andrewg

and a race engine has to with stand more abuse than a rally cross engine

Chip

iTrader: (3)

As far as im aware ALL mark's engines are specced and built after a consultation with the customer about the intended use of the engine.
So yes, you are of course totally correct that if Andy (who wants a race engine for track use as it happens not a rallycross one as such) went to him and asked for a time attack engine (like Kev Atkins did) then Mark would build him an engine particuarly well suited to that task, which is likely to be a different spec to Rod's engine which is intended for a different purpose.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Ps

By the way Barry, Rod's last MAD engine outlasted your "2 miles" estimate by about 28000 miles, which is far more than any rallycross engine will ever do.

And with reference to your comments implying I might have some sort of personal reason to give a slant on my opinions of Mark's work, I actually feel that I am being FAR more objective about him than you are.
Its you that seems incapable of just accurately looking at the info available to you, although I wouldnt want to accuse you of being anti-mark, as obviously there is a perfectly rational exception other than one of a vendetta, it could just be the simple case of you being extremely stupid.

Barry_GTi

I assume the 28,000 miles was done at full boost full throttle all the time? Just like a race engine is when circulating a track.

I am not for a minute doubting Mark's engines, I am amazed at the power he is getting. I just think people are comparing apples with pears here.

I do want to see the overlayed graphs though.

Nick D

Only 10 lines!!!

Has Ade's engine gone pop?? (twice ) and Yum's engine has never failed has it?

I dont think my intelligence comes into question, just the MAD build quality

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Ade's engine went pop twice when he built it, and has been perfectly reliable since MAD built it.

Yum's original engine worked brilliantly for 10s of thousands of miles.
The only failure he had is of a turkish block, same as he would if he bought a new block and had it built by any other tuner capable of getting big power out of one.


Given your inability to see some very simple facts and draw a logical conclusion from them, I agree that there is NO question that you have any significant amount of inteligence, if you did then you wouldnt be making such idiotic comments.

Nick D

This failure because of this, this because of that, R&D etc...

Can only last so long!!

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Crikey, you really dont know much about racing if you think a race engine is at full boost full throttle the whole time, the only place that happens is on the straights, and the longest straights (and hence the longest continual application of full throttle) I know of any YB being subjected to at big power in the UK are RAF Woodbridge and Bruntingthorpe.
A car is held there flat you for 30 seconds or so typically.

I dont know of any race track in the UK where you could hold an 800BHP YB engine at full throttle for anymore than half that period of time.

Rod's engine did many top speed runs, and many hard road miles, and a large number of gentle road miles as well.

It did a great job of being reliable for all 3 of thoses uses, and Ive no reason to suspect it wouldnt have been reliable on a track as well.


From a reliability point of view, im not really all that convinced they are, sure the spec would be different if lusing a restrictor, as rod's turbo is too big, but the actual mechanicals of the engine would be just the same.

Mark's high power road engines tend to include these components:
CP or cosworth racing etc fully forged decent quality pistons
arrow rods
DKE crank
old stock nikasil linered 200 block
Solid lifters


Julian godfreys rallycross engines vary massively from that by using:
CP or cosworth racing etc fully forged decent quality pistons
arrow rods
DKE crank
old stock nikasil linered 200 block
Solid lifters



If you think something wouldnt be reliable about one of Mark's engines, what exactly is the thing that you think would fail?

Barry_GTi

Chip - I haven't said anything against Mark's build qualities, you have simply assumed(little touchy??). I simply stated that comparing Rod's and Andrews engines is pretty pointless. So please point out where I am being "stupid"?

In fact the reply I posted BEFORE you edited above clearly states that I have no doubt Mark's engines are top class. I have no favoured Cosworth tuner in fact, I really couldn't care.

It seems to us impartials on this forum that a few always turn every engine thread in to a tuner war.

I am sure I am not the only person who thinks Mark's posts on this forum are always well written and polite, very factual and no bullshit. However certain others just ruin the MAD reputation.

Nick D

You tell us!!

I don't doubt that he spends all the customers money on the most expensive parts that are available, must be the way its put together

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Welcome to the real world cutting edge of engine development in ANY formula, wether that be top speeds, or rallycross or touring cars or F1.
You have to break parts to find their limits

Anyone not breaking parts occasionally during development, isnt doing a very good job of R&D in the first place, as what are they actually finding out if they never find the limits of parts?

