928S4 dilemma
no1herenow
I have an '88 928S4, 50K miles, meticulously maintained, always
garaged. Has virtually never even seen rain. Had to have it towed to
the dealer after the engine died on the highway. Diagnosis was a
lower-end engine failure, causing fatal damage to the block. (I will
go look at it tomorrow to see the specifics).
I think I have 3 options:
1). Sell it as-is, maybe get $3k-$4k for it.
2). Replace the engine with a used one. Looks as if total cost, if
installed by dealer, is about $8k. I would then sell it.
3). (no hate mail please) drop in a small-block chevy. (wife hates
this, as my honey-do list is long, but I would enjoy doing it, as a
former pro-streeter).
I'm trying to determine how to minimize my losses if I limit my
options between 1 & 2. Suggestions?
Walt Konecny
news:4e94f69.01082...@posting.google.com...
> Here's the situation; I'm looking for some guidance.
>
> I have an '88 928S4, 50K miles, meticulously maintained, always
> garaged. Has virtually never even seen rain. Had to have it towed to
> the dealer after the engine died on the highway. Diagnosis was a
> lower-end engine failure, causing fatal damage to the block. (I will
> go look at it tomorrow to see the specifics).
Is yours an automatic? Was it TBF (thrust bearing failure)? We've seen a few
of these recently.
wk
Wilkes
fords are running Chevy small blocks? Even Chevy small blocks should be
capable of more than 50K miles! But, remember these folks are purists and
don't think much of "outlaw" cars. PCA only needs a VIN to be a member. They
don't have any stipulations about power swaps. They refer to heavily
modified cars as "outlaws" and have done at least one cover story in the
last year on a outlaw car in Panorama (the PCA magazine). Granted the car
was all Porsche, but, it was basically a 356 to start with but had been
fitted with 911 power and much body modification to accommodate the new
drive. Depends on whether you're willing to take the hot rod approach or the
Porsche purist approach?? From the posts in this group the majority are
purists and would consider your option 3 an un-holy act. Myself, I grew up a
hot rodder who thought Porsches were a very classy car, so I have one, a 77
930 (also have a 50 Chev 5 window pickup with a 350). But, as the hot rodder
in me says "if it don't go, chrome it!". From my perspective it's your
choice on the options you've given.
W3
PS- Remember, all internal combustion engines work on the same principal -
"Suck, Push, Bang, Blow". Leads me to believe that other activities may have
inspired the internal combustion engine.
"no1herenow" <no1he...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4e94f69.01082...@posting.google.com...
Walt Konecny
news:9JEg7.2213$J93.6...@news.uswest.net...
> How does your option 3 cost compare with the $8k for option 2? How many 32
> fords are running Chevy small blocks? Even Chevy small blocks should be
> capable of more than 50K miles! But, remember these folks are purists and
> don't think much of "outlaw" cars. PCA only needs a VIN to be a member.
True, but I could never see the benefit of being a PCA member anyway, Pano
is about the most boring reading you can get.
Check out http://renegadehybrids.com/
You can get a low mileage LT1 motor complete with brain, etc from a salvage
yard complete for about $2500 or less, and the conversion kit with all parts
you'll need will be about $2000. The stock LT1 will give you about 300hp,
for about $3000 more, you can squeeze another 150 hp out of it. If you have
any mechanical aptitude whatsoever, you can do it yourself.
wk
88 928 S4 A/T
94 Vette LT1 6-spd
...and a bunch of other toys
Prince Makaha
the porsche transaxle.
Darin Autry
butter!!
When is a Porsche not a Porsche?
"Walt Konecny" <wkon...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:kWGg7.1518$Rk6.4...@news.uswest.net...
Walt Konecny
news:mdIg7.4575$zk4.4...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> You'd probably have to add the custom fabrication costs of mating a chevy
to
> the porsche transaxle.
Nope, that's all included in the conversion kit. The Chevy mounts very
nicely to the front of the torque tube, whether it's an automatic with just
the flexplate in the front, or a manual with the clutch in the front. Same
as putting a Chevy in a 944b ut only half as much work.
Easy job.
wk
Craig Froehle
IMHO, much of the joy of a Porsche is the sound of the engine -- as
reliable as Chevy small-blocks are, I wouldn't want one in a 944, a 928
or even a 914. Well, maybe a 914. ;-)
- Craig
cr...@memoware.com
http://www.memoware.com - The PDA Document Repository
Hot Rod
Groups. You can get all the answers and pricing you need from there. Have
Fun
San Antonio Silver Bullet
think there are areas that we've got down pat that the Germans need to learn
from, but engine building is not one of them.
Why soil a Porsche with a weenie vette engine?
Later,
Michael Sorbera
87 944 Turbo Driver
aka San Antonio Silver Bullet
"Hot Rod" <NoSpam...@xcelco.on.ca> wrote in message
news:to7hvmn...@corp.supernews.com...
Walt Konecny
news:2XQg7.86134$NK1.6...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> We Americans do NOT build the best, fastest engines in the world. I do
> think there are areas that we've got down pat that the Germans need to
learn
> from, but engine building is not one of them.
> Why soil a Porsche with a weenie vette engine?
> Later,
> Michael Sorbera
> 87 944 Turbo Driver
> aka San Antonio Silver Bullet
Hmmm...let's see, a 316hp Porsche crate motor (if still available) for a 928
S4 is approx $25K, a Chev crate small block with much higher hp is approx
$6K
Do the math....
wk
Walt Konecny
news:3B83BE98...@memoware.com...
> IMHO, much of the joy of a Porsche is the sound of the engine --
I drive both a Vette and a 928, both sound great. One does not sound
"better" than the other. The major factor in the sound will be the exhaust
system, which you can change to sound like anything you want.
wk
San Antonio Silver Bullet
the vette engine?
Later,
Michael Sorbera
87 944 Turbo Driver
aka San Antonio Silver Bullet
"Walt Konecny" <wkon...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:OfSg7.456$Ns6.1...@news.uswest.net...
Walt Konecny
> Math has variables...the variable here is how long and hard can you drive
> the vette engine?
> Later,
> Michael Sorbera
> 87 944 Turbo Driver
> aka San Antonio Silver Bullet
As long and hard as the P-engine, and on top of that, you won't be subject
to that annoying timing belt failure, which usually wipes out the 4v
engines. Also, maintenance on the Chev motor is _much_ cheaper than on the
P-motor.
wk
Hot Rod
a ton of Chevs that have run far beyond 200'000 miles so if you take into
account that it's 1/4 the price you end up with a basic guarantee that you
can put 800'000 miles on the chev engine before you get even with the
PORSCHE engine. And were not even taking into account the fact that the
extra 16'000 will be sitting in your account until the next rebuild will be
gaining interest.
karl l gruber
fitting that a Chevrolet engine be installed.
Karl
no1herenow
I went to the shop this afternoon (not impressed by the mechanics
there, even though this is a highly-rated P dealership).
The failure is related to two metal pulleys, attached together by an
arm, and are held on the block by two dowels, under the crankshaft.
The timing belt rides on these two pulleys. It appears that part of
the casting on the block that holds one of the dowels has broken away,
causing the belt tension to drop. The front edge of the timing belt is
fairly chewed up. Looks as if timing is way off, so the heads need to
come off.
Since the motor needs to come out anyway, I think it should be fairly
straight-forward to weld & machine an equivalent piece on the block,
and then perform the usual 'jumped timing belt bent valves' repair
ritual. Took the car to an independent porsche-repair-only shop that I
had frequented in the past. Will run a few $$ to repair, but since the
car has essentially no value without a strong running engine, this
looks like the road I'll take. Will get an estimate today; I'm
guessing $8k.
"Walt Konecny" <wkon...@uswest.net> wrote in message news:<gaEg7.1379$Rk6.3...@news.uswest.net>...
Darin Autry
over 600k. Some Mercs over 1M.
If you can't afford the Porsche, go buy a GM. I've had to slam on the
conversion people who troll here time and time again. You go find a good
automotive engineer who'll tell you that you'll be better off and you'll
find a rarety. Any good engineer knows the variables that can come into
play on something like this doesn't just end at the mounting and mating.
Find you a decent used but garenteed motor. 20 st. in Phoenix is probably
the best place. I got an '86 955 w/ 65k verified (I got stupid with mine
one day at 325k, I hydrolocked it and cracked #3 cylinder). It had less
leakdown and better compression that ANY 50-60k GM motor I've seen. In fact
I'd put the my results up against a new one. ANYway, I only paid $950
+shipping, had a 1 mos. 12k warrenty and didn't, repeat didn't have to
return a core. I'd be willing to bet if you went that route you'd come out
much better in the long run and then you'd know you weren't just a sheep in
wolfs clothing.
"Hot Rod" <NoSpam...@xcelco.on.ca> wrote in message
news:to84fvi...@corp.supernews.com...
Darin Autry
the old engine for taking the time to have fun with!!
uh@noway.com o)+>
Brad
> I think I have 3 options:
> 1). Sell it as-is, maybe get $3k-$4k for it.
> 2). Replace the engine with a used one. Looks as if total cost, if
> installed by dealer, is about $8k. I would then sell it.
> 3). (no hate mail please) drop in a small-block chevy. (wife hates
> this, as my honey-do list is long, but I would enjoy doing it, as a
> former pro-streeter).
>
> I'm trying to determine how to minimize my losses if I limit my
> options between 1 & 2. Suggestions?
From what has been said already on 1 & 2, #3 sounds like a no-brainer,
especially since you can probably tackle it yourself and have fun while
you do it. Even picking up a used 300hp LT1 from a Corvette would work
well, or put on some aftermarket heads etc before you even bolt the
thing in. Just think, a water pump would then cost $30. Best part,
though, is that you can then piss off any snobby Porsche purists who
think a Chevy engine in there is sacrilege.
And if you go for #1, then maybe I'll take it off your hands and do #3
myself.
Lee & Rita Smith
porsche is porsche, no matter what the power plant. do we distinguish
between different kinds of aircraft by who built the engine? hell no, its
all about the chassis. go for the v-8 conversion, you wont regret it.
Lee
"Brad" <BigP...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B861C2E...@ix.netcom.com...
Brad
>
> dude,
> porsche is porsche, no matter what the power plant. do we distinguish
> between different kinds of aircraft by who built the engine? hell no, its
> all about the chassis. go for the v-8 conversion, you wont regret it.
I know a guy who just put a Mitsubishi Eclipse turbo 2.0 in a 911.
Pretty easy to get 400 or (a lot) more horsepower out of them, so good
enough. Lots of room in the engine bay, too. So yank that
too-expensive-for-its-own-good puppy out of there and pop in a V8
already. If you don't, I will. >:|
rob
made v-8 engines are not what sad stories are made of..Quite the contrary.
"San Antonio Silver Bullet" <sor...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:2XQg7.86134$NK1.6...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Prince Makaha
other combinations. Kind of sucks when I mention that my 1969 SS-427
impala had a LS-1 and all I get are blank stares. Still trying to find
a 9.4 fender emblem for the old merlin. Personally, I would have gone
with either repair or a 345hp GTS motor.
Darin Autry
Again, I have to agree. Would you but a Vega interior into a Mercedes?????
Like I said. If you can't afford it, get rid of it an buy yourself a Monte
Carlo. Don't ruin it just because some dumb redneck thinks he's an
automotive engineer.
"rob" <rob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KtFh7.68401$MC1.22...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com...
Darin Autry
better aircraft. Tell ya' what. Why don't you drop that GM powerplant into
a Mooney!!
BWAAhahahahahahahaha.
Better yet. Why not drop an Allison in the 928
Bwahahahahahahaha
Or even better. A GE turbine!!!!! Or a Pratt and Whitney Radial. That'll
make it "fly".
