🚀 go-pugleaf

Nitin Kibe wrote:

[snip]

> No surprise: it's the usual collapse of lane discipline.

  Are they just barely figuring this out? How many times can the words
"Slower traffic keep right" be seen on U.S. roads? Haven't you ever
seen the motorist who is putting along in the left lane oblivious to
their speed and the speed of the vehicles behind them? It's the total
lack of proper training in how to drive a car, lack of vehicle code
knowledge, and lack of driving discipline. Also, licenses are cheap
here. Try going to Germany. A license to drive in Germany is rather
expensive (the last time I heard), and the people that drive there
are highly disciplined. That expensive license is damn precious to
them, and they act accordingly. If you are coming up on someone
on the Autobahn in the fast lane, chances are you will be seen way
before you even get close, and person in front will move out of the
way in ample time. Here on U.S. freeways, it is questionable whether
you will be seen or not by the time you have closed the distance
between yourself and the slower car. In short, a lot of the motorists
on the road have no discipline, and it shows.

--

syncing file systems... done
Program terminated
ok

In article <36BC0FB8.CEA7FD23@hotmail.com>, The Traveler
<asphaltribbon@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Nitin Kibe wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> No surprise: it's the usual collapse of lane discipline.
>
>  Are they just barely figuring this out? How many times can the words
>"Slower traffic keep right" be seen on U.S. roads? Haven't you ever
>seen the motorist who is putting along in the left lane oblivious to
>their speed and the speed of the vehicles behind them? It's the total
>lack of proper training in how to drive a car, lack of vehicle code
>knowledge, and lack of driving discipline. Also, licenses are cheap
>here. Try going to Germany. A license to drive in Germany is rather
>expensive (the last time I heard), and the people that drive there
>are highly disciplined. That expensive license is damn precious to
>them, and they act accordingly. If you are coming up on someone
>on the Autobahn in the fast lane, chances are you will be seen way
>before you even get close, and person in front will move out of the
>way in ample time. Here on U.S. freeways, it is questionable whether
>you will be seen or not by the time you have closed the distance
>between yourself and the slower car. In short, a lot of the motorists
>on the road have no discipline, and it shows.
>
>--


I was driving back to Miami from Key West last week and yet another
annoying habit was noticed...  It's a two lane road, no divider for most
of the way, but with several passing zones, clearly marked "Slower Traffic
Keep Right".  So what happens?  Well, that guy driving 50mph pulls over to
the right, and then instantly feels the need to accelerate to 80+ for the
duration of the passing zone, followed by, you guessed it, 50 mph.  If
you're going slow, and you bother pulling over for other people to pass,
what drives people to speed up?

-Pat

-- 
Please remove the excess text (if present) in my email address to mail me.

Patrick Lee wrote:

> In article <36BC0FB8.CEA7FD23@hotmail.com>, The Traveler
> <asphaltribbon@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Nitin Kibe wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> No surprise: it's the usual collapse of lane discipline.
> >
> >  Are they just barely figuring this out? How many times can the words
> >"Slower traffic keep right" be seen on U.S. roads? Haven't you ever
> >seen the motorist who is putting along in the left lane oblivious to
> >their speed and the speed of the vehicles behind them? It's the total
> >lack of proper training in how to drive a car, lack of vehicle code
> >knowledge, and lack of driving discipline. Also, licenses are cheap
> >here. Try going to Germany. A license to drive in Germany is rather
> >expensive (the last time I heard), and the people that drive there
> >are highly disciplined. That expensive license is damn precious to
> >them, and they act accordingly. If you are coming up on someone
> >on the Autobahn in the fast lane, chances are you will be seen way
> >before you even get close, and person in front will move out of the
> >way in ample time. Here on U.S. freeways, it is questionable whether
> >you will be seen or not by the time you have closed the distance
> >between yourself and the slower car. In short, a lot of the motorists
> >on the road have no discipline, and it shows.
> >
> >--
>
> I was driving back to Miami from Key West last week and yet another
> annoying habit was noticed...  It's a two lane road, no divider for most
> of the way, but with several passing zones, clearly marked "Slower Traffic
> Keep Right".  So what happens?  Well, that guy driving 50mph pulls over to
> the right, and then instantly feels the need to accelerate to 80+ for the
> duration of the passing zone, followed by, you guessed it, 50 mph.  If
> you're going slow, and you bother pulling over for other people to pass,
> what drives people to speed up?

Its the "I wanna be an asshole" factor at work.

This sorta thing is why I buy cars with 190 HP engines (Mutsibishi Eclipse,
Jeep Cherokee) and 134 mph top speeds (Mitsubishi Eclipse).  That sucker
woulda got passed, anyway.

DPH

In article <36C1188C.60D3@stuff.com>,
  bryan <bryan@stuff.com> wrote:
> shape@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > My Eclipse came with 210hp and 214lb-ft of torque stock.  Now I have
> > around 280-290hp and even more torque.  A friend of mine with the same
> > turbo as I have installed (actually, I bought the turbo off of him) got
> > his car up to 150mph.
>
> Did you actually get it dynod at 280hp or did you just add up all the
> supposed gains from mod parts?

I can't get my car dynoed.  First try to find an AWD dyno.  Out of
those, try to spend less than $1000/hour.

And none of the parts that I bought for my car have associated
hp numbers.  I don't go for that crap.

I am mainly going by my mph at the end of a 1/4 mi run with a crappy
1.9s 60 ft launch.  97.6mph.  This was one of my last runs of the season.
280hp is a little high for that mph.  But I have a few more mods now,
including a new, stronger clutch that will not just spin on the flywheel
when I launch.  And you have to remember that an AWD car has a lot of
drivetrain loss.  My car weighs 3380lbs with me in it.

> > Don't count out a car just because it has a 4 cylinder engine.  My
> > friend's Eagle Talon will out accelerate a Viper in the 1/4mi.
>
> I have yet to see any of these claims proven..."my civic can smoke a
> viper...my accord can smoke a corvette..."  yeah maybe after you dump
> $20k into it...but stock?  No way...

Umm, no, not stock.  I thought that was obvious.  Here is the formula.
3" exhaust, 16G turbo, boost controller, VPC, a number of larger diameter
pipes on the intake, a larger intercooler.  $20,000?  Not even close.

Want to see the proof?
http://www.heckconsulting.com/dsm/drag.html

Those are the fastest DSMs in the country.  A bunch of them include
scans of timeslips.  And I guarantee you that none of the guys running
in the 11's or 12's have spent $20,000 in mods.  Maybe if you include
the price of the car... ;-)

And I just heard that a FWD DSM just ran 10.8 in the 1/4 mi a few
nights ago.  It isn't posted on that page yet, though.

> > Stock, a turbocharged Eclipse has as much hp as an older 5.0L Mustang.
> >
> > And with a bit more boost, the Eclipse can blow it away.
>
> I dunno...I had a 5.0 GT (93') and a 5.0 LX (92') and no 4 banger I've
> ever driven compares...even the v6 vtec hondas and newer maximas don't
> match up..

You just haven't driven the right car.

> Havn't driven a turbo (that I know of) so maybe I'm wrong...

Doh!  Well there you go.  Go out and find yourself a modified DSM to
drive! :-)  If it is AWD, rev the car to 5000RPMs and slip out
the clutch.  Faster off the line acceleration on radials than any
2WD car out there.

Josh Wingell
'97 Eclipse GSX

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

In article <79s5hl$hth$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, shape@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>There are DSMs out there that are running 24 lbs of boost.

Are these DSMs running stock drivetrain equipment?  I hear transfer cases
and axleshafts are pretty pricey and have an annoying habit of breaking
with 24# of boost...

>Yea, the vette will go faster.  But the Talon will run 12's all day
>long and will probably still beat the Vette on the street where the
>Talon has AWD traction and the Vette can't run slicks.

AFAIK R-compound tires are street legal...

In article <slrn7c38qj.t68.standard@min.net>,
  standard@min.net (Joseph Huesmann) wrote:
> In article <79s5hl$hth$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, shape@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >There are DSMs out there that are running 24 lbs of boost.
>
> Are these DSMs running stock drivetrain equipment?  I hear transfer cases
> and axleshafts are pretty pricey and have an annoying habit of breaking
> with 24# of boost...

Yes, they are running stock drivetrain equipment.  There is no
problem with breaking axles if you use a 4-bolt rear end (stock
on 93 and up cars).  I haven't heard of many transfer cases breaking.

Center differentials are in danger of breaking on cars that run low 12s or
faster.  However, with proper driving techniques (slip the clutch when
launching at 5000RPMs, DON'T drop it!), you can keep it in tact.
And if you are worried about it, you can upgrade the center differential
from a 2 spider gear version to a 4 spider gear version for $500 and
get rid of the problem once and for all.

> >Yea, the vette will go faster.  But the Talon will run 12's all day
> >long and will probably still beat the Vette on the street where the
> >Talon has AWD traction and the Vette can't run slicks.
>
> AFAIK R-compound tires are street legal...

Yea, you can use drag radials on the street if you want.  You still won't
launch as hard as a Talon.  Oh, and the Talon can use them too.  But a
Talon  can pull a 1.65 60 ft time on regular old Summer tires!

Drag radials are not slicks.

