john banks

Ah, I thought you had uncovered some new design or wheel.

Tim_K

I too would recommend Lateral as i've had numerous bits & pieces
(including GT series turbo)from Mark during the creation of my
engine & have been very happy with the prices/advice given

Tim

Tim W

iTrader: (1)

Andy, at the end of the day what really matters is how the car feels and how it performs in the real world.

I've experimented with lots of different mods on my car, I ran for a year with the Link and TD04 and was very happy, then I got the MD304...the difference was frightening, so much so that we in no way were going to give it it's head on my car because as it was until recently a daily driver, with piston slap and 87k miles on, so we daren't

After the turbo I added the HKS FMIC, HKS manifold, bigger injectors etc, and latterly a few more things...it's an absolute beast of a road car...particularly one with the amount of use (25k miles + and the only problem a snapped selector rod, which can only be attributed to the user!) that it got.

We don't run huge boost, 1.25 bar peak, there are people running more through their TD04's...one of whom came for a drive with me, I then drove his and he mine...he wasn't convinced...then we went for a little drive in our own cars together...there was bu99er all in it between the cars until about 70mph...then all I saw of him was an ever decreasing dot in my rear view mirror...needless to say he bought an MD304...as did Scott, after he came out for a ride with me and slipped into a gibbering wreck chanting 'I want one' rather a lot

I've played with Pat's car all those years ago when he lobbed the U bend off his TD05, then latterly went to the Trust kit...he's always loved my car for the way it just gets on and goes...just that bit more eagerly than expected...oh and the wittering about the torque always being right where it was needed

It is an awesome turbo for the real world, and I stand by my opinion that it is quite possibly the best matched turbo for a stock internal engined UK car...then again I've also got a 'Mark Map' (C2002/3 Lateral Performance Ltd.) which I guess helps a lot

Still I think the figures from Elvington last year speak for themselves, with a gentle launch to 1.25 miles 166.6 mph can't be wrong...and I'm only claiming 344 PE brake

pat

Just a few points...

The 20G wheel when mated to the standard MHI exhaust housing and turbine is too big. The solution is to change the exhaust housing for a larger one. People will say that it will kill the bottom end. I say it doesn't exist anyway because the compressor will surge, so what exactly are you losing? No matter what you do to the turbo, you'll never be able to get more boost low down without crossing the surge line on the 20G. You'de need to reprofile the 20G wheel to make it suitable for the EJ20, but then why bother when you can just get a Garrett wheel that will do the job right in the first place ?

The MD304, along with all ball bearing turbos, are "difficult" to control. Due to the lack of bearing drag, the exponential response from the postive feedback as you cross the boost threshold means that the standard boost control system simply cannot keep up. There is no perceivable difference in lag between the TD04L and the MD304, although there is a difference in boost thresholds. While a TD04L can get up to full boost by 2600 RPM, the datalogs indicate I can get 1 bar by 2700 RPM on the MD304. Unfortunately, in real life, this is difficult to achieve because of the limitations of the stock boost control systems. So far it has been necessary to "slug" the boost on it, so that the ECU can keep up. Even the MoTeC struggles to control the ball bearing turbos! I do have "something up my sleeve" that should help though

Please note that these "problems" are inherent with *ALL* ball bearing turbos, I've got exactly the same issues with the APS SR40, for example. Also, please note that the "problem" is that I can't get the full benefit of the ball bearing cores, not that they perform any worse than the sleve bearing turbos when slugged in this way.

If anyone is in any doubt whether the MD304 is in any way a disadvantage on the road, even over a TD04L, I can assure you it is not. If you want convincing, then it's worth while having a chat with FerrariNutter (WRX) or Tim W (Classic), both have the MD304 and have addressed the fuel system properly, both have had their cars mapped to take advantage of the mods etc and I think that both would be willing to demonstrate.

