Doods where do you get your infos?

Saw Alex asking on the other place about which would be faster a Hot 2.5 Subie or a Peee Geee Tea car

And among the idle speculation and misinformation I saw this:

Quote

10-27-2011 10:13 AM #14

bopApocalypse



bopApocalypse is offline RallyX Weenie

Quote

Quote Originally Posted by A1337STI View Post
Shouldn't the lack of a turbo on an OL help the reliability out a bit? (course i have no experience with real race motors) or does the Restrictor in PGT actually help a bunch with reliability? (guess its more a difference in how long each type of car has been raced)

Consider a S2000 engine: 2.0L, n/a, max rev limiter of 8500rpm, top cars are in the range of 280hp & 250-260ft/lbs. IIRC, compression is 'limited' to 13:1. I can't imagine those engines have particularly long lives.

Don't know the PGT rules, but the bottom line is that any engine built to the ragged edge of performance (regardless of FI or NA) isn't going to be particularly long lived. If one class requires the engine (and ecu and boost levels etc.) be closer to stock than another, the closer-to-stock engine may last longer.

Dude 2.0 liter n.a. motors don't make 250-260 ft/lbs
REALLY REALLY GOOD ones make if you pay a million Euros, maybe 190 ft/lbs

links:

Quote

http://www.pipo-moteurs.com/pipo-moteurs/fr/services/default.html

MOTEURS A VENDRE

Vous pouvez aussi acquérir un moteur F2000 sur une base de XU7 ou XU9 :

* Bloc aluminium
* Carter carbone
* Admission 4 papillons
* 275 Cv ; 26 mKg minimum!!!
* cartographie disponible pour calculateurs Magneti Marelli MF3 / MF4 / 1AS / MR3 / MR1
* livré sans électronique<---Yikes without electronics.
* tarif : 27500€ H.T.

Convert:
http://www.magtrol.com/support/torque_calc.html
26 [kg·m] kilogram-force meter = 188.0583575 [lb·ft] pound-force foot

And convert:
€27,500= USD38,071.00 US Dollar (USD)

Somebody said "i Guess it comes down to suspension and drivers blah blah" after looking at bhp/weight

The real comparison is ft/lbs to weight and there any turbo has an advantage all things being equal..
But they're never equal.
a pokey ass 2.5 with a 5.1 axle ratio has a shit ton of torque from the gearing...

The problem with n.a. is getting close enough gaps in the gearbox to allow a higher peak torque and higher rpm to convert, via gearing, into moar toarks.

Box better match the powerband and stock wide ratio boxes work better with wide powerbands like mildly cammed turbo motors..
(Ther IS a reason they do well)

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2011 06:13PM by john vanlandingham.

DOOOOD!! 2F2F FTW! Saws it like 20 times... i've double nutted my floors so they don't fall out under max booooost!!!


hahah


nice post.. lots of good info... waiting to try this diesel thing out for torques :-)

Quote
john vanlandingham

Box better match the powerband and stock wide ratio boxes work better with wide powerbands like mildly cammed turbo motors..
(Ther IS a reason they do well)

I think that the referenced class would have a STi 6 speed box coupled with the 2.5L n/a poobaru, so while heavy, the gearing/spacing would be pretty good.

Beyond that, its just mental masturbation, take it for what it is worth. Ya, the S2000 specs were a "little" off though

One of the most developed race engines available...by the best in the business... http://www.esslingeracing.com/crate-engine.htm

The problem with Open Lite..Subes anyway..is the motors are crap. They don't make any power stock and they don't like revs, or so I think for some reason. I'd guess a Mitsu would stand a better chance at 8/9000 rpm. But I could be wrong.

There is really only one substitute for boost and that is more boost or massive cubic inches.

Quote
john vanlandingham
Dude 2.0 liter n.a. motors don't make 250-260 ft/lbs
REALLY REALLY GOOD ones make if you pay a million Euros, maybe 190 ft/lbs

links:

Quote

http://www.pipo-moteurs.com/pipo-moteurs/fr/services/default.html

MOTEURS A VENDRE

Vous pouvez aussi acquérir un moteur F2000 sur une base de XU7 ou XU9 :

* Bloc aluminium
* Carter carbone
* Admission 4 papillons
* 275 Cv ; 26 mKg minimum!!!
* cartographie disponible pour calculateurs Magneti Marelli MF3 / MF4 / 1AS / MR3 / MR1
* livré sans électronique<---Yikes without electronics.
* tarif : 27500€ H.T.

Whoops, I fail at units.

From http://www.s2000rally.com/ford-fiesta-s2000.php:

Quote

260 Nm at 6500 rpm

260 Nm ~= 190 ft/lbs

There's a local Subaru with a 2.5 and the STI drivetrain and Rocket Rally diff computer and RSSPs. Just about same speed as a 5 speed. Extra weight negates benefit of gearing and active diff just isn't as useful without 500 ft lbs.

I stayed out of that conversation cause all I felt I could add was both are boring compared to a hot RWD car.

Quote
NoCoast
There's a local Subaru with a 2.5 and the STI drivetrain and Rocket Rally diff computer and RSSPs. Just about same speed as a 5 speed. Extra weight negates benefit of gearing and active diff just isn't as useful without 500 ft lbs.