Josh Wingell
'97 Eclipse GSX

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:49:45 -0800, Andrew M. Radin <fourfa@pcweb.net> wrote:
>Joel Garry wrote:
>
>> Don't worry, he won't be doing it for long if it is.  A couple of blown
>> engines, it gets old real fast.  I was talking to a guy with a '64 Vette
>> with Nitrous, he said the first time he pushed the red button with his
>> newly built engine, it cost $6500.  That is, to build it again.
>> jg
>
>Hello 20th century...you CAN set up a nitrous kit so it doesn't wreck your
>engine.  Silly (but cheaper) not to.

If you've never seen people do silly things... check out your local high 
school.

Depends on the app.  This person originally was seriously drag racing, but
by the time I talked to him had decided to show.  We autocrossed (closed
road course) the next day, he didn't need to bother with the Nox.  He won his 
class, I won mine.  I also flattened my cam lobes, that was when I put in a 
hotter cam.  A couple years later, when it came down to "do I supercharge, spend
15-20K on a Traco 383, or just buy a ZR1?"... Well, what would you do?  
(especially considering many autocross/club events put non-stock charging or
numerous engine part upgrades into full-race classes requiring full roll
cages and such).  In retrospect, I'd be better off financially if I had
just bought a supercharger, but then I never would have had one of the fastest
cars ever built on a production line.  Can't complain, and there is something
to be said for buying an entire well-engineered package.  On the other hand,
the older chassis _felt_ faster and more surefooted.

jg
-- 
These opinions are my own. 
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry   Remove nospam to reply.  
mailto:joel-garry@nospam.home.com  Available for Oracle DBA work.

>> I dunno...I had a 5.0 GT (93') and a 5.0 LX (92') and no 4 banger I've
>> ever driven compares...even the v6 vtec hondas and newer maximas don't
>> match up..
>
>You just haven't driven the right car.

There is another way of doing things than V8s believe it or not.  A simple
wastegate mod and minor tinkering with the electronics of most modern
turbocharged cars will put _any_ stock Mustang to shame for just a few
dollars.  I spent less than $20 to humiliate the last 5.0L owner that
challenged me.  I never got the chance to tell him he got smoked by 1588ccs
of 4 banger.  Best guess is that it's worth an extra 50HP in my car with
other minor tweaks that cost me next to nothing.

>> Havn't driven a turbo (that I know of) so maybe I'm wrong...
>
>Doh!  Well there you go.  Go out and find yourself a modified DSM to
>drive! :-)  If it is AWD, rev the car to 5000RPMs and slip out
>the clutch.  Faster off the line acceleration on radials than any
>2WD car out there.
>
>Josh Wingell
>'97 Eclipse GSX

Let's not forget that the thrill doesn't dissipate much with a little water
on the road either.  There's nothing quite like the feeling of all four
wheels hooking up in the rain.  Only another AWD has a chance off the line.

Oh, BTW it snowed here for the first time this year just the other day.  1"
of snow paralyzed most a them V8'ers.   I, OTOH, went out to play on a
deserted stretch of road to practice my high speed power drifting . . .


--
Kip C. Anderson
kca at rio dot com
91 Impulse RS AWD Turbo (with studs)

> I can't get my car dynoed.  First try to find an AWD dyno.  Out of
> those, try to spend less than $1000/hour.

Can't you go to a place and get it smogged...out here part of the smog
test is dynoing the car...
 
> And none of the parts that I bought for my car have associated
> hp numbers.  I don't go for that crap.
> 
> I am mainly going by my mph at the end of a 1/4 mi run with a crappy
> 1.9s 60 ft launch.  97.6mph.  This was one of my last runs of the season.
> 280hp is a little high for that mph.  But I have a few more mods now,
> including a new, stronger clutch that will not just spin on the flywheel
> when I launch.  And you have to remember that an AWD car has a lot of
> drivetrain loss.  My car weighs 3380lbs with me in it.

Wow!  THats pretty heavy!  I didn't think an eclipse is THAT heavy...as
much or more than an f-body

> > > Don't count out a car just because it has a 4 cylinder engine.  My
> > > friend's Eagle Talon will out accelerate a Viper in the 1/4mi.
> >
> > I have yet to see any of these claims proven..."my civic can smoke a
> > viper...my accord can smoke a corvette..."  yeah maybe after you dump
> > $20k into it...but stock?  No way...
> 
> Umm, no, not stock.  I thought that was obvious.  Here is the formula.
> 3" exhaust, 16G turbo, boost controller, VPC, a number of larger diameter
> pipes on the intake, a larger intercooler.  $20,000?  Not even close.

how much does that add up to alltogether?  And then how much gas does it
eat up?

> Want to see the proof?
> http://www.heckconsulting.com/dsm/drag.html
> 
> Those are the fastest DSMs in the country.  A bunch of them include
> scans of timeslips.  And I guarantee you that none of the guys running
> in the 11's or 12's have spent $20,000 in mods.  Maybe if you include
> the price of the car... ;-)
> 
> And I just heard that a FWD DSM just ran 10.8 in the 1/4 mi a few
> nights ago.  It isn't posted on that page yet, though.
> 
> > > Stock, a turbocharged Eclipse has as much hp as an older 5.0L Mustang.
> > >
> > > And with a bit more boost, the Eclipse can blow it away.
> >
> > I dunno...I had a 5.0 GT (93') and a 5.0 LX (92') and no 4 banger I've
> > ever driven compares...even the v6 vtec hondas and newer maximas don't
> > match up..
> 
> You just haven't driven the right car.
> 
> > Havn't driven a turbo (that I know of) so maybe I'm wrong...
> 
> Doh!  Well there you go.  Go out and find yourself a modified DSM to
> drive! :-)  If it is AWD, rev the car to 5000RPMs and slip out
> the clutch.  Faster off the line acceleration on radials than any
> 2WD car out there.
> 
> Josh Wingell
> '97 Eclipse GSX


how long can you run one of those at 5000rpms?  My car redlines at 6.  I
couldn't imagine keeping on it...itll blow up

-bryan

Andrew M. Radin wrote:
> 
> bryan wrote:
> 
> > Siddiq wrote:
> >
> > >         Yes, and obviously this chap has not seen those Jap/Euro cars
> > > that'll kill ANYthing....
> >
> >         Anything?  A 4 banger?  come on...
> >
> > I know lotus and some others make some high output motors...but to say
> > they can blow away anything?  No way...plus you pay many times more for
> > something like that than even a corvette or viper..
> >
> > I don't think the price on those things justifies the performance
> > margin.
> >
> > -bryan
> 
> stock Subaru Impreza 22B STi
> 4.7 sec 0-60
> 13.5 sec @ 101 mph quarter mile
> 0.96 g lateral grip
> driver-adjustable center differential, from 35/65 to 50/50 f/r
> 
> est. 300 bhp from 2.2 liter boxer-4
> only $41600    Price doesn't justify the performance?  How much is a Viper?
> 
> andy r.

	Where did you find that info?  Everything I've seen about that car says
max 165hp with the 2.5l.  and 0-60 in more than 8 seconds.  And its only
20k

-bryan

On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:47:38 -0800, "Andrew M. Radin"
<fourfa@pcweb.net> wrote:

>bryan wrote:
>
>> Siddiq wrote:
>>
>> >         Yes, and obviously this chap has not seen those Jap/Euro cars
>> > that'll kill ANYthing....
>>
>>         Anything?  A 4 banger?  come on...
>>
>> I know lotus and some others make some high output motors...but to say
>> they can blow away anything?  No way...plus you pay many times more for
>> something like that than even a corvette or viper..
>>
>> I don't think the price on those things justifies the performance
>> margin.
>>
>> -bryan
>
>stock Subaru Impreza 22B STi
>4.7 sec 0-60
>13.5 sec @ 101 mph quarter mile
>0.96 g lateral grip
>driver-adjustable center differential, from 35/65 to 50/50 f/r
>
>est. 300 bhp from 2.2 liter boxer-4
>only $41600    Price doesn't justify the performance?  How much is a Viper?
>
>andy r.

Stock YZF1000R
inline 4 1.0 liter 
Quarter Mile: 10.25 at 136.13 mph
<2.5 sec 0-60
MSRP: $10,199

-- 
A host is a host from coast to coast ..................... Rick Damiani
and no one will talk to a host that's close .... rickd@nospam.paton.com
Unless the host (that isn't close) ......... rickd@nospam.earthlink.net
is busy, hung or dead .................................................

bryan <bryan@stuff.com> wrote in article <36C3BFCB.4345@stuff.com>...
> > stock Subaru Impreza 22B STi
> > 4.7 sec 0-60
> > 13.5 sec @ 101 mph quarter mile
> > 0.96 g lateral grip
> > driver-adjustable center differential, from 35/65 to 50/50 f/r
> > 
> > est. 300 bhp from 2.2 liter boxer-4
> > only $41600    Price doesn't justify the performance?  How much is a
Viper?
> > 
> > andy r.
> 
> 	Where did you find that info?  Everything I've seen about that car says
> max 165hp with the 2.5l.  and 0-60 in more than 8 seconds.  And its only
> 20k
> 
> -bryan

The 22B STi is a special gonzo rally car sold only in Japan.  See last
issue of Car & Driver.

