Gone
11-14-2004, 04:59 PM
#91
Developer
Andy made a bold personal statement that I threatened him in a PM.
That was off-topic and uncalled for, but most importantly for me, it is not true.
I have asked him to produce this PM or publish a retraction.
It is as simple as that.
You cannot say whatever you want about whoever you want and expect that it is OK. If you read this thread from the beginning, I only questioned a sweeping statement Andy made about superchargers.
I did not attack him or his kits. His response is unprofessional and uncalled for.
That was off-topic and uncalled for, but most importantly for me, it is not true.
I have asked him to produce this PM or publish a retraction.
It is as simple as that.
You cannot say whatever you want about whoever you want and expect that it is OK. If you read this thread from the beginning, I only questioned a sweeping statement Andy made about superchargers.
I did not attack him or his kits. His response is unprofessional and uncalled for.
11-14-2004, 05:28 PM
#92
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume this is the statement to which you are referring to:
In an earlier post, you stated:
It seems you agree with Andy on some points, and you disagree on others. How about making a clear argument against him, and then he will either have to agree or disagree.
Lets get this thread back on track... otherwise, theres really no point in it being here.
However the CS can't make the same level of boost throughout the rpm range like the TS can. So the TS can actually make more net power i.e. more acceleration. I suppose one could spool up a CS so that it makes more boost down low then let the excess boost off up top but that would ruin the adibatic efficency, and cause excess wear.
Originally Posted by Quick Carl
CMW - I meant "Z" - Not Lag, My mistake.
Andy - I do believe Z is right, ir would not be fairt to comnpare twin screw to centrifugal by saying that the boost must be limiuted at "x" . Positive discplacement blowers like the Roots and the Twin screw bring in their boost earlier and we all know that. It would be too easy to just select an "x" value that chokes the centrifugal SC and benefits your comparison. Not fair. Just let the blowers go - let them produce whatever they can. Isn't that a truer comparison of their ultimate ability?
Somebody said a page or two ago that with the Centrifugal SC cars, you just change tohe pulley and bring in the boost earlier and bleed off the top end to whatever you want. That's fine in principle - looks good on paper. Does not work like that in the real world.
Two reasons why: we can all agree that the faster you turn the impeller the more resistance there is to it and, as a result, the more parasitic the drain on the crankshaft pulley. That's why, a blower belt that starts to squeel and slip only starts at the high rr's.... Anyway, if you change the pulley down to produce boost at say, 2,000 rpm like a twin-screw, then you would have higher parasitic losses at a point in time when the engine, at only 2k, is ill-prepared to handle them.
On the other end - just bleeding off excess boost means that you will be paying for making that boost at the crank, and just dumping it to atmnosphere. Kind of a waste.
Much better - sizing the centrifugal SC and the pulley ratios do you can "use it all" and waste nothing. So the power band lands where we want it given the gearing of the car. That's what we like to do.
Andy - I do believe Z is right, ir would not be fairt to comnpare twin screw to centrifugal by saying that the boost must be limiuted at "x" . Positive discplacement blowers like the Roots and the Twin screw bring in their boost earlier and we all know that. It would be too easy to just select an "x" value that chokes the centrifugal SC and benefits your comparison. Not fair. Just let the blowers go - let them produce whatever they can. Isn't that a truer comparison of their ultimate ability?
Somebody said a page or two ago that with the Centrifugal SC cars, you just change tohe pulley and bring in the boost earlier and bleed off the top end to whatever you want. That's fine in principle - looks good on paper. Does not work like that in the real world.
Two reasons why: we can all agree that the faster you turn the impeller the more resistance there is to it and, as a result, the more parasitic the drain on the crankshaft pulley. That's why, a blower belt that starts to squeel and slip only starts at the high rr's.... Anyway, if you change the pulley down to produce boost at say, 2,000 rpm like a twin-screw, then you would have higher parasitic losses at a point in time when the engine, at only 2k, is ill-prepared to handle them.
On the other end - just bleeding off excess boost means that you will be paying for making that boost at the crank, and just dumping it to atmnosphere. Kind of a waste.
Much better - sizing the centrifugal SC and the pulley ratios do you can "use it all" and waste nothing. So the power band lands where we want it given the gearing of the car. That's what we like to do.
It seems you agree with Andy on some points, and you disagree on others. How about making a clear argument against him, and then he will either have to agree or disagree.
Lets get this thread back on track... otherwise, theres really no point in it being here.
