Details
At least I could be bothered to find out which engine you were talking
about, which is more than you could ..
Don't you know that its recommended to keep the NOx button down for max 15
seconds at a time ? Do you think its clever to by a small highly stressed
engine and then NOx it ? That lazy Mustang 5.0 engine will last way after
the rice engine has melted its pistons, and has another 40% more usable
torque for punting around town.
I'm aware you are having extreme problems understanding the "no replacement
for displacement" phrase, so let me spell it out for you. It means "its
easier and cheaper to have a big lower tuned engine than a small highly
tuned engine". Obviously anything you can do to a small engine, you can do
to a big engine.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0310100552.48a57e0a@posting.google.c om...
: As I said, I don't know the exact size of the engine, but I guessed
: the absolute largest would have been 2.5L at the high end. Perhaps
: you need to read more closely. :-)
:
: And I stand by my argument that there are plenty of things you can use
: to replace diplacement, the definition of "replace" being to take away
: one thing and add something else instead. In your example, perhaps
: you could arrange a nitrous oxide setup on your rice burner to
: compensate for the fact that you are so much smaller than Matt.
:
:
: "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:<eLthb.2820$4b4.25167064@news-text.cableinet.net>...
: > Not just that - I don't think they even did a 2.5 liter.
: > The biggest one I can find was this:
: >
: > 1997 cc / 121.9 cu in
: > Power 145.4 kw / 195.0 bhp @ 6000 rpm
: > Torque 275.23 nm / 203.0 ft lbs @ 3000 rpm
: >
: > Now, Joshua - pretend I have my rice burner with its tricked out
: > 100bhp/litre engine, and I foolishly decide to challenge Matt to a
couple of
: > traffic light Grand Prixs. I realise I need a tad more hp - can you
: > recommend what I should do to this thing ?
: >
: > Perhaps you should tell Jaguar, Aston Martin etc that they are making
their
: > engines too large and should try to get more out of them, ha ha. After
all,
: > Michael Schumacher has a 850bhp 3 litre, and that lasts him for 200
miles...
: >
: > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: >
: > "Matt Macchiarolo" <mlmacchia@aol.comspambgon> wrote in message
: > news:20031009181534.11022.00001269@mb-m14.aol.com...
: > : Hmm, ya think?
: > :
: > : In article <OQkhb.2572$Ii.23339135@news-text.cableinet.net>, "Dave
Milne"
: > : <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> writes:
: > :
: > : >or you just didn't get it the first time round...
: > : >
: > : >
: > : >Dave Milne, Scotland
: > : >'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: > : >
: > : >"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
: > : >news:b102b6e4.0310091342.7fb4aa7@posting.google.c om...
: > : >: Adding the words "all else being equal" to the end of the sentence
: > : >: changes the whole meaning of the quote.... that's a no brainer.
: > :
: > :
: > : * * *
: > : Matt Macchiarolo
: > : www.townpeddler.com
: > : www.wolverine4wd.org
: > : http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html
: > :
: > :
: > :
: > :
about, which is more than you could ..
Don't you know that its recommended to keep the NOx button down for max 15
seconds at a time ? Do you think its clever to by a small highly stressed
engine and then NOx it ? That lazy Mustang 5.0 engine will last way after
the rice engine has melted its pistons, and has another 40% more usable
torque for punting around town.
I'm aware you are having extreme problems understanding the "no replacement
for displacement" phrase, so let me spell it out for you. It means "its
easier and cheaper to have a big lower tuned engine than a small highly
tuned engine". Obviously anything you can do to a small engine, you can do
to a big engine.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0310100552.48a57e0a@posting.google.c om...
: As I said, I don't know the exact size of the engine, but I guessed
: the absolute largest would have been 2.5L at the high end. Perhaps
: you need to read more closely. :-)
:
: And I stand by my argument that there are plenty of things you can use
: to replace diplacement, the definition of "replace" being to take away
: one thing and add something else instead. In your example, perhaps
: you could arrange a nitrous oxide setup on your rice burner to
: compensate for the fact that you are so much smaller than Matt.
