Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TiredBirds

dumb question swap vs turbo

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Black Magic said:

You would be better off using a "tanker", like rx7 to do this. 944 would be another good choice. 

 

You can also build more power with other engine mods (besides turbo) for points to allow a power to weight beyond what the calculator allows. This is pretty typical for the good FWD cars, and their low vpi allows it (perhaps in a needed way, power gain to offset not being rwd). 

 

This is the nature of our rules having such a strict outlook on non primary performance factors (power, weight, suspension type), you end up rationalizing a very low vpi for a car to allow mods to match your benchmark cars stats(like coolers). When they choose power over the stuff you expected unicorns pop up. Prime example several months ago, lots of room to put big power in a tbird, and teams are right saying they need suspension, hubs, diff,trans, coolers, engine, knuckles to equal say an e30. Average teams need the points to swap this stuff. A top level builder could make that car work without alot of those mods, and spend the points to massacre the power to weight....

 

That is the counter to the "no free stuff" theory, if you make all parts have value and we have to reduce the vpi of cars to account for it, you will have big discrepancies when a team finds out they can make the oem stuff work. If we have to factor in items like springs and bushings, the t bird might have a negative vpi, and the first squad to make oem work will mop the field. 

 

I petitioned to have more things included in a "package" for these current low vpi cars, defining a little more where the points would go. We could also make the rules more open in some areas and up the vpi of cars we formerly evaluated based on the need (ie coolers are not points, but non cooler cars vpi goes up as needed). This would be getting points back to primary performance factors, and actually balancing these vs seeking equity through a points system that rates coolers nearly as high as a long tube header....

 

You are slightly blessed that the BSFC of a turbo engine and heat make endurance racing harder, although todays new (good) turbos are moving that line. 

I have seen you mention the rx7 with a large fuel capacity before.  Only 89 through 91 had a larger tank (18.5 gallon) and the vpi is higher.

 

The 86 through 88 had 16.5.  It was the same or less for all previous rx7.

 

Isn't this the same capacity as an e30?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turbogrill said:

How much less reliable is a turbo car than a NA?

 

From what I remember all turbo chump cars I have seen has blown up and not make the race. (Miatas spewing rods, Audis smoking like crazy, RX7s just not working )

 

Is the problem the NA->Turbo conversion or turbos in general. 

I raced a turbo rx7 in champcar and made the top 5 at Watkins Glen.  We lost a rad hose and hurt the engine.  I swapped back to an na to go after suspension points (back when you had to choose).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wvumtnbkr said:

I have seen you mention the rx7 with a large fuel capacity before.  Only 89 through 91 had a larger tank (18.5 gallon) and the vpi is higher.

 

The 86 through 88 had 16.5.  It was the same or less for all previous rx7.

 

Isn't this the same capacity as an e30?

 

About the same, yes. 

Real RX-7's have 20 gallon FYI. 

latest?cb=20160119051027

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, red0 said:

 

About the same, yes. 

Real RX-7's have 20 gallon FYI. 

latest?cb=20160119051027

Yep.  Want.  Without stupid ugly body kit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wvumtnbkr said:

Yep.  Want.  Without stupid ugly body kit.

 

I was looking for a real RX7 for cheap for a number of years, found one for 4k that would have been the perfect car for my WRL build and then realized I was in way too much debt. It was being stripped to turn into a race car and the guy ran out of money or something. It was a great deal but I just couldn't do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, karman1970 said:

Cheaty fiberglass hood should eat up some points

lol our hood, doors deck lid are nothing but sheet metal at this point..floppy goodness. Not sure how much lighter a glass hood would be.  Strut tower brace might be worth it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, red0 said:



A blow through carb SBC turbo would be a hoot in Champcar. 

Just to hear the puuuweeest all the way around the track.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Slugworks Paul said:

Stock turbo cars vs. Add-on turbo cars are much different scenarios. Very few add-on turbo cars have been reliable and successful - Andrews D16 Turbo civic sedan being one of the few (in a single season, won a race and got 2x 2nd places I believe, and Condren wrote a new turbo rule for it).

 

Very true, the turbos that are available to most people are not very good, even EFR turbos are based on 30 year old aero.