Harvey,

Let's not forget that currently Mark is one of a very small number of people that can honestly say they built their own engine and that it made more than 500 BHP and 500 lb/ft on a bench dyno. Until you or Bob put your engine on a dyno we'll never be able to have a meaningful comparison, rolling roads are just too inaccurate.... if ever anyone needed proof of this, all the time spent trying to tie your car down, adjusting the roller separation etc at G-Force at the weekend, just to get an "accurate" reading should highlight this quite well. Additionally, if the rollers are so accurate, how is it that another owner wasn't happy with their result, they did another run and suddenly the figures changed favourably ? There's no substitute for having the crank directly connected to a load cell.

I remember an interesting discussion where it was claimed that Mark's car would be slower on the road than a standard STi V... based on the fact that the turbo was quite big and the boost threshold was "high". The amusing thing that came from that discussion was that, at no point whatsoever, did Mark's engine make less torque than the STi V... even when the STi V was on full boost, and Mark was still only getting 8 PSI, it was still making about 100 lb/ft more than than STi... boost isn't everything!

The issues we had with the map up at Elvington were down to the fact that Mark's engine flows so much fuel, the fuel delivery system on the bench dyno could not cope, so there was a reduction in differential fuel pressure on the dyno... we only spotted this after the mapping session, so the map was skewed to compensate for the fuel pressure loss on the dyno, resulting in overfuelling when in the car, because the car fuel system was holding up properly. Hopefully Mark will take my advice and fit a differential fuel pressure sensor this time round

With regard to Alan's problem, let's not forget that Mark and I actually identified and resolved the problem; but it was necessary to remove boost control from the ECU. It is caused by a flaw in the Link control software which allows a large pressure buildup between the turbo and the throttle butterfly causing the compressor to cross the surge line while the manifold is in vacuum! If memory serves correctly, the problem was never solved anyway, it was just suggested not to drive the car in a way that would cause this phenomenon.... something that Mark and I had suggested in the first instance, but regardless we still tried to fix it.

Cheers,

Pat.

Andy.F

Pat

The TD05 turbine is capable of running a 450bhp compressor wheel such as the 20G without generating excessive exhaust gas backpressure.
The much smaller VF turbine however has yet to prove it can do this. I for one do not believe it can, it's just too small for the job, regardless of the housing size.
IIRC we were going to see big power VF hybrids perform at Well Lane 4 ......we are still waiting

Although there are boost control issues with the 20G wheel at low rpm, the torque available between 3000 and 4000 is still far more than anything I have seen from a 400hp capable VF turbine driven hybrid.

You may however have some proof in way of dyno graphs to back up your defence of the VF series rather than the 'seat of pants' opinions expressed previously on this thread ?

Andy

AlanG

It was brought to my attention yesterday that there were references to both myself, my car and the issues i have been having with regards turbos supplied by Mark Aigin of Lateral Performance . I have been asked to clarify any misunderstandings some people may have.
Before I do, I have to say that I notice that this thread was started by a member asking for information from people using turbos supplied by Lateral Performance and not what turbo provides the best power / value for money available to Subaru owners.
As the more learned members of this community will know, what turbo is best suited for a given application has to take in to account all modifications applied to that vehicle. Assumptions based only on model of car, desired boost pressure or specific power output is at best, naïve. I find no reference to details of modifications carried out, or intended to be carried out on the vehicle owned by the originator of this post.

The thread then became a debate on TD versus VF series turbo’s which was not what was asked for specifically. However, that particular topic has so much to be said , debated, talked about, that it deserves a thread on its’ own right.

Regards my car, I have had various incarnations of VF hybrid turbo’s supplied by Mark Aigin. Reasoning behind this, is because I requested a turbo through Marks company to carry out a specific task (my spec). At the time Mark said that should the turbo not carry out its task to my satisfaction, he would do whatever was necessary to ensure I would be happy with a product supplied by him. Unfortunately it did not achieve what I requested it to do, but, Mark has been true to his word and has bent over backwards in trying to sort the issues I have had.
Recently, I was down in England and took the opportunity to visit Mark and allow him to see my car at first hand the problems I was having. This was beneficial, as all correspondence up until that point, had been via E-mail and /or telephone.