:
:
: "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:<eLthb.2820$4b4.25167064@news-text.cableinet.net>...
: > Not just that - I don't think they even did a 2.5 liter.
: > The biggest one I can find was this:
: >
: > 1997 cc / 121.9 cu in
: > Power 145.4 kw / 195.0 bhp @ 6000 rpm
: > Torque 275.23 nm / 203.0 ft lbs @ 3000 rpm
: >
: > Now, Joshua - pretend I have my rice burner with its tricked out
: > 100bhp/litre engine, and I foolishly decide to challenge Matt to a
couple of
: > traffic light Grand Prixs. I realise I need a tad more hp - can you
: > recommend what I should do to this thing ?
: >
: > Perhaps you should tell Jaguar, Aston Martin etc that they are making
their
: > engines too large and should try to get more out of them, ha ha. After
all,
: > Michael Schumacher has a 850bhp 3 litre, and that lasts him for 200
miles...
: >
: > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: >
: > "Matt Macchiarolo" <mlmacchia@aol.comspambgon> wrote in message
: > news:20031009181534.11022.00001269@mb-m14.aol.com...
: > : Hmm, ya think?
: > :
: > : In article <OQkhb.2572$Ii.23339135@news-text.cableinet.net>, "Dave
Milne"
: > : <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> writes:
: > :
: > : >or you just didn't get it the first time round...
: > : >
: > : >
: > : >Dave Milne, Scotland
: > : >'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: > : >
: > : >"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
: > : >news:b102b6e4.0310091342.7fb4aa7@posting.google.c om...
: > : >: Adding the words "all else being equal" to the end of the sentence
: > : >: changes the whole meaning of the quote.... that's a no brainer.
: > :
: > :
: > : * * *
: > : Matt Macchiarolo
: > : www.townpeddler.com
: > : www.wolverine4wd.org
: > : http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html
: > :
: > :
: > :
: > :
#157
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: More New Scrambler Details
At least I could be bothered to find out which engine you were talking
about, which is more than you could ..
Don't you know that its recommended to keep the NOx button down for max 15
seconds at a time ? Do you think its clever to by a small highly stressed
engine and then NOx it ? That lazy Mustang 5.0 engine will last way after
the rice engine has melted its pistons, and has another 40% more usable
torque for punting around town.
I'm aware you are having extreme problems understanding the "no replacement
for displacement" phrase, so let me spell it out for you. It means "its
easier and cheaper to have a big lower tuned engine than a small highly
tuned engine". Obviously anything you can do to a small engine, you can do
to a big engine.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0310100552.48a57e0a@posting.google.c om...
: As I said, I don't know the exact size of the engine, but I guessed
: the absolute largest would have been 2.5L at the high end. Perhaps
: you need to read more closely. :-)
:
: And I stand by my argument that there are plenty of things you can use
: to replace diplacement, the definition of "replace" being to take away
: one thing and add something else instead. In your example, perhaps
: you could arrange a nitrous oxide setup on your rice burner to
: compensate for the fact that you are so much smaller than Matt.
:
:
: "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:<eLthb.2820$4b4.25167064@news-text.cableinet.net>...
: > Not just that - I don't think they even did a 2.5 liter.
: > The biggest one I can find was this:
: >
: > 1997 cc / 121.9 cu in
: > Power 145.4 kw / 195.0 bhp @ 6000 rpm
: > Torque 275.23 nm / 203.0 ft lbs @ 3000 rpm
: >
: > Now, Joshua - pretend I have my rice burner with its tricked out
: > 100bhp/litre engine, and I foolishly decide to challenge Matt to a
couple of
: > traffic light Grand Prixs. I realise I need a tad more hp - can you
: > recommend what I should do to this thing ?
: >
: > Perhaps you should tell Jaguar, Aston Martin etc that they are making
their
: > engines too large and should try to get more out of them, ha ha. After
all,
: > Michael Schumacher has a 850bhp 3 litre, and that lasts him for 200
miles...
: >
: > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: >
: > "Matt Macchiarolo" <mlmacchia@aol.comspambgon> wrote in message
: > news:20031009181534.11022.00001269@mb-m14.aol.com...