 

It is possible with a little work to fit a modern turbo onto an old engine…

 

maverick3.png.d55b8e3b0863c614a77aafbebc7ca415.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mhr650 said:

 

Very true, the turbos that are available to most people are not very good, even EFR turbos are based on 30 year old aero.

 

It is possible with a little work to fit a modern turbo onto an old engine…

 

maverick3.png.d55b8e3b0863c614a77aafbebc7ca415.png

 

 

I thought EFR was suppliers to some modern OEM applications?

 

Do car manufacturer develop their own turbos ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mhr650 said:

 

Very true, the turbos that are available to most people are not very good, even EFR turbos are based on 30 year old aero.

 

It is possible with a little work to fit a modern turbo onto an old engine…

 

 

I know this is off topic   4x O2 sensors?

Edited by Team Infiniti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Team Infiniti said:

I know this is off topic   4x O2 sensors?

 

Plugged for racing, but very helpful for individual cylinder tuning. You would develop your base tune with a sensor in the downpipe, then install sensors one at a time for each cylinder to develop an individual cylinder trim for the base tune.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, turbogrill said:

 

 

I thought EFR was suppliers to some modern OEM applications?

 

Do car manufacturer develop their own turbos ? 

 

BW supplies many modern OEM applications, generally it is pretty close between us and Honeywell as far as who is the largest turbo manufacturer and it varies by market.

 

EFR turbos are made by BW, actually built here in our plant in Asheville. EFR turbos are not up to the same standard as a state of the art OEM turbo.

 

Different auto manufacturers have different levels of turbo expertise, some are very good and some are working on it. Every program we work very closely with the manufacturer to develop the turbo exactly to their goals, some are more conservative and some are more aggressive to try new things.

 

Auto manufacturers have  looked into building their own turbos,  but as far as I know they have all gone back to working with one of the 5 or so turbo companies out there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, mhr650 said:

 

Plugged for racing, but very helpful for individual cylinder tuning. You would develop your base tune with a sensor in the downpipe, then install sensors one at a time for each cylinder to develop an individual cylinder trim for the base tune.

When I boosted my old 67 Coronet (carb'd mild 440) I ran a fuel pressure gauge EGT and A/F meter 100% of the time.  Drag car so I had an MSD boost delay control. I could drop X* of timing per lb of boost depending on the conditions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, mhr650 said:

 

BW supplies many modern OEM applications, generally it is pretty close between us and Honeywell as far as who is the largest turbo manufacturer and it varies by market.

 

EFR turbos are made by BW, actually built here in our plant in Asheville. EFR turbos are not up to the same standard as a state of the art OEM turbo.

 

Different auto manufacturers have different levels of turbo expertise, some are very good and some are working on it. Every program we work very closely with the manufacturer to develop the turbo exactly to their goals, some are more conservative and some are more aggressive to try new things.

 

Auto manufacturers have  looked into building their own turbos,  but as far as I know they have all gone back to working with one of the 5 or so turbo companies out there.

 

 

I think it's cheating to have a turbo expert in a chumpcar team. Should be 50 points extra and 2 gallons of less fuel.

 

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wvumtnbkr said:

I have seen you mention the rx7 with a large fuel capacity before.  Only 89 through 91 had a larger tank (18.5 gallon) and the vpi is higher.

 

The 86 through 88 had 16.5.  It was the same or less for all previous rx7.

 

Isn't this the same capacity as an e30?

 

Even using actual weight for a e30 (not convertible or whatever was lobbied for) it is 100 lbs heavier than rx7, and with basically the same fuel (16.5 vs 16.4). Since fuel as a percentage is the key here, I would call that a win over the e30. And the e30 is already a good car in the fuel department. 

 

This is in comparison to his gen III F body, which has a gallon less fuel than even the "low capacity" rx7 and in stock weights is getting close to 400 lbs heavier. 

 

Personally I would take the higher value rx7, use the ambitious swap weight given and put in a low rpm undercammed engine. Pay the 50 points for a cam and party on with low 200s hp. Something like 5.0 @ 200 hp pre cam (for 52 points) with cam and trans swap. At 18.5 gal stock capacity (20.5 with a cell) the best use of a mustang would be in a rx7.....