Floyd Rogers

floyd rogers wrote:

> The 22B STi is a special gonzo rally car sold only in Japan.  See last
> issue of Car & Driver.
>
> Floyd Rogers

Actually, available in most of Europe too.

andy

In article <36C3BE85.DEC@stuff.com>,
  bryan <bryan@stuff.com> wrote:
> > I can't get my car dynoed.  First try to find an AWD dyno.  Out of
> > those, try to spend less than $1000/hour.
>
> Can't you go to a place and get it smogged...out here part of the smog
> test is dynoing the car...

Not in MA.  They just do the idle test here.  And if they ever do require
a dyno, they had better make it an AWD dyno.  If all 4 wheels aren't
spinning at the same speed for most of the time, the center differential
will die.

> > And none of the parts that I bought for my car have associated
> > hp numbers.  I don't go for that crap.
> >
> > I am mainly going by my mph at the end of a 1/4 mi run with a crappy
> > 1.9s 60 ft launch.  97.6mph.  This was one of my last runs of the season.
> > 280hp is a little high for that mph.  But I have a few more mods now,
> > including a new, stronger clutch that will not just spin on the flywheel
> > when I launch.  And you have to remember that an AWD car has a lot of
> > drivetrain loss.  My car weighs 3380lbs with me in it.
>
> Wow!  THats pretty heavy!  I didn't think an eclipse is THAT heavy...as
> much or more than an f-body

I weighed my car at the track.  3230lbs with the spare, jack, a ton
of CDs in it and some stuff in the trunk.

Yea, its a bit heavy, but it kicks ass in the snow with its weight
and its AWD.  Plus I have snow tires mounted on it.

> > Umm, no, not stock.  I thought that was obvious.  Here is the formula.
> > 3" exhaust, 16G turbo, boost controller, VPC, a number of larger diameter
> > pipes on the intake, a larger intercooler.  $20,000?  Not even close.
>
> how much does that add up to alltogether?  And then how much gas does it
> eat up?

Probably a bit over $3000.  Depends on the brand of exhaust, etc...
Gas consumption?  There is nothing there that would make you consume
more gas on the highway.  Keep out of the boost and you get the
normal 26mpg.  Some people get 30mpg with setups like this.  And you
can always turn down the boost if you want better economy in the
city.

My car will get 26mpg on the highway.  For city driving (I have a lead
foot), I get about 22-23mpg.

Because a turbo doesn't kick in until you put a large delta on the
gas pedal, you can have a 400hp car that doesn't eat any more gas
than the stock 210hp car.  And if you are doing something like
breaking in a clutch, you can turn down the boost so that you
only have 175hp.  Doesn't flexibility rule? :-)

> > Want to see the proof?
> > http://www.heckconsulting.com/dsm/drag.html
> >
> > Those are the fastest DSMs in the country.  A bunch of them include
> > scans of timeslips.  And I guarantee you that none of the guys running
> > in the 11's or 12's have spent $20,000 in mods.  Maybe if you include
> > the price of the car... ;-)

> how long can you run one of those at 5000rpms?  My car redlines at 6.  I
> couldn't imagine keeping on it...itll blow up

A turbocharged DSM redlines at 7000RPM and the fuel cut is at 7500RPM.
Some people have raised the fuel cut to 8000RPM and have not had
any trouble.  The extra bit of RPM keeps you from bouncing off the
rev limiter at the track when you launch the car.

My car's engine loves to be revved.  You can keep it at 5000RPMs for
quite a while.  In fact, one particular AutoX around here was set up
so that you could keep the car in 1st gear the whole way around and
use the rev limiter to provide the redline :-)  It was faster
than shifting to second gear.

A 16-valve 4 cylinder breathes very well, and the fact that it has
less mass to turn than a V8 or V6 means that it will rev easilly.
This is precisely the reason that people use lighter flywheels on
race cars.

> -bryan

Josh Wingell
'97 Eclipse GSX

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

In dc.driving Kip C. Anderson <kca(@)rio(.)com> wrote:

KC A >There is another way of doing things than V8s believe it or not.  A simple
KC A >wastegate mod and minor tinkering with the electronics of most modern
KC A >turbocharged cars will put _any_ stock Mustang to shame for just a few

Its not even that- the AWD alone will shift the odds against any Mustang if the
stang driver doesn't know what he/she is doing.

My ex-gf had an turbo AWD DSM.  One night we were heading home [she was driving,
in her car] and we came to a light and a Cobra pulls up next to us. short story:
light turns green, stang looses its rear end in a cloud of tire smoke.  

Couple of key things here:
-both cars were stopped on a slight incline (advantage to the FWD/AWD)
-my ex-gf knew her car like the back of her hand (rpm shift points/engine
power band,etc...)
-driver X didn't know what the hell he was doing.

pretty funny when the guy pulled up next to us at the next light after about a
minute... he couldn't even look at us.

On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 03:25:12 GMT, joel-garry@nospam.home.com (Joel
Garry) wrote:

>On the other hand, putting a blower on a pushrod Corvette C5 will make a car
>that already beats the four-bangers even faster.  And it already has better
>aerodynamics.  Blowing pretty much any C4 or C5, and most Stingrays, will make
>a much faster car than any four banger (including Lotus and that weird looking
>thingie that used Chrysler turbos).  Blowers are readily available for
>$2000-5000, depending on how much work you want to do and how fast you want
>to go.  Some are about the size and shape of an alternator.


Yeah, Displacement is always king under 500hp or so. 

I don't think that force inductions on pushrod V8s are better than,
say a 6cyl Toyota Supra. Those guys push it to 18lbs average and I've
heard as high as 22lbs.

This is like in the 470hp range.

bryan <bryan@stuff.com> wrote:

>Wow!  THats pretty heavy!  I didn't think an eclipse is THAT heavy...as
>much or more than an f-body

That's one drawback of having the AWD drivetrain; extra weight.

Yet another is the added complexity.  It's not a whole lot of fun to have
your viscous coupling lock up on you at 65mph.

Yet another: try to get a tow operator with a flatbed -- the recommended
way to transport the AWD.

Don't get me wrong; I still feel the benefits of the AWD system outweigh
(no pun intended) the downsides.

>> Umm, no, not stock.  I thought that was obvious.  Here is the formula.
>> 3" exhaust, 16G turbo, boost controller, VPC, a number of larger diameter
>> pipes on the intake, a larger intercooler.  $20,000?  Not even close.
>
>how much does that add up to alltogether?  And then how much gas does it
>eat up?

When on full boost, the fuel map is thrown out the window, and you get a
very rich mixture in the cylinders.  As a result, all the unburned fuel
makes a nice black cloud behind the car.  Not exactly fuel-efficient or
EPA compliant, but it is a lot of fun.

>> Doh!  Well there you go.  Go out and find yourself a modified DSM to
>> drive! :-)  If it is AWD, rev the car to 5000RPMs and slip out
>> the clutch.  Faster off the line acceleration on radials than any
>> 2WD car out there.
>
>how long can you run one of those at 5000rpms?  My car redlines at 6.  I
>couldn't imagine keeping on it...itll blow up

The Mitsu 4G63 engine is surprisingly robust, and will handle 20+ lbs of
boost without having to make any modifications.  
--
P.J. Hartman        hartman@tconl.com
Corvette, Talon, MGB, ZX-11, and Neon
    http://www.tconl.com/~hartman

Oh, yer jus bein funny now . . .

No, you're right that there are cars that can open just a partial
can -o-whoop ass on my Isuzu and come out on top, but I'm not BS'g the thing
about beating stock Mustangs.

Consider what a 600 lb weight advantage (lighter than a WRX), a low
coefficient of drag, and roughly 210 HP / 200 Lb-ft can do without having to
worry about breaking traction.  I'll concede that the Cobras would have more
of a chance, but I've never raced one with the Isuzu and don't have any hard
strip numbers to back this up with so I'll leave it at that.  No contest
however in autocrosses and hillclimbs.

The point is that I have hardly spent diddley on a car that both handles
better and accelerates quicker than many cars equipped with larger engines
and better known reputations (however deserved or ill-deserved they may be).
Additionally, the motor internals are built enough in stock trim to handle
the 300 or so HP that a larger turbo and some added fueling could easily
provide.  Not bad bang for the buck considering the meager displacement.

And yeah, wouldn't you consider being beaten by a basically  stock 1588cc
economy car humiliating when you are paying high insurance for an extra 3L
or so of displacement that gets at least 5-8 fewer mpg???

Don't get me wrong.  I like the Mustang and V8s, but I wouldn't own one
unless it had something special under the hood.

The fact is, my car has a fairly cheesy build quality and a reputation for
being unreliable and expensive to service, but I get the shits and giggles
every time some ignorant fool with a stock V8 thinks he or she can just blow
me away.

