M0NEY

Rannoch keeping posting your project. Even though there have been some bickering on here, most of us are still reading the project. I can say its interesting stuff and even though my project isnt finished, it has given me ideas for the future

Matt, well said. Some of the bickering is annoying but then in most of the posts by Mark, Harvey, Andy F etc, there is still interesting stuff about 1/4 mile times and engine builds etc (if you ignore all the sly comments).

Bob, i think we should let Andy F drive Harveys car then and see what times he can get with it

2004 looks like it will be an interesting year and i look forward to seeing all these cars in action

T-uk

money do you think andy would risk giving 100% with someone elses gearbox?

compare the terminals.

M0NEY

No i know he wouldnt. Would you let anyone else rag the sh*t out of your car if you had Harveys spec?

Still would have been interesting to see what times Andy would have put in

Bob Rawle

Money, I think thats a damn good idea, in fact I'd like to see what he makes of mine (STi5) as well now the centre diff is sorted.

Harvey you know I don't think your driving is cr*p.

David keep the info coming, between all else its a good read.

Bob (not jumping ... lol)

Andy.F

FWIW guys I'm only any good at launching my own car (probably due to a fair bit practice )
Recently when we were testing JB's car on the AP22 John set the fastest times

Wow - Davids own private thread
OK then, what cams and cam timing are you running David ? What is the spec of your turbo ?
I'm happy you are willing to discuss this

Andy

911

Glad were are back to the techno stuff. I have been racing cars for 12 years now and never have had all this 'chatter'. Results after the race speak for themselves. If you want to really see what a Scooby can do in a more rounded way try hill climbing. A sort of drag race up hill, same type of start, but with killer bends and trees just 6 feet away.Make just one mistake...
I and many others read all the tech stuff, I have the greatest respect for the work you all do as there are no proven rules to follow. But now, back to this bloody big engine here..

David_Wallis

Well mine are high lift, longer duration.. and a use a garrett turbo larger than David's.

Harvey,

David Wallis, no disrespect to David, was talking of 600 bhp before he got his car back, but it did not perform very well and he certainly lowered his horse power claims. We hear very little about that car now as he has started on another vehicle. I do wonder what went wrong there ?

Harvey, yours is proven and does well!, and you say yours is a proven daily driver, and mine isnt is a fair point, Mine had been off the road for months.. (not to mention me just finishing a 18 month ban) = no practice..

BUT, I didnt do too well at totb, but despite working 18hr days for a week and all night on the 2nd of Aug, I still did better than you at totb, and thats all that counts.

Once we get the festive season out of the way, Ill see about a bit of racing..

FWIW, I ran at TOTB2 with a 5.5k rpm limit, not bad top speed on my 1/4, but then im biased.

please lets not take this the wrong way... see you all at elvington.

FWIW.. my ideal power figures arent mentioned anymore, as I realised its not about power anymore.. im interested in torque, and how it goes on the road.

And Im sure as you can gather, my new car is a justy. Nothing went wrong, its just something to play with whilst I enjoy the impreza.. your modding your wrx?? doesnt mean youve given up with the sti does it?? No. Get my point? dont have to modify just one car!

Happy new year.

David
6666666Bhp 59000000lbft

Andy.F

I was referring to other David but thanks for that detailed insight to your engine DW Perhaps trout will not be so secretive ?

If you ask the same question on MLR you get, for example... 265 deg duration inlet, 255 deg exh, lift 10.5mm inlet 10.2 exh. Timed at 106/110 deg. Turbo GT30 core .84 a/r exh GT35 75mm comp, 55lb/hr, ported shroud, 100mm inlet.
That's what I call interesting.

Andy

Trout

iTrader: (1)

I am not suggesting this is a private thread. I am suggesting that it might be better to keep it on topic, which is in keeping with Scoobynet guidelines, and the guidance provided by the moderator. There is a lot being discussed here - and also a lot of stupid crap. Some it justifies topics of its own.

Rannoch

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Alan G,

mainly the throttle body needs to be rotated on the Phase II manifold, mainly the idle control valve fouling the bonnet. The manifold is being modified now that it known what clearance is required. This is because of a combination of reversing and raising the manifold with cooling spacers.

Rannoch

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Andy,

I do not have all the information regarding the cam timing - the cams are reground STi V cams. They were prepared by Steve at SMG.

I am sure that you are interested in the detail of the turbo, and I sure you already know it is a GT30 with a ported shroud and 100mm inlet.

I am sure that when I am not in the middle of entertaining on Hogmanay then I might well post more detail.

Rannoch

Andy.F

No problem David, I can wait

ps seems my invite got lost

Andy

fuz

_

[Edited by fuz - 1/1/2004 9:24:08 PM]

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Happy New Year everyone...sorry you all missed the fireworks! Taking a rest from building snowmen at the moment.

May 2004 bring all that you wish for...

Rannoch

911

Snowmen? Just where are you in the country! Bloody wet all night long.
Happy new year to you and all.
911.

AlanG

Thanks David.

And Happy New Year to you.

What depth are the spacers? With the manifold in the original position i found you couldn't go *much* more than 10mm without fouling the bonnet on the ISCV.
Are you machining the flanges of the manifold to gain more room?

Alan

Pavlo

Alan,

Now imagine how much space there is with the manifold turned 180 degrees for front entry.

Paul

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Spacers are around 10mm - however Pavlo has hit the nail on the head, or the bonnet on the ISCV!

So we are modifying the manifold.

Rannoch

AlanG

Just a thought...

Instead of modifying manifolds or choosing manifolds of a better shape/height, what about engine mounts?