Edited by Black Magic
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Black Magic said:

 

Even using actual weight for a e30 (not convertible or whatever was lobbied for) it is 100 lbs heavier than rx7, and with basically the same fuel (16.5 vs 16.4). Since fuel as a percentage is the key here, I would call that a win over the e30. And the e30 is already a good car in the fuel department. 

 

This is in comparison to his gen III F body, which has a gallon less fuel than even the "low capacity" rx7 and in stock weights is getting close to 400 lbs heavier. 

 

Personally I would take the higher value rx7, use the ambitious swap weight given and put in a low rpm undercammed engine. Pay the 50 points for a cam and party on with low 200s hp. Something like 5.0 @ 200 hp pre cam (for 52 points) with cam and trans swap. At 18.5 gal stock capacity (20.5 with a cell) the best use of a mustang would be in a rx7.....

You mean like this?

He passes the SOA Mustang at about 5:45.

Edited by mender
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TiredBirds said:

:ph34r: a Gen II F-body has a 21 gallon tank and a VPI of 150 :ph34r:

That's the one to build right there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mender said:

You mean like this?

 

I like...but the the fuel filter location... I mean WHY would you do that? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mender said:

That's the one to build right there!

maybe we should remove all the sheet metal from the Gen III and use Gen II stuff. I mean One could probably buy every piece for under a grand. I'll just tell everybody it's a 78. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TiredBirds said:

maybe we should remove all the sheet metal from the Gen III and use Gen II stuff. I mean One could probably buy every piece for under a grand. I'll just tell everybody it's a 78. 

Or build a '78 and enjoy the better suspension geometry, engine/trans/diff selections, etc. :)

 

What am I thinking?!? If you build it, the mole hammer will hit and extra VPi points will magically appear!

 

Build an E46 330i, it'll be below 500 points in no time and it has the BMW built-in Mole Immunity! ;)

Edited by mender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mender said:

Or build a '78 and enjoy the better suspension geometry, engine/trans/diff selections, etc. :)

 

What am I thinking?!? If you build it, the mole hammer will hit and extra VPi points will magically appear!

 

Build an E46 330i, it'll be below 500 points in no time and it has the BMW built-in Mole Immunity! ;)

dude, we already have the 88 totally stripped...cage is ready to drop in and only a few suspension parts got broke with the impact...plus I picked up another 91 305 5 speed for $900. BUT if I were to start from scratch... It'd be a Gen II but firebird Camaros suck. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, mender said:

Or build a '78 and enjoy the better suspension geometry, engine/trans/diff selections, etc. :)

 

What am I thinking?!? If you build it, the mole hammer will hit and extra VPi points will magically appear!

 

Build an E46 330i, it'll be below 500 points in no time and it has the BMW built-in Mole Immunity! ;)

 

Bk6XzIYIAAAPyGz.jpg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Black Magic said:

 

Even using actual weight for a e30 (not convertible or whatever was lobbied for) it is 100 lbs heavier than rx7, and with basically the same fuel (16.5 vs 16.4). Since fuel as a percentage is the key here, I would call that a win over the e30. And the e30 is already a good car in the fuel department. 

 

This is in comparison to his gen III F body, which has a gallon less fuel than even the "low capacity" rx7 and in stock weights is getting close to 400 lbs heavier. 

 

Personally I would take the higher value rx7, use the ambitious swap weight given and put in a low rpm undercammed engine. Pay the 50 points for a cam and party on with low 200s hp. Something like 5.0 @ 200 hp pre cam (for 52 points) with cam and trans swap. At 18.5 gal stock capacity (20.5 with a cell) the best use of a mustang would be in a rx7.....

The e30s actually weigh a bit less than my car at race weight.

 

Point taken though.  I would definitely go with the 944 if turbo goodness was in the cards (if pts viable).

 

For the rx7, the 3500 gm v6 is a pretty sweet spot.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, wvumtnbkr said:

The e30s actually weigh a bit less than my car at race weight.

 

Point taken though.  I would definitely go with the 944 if turbo goodness was in the cards (if pts viable).

 

For the rx7, the 3500 gm v6 is a pretty sweet spot.

can't you put a lame 170hp:ph34r:  chebby v8 in a 944? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...