: > : Hmm, ya think?
: > :
: > : In article <OQkhb.2572$Ii.23339135@news-text.cableinet.net>, "Dave
Milne"
: > : <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> writes:
: > :
: > : >or you just didn't get it the first time round...
: > : >
: > : >
: > : >Dave Milne, Scotland
: > : >'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: > : >
: > : >"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
: > : >news:b102b6e4.0310091342.7fb4aa7@posting.google.c om...
: > : >: Adding the words "all else being equal" to the end of the sentence
: > : >: changes the whole meaning of the quote.... that's a no brainer.
: > :
: > :
: > : * * *
: > : Matt Macchiarolo
: > : www.townpeddler.com
: > : www.wolverine4wd.org
: > : http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html
: > :
: > :
: > :
: > :
about, which is more than you could ..
Don't you know that its recommended to keep the NOx button down for max 15
seconds at a time ? Do you think its clever to by a small highly stressed
engine and then NOx it ? That lazy Mustang 5.0 engine will last way after
the rice engine has melted its pistons, and has another 40% more usable
torque for punting around town.
I'm aware you are having extreme problems understanding the "no replacement
for displacement" phrase, so let me spell it out for you. It means "its
easier and cheaper to have a big lower tuned engine than a small highly
tuned engine". Obviously anything you can do to a small engine, you can do
to a big engine.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0310100552.48a57e0a@posting.google.c om...
: As I said, I don't know the exact size of the engine, but I guessed
: the absolute largest would have been 2.5L at the high end. Perhaps
: you need to read more closely. :-)
:
: And I stand by my argument that there are plenty of things you can use
: to replace diplacement, the definition of "replace" being to take away
: one thing and add something else instead. In your example, perhaps
: you could arrange a nitrous oxide setup on your rice burner to
: compensate for the fact that you are so much smaller than Matt.
:
:
: "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:<eLthb.2820$4b4.25167064@news-text.cableinet.net>...
: > Not just that - I don't think they even did a 2.5 liter.
: > The biggest one I can find was this:
: >
: > 1997 cc / 121.9 cu in
: > Power 145.4 kw / 195.0 bhp @ 6000 rpm
: > Torque 275.23 nm / 203.0 ft lbs @ 3000 rpm
: >
: > Now, Joshua - pretend I have my rice burner with its tricked out
: > 100bhp/litre engine, and I foolishly decide to challenge Matt to a
couple of
: > traffic light Grand Prixs. I realise I need a tad more hp - can you
: > recommend what I should do to this thing ?
: >
: > Perhaps you should tell Jaguar, Aston Martin etc that they are making
their
: > engines too large and should try to get more out of them, ha ha. After
all,
: > Michael Schumacher has a 850bhp 3 litre, and that lasts him for 200
miles...
: >
: > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: >
: > "Matt Macchiarolo" <mlmacchia@aol.comspambgon> wrote in message
: > news:20031009181534.11022.00001269@mb-m14.aol.com...
: > : Hmm, ya think?
: > :
: > : In article <OQkhb.2572$Ii.23339135@news-text.cableinet.net>, "Dave
Milne"
: > : <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> writes:
: > :
: > : >or you just didn't get it the first time round...
: > : >
: > : >
: > : >Dave Milne, Scotland
: > : >'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: > : >
: > : >"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
: > : >news:b102b6e4.0310091342.7fb4aa7@posting.google.c om...
: > : >: Adding the words "all else being equal" to the end of the sentence
: > : >: changes the whole meaning of the quote.... that's a no brainer.
: > :
: > :
: > : * * *
: > : Matt Macchiarolo
: > : www.townpeddler.com
: > : www.wolverine4wd.org
: > : http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html
: > :
: > :
: > :
: > :
#158
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: More New Scrambler Details
At least I could be bothered to find out which engine you were talking
about, which is more than you could ..
Don't you know that its recommended to keep the NOx button down for max 15
seconds at a time ? Do you think its clever to by a small highly stressed
engine and then NOx it ? That lazy Mustang 5.0 engine will last way after
the rice engine has melted its pistons, and has another 40% more usable
torque for punting around town.
