GoRideSno

BC Davis,
I like your attitude. We think along the same lines. If you ever wish to see my meager setup let me know. I'm only 2 1/2 beaches away.

Since you are a max power kind of guy I don't think you would appreciate the system that Huntley previously said he was coming up with. With the Magnuson/Eaton MP112 that he said he was using and showed in the pictures there will be no more than about 600HP. No addition of electronics, fuel mods, larger throttle body, intercooling or anything else could get it over that approximate mark. The blower simply won't move any more than about 900cfm and that would be at slightly beyond it's max intermitnet rpms.
Unless he plans on intercooling then there will probably be no more than around 450 crank HP(5-6 psi). Add $2000 to the $6-7K price tag as he made no mention of intercooling when he gave that price.

He might be able go with a Whipple 2.3 and an intercooler and get up over 700 crank hp. (I just saw something showing the 2.3 whipple making 742crank hp) Add $1000 for using the Whipple instead of the MP112. Now the price is up to $10,000 to break the 600hp mark. Tim is already there for $8k.

This is not to say that it won't be a high quality, well made, reliable and maybe even smog legal system. I think it will be. Max power is just not the suit of the Roots. It can however probably claim higher reliability, more lowend boost, cleaner install and oem durability.

But the Whipple... if the 2.3liter and make 742 hp think of what the 3.3 liter can do.

As far as the 944 SC kits go, I remember a post on the 944 board a while back where there was a search to find someone with the Huntley kit installed. No one was found. That was a while back though.

Andy K

John.

Maybe we should all meet in public someday, boy wouldn't that be interesting?

Glad to hear the Boostard was coined from Boosted and Bastard.

I'll sign off this looooong thread for good now (Jeez, over 3000 reads?). My charge air cooler .dwg disk and D size are in the hands of Bell Intercoolers now. Should have the new unit (I call it the Elephant Intercooler because it has what looks like a Elephant's trunk) in a few weeks. Talk to Gerhard there if you want assistance....very smart man who is willing to give his time on the phone freely. Why did I change these things you say?

Pistons were done for reliability...Marc and others could lend more info here

Manifolds cermet coated for durability and to allow more heat to the turbos

Intercooler changed to allow for greater air- flow and elimination of AFM as well as efficiency increase with a better base core design (major turbulator change)

MAF/Split Sec conversion for more fuel curve resolution and greatly enhanced throttle response as well as elimination of what I called my biggest band-aid, the Microfueler.

I've simply upgraded and modernized the car to the year 2003 with the technology that is available today.

Dyno has been scheculed for early October for well over a month now.

PeteS

Maybe you don't remember some of your own previous posts. Seems like about the only person that was talking trash about the Callaway setup was you.

As far as heat from the turbos heating things up:
Maybe he's still making up his mind on that issue.

And then there are two of my favorites below:

Z

Actually it's not Lag's algebra, it's Corky Bell's. That's the same Corky Bell that's the author of "Maximum Boost".
You have said on several occasions that you were running 8psi of boost. That's 22.7psi absolute, or to put it another way, 1.54 times atmospheric pressure. With just atmospheric pressure your stock engine was making 220 crank horsepower. That 220 crank horsepower multiplied by the 1.54 pressure ratio gives around 339 crank horsepower. That's with giving you the benefit of the doubt and saying that the exhaust manifolds on your car are no more restrictive than the stock ones, that your turbos are 100% efficient, and that your intercooler is 100% efficient as well. The exhaust manifolds I'm not going to speculate on, but your turbos and intercooler are definitely not 100% efficient, because none in existence are 100% efficient. How did you come up with those horsepower numbers you've quoted for your car before? Carl's '78 ran the same 1/4 mile times as your car back before he had an intercooler on it. Since then he's added the intercooler, and dynoed at around 305rwhp after that upgrade to the intercooler.

Lagavulin

Whew, got some catching up to do!