With the exception of turkish block failures, I personally know of NO engine Mark has built which has suffered what I would consider to be a premature engine failure in a customer car.
Rod's engine is different to normal customer cars, it is Mark's proving ground and R&D donkey and Ive personally been stood there when its gone onto the dyno and Rod has told me that he fully accepts that if something goes wrong and needs to be rebuilt and tried differently he is happy for that to happen in the quest to find the ultimate spec for his engine.



I really am genuinely gobsmacked that the response that Mark gets to showing people a little insight into the R&D process by going public with some of the issues with components he has found, is for people to think that his testing of such parts somehow reflects on his customer engines in anyway at all other than to make them as reliable as possible!
I didnt realise people so incapable of seeing facts existed on this forum, which was probably naive of me I guess, but I suppose because I am lucky enough to actually be inteligen and understand the concept of R&D and to have a good understanding of how an engine works, that I incorrectly credit others with having the same ability when clearly some of you dont.

Barry_GTi

Fuck me I give up

For the last time I have NEVER said Mark's engines are unreliable or would fail! Can you not fucking read? I think your mixing me up with someone else?

I understand racing perfectly, I believe that 10 laps of sustained high temps and rapidly changing loadings/situations on an engine would be harder work than 30s flat out and then a rest. IMHO.

What I have just typed above does NOT mean I doubt that a MAD engine would not manage a race(just incase anyone tries to imply that).

Barry_GTi

Nick D

Are you having your username changed to MAD chip yet?

Chip I love the face that you always comment on your own itellect lol, are you insecure about the matter?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to air it on this forum, I do not see it your job to argue with peoples opinions, altough you seem to thrive on doing so.

Anyway einstein enjoy your day in quantum physics, don't forget to iron your tesco suit trousers

Nick.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Like any of the other good tuners who's work I am moderately familiar with such as Reyland and MSD, what Mark does is spend the customers money on the appropriate parts, not always the most expensive, just the ones that he knows will work well.
And yes 28000 miles from Rod's old engine (which started at 500bhp and ended up well past 800bhp) is indeed a testament to how well it was put together, I dont think some people can actually grasp quite how long that is for a big power engine TBH.

For example, Doug Stirling had a good spec (well it was upwards of 10K, so i assume most would agree that is a good spec) engine from Harvey Gibbs, aside from the initial failure he got when it melted very early on, which obviously wasnt a reliability issue as such, merely a mistake (it appeared that one injector clip missing during assembly meant one injector plug came off when the engine was under load and leaned out one cylinder) he managed no more miles than Rod did on his replacement engine, and that was a sub 500bhp engine, and was subjected to nowhere near the level of abuse that Rod's engine was.
Doug wasnt feeling hard done by at getting sub 30K miles from his engine Harvey built before it showed signs of needing a freshen up, as his expectations were realistic, and mine would be the same.

If you are getting 20-30K genuinely "fast road" miles out of a 500bhp or above engine before it needs attention, then IMHO you are getting things right, like MAD are, and like SCS do too for that matter.

You cant except an engine at that level to still last 150,000 miles like a standard YB will before it needs attention, no matter who builds it.

Porkie

iTrader: (1)

Not in my opinion mate. Flat out 30 seconds plus at big boost at something like Brunters is a harder test for an engine.

I am not getting involved in any of the other bullshit on this thread though!

Chip

iTrader: (3)

No mate, I build and map my own engines, so have no link to Mark, other than I sometimes ask him for advice as I respect his opinion.



I wasnt arguing with opinions, I was presenting facts.

If I see someone on a forum post something that is incorrect, I believe its useful to correct it, as that way forums are a place people can learn from, rather than gather misinformation from.

I would do EXACTLY the same if someone was talking utter shite about an engine made by another tuner, it makes no difference to me who makes an engine if its a good engine then I will view it as such.

Barry_GTi

Fair enough Porkie, that's your opinion too

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Yours IIRC certianly seemed to hit charge temp issues at brunters that it never got on a racetrack to the same extent as one real life example of that.

Nick D

Chip look back at my orginal comment on this thread.

A tongue in cheek provocative question/comment, and look where YOU have got it to now with your barrage of comments and insults.

Where is Jacko's dry bumming for his comment? - I would like and answer to this (for once)

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Yep done that, you made one misleading comment, so I made one reply to it of a factual nature so that people reading your comments didnt get the wrong impression that MAD engines are unreliable, when clearly they are well proven not to be.

