Yep, nitrous is definately a big part of the key, nearly all the very fast vauxhall lads use nitrous.

 

Another great thing about my engine is I have 130lbft at 1800rpm that goes up by 25lb/ft all the way up to 8000rpm. No big spikes just gradual delivery!

 

Ive owned xr3is and rs turbos in the past and even the 3i wheel spined easy with its 105 bhp

My gte 16v with 190 you had to try hard to make it spin it just grips

Something deffo not right with the escort chassis i dont know if its the engine positioning weight over the front wheels the suspension or what


And about the cvh vs zetec they get exactley the same times with any of the engines fitted

 

fuck me what did i start here

 

An inferiority complex for CVH owners mate

 

turboboss will you be entering into totb mate? would be good to see even 1 fast fwd rs

 

Thats proves the WELL KNOWN FACT of Engine wieght placement on the Vauxhalls, which are alot further over the front wheels.



Sorry Chip, But you talk about Blickers, OPEN your's and see that the setup from the box is better on the Vauxhalls than the fords.

 

 

Fiecos, im not disputing the fact the diff is slightly further back on the vauxhalls mate, I havent said otherwise.

 

i do believe

You correct on your power delivery,
but i think if a RST was mapp'd and spec'd for 1/4 then it could be in low 12's, even 11's.

But other than Pauls FRST, i cant think of another rst design'd for 1/4 mile.

 

Rick any chance you finding me 3 let engines if you can get them fo Ł350 buck! thats bullshit LETs tend to go for over a grand without box bog standard with probably a shagged turbo as the kkk are shite.
After owning and doing many Let and Xe conversions ie my old nova let was a mid 12 quater i have to say! 4x4 and YB is the way to go although mines in a 106!

 

i'm working on it dan just need to have my live map done at msd then i will be down the pod

thanks
sean

 

I can absolutely guarentee that for the purpose of this thread, your car wouldnt even be able to beat a 1.6 standard nova gte mate.

 

What my old nova turbo or the 106 coz 4x4?

 

The 106 coz 4wd


As tis 4wd and this thread is about fwd



I dont think the best way to make a competitive car for TOTB, which is what Stu is after, is to have a YB and 4WD anymore, cause that puts you up against AndyF etc, lol

 

PS

do you work on an offshore oil platform BTW?

 

Oh yes! in the forties field as we speak!

 

I know someone who knows you then, but cant for the life of me think who it was.

They mentioned your car when I was on the phone to them about something else, they were saying what a cool idea it was.

Might have been Stu actually?

 

nah m8 still got a few things to do so i wont be ready in time but i have sorted out my power delivery and my issue with snapping driveshafts..
car going to be setup for drag, the problem i always had was my launch and traction, cant do quick times with 17" wheels and shite tires so i am dropping down to 215-60-15 drag radials plus i will be able to launch hard due to my group a spec driveshafts made by reco-prop..
since i changed to a apexi avcr my power delivery is alot more progessive and smooth.
msd are mapping my car on a L8 with LC to help me launch june 24th i will be down the pod... theres no raeson why i wont be able to do 12s then i can work from there.

more fwd fords if there into drag racing they should look at running nitrous, i practically have no lag i've just got my nitrous controller working so i will be activating my nitrous from idle.

this is such a head scratching subject i can never understand why other cars with similar do 12s with ease..
but i'll try my best with loads of practise to turn my times around...


thanks

sean

 

I agree bud about the fwd thread, my original post was about Ł350 LET engines that rick stated is false, and as for the 4wd comment is that if folk are spending big bucks tryin to get fast times over the quater why with fwd and not 4wd makes sence to me? each to there own i suppose.
Stu? from?

 

Chip


How long you been

 

theres alot more involved trying to go fast times in fwd guise 4wd is the best option but i dont think people set out to build fwd 1/4 mile cars, i mainly use mine for track but i'm really getting into sprints, just costs money finding the right components.

 

Stu who owns this forum (from MSD) I think it was mate.

 

Dont no him personally like but i presume it was the 106 he was speaking about as its currently at reyland's.

I agree turbo boss, i built my nova for track use mainly, but had that key factor with fwd. GRIP! anything over 300horse with fwd is a waste of power and money in my eyes either ford, vaux, honda ect, anything over looks good on paper but thats it.