A bunch of crap? All one has to do is look at the respective dyno sheets. And as for your last comment which is typical for your style, it only makes you appear as a spiteful, angry, little man.

I guess your use of ‘some’ is the key word here, and ‘very little’ can be substituted for far greater accuracy.

Again, my favorite. Unfortunately, you do have a big mouth which offers no real value.

However, you have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge regarding forced induction. I spoon-fed you your horsepower numbers using nothing but factory horsepower rating and pressure ratio, and you couldn’t even figure that out, and then even berated me; so be it.

That’s funny too; are you hoping for some brownie points here?

You have proven to be one of the biggest contributors on the list, so you can thank yourself.

Nice move? Show me what is wrong with the numbers.

Let me spoon-feed you again with a hint: NOTHING.

I do understand that your obsessive-compulsive chest-beating requires you to make unsubstantiated claims as my all-time-favorite listed above, but there’s no disputing those numbers. That is the beauty of mathematics, and there's no getting around it, no matter how much ranting otherwise.

I was stumped at first as to what you’re ranting about now, but I assume it’s my comment on your exhaust manifolds. I am truly sorry if I hurt your feelings; I was simply being objective. If you can see that, then you can also note that what I said is correct.

Wow, I couldn’t believe you’d go that far and make that kind of comment for all to see! Again, you come off sounding as a spiteful, angry, little man. I do know you’re already back-pedaling on the statement, but we all know what you originally meant.

I suggest to go and take a look in the mirror and tell me how you feel.


Z already touched on this one, but I suggest to break out the parka and mittens. I know you have Corky’s book, but evidently you appear to be one of those people who buy a book and put it on the coffee table to make it appear that you’re reading it. However, the charade is up when the first question is asked about it, such as the case here.

If there’s anyone who can properly fabricate the plumbing for a 928 turbo setup, it’s Tom, no doubt! As for ‘it will be ugly’, sounds great!

By the way, how much boost would be required to make 1000 hp? I know that's an easy question, but I figured I'd toss it out there and see if it floats.

Please back up your statement.

Oh man, I agree! We have talked about this amongst ourselves many times and realize we have a long way to go. There is no doubt those guys are the trail-blazers!

Yikes! As always, thanks for the roots knowledge transfer.

We were at SITM, and will be at The Frenzy.

Thanks for showing up! It's always great getting to know someone, for better or worse.

Tony

I hear Dr Phil is making an apearance at the Frenzy this year? Is this true JE?






See the number of hits this thread is at? gotta be a record?

John..

Yes, I have admitted my clutch was a POS, because it was. Wasn't made by Callaway, probably a centerforce unit or the like that they had resurfaced and installed in the car.

And as for the fuel system, that too had some undesirable features. Car always ran very well (better on cold days), but was on the rich side most of the time. Again, short of rising rate FPR and/ or Microfueler type devices, what else was around in 1983?

Go ahead and dig through the rest of my posts and you'll also see where I state how nice the hand fabricated exhaust work is as well as is just the ability to even fit such a system on the car in the first place. Phew, you guys must have a lot of time on your hands to dig through posts that are months old.

RE airflow meter...I have already addressed this issue and informed you guys why it was there....simply no room elsewhere, nor was there anything with which to replace it in 1983. Yes, it is technically "wrong", but the fact still remains it supported the fueling (don't say enrichment, because that is wrong) requirements reliably for quite some time. Would it not have been "technically wrong" to cut a hole in the hood to allow it to be on the draw through side? That is what it would have taken to place it there.

You've hit the nail on the head regarding the intercooler. But as we all know, intercooler technology has also come full circle in the last 20 years and is now much more understood. 2 psig drop is acceptable, and the charge air cooler they provided was large enough to support the power the car made. A less restrictive unit will allow faster spool and less pressure drop. The pressure drop I measured was after turning the dial.