Which you then replied to with rubbish implying marks engines were unreliable again, so I replied again correcting you.

Where I have got this thread, is each time you have added some unfactual dig (or joke if you prefer to call your continued assaults on Mark's engines that) I have responded with some facts for those interested to read (those not interested can of course use the magic of the scrollbar and go straight past them)


If you cant see the difference between Jacko's post and your post, and view them both as just equal "jokes" then obviously it's going to be hard for you to grasp why I reacted differently to both comments but here goes with an explanation for you:

Jacko's comment appeared to me to be an actual joke made for the purpose of being funny, and for that purpose alone.
As opposed to a sly dig presented as a joke like your comments came across to myself
So as such I felt no need to correct Jacko's comment as I didnt think anyone reading it would actually think that Mark's engines were weight differently than other peoples and hence leave the thread with misinformation.
Where as your comments seemed to imply you yourself wrong believed you actually had the slightest clue what you were talking about, so someone reading it may have got the impression from your post that MAD engines tended to actually have reliability issues and not that was in fact just a load of nonsense you made up as part of a "joke".

Nick D

The problem obvioulsy lies with how you took the comment then.

Thanks for clearing that up

Martin-Hadland

iTrader: (2)

I think Lee's car had an RS500 intercooler when high charge temps were seen at Brunters, it was fitted with a large Pro Alloy item shortly afterwards.

Gary F

iTrader: (1)

I think Andy's thread is pretty much ruined now!

andrewg

keep it going thou its entertaining!!

Nick D

Development without failure, l like that

bud-weis

It certainly is!!

Chip

iTrader: (3)

If there is a problem (and I dont see why a dicussion on a discussion forum is automatically a problem) it was simply that having made one comment that was easy to mistake for blatant slander of Mark's engine, you then proceeded to make another and another and another each time you were corrected, which got a bit tedious as it meant you kept needing correcting again and again as you continued to make the same mistake again and again.

I think its good these things are out in the open though, as im sure there must have been people out here who held the belief (as you appeared to, but were apparently "joking") that maybe MAD had ever had a premature failure of a customer YB engine for any reason other than component failure of a turkish block, and at least now anyone reading this will know otherwise.

So at least some good came of your "joke" in that respect

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Im of the opinion that a 600bhp car hitting less than 190mph at brunters IS a failure in many ways, its certainly not the result it should have been given the power.

It wasnt a component failure that was terminal in this instance, but then 600bhp from a YB is hardly development, thats just a basic bread and butter engine really for a GT35R YB.

There are different types of failure during development of a car or an engine, there are those that lose you a race, or cost you a few mph on your top speed, or those that result in breakages.
When pushing the boundaries, you are likely to encounter them all at one point or another.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

And to a lesser extent informative too, wow this thread has it all

Nick D

Can I ask who is the big spoon, you or Mark?

Also can you every answer anything in a few lines? Do you have to go on and on and on with every reply that you type?

Anyway, thanks for your apology on talking it the wrong way. Jacko, your a lucky man you got away with all the waffle.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Nick, to someone capable of grasping facts and concepts easily, I can explain something in a couple of lines, even if its quite complicated, to someone like yourself though, it appears to take many many long replies before you finally get the message even when its just something simple like how R&D works.

You even took my replies the wrong way if you think it was an apology, it was not. So even that concept went over your head it appears, still I suppose that just cancels out your humour trundelling along the gutter under my feet in the first place

Martin-Hadland

iTrader: (2)

With 3.9 gearing and an RS500 spoiler fitted? Failure Lee's engine had to be one of the most hard worked engines out there and it was stripped for inspection and guess what? It was mint still!

Nick D

In my opinion a blue escos that has taken about 4 years to TRY and get to 200mph if a fucking failure. Engines blow then it takes forever to get put right as there busy making a mess of everything else.

Then comes along a new car, about the 3rd high speed day 200mph off GAS, piece of piss!

Nick D

The last place i'd ever ever ever be! Believe me

Wind your neck in with comments like that please.

timrud

Didn't Bruce Reed's car get quicker after leaving MAD?

foreigneRS

are you insecure about being considerably richer than everyone else?

Nick D

No, not at all.

foreigneRS

why make a personal insult (not that chip will be particularly insulted by it) based on the cost of someone's work clothes then?

Turbosystems

iTrader: (5)

enough bickering now please