 

more of a pipe dream than a goal, my car will never be competitive at totb, but id like it to be able to be at the stage where i could go to totb and not get laughed at! would just like to proove to a few peoplem mainly myself, what im capable of achieving!

i also want it to handle, be good to drive on the road and quick on track....

...i also like to have my cake AND eat it


bought a full mondeo 4x4 transmission system today, basiclly everything between the clutch and all for tyres. its suposed to be shit though anyone know of any big power cars running this transmission? ie 300bhp+

 

Chip,

No matter how infrequently I log onto this site, I always see your name on here. Although you may think you are knowledgable, some of your posts are good info, others complete and utter rubbish.


In this post some of your comments about the CVH are completely wrong, and again show your complete lack of experience with this engine. How can you comment on something you clearly know so little about.

One of our 300bhp CVH's is in fact superior to a 300bhp zetec. The reason is very simple. The CVH being 8 valve makes boost earlier than the 16v with the same turbo. For example I can get a 0.63 T34 spooling at little over 3000rpm on a CVH compared to 3800rpm on a 16v. Both will and can rev to 7500rpm with this turbo. The CVH however has the 16v won on torque and thus is actually the easier and quicker car to drive as it has less lag in addition to the greater torque.

At power levels over 380bhp it is a necessity to go 16v simply as we require the valve area to keep gaining power, but at sub 350bhp, the CVH is actually VERY good.

I won't be replying to this post again, so please all argue away.

 

one of the big coments in this thread is about the weight of novas and corsa's my astra is not light and is well into the 12's with a totaly fucked suspension at the time and a engine not running right as ANYONE that see it running at totb 5 will tell you

 

Karl, its an interesting point about less valves being better for spooling lower down, and certainly one relevant to hooking up off the line, I assume you are talking about a 1900 cvh though as the extra capacity of a 2.0 vs a 1.6 is going to more than outweigh it if both are built correctly for that application.

Have you actually played with MILDER cams in the Zetec to try and achieve the same thing though, as ive yet to see any zetec motor with a shorter duration than standard exhaust cam which is where I would be looking to spool up the turbo sooner personally, less valves isnt the only way to do this after all!

Its a shame if you arent going to contribute again, as you no doubt could have done so usefully rather than throwing in a few bits of pseudo knowledge that only scratch the surface of what should be a very interesting topic.

You are correct about my lack of experience of the CVH, im just going by what I see others do as I have no interest in personally playing with such old and limited technology myself anymore particuarly, but I still find it very interesting when others do

 

PS

The fastest FWD nova to date in the uk (11.3, but on drag tyres) was also an 8V

 

Hello Chip,

I did'nt expect such a quick reply so as I'm still up I thought I'd respond.

Yes my comments were based on the larger capacity CVH's we do, but none are as large as 1900cc as this requires an 88mm stroke crank which does not package geometrically correct within the confines of the tall block.

However despite being under 1900cc our CVH's are superior to even our 2060cc zetec (largest practical size) for both turbo response and torque when talking about engines in the sub 350bhp range. This is as a direct result of being 8 valve. The CVH produces most torque right from idle and turbo for turbo is around 500rpm earlier in boost threshold. Yes I have produced all manner of cam combinations for all Ford engines. There is no cam combination that can address a 16v's inherent lack of torque compared to a similar 8v, and this is a direct result of valve seat air velocity against valve lift. (i.e. 2 small valves flow far more air at low lift than one equivalent sized single valve, which for the same valve lift exhibits far higher air velocity given the reduction in valve seat area.

I find your comments rather derogotary about "I don't work with old engines." DO you think I am any less an engineer simply because I choose to work with older Fords? LOL

 

i dont envy you there mate

whats is it you do like?

 

Karl, quite the opposite mate, I think that it takes MORE talent to work with older engines if anything as you are so much more constrained in terms of the breathing limits of the head etc.
In fact the tuner I have the most respect for out of all the ones I know well specialises in A Series mini engines which make the CVH look like space age technology comparatively.

