Those with 240 wbhp wish they had more, like closer to 300 wbhp?

[jamesm]

Originally Posted by Boxer486

I disagree with your disagreement. That data goes directly to your priority list which has reliability high up on it. Endurance racing and tracking is still a preeminent means by which manufacturers test their vehicle's reliability.

Why you wouldn't want a system developed after rounds and rounds of pulverizing treatment is beyond me.

i didn't say i wouldn't want one. i said i don't think that the data is relevant to the vast majority of the market. your stock 86 can't perform for more than a lap or two at the track. is it unreliable in stock form?

[Boxer486]

Originally Posted by jamesm

is it unreliable in stock form?

Are you serious? The FRS feels a lot more like my Subie than my made in Japan J-VIN Toyotas. Early impressions seem to concur. I'll leave it at that. At least it's not a KIA, Suzuki, VW or Ford w/ My Touch.

[coyote]

Originally Posted by King Tut

Do Australians have some technology that I am not aware of? Can we have pictures of these amazing AUS turbo kits?

No amazing technology, just a little common sense. Pictures may come after we finish beating the shit out of it, but they will be pretty boring anyway.

Boring pictures, boring dyno graphs .. I was just making the point that you can have a turbo without creating an under bonnet BBQ.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Dezoris]

Originally Posted by jamesm

i agree in that my top priorities go in this order:

1: reliability
2: drivability
3: area under the curve
4: peak power

but i disagree that lap after lap track data really matters. it does to a very, very small subset of the market, but the fact is 99+% of the FI 86's in the world will never take a lap on a track. and stock cars aren't even reliable in that scenario, so to expect one with 100+ extra horsepower to be so is a little much.

people who do track their cars don't need other people's data because they're generating it on their own, and are likely smart enough to realize that all of the variables at play would make it pretty much worthless to them.

I agree with you aside from peak power, just don't think it matters as much if you have to scale it back to meet goal 1 and 2. It's true we could probably argue the merits of lap over lap logging but the truth is you can easily find the upper limits of stability this way better than any other testing, namely for testing heat issues. If it passes there, you should never have issues with street able performance. (on the 86 platform) The same is not true in reverse.

I had a PM with Mike about this. Two schools of thought, go out and beat the car 10/10ths or just run more laps at 80-90%.

Proving a tune, or durability does not mean the car has to be run 10/10ths at the track for valuable data collection. You have been playing with tuning now you get the concepts if you were going to do tuning for somewhat what data collection would you prefer?

[Dezoris]

Originally Posted by King Tut

As much as I wish it wasn't true, the facts are that only about 1% of the owners on this site will ever track their car. I never tracked mine, or I would have posted any data people requested.

You never tracked your car because you were more concerned about getting rid of it to buy another junk pile. I know your type, love um and leave um.

[jamesm]

Originally Posted by Dezoris

I agree with you aside from peak power, just don't think it matters as much if you have to scale it back to meet goal 1 and 2. It's true we could probably argue the merits of lap over lap logging but the truth is you can easily find the upper limits of stability this way better than any other testing, namely for testing heat issues. If it passes there, you should never have issues with street able performance. (on the 86 platform) The same is not true in reverse.

I had a PM with Mike about this. Two schools of thought, go out and beat the car 10/10ths or just run more laps at 80-90%.

Proving a tune, or durability does not mean the car has to be run 10/10ths at the track for valuable data collection. You have been playing with tuning now you get the concepts if you were going to do tuning for somewhat what data collection would you prefer?

I generally (not just in tuning) prefer to collect data that is most representative of the normal use case of the system. Be it a tune or a software design, hard parts, or whatever else. I agree that torture testing is a great way of proving reliability, but reliability is a function of the use case. This is proven out by the design of the stock vehicle. It won't last 2 laps on a track, yet the folks who designed it found it reliable enough to warranty for many miles of use within its normal intended use case.

Not saying it's not good to have, just that it's not the common use case for this car, or most others. For that reason, the absence of such testing or data shouldn't be a deal breaker for someone with a much less aggressive use case.

[raul]

Originally Posted by King Tut

As much as I wish it wasn't true, the facts are that only about 1% of the owners on this site will ever track their car. I never tracked mine, or I would have posted any data people requested.

That's probably because you either have a huge parts budget or a huge track day budget. Not many people buying a 25k car can afford both.

So, I have a solution. Someone buy me a turbo and supercharger kit and I'll put both to the test!

[Evasive Motorsports]

Hitting 300whp on our Mustang Dyno is very hard with out building the motor and adding more boost. I get this question all day and people think they can hit 300whp with just a bolt on kit and thinking its going to be reliable performance. People like to believe the internet more then how much horsepower we gave your car from stock.

-Randy

[King Tut]

Originally Posted by coyote

No amazing technology, just a little common sense. Pictures may come after we finish beating the shit out of it, but they will be pretty boring anyway.

Boring pictures, boring dyno graphs .. I was just making the point that you can have a turbo without creating an under bonnet BBQ.

I agree that it is possible, and I look forward to any pics you have.

[Luckrider]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

Can't sustain that power over a lap.

You're brave, spinning this valvetrain up to 8k. We won't be doing that until we have built heads... the valve springs on this engine are scary.

Remember, our supercharger can flow a LOT more than what it's flowing now. Same supercharger, same-ish supercharger RPM, same-ish boost, different (better flowing) engine. We just need to get the engine to flow as well, and the power will come. It'll be linear, sustainable, and very controllable with instantaneous response.

I guess we need @FullBlown to speak on this matter since they are working on just the solution to the flow problem.

[King Tut]

Originally Posted by Dezoris

You never tracked your car because you were more concerned about getting rid of it to buy another junk pile. I know your type, love um and leave um.

I never tracked my car because I have a racecar and was running for a regional championship last year. Big talk from the guy that bought an S2k "winter" car.

[King Tut]

Originally Posted by raul

That's probably because you either have a huge parts budget or a huge track day budget. Not many people buying a 25k car can afford both.

So, I have a solution. Someone buy me a turbo and supercharger kit and I'll put both to the test!

It is because most people can't afford to ball up a $25-28k car.

[raul]

Originally Posted by King Tut

It is because most people can't afford to ball up a $25-28k car.

Yep. With how much I've spent in track related expenses I could have bought a turbo kit and BBK for sure.

[coyote]

Originally Posted by King Tut

I agree that it is possible, and I look forward to any pics you have.

Don't hold your breath. We're more inclined to just keep what we do local.

Point is, if it was impossible to build a turbocharged engine that didn't die of heat stroke, every single rally car on the planet would be supercharged.