harvey

iTrader: (48)

Jonny: Does this self prescription lead to confusion and verbal diohr... however you spell it?
Well said Andrew C. My thoughts exactly.
I intend to be there on the day as a spectator to support you Rich.

http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthrea...7&page=7&pp=20

I would have thought that a man with the courage of his convictions would jump at the opportunity to prove us wrong, more so with the offer of £100 towards his travel costs and the bonus of a bed for the night.

In recent posts the Well Lane rollers,the Ion Turbo and my results have been rubbished. Little wonder I will not be sharing anything with you but if you read back you will see I was giving you information freely so again you are twisting things round.

As far as the results from Well Lane are concerned it is time to put up or shut up. They run a commercial operation and the rolling road is managed professionally. Stand up and show us (and them) how inaccurate it is or think carefully about whatever else you say about it.

Regards my turbo, you can believe what you want. Those that were there are also able to form an educated opinion having seen my car and others including Skylines run on the same day. Many have watched it go in stages from 417bhp - 585 bhp on these rollers. If surmising, postulating, extrapolating and goodness knows what else is your sceene then good luck with it. Might work better with accurate base assumptions.

jonny gav

iTrader: (1)

Paul, i understand what you are saying but to see a car 1st hand, in a 36hour period run on 3 different RR's and make power within 6% of each other give me confidence in the figures that these RR's are turning out.

This, according to you guys would be impossible but i have seen it with my own eyes.

The 3 rolling roads were-

Well lane!
g-force
Power engineering

this was also a car producing around the 450bhp mark!

Pavlo

Jonny,

That was when Harvey's car was running circa 450hp.

If we assume a 1% difference at the 200hp level, 6% at 400hp, whose to say there isn't a non-linear growth of this error WRT to power, such that there is more like a 12% difference at 550hp. Then all of a sudden a 520hp car could be making 580hp on the high reading rollers. I know other high power cars ran at the same time as Harvey's but unnless we know the gearing and such, I don't think we can just assume that the 585hp figure can go unquestioned, given the evidence against making such a result.

I would like to know for instance, how Harvey makes 12% more power than the 555 Drag car, when that car had a better spec at the time, and ran the same or more boost on a turbo with a higher rated compressor side and same/higher rated exhaust side. This was on race fuel, mapped by the same person and built by RCMS with all the same attention to detail.

We will see, when harvey get's his new spec on line, and starts to use other rolling roads (as he is already at the limit of well lane according to well lane themselves) we would expect to see power levels starting out at something close to his previous figures, when running at the same boost.

I don't dispute that 585hp is possible on the 2.0 engine, but at the 1.85bar quoted it must be called into question, and I have seen no proof to back these figures up except the Rolling road sheet and insistance that this must be correct etc.

I don't dispute that Harvey's car has been successfully developed and the power increased at a steady rate. But with such high power being generated (around 550hp for arguments sake), %age errors what would be small power discepancies on a standard car, become significant errors that mean the difference between 2 considerably different powerplant setups.

Paul

T-uk

after the waste of time at prosport and the fact that john has now lost two sets of gaskets tuning his car especially for a dyno day do you blame him? could this also be a possibility to why as your development moved on you only stuck with the more local rolling roads to yourself?

I have not seen john rubbish the ion turbo or your results anywhere [as far as being top dog at the rolling road days and scooby shoot out.]

johns findings show the turbo does what it is sold to do

if you are so sure well lane's figures are so un-questionable , can you explain why you never ran a 10 second quarter with 500bhp from well lane?.

did paul not manage with 505bhp at PE, calder posted they had 495bhp at star when they did SSO and haldor with 520bhp at gforce seem to manage even with a six speed?.

IMO , dyno days are fun and give a comparison on the day to other cars. as soon as people start to take the figures as gospel it opens up a whole can of worms.

Redevilwrx

Rich can you confirm any cars yet ??

MichaelH

Looks like I'm much too late to get on and have a go on the rollers, but are there many turning up to support?

Thought I might come down, as long as there's not too many people turning up already?

