hacker-pschorr

If my memory is correct, the "desired" 87 928 rods are the same ones in every 944 Turbo. Might be easier to find those.

Niels Jørgensen

How can it be easier if it's the same rod?

Hehe, sorry, just had to say that

Z

I *think* that the 944 turbo rods are the same casting number, but need to have some minor machining done for use in the 928.

Tony

Will Tim include an Emblem with his kit. How about this

Perhaps look good just behind the front wheel arches...or below the 928 on the bumper.

leave it off for stealth...or stick it on.




You guys in that neck of the woods know those colors.

BC

Uh oh Z. Minor machining? I just can't help but think that no "machining" is minor.

Lagavulin

That is correct. The machining is required to make 'room' since in an 8 cylinder engine, 2 rods are side by side sharing one crank journal unlike the 944's 4 cylinder configuation.

Tony

The Hoover Dam was minor machining

hacker-pschorr

.....because you might find someone on ebay selling a set of 944 turbo rods and if you are searching for 928 parts, your search won't find them.

Niels Jørgensen

Hacker-Pschorr, ok ok, no offense intended... Just thought it was funny - I'll crawl back into my hole again...

hacker-pschorr

Hey, no offense taken. Just though I would clarify because I'm sure there are a few people out there that wouldn't understand what I meant by that.

Niels Jørgensen

chris928

"You can quote me on this: That guys an absolute idiot, and I hope he doesn't have any children who would possibly continue the stupidity into the next generation."

It's so fun to pass judgement on the internet!

This "absolute idiot" has built a 500 cc motorcycle engine as old or older than many of our 928 engines that can match many of the dyno charts posted lately. I seem to remember Ron saying that he had a dyno run at the crank of 750 HP, but don't quote me, it's been awhile. I know he was past the 500 mark.

Ron was a well-known aircraft mechanic and well-respected modle-aircraft builder and instructor.

He's also one of the neatest, selfless guys I know.

After his first crash, he talked to some professionals about what happened. They recommended some weight CG changes and changing the fork angle. He did that. Not being an engineer he relied on others expert opinions (much like you are Brendan). Theoretically that would have helped. I offered to do the dynamic engineering analysis on his motorcycle to verify the geometry changes, but his race was 2 weeks after his crash leaving no time for serious analysis.

Several factors lead to his crash. One is that the force of the chain was so high that it was bending the frame at the chanistay. This effectively formed an undamped spring system. In other words, the back end would get really loose. The rules were restrictive on what he could do to this stock '80's Kawasaki frame.

Next is that the class he was in was an unfaired class. I repeat for those of you in Rio Linda: UNFAIRED. Ask Susan Thomas to stick her head out the sunroof the next time she hits the 200 mark. I'll bet she'll tell you where to stick yours ;-)

Finally, he was on dirt. Very very little traction. Not much better than wet asphalt or ice.

Now think about this: Superbike telemetry has shown that the rear wheel is spinning about 12 mph faster than the front on asphalt due to the extreme torque fighting the aero drag. I think this was on the straights at near top speed (maybe 170 to 180 mph). Think how much faster Ron's tire was spinning at 200 MPH on dirt! Now imagine on this 200 MPH 928 shootout what would happen if it were at El Mirage dry lake bed. It's going to get really difficult to hit 200. Might want to think about someplace with asphalt.

Last time I checked, Ron had set like 14 land speed records. He was pushing the envelope. I'm not sure anybody refers to our astronauts as "absolute idiots", but their endevors are probably just as dangerous.

Ron's now reached a celebrity status, rubs shoulders with some of the top celebs, and has started his own business all because of this misfortune. Although he almost died, he turned it around into a very positive thing.

That reminds me, I haven't called him in awhile.

Just wanted to set the record straight.

John.

YOU GUYS KNEW I WOULD BE BACK HERE ONCE I HAD THE PROOF. I AM HOLDING IN MY HOT " ANGRY SPITEFUL LITTLE MAN" HANDS A DYNOJET DYNO SHEET WITH TWO PULLS, ONE AT 8 PSIG AND ONE AT 11-12 PSIG.

NOW, I WILL TRY NOT TO BE TOO MUCH OF A "RICHARD" BUT LETS TAKE A LOOK AT SOME PREVOIUS "SPECULATION" ABOUT THE BASTARD.....YOU GUYS KNOW WHO YOU ARE.....

"We got a solid boost number from one of his own posts, 8psi.

To do the boosted horsepower calculations, one needs to know the normally aspirated engine’s horsepower numbers, and in this case, it’s 220 crank hp.

However, the car in question would not dyno normally aspirated at 220 crank hp because the exhaust manifolds have been changed, and not for the better. Due to space considerations, the current design will allow exhaust gas reversion and exhaust cross-contamination between the same cylinder bank, reducing power potential. I will go easy and say those exhaust manifolds will cost 15 hp at the crank for a new net of 205 crank hp.

According to my calcs, 205 hp at 85% intercooler efficiency will put out 315.59 crank hp, well South of the claimed ‘well North of 375’ crank hp."

SO LET'S HEAR ALL OF THE "SPECULATION" NOW BEFORE I POST THE RESULTS. I SUGGEST YOU NOT FOLLOW THE EXAMPLE ABOVE, OR AT THE VERY LEAST "ROUND UP". DO ANY OF YOU REMEMBER WHAT I SAID ABOUT MID RANGE TORQUE?

TAREK

now that's a tease

...someone please answer so John posts his dyno sheets!

Tony

Gee....on 2 threads now!

Come on spill it!