I'm aware you are having extreme problems understanding the "no replacement
for displacement" phrase, so let me spell it out for you. It means "its
easier and cheaper to have a big lower tuned engine than a small highly
tuned engine". Obviously anything you can do to a small engine, you can do
to a big engine.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0310100552.48a57e0a@posting.google.c om...
: As I said, I don't know the exact size of the engine, but I guessed
: the absolute largest would have been 2.5L at the high end. Perhaps
: you need to read more closely. :-)
:
: And I stand by my argument that there are plenty of things you can use
: to replace diplacement, the definition of "replace" being to take away
: one thing and add something else instead. In your example, perhaps
: you could arrange a nitrous oxide setup on your rice burner to
: compensate for the fact that you are so much smaller than Matt.
:
:
: "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:<eLthb.2820$4b4.25167064@news-text.cableinet.net>...
: > Not just that - I don't think they even did a 2.5 liter.
: > The biggest one I can find was this:
: >
: > 1997 cc / 121.9 cu in
: > Power 145.4 kw / 195.0 bhp @ 6000 rpm
: > Torque 275.23 nm / 203.0 ft lbs @ 3000 rpm
: >
: > Now, Joshua - pretend I have my rice burner with its tricked out
: > 100bhp/litre engine, and I foolishly decide to challenge Matt to a
couple of
: > traffic light Grand Prixs. I realise I need a tad more hp - can you
: > recommend what I should do to this thing ?
: >
: > Perhaps you should tell Jaguar, Aston Martin etc that they are making
their
: > engines too large and should try to get more out of them, ha ha. After
all,
: > Michael Schumacher has a 850bhp 3 litre, and that lasts him for 200
miles...
: >
: > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: >
: > "Matt Macchiarolo" <mlmacchia@aol.comspambgon> wrote in message
: > news:20031009181534.11022.00001269@mb-m14.aol.com...
: > : Hmm, ya think?
: > :
: > : In article <OQkhb.2572$Ii.23339135@news-text.cableinet.net>, "Dave
Milne"
: > : <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> writes:
: > :
: > : >or you just didn't get it the first time round...
: > : >
: > : >
: > : >Dave Milne, Scotland
: > : >'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: > : >
: > : >"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
: > : >news:b102b6e4.0310091342.7fb4aa7@posting.google.c om...
: > : >: Adding the words "all else being equal" to the end of the sentence
: > : >: changes the whole meaning of the quote.... that's a no brainer.
: > :
: > :
: > : * * *
: > : Matt Macchiarolo
: > : www.townpeddler.com
: > : www.wolverine4wd.org
: > : http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html
: > :
: > :
: > :
: > :
about, which is more than you could ..
Don't you know that its recommended to keep the NOx button down for max 15
seconds at a time ? Do you think its clever to by a small highly stressed
engine and then NOx it ? That lazy Mustang 5.0 engine will last way after
the rice engine has melted its pistons, and has another 40% more usable
torque for punting around town.
I'm aware you are having extreme problems understanding the "no replacement
for displacement" phrase, so let me spell it out for you. It means "its
easier and cheaper to have a big lower tuned engine than a small highly
tuned engine". Obviously anything you can do to a small engine, you can do
to a big engine.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0310100552.48a57e0a@posting.google.c om...
: As I said, I don't know the exact size of the engine, but I guessed
: the absolute largest would have been 2.5L at the high end. Perhaps
: you need to read more closely. :-)
:
: And I stand by my argument that there are plenty of things you can use
: to replace diplacement, the definition of "replace" being to take away
: one thing and add something else instead. In your example, perhaps
: you could arrange a nitrous oxide setup on your rice burner to
: compensate for the fact that you are so much smaller than Matt.
:
:
: "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:<eLthb.2820$4b4.25167064@news-text.cableinet.net>...
: > Not just that - I don't think they even did a 2.5 liter.