--
Kip C. Anderson
kca at rio dot com
91 Impulse RS AWD Turbo

Woody93LX@removethis-yahoo.com wrote in message
<36c4c48c.3391158@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>I can believe a stock DSM taking the stock 5.0L off the line, but by
>3rd gear it's over, as the 5.0L will pass easily.
>
>I can believe a turn-up-the-boost DSM beating a stock to mild 5.0L by
>a close margin.
>
>But your car is not a DSM.
>
>Your Isuzu is a dog.
>
>Gimme a break.
>
>Maybe the Mustang wasn't racing you, or he can't drive, or he ran out
>of gas.
>
>"Humiliate"?
>
>Puhhhhleeeze...LOL!
>

> >> drive! :-)  If it is AWD, rev the car to 5000RPMs and slip out
> >> the clutch.  Faster off the line acceleration on radials than any
> >> 2WD car out there.
> >
> >how long can you run one of those at 5000rpms?  My car redlines at 6.  I
> >couldn't imagine keeping on it...itll blow up
> 
> The Mitsu 4G63 engine is surprisingly robust, and will handle 20+ lbs of
> boost without having to make any modifications.
> --
> P.J. Hartman        hartman@tconl.com
> Corvette, Talon, MGB, ZX-11, and Neon
>     http://www.tconl.com/~hartman


	Yeah but for how long?  A firecracker is neat up until it explodes...

-bryan

floyd rogers wrote:
> 
> bryan <bryan@stuff.com> wrote in article <36C3BFCB.4345@stuff.com>...
> > > stock Subaru Impreza 22B STi
> > > 4.7 sec 0-60
> > > 13.5 sec @ 101 mph quarter mile
> > > 0.96 g lateral grip
> > > driver-adjustable center differential, from 35/65 to 50/50 f/r
> > >
> > > est. 300 bhp from 2.2 liter boxer-4
> > > only $41600    Price doesn't justify the performance?  How much is a
> Viper?
> > >
> > > andy r.
> >
> >       Where did you find that info?  Everything I've seen about that car says
> > max 165hp with the 2.5l.  and 0-60 in more than 8 seconds.  And its only
> > 20k
> >
> > -bryan
> 
> The 22B STi is a special gonzo rally car sold only in Japan.  See last
> issue of Car & Driver.
> 
> Floyd Rogers

	Ah well there you go then...its not even a normal car

-bryan

In article <36C50A64.39F7@stuff.com>, bryan <bryan@stuff.com> wrote:

> floyd rogers wrote:
> > 
> > bryan <bryan@stuff.com> wrote in article <36C3BFCB.4345@stuff.com>...
> > > > stock Subaru Impreza 22B STi
> > > > 4.7 sec 0-60
> > > > 13.5 sec @ 101 mph quarter mile
> > > > 0.96 g lateral grip
> > > > driver-adjustable center differential, from 35/65 to 50/50 f/r
> > > >
> > > > est. 300 bhp from 2.2 liter boxer-4
> > > > only $41600    Price doesn't justify the performance?  How much is a
> > Viper?
> > > >
> > > > andy r.
> > >
> > >       Where did you find that info?  Everything I've seen about that
car says
> > > max 165hp with the 2.5l.  and 0-60 in more than 8 seconds.  And its only
> > > 20k
> > >
> > > -bryan
> > 
> > The 22B STi is a special gonzo rally car sold only in Japan.  See last
> > issue of Car & Driver.
> > 
> > Floyd Rogers
> 
>         Ah well there you go then...its not even a normal car

Well, it's a special edition *road* car, of which only 416 models were
made/sold (may be a little more).  And that performance is in it's stock,
choked down for japanese government compliance reasons. A chip would give
much better times all around.

A standard 2.0-litre Subaru WRX STI edition, however, has a 4.6 0-63,
12.76 quarter, and costs about 18K to 23K american. And these are normal,
sold through dealership, warrantied cars - in Japan. The Mitsubishi Lancer
Evolution is very similar to these figures/prices also.

Paul Hansen

-- 
Japan Sports Car - basic information about Japanese market sports cars, sedans, and yes, wagons
http://www2.gol.com/users/polarbr/sportscar

In article <36C509AB.4A4C@stuff.com>,
  bryan <bryan@stuff.com> wrote:
> 	Yeah but for how long?  A firecracker is neat up until it explodes...

They last at least as long as a 1/4mi ;-)

Seriously, it is rare to hear of a DSM with internal engine problems
due to high boost unless the gasoline octane being used is not
high enough.

24psi is quite common on race gas.

18psi on 93 octane Mobil 1.

Josh Wingell
'97 Eclipse GSX

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

shape@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> 
> In article <36C509AB.4A4C@stuff.com>,
>   bryan <bryan@stuff.com> wrote:
> >       Yeah but for how long?  A firecracker is neat up until it explodes...
> 
> They last at least as long as a 1/4mi ;-)
> 
> Seriously, it is rare to hear of a DSM with internal engine problems
> due to high boost unless the gasoline octane being used is not
> high enough.
> 
> 24psi is quite common on race gas.
> 
> 18psi on 93 octane Mobil 1.
> 
> Josh Wingell
> '97 Eclipse GSX
> 
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

	I guess what I mean is, these things can't be used as your daily
drivers can they?  

-bryan

On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 20:24:23 -0800, "Kip C. Anderson"
<kca(@)rio(.)com> wrote:

>There is another way of doing things than V8s believe it or not.  A simple
>wastegate mod and minor tinkering with the electronics of most modern
>turbocharged cars will put _any_ stock Mustang to shame for just a few
>dollars.  I spent less than $20 to humiliate the last 5.0L owner that
>challenged me.  I never got the chance to tell him he got smoked by 1588ccs
>of 4 banger.  Best guess is that it's worth an extra 50HP in my car with
>other minor tweaks that cost me next to nothing.

>Kip C. Anderson
>kca at rio dot com
>91 Impulse RS AWD Turbo (with studs)


I can believe a stock DSM taking the stock 5.0L off the line, but by
3rd gear it's over, as the 5.0L will pass easily.

I can believe a turn-up-the-boost DSM beating a stock to mild 5.0L by
a close margin.

But your car is not a DSM.

Your Isuzu is a dog.

Gimme a break.

Maybe the Mustang wasn't racing you, or he can't drive, or he ran out
of gas.

"Humiliate"?

Puhhhhleeeze...LOL!

In article <36C6406D.4822@stuff.com>,
  bryan <bryan@stuff.com> wrote:
> 	I guess what I mean is, these things can't be used as your daily
> drivers can they?

They most certainly can!  My friend's 12 second Talon is his daily driver.
It has a full interior.  There are a bunch of people with 11 second
daily drivers as well.  Probably a couple of people that use their 10 second
cars as daily drivers.

Now, on 93 octane, you can't run as much boost as on 117 octane.
But you can still drive the car on the street.  It just won't have
as much horsepower.  But you don't have a lumpy idle from a race cam.
Most of these guys run the stock cams in the car.

Truthfully, the only major modification is the larger turbo.  And you have
perfect control over how much boost you run, on the track or on the street.

Josh Wingell
'97 Eclipse GSX

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

shape@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> 
> In article <36C6406D.4822@stuff.com>,
>   bryan <bryan@stuff.com> wrote:
> >       I guess what I mean is, these things can't be used as your daily
> > drivers can they?
> 
> They most certainly can!  My friend's 12 second Talon is his daily driver.
> It has a full interior.  There are a bunch of people with 11 second
> daily drivers as well.  Probably a couple of people that use their 10 second
> cars as daily drivers.
> 
> Now, on 93 octane, you can't run as much boost as on 117 octane.
> But you can still drive the car on the street.  It just won't have
> as much horsepower.  But you don't have a lumpy idle from a race cam.
> Most of these guys run the stock cams in the car.
> 
> Truthfully, the only major modification is the larger turbo.  And you have
> perfect control over how much boost you run, on the track or on the street.
> 
> Josh Wingell
> '97 Eclipse GSX
> 
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

	Is 12 seconds really that great?  My little car does it in about 15
seconds with no modifications.  Sorry it just doesn't impress me.  I'm
used to seeing John Force and the other guys do it in 2 - 3 seconds.

-bryan

bryan <bryan@stuff.com> wrote:

>> Seriously, it is rare to hear of a DSM with internal engine problems
>> due to high boost unless the gasoline octane being used is not
>> high enough.
>> 
>> 24psi is quite common on race gas.

>	I guess what I mean is, these things can't be used as your daily
>drivers can they?  

If you're using an adjustable boost regulator such as an EVC, it's really
not a problem to run on the street using premium fuel; just keep the boost
at a reasonable level and there should be no problems.  If you have an
aftermarket clutch such as a CF DF, your left leg can get an extra
workout.
--
P.J. Hartman        hartman@tconl.com
Corvette, Talon, MGB, ZX-11, and Neon
    http://www.tconl.com/~hartman

In article <36C70B19.422@spamthis.com>,
  bryan <bryan@spamthis.com> wrote:
> shape@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > They most certainly can!  My friend's 12 second Talon is his daily driver.
> > It has a full interior.  There are a bunch of people with 11 second
> > daily drivers as well.  Probably a couple of people that use their 10 second
> > cars as daily drivers.
>
> 	Is 12 seconds really that great?  My little car does it in about 15
> seconds with no modifications.  Sorry it just doesn't impress me.  I'm
> used to seeing John Force and the other guys do it in 2 - 3 seconds.

It takes over 400hp to do the quarter mile in 12-seconds.  That is
double what a stock DSM comes with.

What is your car?  My car would do the 1/4mi in 15 seconds when it was
stock.