I stayed out of that conversation cause all I felt I could add was both are boring compared to a hot RWD car.

Boring?? Really?? I mean if you had the same power but add 500-800 lbs and lose about 50hp to AWD seems like it would be, well uh, ya... boring works.

I've seen PGTs hustle pretty good even with a 32mm restrictor.

Quote
Aaron Luptak

Quote
john vanlandingham
Dude 2.0 liter n.a. motors don't make 250-260 ft/lbs
REALLY REALLY GOOD ones make if you pay a million Euros, maybe 190 ft/lbs

links:

Quote

http://www.pipo-moteurs.com/pipo-moteurs/fr/services/default.html

MOTEURS A VENDRE

Vous pouvez aussi acquérir un moteur F2000 sur une base de XU7 ou XU9 :

* Bloc aluminium
* Carter carbone
* Admission 4 papillons
* 275 Cv ; 26 mKg minimum!!!
* cartographie disponible pour calculateurs Magneti Marelli MF3 / MF4 / 1AS / MR3 / MR1
* livré sans électronique<---Yikes without electronics.
* tarif : 27500€ H.T.

Whoops, I fail at units.

From http://www.s2000rally.com/ford-fiesta-s2000.php:

Quote

260 Nm at 6500 rpm

260 Nm ~= 190 ft/lbs

Well that's OK. I may win bets down to 0,5mm sometimes but I's still a foot/lbs guy and it seems the Euros love different measures. Sometimes kilo/pond, sometime kg/m m/kg and Nm

Point is that there is a pretty linear relationship between corrected compression ratio and engine volume to engine torque.
Horsepowerz isn't un-important but it is directly related to RPM.

180 ft/lbs "pulls" a hell of a lot better than 100 ft/lbs.

As to why they Sub-a-rat 2.5 does seem to make much torques-powers, well it does have really really short rods vs its stroke, that makes for huge side thrust--saps power---and very rapid piston acceleration away from and thru TDC---and if that piston is zooming away from the head just as the pressure is building and getting all ready to push on the piston, well that ain't so hot for powerz either.

Thing is, kinda like the LIMA 2300 SOHC, I tell guys "If it doesn't want to rev (stock with 132mm c-c rods and 80mm stroke), then don't try to force it, make it into a mid range torque-monster, gear it a little higher and let it PULL, since that's what it wants to do."

Maybe all the "ex-spurts' are so into massive turbos and drag racing 'at the race track' that nobody thinks about making them work for what we want.

Can't do it on the Subie but with the Ford, we have enough piston comp hgt (around 40mm) that we CAN choose longer rods and lighter, less rockier, pistons. There are 5.5 and 5.7" rods and it wakes those motors up.
Then the hideous bad ports become a major problem.

But the solution is toooooo hilarious:
A head that flows 20% more CFM stock than the Esslinger ARCA head, the bitchin' aftermarket head that Ford shoulda and coulda made if they gave a shit, but they didn't give a shit, so we go to what was a Ford subsidiary for a while for a nice alloy 16v head, like Grant is selling.
here's some stuff I told Sean Medcroft I'd post on what can be done with the Flowvo 16v:

http://www.topplocksverkstan.se/volvo16v%20Turbotopp.html

Detta är en topp gjort till en 2.5 liters motor med mycket laddtryck. Toppen är drydeckad, dvs. vattenkanalerna är igensvetsade. Det finns bara vatten i toppen inget i blocket. Kanalerna är beräknade till 8000 RPM vilket innebär ungefär motsvarande 2 x 29 mm runda hål i minsta arean. Inloppet mot insuget är anpassat för att passa ett befintligt insug och skulle behöva vara större. Gashastigheten på flödesbänken nådde 350 fps. och minsta arean blir från delningen ut till flänsen vilket inte är optimalt och gör att denna toppen flödar mindre än vad den skulle kunna göra på insug.

Flödesvärden vid 28" vattenpelare med ett rör på avgasporten. 39 mm insug och 32 mm avgasventiler.



Wanna make insane power in a NA motor? All it takes is a little work:


More quench pads for a cooler piston and higher comp with less dome, and less detonation risk:


Oh yeah:


Nice to know before you begin rootin out the bad:


That's a nice port (rubber casting):


Lookie English!!!





Nedan lite Pipemax beräkningar på Volvo motorn

With 2.4 liters motor volym hamnar maxeffekten någonstans runt 320 hp vid 8600 RPM.
Suitable cam values : kamvärden för rallycross: 306^o 107 lobe centers 14,5mm lift 5-6,0mm lift @ TDC in & out 290^o 107 11.0 3,8ot.

All that stuff costs money but look at the figures 320 bhp n.a. 2.4.
That's insane, but makes you think but! but! what about if i wanted just 224 and broad power?

Obviously starting with a 2300 is going to make that easier...

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

Where did I get my info? From the dyno readout of our crewmember's autocross car and the scale readout of our own race car.

I really do think that Open Light has a LOT of potential, particularly against PGT.