As it turned out, there were two separate issues with the car. One, the issue with the product supplied and two, an ECU problem.

Both Mark and Pat spent substantial time beyond the realms of normality, to rectify the product side of the issues (read 2 in the morning!!) . What was learnt was interesting and had not been seen before. Testing and checking / changing of various items ensued and we are now much clearer in our minds as to why the problems were there. However, there was the second issue of the ECU which has nothing to do with Mark. Whilst down in England I also took the opportunity to ask Bob Rawle of BRDevelopments if he would so kind as to have a look at my problem with the ECU since I was relatively near him.
Once again at very short notice and beyond the realms of normality (read 1 in the morning!!) Bob spent a lot of his free time sorting out what appeared to be an anomaly of the Link ECU.
At this point I have to clarify to posters on this thread that whilst I was down in England, Mark / Pat did notmap my car. Adjustments were made to the mapping of the ECU in an attempt to rectify issues I had with the turbo, but in doing so, this highlighted the odd behaviour of the ECU, hence the contact with Bob, a person in my opinion who has the most experience with the various versions of Link ECU chipsets available.
I also have to clarify that Bob did not map my car either. Bob made various checks and tests on my ECU and managed to rectify a software problem for the Link programme. In the process of doing so, mapping was carried out as is necessary to prove the software problem. There was no way I would have expected anybody to map my car with 2 hours notice and be expected to do it at 1 in the morning!!

So with that in mind, I publicly thank both Mark and Bob for the time and effort they have put in trying to sort out the issues with my car.

To go back on to the topic first posted by Weenie, if he wishes to know the ins and outs of what my experiences with using the various connotations of VF hybrids supplied by Mark Aigin, drop me a line.
If it is felt that my experiences with them may be beneficial to other Scoobynet members, then I will quite gladly do so, especially if it can lead to a debate on the pros and cons of different configuration of turbos without dragging peoples personal agendas in to the equation.

Thanks for your time

Alan

P20SPD

iTrader: (1)

On that note, can we now try and answer Weenies original request.

Thankyou.

Steven

Scott W

Tim - hehehe That trip in your car has cost me a small fortune! Oh well, well worth it IMHO. Hope you are keeping well.

Danny Fisher

Weenie, got your mail, but didnt get chance to reply due to being called in to work. Will reply when I get home.

Dan

EMS

Pat,

I do not agree with you that all ball bearing turbo's are hard to control the boost. The VF23 is far more easy to control over the TD04. With the standard boost control on the MY99 and MY00 it is very difficult to have only little overboost and reaching the boost targets. With a VF23 fitted to these cars we have almost no overboost. Perhaps this is due to the quite large turbine, which causes the turbo to spin a little slower.

Mark.

pat

Andy,

the problem I am having at the moment with trying to "prove" the merits of the VF series hybrids is that I am maxing out the injectors... in one instance it's 565cc units and in the other it's 550cc running greater fuel pressure, so 580cc flow. Both are running uprated fuel pumps, so it's not a fuel delivery issue. I'll know more when I get some bigger injectors FWIW, the natural actuator pressure on these two units is a held 0.9 bar, and I'm maxing out the injectors with about 40% duty cycle on the solenoid.

Unfortunately "proving" the results will be rather difficult, because as I have already stated, I do not trust rolling roads. But obviously pulling an engine out just to be able to say "I've got X BHP" isn't something that your average punter is going to do. I suppose I might be persuaded about the merits of the Dynapack, it has load cells connected directly to the hubs, which is almost as good as directly to the crank.

My memory of Well Lane is somewhat hazy, due to a rather late night before being there (thanks again Trout, that was a great night and a wicked chilli ), but if memory does not deceive me, none of them were running the correct boost pressure on the rollers, and the only one that got close to the 400 BHP mark wasn't far shy, despite having a great wedge of timing and boost pulled out due to the TMIC getting rather hot... again if memory serves, not a single car, regardless of the turbo choice, managed over 400 BHP with a TMIC.