Believe me, it isn't very easy to knock 3 seconds off your 1/4mi time.
And to do it in a full-weight car is even less common.

And yea, John Force may be fast.  But he is paid to be fast and uses
a car who's engine is designed to be torn down after every race.  Go
figure that he is 9 seconds faster than most of us.

Josh Wingell
'97 Eclipse GSX

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

shape@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> 
> In article <36C70B19.422@spamthis.com>,
>   bryan <bryan@spamthis.com> wrote:
> > shape@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > They most certainly can!  My friend's 12 second Talon is his daily driver.
> > > It has a full interior.  There are a bunch of people with 11 second
> > > daily drivers as well.  Probably a couple of people that use their 10 second
> > > cars as daily drivers.
> >
> >       Is 12 seconds really that great?  My little car does it in about 15
> > seconds with no modifications.  Sorry it just doesn't impress me.  I'm
> > used to seeing John Force and the other guys do it in 2 - 3 seconds.
> 
> It takes over 400hp to do the quarter mile in 12-seconds.  That is
> double what a stock DSM comes with.

400hp?  I thought weight, transmission, etc played a major part...but
400hp?
 
> What is your car?  My car would do the 1/4mi in 15 seconds when it was
> stock.

98' sunfire gt.  nothing fancy.  its just my to/from work car.
 
> Believe me, it isn't very easy to knock 3 seconds off your 1/4mi time.
> And to do it in a full-weight car is even less common.
> 
> And yea, John Force may be fast.  But he is paid to be fast and uses
> a car who's engine is designed to be torn down after every race.  Go
> figure that he is 9 seconds faster than most of us.
> 
> Josh Wingell
> '97 Eclipse GSX
> 

  i guess...but my friends blown 40' ford could do it pretty fast too I
bet...and it didn't cost him too much.

-bryan

In article <36C8FE87.3464@stuff.com>,
  bryan <bryan@stuff.com> wrote:
> shape@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <36C70B19.422@spamthis.com>,
> >   bryan <bryan@spamthis.com> wrote:
> > > shape@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > > They most certainly can!  My friend's 12 second Talon is his daily
driver.
> > > > It has a full interior.  There are a bunch of people with 11 second
> > > > daily drivers as well.  Probably a couple of people that use their 10
second
> > > > cars as daily drivers.
> > >
> > >       Is 12 seconds really that great?  My little car does it in about 15
> > > seconds with no modifications.  Sorry it just doesn't impress me.  I'm
> > > used to seeing John Force and the other guys do it in 2 - 3 seconds.
> >
> > It takes over 400hp to do the quarter mile in 12-seconds.  That is
> > double what a stock DSM comes with.
>
> 400hp?  I thought weight, transmission, etc played a major part...but
> 400hp?

Of course.  But for a normal weight DSM (3200lbs), it takes over 400hp.

> > What is your car?  My car would do the 1/4mi in 15 seconds when it was
> > stock.
>
> 98' sunfire gt.  nothing fancy.  its just my to/from work car.

Your car is relatively light.  But not *that* light.  To do the 1/4mi
in 15 seconds, you would need 163hp at the wheels (rough calculation).

Your car has 150hp.  Probably 135hp at the wheels.  The car weighs
2780lbs (including a 150lb person).  Best case rough approximation
of the ET your car could get in the 1/4mi is 15.97s.

Check out http://www2.dsm.org/tools/calchp.htm

Believe me, a drive in a 12 second car or even a 13 second car
feels like a rocket compared to a 15 second car.  You would need
to double your hp to go 13s in the 1/4mi.

> > Believe me, it isn't very easy to knock 3 seconds off your 1/4mi time.
> > And to do it in a full-weight car is even less common.
> >
> > And yea, John Force may be fast.  But he is paid to be fast and uses
> > a car who's engine is designed to be torn down after every race.  Go
> > figure that he is 9 seconds faster than most of us.
>
>   i guess...but my friends blown 40' ford could do it pretty fast too I
> bet...and it didn't cost him too much.

Not sure what your point was here.  Anyway, a Viper is a 12.something
second car.  So is a Lotus Elise.  They just do it in different ways.
DSMs prefer to do it the turbocharged way, which turns out to be a
pretty good way at making a small displacement engine output big hp :-)

Josh Wingell
'97 Eclipse GSX

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

On Tue, 16 Feb 1999 20:17:14 GMT, shape@my-dejanews.com 
<shape@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <36C8FE87.3464@stuff.com>,
>  bryan <bryan@stuff.com> wrote:
>> shape@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <36C70B19.422@spamthis.com>,
>> >   bryan <bryan@spamthis.com> wrote:
>> > > shape@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> > > > They most certainly can!  My friend's 12 second Talon is his daily
>driver.
>> > > > It has a full interior.  There are a bunch of people with 11 second
>> > > > daily drivers as well.  Probably a couple of people that use their 10
>second
>> > > > cars as daily drivers.
>> > >
>> > >       Is 12 seconds really that great?  My little car does it in about 15
>> > > seconds with no modifications.  Sorry it just doesn't impress me.  I'm
>> > > used to seeing John Force and the other guys do it in 2 - 3 seconds.
>> >
>> > It takes over 400hp to do the quarter mile in 12-seconds.  That is
>> > double what a stock DSM comes with.
>>
>> 400hp?  I thought weight, transmission, etc played a major part...but
>> 400hp?
>
>Of course.  But for a normal weight DSM (3200lbs), it takes over 400hp.

My '63 Vette had about 400hp and weighed just a little more.  Biggest
problem doing 12.x's was it was so squirrely with those little (by modern
standards) tires.  But as a gross generality, you are correct.  Second
biggest problem was I kept breaking IRS frame mounts, but I did a great 
wheelie in the high school parking lot in front of the school narc.  Lost
my parking privileges for a month (spring, '74)!

>
>> > What is your car?  My car would do the 1/4mi in 15 seconds when it was
>> > stock.
>>
>> 98' sunfire gt.  nothing fancy.  its just my to/from work car.
>
>Your car is relatively light.  But not *that* light.  To do the 1/4mi
>in 15 seconds, you would need 163hp at the wheels (rough calculation).
>
>Your car has 150hp.  Probably 135hp at the wheels.  The car weighs
>2780lbs (including a 150lb person).  Best case rough approximation
>of the ET your car could get in the 1/4mi is 15.97s.
>
>Check out http://www2.dsm.org/tools/calchp.htm
>
>Believe me, a drive in a 12 second car or even a 13 second car
>feels like a rocket compared to a 15 second car.  You would need
>to double your hp to go 13s in the 1/4mi.
>
>> > Believe me, it isn't very easy to knock 3 seconds off your 1/4mi time.
>> > And to do it in a full-weight car is even less common.
>> >
>> > And yea, John Force may be fast.  But he is paid to be fast and uses
>> > a car who's engine is designed to be torn down after every race.  Go
>> > figure that he is 9 seconds faster than most of us.
>>
>>   i guess...but my friends blown 40' ford could do it pretty fast too I
>> bet...and it didn't cost him too much.
>
>Not sure what your point was here.  Anyway, a Viper is a 12.something
>second car.  So is a Lotus Elise.  They just do it in different ways.
>DSMs prefer to do it the turbocharged way, which turns out to be a
>pretty good way at making a small displacement engine output big hp :-)

So was my ZR1, although I was more careful with it.  Others have proven it.

>
>Josh Wingell
>'97 Eclipse GSX
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

jg
-- 
These opinions are my own. 
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry   Remove nospam to reply.  
mailto:joel-garry@nospam.home.com  Available for Oracle DBA work.

> Your car has 150hp.  Probably 135hp at the wheels.  The car weighs
> 2780lbs (including a 150lb person).  Best case rough approximation
> of the ET your car could get in the 1/4mi is 15.97s.
> 
> Check out http://www2.dsm.org/tools/calchp.htm

what about torque and the cars aerodynamics?  don't those play a part? 
I mean if you had a car with those specs but was a box shape its
obviuosly going to be a lot slower.

 
> Believe me, a drive in a 12 second car or even a 13 second car
> feels like a rocket compared to a 15 second car.  You would need
> to double your hp to go 13s in the 1/4mi.
> 
> > > Believe me, it isn't very easy to knock 3 seconds off your 1/4mi time.
> > > And to do it in a full-weight car is even less common.
> > >
> > > And yea, John Force may be fast.  But he is paid to be fast and uses
> > > a car who's engine is designed to be torn down after every race.  Go
> > > figure that he is 9 seconds faster than most of us.
> >
> >   i guess...but my friends blown 40' ford could do it pretty fast too I
> > bet...and it didn't cost him too much.
> 
> Not sure what your point was here.  Anyway, a Viper is a 12.something
> second car.  So is a Lotus Elise.  They just do it in different ways.
> DSMs prefer to do it the turbocharged way, which turns out to be a
> pretty good way at making a small displacement engine output big hp :-)
> 
> Josh Wingell
> '97 Eclipse GSX
> 


oh my point was that his car costs nowhere near these new little cars
but could probably smoke alot of them.

i guess given modern advances in technology anythings possible...but I
just like the brute force and muscle of the bigger cars.  To me they are
truly fast.