Or is it just the more the merrier?

harvey

iTrader: (48)

T-UK : You are being very silly. How can you compare the R.R. day at ProSport which I think was their first ever high power RR day when they first had their new rollers with the RR days at Well Lane. I have never heard from anyone using Well Lane that there have been problems with the rollers such as we experienced at ProSport. You are also aware of the free re-runs offered by Dastek to RR participants during the early days of familiarisation with their equipment. This is something that has never been necessary at W.L.
200+ Club have organised several RR days I have attended. There are RR days every second Sunday by various clubs. I think Rich Wild has organised nine RR days to present. Rich has already said that he is happy with the operation and accuracy of the rollers.
You are talking bollocks and the people who attend W.L. regularly, the people with fist hand observations and often including people not running cars with no axe to grind, know it is bollocks.
Two sets of gaskets? Something far wrong. Mapping I would think if you want my opinion. I did not know that and I did not know he mapped his car specially for the rollers. Makes pretty unimpressive results even more unimpressive.
FYI. I run two maps both of which are used on the road but I have never mapped specifically for the rollers although I have seen others making adjustments on the rollers to try and get that bit more. A rollers only map has no facination for me although I guess it would have yielded even more power.
Only reason I use W.L. is it is closest. 130mls round trip is prefferable to upwards of 350mls, cost of petrol, time and all that. Head gaskets have never been a consideration for me or any other reliability issues relative to RR days.
Specifically John rubbished the Well Lane set up, the Ion turbo and my results. Read what is writ.
You guys crease me up. If you are so confident W.L figures or my figures are rubbish, all you have to do is put your car on W.L. and show us. (Not your car but JBs more powerful one or go on Dastek and Star one day and W.L. the next if you really want to prove something. I really wish you would)
Why do I have to explain anything to you? My winning Scooby Shoot Out times were good enough to win the event in 2003 by a substantial margin, despite slow 60 foot times. BTW, raw power is only one component of a drag car and beyond a certain level, increased power will give marginal gains and other factors become a higher priority. If you have nothing else to do you can surmise and postulate as much as you wish. Start your own thread.
. Well I am glad there is at least one thing we see eye to eye on.

harvey

iTrader: (48)

P.S. I might be wrong as I do not keep particular tabs on other people's results or specs and some of you seem to think you know more about my specs or results than I do myself but if you check I think you will find that George was at Well Lane a couple of times before Scooby Shoot Out 2004 and his results were even better than my latest results, never mind my power level before the 2003 event. At the time, these figures were not common knowledge.

harvey

iTrader: (48)

PPS. This is what JB said on the associated thread:
Now this is what you said:
So are you telling us that J.B. is also telling us bollocks too?
Keep going. The more you post the deeper the cracks.

john banks

When I don't push it you say I map like a girl. When I do - to compare different turbos on as close octane as possible (otherwise it is pointless) then it is bad mapping. If I'm so crap why did I get decent results out of the 20G? If I am an engine breaker then why is it that of all the cars I've mapped have only two had problems? (apart from my own, and it is a bit raw to criticise my popping gaskets on 2.5s when others have had similar trouble, and you've had trouble with your own engine). Of the two that had problems, both were driven at very high sustained speeds. Bob remapped both subsequently, one blew up again a week later (presumably the original problem was not corrected or bad luck, but it does suggest that the mapping wasn't at fault either time?) and the other Bob thought the map was cautious. We all know these cars can blow up, my engine destroying record is as expected I would say.

The 434/395 result was running 10% methanol as I used daily for months. IMHO the turbo needed this to get comfortably over 400 BHP at Star. You suggested a source of race fuel to me shortly before Prosport, when I decided not to run it because of the setting up required, volumes needed, distance from home to drive on it you got upset. It is Harvey's way or .... So I tried to do what I could to increase my octane by running more methanol and NF and mapping to suit - TO BE ABLE TO COMPARE THE 20G WITH THE ION as I clearly stated to you - you knew well I had had naff turbos before. I wanted to know whether the iON was able to produce +30% power over the 20G. I expected 10-15%, but we'll never know now. On the way back from Prosport in this trim the first set of headgaskets went. The nearest comparisons I can do on my own car suggest about 10% improvement in power on the same octane for iON vs 20G. It does what it says on the tin.

I have no wish to run at Well Lane for reasons stated - it won't prove anything, I've got two rollers locally that I prefer, the cooling is not adequate (temperature rise limited because of short run time), the traction is limited, otherwise why do lots of heavy blokes get in the back at these events, and the wheel figures and other important data are not given. They've already said they can't run cars with the sort of torque your car had I believe again? So it would be another Prosport. The octane would not be comparable to yours, if I didn't run 585 BHP (like I wouldn't) you would just laugh and say point proven, when you are way off the point I'm trying to make. Regarding deeper cracks I have my own view likewise. You've ignored my diarrhoea like extrapolations or whatever you call them and stand by your "unquestionable" questionable figure which is doubted by many, not just me. The turbo is simply too small to run 585 BHP on Optimax at 1.85 bar on a 2.0 in mine and several others' opinions. You say the GT30 is not comparable - it isn't, it flows far more, why is it that Andy believes that that is good for about 500 BHP? Why is it that Paul and the 555 car are getting about 500 BHP on turbos at least as large as the P450, are their maps wrong as well? Your results are the outlier here, and there isn't the supporting evidence to back them up. But we're now retreading old ground and it is getting rapidly boring.