DUDE,
If you replace the motor with an imposter, it's the SHELL of some
bastardized Porsche with another motor.
Sorry this poor soul doesn't make the jack to afford his car. If he want's
a GM he should sell the Porsche as is, cut his losses and go buy and old
Cutlass with a 350.
For Christs sake, why don't we all rush out and rip that Testarossa 12 out
and slam a GM in it. I'm "sure" the performance will be the same.
Bunch of idiots. Why don't you consult a REAL automotive engineer on the
subject instead of making yourselves look the fool. It's in my opinion that
there IS no one here with a 928 problem. It's just some stupid redneck
troll trying to sell his conversion kit so he can buy more Shaffers.
SAY!, now THERE's an idea. Why don't we take Warstiener and put Shaffers
in it. It'll still be a good German beer, right????
BWAHAHAHA
"Lee & Rita Smith" <smit...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1zqh7.2553$OW....@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com...
Darin Autry
HP. 12 extra if you'll take a big red majic marker and right "TypeR" on the
side!!
You guys are totally clueless and therefore choose not to respond anymore.
If these are the same idiots who came here boasting their conversions I'd of
thought you would have figured it out. Not once has any credentials been
given, no one at their shop was an engineer and no one wanted to talk about
the long term. Just the quick "hey, let's make a quick buck of these idiots
who don't want to pay the price for excellence".
Go away little trolls, your mama's callin'.
"Brad" <BigP...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B86B540...@ix.netcom.com...
Darin Autry
enough to perform a powerplant conversion yourself, then why do you need a
shop to do a simple engine swap for you????
Seems sort of unusual to me. Don't you think??
I mean, c'mon. If your tryin' to save money here.
Tell ya' what. I find ya' the 32V motor in A-1 shape and get it to ya for
under 3.5k. Then, since your inept enough to handle a motor conversion, I'm
sure you should be able to put it in yourself!! You up for it or are you
just a troll trying to advertize bastardizing Porsche???
"Brad" <BigP...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B861C2E...@ix.netcom.com...
Darin Autry
HP. 12 extra if you'll take a big red majic marker and right "TypeR" on the
side!!
You guys are totally clueless and therefore choose not to respond anymore.
If these are the same idiots who came here boasting their conversions I'd of
thought you would have figured it out. Not once has any credentials been
given, no one at their shop was an engineer and no one wanted to talk about
the long term. Just the quick "hey, let's make a quick buck of these idiots
who don't want to pay the price for excellence".
Go away little trolls, your mama's callin'.
"Brad" <BigP...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B86B540...@ix.netcom.com...
Darin Autry
enough to perform a powerplant conversion yourself, then why do you need a
shop to do a simple engine swap for you????
Seems sort of unusual to me. Don't you think??
I mean, c'mon. If your tryin' to save money here.
Tell ya' what. I find ya' the 32V motor in A-1 shape and get it to ya for
under 3.5k. Then, since your inept enough to handle a motor conversion, I'm
sure you should be able to put it in yourself!! You up for it or are you
just a troll trying to advertize bastardizing Porsche???
"Brad" <BigP...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B861C2E...@ix.netcom.com...
Walt Konecny
news:ZKZh7.889$%Q6.4...@news.uswest.net...
> That's why Mooney uses Porsche power. Thank you! Because they want a
> better aircraft. Tell ya' what. Why don't you drop that GM powerplant
into
> a Mooney!!
Once more, you're showing your colossal ignorance, Autry, if indeed, that is
your real name. Mooney experimented with the aircooled P-motor as did Cessna
in the 172. In both cases it was a bust, partially due to the high price of
the P-motor, and went exactly nowhere. How does this relate to the heavy
watercooled V8 in the 928 anyway? And yes, there are a lot more GM
powerplants in airplanes than Porsche powerplants.
Now, from what I've heard, you're the proud owner of some 300K mile 924 POS
or something along on those lines. Those of us who actually own, drive, work
on, convert, etc, Porsche 928s will continue this conversation, you may go
back to your own group, and continue to accost them with your perpetual
misinformation.
Either way, stop trolling this ng. You have never contributed anything of
value.
wk
88 928 S4 A/T
94 Corvette LT1 6 spd
and many other fine toys, including a Teledyne Continental powered Cessna
182
Walt Konecny
> Yeah, and if you add the ricer coffee can to the exhaust you'll get 50
more
> HP. 12 extra if you'll take a big red majic marker and right "TypeR" on
the
> side!!
Motor conversions have been done as long as cars have existed, that's the
way it is.
> You guys are totally clueless and therefore choose not to respond anymore.
No, we're not going to respond anymore because we're tired of feeding your
troll.
> If these are the same idiots who came here boasting their conversions I'd
of
> thought you would have figured it out. Not once has any credentials been
> given, no one at their shop was an engineer and no one wanted to talk
about
> the long term. Just the quick "hey, let's make a quick buck of these
idiots
> who don't want to pay the price for excellence".
Oh yeah, that's what it takes for conversions, you and your "automotive
engineer" - - by the way, that appears to be some sort of fixation for you,
do you really LIKE "automotive engineers" ? - - might explain a lot.....
Ok, I'm done feeding the troll, he knows nothing about anything but
continues to be a major source of noise and bandwidth pollution.
wk
Brad
>
> Yeah, and if you add the ricer coffee can to the exhaust you'll get 50 more
> HP. 12 extra if you'll take a big red majic marker and right "TypeR" on the
> side!!
What does a ricer coffee can tip have to do with anything? Are you
trying to say you can't get a pretty easy 400hp out of an Eclipse 2.0
engine, or are you just being defensive because some people don't think
Porsche engines are a any better option to have in a car than various
other engines? Or, you're probably simply a troll.
Darin Autry
offer a little decent advice based on years of work. I've over 20 years
behind me rebuilding and restoring several cars. During ALL that time I've
NEVER seen a conversion that worked worth a damn. In fact, the ones I have
seen have been nothing but a heartache to the owner especially the ones who
thought they have a better "value" afterwards. I'm speaking from experience
here, not from wanting to make a sell.
As far as in "automotive engineering" goes any idiot with common sense will
know that most cars are designed to be a unit. Those that don't certainly
need a little bit more education before they start trying to play things
like this I.E. The body, chassis, engine are all developed on designed
around each other. Except for maybe the lower bred GM's, etc.
Again, Sorry if you can't make the jack to maintain your car. If one can't
afford it, don't buy it. But please don't butcher it because some dumb
redneck thinks that GM powerplants are the end all be all to human
existance.
Oh, and I like the way that you want to excuse your ingnorance by saying
that I don't know anything. Seems that "I've" posed several viable
questions on these conversion issues that always seem to get sidestepped by
you conversion clowns. Why can't you answer them????? I'll list them at
the bottom here and see if you can!
Damn, at least proves I'm intelligent enough to stump some "wannabe"
automotive engineer.
Go back to school and retake basic mechanical Physics. Doubt you'll be able
to handle a more intense one so take the algebra based one for your own
sake.
1.) Has any stress related testing been done to the drive line?? (the
conversion nuts always like to sidestep that one. Why don't you explain
what can happen to an overstressed transmission. Thats ok, guess you'll
replace it with a Ford!!)
2.) Since the conversion nuts claim better performance has any thought been
given to the necessary modification needed to the suspension and braking
systems in order to insure the car will remain safe???
3.) Since you are of course staying with the original Porsche chassis, have
you conducted any longterm, daily use tests to ensure there are no safety
related issues due to added (or even reduced) weighting?
These are just three of many. I'll let you chew on these first, troll.
"Walt Konecny" <wkon...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:Dn_h7.1215$An3.3...@news.uswest.net...
Darin Autry
903cc Fiat engine. The question I'm raising is longevity. Sure you can
boost that poor little 2.0 to that. How long are you going to be able to
run it like that??? If I knew the original specs and original life of the
engine I could give you a damn good estimate. Not knowing I'll pull a
number out of my ass of about 25 - 50k miles depending upon whether or not
you baby it. As far as in my 2.5L Porsche, it has over 250k and I NEVER
baby it.
Tell me, if the eclipse 2.0 is SOOOOOO bad, why doesn't EVERYone put them in
the cars. In fact. Since the new Z06 doesn't produce 400hp why don't they
take the heavy V8's out and run the 2.0. Damn sure save of weight, wouldn't
it??? Ferrari could sure learn alot too. Instead of dropping those damn
expensive and heave V12's they could do the same with a little 2.0 I4.
Let's continue. Dodge must be pretty stupid. I mean my god, using a v10
8.0L to do the job that a 2.0 I4 can do.
You can take steriods for only so long before it does irrepairable damage to
your body. Same in the engine. It's all about stress and strain dynamics.
I could explain further but unless you've brushed up on Differential
Equations lately I doubt you'd get past the first set of figures.
"Brad" <BigP...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B887535...@ix.netcom.com...
Darin Autry
didn't think so. In case you have a reading comprehension problem the
newsgroup is alt.autos.porsche. If you can't take the heat, get out of the
kitchen. Go find you a alt.autos.porsche/GM.mongrel NG.
As far as in Mooney, check your info on that bud. New airplane, new
powerplant. BTW, What prop aircraft come with a GM powerplant. Can you
name them??
As far as in "value" to this NG I have enough personal email's from people
thanking me for my info and intuitiveness that I could flood you for days.
To turn the table, what good have you done here except to promote the
butchering of a fine car because you have too little foresite to look past
today.
Get a life loser. Fortunately I don't base my self esteem on other peoples
opinions.
OHHH, I feell SOOOOO bad and ashamed. Some clueless, uneducated loser
tried to slam on me in a ng because I effectively challenged his limited
intelligence!!
Boo Hoo!
"Walt Konecny" <wkon...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:ng_h7.1188$An3.3...@news.uswest.net...
Darin Autry
didn't think so. In case you have a reading comprehension problem the
newsgroup is alt.autos.porsche. If you can't take the heat, get out of the
kitchen. Go find you a alt.autos.porsche/GM.mongrel NG.
As far as in Mooney, check your info on that bud. New airplane, new
powerplant. BTW, What prop aircraft come with a GM powerplant. Can you
name them??
As far as in "value" to this NG I have enough personal email's from people
thanking me for my info and intuitiveness that I could flood you for days.
To turn the table, what good have you done here except to promote the
butchering of a fine car because you have too little foresite to look past
today.
Get a life loser. Fortunately I don't base my self esteem on other peoples
opinions.
OHHH, I feell SOOOOO bad and ashamed. Some clueless, uneducated loser
tried to slam on me in a ng because I effectively challenged his limited
intelligence!!
Boo Hoo!
"Walt Konecny" <wkon...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:ng_h7.1188$An3.3...@news.uswest.net...
karl l gruber
better aircraft. Tell ya' what. Why don't you drop that GM powerplant
into
a Mooney!!<<
All the Porsche powered Mooneys that actively fly have already been
converted back to aircraft engines. The Porsche engine was underpowered,
overweight, and prohibitively expensive, even to the aviation crowd.
GM powers hundreds of experimental aircraft. Especially the aluminum
Buick engine, and the aluminum big block Chevys.
KG
Prince Makaha
keeping the 928 original though. If someone's going to butcher it with a
chevy, I have a 9.4 liter merlin that would be my only choice.
David R. Hendrickson
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
the Quad 4? those things rock.
dave
karl l gruber <kgr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > That's why Mooney uses Porsche power. Thank you! Because they want a
> > better aircraft. Tell ya' what. Why don't you drop that GM powerplant
> > into a Mooney!!
>
Darin Autry
to oiling, breathing, etc. I'd almost bet that there's more Rotax and
Subaru powered home aircraft though.
Haven't heard that about the Porsche engine being removed. I have a few
fellow pilots who own Mooneys and have never heard a complaint, although
I've never asked pointed questions about it. This is the first time I've
personally heard anything like that. I'll bring the subject up with them
next time.