Since you guys are so good at algebra, why don't you tell us all how much horsepower that centrifugal blower really requires on full tilt at 9 lbs of boost. I would think with Lag's math skills that should be easy. Jeez, I mean he has a numerical answer for the rest of the topics being discussed on here. Lag, you sound intelligent enough, so figure it out.

Also Lag, how exactly is it that you can hang a 5 second run dyno sheet out there and make a claim to have the worlds fastest 928? I'd say that measurement is best reserved for a radar gun. I'd like to see any of you guys put your helmets on and go out and run in such an event and be competitive. There is whole lot more to it than horsepower and ego. Pete, you claim comparing road test to road test is innaccurate....well so is HP to HP on two different dynos at two different locations. Head to head would be the only "accurate" way.

You know, this is really becoming a no win situation for all of us. Yes, there were shortcomings with my setup as I have admitted and without guilt. Is everything on Tim's and the other blown cars up to Porsche's standards? I highly doubt it. Is it impressive, most certainly. Sorry you guys can't also see the impressive side of a twin turbo setup on a 928, oh I forgot it has to be done by somone other than Callaway, then you respect it.

Show me one, just one Porsche endurance racing car with a centrifugal blower.

Z, true the manifolds are more restrictive.....by design, but what you are failing to take into consideration is the entire exhaust system, without cats, air pump and with high flow muffler. We'll never know how restrictive the manifolds are, because they can't be used without the turbos, so any number for that is speculation. Yes, Pete we know, so is a horsepower speculation....I'll save you the effort of having to state that again.

Let's see, wasn't Lag already asking for a stronger clutch? And how about those blown head gaskets we have heard about? None of that ever showed up on my shark. So let's agree to disagree and state that both setups have their pitfalls, but neither is all wrong.

Everything I have changed on my setup was completely my chioce, not because something broke.

Nope, not trying to win brownie points with Marc. I respect him and his work as it is all well documented. In addition, he is most always willing to discuss options for enhancing my car and/or just to shoot the breeze.

As for the angry little man comment, well make the statements you wish and I will consider the source. Why make this personal Lag? Not only do I not care if you are angry or not, I don't give a rip about your size.

Oh and before I almost forget, none of you have big mouths, specifically not Pete or Brenden.

Z

Anybody starting a pool on how long it takes him to shake his head and walk away in defeat?

BC

....You unfortunatley already made it personal quite a few posts back John.

hacker-pschorr

John, this is the one point you have failed to understand. We are NOT building track cars.

Sure some supercharged 928 are seeing track time, none professionally that I know of. My 928 hopefully will be ready next year for some track events with a blower, Strictly DE events. If we were interested in "endurance racing" do you think we would have left in the full interiors, A/C, stereo's etc......

Tim simply wanted to find a way to build a reliable 928 with more power, on some type of budget. Its that simple. What part of this is so hard to understand? Twin turbo's are just plain impractical for what Tim is doing. Hell, even a single turbo would be a nightmare compared to the kit Tim is assembling.

I think what you are doing with your car is great. I wish you the best of luck with your project. Trying to pick up the pieces where Mr.Callaway stopped was a tough project to take on.

bcdavis

When you start a pissing match, it will end up with one person with the most horsepower.
These cars are not that different aerodynamicly, so I think that in the realm of top speed,
and dragstrip numbers, it will pan out that whomever has the most power, will be able
to stand as king of the hill.

If you enter into a pissing match, you have to be able to back it up with numbers,
on the dyno, on the racetrack, and on the radar gun...

But I think what John, and Marc are saying, is that their setups are designed to be reliable, efficient, and long-lasting, not the most power.

Hell, I can probably get huge nitrous jets and just push gas into the engine on the dyno until it blows, and come up with the maximum horsepower numbers the bottom end can take...

Does that prove anything?
I had the most power for 2 minutes?
Then it blew up?

So if you are not entering into a horsepower war, it is better just to cheer on those who are working towards the maximum power. They will reveal the weak points. And then their kits can be detuned for reliability...

