StanS

iTrader: (3)

Heaviest (weight) book I've seen for a long time - "Rally Cars" David Williams etc publ Konemann. History of rallying with great input and details from David Lapworth/Prodrive and lots focussing on scoobies. Rally scoobs chuck out 480 ft-lbs @4000 rpm !!! but "only" 300 BHP !!! Brilliant 600 pages. Recommended.
I know what I'll be reading instead of watching 3 hours watching soaps tonight + rubbish tomorrow
Stan


[Edited by StanS - 12/25/2001 6:34:35 PM]

rr_ww

I got that last year. Top Book.

Mufasa

Flippin 'eck! is there anything in there about what sort of boost pressure they run?

davyboy

am I right when I say that the modern rally cars would kick out over 500bhp but are restricted, but that resrtiction only affects the BHP not the torque??

Mufasa

Davyboy, have a look at this:

http://www.rallycars.com/Cars/turbo_restrictors.html

[Edited by Mufasa - 12/26/2001 10:27:44 PM]

SL2

The restrictor limits top end power but the rally cars produce huge torque lower down in the revs. Hence why they take off so quick. So without the restrictor they probably would produce well over 500bhp.

[Edited by SL2 - 12/26/2001 11:19:20 PM]

Monte

Modern Rally engines are all built with the restrictor in mined from the start. They are basically high compression small port engines. They normally run high boost low down but this tails off to hardly anything top end (single figure psi). If the restrictor was removed they would not make much more power (50Bhp?). The engines would have to be built different for big bhp, low compression, large ports and of course big boost all the way through the rev range.

rr_ww

The 34mm restrictor is standard for WRC's. Toyota were banned in 96 for cheating in 95. The restrictor was modified with internal pipes so it looked correct but was actually bypassing it and giving more boost. The lengths some people will go to to beat Subarus :rolleyes

GREEN SCOOBY

unfortunatly you have read the torque bit wrong as the wrc impreza pumps out around 400lbs/ft torque, its says in the book 480NM of torque which is a different measuring system compared with LBS/FT, does anyone know how to adjust the both of them?

Happy new year everyone

StanS

iTrader: (3)

Hi Green Scooby,
Looking back (instead of relying on my memory ) I was wrong - 480 was Nm (small "m" for metres !).
The conversion from Nm to ft-lbs (the quantities are multiplied, not divided otherwise they would have been ft/lb or lbs/ft) is
1 Nm = 0.738 ft-lbs (according to memory - so could be wrong !!!)
So the torque is "only" about 360 ft-lbs. So not quite so awesome really - doh ! Still - the book's a good read !
Stan

Bitten Hero

Not that much more than mine then - 284ft-lbs on the rollers but 'only' 254bhp max - basically because I get 17.5psi at lower revs (max torque) but tails off to around 12psi at high revs (max power)...

Incidentally I thought my torque figure might be too high (rolling road result) but yesterday (first and only time of trying) I matched the 85-105mph of just under 5s in 4th, as so proudly used by the Dawes Device upgrade brigade in Drivetrain so it probably isn't a mile off. Interestingly it did the same sprint in 5th gear in about 6.2s Boy do I love my car

Anyway, back on subject. Stan - does this mean you'll be re-fitting your old 0.8mm restrictor to get 22psi of boost at lower revs again? :P

Cheers
Richard

StanS

iTrader: (3)

Hi Richard
Dont think I'll fit the 0.8 again (the engine may not like it and whats left of the clutch certainly won't !) - the 1.0 (or was it 0.9 ?) is working well at about 19 peak.
Daren't risk an 85-105, time but will try a similar range in 3rd to compare.
(Looked up the conversion - I was nearly right - .733 ft-lbs.)
See you Jan ??
Have a good NY eve !
Stan