"karl l gruber" <kgr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B8887D9...@worldnet.att.net...
saffron
said you have a realy well kept S4, then only one way keep the car original
In Europe that's unthinkable!
Consult an expert e.g. Devek, tel 650-592-5287, and you will find a proper
solution
Regards from Erik in Denmark
no1herenow <no1he...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4e94f69.01082...@posting.google.com...
> Here's the situation; I'm looking for some guidance.
>
> I have an '88 928S4, 50K miles, meticulously maintained, always
> garaged. Has virtually never even seen rain. Had to have it towed to
> the dealer after the engine died on the highway. Diagnosis was a
> lower-end engine failure, causing fatal damage to the block. (I will
> go look at it tomorrow to see the specifics).
>
no1herenow
Anyway, here's my plan, currently underway:
-- I have an independent porsche-only repair shop performing the
repairs now. Should be done in a couple of weeks. I considered doing
it myself, but given my (very) limited time and many other ongoing
projects, it would take a very long time to complete. I have limited
garage bays to keep project cars in :-)
My reluctance to perform the swap is based upon my time availability,
not skills. I have build numerous engines, primarily blown small
blocks for pro-street cars.
A second reason to not drop the SBC into the 928 is that, when time
permits, I would like to move on to more challenging engine work;
specifically an aluminum mountain motor. The rework on a 928 would
leave little but a shell. Since this would be primarily a
straight-line car, I would prefer to sacrifice American steel, say
either a Dart or Barracuda.
I would like to thank this newsgroup for feedback, (and there has been
plenty of it)!. I do have a few comments:
-- I am surprised that the readers here get so emotional about their
cars!
-- 'Walt Konecny': your posts are both informative and very
level-headed. I appreciate you responses.
-- 'Darin Autry': What can I say? You, sir, are an ass. My killfile
now has one more entry.
Thanks for the help. Another 928S4 will be back on the road
shortly.
"Darin Autry" <nos...@nomore.com> wrote in message news:<y1_h7.1136$An3.3...@news.uswest.net>...
theo1610
>88 928 S4 A/T
How many kms with 1 liter petrol?
>94 Vette LT1 6-spd
How many kms with 1 liter petrol?
Thanks, Theo.
"Lievebeheersbeestjes"
Wie te lang tegen draken vecht wordt zelf een draak.
theo1610
>Only an valdal coud even think about to mount a chevry in a Porsche. As you
>said you have a realy well kept S4, then only one way keep the car original
>In Europe that's unthinkable!
A 928 with a 350 hp small block seems a cheap and superb
car to me. So for a small budget it's a great combination.
And I guess it's much faster as any original 928....?
Walt Konecny
news:3b8ad26a...@news.demon.nl...
> >88 928 S4 A/T
>
> How many kms with 1 liter petrol?
Highway driving, approx 75 mph, 21-22 mpg (miles per gallon)
> >94 Vette LT1 6-spd
>
> How many kms with 1 liter petrol?
Highway driving, approx 75 mph, 29-30 mpg.
Also, the Corvette weighs about 300 pounds less than the 928.
wk
Walt Konecny
> A 928 with a 350 hp small block seems a cheap and superb
> car to me. So for a small budget it's a great combination.
> And I guess it's much faster as any original 928....?
A small block Chev with aluminum heads weighs about 130 pounds less than the
32valve 928 motor.
wk
Brad
> As far as in "automotive engineering" goes any idiot with common sense will
> know that most cars are designed to be a unit. Those that don't certainly
> need a little bit more education before they start trying to play things
> like this I.E. The body, chassis, engine are all developed on designed
> around each other. Except for maybe the lower bred GM's, etc.
Unless you're putting big-blocks into things, then for the most part,
big deal.
>
> Again, Sorry if you can't make the jack to maintain your car. If one can't
> afford it, don't buy it. But please don't butcher it because some dumb
> redneck thinks that GM powerplants are the end all be all to human
> existance.
I doubt anyone here thinks GM powerplants are the end all of human
existence. But then again, neither are Porsche engines. Now, a
twin-turbo Toyota Supra engine might be close, though....
And if owning a 928 means you have to have a big raise in your paycheck
every 50k miles for when the engine is done, then that's a pretty sad
car to own. Yes, I know that the typical 928 isn't going to die at 50k
miles, but you're talking like a jackass with your money comments
above. I hope he "butchers" the car just to piss snobby pricks like you
off.
> 1.) Has any stress related testing been done to the drive line?? (the
> conversion nuts always like to sidestep that one. Why don't you explain
> what can happen to an overstressed transmission. Thats ok, guess you'll
> replace it with a Ford!!)
lol. So you're saying that any Chevy engine put into a Porsche is so
much stronger than the Porsche engine that the driveline needs special
stress testing to be able to stand up to it?
>
> 2.) Since the conversion nuts claim better performance has any thought been
> given to the necessary modification needed to the suspension and braking
> systems in order to insure the car will remain safe???
Nope. No one ever considers these things at all. You are the very
first. :-\
>
> 3.) Since you are of course staying with the original Porsche chassis, have
> you conducted any longterm, daily use tests to ensure there are no safety
> related issues due to added (or even reduced) weighting?
Reduced weighting... like what, more weight bias over the rear wheels
for better traction? Yeah, more traction and a little less oversteer is
always cause for concern, isn't it. I hope people have also done safety
tests of having x number of passengers in their cars, too, because you
never know what a car will do when you put an extra 400lbs of friends in
it.
>
> These are just three of many. I'll let you chew on these first, troll.
You say you worked on all these various rebuilds and restorations and
have a degree in this or that you say? Interesting.
Brad
>
> No, I'm not saying you can't do it. I've seen that kind of output from a
> 903cc Fiat engine. The question I'm raising is longevity. Sure you can
> boost that poor little 2.0 to that. How long are you going to be able to
> run it like that??? If I knew the original specs and original life of the
> engine I could give you a damn good estimate. Not knowing I'll pull a
> number out of my ass of about 25 - 50k miles depending upon whether or not
> you baby it. As far as in my 2.5L Porsche, it has over 250k and I NEVER
> baby it.
All of your other posts full of your "I've restored cars for x number of
years," your "I know about mechanical engineering" and whatnot, and now
you write this to show how much you truly (do not) know. It's no
surprise you think the way you do about conversions and V8s and
everything else if you think a 2.0 Eclipse motor is somehow going to
give up the farm at under 50k miles just because it's running 20 pounds
of boost and putting out 400hp.
You mention your 2.5l Porsche engine. Any idea what RICE manufacturer
some of the engine design was licensed from? You run your mouth about
"rice" exhaust tips and things, but you're driving a part-rice car right
now and apparently don't even know it.
Is your 2.5L even a turbo model?
>
> Tell me, if the eclipse 2.0 is SOOOOOO bad, why doesn't EVERYone put them in
> the cars.
All you've been doing is talking shit just for the sake of talking
shit. No one said Eclipse 2.0s are the ultimate engine. They are just
ONE good engine out there, and since the topic of conversions came up, I
mentioned the guy having one in his 911 as an alternative to the
stocker. YOU just have a stick up your ass and try to find any reason
you can to fight about it because you don't like someone even mentioning
an alternative to a Porsche engine for a Porsche.
In fact. Since the new Z06 doesn't produce 400hp why don't they
> take the heavy V8's out and run the 2.0. Damn sure save of weight, wouldn't
> it??? Ferrari could sure learn alot too.
Damn right Ferrari could learn a lot. The cars are beautiful works of
art, but they break just like anything else does.
Instead of dropping those damn
> expensive and heave V12's they could do the same with a little 2.0 I4.
> Let's continue. Dodge must be pretty stupid. I mean my god, using a v10
> 8.0L to do the job that a 2.0 I4 can do.
All of this nonsense out of your mouth simply because you don't like the
idea of a non-Porsche engine in a Porsche. Boo hoo for you. Eclipse
2.0s aren't the be-all, end-all of engines, but then again neither are
Porsche engines. Get over it, and yourself.
>
> You can take steriods for only so long before it does irrepairable damage to
> your body. Same in the engine. It's all about stress and strain dynamics.
> I could explain further but unless you've brushed up on Differential
> Equations lately I doubt you'd get past the first set of figures.
Put down the pseudo textbook and come join the real world. If you think
a little 4-cylinder is going to blow up just because it runs a lot of
boost, then you clearly aren't as smart as you try to convince yourself
you are.
Stuart Gill
<BigP...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> You mention your 2.5l Porsche engine. Any idea what RICE manufacturer
> some of the engine design was licensed from? You run your mouth about
> "rice" exhaust tips and things, but you're driving a part-rice car right
> now and apparently don't even know it.
The balance shaft patent was licensed from Mitsubishi though the actual
idea and original implementation of the balance shafts was done by
Frederick Lanchester of Britain. Mitsubishi held some patent on
bearing placement that Porsche licensed to prevent any legal fights
despite the fact that, as I understand it, Porsche used a different
bearing arrangement.
If that makes the 944 series a "part-rice car" then every modern car in
existence is a part Porsche because of the many innovations the good
Doctor Porsche brought to the automotive world during his time with
Mercedes, Audi (Auto Union), VW, and his own company.
Stuart
Hot Rod
"Chevy" Conversions into Porsches for 10+ years and haven't had any
problems. I'm not saying that they didn't have problems when they started
but after ten years they definitely have the bugs worked out. Renegade
autocross races some of it's cars and they are still running after years on
the track. Also they have made a fine art out of testing every transmission,
seeing what the HP threshold on it is, and upgrading the transmission if
necessary. As far as weight goes most of the engine swaps are within 100
lbs. of each other, and for those wishing to be even safer I know that
renegade suggests spring upgrades and possible brake upgrades. So before you
cut one of these conversions down maybe you should drive one. Somehow I
think the grin is going to be wiped off your face when you find out that it
does 0-60 quicker, stops faster and possible even handles better. But I
guess if everyone listened to you and never "desecrated" a car then Porsche
would still be running 1200cc engines and everything would be air cooled, Oh
boy not another "if it's not air cooled it's not real"
Darin Autry
Your clueless.
> Unless you're putting big-blocks into things, then for the most part,
> big deal.
No, not just big blocks
> I doubt anyone here thinks GM powerplants are the end all of human
> existence. But then again, neither are Porsche engines. Now, a
> twin-turbo Toyota Supra engine might be close, though....
Never said they were
> And if owning a 928 means you have to have a big raise in your paycheck
> every 50k miles for when the engine is done, then that's a pretty sad
> car to own. Yes, I know that the typical 928 isn't going to die at 50k
> miles, but you're talking like a jackass with your money comments
> above. I hope he "butchers" the car just to piss snobby pricks like you
> off.
Doing this to a car doesn't piss me off. What pisses me off is
misrepresentation. I have morals and standards. In my business (not
automotive anymore) I like to see my customers happy and with a product that
will give them years of service. I quess some people don't. Being that
I've seen a few bastardized cars (most in a scrape heap or in someones
garage gathering dust) I take concern that he'll dupe some clueless idiot
(get it??) into buying into this.
> lol. So you're saying that any Chevy engine put into a Porsche is so
> much stronger than the Porsche engine that the driveline needs special
> stress testing to be able to stand up to it?
Brad, If you were to design a car with an engine that produced 350hp will
you install an overly expensive transmission that will handle putting 1000hp
down to the road. Or even 500hp. Like I said before. IT IS DESIGNED AS A
UNIT IN ORDER TO WORK AS A UNIT WITH WHAT THE FACTORY GAVE IT!! I'm not
saying you can't beef it up. But then having to do that sorta' destroys the
whole concept of "better value"
> Nope. No one ever considers these things at all. You are the very
> first. :-\
Your reply to the first question most likely confirms that (at least in this
advertising thread) what you've said is a true statement. Here also lies
another factor in "better value". i.e. If your having to spend 1000's of
dollars in order to simply outfit the car BEFORE the engine swap. Where is
the "value"????
