cossiemanden

Question:
MIKE´s engine and MAD engines, do they use the same cams?same turbo? or do they use the same guy for porting the heads?
Doesent seem like it, so thats why the engines performe differently
To me it looks like that YUM´s engine uses cams/head-porting for track days ans mike´s engine more like straight line setup, am i wrong?
If u want to compare the 2 engines, then use the same turbo/cams and c/r then it is up to the porting, mapping and timing...

Anonymous

I cant comment on what paul Hill has done as i dont know about those engines.

Its possible to improve the det properties of the YB though, most notably through different piston designs, but ultimately it will never be an EVO motor so will never have the same optimum CR as an Evo does.

Anonymous

Oh look, someone with a grasp of how an engine works

Thats pretty rare round here.


But saying to two people "build exactly the same engine then we can see who builds it best" is a bit pointless as ALL these people can build the engines to a very high standard, the difference is NOT in the building of the engine, its in the spec, thats the whole point!

Mike Rainbird

iTrader: (3)

Can't you READ ? I do NOT think this is made up . I just provided an explanation as to why I think the two differ . The dynos are set up differently, as can be seen by the air-temps .

cossiemanden

Exatly my point chip

Mike Rainbird

iTrader: (3)

Vice-versa .

Anonymous

My opinion is that marks choice of cams and head specs has a FAR more pronounced effect on the results than the temp does.

I suspect the extra functionality of the autronic, and especially the extra resolution on the ignition map is helping.


Are you prepared to divulge the loads sites chosen to map this engine with (its on L8 isnt it?), it may well speak volumes about why its failing to perform as well as Mark can make his!

Mike Rainbird

iTrader: (3)

Can't you read? The ECU used on this engine makes Autronic seem like a ZX Spectrum (slight exageration for artistic effect ).

Anonymous

...Without a doubt i would only ever use Mark if i went to a pro...its being able to contact the tuner at anytime is the key IMO.

Anonymous

I disagree, MAD engines are absolutely NOT made for balls out straight line power.

I know how ridiculous that may sound to some people but its the truth IMHO

Mark is far more interested in a huge spread of torque then he is in a peak figure, and i think most people in this thread will understand that (with correct gearing) peak figures are where its at for straight line speed.

Look at Rod's car, its WELL past peak torque at the RPM it pulls at brunters, its NOT ideally setup for the task, its setup as a combination of top speed consideration and then far more focus on being a driveable road car.

Anonymous

I can read just fine, but havent sat down and "revised" for a test on this topic, so was assuming it was on L8 as i dont remember what was written 7 pages ago.

Fair enough though if its on T6 or whatever? I dont recall what was said earlier about that.

Disabled Account

EDITED:

It is indeed Dave.

We call it the "Beast" because on race fuel it made all the sixes .

T6 with a T66 made 666bhp . I think Tony should be scared

Anonymous

T6 Ecu
T66 Turbo
666 Bhp
0.6 lbft of torque

cossiemanden

Ahh, nice one

It could be really funny to compare my new engine to you guys, as mine is build to do 1/4mile only


Am Also interested in this

Anonymous

...i must admit in my early days i always wondered why MAD engines made huge torque compared to the SCS engines (not a diss as they are mainly only the 2 graphs you see on here)

Porkie

iTrader: (1)

The only one I know of was Ian at Raceteks engine.... and that was a COMPLETE disaster. Ian lost a fortune on it when it destroyed itself and Harvey ended up building him a low comp one as I remember?

I may be totally wrong

Anonymous

Porkie that is correct but Paul has got a few hi comp external gaited engines running no probs.

None of us know the true story..its between them

Anonymous

Any of them been to brunters to prove they can hack 30 seconds on the loud pedal without EGT's going too high?

Porkie

iTrader: (1)

ok cool thanks Are we sure they are hi comp though?? a few of the BIG Skyline Tuners that supposedley run hi comp engines DON'T

foreigneRS

as chip has also tried to point out

Anonymous

Porkie 8.5-1 i beleive not wildly high..i thought Ian's was 9 ish?


Chip...you have to remember the vast majority are not interested in top speed runs...also i feel many stage 3's would melt doin 30seconds held at Brunters!..My car for example even if i never get it tweaked to perfection it wouldnt go wrong purely thru application...the odd mental run on the road thats it..doubt i will ever see 4th gear past 6k

Anonymous

Phil, wether people are interested or not is actually a VERY valid point in terms of if it will be reliable.