: > The biggest one I can find was this:
: >
: > 1997 cc / 121.9 cu in
: > Power 145.4 kw / 195.0 bhp @ 6000 rpm
: > Torque 275.23 nm / 203.0 ft lbs @ 3000 rpm
: >
: > Now, Joshua - pretend I have my rice burner with its tricked out
: > 100bhp/litre engine, and I foolishly decide to challenge Matt to a
couple of
: > traffic light Grand Prixs. I realise I need a tad more hp - can you
: > recommend what I should do to this thing ?
: >
: > Perhaps you should tell Jaguar, Aston Martin etc that they are making
their
: > engines too large and should try to get more out of them, ha ha. After
all,
: > Michael Schumacher has a 850bhp 3 litre, and that lasts him for 200
miles...
: >
: > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: >
: > "Matt Macchiarolo" <mlmacchia@aol.comspambgon> wrote in message
: > news:20031009181534.11022.00001269@mb-m14.aol.com...
: > : Hmm, ya think?
: > :
: > : In article <OQkhb.2572$Ii.23339135@news-text.cableinet.net>, "Dave
Milne"
: > : <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> writes:
: > :
: > : >or you just didn't get it the first time round...
: > : >
: > : >
: > : >Dave Milne, Scotland
: > : >'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: > : >
: > : >"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
: > : >news:b102b6e4.0310091342.7fb4aa7@posting.google.c om...
: > : >: Adding the words "all else being equal" to the end of the sentence
: > : >: changes the whole meaning of the quote.... that's a no brainer.
: > :
: > :
: > : * * *
: > : Matt Macchiarolo
: > : www.townpeddler.com
: > : www.wolverine4wd.org
: > : http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html
: > :
: > :
: > :
: > :
#159
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: More New Scrambler Details
If you want bang for the buck it's nitrous oxide, an additional
hundred and fifty horse power, (350" no other changes) none of it robbed
to pull a blower, or push through clogged exhaust.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Goat Crapp wrote:
>
> just for the record, awd tsi's and other stock turbo'd with that particular
> engine (the new EVO for isntance) vehicles can usually break into the 11's
> without too much trouble.
>
> the older chrysler turbo 2.2's have more than a few minivans in the high 12's
> with no more modding than a homemade dawes device to let them up the boost, and
> maybe an aftermarket fpr.
>
> yes all else being equal (ie: build the larger engine up to handle 20psi of
> forced induction) i would still put my money on the larger engine. but ANY
> vehicle in the 11's with under 1,000 in mods (total cost to get most of the
> chrysler/mitsubishi turbo motors into the 11's, or 12's with the heavier
> minivans) is pretty impressive...
>
> It just seems too many on the boards get worked up over any possible threat to
> their "american muscle" and refuse to just look at the facts out there. (and
> yes, a properly built 4g63 (engine code for the tsi in question) with maybe 5k
> in mods will outrun many if not most of the naturally aspirated v8's out there
> (it will be in the 10's down the 1320 - however they tend to have a lot of
> trouble keeping their trannys together at that point)
>
> but as with most turbo vehicles, you are correct... as for low end torque, an
> engine designed around a turbo usually doesnt have much. Take the new wrx's..
> great rally car - if you keep it above 3500 rpm. below that a motor scoorter
> with a leaf blower engine could outrun it.
>
> but you would be surprised at what could keep up with (gasp blasphemy) even a
> TT'd 5.0 (me and a buddy are working on one right now in fact. dual super60's
> with 400cc secondary injectors, on a windsor block with 8:1 pistons (handle
> more boost) and whatever else he had done before i got invovled) you know the
> difference between a 1000HP mustang and a 600hp mustang? theyre both gonna run
> within .4 seconds of eachother, they key problem being traction.. one will have
> a trap speed in the high 120's tho, the other in the 11x's.