> Reduced weighting... like what, more weight bias over the rear wheels
> for better traction? Yeah, more traction and a little less oversteer is
> always cause for concern, isn't it. I hope people have also done safety
> tests of having x number of passengers in their cars, too, because you
> never know what a car will do when you put an extra 400lbs of friends in
> it.
Here, you're really allowing yourself to shine through. As far as in the
bias and oversteer that depends upon what your doing and what your
particular tastes are in driving. I've seen some of the old, seasoned
driver prefer oversteer. Especially in certain cars. And your right about
the safety of added passengers. Fortunately *most* auto manufactures
conduct these test according to federal regulations. I just wish this idiot
had to conform to those regs too.
I'm talking about body stress, mount point stress, different intrinsic
vibrations associated with a different powerplant, if more power is added
then the additional stressing from that, weight shifting, etc. etc. etc.
> You say you worked on all these various rebuilds and restorations and
> have a degree in this or that you say? Interesting.
Yes it is isn't it. Very interesting how some people take some very serious
questions that have great merit and attempt to make a joke out of them.
Probably due to the persons on cluelessness about the subject matter.
Darin Autry
practicalities sake.
I do know of the "renegade" conversions. Big difference between a track car
and a car someone is wanting to drive on the street everyday. The track car
usually has a team of mechanics constantly going over it with a fine tooth
comb. Problems can be located and addressed early on. Also you have to
consider the other modifications that have gone into these cars. They don't
try to fool you into thinking your going to come out financially better in
the end.
This has been my entire beef the whole time is the misrepresentation that
you'll be financially better off doing this. Not that "it can't be done".
With enough $$$ you can do almost anything you want. Like you said, even
Renegade makes very strong suggestions at upgrading other items. Although
they will not supply a # I'd like to see what they have spent in both time
and equipment.
"Hot Rod" <NoSpam...@xcelco.on.ca> wrote in message
news:ton4jkg...@corp.supernews.com...
Darin Autry
> All of your other posts full of your "I've restored cars for x number of
> years," your "I know about mechanical engineering" and whatnot, and now
> you write this to show how much you truly (do not) know. It's no
> surprise you think the way you do about conversions and V8s and
> everything else if you think a 2.0 Eclipse motor is somehow going to
> give up the farm at under 50k miles just because it's running 20 pounds
> of boost and putting out 400hp.
Brad, you just don't get it. What are the "stock" specs on that 2.0??? Do
you even know??? Trust me, it's not 400hp. I'd figure it's more around the
200hp give or take some and probably at about 6000rpm. I'll also pull more
numbers out of my ass and say around 200 - 210ft/lbs of torque @ app.
3000rpm. Do me a favor and tell me how close I am. Like I said, I pulled
these out of my ass just knowing the engine size.
I'm saying if you pump that little engine up to produce almost twice the HP
and you run it like that often, you'll be disappointed. You will be
rebuilding it much sooner. If you're trying to say that you can take an
engine and boost it's hp by that much and not ever be concerned with the
engine life being effected then I don't even need to defend my knowledge.
You've just proved your own ignorance for me.
> You mention your 2.5l Porsche engine. Any idea what RICE manufacturer
> some of the engine design was licensed from? You run your mouth about
> "rice" exhaust tips and things, but you're driving a part-rice car right
> now and apparently don't even know it.
Yes I do stupid. You need to get the wetness from behind your ears and get
up a little earlier. You need to realize that your "rice" design that you
say came from Japan, didn't really. They just took an existing design and
made some modifications that improved it. The balance shaft design of the
Porsche motor was a direct derivitive from a design patented by Frederick
Lancaster in England back in app. 1910. Mitsubishi took this design and
improved on it and patented the method of MOUNTING the shafts with two
bearings. Porsche, knowing that it's stupid to go through years of work and
$$ simply to avoid a copyright infringement decided to pay Mitsubishi
royalties in the amount of 8 dollars per unit produced in order to MOUNT it
in the same way. This again was for the mounting method ONLY as the balance
shaft idea had been coined years previous in England. So I quess you could
say that the RICER Mitsubishi is part English. I wonder if the cars have a
uniqe tendacy to want to be driven on the right side of the road???
> Is your 2.5L even a turbo model?
No, the Turbo model was an option but I was looking for longevity. Again,
when you pump more hp out of an engine you effectively reduce the life of
the engine. Turbocharging the 944 reduced the life of the 2.5.
> All you've been doing is talking shit just for the sake of talking
> shit. No one said Eclipse 2.0s are the ultimate engine. They are just
> ONE good engine out there, and since the topic of conversions came up, I
> mentioned the guy having one in his 911 as an alternative to the
> stocker. YOU just have a stick up your ass and try to find any reason
> you can to fight about it because you don't like someone even mentioning
> an alternative to a Porsche engine for a Porsche.
No, I don't like misrepresentation and since I've already touched on that in
a response to HotRod I won't even go into it here. YOUR just being nasty
and distasteful in your choice of response due to your own improper attitude
and self esteem. Probably due to being reared that way.
> Damn right Ferrari could learn a lot. The cars are beautiful works of
> art, but they break just like anything else does.
Your right, especially if you don't have the money to maintain them
properly. It cost $$$ to maintain a precision instrument properly.
Something that most of the idiots that rush out and buy one due to ego's
sake didn't plan on.
> All of this nonsense out of your mouth simply because you don't like the
> idea of a non-Porsche engine in a Porsche. Boo hoo for you. Eclipse
> 2.0s aren't the be-all, end-all of engines, but then again neither are
> Porsche engines. Get over it, and yourself.
Brad, your helpless. You call what I'm saying nonsense based upon fleeting
thoughts born in ingnorance. You have provided NOTHING to prove what I say
is bunk. I, in turn, have raised several questions that should be
considered by anyone thinking of converting ANY car. Not just Porsche. I
have no problem with the "idea" of powering a car with another powerplant.
I DO, however, have a problem with someone coming along and claiming that it
will, in the end, be a better, more valueable and less expensive car to
maintain.
THAT'S misrepresentation
> Put down the pseudo textbook and come join the real world. If you think
> a little 4-cylinder is going to blow up just because it runs a lot of
> boost, then you clearly aren't as smart as you try to convince yourself
> you are.
Brad, what I've been trying to say comes from my real world experience, not
from a book although if you'll take the time to read you'll learn alot more.
I'm not saying that I "THINK" it will give up the ghost, I'm saying that I
"KNOW" it will given the time. We all know that most everything has an
associated "life" to it. We do, lightbulbs do, ball joints do, struts do,
etc, etc. Eventually there will be a time, unmodified or not, that the
little engine will need to be rebuilt. However common sense will dictate
that if you double the hp output that the time will come much quicker. Just
as it does with the Turbo 2.5L in the 944s.
Now, if I'm such bullshit why don't you do your research and PROVE me wrong
with facts instead of trying to belittle me with what you pull out of your
ass.
Darin Autry
conversion nuts already have a place. Many car owners consider Nader to be
an ass too. Not that I'm THAT much of an ass but if I'm considered an ass
for keeping just ONE person from becoming tangled in a nightmare of work
then so-be-it, I'm an ass. If I'm considered an ass for my impatient with
these conversion nuts then you don't know the history. I've asked time and
time and time again for them to back up their claims of "better value" only
to be attacked and not answered.
You sir, being a pro-streeter, will know beyond a shadow of a doubt what is
eventually involved in a conversion. You yourself have admitted to simply
the TIME involved (if you want to do it right). There is so much more beyond
just the time that it can get ridiculously expensive. Again, their claims
are of better value and more performance. Well, maybe so on the performance
but how can it be better value if it eventually costs more while lowering
the value of the car??
I've never said that it's sacrilege to convert a car, only that it's more
than "Hey, bubba. 'recon we can shove this here V8 inta that thar Honda
CVCC??'
Glad to see you know a great car though. Drop a 440 or 426 into one of
those and have a blast!! Shame Mopar has almost lost those days forever
though.
"no1herenow" <no1he...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4e94f69.01082...@posting.google.com...
Darin Autry
Don't waste your time like I have. Mine is just a personal crusade now and
I honestly think this entire thread is just a big advert for Theo. He keeps
claiming "better value/less maintenance" but never gives the whole scoop.
Please explain Theo, I know you want to retort.
"theo1610" <lievebehee...@theo1610.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:3b8adc75...@news.demon.nl...
Brad
>
> Brad,
>
> Your clueless.
hahaha... look who's talking, Mr. That-2.0-would-blow-up-in-25k-miles.
> > Unless you're putting big-blocks into things, then for the most part,
> > big deal.
>
> No, not just big blocks
Give some examples.
>
> > I doubt anyone here thinks GM powerplants are the end all of human
> > existence. But then again, neither are Porsche engines. Now, a
> > twin-turbo Toyota Supra engine might be close, though....
>
> Never said they were
Then why say people think GM engines are unless you hate the idea of a
Chevy V8 in a Porsche and the only thing you want to do is fight about
it?
> Doing this to a car doesn't piss me off. What pisses me off is
> misrepresentation. I have morals and standards. In my business (not
> automotive anymore) I like to see my customers happy and with a product that
> will give them years of service. I quess some people don't. Being that
> I've seen a few bastardized cars (most in a scrape heap or in someones
> garage gathering dust) I take concern that he'll dupe some clueless idiot
> (get it??) into buying into this.
A whole "few" bastardized cars? Who did the conversions on those cars?
Some back yard mechanic? Some guy who's been doing conversions for
three months? You're lumping all the conversionists together. There's
plenty of Porsche mechanics out there who suck and can bastardize a car
too, you know.
>
> > lol. So you're saying that any Chevy engine put into a Porsche is so
> > much stronger than the Porsche engine that the driveline needs special
> > stress testing to be able to stand up to it?
>
> Brad, If you were to design a car with an engine that produced 350hp will
> you install an overly expensive transmission that will handle putting 1000hp
> down to the road. Or even 500hp. Like I said before. IT IS DESIGNED AS A
> UNIT IN ORDER TO WORK AS A UNIT WITH WHAT THE FACTORY GAVE IT!! I'm not
> saying you can't beef it up. But then having to do that sorta' destroys the
> whole concept of "better value"
Again you make me laugh. You're saying don't put a Chevy V8 into a
Porsche because the Porsche engine is so weak it never stresses the
driveline but the Chevy engine will. LOL. The extra power is part of
the better value!
So put in a 200hp V8 if you want. Or put a cheap V6 in there you pick
up for $300. No one says you have to put a 450hp 383 in there. You
tell me I'm clueless, but then you post tripe like this. Too much power
is a good problem to have, and one of the reasons people do V8
conversions is because getting that same amount of power out of the
Porsche engine would cost a lot more bucks, and then EITHER WAY you'd
have to beef up the rest of the driveline at the higher power level.
> Your reply to the first question most likely confirms that (at least in this
> advertising thread) what you've said is a true statement. Here also lies
> another factor in "better value". i.e. If your having to spend 1000's of
> dollars in order to simply outfit the car BEFORE the engine swap. Where is
> the "value"????
Just how much of a weight and weight bias difference do you think there
is on these V8 conversions? You may have a degree in mechanical
engineering or whatever, but you sure don't seem to know much about
cars.
> Here, you're really allowing yourself to shine through. As far as in the
> bias and oversteer that depends upon what your doing and what your
> particular tastes are in driving. I've seen some of the old, seasoned
> driver prefer oversteer. Especially in certain cars.
No shit. Drivers can prefer whatever they want, but understeer is safer
for the average driver than oversteer. I was just throwing those
examples out there anyway because you're basically talking out of your
ass in this thread. "Did anybody do extensive safety tests to see if an
extra 100 pounds will turn the Porsche into a death vehicle?" Gimme a
break.