Pavlo

John,

Don't be engine mapping girlie man!

T-UK,

I wouldn't expect harvery to get low 11s in his car with 500hp, he is rather too sypathetic with it for drag racing.

Paul

Maddog

This is all very confusing.
Have heard it said before that mapping is no big deal in that you increase timing up to point of detonation and then back off for safety on whatever fuel you run. You do this in all applicable zones the car uses. Yes?

Therefore with similar "hardware" mods fitted to two similar cars, results should be similar. Yes?

Then if one car has considerably more power for the "hardware" installed, then other variables must come in to it like fuel, lightweight gear oils,high tyre pressures, low resistance tread on the tyres and such like? Along with keeping hot and cold air separated under the bonnet?

You can't compare like with like if people don't give all the reasons why they get the figures they get. Competition is like that. For example. Has Harvey ever mentioned he only uses pump fuel? I don't think so, but John Banks makes reference to results on Optimax.

What i'm saying is, you seem to be getting bogged down by only looking at fitted components.

Maddog

John
What RR did you get the 434/395 result? Dastek or Star?

john banks

BTW Harvey, I freely admitted previously that my latest failure happened before a Dastek day and I was trying to dyno queen, at least I'm honest. I knew I wouldn't catch Andy F, but I wanted to see how near I could get with my cheap stock short motor, in the end it eluded me because it broke. After two headgasket failures and no remotely proven solution, I don't want to try the same again. It may be that the 2.5 is relegated to a medium power (say 350-450 BHP?) road engine in the long run, that is what I've been trying to find out, as you have been doing with the 2.0. Nothing is hidden, it is all in my long and boring project thread. I state what octane I'm running, I often even put in fuelling, ignition and boost curves so others can use them as a guide, many say they have found these useful.

If you do have headgasket solutions on the 2.5 let's hear them, it would be useful, beyond getting it done "properly" by someone you recommend as if to say that no one else knows what they are talking about, which is how it usually comes across.

john banks

Maddog it was Star on a 20G. Harvey has said in thread IIRC that he was running Optimax only. Other times he has said he is refusing to say. Other times he's offered sources of race fuel. Other times people have smelled the race fuel from his car. It seems inconsistent.

He can run what he likes, but if he is telling us my results are too low for Optimax when he is comparing them with race fuel then it isn't a valid comparison.

There is no point in rating a turbo on race fuel IMHO given the price of it in the UK. In the US where it costs similar to our Optimax, fine. And you see all the thread on NASIOC where the power goes stratospheric when they run C16.

Maybe I am getting hung up on fitted components, but isn't that what most of us are here to discuss?

If it is simply, I'm faster than you, then Harvey wins, in any competition, Harvey wins. I'd have thought that was good enough for him and then he could discuss the parts involved as he says he does.

Maddog

Regards fuel used, then yes, 116RON is going to give a lot more than 98RON. A whole lot more!! Especially at the power levels you guys are running! I can quite easily imagine Harvey can achieve 580 odd brake with 116RON fuel and the above mentioned alterations, but if we don't know for certain, then it's all only speculation. Only Harvey should he wish to do so, inform us of what made the figures achievable.

But does it really matter? I don't really care, but i am interested in others interest in the car and what they achieve.

I also see you two as different people wanting two different things here. Correct me if i'm wrong but i see Harvey wanting to push his car to the limit to see how far it can go. Be the best if you like, no doubt Andy's the same, who knows? It's human nature after all. We all get the feel good factor being able to achieve things in life.

You on the other hand want to be the best as well but in a format which can be used as an everyday runabout.. There is a difference. Unless Harvey's a millionaire, few people can run race fuel everyday for god knows how many miles a year.

The discussion seems to be around the components used, i agree, but the debate is going round in circles as the field of vision narrows.

You make mention on a number of occasions that you don't agree with Harveys results as apparantly do others. What i'm meaning is i think Harveys results are believable. It's in the context of how they are achieved that is causing the problem.

john banks

Agreed.