Also, please don't be so quick to dismiss "seat of the pants" as a comparison method.... for example when Harvey followed Alan back from a rolling road day, he had great difficulty in keeping up, despite the fact that both had 2 litre engines, and on paper Harvey's was more powerful.... out on the road it was an entirely different matter though, so much so that Harvey was convinced that Alan had secretly fitted a 2.2 litre! So please let's not forget that cars are there to be driven, and at the end of the day, all that matters is how they go on the road / track. Rolling road figures are just pub bragging figures, nothing more.

I've not been in your car so I cannot comment on its torque between 3000 and 4000. Please bear in mind though, that your car isn't "normal", in so far as your having early RA heads with solid lifters, which if memory serves, run a different cam profile. Because of this you can't really compare it to another car running a VF series hybrid, unless of course the other car was also an early RA with STi IV pistons In a similar way, we can't compare Harvey's G-Force figures with any other car because they changed the setup of the rollers... given that even a minute adjustment of the roller spacing has been known to make a 20BHP difference even when there is no slip, the only way to get a meaningful comparison is to keep it constant. Once the rollers are set, then that's where they must stay... if necessary, just pile 13 people into the car and up the tyre pressure to compensate I recall getting roughly that number of people into an STi V out in Catalunya when the local plod would only let one car drive up to the stage.... Pete and I almost got gassed sat in the boot

I maintain my stance that the 20G is poorly matched to the EJ20... it's pointless being able to cross the surge line for over 1000 RPM. What you need is a compressor that has a lower surge line. I don't doubt that it can, and does, flow at the top... never disputed that, just that it's a poor match because it's limited at the bottom. Might be worth your while taking a small hit at the top and going with an 18G wheel if you want to stick with MHI. The 18G
has the same exducer size as the 20G, but a slightly smaller inducer, ie it's a slightly smaller trim.

EMS,

If you think the VF23 is easier to control than the TD04L then you're not pushing it yet It is possible to get these things to spool up more quickly than a TD04L, but it's a pig to control. Of course the boost threshold is higher than a TD04L, but the actual response is snappier if you can catch it. I'm cautiously optimistic that the Pectel T6 may be able to do it all on its own, since you can specify differential gain as a function of boost error.... ie you'de run low gain at high error so as not to slug the rise, but as you get close to the target you push the gain right up which will slam the wastegate open just as you hit the target. But like I said before, for stock ECUs, Link and MoTeC I have something in the pipeline

Cheers,

Pat.

EMS

Pat,

I am using a 1.2 bar actuator and run a 3-port solenoid at max. (91%) DC until about 3.100 RPM and you tell me I am not pushing it???

Mark.

Adam M

maybe not pushing the turbo?

Andy.F

Pat

I hope when you 'eventually' get a result on a VF hybrid, whether it is on AlanG's or another car, that you are as quick to dismiss it as you are Harveys or my own 430+ results with TD05/iON turbos

ChristianR

iTrader: (1)

Isn't harvey getting another 2litre engine made that is closed deck? Why not get it engine dynoed?

Tim W

iTrader: (1)

Andy, I think you will find that Pat was only commenting on the accuracy of Rolling Road/Performance meter figures and hence their true worth...not being dismissive...

I think that you would agree that it is really only possible to compare figures if they are taken in exactly the same conditions, which of course is only really possible on a properly set up Bench Dyno in this I mean ignoring gearbox, tyres etc as well as consistant atmospheric conditions...

Maybe this why the how the car feels and behaves in the real world is more relavent than rolling road shotout figures.

Andy.F

Ok Tim, I take your point re Pat Problem with bench dynos is they do not fully replicate the on road conditions or give any feel for the driveability.

I'd rely on the AP22 personally. That's accurately measuring the G force you're feeling through your seat.