> I'm talking about body stress, mount point stress, different intrinsic
> vibrations associated with a different powerplant, if more power is added
> then the additional stressing from that, weight shifting, etc. etc. etc.
So don't add more power! They make wimpy V8s too! You make me laugh
again, though... each time you bring up this point about power you are
basically saying the Porsche engine won't stress things because it's
wimpy. You are making it so easy to bash the power levels of Porsche
engines with that. But, I like Porsches, so no bashing.
>
> > You say you worked on all these various rebuilds and restorations and
> > have a degree in this or that you say? Interesting.
>
> Yes it is isn't it. Very interesting how some people take some very serious
> questions that have great merit and attempt to make a joke out of them.
> Probably due to the persons on cluelessness about the subject matter.
Now, now, don't beat yourself up like that. You'll learn about cars
someday.
Brad
> If that makes the 944 series a "part-rice car" then every modern car in
> existence is a part Porsche because of the many innovations the good
> Doctor Porsche brought to the automotive world during his time with
> Mercedes, Audi (Auto Union), VW, and his own company.
I like how you put that. It'd be nice to have more cars have Porsche
genes in them.
Brad
> Brad, you just don't get it. What are the "stock" specs on that 2.0??? Do
> you even know??? Trust me, it's not 400hp. I'd figure it's more around the
> 200hp give or take some and probably at about 6000rpm. I'll also pull more
> numbers out of my ass and say around 200 - 210ft/lbs of torque @ app.
> 3000rpm. Do me a favor and tell me how close I am. Like I said, I pulled
> these out of my ass just knowing the engine size.
That's about right. 'Course, that same engine as it's sold in Japan
comes with 300+hp stock.
>
> I'm saying if you pump that little engine up to produce almost twice the HP
> and you run it like that often, you'll be disappointed. You will be
> rebuilding it much sooner. If you're trying to say that you can take an
> engine and boost it's hp by that much and not ever be concerned with the
> engine life being effected then I don't even need to defend my knowledge.
> You've just proved your own ignorance for me.
You talk like a goof. Of course the engine life will be lessened. The
life of ANY engine is lessened as you pull more power out of it.
Lessened by how much is the key. In Japan, that engine has 300-320hp
stock. So, as it's sold in Japan, you are only adding 25% more power.
You were right in your last post on this subject, you are just pulling
things out of your ass. To say an Eclipse 2.0 with 400hp is only going
to last 25-50k miles is you showing your ignorance. Why are you arguing
a point that you yourself admit you are pulling out of your ass?
> shaft idea had been coined years previous in England. So I quess you could
> say that the RICER Mitsubishi is part English. I wonder if the cars have a
> uniqe tendacy to want to be driven on the right side of the road???
Hey, fine by me. I'm not the one who has a hatred for "bastardized"
cars that have more than one company's parts in them.
>
> > Is your 2.5L even a turbo model?
>
> No, the Turbo model was an option but I was looking for longevity. Again,
> when you pump more hp out of an engine you effectively reduce the life of
> the engine. Turbocharging the 944 reduced the life of the 2.5.
So your 2.5l that you "drive hard" and try to impress me by saying it
has 250k miles on it isn't even a turbo. Wow. A Chevy Cavalier or Ford
Probe could do the same, so so what? Who are you trying to impress, me
or yourself?
Why don't you give me your opinion on how long a Porsche 2.5l turbo
engine would last putting out 300hp? How about 400hp?
> No, I don't like misrepresentation and since I've already touched on that in
> a response to HotRod I won't even go into it here. YOUR just being nasty
> and distasteful in your choice of response due to your own improper attitude
> and self esteem. Probably due to being reared that way.
I'm being distasteful because you are tasteless. Telling someone who is
thinking about a V8 conversion that he shouldn't own the car because he
doesn't make the jack to fix it for eight grand when it breaks at 50k
miles makes you a pompous jackass in my eyes.
>
> > Damn right Ferrari could learn a lot. The cars are beautiful works of
> > art, but they break just like anything else does.
>
> Your right, especially if you don't have the money to maintain them
> properly. It cost $$$ to maintain a precision instrument properly.
> Something that most of the idiots that rush out and buy one due to ego's
> sake didn't plan on.
I'm glad you agree with me. I thought you were a complete lost cause
here in reality.
> Brad, your helpless. You call what I'm saying nonsense based upon fleeting
> thoughts born in ingnorance. You have provided NOTHING to prove what I say
> is bunk. I, in turn, have raised several questions that should be
> considered by anyone thinking of converting ANY car. Not just Porsche.
You've posed the ever-so-thoughtful questions of weight, safety due to
weight bias, safety due to too much power, and extra stress due to too
much power. Yes, very informative.
I
> have no problem with the "idea" of powering a car with another powerplant.
> I DO, however, have a problem with someone coming along and claiming that it
> will, in the end, be a better, more valueable and less expensive car to
> maintain.
If you have no problem with a Porsche being powered by another engine,
then why did you tell the guy he shouldn't own the car if he can't
afford to keep the Porsche engine in there?
Better? Eh. Might be faster. More valuable? Depends on the model of
Porsche and what engine is put into it. Maintenance.... what part would
cost more to maintain with a Chevy V8 in there other than the rest of
the driveline *if* you put in a V8 with more power than the stock
engine?
> Brad, what I've been trying to say comes from my real world experience, not
> from a book although if you'll take the time to read you'll learn alot more.
> I'm not saying that I "THINK" it will give up the ghost, I'm saying that I
> "KNOW" it will given the time.
lol. How can you now say you are using real world experience when you
earlier said you're pulling things out of your ass? Do you "KNOW"
anyone with a 400 or even 300hp Eclipse 2.0 engine? I doubt it, because
if you did you'd realize you don't "KNOW" what you are talking about.
And I read plenty. I even read enough to know that "alot" isn't a
word.
> Now, if I'm such bullshit why don't you do your research and PROVE me wrong
> with facts instead of trying to belittle me with what you pull out of your
> ass.
I'm sorry, but you're the only one pulling things out of your ass. You
said so yourself.
Brad
> I've never said that it's sacrilege to convert a car, only that it's more
> than "Hey, bubba. 'recon we can shove this here V8 inta that thar Honda
> CVCC??'
Oh? You never ran your mouth about "bastardizing" a car and how if the
guy doesn't make the jack to keep the Porsche engine in there then he
shouldn't own the car?
Walt Konecny
> So put in a 200hp V8 if you want. Or put a cheap V6 in there you pick
> up for $300. No one says you have to put a 450hp 383 in there. You
> tell me I'm clueless, but then you post tripe like this. Too much power
> is a good problem to have, and one of the reasons people do V8
> conversions is because getting that same amount of power out of the
> Porsche engine would cost a lot more bucks, and then EITHER WAY you'd
> have to beef up the rest of the driveline at the higher power level.
DEVEK in California specializes in 928 "enhancements". For years they've
been boring and stroking 5.0L Porsche motors out to 6.0, 6.4, and 6.5 L,
some of those put almost 500 hp to the WHEELS, while using the original
drivetrain suspension and brakes. ANd yes, the suspension and brakes can be
upgraded for track use, if one so desires. So why is it ok to bump the
Porsche motor to 500hp, but not ok to install a Chevy 400 hp motor with the
same drivetrain components and same suspension, brakes? Answer: It is ok.
With the Chev motor in there, the front end of the 928 will also be approx
130 lbs lighter, throwing more weight bias on the rear (driving) wheels.
The singing cowboy needs to have someone read a relevant book to him.
wk
rob
like that? Superior design?
You truly sound like a friggin IGNORANT redneck. Your vast knowlege of
vega's and montecarlos. Not to mention your "sightings" of million mile
benzes in Arkansas?
Keep that crack pipe smoking :)news:QzZh7.879$%Q6.4...@news.uswest.net...
> THAT totally depends upon the year.
>
> Again, I have to agree. Would you but a Vega interior into a
Mercedes?????
>
> Like I said. If you can't afford it, get rid of it an buy yourself a
Monte
> Carlo. Don't ruin it just because some dumb redneck thinks he's an
> automotive engineer.
>
>
> "rob" <rob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:KtFh7.68401$MC1.22...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com...
> > Apparently so with the orig post of this sad story. LS1 and LS6
American
> > made v-8 engines are not what sad stories are made of..Quite the
contrary.
> >
> > "San Antonio Silver Bullet" <sor...@texas.net> wrote in message
> > news:2XQg7.86134$NK1.6...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> > > We Americans do NOT build the best, fastest engines in the world. I
do
> > > think there are areas that we've got down pat that the Germans need to
> > learn
> > > from, but engine building is not one of them.
> > > Why soil a Porsche with a weenie vette engine?
> > > Later,
> > > Michael Sorbera
> > > 87 944 Turbo Driver
> > > aka San Antonio Silver Bullet> > > news:to7hvmn...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > If you decide to Chev it you'll need to check out the PorChev group
at
> > > Yahoo
> > > > Groups. You can get all the answers and pricing you need from there.
> > Have
> > > > Fun
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
rob
full of shit, as we say in Texas.news:ton4jkg...@corp.supernews.com...
Darin Autry
drive nothing less than a Maverick with a 351 shoved in it. :-)
"rob" <rob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:flYi7.76669$MC1.24...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com...
Darin Autry
There was once something biblical said about casting pearls amoung swine.
You truly are a pig. You can lead a horse (in this case an ass) to water,
but you can't make him drink.
Go ahead, run your little 2.0 mitsu engine at a good 400hp output all you
want. Look me up and let me know when you burn a valve, melt a hole through
a piston, throw a rod, spin a bearing or just need a general rebuild in
about a 1/4 or 1/2 the normal time on your engine.
Also, go ahead and convert Porsches to use other engines all day long. Look
me up when you get halfway through the project and have spent twice the
amount you intended with the other half of the project staring you in the
face. Look me and tell me how much you can sell that car for. Look me up
and tell me how much more reliable you made it.
In the meantime, I'll continue succeding. I'll also probably continue
sitting back and shaking my head at Jethro's like yourself like poor ole'
Jed Clampitt always had to do.
"Let's see, lets put that 426 hemi on that rainbow vacuum cleaner. I'll bet
it'll suck the carpet right out of the house."
Like I said, a conversion, ANY conversion, if done right usually ends up
costing WAY more than fixing the original problem. If your dumb enough to
succumb to the misrepresentation shown here in the light of common sense,
then you've asked for your own problems. Have fun with them. I'm sure Brad
here will sit back and laugh at that too.
"Brad" <BigP...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B8C2FEF...@ix.netcom.com...
Darin Autry
I apologized to you in another post earlier. I thought you were one of the
regular conversion trolls that roll through the porsche NG's on a regular
basis. You do have a wealth of great info and advice but I will never agree
with you on the conversion.
Do me a favor, you may or may not be able to and it's certainly not due to a
lack of intellegence on your part. I'd like to see a dollar for dollar
breakdown on this conversion. I have done some of my own research, in
particular the company in California that came through app. 1 month ago
boasting turn key cars for nearly twice what you could find the real deal
for on the open market. That really didn't sound like better value to me.
In fact, I could have bought a pretty decent 928 with enough left over to
bank just in case I ever needed a new powerplant.
"Walt Konecny" <wkon...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:UNXi7.521$eK5....@news.uswest.net...
Darin Autry
I'm beginning to think I pulled you out of my ass.
Brad says:
> That's about right. 'Course, that same engine as it's sold in Japan
> comes with 300+hp stock.
Does he know anything about testing standards?????
> You talk like a goof. Of course the engine life will be lessened. The
> life of ANY engine is lessened as you pull more power out of it.