-bryan

In article <36CB8932.249B@stuff.com>,
  bryan <bryan@stuff.com> wrote:
> > Your car has 150hp.  Probably 135hp at the wheels.  The car weighs
> > 2780lbs (including a 150lb person).  Best case rough approximation
> > of the ET your car could get in the 1/4mi is 15.97s.
> >
> > Check out http://www2.dsm.org/tools/calchp.htm
>
> what about torque and the cars aerodynamics?  don't those play a part?
> I mean if you had a car with those specs but was a box shape its
> obviuosly going to be a lot slower.

I doubt that aerodynamics has much to do with 1/4mi times when
the car is travelling below 100mph.  But yes, aerodynamics does play
a role.

Hp is just a combination of RPM and torque in an equation with a constant
multiplier.

Like, I said, that equation is very rough.  But it is accurate enough to
give you some idea of how well your car will do in the 1/4mi.

Incidentally, a supercharged ram-air convertible Sunfire that Motor
Trend tested only did the 1/4mi in 15.1@91mph.  And that car had
197hp.

> i guess given modern advances in technology anythings possible...but I
> just like the brute force and muscle of the bigger cars.  To me they are
> truly fast.

I am not sure why people don't think that a turbocharger is a brute
force way of making power.  I mean, shoving 24psi into a 2L engine to
produce 600hp, and getting the car down the track in 9 seconds isn't
brute force enough for you? :-)

Turbochargers are anything but modern technology.  I bet that they
predate your friend's 40 Ford ;-)

Josh Wingell
'97 Eclipse GSX

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

> Incidentally, a supercharged ram-air convertible Sunfire that Motor
> Trend tested only did the 1/4mi in 15.1@91mph.  And that car had
> 197hp.

	I thought I read the supercharged sunfire had 225hp..


	ah oh well I don't race anyway (er well except those lame ass little
civic "racers" that make way too much noise for only going 20mph)

	Why would you put ram-air on a supercharged engine?  Isn't that
redundant?  I thought about building a ram-air setup for my car but it
kinda seems like a waste of time.

 
> > i guess given modern advances in technology anythings possible...but I
> > just like the brute force and muscle of the bigger cars.  To me they are
> > truly fast.
> 
> I am not sure why people don't think that a turbocharger is a brute
> force way of making power.  I mean, shoving 24psi into a 2L engine to
> produce 600hp, and getting the car down the track in 9 seconds isn't
> brute force enough for you? :-)

	Because they usually sound like someone humming through a comb covered
in wax paper :)  They don't shake the ground and roar like a nice big
v8.  They seem to wear out too often too.  Everyone I've known with
turbos in their car are always whining about having to replace bearings
and some fan things and ton of other parts.  My friends 240sx turbo was
nice while it lasted.

 
> Turbochargers are anything but modern technology.  I bet that they
> predate your friend's 40 Ford ;-)
> 
> Josh Wingell
> '97 Eclipse GSX
> 

	Probly do :)  I have no clue.

-bryan

bryan wrote in message <36CCFAE9.3D38@stuff.com>...
> Why would you put ram-air on a supercharged engine?  Isn't that
>redundant?  I thought about building a ram-air setup for my car but it
>kinda seems like a waste of time.

Ram-air is the most efficient form of forced induction available in the
sense that it doesn't  increase intake temperatures in addition to the
normal conservation of energy that's unavoidable when compressing a gas.
I.e. The more air you can force into a supercharger or turbo, the more air
each can efficiently pump out at higher boost pressures.  The effects of
ram-air however are not always obvious and tend to be less significant on
lower powered motors.


> Because they usually sound like someone humming through a comb covered
>in wax paper :)  They don't shake the ground and roar like a nice big
>v8.

It's always a bit humbling when one of my friends with a V8 240Z blips the
throttle through those dual glass packs.  No 4-banger can touch that.


>They seem to wear out too often too.  Everyone I've known with
>turbos in their car are always whining about having to replace bearings
>and some fan things and ton of other parts.  My friends 240sx turbo was
>nice while it lasted.

And good old American V8s last longer?  You're gonna have a hard time
supporting that one to those of us with relatively fresh 4 cylinders running
smooth with over 100k miles on them.

Turbos do add additional maintenance headaches, but these are less
frequently internal mechanical failures than other niggling problems like
bad oxygen sensors or a weak iginition system.  Murphy's Law is in effect
though with all of those additional parts to worry about.  Of course, just
one ignorant boost happy fool that runs too much boost and the fuel lean
makes for a quick recipe for disaster that's not as easy to produce with a
normally aspirated motor.

My theory is that it's easy to find the next weak link in a turbo motor.
Just turn the boost up!


--
Kip C. Anderson
kca at rio dot com
91 Impulse RS AWD Turbo @ 17 psi, 105,000 miles, and going strong . .

On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:54:21 -0800, "Kip C. Anderson"
<kca(@)rio(.)com> wrote:

>
>And good old American V8s last longer?  You're gonna have a hard time
>supporting that one to those of us with relatively fresh 4 cylinders running
>smooth with over 100k miles on them.
>
>Turbos do add additional maintenance headaches, but these are less
>frequently internal mechanical failures than other niggling problems like
>bad oxygen sensors or a weak iginition system.  Murphy's Law is in effect
>though with all of those additional parts to worry about.  Of course, just
>one ignorant boost happy fool that runs too much boost and the fuel lean
>makes for a quick recipe for disaster that's not as easy to produce with a
>normally aspirated motor.
>
>My theory is that it's easy to find the next weak link in a turbo motor.
>Just turn the boost up!


Turbo 4cyl are not more reliable than American V8s. A bad oxygen
sensor is about $50 and 15 minutes under the car. Weak ignition
problems?

You must not run your car that hard.

http://youvegotmail.acmecity.com/west61st/201/

Woody wrote in message <36cdbb22.5729469@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...

>Turbo 4cyl are not more reliable than American V8s.

Perhaps not, but it's been my experience that they have been.  No V8 engine
in my family (GM & Ford) has lasted more than 60-80k miles without needing
some serious attention.  Modern well designed 4 cylinder turbo motors such
as Toyota's 3S-GTE, or the Isuzu / Lotus 4XE1-WT motor have been known to
run fine with well over 100,000 miles under hard use (like track days,
autocrosses, and hillclimbs).  There are exceptions.


>A bad oxygen
>sensor is about $50 and 15 minutes under the car. Weak ignition
>problems?
>
>You must not run your car that hard.

If you mean by running 400 HP, no, not even close.  My point was that
typically in the better designed turbocharged motors, it's not the
mechanicals inside that are problematic when boost is increased, but the
other (sometimes really cheap and cheesy) components attached to the motor
that perform the various monitoring and controlling duties.  But yes, the
ignition on my car is a bit weak and demands that everything else such as
the wires and plugs are in top condition to run the level of boost that my
car is running.

--
Kip C. Anderson
kca at rio dot com

Are you talking about old carburated V8s?  Because a modern V8 will have $100 of
O2 sensors that will go bad just as often.

Woody wrote:

> Turbo 4cyl are not more reliable than American V8s. A bad oxygen
> sensor is about $50 and 15 minutes under the car. Weak ignition
> problems?
>
> You must not run your car that hard.
>
> http://youvegotmail.acmecity.com/west61st/201/

On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 19:29:54 -0800, bryan <bryan@stuff.com> wrote:
>> Your car has 150hp.  Probably 135hp at the wheels.  The car weighs
>> 2780lbs (including a 150lb person).  Best case rough approximation
>> of the ET your car could get in the 1/4mi is 15.97s.
>> 
>> Check out http://www2.dsm.org/tools/calchp.htm
>
>what about torque and the cars aerodynamics?  don't those play a part? 
>I mean if you had a car with those specs but was a box shape its
>obviuosly going to be a lot slower.

Yes, but less now than in the past now that most cars have similar 
aerodynamics.  As far as torque, yes, the torque curve over all engine
speeds is even more important than the horsepower at a particular engine 
speed, and they always are equal at a particular engine speed.  He was
just talking about a very rough approximation, so saying "15.97s" and
implying that a formula will give you accuracy to the hundredths is wrong.
Gearing, torque, shift points, rubber, air temperature, surface type all
added together can make a big difference, but given all those the same
you can use formulae to get a pretty close approximation.  Oh yeah, don't
forget driving skill!  :)

>
> 
>> Believe me, a drive in a 12 second car or even a 13 second car
>> feels like a rocket compared to a 15 second car.  You would need
>> to double your hp to go 13s in the 1/4mi.
>> 
>> > > Believe me, it isn't very easy to knock 3 seconds off your 1/4mi time.
>> > > And to do it in a full-weight car is even less common.
>> > >
>> > > And yea, John Force may be fast.  But he is paid to be fast and uses
>> > > a car who's engine is designed to be torn down after every race.  Go
>> > > figure that he is 9 seconds faster than most of us.
>> >
>> >   i guess...but my friends blown 40' ford could do it pretty fast too I
>> > bet...and it didn't cost him too much.
>> 
>> Not sure what your point was here.  Anyway, a Viper is a 12.something
>> second car.  So is a Lotus Elise.  They just do it in different ways.
>> DSMs prefer to do it the turbocharged way, which turns out to be a
>> pretty good way at making a small displacement engine output big hp :-)
>> 
>> Josh Wingell
>> '97 Eclipse GSX
>> 
>
>
>oh my point was that his car costs nowhere near these new little cars
>but could probably smoke alot of them.