Take Doug Stirling who has posted in here for example, i believe that both he and you would probably be safe with a high comp motor as I know he (and it sounds like you) wont EVER hold his car flat out for a massively long period of time, he loves the kick of the acceleration and is very much into fast cars, but he enjoys them whilst still maintaining a degree of mechanical sympathy and respect for his license.

So he could be built a 8.5:1 YB with 600bhp and never melt it and it be totally reliable, but if he lent it to Si B for the day, it would be fucked.


This is why its important to have a good relationship with your tuner and them know about you and what you use the car for IMHO as it effects which compromises to make.

Anonymous

..i think Mike has been truly in this thread..i actually feel sorry for him with all you madettes..like a pack of Rottweilers

CossieRich

iTrader: (1)

Its not the info that has been given Chip mate, its the info that HASNT been given. I am now not bothered as to what reasons this engine makes massive bhp but relatively low torque figures that you wouldnt expect from an engine obviously specced to utilise a T66 turbo and high boost. Its very difficult i imagine for Mike to answer the question fully without giving away particulars of the engine. So far, on this thread i have heard:

Differences in dyno setup
Location of the temp sensor when on the dyno
Correction Factor of BHP and LB/FT and the fact that the scale of correction is the IDENTICAL for both and Mike saying it is similar BUT NOT IDENTICAL.

None of that really explains why a 600 bhp engine with a big turbo, 2.3 bar of boost and a pukka managmenet system only produces a peak of 463 lb/ft torque. It has to be something mechanical in my mind, maybe a head that is ported too much or incorrect cams. I know i will get shot down and be made to look like im slating a non MAD engine, but this isnt the case. I have an interest in how things work and why they work. For example, Daves old spec 470 bhp and 430 lb/ft on a t38 with mad spec cams. 130 bhp down from this T66 equipped 600 BHP engine but only just over 30 lb/ft down. I know full well that an engine can make 500bhp/500 lb/ft on a GT30 turbo with the correct spec head and cams of course. So i ask again, why is the torque figure realtiveley low for a 600 BHP engine? Is the BHP figure inflated or is the spec of the engine just not correct for mega torque? I cant put it any clearer and I am trying to make it so NO ONE can read this and think Rich is just trying to make another tuner look bad. Im not

Anonymous

Rich i would imagine it is down to camshaft exhaust choice I cant beleive what my MAD engine runs

Ian M500COS

Porkie

you are in fact totally RIGHT

CossieRich

iTrader: (1)

MikeR

So what was the problem in your mind Ian as to why it did this if you dont mind me asking,

Because i know of another High comp engine from Paul and if my memory serves me right that eventually let go as well ( but i may be wrong on this)


Mike

Ian M500COS

Mike

It mysteriously commited suicide the very 1st time I drove it after having a GT35 fitted to replace my T4. Then after a little resuscitation in the form of a head gasket and major head surgery, the very next time I drove it, it completely destroyed itself. Though I did salvage 2 useful parts - the filler cap and sump plug!

Old news now. If you want details pm me and I'm more than willing to share the full story and advise you on not what to do - plus I do not want to detract from this otherwise excellent thread. Debate at its best. God I love this place!

Anonymous

My guess (well any opinion other than Harvey's is a guess as only he realy knows what he did or why he did it)
The spec of the engine isnt designed for mega torque, its designed to rev its fucking tits off for long periods making big power and still being reliable, hence the solid lifters etc.

Again I will say it, its not wrong, its just a different approach.

Anonymous

Ian i fully agree mass debation on here is great.

CossieRich

iTrader: (1)

Chip,

I know its not wrong as that is obviously Harveys way and the customers choice Not sure its the best way IMO

Anonymous

If you were a 4wd gearbox, you might see things differently

If you wanted an extra 1000rpm of useable power coming out of a bend you might as well


But for a road going cossie im with you mate, huge midrange torque is awesome fun (unless you are the tyres, lol)

Ian M500COS

Indeed Phil, and some have had more practice than others.

However , you cannot beat a good mass debate.

Top read this. I reckon it's still 5 rounds apiece though! Drawing on points!

MikeR

Thanks for being honest Ian,

This bb definatley does benifit from threads like this,

Chip i think it is like has been said you approach an engine builder and tell them what you want if they are any good then they should be able to spec it to what you want not what they like or normally do,

Mike

CossieRich

iTrader: (1)

Public forumn = public debate which is what this place should be about.

Anonymous

Yep