> Lessened by how much is the key. In Japan, that engine has 300-320hp
> stock. So, as it's sold in Japan, you are only adding 25% more power.
When I originally told him that pushing more HP out of an engine would kill
it much quicker he freaked. I quoted a life of anywhere between 25k - 50k
on a 2.0 thats pushing 400hp, depending upon how hard the engine is used. I
think my estimate is actually pretty generous. Any good performance/track
specialist out there care to comment??? In fact, below is his response to
my estimates.
> You were right in your last post on this subject, you are just pulling
> things out of your ass. To say an Eclipse 2.0 with 400hp is only going
> to last 25-50k miles is you showing your ignorance. Why are you arguing
> a point that you yourself admit you are pulling out of your ass?
He goes on the bark:
> Hey, fine by me. I'm not the one who has a hatred for "bastardized"
> cars that have more than one company's parts in them.
I never said I have a hatred for the car, just the idiot who makes claims of
better value without ever backing those claims up. If your going to make a
claim, be ready to show proof. Brad, I don't need to prove that a 400hp 2.0
will only have an effective life of around 25 -50k. The tracks already
have.
> So your 2.5l that you "drive hard" and try to impress me by saying it
> has 250k miles on it isn't even a turbo. Wow. A Chevy Cavalier or Ford
> Probe could do the same, so so what? Who are you trying to impress, me
> or yourself?
Anyone here seen a better than average condition Cavalier of Probe with
250k????
> Why don't you give me your opinion on how long a Porsche 2.5l turbo
> engine would last putting out 300hp? How about 400hp?
Depends, New pushing a few mods to 300hp, if driven normally, maybe 150k
before your really looking at anything major. 400hp, probably somewhere
between 80 to 120. AGAIN, if you're not putting your foot in it at every
light.
> I'm being distasteful because you are tasteless. Telling someone who is
> thinking about a V8 conversion that he shouldn't own the car because he
> doesn't make the jack to fix it for eight grand when it breaks at 50k
> miles makes you a pompous jackass in my eyes.
Hey, I don't deal the cards. If that makes me an ass, so-be-it. At least I
know it's my original ass and not the ass of a plumber hanging out of my
jeans.
> I'm glad you agree with me. I thought you were a complete lost cause
> here in reality.
See, I'm not completely disagreable. I just don't agree with the statements
that have been made that would lead one to believe that they'll have a more
valuable, more reliable, and less expensive car to maintain if they shove a
GM powerplant in it. I also disagree with statements that would lead one to
believe that they'll end up spending MUCH less money converting it rather
than fixing the original problem.
> You've posed the ever-so-thoughtful questions of weight, safety due to
> weight bias, safety due to too much power, and extra stress due to too
> much power. Yes, very informative.
You forgot many others but you seem to be getting the point finally
> If you have no problem with a Porsche being powered by another engine,
> then why did you tell the guy he shouldn't own the car if he can't
> afford to keep the Porsche engine in there?
Because his money will be much better spent elsewhere. Again, check into
what (in reality, not California) these converted cars really end up selling
for.
> lol. How can you now say you are using real world experience when you
> earlier said you're pulling things out of your ass? Do you "KNOW"
> anyone with a 400 or even 300hp Eclipse 2.0 engine? I doubt it, because
> if you did you'd realize you don't "KNOW" what you are talking about.
>
> And I read plenty. I even read enough to know that "alot" isn't a
> word.
>
> > Now, if I'm such bullshit why don't you do your research and PROVE me
wrong
> > with facts instead of trying to belittle me with what you pull out of
your
> > ass.
>
> I'm sorry, but you're the only one pulling things out of your ass. You
> said so yourself.
Brad, whatever gets you through you're night. Sleep tight pinger, sleep
tight.
Stuart Gill
<BigP...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Darin Autry wrote:
> > I'm saying if you pump that little engine up to produce almost twice the HP
> > and you run it like that often, you'll be disappointed. You will be
> > rebuilding it much sooner. If you're trying to say that you can take an
> > engine and boost it's hp by that much and not ever be concerned with the
> > engine life being effected then I don't even need to defend my knowledge.
> > You've just proved your own ignorance for me.
>
> You talk like a goof. Of course the engine life will be lessened. The
> life of ANY engine is lessened as you pull more power out of it.
> Lessened by how much is the key. In Japan, that engine has 300-320hp
> stock. So, as it's sold in Japan, you are only adding 25% more power.
Yeah, but in Japan most cars aren't kept beyond 3-4 years (for a
variety of reasons including social pressure, taxes, and safety
inspections) plus the average number of miles driven each year is
actually quite low. So, if that 300hp variant only has a life of 40k
miles most Japanese are never ever going to drive it that far
particularly for a "sporty" car.
Stuart
P.S. Sorry to not keep the thread going on alt.autos.porsche928 but my
ISP doesn't carry it.
Walt Konecny
> Well said. This guy is an Imagineer from Arkansas, I think....actually
just
> full of shit, as we say in Texas.
> "Hot Rod" <NoSpam...@xcelco.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:ton4jkg...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Darin I'm with Brad on this one. Companies like Renegade have been doing
> V8
> > "Chevy" Conversions into Porsches for 10+ years
They've actually been doing this for close to 20 years with Porsches. Other
companies like JTR, John's, etc, have been selling kits for Chev conversions
in Jaguars for many years. Now others are selling Ford conversions for RX7s.
While I fully support the idea of swapping motors when someone wants to, I'm
keeping my 928 straight Porsche. The reason being is that I started buying
928 wrecks, parts, etc about 3 years ago, and I have enough misc parts to
keep my 928 running another 100 years if necessary. If I didn't have this
personal inventory in the garage and my 928 suffered either thrust bearing
failure or valve/piston incident, I'm pretty sure I'd go the Chev routine
and get more power and reliability for 1/4 the cost.
Many years ago when I had an 86 Jag, I did convert that one to Chev power
and trans. Amazing, no more leaks, double the power while enjoying about 5
mpg better fuel economy, engine no longer screaming 3500 rpm at freeway
speeds, no Lucas junk to deal with, etc, etc.....sometimes it just makes
sense, and I'm not about to let some backwoods jerkoff tell me what I can or
can not do with my vehicles. You know, the ones I bought and maintain with
my own money.
And no, we don't have to research this stuff in books and prove anything to
him. It's our stuff, we can do what we want with it, and not have to justify
our actions to anyone.
Ok Autry, we're done with you. You can climb back on that ewe, it's feeling
neglected.....
wk
Darin Autry
want the get the whole damn nation of Texas on me) You guys spend way too
much time driving between there and Colorado. Ya'll've seen the mountians,
now go home!
No, not Arkansas, I'm a wreck.
"rob" <rob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:orYi7.76672$MC1.24...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com...
Darin Autry
in those genes. ;-)
"Brad" <BigP...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B8C3005...@ix.netcom.com...
theo1610
>Saffron,
>
>Don't waste your time like I have. Mine is just a personal crusade now and
>I honestly think this entire thread is just a big advert for Theo. He keeps
>claiming "better value/less maintenance" but never gives the whole scoop.
>
>Please explain Theo, I know you want to retort.
Me...?
Brad
> Yeah, but in Japan most cars aren't kept beyond 3-4 years (for a
> variety of reasons including social pressure, taxes, and safety
> inspections) plus the average number of miles driven each year is
> actually quite low. So, if that 300hp variant only has a life of 40k
> miles most Japanese are never ever going to drive it that far
> particularly for a "sporty" car.
Plenty of those used engines are imported to the states. Using the
Japanese version of the 4g63 is a common swap when it's rebuild time
because they come with a bigger turbocharger etc already on them.
Brad
>
> Brad,
>
> There was once something biblical said about casting pearls amoung swine.
> You truly are a pig. You can lead a horse (in this case an ass) to water,
> but you can't make him drink.
>
> Go ahead, run your little 2.0 mitsu engine at a good 400hp output all you
> want.
I DO, you dumbass.
Look me up and let me know when you burn a valve, melt a hole through
> a piston, throw a rod, spin a bearing or just need a general rebuild in
> about a 1/4 or 1/2 the normal time on your engine.
Ok, if it gives up the farm in the NEXT 130k miles, you'll be the first
to know, dumbass.
>
> Also, go ahead and convert Porsches to use other engines all day long. Look
> me up when you get halfway through the project and have spent twice the
> amount you intended with the other half of the project staring you in the
> face. Look me and tell me how much you can sell that car for. Look me up
> and tell me how much more reliable you made it.
One 450hp 944 coming right up.
> Like I said, a conversion, ANY conversion, if done right usually ends up
> costing WAY more than fixing the original problem.
That's only if you are doing it. Unlike you, non-bozos can do the job
right just fine.
If your dumb enough to
> succumb to the misrepresentation shown here in the light of common sense,
> then you've asked for your own problems. Have fun with them. I'm sure Brad
> here will sit back and laugh at that too.
I only laugh at you because you're pompous AND you're dumb. And that's
a hell of a combination.
Brad
> When I originally told him that pushing more HP out of an engine would kill
> it much quicker he freaked. I quoted a life of anywhere between 25k - 50k
> on a 2.0 thats pushing 400hp, depending upon how hard the engine is used. I
> think my estimate is actually pretty generous. Any good performance/track
> specialist out there care to comment??? In fact, below is his response to
> my estimates.
How about we ask someone who owns one? Would that be good for you? Ok,
let me ask: "Brad, do you think your engine will give it up at 25k miles
if driven hard?" "Well, Brad, since it has 130k on it and I beat the
crap out of it pretty good, I guess I'd have to say no." There you go.
> I never said I have a hatred for the car, just the idiot who makes claims of
> better value without ever backing those claims up. If your going to make a
> claim, be ready to show proof.
You told the guy that if he didn't make the jack to afford the car with
the original engine in it then he shouldn't own it. Sounds like a
severe dislike/hatred for a Chevy engine in there to me.
Brad, I don't need to prove that a 400hp 2.0
> will only have an effective life of around 25 -50k. The tracks already
> have.
You don't need to prove something that you yourself admitted was a
number you were just pulling out of your ass? Now you say the tracks
prove it, but two days ago you said up-front that you were pulling the
numbers out of your ass.
> > I'm being distasteful because you are tasteless. Telling someone who is
> > thinking about a V8 conversion that he shouldn't own the car because he
> > doesn't make the jack to fix it for eight grand when it breaks at 50k
> > miles makes you a pompous jackass in my eyes.
>
> Hey, I don't deal the cards. If that makes me an ass, so-be-it.
Yep. It does.
> > You've posed the ever-so-thoughtful questions of weight, safety due to
> > weight bias, safety due to too much power, and extra stress due to too
> > much power. Yes, very informative.
>
> You forgot many others but you seem to be getting the point finally
Sarcasm there, man. You tossed some "thoughtful" concerns out there,
and then you sit back and think how smart you are for posing such
questions, even though the questions you posed are almost entirely a
moot point in this case.
> Brad, whatever gets you through you're night. Sleep tight pinger, sleep
> tight.
Knowing I'm not a pompous jackass like you usually helps me sleep quite
well, thanks.
Darin Autry
Since you're so majical at being able to get untapped and unstressing hp
from mitsu 2.0's I'll contact Jim Downing for ya. I'm sure he'll be
facinated and employ you in the machine shop pronto. Hell, you won't even
need to go to the machine shop. Just change the wastegate settings and
BINGO! Maybe you can do some of your holistic stress reduction there.
In the meantime I'm placing a page where the clueless can congregate and
contemplate the facts of race car engineering. Things like stress and
thermodynamics for engines will be placed there later. For the moment
however I'll concern myself with things such as placement of weight in a
chassis and how its rearraingment can effect ride hight, braking bias, CoG,
CoD (yes, if your front height changes you'll can change the CoD and other
aerodynamic qualities), antidive, spring rates, roll rates, blah, blah,
blah.
