Phoenix AZ

Care to make a wager?

The Cadillac 'production' vehicle seems to have some type of bracing and different seats? Hmmm....

I haven't seen the engine. There is no possible way for me to know the specifications of that particular motor. Don't need to.....u missed the point...entirely. It is an irrelevant question, as I was comparing to OEM Honda motors as a baseline. I was trying to explain to you that building a high power 4 cylinder vehicle with front-wheel drive can be done and built to go fast, but requires a lot of $$$ and several measures to deliver the power to the ground....u didn't get that one either. I don't understand your inability to comprehend simple points and have dialogue that doesn't digress into off-topic personal insult. Unless... you are just trolling for conflict.

What kind of comment is that!?!? You have much to learn. I have never heard this type of digression based on nationality in an auto forum. Hopefully some years will allow you the time to grow and not show this weakness again. I have many friends from Australia from my days in Uganda and have not received such shameful prejudice. Read my original post: It is merely a 'cut and paste' from a witness who was at the race in Singapore discussing the real conditions under which the race took place. Consider adding some truth to your passion.

OMG. Hearsay? What... that the Civic is highly modified? Ok, you must be right. It was probably just a platinum Honda making 500 HP on OEM components. Have you ever tried to launch a front-wheel drive car with 500 HP? Have you even done an oil change? Do you have any idea what your talking about? Enjoy your ignorance. Bye.

OMG. Hearsay? What... that the Civic is highly modified? Ok, you must be right. It was probably just a platinum Honda making 500 HP on OEM components. Have you ever tried to launch a front-wheel drive car with 500 HP? Have you even done an oil change? Do you have any idea what your talking about? Enjoy your ignorance. Bye.

trying to bring some truth to the conditions of the race. If you ever build a high boost engine with stock internals or even with a built lower end, you will start to realize what I am talking about regards the higher octane needed to run that Civic at those boost levels. I have raced boosted Z06s in my 4 cylinder and beat them all day long. Am I going to say that it isn't a fully-built race engine with nitrous and water-methanol injection? No! I was bringing to light the conditions of the race and the fact that the civic was highly modified and operating near the limits of the stock block. And it was given a head start. lol! It's just a conversation.

You realize that the Civic has to be a 'fully-built' lower end and it has to be run on race gas > 98 - 100 octane at those boost levels. It is a grenade waiting to happen. This is a couple quotes from JSpeed on the GTROC (British GT-R forum) on the race; he was there (in Singapore). 1st 2 runs:The GTR let the Civic start first and was way out of his power band at 2000+rpm 2nd gear and still lost by only 1/2 car length. If they had both started in 1st gear or 2nd gear in the GTR's powerband, the GTR would have won by a HUGE distance, hence they raced under such conditions. 3rd run: The GTR tried starting in 1st gear but revs were too high and he hit the rev limiter instantly while the Civic just pulled away. He tried to catch the Civic but gave up after 3rd gear. Facts: Civic never ran 2.0 bar of boost, was running 1.6 bar all the way. The GTR was on STOCK ECU but de-limited with Mine's exhaust. It for sure did not have the Mine's ECU if not would have probably won It was a friendly race to see how fast the Civic was after tuning. If they launched or even rolling started in 1st gear, the GTR would have won by bus lengths. However, I think the guy who put the video up has his own agenda or did not have the proper info

On Chrysler (Dodge, Plymouth, Jeep) vehicles it erases all learned data including long and short term fuel maps. Anybody know about Nissan ECU?

1.782 60' ? 11.124 1/4 mile ? They are only a little > a tenth of a second off a 10 second run. That 60 foot is almost a 1.8! I have a feeling it is possible to get 1.6 or 1.7 under ideal conditions...or just a few more runs. One lap 'only' before the ECU loses launch capability? That is not the best run. Spray some VHT on the track, decrease some psi in the wheels, cooler air in late evening, better track prep, warm the tires better, or just a couple more shots = 10s. OMG sweet! It took me a year and a half to do that in my other car. There will come a point where the factory launch parameters will not be ideal for the increased TQ though. That will need to be addressed. Wish I was there to see how the wheels were turning at the launch. Haha. There are going to be more road crashes as people fail to realize how fast these numbers will translate when pushed on the street.

I keep thinking OZ is still in 'waiting mode'. I forget about the greys, but then it doesn't matter in that situation anyways, cause there is no warranty, eh?

Good question, I'll find out.