11-14-2004, 08:43 PM
#93
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by mspiegle
can someone lock this thread?
Thanks guys.
11-14-2004, 10:42 PM
#96
Can't bring a 155mm howitzer round back after it's fired.
I'm interested in both systems with an eye toward :
1. Power produced.
2. Ease of installation to include most complete system out of the box.
3. A method - standard - for reproducing a similar HP/Torque gain, O-60 mph, and 1/4 mile times and speeds with similar sHARKs.
4. Reliability of the system.
5. Cost.
Not necessarily in order.
I understand why Andy got his hair up over Carl's - not necessarily politically correct - assesment of Andy's statements, and I, truly, understand why Carl is lit up over what he deems as old/new untrue accusations.
Personally, the side arguement is their affair and we best keep out of it.
If, when the dust settles we have repeatable data from one or for that matter both of them the facts will be what determines which system I spend my $4 to 6K on.
Everything else is sidebar.
If Andy proves his arguement...great! More info/data for us to work with.
If Carl proves his arguement... great. Same as above.
If Carl does not get an apology or proof of 20mph roll on/PM threats/$100.00 flywheel lock statements I'll be eyeballin' Andy.
If Andy supplies the proof of those statements I'll be eyeballin' Carl.
As I recall we had a blow-up over the Big Bore crowd and the Boosters awhile back. Nobody died -as I remember it - and I'm unsure if they ever had a Face of on the strip/track for bragging rights. But people are still building the big bores and still turbo'ing/SCing.
Can't wait for the huffed big bore.
Andy and Carl have issues on blower types and results. I'd like to see the data and real world results of both systems before parting with some serious change.
Andy and Carl have other issues which need attending to as well.
Let them walk the talk, just walk, or apologize as the case demands and both issues will be settled.
This isn't elementary school. Personal integrity has been attacked!
Keep this post alive!
I'm interested in both systems with an eye toward :
1. Power produced.
2. Ease of installation to include most complete system out of the box.
3. A method - standard - for reproducing a similar HP/Torque gain, O-60 mph, and 1/4 mile times and speeds with similar sHARKs.
4. Reliability of the system.
5. Cost.
Not necessarily in order.
I understand why Andy got his hair up over Carl's - not necessarily politically correct - assesment of Andy's statements, and I, truly, understand why Carl is lit up over what he deems as old/new untrue accusations.
Personally, the side arguement is their affair and we best keep out of it.
If, when the dust settles we have repeatable data from one or for that matter both of them the facts will be what determines which system I spend my $4 to 6K on.
Everything else is sidebar.
If Andy proves his arguement...great! More info/data for us to work with.
If Carl proves his arguement... great. Same as above.
If Carl does not get an apology or proof of 20mph roll on/PM threats/$100.00 flywheel lock statements I'll be eyeballin' Andy.
If Andy supplies the proof of those statements I'll be eyeballin' Carl.
As I recall we had a blow-up over the Big Bore crowd and the Boosters awhile back. Nobody died -as I remember it - and I'm unsure if they ever had a Face of on the strip/track for bragging rights. But people are still building the big bores and still turbo'ing/SCing.
Can't wait for the huffed big bore.
Andy and Carl have issues on blower types and results. I'd like to see the data and real world results of both systems before parting with some serious change.
Andy and Carl have other issues which need attending to as well.
Let them walk the talk, just walk, or apologize as the case demands and both issues will be settled.
This isn't elementary school. Personal integrity has been attacked!
Keep this post alive!
11-14-2004, 11:22 PM
#98
Former Vendor
I have to agree with John,
I have already invested a bunch of money in parts, that are waiting on the shelf, for me to complete the kit and start the installation. But just as important as the quality of the parts or kit is the confidence one as with the people you choose to deal with.
A SC is not only a large investment of money, but also a large investment in trust since more than likely, you will be returning to the source for all kinds of subsequent needs.
I for one, am more than a bit distressed by the behavior that was illustrated here by both parties. I might have a brand new Eaton + other stuff for sale in the near future if things keep going like this.
Paul
I have already invested a bunch of money in parts, that are waiting on the shelf, for me to complete the kit and start the installation. But just as important as the quality of the parts or kit is the confidence one as with the people you choose to deal with.
A SC is not only a large investment of money, but also a large investment in trust since more than likely, you will be returning to the source for all kinds of subsequent needs.
I for one, am more than a bit distressed by the behavior that was illustrated here by both parties. I might have a brand new Eaton + other stuff for sale in the near future if things keep going like this.