You can argue physics then, I didn't make those laws.
"Brad" <BigP...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B8F0F1F...@ix.netcom.com...
Darin Autry
I did pull my 25-50k number out of my ass. But it's based upon what I've
seen at the track and on various modified streets. Trust me, there are
several racing teams out there that would love to learn your secrets on
milking out more hp while not having to worry about various failures due to
the added stress.
Please do list these secrets. Do you use any special head gaskets to handle
the added compression from overboosting or do you just have the little
engine that could?? I too would love to benefit from your reknowened wealth
of knowledge in this area.
"Brad" <BigP...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B8F1064...@ix.netcom.com...
Bob Atherton
Thanks,
Bob
"Darin Autry" <nos...@nomore.com> wrote in message
news:gEOj7.179$TL1.2...@news.uswest.net...
Darin Autry
I will give you this. I thought you were total BS and didn't realize that
the Lancer EVO VII was pushing 280 hp stock (domestic limited, too) with
reports of hitting damn near 300 hp unlimited. If I'm to understand
correctly thats a dual turbocharged 16v 4G63 engine (you mentioned this
engine model earlier, too.).
Guy's, that's enough to power this little sedan to damn near 155 mph, pull
0-60's in the high 4's and 0-100's in 12.7. I have to admit, I'd be pretty
pissed if I just went out and spent 50 - 75k on a new "super" sports car
only to be dusted by a Mitsu sedan!
Not too shabby, but all the same, even pumping 100 more hp is quite a strain
on most any engine, and one that will certianly be felt by a stock built
engine that has been NOS'ed or overboosted in order to achieve the gain.
"Brad" <BigP...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B8F1064...@ix.netcom.com...
Brad
>
> Whatever shitbird, whatever gets ya through the night. Tell ya what.
> Since you're so majical at being able to get untapped and unstressing hp
> from mitsu 2.0's I'll contact Jim Downing for ya. I'm sure he'll be
> facinated and employ you in the machine shop pronto. Hell, you won't even
> need to go to the machine shop. Just change the wastegate settings and
> BINGO! Maybe you can do some of your holistic stress reduction there.
Seriously, Darin, just how stupid are you? I normally am nice and
wouldn't ask such a thing, but you keep running your mouth talking shit
when you don't have to be.
Eclipse 2.0s don't even start getting iffy until 450hp, just like many
stock-internal performance engines. The transmissions may not
particularly like 6000rpm all-wheel-drive launches, but the engines
don't seem to mind inhaling up to 25 pounds of boost one bit. Shit, I
know people who run 26 pounds of boost every day on 93 octane! Since
you apparently don't know shit about cars, you probably don't realize
what a feat it is to do that safely day-in and day-out.
Do you know anything about turbocharged cars or even cars in general?
You *may* have a degree in mechanical engineering or whatever, but you
sure don't know much about real-life cars. Why not also tell me a
stock-internal 5.0 Mustang can't handle 400+hp? Why not tell me a
stock-internal 2.3 Ford turbo engine can't handle 350+? Why not tell me
just a cam swap and head job on an LS1 Camaro can't put 400hp to the
wheels? You talk like a grade-A, 100% moron. That would even be fine,
really, but unfortunately the size of your mouth is also the inverse of
the size of your car knowledge.
Go ahead and call Jim Downing for me like you said. If he can't get
400hp out of an Eclipse 2.0 by just using bolt-ons, then he better hire
me before his competition does. Whoever Jim Downing is, anyway. What,
is he some specialty tuner like Steve Saleen, add a whopping 80hp to a
car and charge 10 grand for doing it?
For the moment
> however I'll concern myself with things such as placement of weight in a
> chassis and how its rearraingment can effect ride hight, braking bias, CoG,
> CoD (yes, if your front height changes you'll can change the CoD and other
> aerodynamic qualities), antidive, spring rates, roll rates, blah, blah,
> blah.
All intensely fun matters of discussion that provide hours of enjoyment
for the entire family, I'm sure, but most of which don't mean a damn on
a street car, which is the subject at hand. "Oh no, we put a V8 in a
944 and changed the aerodynamics, how ever will we be able to drive the
car to the grocery store now?"
"Shitbird" will now ask once again: "Seriously, Darin, just how stupid
are you?"
Brad
> I did pull my 25-50k number out of my ass. But it's based upon what I've
> seen at the track and on various modified streets. Trust me, there are
> several racing teams out there that would love to learn your secrets on
> milking out more hp while not having to worry about various failures due to
> the added stress.
That's nice. They can pay me and I'll show them then. 400hp 2.0
recipes are becoming as commonplace as 500hp Turbo Buick recipes. I've
seen various "race teams" in action, and half the time they're just out
there trying to impress someone and doing things half-assed.
I just talked to a guy at a parts store the other week telling me about
his and his buddy's "race team." Too bad he was asking me why I thought
his '86 Camaro was only doing such-and-such near-stock time since he had
the "bigtime" mods of exhaust, an air filter, and a shift kit. Like he
thought it should be doing high 12s with his 2.4 60-foots and the stock
heads or something.
And now that The Fast and the Furious came out, I expect even more
half-assers to blow up their engines with as little as a 50hp shot of
nitrous. At times, I thought that movie was purposely made to be a
comedy.
>
> Please do list these secrets. Do you use any special head gaskets to handle
> the added compression from overboosting or do you just have the little
> engine that could?? I too would love to benefit from your reknowened wealth
> of knowledge in this area.
You're a pompous jackass so I doubt you could ever understand. Anything
that isn't in line with your way of thinking you'd shrug off and say,
"But my mechanical engineering textbook says this or that." A special
head gasket to handle more boost? At under 450hp, there's little need.
Even at the higher levels I'd use a stock head gasket if possible for a
couple reasons: one, because they're as strong as anything out there
short of the metal ones, and two, because if you have a problem
elsewhere and go lean or something, the head gasket will hopefully go
before part of the shortblock does.
It's rare for boost alone to kill a head gasket. ...But, you're a smart
mechanical engineering guy, so of course you should know that already,
shouldn't you.
Brad
>
> I would like to see this info also, if possible.
> Thanks,
> Bob
See how that was done, Darin? No attitude, no talking shit, just a
curiousity and being a car guy wanting to learn something new.
For the cheapy-cheap mods to go from 200hp to 250-300hp (depending on
boost level mainly), here's a post I wrote, damn, back in 1997, in the
Mustang ng when someone asked. These are basically considered to be
"stage 1"-type mods. I based my post off the then-current Project Talon
in Turbo Magazine so people who didn't believe me could read it for
themselves. (Unfortunately, Turbo Magazine kinda sucks now ever since
it was sold to Sport Compact Car.) This is how easy it is to get at
least 250hp out of an Eclipse 2.0. Same thing to get high 200s out of a
turbo 944, really.
For those who don't feel like clicking, basically a catback exhaust, a
K&N air filter, and 15psi (up from 10.5psi) will put an Eclipse in the
13s with a 0-60 in the low 5s. The stock turbo is usually good up to
20-ish psi depending on outside temperatures, but you need a bigger fuel
pump before turning it up that high.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=bigplayr%40ix.netcom.com+cheap+cobra&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=1&selm=33B2157E.190BF3D8%40ix.netcom.com
And then you swap the downpipe, the cat, put on a bigger turbocharger, a
front-mount intercooler, (more for street driving than for the track,
really), ported exhaust manifold, usually needs bigger injectors at over
350hp and so a fuel computer or MAS-modding, etc, etc.
Brad
actually learned something! Want to see that car in action? September
10th on Speedvision. World Rally Championship. That race will have BIG
jumps.
You probably also better watch in case I ever mention an all-wheel-drive
Ford Focus 2.0 with 300hp, too. What's that? America's Ford Focus is a
FWD, 2.0 little wimpy thing? That's right, but the REAL Ford Focus has
been made overseas for a good while. You know the new U.S. Subaru
Impreza WRX? Guess what. That's right, the non-U.S. ones come with
more than 227hp as well.
Btw, the EVO engine is a single turbo. It's basically the exact same
engine as is in Talons and Eclipses, but the EVO gets a bigger turbo,
front-mount intercooler, and 3" exhaust stock. That's the only serious
difference for the reasons why the EVO is around 300hp and Eclipses are
only 200hp.
And the performance #s you quoted are also just magazine numbers. I
know owners who have gotten low 12s@110mph from their stock EVOs. That
would put the 0-60 on par with a Porsche 911 AWD. Well, the older one.
Lose the attitude and keep your ears open, Darin, and we'll make you
into a turbocharged-loving car guy yet.
Darin Autry
If you'd keep up with the NG and not just this one thread that you show your
ignorance on you'd probably realize that maybe he's refering to the same
thing I am.
Please, explain how you keep from blowing head gaskets??? You're not
talking a 5.0 V8 putting out 400 horses. You're talking about a 2.0 pumping
400 horses. It's physics idiot. Ever pass that class in high school??? If
you have an inline 4 with .5l per cylinder, a particular valve arraingment,
a certain cumbustion chamber shape, etc, etc you, by the laws of physics,
can only get so much from even meeting perfectly monitored conditions for
performance. Even with freeing up your flow! Other than that, if you don't
change the physics of the engine, you have to run different fuels, overboost
it, NOS it for burst power, etc, etc. Now, if you boost 400 horses outta
this 2.0 without doing the proper modifications to the physical then you're
effecting engine life.
Sure you can boost it, say you have it and only turn the power on a few
times a year and the thing can maintain. But if your bragging about 400
horses, and your into that kind of power often, your putting much strain on
that engine.
Why in gods name do you think racing teams that pump 400 horses out of 2.0's
spend so much on preparing the actual engine?? Do you think that they're
all stupid and simply succumb to the effects of some stupid engineer with a
machine shop advertising being able to balance that engine perfectly, or
forge pistons better than stock factory? Why do they sell oversized valves
and higher duration cams if you can push 400 horses out of a stock 2.0
inline 4 with nothing more than overboosting and elec. modifications. (oh,
and maybe freeing the flow a little).
Tell ya' what, If the opportunity ever arises, you bring a couple of 400
horse 2.0 that have simply been boosted by your quick 'n easy mods, and
along side we'll get a couple of stock 2.0's. Will, run 'em. . . . Will
run 'em hard for say 24 hours. We'll keep each engine in it's power zone as
much as possible and accelerate out of turns just as hard as possible.
Then, if the 400 horse 2.0 are still running at the end, will tear 'em down
and check 'em.
I'll win.
"Brad" <BigP...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B916DDD...@ix.netcom.com...
Brad
>
> Ya' know, again, whatever.
>
> If you'd keep up with the NG and not just this one thread that you show your
> ignorance on you'd probably realize that maybe he's refering to the same
> thing I am.
>
> Please, explain how you keep from blowing head gaskets??? You're not
> talking a 5.0 V8 putting out 400 horses. You're talking about a 2.0 pumping
> 400 horses. It's physics idiot. Ever pass that class in high school???
Still with the attitude and talking out of your ass, I see. I thought
you might have changed a bit after finding out what I said about the
Lancer Evolution is true. If you want me to ask it again, I will:
"Seriously, Darin, just how stupid are you?"
Do you really think Turbo Regal owners putting out 450+hp with their
3.8s all use aftermarket head gaskets? No, they don't. And neither do
Eclipse owners. Why is a strong stock head gasket so hard to believe?
What part of "high boost by itself will rarely kill a head gasket" don't
you understand? Even the other day you going on about "tell me when you
burn a valve" and this or that, almost all the things you mentioned
would mainly be due to a TUNING problem, not a high-boost or
high-horsepower problem. But your inexperience with actual engines
shines through and thus you talk like an idiot.