>
> i've owned several of both types of engines (and the cars surrounding them)
> from a stock jeep, to a built 305 camaro (yah i know "built" and "305" dont get
> mentioend in the same sentence much haha) to my current vehcile, a built turbo
> rx7 (no pistons) that spins to 9,000 rpm... i appreciate both applications,
> and where each would be better suited... i agree wholeheartedly that offroad i
> prefer a torquey off idle engine. the new generation of smaller turbo engines
> however are being built to take ungodly amounts of boost and are easy/cheap to
> upgrade.. letting them hang quite comfortably with naturally aspirated cars of
> much greater displacement
hundred and fifty horse power, (350" no other changes) none of it robbed
to pull a blower, or push through clogged exhaust.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Goat Crapp wrote:
>
> just for the record, awd tsi's and other stock turbo'd with that particular
> engine (the new EVO for isntance) vehicles can usually break into the 11's
> without too much trouble.
>
> the older chrysler turbo 2.2's have more than a few minivans in the high 12's
> with no more modding than a homemade dawes device to let them up the boost, and
> maybe an aftermarket fpr.
>
> yes all else being equal (ie: build the larger engine up to handle 20psi of
> forced induction) i would still put my money on the larger engine. but ANY
> vehicle in the 11's with under 1,000 in mods (total cost to get most of the
> chrysler/mitsubishi turbo motors into the 11's, or 12's with the heavier
> minivans) is pretty impressive...
>
> It just seems too many on the boards get worked up over any possible threat to
> their "american muscle" and refuse to just look at the facts out there. (and
> yes, a properly built 4g63 (engine code for the tsi in question) with maybe 5k
> in mods will outrun many if not most of the naturally aspirated v8's out there
> (it will be in the 10's down the 1320 - however they tend to have a lot of
> trouble keeping their trannys together at that point)
>
> but as with most turbo vehicles, you are correct... as for low end torque, an
> engine designed around a turbo usually doesnt have much. Take the new wrx's..
> great rally car - if you keep it above 3500 rpm. below that a motor scoorter
> with a leaf blower engine could outrun it.
>
> but you would be surprised at what could keep up with (gasp blasphemy) even a
> TT'd 5.0 (me and a buddy are working on one right now in fact. dual super60's
> with 400cc secondary injectors, on a windsor block with 8:1 pistons (handle
> more boost) and whatever else he had done before i got invovled) you know the
> difference between a 1000HP mustang and a 600hp mustang? theyre both gonna run
> within .4 seconds of eachother, they key problem being traction.. one will have
> a trap speed in the high 120's tho, the other in the 11x's.
>
> i've owned several of both types of engines (and the cars surrounding them)
> from a stock jeep, to a built 305 camaro (yah i know "built" and "305" dont get
> mentioend in the same sentence much haha) to my current vehcile, a built turbo
> rx7 (no pistons) that spins to 9,000 rpm... i appreciate both applications,
> and where each would be better suited... i agree wholeheartedly that offroad i
> prefer a torquey off idle engine. the new generation of smaller turbo engines
> however are being built to take ungodly amounts of boost and are easy/cheap to
> upgrade.. letting them hang quite comfortably with naturally aspirated cars of
> much greater displacement
#160
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: More New Scrambler Details
If you want bang for the buck it's nitrous oxide, an additional
hundred and fifty horse power, (350" no other changes) none of it robbed
to pull a blower, or push through clogged exhaust.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Goat Crapp wrote:
>
> just for the record, awd tsi's and other stock turbo'd with that particular
> engine (the new EVO for isntance) vehicles can usually break into the 11's
> without too much trouble.
>
> the older chrysler turbo 2.2's have more than a few minivans in the high 12's
> with no more modding than a homemade dawes device to let them up the boost, and
> maybe an aftermarket fpr.
>
> yes all else being equal (ie: build the larger engine up to handle 20psi of
> forced induction) i would still put my money on the larger engine. but ANY
> vehicle in the 11's with under 1,000 in mods (total cost to get most of the
> chrysler/mitsubishi turbo motors into the 11's, or 12's with the heavier
> minivans) is pretty impressive...
>
> It just seems too many on the boards get worked up over any possible threat to
> their "american muscle" and refuse to just look at the facts out there. (and
> yes, a properly built 4g63 (engine code for the tsi in question) with maybe 5k
> in mods will outrun many if not most of the naturally aspirated v8's out there
> (it will be in the 10's down the 1320 - however they tend to have a lot of
> trouble keeping their trannys together at that point)
>
> but as with most turbo vehicles, you are correct... as for low end torque, an
> engine designed around a turbo usually doesnt have much. Take the new wrx's..