Paul
11-14-2004, 11:39 PM
#99
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Moore Co. NC
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John, I couldn't have said it better. I, too, am looking, but would hate to buy from either source if they treated me like they do each other. Perhaps it'll all come out in the wash and we can get some objective information, lord knows, they've been scolded enough.
11-15-2004, 11:01 AM
#100
928 Collector
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by GoRideSno
.......You'll never see me arguing with "turbo" John Kuhn or Marc of Devek, never. Why? Because they state facts.
....
....
hahahaaaaaaaahahahaaa!!!!!! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaahahahahaa!!!
11-15-2004, 08:04 PM
#101
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern Kentucky
Posts: 1,446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, the competition is what keeps everybody going these days. People personally attacked my last year and then told me I was full of it. Well, those guys were wrong and I have the data to prove it. As long as there are other options there will be arguements. I agree no reason to make it personal....but I do seem to remember comments about engineer's drive little trains and comments about briggs and stratton manifolds. It is nice to read that stuff knowing the M28.15 I built is the most powerful. I'm sure Andy and Carl are both good guys...just different opinions, that's all. I'll try to stay on the outer fringe with this stuff as much as possible. Jeez, I have an engine to install this weekend and the bay is still not tidy!
FWIW my money would be on the PD, not the CS and there is nothing personal about that statement, nor am I picking sides.
FWIW my money would be on the PD, not the CS and there is nothing personal about that statement, nor am I picking sides.
11-16-2004, 05:04 PM
#102
Developer
I agree with every statement that kits should be evaluated only on their merits (heck, I made many of those statements).
If I were looking at purchasing a kit (SC or Turbo) for my 928, I would do the following:
1) ask the manufacturer for the parts list so you can see what you get for your $$ and how complete the kit is.
2) ask to see the installation instructions so I can see how well written and easy-to-follow they are.
3) ask the maker for their warranty on the parts they provided.
4) ask them for dyno charts that show the before-and-after performance gains for these engine modifications.
Just a thought...
If I were looking at purchasing a kit (SC or Turbo) for my 928, I would do the following:
1) ask the manufacturer for the parts list so you can see what you get for your $$ and how complete the kit is.
2) ask to see the installation instructions so I can see how well written and easy-to-follow they are.
3) ask the maker for their warranty on the parts they provided.
4) ask them for dyno charts that show the before-and-after performance gains for these engine modifications.
Just a thought...
11-16-2004, 05:16 PM
#103
928 Collector
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I think there is no chance that a 928 owner could do that today.
Because he won't get data, he'll get data within the parameters of someone's testing events. In other words, the response, though I am 100% sure it would be 100% factual, would also be related only to the testing and experiences had by that vendor.
That is OK. I think you get the same from Ford and Chevy sc vendors too.
Today, the 928 owner can make a well-informed decision based on the basic truths of the nature of the VERY FEW available products, namely:
Want to open and modify the engine, rods, pistons, etc?
Want low-rev boost, or high-rev boost?
Want to leave your intake on the car, or replace it?
Want someone to do it for you, or do it for yourself?
How much support will you get from a particular vendor?
What warrantees are provided?
How good is their installation manual? THIS IS IMPORTANT
How complete is their parts list?
When you look at the finished product, does it look profesional?
What quality components are being used?
and of course ...
HOW MUCH DO YOU WANT TO SPEND?
I personally am very comfortable that buying from any of the sc vendors listed here, would be a fine deal. BUT .... the details .... are .... different .... for ... each ... vendor.
Because he won't get data, he'll get data within the parameters of someone's testing events. In other words, the response, though I am 100% sure it would be 100% factual, would also be related only to the testing and experiences had by that vendor.
That is OK. I think you get the same from Ford and Chevy sc vendors too.
Today, the 928 owner can make a well-informed decision based on the basic truths of the nature of the VERY FEW available products, namely:
Want to open and modify the engine, rods, pistons, etc?
Want low-rev boost, or high-rev boost?
Want to leave your intake on the car, or replace it?
Want someone to do it for you, or do it for yourself?
How much support will you get from a particular vendor?
What warrantees are provided?
How good is their installation manual? THIS IS IMPORTANT
How complete is their parts list?
When you look at the finished product, does it look profesional?
What quality components are being used?
and of course ...
HOW MUCH DO YOU WANT TO SPEND?
I personally am very comfortable that buying from any of the sc vendors listed here, would be a fine deal. BUT .... the details .... are .... different .... for ... each ... vendor.