A good point.

>
>i guess given modern advances in technology anythings possible...but I
>just like the brute force and muscle of the bigger cars.  To me they are
>truly fast.

One of the car magazines tested whether a new Vette was faster than an
old Vette (big block '67 427).  The old one was marginally faster IIRC.
But the new one was much easier to drive fast, and handled way better.
My friends who have had both old and late models, as have I, virtually
all agree that the old ones _seem_ faster, but for actually driving the
newer ones are much better.  Especially on a winding mountain road where
the penalty for steering box failure is death. 

But you are right, there really isn't anything like hearing a bunch of
carbs sucking air and gas into 8 large displacement cylinders.  And then
stomping on it!

I must admit though, I once made the mistake of stoplight racing a mid-60's
V12 Ferrari with my '63 Vette.  As soon as I redlined and put in the
clutch to shift to 2nd, he blew me away.

jg
-- 
These opinions are my own. 
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry   Remove nospam to reply.  
mailto:joel-garry@nospam.home.com  Available for Oracle DBA work.

On Sat, 20 Feb 1999 00:12:31 GMT, Woody <Woody93LX@yahoonospam.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 12:17:19 -0800, "Kip C. Anderson"
><kca(@)rio(.)com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Woody wrote in message <36cdbb22.5729469@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>>
>>>Turbo 4cyl are not more reliable than American V8s.
>>
>>Perhaps not, but it's been my experience that they have been.  No V8 engine
>>in my family (GM & Ford) has lasted more than 60-80k miles without needing
>>some serious attention.  Modern well designed 4 cylinder turbo motors such
>>as Toyota's 3S-GTE, or the Isuzu / Lotus 4XE1-WT motor have been known to
>>run fine with well over 100,000 miles under hard use (like track days,
>>autocrosses, and hillclimbs).  There are exceptions.
>
>
>'87 GT midly modified   145k and still runs strong
>'87 LX 5.0L   stock    136k and still runs strong
>'93 LX 5.0L  heavily modified   46k, 6k on engine (im breaking alot of
>
>      shit on this one so it doesn't count)
>
>the dinosaur pushrod V8s in the Caprice that Taxi companies use are
>one of the most reliable engines (even a crappy magazine like Consumer
>Reports says so). So are the Ford 302s and GM 350s

There are dinosaurs and there are dinosaurs (and dyno-soars).  The big
improvement in manufacturing that the Japanese learned from Deming was
to try to get everything exactly to spec, rather than within tolerances.
American companies finally came to that, too.  That is the biggest 
difference in manufacturing the engine between a '57 Chevy and the V8
Caprice (I was under the impression that most taxi companies used sixes, but 
I don't really know - they _used_ to).  The other big difference is in bearing
and other materials, both in content and quality.  More recently, using 
roller bearings has helped valve trains last longer.  That is why I never
had to open up the engine in my '86 Lincoln in over 200K miles.  And I
still see it driving around a couple years after I sold it!

Note that even Lotus went to a V8.

>
>I would say that 4cyl from Toyota and Honda non force inducted would
>be more reliable than the V8s, but not the force inducted. My 4cyl
>Toyota's got 206k.

I agree.  As someone else posted, more complicated systems.

It's certainly fair to say that modern inducted engines are more reliable
than older normally aspirated engines.  It may not be fair to compare
modern V8s to older V8s in reliability.  I find that Saturn commercial
about the 300K car that only had the drivers seat go bad... suitable for
tabloid TV.


jg
-- 
These opinions are my own. 
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry   Remove nospam to reply.  
mailto:joel-garry@nospam.home.com  Available for Oracle DBA work.

Joel Garry wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 20 Feb 1999 00:12:31 GMT, Woody <Woody93LX@yahoonospam.com> wrote:
>>'87 GT midly modified   145k and still runs strong
>>'87 LX 5.0L   stock    136k and still runs strong

I'm truly impressed, but I think Joel hit the nail on the head here with the
following:

>>'93 LX 5.0L  heavily modified   46k, 6k on engine (im breaking alot of
>>
>>      shit on this one so it doesn't count)
>>
>>the dinosaur pushrod V8s in the Caprice that Taxi companies use are
>>one of the most reliable engines (even a crappy magazine like Consumer
>>Reports says so). So are the Ford 302s and GM 350s
>
>There are dinosaurs and there are dinosaurs (and dyno-soars).  The big
>improvement in manufacturing that the Japanese learned from Deming was
>to try to get everything exactly to spec, rather than within tolerances.


>Note that even Lotus went to a V8.

They had to.  US safety regs. and all of the 'nicey-nice' stuff that the
consumers with the money were demanding added so much weight to the cars
that it just wasn't practical to use a 4 cylinder anymore, but they still
had to slap a couple of compressors on . .

Now when somebody stuffs one into the Elise we'll have something!


>It's certainly fair to say that modern inducted engines are more reliable
>than older normally aspirated engines.  It may not be fair to compare
>modern V8s to older V8s in reliability.  I find that Saturn commercial
>about the 300K car that only had the drivers seat go bad... suitable for
>tabloid TV.

These ads mostly appeal to the people who think of the automobile as a
utility, unlike most of the rest of us who also consider it a source of
entertainment and a hobby.

Sorry, I'd never buy a Saturn because of ads like that among other reasons.
I suppose I hardly qualify as part of their target market though . . .


--
Kip C. Anderson
kca at rio dot com
91 Impulse RS AWD Turbo @ 17 psi

P.S.  'How do you get the smell of fear out of the passenger seat?'

On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 12:17:19 -0800, "Kip C. Anderson"
<kca(@)rio(.)com> wrote:

>
>Woody wrote in message <36cdbb22.5729469@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>>Turbo 4cyl are not more reliable than American V8s.
>
>Perhaps not, but it's been my experience that they have been.  No V8 engine
>in my family (GM & Ford) has lasted more than 60-80k miles without needing
>some serious attention.  Modern well designed 4 cylinder turbo motors such
>as Toyota's 3S-GTE, or the Isuzu / Lotus 4XE1-WT motor have been known to
>run fine with well over 100,000 miles under hard use (like track days,
>autocrosses, and hillclimbs).  There are exceptions.


'87 GT midly modified   145k and still runs strong
'87 LX 5.0L   stock    136k and still runs strong
'93 LX 5.0L  heavily modified   46k, 6k on engine (im breaking alot of

      shit on this one so it doesn't count)

the dinosaur pushrod V8s in the Caprice that Taxi companies use are
one of the most reliable engines (even a crappy magazine like Consumer
Reports says so). So are the Ford 302s and GM 350s

I would say that 4cyl from Toyota and Honda non force inducted would
be more reliable than the V8s, but not the force inducted. My 4cyl
Toyota's got 206k.

On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 12:39:52 -0800, Andy Radin <fourfa@pcweb.net>
wrote:

>Are you talking about old carburated V8s?  Because a modern V8 will have $100 of
>O2 sensors that will go bad just as often.
>
>Woody wrote:
>
>> Turbo 4cyl are not more reliable than American V8s. A bad oxygen
>> sensor is about $50 and 15 minutes under the car. Weak ignition
>> problems?
>>
>> You must not run your car that hard.
>>
>> http://youvegotmail.acmecity.com/west61st/201/
>

02 sensors are not a major repair issue.

they cost about $50/each on my '93 Mustang.

"Kip C. Anderson" <kca(@)rio(.)com> wrote:
>bryan wrote in message <36CCFAE9.3D38@stuff.com>...
>> Why would you put ram-air on a supercharged engine? [...]
>
>Ram-air is the most efficient form of forced induction available in the
>sense that it doesn't  increase intake temperatures in addition to the
>normal conservation of energy that's unavoidable when compressing a gas.

At normal road speeds, there is essentially no "ramming" going on in 
a ram air system.  The most additional pressure you can get from a 
ram air system is the "stagnation pressure", which is fractions of a 
percent higher than ambient pressure at speeds below 100 mph.  

By the time you put baffles and ducting in to keep water from 
ramming itself into your engine along with the air, I don't think a 
ram air system provides any significant pressure increase at all.  
IMHO, calling ram air "forced induction" is wishful thinking.

What ram air does well is providing a supply of *cool* air, where 
the factory ducting may not.  Any performance benefit from ram air 
systems comes from lowering air temperature, not raising pressure.
     
>I.e. The more air you can force into a supercharger or turbo, the more air
>each can efficiently pump out at higher boost pressures.  The effects of
>ram-air however are not always obvious and tend to be less significant on
>lower powered motors.

Cool air is even more important to blown engines than it is to NA 
engines, so I agree that ram air (oops, cool air) systems can help a 
forced-induction engine.
--
Chuck Tomlinson

agree.  As someone else posted, more complicated systems.
> 
> It's certainly fair to say that modern inducted engines are more reliable
> than older normally aspirated engines.  It may not be fair to compare
> modern V8s to older V8s in reliability.  I find that Saturn commercial
> about the 300K car that only had the drivers seat go bad... suitable for
> tabloid TV.
> 
> jg
> --


	I don't buy that commercial...we had a Saturn SL2...that thing was a
piece of crap since day on.  Got about 120k out of it then we had to get
rid of that thing.

