GoRideSno

Thanks BC, I couldn't have said it better.
Andy K

Chris Lockhart

Seth, congrats to ya!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm green with envy. Hopefully I can join the crowd in a month or three, and put one of Andy's kits on my '89 GT.

Andy, I was just reading MM/FF, and they mentioned a Cobra shootout in which one participant had upgraded to the AutoRotor 2.4 versus the rest of the field's 2.2 . Obviously I know little to nothing about this stuff, so what difference does the 2.4 make, and is this at all relevant to your kits, and our 928's???????????

GoRideSno

Chris,
The 2.4 is beyond anything we'll need without some serious engine mods. The advantage is not that huge over the smaller Autorotor. KB kits on the Mustang Cobra with the 2.2 and 2.4 will make 701 and 766 rwhp respectively. However this is not a apples to apples comparison as the 2.2 uses most of the stock ford induction system and the 2.4 system uses all aftermarket parts from the lower manifold up. So the difference in HP between the two is actually less than you would think.
HTH,
Andy

Chris Lockhart

Thanks for the info Andy. I wasn't sure if it was relevant to the 928 or not, but figured I'd ask.

GoRideSno

No problem Chris. Given what I said, I still did some CAD drawings of the necessary parts to make the 2.4 fit on my system out of curiosity.

Andy K

blau928

Andy,

I specifically said [/QUOTE]I can say with full knowledge that the Autorotor 2.2 Compressor is more efficient than the Whipple 2.3...[/QUOTE]

How can you look at that statement and derive there is no difference in displacement.? When comparing all variables, size would have to be taken into consideration.... In addition, I know full well that Whipple does not make a 2.2L compressor.

As far as teaching, no professorship here... Building SC systems to sell in this small a market is not my idea of a business. The returns are waaaaaaayyyyyyy too minimal for my concept of business. I have also stated this numerous times as well. But, then again, some of us have different ideas of "business." Oh, and as for "teaching" the members of the forum if that's what it seems like, then they should be happy for the free lessons.. It might give them facts to be better informed about decision making instead of allowing marketing to influence their decision...

Now as far as doing for the sake of doing, go right ahead, as I fully encourage it. I chose to do things my way for a reason.... I want it the way I want it, on my own terms. I am paying, and I vote with my wallet. There's also the fact that what I want exactly, does not exist in any 928 anywhere.... Close, but not exactly like I want it.....

Size and weight have more bearing on similar size Twin Screws... Suuuure... So you are saying the compressor maps testing flow and other variables are not relevant.... Then, the earth is also flat.....

I am fully aware that you are marketing your products here buddy.. I never was, never claimed to be in a business of making this stuff, nor marketing it here. Just stating some fact, along with my opinion on certain topics.

As a paying member, I think I'm allowed to do both.. The thing about fact, is that it's just that...fact. Everyone has an opinion, and it's just that, an opinion.

Now, if it's otherwise, please let me know..

All this aside, I still think you're doing a good job with the "power to the masses"..... Some of us want a bit more "je ne sais quoi"... Or maybe a whole lot more...



BC

For some out there, fast and cheap is not enough.... Some of us want more. But, there are many that don't understand this..

Some of us like shopping at Wal mart, and some of us like Nieman's... Doesn't mean the stuff you buy in Wal Mart is better than the stuff you buy at Nieman's because it's cheaper..... Nor vice cersa... just different...

In addition, I know...... it costs $$$$... to build a top notch system... This still does not change the science, nor the fact of one compressor being more efficient than the other..

Yours is not the only opinion out there.. There are others....

As far as the fact of proving it, most of this has already been done.... There are numerous manufactured vehicles that are using the same science that I am trying to enlighten this forum about, that already exist.. Not because you have not driven one, nor seen or heard of one, means it does not exist.....

bcdavis

And I am all for people pushing the envelope when it comes to the 928.
Devek has been doing that for years.

It just struck me, as a new 928 owner, when I first looked into performance upgrades,
that the only options were VERY expensive. And very high-tech.

I just thought that there should be other options for people who do not
"need" top of the line components. As I mentioned, if Devek was not
around, I could still pay some high-end tuner shop to build me
a custom crank, engine, fuel-management, turbos, etc, and have
all the best technology, and I would have spent $100K on an engine.