Maddog

If we all agree on that then where's the problem? John/Harvey?

T-uk

but you told us yourself that well lane are unable to run your car now due to its levels of performance so there must be issues somewhere?

agree fully with pauls opinion which is all these boards are about.

sorry harvey , I do not question your top achievements but I cannot take the figures as un-questionable.

so this back up what paul is getting at , as calder posted that they went to star after SSO and got 495bhp with what they ran at SSO. if you want I can look for the thread where one of your own experts , bob rawle , describes well lane +30bhp over PE and PS -30bhp than PE, so if your car was to have done 585-60=525 at PS are we not all discussing the same end result , did jb not say that 500 to 520 on race gas was a possibility on what he feels the more realistic rolling roads.

perhaps paul and I have to admit to recycling information from friends who have been in the car with harvey and say mechanical sympathy is not the issue but this was not on a drag strip so adds a variable to drag times.

john does not have the option to switch maps like your ECU so it sounds like you are both doing the same thing. the maps john ended with could also be used on the road as long as the fuel quality remained the same.

perhaps once RCM have had a few 2.5's out without head gasket failure running high power for 10000miles , john might start pushing again but I think he is doing the right think for the moment , running a known spec with known weak point and not pushing the levels the others failed at. only time will show if they fail at this more sensible level or last.


dastek are offering re-runs as the operator found an issue with his conversion software that dropped the figures. I do not think this is really a problem as on a comparison basis , you can still work out if the car is doing what it is supposed to. my car went from 340bhp star to 305bhp iirc dastek for same spec but I did not bother as compared to other cars the figures seemed right on the day.

I do not care if the 340bhp is the correct one or the 305bhp but that is possibly the difference between us.

Maddog

Why is it that 2.5's have this problem (presume you mean headgaskets?) and not 2.0, 2.2, 2.33 whatever.

Is it a mismatch by using 2.0 heads and 2.5 engines?

Maddog

Are the combustion chamber designs different between NA and turbo heads?

john banks

Maddog, I think we are all guessing on these things at present.

I think the 2.0 has quite a nice wide clamping area for the gasket, and will be running very high cylinder pressures to get the torque the best engines are getting.

2.2 and 2.33 are usually closed deck.

2.5 has the waterways quite close to the bore.

I don't think detonation is to blame, which is a big culprit for pounding gaskets. Problem isn't just one cylinder either.

David_Wallis

this is being discussed elsewhere too..

Some interesting points being raised in this thread..

David

Scooby New

iTrader: (2)

I'm sure all of your points above are valid and worthy of consideration on their own merits, however, this will be my first RR day with my extremely mildly modded Scoob, as it will be for about 10 of the other runners. The reason we're going to put our cars on the rollers is mainly out of interest to see how much our "newbie" style mods (full decats, filters, dawes devices etc) have increased our bhp above standard (plus a little bit of friendly good-natured competition to be discussed down the pub ). And also to learn from those of you "in the know" where we should be going next on our journey of modding enlightenment.

Reading some of the posts above I'm now getting a bit worried that this day is going to turn into a bit of a bun fight and us low-budget enthusiasts are going to be ridiculed for our pathetic attempts at modding

I sincerely hope I'm wrong...............

Maddog

Scooby New

The rolling road day will be fine. Everybody'll be having a laugh and a bit of light handed banter so wouldn't fret.

The topic under debate shouldn't be in this thread at all of which i apologise for being part of deviating on its purpose.
Should really be a new thread more relevant to taking the scoobs forward in terms of power goals.

Enjoy your day. With Rich's organising you'll be back for another at some point in the future.

Scooby New

iTrader: (2)

Maddog - cheers, that's a relief!!! I'm subjected to enough "handbags at dawn" stuff day in day out at work - I don't want to be subjected to it in my own time as well

Scooby "I can pi$$ higher than you" New

pum

as scooby(yes pink)new say's!

i got 4 kid's at home and they sound just like the last 4 page's of this thread!

this day should be about having a laugh and a bit of light handed banter !

T-uk

this "recent" discussion started on the other thread but moved over here probably because of the questions hanging over well lane's figures rather than anything else, it just happens that this time we are using harveys high power car rather than a mid weight.

regardless of opinions on how the rollers read , they do seem consistent which is most important IMO.

either way , you will enjoy the day and be in a position at the end to know if your car seems right to other similar spec cars on the day.

Maddog

David Wallis

Can you provide a link please? ta

Tim W

iTrader: (1)

Have a look here for the discussion on 2.5's