-bryan

Chuck Tomlinson wrote in message <7am212$f0g@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>...

>By the time you put baffles and ducting in to keep water from
>ramming itself into your engine along with the air, I don't think a
>ram air system provides any significant pressure increase at all.
>IMHO, calling ram air "forced induction" is wishful thinking.

>What ram air does well is providing a supply of *cool* air, where
>the factory ducting may not.  Any performance benefit from ram air
>systems comes from lowering air temperature, not raising pressure.

>Cool air is even more important to blown engines than it is to NA
>engines, so I agree that ram air (oops, cool air) systems can help a
>forced-induction engine.
>--
>Chuck Tomlinson

I agree that ram-air systems aren't too terribly useful at legal road speeds
in the 55-65 range, however forced induction does not necessarily have to
mean pressurization.  Ram-air also takes advantage of the mass and inertia
of air to minimize a drop in intake plenum pressure.  A mere pressure drop
of 0.5 psi at wide open throttle (a real possibility depending on the motor
and ducting restrictions) could mean as much as a 3.4% deficit in power.  On
a motor capable of 200 HP, this works out to 6-7 HP, a significant
difference.  Merely maintaining the pressure in the intake to atmospheric
would be worth the effort IMO.

A friend of mine has run A/B tests on his Storm with ram-air type ducting
and without - all using the original airbox and plenums - and he was able to
find several tenths quicker 1/4 miles times out of it.  Being that all of
the original ducting restrictions were still in place, I have trouble
believing that there isn't any pressurization, and the location of the
original pickup doesn't lend much to picking up hot engine air in the fender
given the way that it is isolated from the engine compartment.  Granted, the
scientific controls in this experiment may be somewhat suspect, but he
managed to get faster times out of a longer, less direct intake plenum at th
e track.

Take a look at modern motorcycles as well.  They hardly have a problem with
getting cool air, yet sport bike makers have gone out of their way to put
ram-air ducts in the front of the fairings, despite the obvious downside of
collecting bugs or whatever else should happen to get up that high.

If you're still having trouble swallowing the idea that air is pressurized
in ram-air systems, stick your head out the window of your car at 100 MPH
with your mouth open.  I have a feeling you'll swallow that . . if not a bug
or two. ;-)

Unlike turbos, which some have been erroneous in calling free horsepower,
ram-air is free power so long as a person isn't creating more frontal area
or turbulence to take advantage of it's effects.


--
Kip C. Anderson
kca at rio dot com

On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 20:15:07 -0800, Kip C. Anderson <kcariocom> wrote:
>
>
>Joel Garry wrote in message ...
>
>>Note that even Lotus went to a V8.
>
>They had to.  US safety regs. and all of the 'nicey-nice' stuff that the
>consumers with the money were demanding added so much weight to the cars
>that it just wasn't practical to use a 4 cylinder anymore, but they still
>had to slap a couple of compressors on . .
>
>Now when somebody stuffs one into the Elise we'll have something!

It's too early in the morning, but isn't that front wheel drive?  More
power and front weight might be a negative.

>
>
>>It's certainly fair to say that modern inducted engines are more reliable
>>than older normally aspirated engines.  It may not be fair to compare
>>modern V8s to older V8s in reliability.  I find that Saturn commercial
>>about the 300K car that only had the drivers seat go bad... suitable for
>>tabloid TV.
>
>These ads mostly appeal to the people who think of the automobile as a
>utility, unlike most of the rest of us who also consider it a source of
>entertainment and a hobby.

Yeah, that's why I support public transportation, heck I'd take a train
to work if I could, save the bucks for serious fun!

>
>Sorry, I'd never buy a Saturn because of ads like that among other reasons.
>I suppose I hardly qualify as part of their target market though . . .
>

What, no rigid leering rictus-like religious smile?

:)

>
>--
>Kip C. Anderson
>kca at rio dot com
>91 Impulse RS AWD Turbo @ 17 psi
>
>P.S.  'How do you get the smell of fear out of the passenger seat?'
>

Well, they keep advertising this Febreze stuff on TV...

Funny, this reminded me of years ago, I bought my then-girlfriend an old
VW with aftermarket seat covers, and our golden lab went nuts trying to
dig out something he smelled in the passenger seat - we never could figure 
out what...

jg
-- 
These opinions are my own. 
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry   Remove nospam to reply.  
mailto:joel-garry@nospam.home.com  Available for Oracle DBA work.

On Sat, 20 Feb 1999 22:10:53 -0800, "Kip C. Anderson"
<kca(@)rio(.)com> wrote:

>A friend of mine has run A/B tests on his Storm with ram-air type ducting
>and without - all using the original airbox and plenums - and he was able to
>find several tenths quicker 1/4 miles times out of it.  Being that all of
>the original ducting restrictions were still in place, I have trouble
>believing that there isn't any pressurization, and the location of the
>original pickup doesn't lend much to picking up hot engine air in the fender
>given the way that it is isolated from the engine compartment.  Granted, the
>scientific controls in this experiment may be somewhat suspect, but he
>managed to get faster times out of a longer, less direct intake plenum at th
>e track.

"Several tenths?"

Taking that to be true, most of the real time is made in the first 1/8
mi., where the car is slowest, and the rest of the 1/4 mi. is just for
MPH.  If there is a *time* difference, that would tend to indicate
more power off the line, such as if there was some power increase at
slow speeds.  But if there wasn't any real change in the times, but
the trap speed increased noticably, that would indicate to me that
there was more power at faster speeds.

So from what you state, you are supporting Chuck's hypothesis of it
making cooler air, since there was no pressurization to be inferred
from your description.

IMO and all that

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "Gumbyy"

On Sat, 20 Feb 1999 10:16:02 GMT, tomlinsc@ix.netcom.com (Chuck
Tomlinson) wrote:

>At normal road speeds, there is essentially no "ramming" going on in 
>a ram air system.  The most additional pressure you can get from a 
>ram air system is the "stagnation pressure", which is fractions of a 
>percent higher than ambient pressure at speeds below 100 mph.  
>
>By the time you put baffles and ducting in to keep water from 
>ramming itself into your engine along with the air, I don't think a 
>ram air system provides any significant pressure increase at all.  
>IMHO, calling ram air "forced induction" is wishful thinking.


It depends on the car. My Mustang gets air from the fender which is
not very efficient. So a ram air that I made out of $10 worth of a
clothes dryer ducting material helped throttle response even at 20mph
or so. 

Most of the newer cars already have a similar setup of ramming air
through ducting into the throttle body.

Although, there's alot more bugs and gravel in my air filter, so
that's kind of scarry, and puddles of water can be bad too, so I took
it off.

http://youvegotmail.acmecity.com/west61st/201/

"Kip C. Anderson" <kca(@)rio(.)com> wrote:
>
>I agree that ram-air systems aren't too terribly useful at legal road speeds
>in the 55-65 range, however forced induction does not necessarily have to
>mean pressurization.  Ram-air also takes advantage of the mass and inertia
>of air to minimize a drop in intake plenum pressure.  A mere pressure drop
>of 0.5 psi at wide open throttle (a real possibility depending on the motor
>and ducting restrictions) could mean as much as a 3.4% deficit in power.  On
>a motor capable of 200 HP, this works out to 6-7 HP, a significant
>difference.  Merely maintaining the pressure in the intake to atmospheric
>would be worth the effort IMO.

I understand what you're saying, but like I said before, ram-air 
ducting (because of the desire to keep water etc. out of the engine) 
is not necessarily free of restriction, or even less restricted than 
carefully-designed normal ducting.  

>A friend of mine has run A/B tests on his Storm with ram-air type ducting
>and without - all using the original airbox and plenums - and he was able to
>find several tenths quicker 1/4 miles times out of it.

That's... incredible :-)

>Take a look at modern motorcycles as well.  They hardly have a problem with
>getting cool air, yet sport bike makers have gone out of their way to put
>ram-air ducts in the front of the fairings, despite the obvious downside of
>collecting bugs or whatever else should happen to get up that high.

IIRC, bikes without "ram air" ducting pull air from behind/downwind 
of the rather warm engine.  I may be wrong about that, I haven't 
been keeping up on the latest 2-wheeled tech.

>If you're still having trouble swallowing the idea that air is pressurized
>in ram-air systems, stick your head out the window of your car at 100 MPH
>with your mouth open.  I have a feeling you'll swallow that . . if not a bug
>or two. ;-)

I'm not really guessing here.  Maximum ram pressure is determined by 
a pretty simple equation: Pmax = 0.5 * air_density * air_speed^2.  
That's _maximum_ ram pressure.  Normal ram systems will fall short 
of achieving that maximum pressure.
 
>Unlike turbos, which some have been erroneous in calling free horsepower,
>ram-air is free power so long as a person isn't creating more frontal area
>or turbulence to take advantage of it's effects.

Believe me, I'm not disputing the value of cool intake air, as long 
as the cool air ducting doesn't bring other problems along with it 
(water being the biggie for street-driven cars, IMHO).  
--
Chuck Tomlinson