The problem with 'seat o pants' is it is prone to placebo effect.
Example - JB turned up the boost on his MD304 from 1.4 to 1.6 bar and was convinced it was quicker, It had actually lost 20bhp due to choking the exhaust at higher rpm.

My car for example on the Ra gearing feels like it has at least 100 bhp more than John Bank's, in reality we have the same bhp and John has even more torque.

I would have put money on my car being slower with the latest hybrid on it, as the torque rise was more gradual, it 'felt' slower. It was actually a full second faster from 0 to 100 when tested.

So basically if you just want your car to 'feel' fast then get short gearing and a spikey boost curve

harvey

iTrader: (48)

Hi Pat: Let me start by saying that I read your TECHNICAL posts with great interest and you clearly have a vast knowledge which I can sometimes tap into.

I have never seen a bench dyno print out for Marks 2.5 litre engine and it seemed to be some sort of cloak and dagger thing and top secret, but if you say it had 500bhp and 500ftlbs then I believe you. I am not sure of the relevance of all this because I have no problem with anybody having a more powerful PROVEN engine and not a figment of somebodys imagination or a dream as yet to happen, not come true and entering the Scoogy legend.

Well Lane V should be interesting with Mikee`s new engine, John Banks 2.3 litre, Andy Forrest, whatever Trout/Rannoch is bringing, and perhaps Bob or Alan will come although their names are not down to run yet. Hopefully Alan will commit himself because it will give everybody an opportunity to see his results with the products recommended by Lateral Performance, in comparison with the results achieved by Andy, Bob and myself for instance.

As I said, I have no problem if and when anybody exceeds my power figure as this is a continual process of evolution and my interest in part has been to learn what works and what does not and there will be a lot of people out there who I have helped selflessly, and totally without any commercial interest.

Specifically referring to :"With regard to Alan's problem, let's not forget that Mark and I actually identified and resolved the problem" Alan clearly stated to me that it was he who showed you ie. you and Mark Aigan what the problem was and I am under no misconception on this.

In respect of Elvington, I believe Marks car only became ready the day before and was still being worked on prior to and during the event. You were trying valiantly to sort out the fueling and the car was unable to produce a satisfactory quarter mile or top speed and proceedings came to an end with a rear diff problem. A few weeks after that there was a total engine failure and the car lay at Town End Garage until March although Mark has now confirmed that the engine is in the process of rebuild. I think therefore that any claims as to the performance of Marks engine have to take into account that it ran for a relatively brief period and has been in bits since last Autumn.

I too agree with you that Rolling Roads are not the most accurate or repeatable pieces of equipment but for most of us, as you already agree, removing the engine and running it on a dynomometer is not an option. My own engine has undergone numerous modifications since installation last March so rolling roads are an easy and practical way to get an indication of the benefit or otherwise of a particular modification.

With my experience and careful observations I can say that the set up at G-Force seems as good or better that any other that I have visited. I take the view that the best you can do is to compare a batch of cars on the same rollers on the same day to get reasonable accuracy. Comparing different cars on different rollers is totally futile.

In your subsequent post you state "for example when Harvey followed Alan back from a rolling road day, he had great difficulty in keeping up, despite the fact that both had 2 litre engines, and on paper Harvey's was more powerful."etc.etc.etc. Somebody is pulling your plonker. As I recall, you were not with us so obviously somebody has fed you this porky!!. I assume you are referring to Alan Garrod but if this is not the case please correct me. This is the figment of somebodys fertile imagination, no doubt told to you to suit their purpose. I expect you to remember who fed you this.

As far as I can recall, Alan and I have only been to one rolling road session together when I was in the STi 6 and as he did not know where we were going he was following me and we were certainly not racing. I would certainly have great difficulty passing Alan in these circumstances as I was already in front of him. I expect he can remember just as well as me so ask him if its difficult to take my word.

I do however take your point about how cars feel to drive on the road and it is not necessarily the car with ultimate power that feels the best in many circumstances. I have first hand experience of this because my lower powered WRX with shorter gearing has a lot going for it in comparision to the STi in particular situations.

