Corleones new engine is running
10-08-2007, 07:41 PM
#121
Rennlist Member
That's the beauty of ems.
10-09-2007, 12:39 AM
#122
Race Car
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Being censored by a Moderator
Posts: 4,074
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What size tires and what brand (compound) are you running front and rear, and how's traction holding up with all that power?
I'm mystifyed a narrowbody is handling that much power!
I'm mystifyed a narrowbody is handling that much power!
10-09-2007, 04:42 AM
#124
Racer
Thread Starter
I have a pretty flat torque curve so I dont have to much traction problem yet, not with 1 bar of boost.
10-09-2007, 04:46 AM
#125
Racer
Thread Starter
10-09-2007, 05:39 AM
#126
Drifting
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I asked a while ago 16v or 8v everyone said 16v then all i see are 8v well I'll go 16v as i'm sure it will be cheaper than an 8v in the end without factoring the head cost just head prep.
and I'll ask this again maybe some keen tuners reading what head is more knock resistant??
looking at factory comp ratios it should be the 16v but here in turbo land it not proven.
and I'll ask this again maybe some keen tuners reading what head is more knock resistant??
looking at factory comp ratios it should be the 16v but here in turbo land it not proven.
10-09-2007, 06:03 AM
#127
Rennlist Member
Well you have the cfm's to start with in the 16v, and as you say the standard reply to the knock factor is that the 16v is better, but there is the matter of tq. Depending what you want from your car and where you're going to drive it, may determine what is better for you. 8v or 16v. Again most people say that the 8v is better for tighter circuits for low-mid range out of the corners. I don't know if anyone has done any quantifiable research or even their seat of the pants impressions. Thing is that it is highly unlikely that you would just slap on a 16v head and not change some other things as well as the basic components that have to change anyway so it's hard to do a direct comparison.
10-09-2007, 07:12 AM
#128
Drifting
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well i was referring to 400+ hp 3.0 set ups as i said I will just use the 16 because it bolts strait up to the 3.0 bottom end and two will make 500 hp without a port job or cams witch makes it a port and cam job cheaper than a 8v. looking at the powerhus dyno comparison of the 2 you have to make 500hp to make good use of the 16v . meaning a 400hp 8v is faster than a 400hp 16v but a 500hp 16v is easier to build than a 500hp 8v .
i wonder if the cars in that powerhuase comparison had the same turbo not fair if one set up is 3psi infront of the other or 500rpm lower boost threashold rpm
i wonder if the cars in that powerhuase comparison had the same turbo not fair if one set up is 3psi infront of the other or 500rpm lower boost threashold rpm
10-09-2007, 08:12 AM
#129
Rennlist Member
Well you're probably right on both counts. Still it would be nice to see some real world comparisons. I'm betting on a track in Australia there wouldn't be much difference in the times though. One would have the advantage over the other at different parts of the circuit.
10-09-2007, 08:21 AM
#130
Drifting
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well when done it will be fare to compare my car to dukes as i will have a similar turbo and IC I have seen a few good torque figures from 16v lately but not full graphs .
10-09-2007, 09:28 AM
#131
Rennlist Member
What's your e.t.a.?
10-09-2007, 09:35 AM
#132
Racer
Thread Starter
I asked a while ago 16v or 8v everyone said 16v then all i see are 8v well I'll go 16v as i'm sure it will be cheaper than an 8v in the end without factoring the head cost just head prep.
and I'll ask this again maybe some keen tuners reading what head is more knock resistant??
looking at factory comp ratios it should be the 16v but here in turbo land it not proven.
and I'll ask this again maybe some keen tuners reading what head is more knock resistant??
looking at factory comp ratios it should be the 16v but here in turbo land it not proven.
So... with a 8V you can have at least 600 reliable hp, do you need more? Thats the Q. Isnt a 600 hp 951 enough for most of us to handle? I think that. With more power/torque there will be drivetrain/more traction problems. You also have to build a very stable shortblock if you wont more than 400 hp. For 500 and more you probably need a good sleeved block.
10-09-2007, 09:56 AM
#133
Drifting
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
at this stage I've never seen any evidence to suggest a fully stock 16v head wont make 500hp with the appropriate bolt ons . i think its really out there to spend 5 or 6 K on a head thats good for 500hp strait up . maybe even more .
10-09-2007, 09:57 AM
#134
Racer
Thread Starter
Here is the Rototest graf. See www.rototest.se You have to read it right...!
Red is torque
Blue is rpm
White is hp
This run is 5.88 second, from 3200-7100 rpm
Power is 150 hp at 3200 rpm and 449 (330 kw) at 7000 rpm. No hp loss up to 7600 rpm (another run).
Torque is between 493 nm (at 3200) and 526, average is 505 nm (all this torque with 12% calculated drivetrainloss).
Red is torque
Blue is rpm
White is hp
This run is 5.88 second, from 3200-7100 rpm
Power is 150 hp at 3200 rpm and 449 (330 kw) at 7000 rpm. No hp loss up to 7600 rpm (another run).
Torque is between 493 nm (at 3200) and 526, average is 505 nm (all this torque with 12% calculated drivetrainloss).
10-09-2007, 09:58 AM
#135
Nordschleife Master