This is what I posted on the other forum. I didn't mention that Jay built his own engine based on his own development. It's about as far from a professionally built engine as possible. And our Open Light car was built in our garage and is mostly OEM parts and nothing exotic.

Quote
modernbeat;402858
Jay Storm is putting out 238 hp at the crank with his NA 2.5 engine in his autocross car. The motor is not a peaky roadrace engine, but has a nice broad torque curve. Biranne's GC Sedan, which is hardly lightweight, weighs in at 2670 ready to race with 7 gallons of fuel. I think we could easily get 250 lbs or so out of it.

I think on the high end an Open Light car will be faster. There's just so much you can do to it. It's really fairly unlimited. The PGT has real limits.

Quote
modernbeat
Where did I get my info? From the dyno readout of our crewmember's autocross car and the scale readout of our own race car.

I really do think that Open Light has a LOT of potential, particularly against PGT.

This is what I posted on the other forum. I didn't mention that Jay built his own engine based on his own development. It's about as far from a professionally built engine as possible. And our Open Light car was built in our garage and is mostly OEM parts and nothing exotic.

Quote
modernbeat;402858
Jay Storm is putting out 238 hp at the crank with his NA 2.5 engine in his autocross car. The motor is not a peaky roadrace engine, but has a nice broad torque curve. Biranne's GC Sedan, which is hardly lightweight, weighs in at 2670 ready to race with 7 gallons of fuel. I think we could easily get 250 lbs or so out of it.

I think on the high end an Open Light car will be faster. There's just so much you can do to it. It's really fairly unlimited. The PGT has real limits.

That was specifically directed at the really what should have been obviously insane ft/lbs reported for a n.a. 2,0 liter motor.
I know a 2.5 subie can make some power, but that's not really the limitation. gearbox ratios and lack of shorter final drive.
Tradionally rally cars with 2.0 motors making around 190-220 bhp and around 180 or so ft/lbs and tires around 64cm, a final drive of around 5.1 has been the gear to have. Bigger motors maybe go 4.88.

Gears make torque, toque = yank.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

You need to fine tune your BS filter on that other forum based on the poster.

Quote

I'm putting down 210whp and 260ft/lbs of tq w/ pump 93 in an 02 PGT rex. With curb weight of ~3300lbs (including tools, 2 spares, full underbody) protection. Would be nice to jump to 34mm restrictor...

There's your PGT numbers. 210hp / 260tq and it weighs 3300 lbs. 15.7 lbs/hp.

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1340972&page=3&highlight=dyno+twe

There's a bunch of dyno pulls on a Subie NA EJ25 in varying states of tune. 130hp / 152tq and Brianne's weighs 2670 lbs. 20.5 lbs/hp.

Injen CAI
1in Throttle Body Spacer
8mm phenolic intake manifold spacers
Delta "mild" reground cams (should be same as cobb street cam)
14lb flywheel
TWE equal-length headers
Stock catback

The NA EJ25 will make more power than that with a full exhaust and a hot ECU.

So yeah, the PGT car *should* be a LOT faster.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2011 09:38AM by Jard.

Quote
modernbeat
Where did I get my info? From the dyno readout of our crewmember's autocross car and the scale readout of our own race car.

I really do think that Open Light has a LOT of potential, particularly against PGT.

This is what I posted on the other forum. I didn't mention that Jay built his own engine based on his own development. It's about as far from a professionally built engine as possible. And our Open Light car was built in our garage and is mostly OEM parts and nothing exotic.

Quote
modernbeat;402858
Jay Storm is putting out 238 hp at the crank with his NA 2.5 engine in his autocross car. The motor is not a peaky roadrace engine, but has a nice broad torque curve. Biranne's GC Sedan, which is hardly lightweight, weighs in at 2670 ready to race with 7 gallons of fuel. I think we could easily get 250 lbs or so out of it.

I think on the high end an Open Light car will be faster. There's just so much you can do to it. It's really fairly unlimited. The PGT has real limits.

Where are you getting a crank HP number? Did he dyno it on an engine dyno on a stand? What's the wheel HP?

John, that is some cool stuffs

Ok, wait, this is new to me. The welding a bunch of crap onto the dome area and then milling it down... tell me more. I can see it would increase the compression ratio, but the shape seems all messed up. Isn't there some flame-front propagation or other stuff that would be disadvantaged by that? Or is it 'meh, the compression makes up for it'.

Anders

---

Grassroots rally. It's what I think about.

Quote
aj_johnson
John, that is some cool stuffs

Doood it's coooler than cool...and as always, the info is interesting both in what it contains but also on the implications on a cultural note, the detail and piccies published goes in direct contradiction to what the unfortunately common amateur belief we've seen even recently regurgitated about "sharing information" cause it might be proprietary" as if some guys here in some tire shop are "discovering" things themselves.

Maybe I got my evidently cock-eye ideas that information, even in a competition environment, especially an amateur scene, ought to be shared from those type of guys, (some of you sharper eyed guys may have noticed the language was a bit odd, not quite English, not really Norskie) from those crazy professionals I shared garages with and who I worked with. Dirty gawddamn Commies and Socialists sharing information...

There'll be more...

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.