> great rally car - if you keep it above 3500 rpm. below that a motor scoorter
> with a leaf blower engine could outrun it.
>
> but you would be surprised at what could keep up with (gasp blasphemy) even a
> TT'd 5.0 (me and a buddy are working on one right now in fact. dual super60's
> with 400cc secondary injectors, on a windsor block with 8:1 pistons (handle
> more boost) and whatever else he had done before i got invovled) you know the
> difference between a 1000HP mustang and a 600hp mustang? theyre both gonna run
> within .4 seconds of eachother, they key problem being traction.. one will have
> a trap speed in the high 120's tho, the other in the 11x's.
>
> i've owned several of both types of engines (and the cars surrounding them)
> from a stock jeep, to a built 305 camaro (yah i know "built" and "305" dont get
> mentioend in the same sentence much haha) to my current vehcile, a built turbo
> rx7 (no pistons) that spins to 9,000 rpm... i appreciate both applications,
> and where each would be better suited... i agree wholeheartedly that offroad i
> prefer a torquey off idle engine. the new generation of smaller turbo engines
> however are being built to take ungodly amounts of boost and are easy/cheap to
> upgrade.. letting them hang quite comfortably with naturally aspirated cars of
> much greater displacement
hundred and fifty horse power, (350" no other changes) none of it robbed
to pull a blower, or push through clogged exhaust.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Goat Crapp wrote:
>
> just for the record, awd tsi's and other stock turbo'd with that particular
> engine (the new EVO for isntance) vehicles can usually break into the 11's
> without too much trouble.
>
> the older chrysler turbo 2.2's have more than a few minivans in the high 12's
> with no more modding than a homemade dawes device to let them up the boost, and
> maybe an aftermarket fpr.
>
> yes all else being equal (ie: build the larger engine up to handle 20psi of
> forced induction) i would still put my money on the larger engine. but ANY
> vehicle in the 11's with under 1,000 in mods (total cost to get most of the
> chrysler/mitsubishi turbo motors into the 11's, or 12's with the heavier
> minivans) is pretty impressive...
>
> It just seems too many on the boards get worked up over any possible threat to
> their "american muscle" and refuse to just look at the facts out there. (and
> yes, a properly built 4g63 (engine code for the tsi in question) with maybe 5k
> in mods will outrun many if not most of the naturally aspirated v8's out there
> (it will be in the 10's down the 1320 - however they tend to have a lot of
> trouble keeping their trannys together at that point)
>
> but as with most turbo vehicles, you are correct... as for low end torque, an
> engine designed around a turbo usually doesnt have much. Take the new wrx's..
> great rally car - if you keep it above 3500 rpm. below that a motor scoorter
> with a leaf blower engine could outrun it.
>
> but you would be surprised at what could keep up with (gasp blasphemy) even a
> TT'd 5.0 (me and a buddy are working on one right now in fact. dual super60's
> with 400cc secondary injectors, on a windsor block with 8:1 pistons (handle
> more boost) and whatever else he had done before i got invovled) you know the
> difference between a 1000HP mustang and a 600hp mustang? theyre both gonna run
> within .4 seconds of eachother, they key problem being traction.. one will have
> a trap speed in the high 120's tho, the other in the 11x's.
>
> i've owned several of both types of engines (and the cars surrounding them)
> from a stock jeep, to a built 305 camaro (yah i know "built" and "305" dont get
> mentioend in the same sentence much haha) to my current vehcile, a built turbo
> rx7 (no pistons) that spins to 9,000 rpm... i appreciate both applications,
> and where each would be better suited... i agree wholeheartedly that offroad i
> prefer a torquey off idle engine. the new generation of smaller turbo engines
> however are being built to take ungodly amounts of boost and are easy/cheap to
> upgrade.. letting them hang quite comfortably with naturally aspirated cars of
> much greater displacement