Anyone who criticizes their work, had better have a 1000hp engine in the works, so they can back up their claims...

Otherwise just be nice, and support their efforts...
I see any failures of these engines to be valuable information.
Like I said, when someone is successfully running a 1000 HP 928, then that kit is pretty good.
All it needs is to detune the boost amount, and it should be pretty reliable for a daily driver...

Z

With the way that this thread has gone, I'm kind of surprised that there's somebody still reading this far into it that has a good grasp on what's trying to be accomplished.

PeteS

I guess maybe you weren't counting on that when you made those posts? They're not hard to find if you do a search. Some of them just seemed to stick out too, because of the uniqueness. At different times you've said that some of the Callaway stuff was "****", and that Callaway "Did it right, or at least as right as what is being done today", and that it had some "undesirable features", and also that it was good for what was available back then. Are you really a politician by chance?

It's not too hard to figure out reasonably closely. The formula isn't hard to find. I've come across it more than once just kind of poking around for information. Maybe you could tell us how much power those turbos are really requiring at the boost you're making? It would be interesting to see what the back pressure in your exhaust manifolds is under full boost. People see noticable power increases from reducing the relatively small restrictions of the stock cats and exhaust systems. How much power is that increase in pressure from the turbos costing you? I've got some numbers here showing over 17psi of back pressure in the exhaust on a 911 turbo at 6K RPM and 11.6psi of boost. Anybody want to put that kind of a plug in their exhaust and tell us if they feel a power loss? I'm thinking that most on here don't need to try that experiment, but maybe you ought to John. Since you have such a "thorough understanding of both systems and what is required to make them work", maybe you've already done it?

I wouldn't expect them to with the much lower power you're making. Ooops... "fairly certain" power you're making that is.

The road tests you're talking about:
Two different year cars. Different aerodynamics of the cars. Different weights of the cars. Different drivers. Different weather conditions. Different altitudes. Different roads or tracks. Different transmissions and gearing. Different differential gearing. Different driver ability. Different wind conditions. Possibly different road grades.

The dyno tests I'm talking about:
The same weight drums being spun.
The same corrected to SAE climate conditions are used.
Aerodynanics are factored out because the cars aren't moving.
Wind and road grade aren't an issue.
The altitude is corrected for.
Driver ability isn't an issue.

If these dyno numbers are so meaningless, why did Marc bother to post his, put them on the Devek web page, and also in their catalog? Why does NASCAR use them? Why do professional race teams use them? Why have you scheduled dyno time if it's so inaccurate? I think your saying that dynos are significantly inaccurate, especially compared to road tests, just further shows that you really don't have much of an understanding of a lot of things. You did mention you were an engineer. Is it a big train that you drive, or one of those little ones like at the fair? I always did like those striped hats you guys wear.

I'm thinking it's pretty obvious that there's more than just one point he's failed to understand.

Maybe start him off with this statement:
I think that might start to help explain a good bit. A legend in his own mind?

John.

Pete S.

For kicks, why don't you check out U.S. Patent 6,446,416. It was filed September 10, 2002, while the invention was put into high speed production some 2 years earlier. Just do a patent search on the U.S. Patent website. Sorry, I don't have the web address. Other unique inventions are sure to follow, but will likely have to be paid for out of my own pocket. Still, others already exist but are not patent protected.

Hey, you asked what type of Engineer. You should be able to figure it out based on the above.

I have never driven a train, but I'm sure Train Engineers everywhere would appreciate your mature comments. I do own a 1956 Lionel complete with the heated pellet stack and electric whistle. It also has the cool coal loader and luggage pickup unit which are considered rare accessories today.

I'm anxiously awaiting what comeback you will come up with next, especially since this topic now has nothing to do with 928s, Porsches or automobiles at all.

So sorry for the rest of you watching this post. Honestly, I really have nothing more to add.

Old & New

Say, so how about them Patriots?