At G-Force there were plenty cars ran after me so even if your point about adjusting the bed spacing is correct then my car was one of a number that ran in the same circumstances. If this can make 20bhp difference then I will have 454.5bhp, thank you very much.

Alan : I am sorry I dragged you into this and I thought my first post was only steering a fellow scoobynetter in the direction of someone with experience of several Lateral Performance turbos. I accept everything you say as totally accurate and hope it clears the air.

John : If you want a repeat of our last meeting before Well Lane I suggest we meet up during the Saturday afternoon and you can run as many tests as you want on my car/turbo, and you are welcome to publish them on here if it will help anybody.

Christian : For a relatively uncomplicated engine such as ours I see no need for the hassle and expense of a dynomometer run before fitment. Whatever settings are achieved on the dynomometer will have to be fine tuned once the engine has been installed and Mark has already found this out to his cost. In any case, once the engine is installed various other modifications or add ons are likely to take place, so it does not seem worthwhile to me but if you guys want to split the cost of dynomometer running with me I am happy to go down that route. It is just that I dont really see what purpose it will serve.

harvey

iTrader: (48)

PS: Alan, Good Luck with the re-mapping session with Bob on Tuesday

T-uk

I have a front entry TD05,pump and reg from lateral.I am happy with what I paid and the delivery was fine. personally I do not like the VF hybrids as I find the performance lacking in the lower gears low down,boost is there but I feel not enough happens.this is with cars running both link and ecutek software,mapped by well known suppliers.after driving two UK cars almost back to back,one with a VF28 the other with a MD304 both mapped by john banks, I actually preferred the standard VF28,it felt much stronger until 5000rpm although the MD304 was much stronger over this.I cannot give figures for these cars as although both went on the same rollers it was on different days.I think the MD304 is sold as a turbo that will do 1.3bar and get roughly 350bhp(with required mods needed for any turbo),this it will do but I feel too much is lost low down.

for a time, all that was really available for those wanting that bit extra was a VF hybrid from lateral.I would say, that since mark stated earlier, he is able to offer a TD05 as an alternative to the VF, this to me shows that he is willing try and supply what his customers want/justify spending.I know I did not want to have to spend VF hybrid prices when all I want is 300-320 bhp, for now anyway

I would have no problem dealing and recommending lateral for any parts I feel are tested/proven for a given situation.

I take the view that the best you can do is to compare a batch of cars on the same rollers on the same day to get reasonable accuracy. Comparing different cars on different rollers is totally futile.

I do not think anyone can argue with that.

A few weeks after that there was a total engine failure and the car lay at Town End Garage until March although Mark has now confirmed that the engine is in the process of rebuild. I think therefore that any claims as to the performance of Marks engine have to take into account that it ran for a relatively brief period and has been in bits since last Autumn.

I think this will be the main reason for the "cloak and dagger thing and top secret". without proven reliability, figures and performance details mean nothing and I for one think mark has done the correct thing keeping quiet about any of the above. it would leave him wide open for criticism.there are quite a few who can say that their engine has "done this many miles at that power" and so many miles at.......",until mark can do the same he has to stay quiet IMO.

Tim W, I may have missed it earlier but can you post a graph of the 344bhp at PE?

hypoluxa

Harvey - 12.2 @ 116mph. iON turbo @ 1.8bar boost (?)

CraigH - 12.2 @ 116mph. Hybrid VF turbo @ 1.4bar boost

Why, if the iON is the far better turbo (and running more boost) is it no faster?

R19KET

"I think therefore that any claims as to the performance of Marks engine have to take into account that it ran for a relatively brief period and has been in bits since last Autumn"

John (T-UK)

Spot on. I have never personally posted any figures relating to my car (apart from a little bit of the graph) or made ANY claims, because I didn't think it was appropriate to do so.

Yes I've had a few problems. First we didn't realise the bench dyno fuel system wasn't up to the job, and at high boost, instead of circa 5.5~ 6bar fuel pressure, we were only gettng circa 4 bar !!

