hosrom_951

Rob: I noticed something very "unique" about this forum. If you have a car, pushing anything beyond 400whp at super high boost, they congratulate you for the numbers, but smoke about how "un-streeable" the car is.

Ironically, when you have a car, capable of making great power (such as you'res) and being exceptionally "streetable", they start comparing big numbers to the engine curve.....

Could you enlighten me on what is going on????

sweanders

I am wondering if I'd be happy running 15 psi when knowing that I cold run more boost without risking the engine. As long as you have traction I don't really see a reason to run the lower boost.

But hey, I am a boost junkie.

Jeremy Himsel

Very nice numbers Rob. My 3.0 L project will be getting underway very shortly so it’s nice to see a comparison. Good job to you and Lindsey.

RolexNJ

Hos: I sense that too, but hey, who am I right?

Sweanders: First, you have a sweet car. I wouldn't want to even chance hurting that piece of history! And you are a boost junkie? Maybe I can join that club someday when my car makes over 500+? Can I then get a membership to that club? But for right now, I will take my low numbers of 460RWHP @18PSI. They will have to do for now.

RolexNJ

Jeremy Himsel: Thanks dude, I appreciate it! And good luck with your 3.0L project too! If I can help at all, please PM me, ok? I am not like other people with that "trade secret" mindset. If I was racing, that would be a different story.

Chris White

As for input form other vendors (if I qualify) – when are you bringing it up to the Glen?!?!
I want to see it go!!!
I can strap in a little data acquisition box and get some fun readings.

BTW – they moved a whole bunch of guard rails back away form the track over the winter. The runoff form turn 1 is all paved (no gravel)

Chris White

PS – good job on the build up, it looks like your ideas are working well.

hosrom_951

Vendor #2 Chris White, you are MORE than qualified for this (you must be crazy to think otherwise)

9five1

Rob~
You're not the same 'RolexNJ' that hangs out on Volvospeed.com are you?

Awesome car by the way!

~Eric

RolexNJ

Chris White: Thank you, I appreciate it coming from you! And I wish I could come to the Glen, but I am closing on a new home soon. So between that and this car, well, I got my hands full right now as you can imagine. I will keep in touch. I'd love to go back to the Glen myself with this car too. I'll let you know

9five1: Nope, thats not me. A Volvo? LOL. And thanks for the compliments too!

shaheed

boy somehow i get the feeling some people just like to type so they can see their names up on the screen...since i was one of the ones who asked about the "streetability" of this car (indirectly i might add) based on the dyno graph, let me clarify the question. when i switched my own car from a k26/6 to a k27/8 i went from making around 285 wheel torque @ 3000 rpm to around 225 @ 3000rpm. that's only 60lb/ft of torque, but moving in and out of traffic (the kind that exists on the street) the car was definitely less responsive with the k27/8. now once the k27/8 is spooled it makes more power and holds it much longer than the k26/6. and i know if i was going redline to redline in each gear the k27/8 version leaves the k26/6 version far behind. but that's exactly the point, in most of the streets that i've been on it's not exactly practical to run to redline in every gear, which is why i gotta believe it hurts a little to only have approx 150 ft/lbs of torque @ 3000rpm.

rob i'm sorry if i diverted attention away from your fabulous car (i mean that), just felt compelled to respond to some of us who are a little slow understanding simple questions (no i'm not talking about you). once again, nice numbers!

RolexNJ

shaheed: No problem my friend, none at all. And thanks for the compliments and nice words too! And what you are saying about street-applications and tubo selections is very valid. There are countless combinations, as we all know. It just gets down to the specific application that "each" person has for his own car. Trust me, while I love my results, I wish I could try several more combinations of components to see what they can do. And when there is a hotwire piece made, I will get it and try more boost & probably a few bigger a/rs too. I am dying to break that 500RWHP mark! It's killing me we couldn't do it, but, with Pro-m gone, there aren't any other companies making the peice I need, nor able to recalibrate the one I have. And I am not ready, yet, to go to a stand-alone. Maybe if Chris White gave me a super deal on a Tech3, I would consider it!

TurboTommy

shaheed, I agree

It's like people are cheering at an assembly, all important like, and they don't even know what they're cheering about.

I still think that either the gragh is wrong, or the mods used to achieve the gragh are wrong.
Rolex, maybe your hot housing is actually quite large to achieve that curve.
Generally, a small hot side combined with an aggressive cam is a big no no and wouldn't give you a torque curve like that.

Sorry folks; that's the way I see it.

I still think this is a very fast car.

Duke

This high boost versus low boost thing is just out of hand. I don't want to be rude but some people here doesn't seem to understand how things work.
The main drawback of higher boost is higher intake charge heat which can cause detonation. But depending the turbo specification this can vary a lot. And of course IC design but that is just too obvious.
An engine with 400 hp @ 15 psi has the same BMEP as an engine with 400 hp @ 25 psi. It generates the same amount of stress on the engine component.
Making it last is not only about the boost level.

sweanders

True, except for that even though I have no detonation my head lifts when I am running high boost. It's coming off anyway but I am under the same impression that if temperatures and A/F is OK there is no need to run with less boost.

Duke

If your head lifts it's due to the cylinder pressure and my point was that it doesn't go hand in hand with boost pressure which some people seems to think.