Ever hear of David Buschur, Darin? He held the fastest Eclipse/Talon
record for like four out of five years. He ran low 11s @125 or so mph
for a couple years, sometimes with nitrous, sometimes without, and built
the first RWD Talon. Now runs 9s (tube-frame car). He's been racing
the cars for ten years now and always raced with 25 or 26psi. Guess how
many STOCK head gaskets he's blown in *10 years* of racing every weekend
and then doing it full-time. ...three. THREE! THREE stock head
gaskets in 10 years of racing! And one of those went while running over
500hp to the wheels, and another went due to a tuning problem on a dyno
with a malfunctioning air/fuel meter. God damn you are one stupid son
of a bitch.
>
> Sure you can boost it, say you have it and only turn the power on a few
> times a year and the thing can maintain. But if your bragging about 400
> horses, and your into that kind of power often, your putting much strain on
> that engine.
Why do you insist on talking about things you admit you are talking out
of your ass about? I haven't been bragging about 400 horses, I've been
making you look like a dipshit as you ran your mouth about the engines
to me when all the while I've wrenched on them in my spare time for
years and you didn't know it.
>
> Why in gods name do you think racing teams that pump 400 horses out of 2.0's
> spend so much on preparing the actual engine??
Name these racing teams and what 2.0s you are talking about. Go ahead,
name them.
And have you called Jim Downing for me yet? You better call all those
other "race" teams who apparently don't know what they are doing, too.
Do you think that they're
> all stupid and simply succumb to the effects of some stupid engineer with a
> machine shop advertising being able to balance that engine perfectly, or
> forge pistons better than stock factory?
Are you saying here that a shop can't make pistons stronger and balance
an engine better than the factory can, or are you saying factory pistons
can't hold up to a shop's aftermarket ones and the balance would be
worse? You wrote a bit screwy there.
Why do they sell oversized valves
> and higher duration cams if you can push 400 horses out of a stock 2.0
> inline 4 with nothing more than overboosting and elec. modifications. (oh,
> and maybe freeing the flow a little).
Um, so you can get MORE than 400hp out of the engine? Think!
You're a dunce. Of course cams play a part. They can play a big part.
But they're not absolutely necessary for that level, either. And
basically NO ONE touches the heads on the cars until they get to the
350-400hp level. The heads just flow too well to bother spending money
there. Kinda like the heads of an LS1 Camaro or many Honda Vtecs.
"But, Brad, they sell bigger valves for LS1 Camaros and Hondas, so that
MUST mean the stock heads don't flow for shit." That's some kind of
logic you got there, Darin.
Why don't you do a google search on Josh Wingell? His car has around
375hp, he's put I think 200+ drag strip passes on it in the last couple
years without a driveline or engine failure and launching from 5 or 6
grand getting 1.6 60-foots, (you know what those are, right?), the
engine has bolt-ons only, and, holy shit, Darin, you won't believe it,
it even has the STOCK cams and valves! WOW! Who'da thunk it!?
The only reason he's had an engine problem recently is because for
whatever reason that is still unknown, similar to some Miatas and other
cars, the '95+ engines can develop crankwalk, and his did. So now he's
done what every '95+ owner does when that happens and he put in a
pre-'95 engine.
>
> Tell ya' what, If the opportunity ever arises, you bring a couple of 400
> horse 2.0 that have simply been boosted by your quick 'n easy mods, and
> along side we'll get a couple of stock 2.0's. Will, run 'em. . . . Will
> run 'em hard for say 24 hours. We'll keep each engine in it's power zone as
> much as possible and accelerate out of turns just as hard as possible.
> Then, if the 400 horse 2.0 are still running at the end, will tear 'em down
> and check 'em.
You're so stupid, I'd be surprised if someone even let you have a
driver's license.
Ever hear of Farzaan Kassam? Maybe you have since he owned three
Talons/Eclipses before getting a 944 and started modding that. He's
probably still on the 944 mailing list right now. When he first got it
he went on a Porsche list and said how he had a 300+hp Talon and was
wondering if he could get similar results from just bolt-ons on the
944. They called him names, told him to get lost and take his "shit"
talon with the made-up 300hp with him, etc. Hmmm, you've got a big
attitude and don't know much about cars, Darin, maybe it was you who
said some of that to him.
Farzaan autocrossed/road raced his Talon constantly. 20psi on pump
gas. I think the longest race he did with it was 40 one-minute laps
almost back-to-back. That's with constantly hanging up around the rev
limiter. The only thing that did that car in was hanging off the bumper
of another car for too long on the track. The airflow to the radiator
got blocked and the car's temperature was in the red zone for who knows
how long. Then some months later it started putting blue smoke out the
back, which he attributed to the big overheating incident. His mechanic
was amazed at how great the cylinder walls looked otherwise. ...And
then they put it all back together using another STOCK head gasket.
Are you done being stupid now?
Darin Autry
You are certainly one half-cocked arse. It's obvious your experience hasn't
been gained through experience. I'd figure you and the boys hang out on
Fri. and Sat. nights at the local Mickie's and attempt to brag about the
pathetic "mods" you've done and dream about one day being able to dust the
boys who've paid the dues.
Notice how no one else here is rushing to defend or claim the (YES, YOU SAID
IT!) 400hp 2.0 w/ stock hardware and a few overboost or elec. mods. (not
saying much though, only looks like mine and your stupid ass in here.)
Like I said, I don't get into drag racing. I found along time ago that I
can walk 1/4 mile down the road. I'm into something that tests a overall
endurance of both car and driver. Say, 24 hours at Sebring.
Again, whatever dude. Whatever gets ya through the night. I've paid my
dues and I've kept current on many of the latest tricks out there. I know
what the makers of these tricks claim, I know what wannabe's like you claim
and I know what happens after about 100 miles of turnin' em at 8-9k. (yes, I
said 8-9, but in your case since it's mostly stock I don't think you'd see
much over 7 for very long.) Ever seen a big 383 turn 9.5k as easy as if it
was ment to all it's life? I've built one or two with the help of PAW's
fine balancing back in the 80's. Ever seen a polished crank and rod set
that you could use as a mirrow???? Ever seen penned rods? What about
competition valve cutting??? Do you know why you cut 'em that way??? Ever
heard of porting and polishing?? Know what happens if that particular item
gets "too" polished??? You said that the engine damage I described could
only be caused by a tuning problem. Damn, and I'm supposed to be the idiot
here. Ever boosted octane and added lead with Tetra-Ethyl??? Better be a
registered chemist! What experience do you have with competition fuels??
Ever done the old mothball trick??? Ever built a hybrid head w/
hemispherical chambers and designed the pistons to match. Ever ran an NA at
over 14.5/1???? Ever????????
Oh, and to clear up confusion I ment that to get a better piston, rod,
crank, flywheel, valves, valve guides, valve seals, rings, bearings, cam,
headgasket, oil pump, oil sump, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. You'd best be
going somewhere else than the factory.
"Brad" <BigP...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B9422C2...@ix.netcom.com...
Darin Autry
I've not the time right now to read your book. I got to the part about
David B. turning low 11's.
Dude, I've been shotgun on a mid 6 ride. I've built 440's that pulled 'em
in high 8's. I got out of drag racing because it's so passe. On the high
pullers like that you usually tear the engine down quite frequently. Some
even after every day. That is if your serious about it.
Also, if I'm not severely lost in this long ado about your cluelessness, you
never mentioned the EVO, you just mentioned the engine. I took some time to
do some research on that engine and found myself it's the base for the EVO
mods. AND if I'm not mistaken, not available in the US. Also contacted a
Mitsu tech back in Atlanta once I learned that in order to rag him about his
job. He has read the thread and had a good chuckle too.
"Brad" <BigP...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B9422C2...@ix.netcom.com...
Brad
> Also, if I'm not severely lost in this long ado about your cluelessness, you
> never mentioned the EVO, you just mentioned the engine. I took some time to
> do some research on that engine and found myself it's the base for the EVO
> mods.
And yet you still didn't learn anything from it. Too bad.
AND if I'm not mistaken, not available in the US.
2003. The wimpy version is already available. Mitsubishi might be
finally getting off its ass.
Also contacted a
> Mitsu tech back in Atlanta once I learned that in order to rag him about his
> job. He has read the thread and had a good chuckle too.
I hope he didn't laugh at what you wrote *too* much. I wouldn't trust
anything he says anyway. After 10 years, half of them STILL can't
properly change a timing belt.
Brad
>
> Okay, read more.
>
> You are certainly one half-cocked arse. It's obvious your experience hasn't
> been gained through experience. I'd figure you and the boys hang out on
> Fri. and Sat. nights at the local Mickie's and attempt to brag about the
> pathetic "mods" you've done and dream about one day being able to dust the
> boys who've paid the dues.
That's strange, I was almost positive that Talon with the 3" exhaust,
ported exhaust manifold, O2 housing and turbo, HKS electronic boost
controller that runs 19+psi every day on 93 octane, HKS 8-way adjustable
struts along with H&R springs, etc, along with a so-cute little stuffed
Pikachu on the dashboard sitting in my driveway is mine. Hmmmph.
You've probably been dusted by a couple high-boosted Turbo Regals or
Eclipses and immediately thought they must have aftermarket head gaskets
on them. Turbo Regals handle mid-20s psi and even higher just fine on
the stock head gasket, as do Talons/Eclipses. If you don't believe
that, then you truly are an idiot.
>
> Notice how no one else here is rushing to defend or claim the (YES, YOU SAID
> IT!) 400hp 2.0 w/ stock hardware and a few overboost or elec. mods. (not
> saying much though, only looks like mine and your stupid ass in here.)
So read his posts on google and email Josh Wingell, you jackass. He's
posted many times what his car has on it. What, too chickenshit to do
it? Let me know if you want me to do it for you. How about I give you
the address to the talon irc channel? There'll be about 30 guys in
there that will tell you the same thing -- that you're a dumbshit.
In the meantime, why don't you check this site out and maybe add
SOMETHING worthwhile to your sorry ass. You didn't bother searching on
this guy when I mentioned him last time probably because you're scared
of what you might read. Now everyone can read it and see you are STILL
talking out of your ass.
Notice the part about "has proven to be a nearly-bulletproof engine, and
can handle tremendous levels of boost, and can be made to generate more
than twice the factory horsepower without any modifications to the stock
or bottom-end!" More than twice the horsepower... let's see... that'd
be over 400. Wow, who woulda thought they could that. Certainly not an
idiot like you.
http://www.buschurracing.com/buschur/BRwebsite.nsf/Stages?OpenFrameSet
>
> Like I said, I don't get into drag racing. I found along time ago that I
> can walk 1/4 mile down the road. I'm into something that tests a overall
> endurance of both car and driver. Say, 24 hours at Sebring.
How about, say, Farzaan Kassam running 20psi on pump gas all-day, every
day, including autocrossing and road racing every chance he got? No...
of course that doesn't fit in with your endurance tests because then
you'd have to admit you are talking out of your ass. Oh wait, you
already admitted that, didn't you.
>
> Again, whatever dude. Whatever gets ya through the night. I've paid my
> dues and I've kept current on many of the latest tricks out there. I know
> what the makers of these tricks claim,
You don't know shit. You've shown that in this thread over and over.
Go talk your head gasket shit to some Grand National guys at the track
and see how many people think you're a fool.
I know what wannabe's like you claim
> and I know what happens after about 100 miles of turnin' em at 8-9k. (yes, I
> said 8-9, but in your case since it's mostly stock I don't think you'd see
> much over 7 for very long.)
lol... "you know what happens when you turn 'em at 8-9k for 100 miles."
Gimme a break. It's common to run the stock-internal engines up to 8k
or even 8500. The really fast guys turn 'em to 9500, but that's with
forged stuff.
Are you going to stop being stupid now? You could at least drop the
arrogance if you aren't. I'm gettin' tired of explaining things to you
over here.