Anyone looked at alternative mounts from the Subaru range which might be suitable and allow greater bonnet clearance?
This is off the top of my head and i haven't looked at the mounts on my car, but how thick are the Impreza mounts on the '99 cars? Is there scope for smaller (read: thinner)mounts?

I'm thinking back to my Ford days in the 80's here.

Alan

Callum Ferguson

iTrader: (1)

Have you installed the spacers between the manifold & injector housing(s) or right on top of the heads? I am wondering if they would affect air/fuel flow if they are on the heads. Please keep the technical info coming - it's all very interesting

regards,
callum

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Alan,

I think that making a mount for the throttle body is an easier way of doing it. This means I can utilise the uprated engine mounts - which are very stiff! Lowering the engine would also affect the gearbox so in all would seem quite complicated.

Callum,

the spacers are laser cut to the right shape and then finished by flowing into the manifold and so in place provide a completely smooth finish with no 'edge'. The spacers then sit directly onto the heads. The idea is to keep heat out of the injectors and manifold.

Rannoch

AlanG

Hi David
I'm not so sure regards the gearbox having a problem with lowered mounts. It doesn't need to be lowered by much.

You have a two piece prop which allows for a degree of flexibility with regard to respective heights and you don't need the engine lowered that much to accomodate the ISCV.

It all comes down to the angle of the prop as it comes out of the gearbox. If it was a one piece prop, then i can see there being a possible issue with respect to output shaft and diff, but not so much the two piece. Only the output shaft would be my concern.

The time it takes to remove the engine mounts and physically lower the engine to see what you need and observe how the prop looks coming out of the box, will confirm if it's an easier mod than altering the manifold. (and expense i imagine.)

Alan

Callum Ferguson

iTrader: (1)

Rannoch,

Many thanks for the reply. I follow the theory of heat insulation no problem but just wondered if raising the injectors out from the ports would adversely affect their spray pattern?

callum

colin c

David,

Just buy a sport bonnet and then fit your bonnet scoop a bit further forward, I'm sure it would look very nice and hardly anybody would notice that the scoop was at the front of the bonnet rather than the rear.

As Christain R seems to be the photoshop expert in this thread i'm sure he can do a quick pic for you.

Colin.

David_Wallis

I did keep saying that you cant just turn it around

David

dowser

Callum,

I wondered the same, but others results suggest not. In effect, you're only making the distance between injector and back of valve around 10-15% larger.....and most of us are deviating from Subaru's intended boost by at least 50%, which has an equal effect on spray pattern before the mix reaches the valve.

Be interested to hear a different theory though

Richard

Adam M

can I ask why everyone is so keen to use spacers?

Personally I am more concerned about the heat being kept in the block by preventing conduction transfer to the inlet manifold.

I am more keen to maintain the conduction to help the block run cooler.

There is a constant flow of cool air through the inlet manifold which will heat up a small amount but I doubt it will me much on boost due to the speed it is flowing. This will serve to take heat from the block.

It may cause a slight loss in performance but I think that amount is worthwhile given the amount of power we are talking about running here.

On top of that the ecu has charge temperature compensation anyway.

Further to this, freezing cold charge from super efficient intercoolers isnt a good thing anyway due to poorer charge atomisation, so why is it everyone's goal at the cost of safer engine temperature control?

Andy.F

Adam

I would agree that under steady state full power conditions, the spacers do not make a great deal of difference. In fact on a cold day they may actually reduce power slightly due to poor atomisation as you stated.
Where they offer an advantage I believe is at your typical drag race day or trackday. At totb2 for example, my car was sitting on the start line with around 50 degC inlet air temp, the last thing it needed was further heat input from an inlet manifold which may be as hot as the coolant temp !
Same applies on a trackday, as most of us do these events in the summer, even the large fmic's have their work cut out. When you shut the car off between runs, this is when the heat soak really gets to the inlet manifold. I'd rather set off on my next set of laps with the manifold having a cooling effect even if it is only a small percentage of the overall charge cooling.
There is also heat transfered to the fuel, on std uninsulated manifolds you may be surprised how hot the petrol gets

If you are having (or anticipate) water cooling problems then I suggest a larger or more efficient radiator. Perhaps an additional electric booster pump may help ?

Andy

Adam M

andy, thanks for the reply.

What you are saying makes sense, but then it is still relying on the unchangable contact area between the water and the block for carrying away heat from the block.

An uprated rad will help but there is a surely a limit to how much heat the water system can take away per second.

With this in mind on track, even with an uprated rad surely the limit is how fast (or slow) you can pump the water (been discussed already) and how efficiently you can transfer the heat (sggested distilled water and water wetter). You are still relying on a system designed to cope with far less than half standard power. I presume engine effiency is going to go down as power increases, which means even more heat being produced which has to go (or worse stay) somewhere.

While it is important to reduce heat soak for power and det reasons especially when drag racing, once the intercooler starts to do anything, the charge is going to cool the inlet manifold down, but the engine is still unhappily creating serious amounts of heat.

In short I am not sure it is worth trading off a short term benefit of a cooler 400 metre drive on track or a quarter mile run against the longevity benefits of a permanent heat sink for the cylinder heads. If anything I am would like to be able to add some cooling fins onto the inlet manifold to increase its cooling mass.

Andy.F

Ah, but this is designed to work whilst towing the maximum rated load and at a far higher ambient temp than we have in the UK.
A cooling system designed for 300ps, towing and tropical temperatures should have no problem coping with whatever you can throw at it (IMHO)
Your logic regards the inlet manifold as a primary heat sink is flawed. The manifold sits on the outer face of the head, the cooling water is between the manifold and the head/block heat transfer surfaces therefore the heat must initially be transferred to the water anyway.......so your manifold is only cooling the water......which a bigger rad would do more efficiently.

Andy