Take a look at the Cobb system: http://www.cobbtuning.com/products/?id=3853 The AccessPort reprogramming device can flash new maps, which are downloadable from the Cobb website and have available updates as new maps come out for whatever modifications are made to the engine. The idea is that when you go to your dealer for covered warranty work, you hook up the AccessPort and flash back to OEM. "Uninstall the AccessPORT from Vehicle: The AccessPORT has the ability to easily remove its programming from the vehicle on which it is installed and return the ECU back to a stock state. To remove the AccessPORT from the vehicle and return it to a stock state, select “Uninstall” from the main menu." These guys have been doing this for a long time. They are in the process of developing their own maps right now. Suggest taking a look at them when it comes time to play. Below is an idea how it works: http://www.cobbtuning.com/info/?id=3846

Since I am not an engineer or experienced with plasma coating, I am relegated to using evidence-based practice. So I did a search in using plasma coatings with an automotive application. The above excerpt from a research article was the closest I could come to how Nissan was using the technology. This was the historical use of plasma coating in automotive. The technology of plasma sprayed coating has been introduced in series production for very different types of engines: - LUPO gasoline FSI 1.4 l of VW in 2000 - V 10 TDI diesel of VW in 2001 - Go-Kart racing engine four strokes in 2000 - Formula1 and Formula3 for racing in 1999 - Motorcycle engine in 2000 - Large volume I5, I6 diesel for VW in 2002 Additionally several prototypes of modern gasoline and diesel engines are now involved in long term testing. The test results have been confirmed in Europe and Japan by several engine manufacturers. It's interesting that it took so long to be applied to the automotive industry as it appears to be a fairly inexpensive process.

This is a quote from a post I made in the British forum. This is theory. I used very few data points and 3 variables. I considered atmospheric pressure a constant, if you will, because I don't have enough dyno variable sets to incorporate into an equation. [please explain how to use 1.01 in this formula...multiply or divide ) This is a RATIO / PROPORTION grid with a couple conversions. I had 2 data points with which to compare with the factory numbers. Not much to go on. When you consider that different types of dynos (dynapack / mustang & dynojet) are being used at different elevations, yeah sure, it's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Plus, people use different octane fuels and measure crank vs. wheel with the other confounding factor of what to use for drivetrain loss (15 - 25%). One other thing, Nissan obviously, did not provide the ideal baseline to work from, because most consumer cars are showing around 435 HP to the wheels. Even with a conservative 'drive-train' loss of 15%, your over 500 HP to the crank. Additionally, the 'load-type' dyno (mustang / dynapack) requires accurate on-road aerodynamics and friction inputs and the 'inertia type' (dynojet) does not. I think the 'load-type' dynos are GAY, sorry, my personal opinion. I much prefer the dynojet for higher HP applications. Most tuners use the dynapack for comparing baseline (prior to modification) numbers to engine mod; it is fine for looking at change. Dyno jet will give a much closer real-world number. In terms of the theoretical number projections, this is what I posted originally: Boost TQ (to the crank) (bar / psi) lb - ft 0.7 / 10.2 433 0.9 / 13 551 1 / 14.5 618.6 Motor Trend (K+N engineering) Wheel 430.6 - 435.8 HP, 425.3 - 439.1 lb/ft (range of results) Projected Crank @ 15% drivetrain loss 506.5 HP / 500.4 TQ Motor Authority (Dynapack) 475 HP / 428 lb/ft TQ to hub projected crank 550 HP, 495 lb/ft TQ Autoblog (Mustang and Dynagay) 406 HP / 414 TQ (Mustang) 452 HP / 448 TQ (Dynapack) BEST CAR Magazine (JDM [consumer])(Dynapack) 485.665 HP / 428/1 lb/ft TQ (hub) BP car (running 95-96 US octane rating) 457.7 HP / 444 lb/ft TQ (wheel) 520.5 HP (projected crank) JSpec Connect (Dynapack) 460 HP, 456 lb/ft (hub) I believe there is a general consensus that the power of the engine has been under-reported for whatever reason. The numbers given by the factory are probably more accurate (with a proportion given to drivetrain loss) as being wheel horsepower rather than crank horsepower. That is why the numbers seem skewed. Give me better data points, I'll give you better projections. Conclusions: I don't think it is unrealistic at all for the stock components to give between 550 - 600 ft/lb of TQ (to the wheels) as you approach the drivetrain limits (as given by MCR and Endless) of ~ 14 - 16 psi on the turbo. Heat and efficiency limits considered. And of course, they probably beat the piss out of the car as well.