Not realising this, we were compensating, by increasing the fuelling in the map. However, back in the car, my own fuel system is more than up to the job, and this resulted in over fuelling by some 30%.

Given the circumstances, I was pretty happy with my TOTB results. I can live with my 500m time, and 13th over all

Yes, I've already stated that I snapped a piston gudgeon pin. This resulted in writing off the block/pistons/rods.

On inspection, we found that the pins were not as "spec'd". Maybe something I should have spotted, but hind sight is a wonderful thing.

To be fair, the company who supplied the block, and pistons, put their hands up, accepted liability, and have replaced the parts FOC, even though JE were at fault, not them !!!!

Yes it has been off the road for a long time VERY few of the parts in my engine are "off the shelf". JE took nearly 3 months, just to make the new custom gudgeon pins for me !!! I've also taken this oppertunity to make several changes, and try some other ideas.

As for rolling road figures, it's been done to death. NOT dismissing Andy's, Harvey's, or Bob's results, because they are blatantly WAY ahead of anything else run to date, I'm afraid that anyone who treats the figures as "accurate", or comparable, EVEN if they are produced on the same RR, on the same day, is IMHO, kidding themselves.

There are too many variables. We saw this on Sat', with Harvey's car, and drumsterphil's,

"Cheers to Chris for taking the time to run my car again when I wasn't happy with the first set of figures, much happier with the 2nd set!".

Either a RR gives accurate, REPEATABLE results, or it doesn't, and I've yet to see one that does. Whilst I'm not certain how accurate the various accelerometers are, at least they appear to be consistant, when used on the same car, to compare mod's/adjustments to maps, etc'.

That said, RR days are great fun, and a good way to meet other owners, and compare notes.

Mark.

hypoluxa

Andy,

I'm sure you know that Force = mass x acceleration

We know the mass, we know the acceleration, so we can conclude that the forces acting on the them to be very similar.?

Craig's was a 2.0

Andy.F

So you assume that all scoobs are the same weight, gearbox and diff and torque and lag and power band and track surface and driver technique don't figure in the equation either then

iON Performance

hypoluxa - one thing you definately need to take into account is aerodynamic drag as well. In addition the gearing on Harvey's STi V6 wagon is taller then the conventional V6 gearing. His V6 wagon was built with the intention of high speed crusing, and hence the choice of gearing (this greatly affects the 1/4mi run).

We're currently the under-dog in the UK... but you'll soon see more surprises coming from our turbos, headers and exhausts





[Edited by iON Performance - 4/13/2003 8:38:56 PM]

CraigH

Why do people still think mine was a 2.2? It was a 2litre.

It was briefly a 2.2 but as the rebuild was pretty disastrous and lasted 3 months of gentle road use I decided not to bother and go back to a 2 litre.

And what the hell is all this b1tchiness nowadays? Some people seem to be getting off on a huge amount of self importance. That's not aimed at you andy btw

My times were virtually identical to yours and so was the power when I got those times. But would imagine you'd have the edge due to the lighter weight- unless you're a bit porky

Would rather have 350ish hp and do a 12.2@ 116, than 460 and do a 12.3 @ 116.

Guess our horses were a little bigger than others lol.

Adam M

not meaning to start anything or get anyones back up so please treat this as a genuine question, but if harveys car was specced for top speed as jack (from ion) said, then why with so much more power (around 100bhp more) is it not as fast top end as Tims?

If its down to aerodynamics being inherently against you, then why choose to aim for highest top speed, if you are starting with an inferior platform?

john banks

Perhaps it is power delivery points as discussed on 22b thread TOTB? So for the best top speed you need the gearing and peak power to coincide.

Pavlo

harvey's is a wagon to start with

windspeed figures?

lazy gear changes?

backing off early

all sorts of reasons


paul

ChristianR

iTrader: (1)

Wife, kids (plus child seat), dog and luggage in the wagon??