I just simply choose not to do so myself anymore so thats the only reason for my comment, but I have done in the past, particuarly with the mini engines I just mentioned, and (much like you describe the CVH) its actaully quite impressive how much torque you can get from such a small capacity engine with only 5 ports, I have simply moved on to newer engines as a natural progression, I dont in ANY way look down at people with the older engines, I just think they are barking up the wrong tree for out and out performance.

Ive obviously yet to experience a CVH of the standard that you build judging by how different what you describe is to what I have experience of to date in terms of the CVH, and I look forward to doing so at some point in the future so I can experience for myself just how wrong I am with my comments on them based on the ones Ive experienced so far.
I appreciate what you are saying about air speeds around the valves, and that was exactly my reasoning for saying I would like to see a zetec with a milder cam on the exhaust.

You mentioned nothing of the way in which the engine comes on boost though, and I still stand by my comment that typically the CVH seems to hit VERY hard when it comes on boost (if anything your comments re-enforce this expereince) as it goes from nothing to everything in the space of 500rpm in my experence, and thats potentially damaging to quarter mile starts, although I guess if mapping deliberately for the quarter you could map your way around that.

 

is`nt ollie`s s1 doing high 12`s?

 

no only tims 1.6cvh to date

 

Haven't had a chance to read this topic for a while....can't be bothered to justify or reply to all the posts on here. Everyone knows best.

Everyones got the best engines with the faastest cars with the best delievery and top speed is boring!

Sean - good luck with yours mate, sounds like your heading in the right direction pal.

Cheers,

Sunny.

ps - Chip, you're right, pony top speed is boring .I am sure you'd find it very boring sitting in the passenger seat of a fiesta doing in excess of 180mph.

 

Sunny, you are actually quite annoying when you try and twist what Im saying to make out Ive had a go at you when I havent!
I take it you missed the part where I said im going to be organising a top speed event for vauxhalls soon?
And you probably forgot my involvement with Rods new nitrous system?

Seriously mate, its like you come on here WANTING everyone to be against you, well Im sorry to dissapoint you but im NOT, in fact I think what you and Mark have done with your car is great, but given that this thread is about quarter mile, its just not particuarly relevent in here as this thread is about quarter miles, something your car hasnt yet done very well at AFAIK?

 

Oli's best qtr to date is 13.2@120mph. With practice and the correct suspension setup he will shave well over a second off this time!

 

"shave" a second?

Thats not shaving, thats attacking with an axe!



What are his 60ft ats the moment Karl?



120mph certainly sounds like enough power to get down to the low 12s if he can get it to hook up properly.

 

Chip, take a look nearer to the start of this post and you will find that my name (along with various others who have posted here) was mentioned in this post in reference (as you quite rightly said) to '1/4 mile way before I replied to it hence the whole reason why I mentioned that my car was built primaraly for top speed at that time when it was last on the tarmac hence the last time I was at TOTBII we easily pissed the fwd top speed event, won something for the Ford team and let Andy Nichol (who's Rover was setup based on drag not top speed) carry on and win the 1/4 mile crown. I never came on here to divert the subject. For the people that might be interested, the aim for me was to use the setup/gearing for my top speed and get it out of the way then re-setup on a totally diffierent setup specifically for 1/4 mile drag however unfortunately my previous car never got to that stage as it was involved in an unfortunate incident during one of the 170mph+ top speed runs at Brunters.

Thanks,

Sunny.

 

Sunny, I said your car was a "one trick Pony" and you have just said exactly the same thing in your last post, ie that all you had set it up for was top speed.
I wasnt being insulting by calling it that, I was just pointing out it was focussed on one thing and one thing only, and that thing wasnt the quarter mile, so it was never going to be particuarly competitive on the quarter.
So basically your car proved nothing about what could or couldnt be done on the quarter.
I would describe Rods car in the same way, its focussed on top speed too, if Rod wanted to do quarters with his car as his main focus and had put the same effort into that I dont doubt it would be running low 10 tens by now, as it is though it will probably just about scrape into the 10s at some point at best (which is of course still very impressive, but just not to the same extent that his 206 is!)

I hope that at some point you do come back and attack the quarter with the same commitment tha you did the top speed, as then this topic could be very different in nature, ie Stu would have been asking about low 11s instead or whatever!