I *love* all the high tech stuff in formula one, and other forms of racing.
It's all really cool stuff.

But for the average 928 guy on the street, he just wants to bolt on
something over the weekend, that will give him an extra 100 horsepower.
And he does not want to mortgage his house to do it.

So that is why I was so supportive of MURPH, and the FAST guys, and Carl, and Andy...
Because they decided that there must be a cheaper way to get power.
And places like Devek hated it. Not because it was undercutting their prices...
(well maybe a little annoyed at that...)
But because it was "low-tech", unproven, unreliable, etc, etc....
All we heard were accusations that the 928 motor would not take
the boost, that it needed to have the engine built to take it,
that a stock engine would blow up in 6 months time, etc, etc...
And the early versions of the FAST kits, and the mistakes of Projekt928
did little to help that impression. But I still think that there are cheaper
ways to make power, than the "high-tech" way. The high tech way
is great, but you need to have a deep wallet.

Now when you make your "Wal Mart" comparison,
all I have to say about that, is that you can buy your turbo stuff at a luxury store, and pay top dollar if you want.
But if I can buy a supercharger at Wal-Mart, and it will make my car almost as fast as yours, for much less money,
I do not see the problem with that. That's called being smart about your spending.
Same way a stock 928 with a stripped out interior may be faster than
a fully loaded one with mods. It's just the cheaper way to go fast.

Some people will buy a Rolex watch, because it is supposed to be high-tech.
Well, I can tell the time just fine with a digital watch, and it is just as good at telling what time it is.

I tend to think that some people in the Porsche community have that "Rolex" attitude about cars.
I have no problem spending money to go fast. But I would choose the cheaper way to get there.
And I would have a car that was just as much fun to drive as yours...

Sab

I have a question regarding supercharging the GT. Since I have owned an S4 for several years now and recently added the GT I also thought about supercharging it. BUT even in it's stock form I have noticed a disturbing "wheel hop" once the tires brake loose under full throttle. I would assume that would get very annoying with the SC in daily operation. Is there anything that can be done regarding this problem?
Has anyone found a fix for this horrible phenomenon?

mspiegle

A common misconception is that you'll be spinning your wheels at every red light. The wheels only spin if you want them to. With that in mind, you shouldn't be trying to spin the wheels anyways because you'll lose speed.

Shane

There was a thread on wheel hop as it related to LSD and PSD. Ad one of the things that was noted was the fact that it disappears with boost, and becomes a problem of too much wheel spin.

thread on wheel hop

Dennis K

Very nice Seth! I can't wait to see it up and running.

Sab

Never tried to purposely spin wheels, but they just happen to brake loose in 1st under full throttle at about 4k RPM and thereafter if you should hit some uneven pavement. It just seems very hard on the suspension. I would just assume it would get pretty bad with more power, but reading through the "wheel hop thread", it looks promising that it aparently disapears with more power...

Seth W

Thanks to all for the nice wishes. Dennis, I can promise you a ride on the track someday.

As to wheel hop, perhaps its also a function of suspension. Inadequate rebounding.

Bill Ball

OK, Rich and Andy, I appreciate the efficiency discussion. I think I tripped this discussion with my question, and I don't mind trying to understand this, but what practical difference will it make? I guess, I'm closer to the average guy on the street, like bc said, but if there is a real world difference beyond some tabular data sheets, I would like to hear about it.

Eaton was $700 or so. Autorotor is $1900 or so. I get more efficiency with Autorotor, but would I really see this at 5 lbs boost? Would the HP be substantially higher? Would the charge temp be significantly lower? Would that matter at all? If not really, then what is the point of getting the Autorotor? If I decide to go to 13 lbs, Autorotor, but that isn't going to happen in this car. I have no problem spending the money if I understand what I'm getting for it. I'm not going cheap, particularly if there is any jeopardy to my car. For instance, I was a bit torn about not putting in an IC, but I am sufficiently comfortable to do it at low boost while logging safety and performance data.

Anyway, don't want to spoil Seth's party! Seth, get all those parts polished so we can pop them on and take some pictures! Then we'll marvel at how quiet the SC is as we do some burnouts down the street!

goliver

I'd like a ride too Seth. Maybe at Sharks in the park 2006 or some other event?