Close

Activity Stream

Filter
Sort By Time Show
Recent Recent Popular Popular Anytime Anytime Last 24 Hours Last 24 Hours Last 7 Days Last 7 Days Last 30 Days Last 30 Days All All Photos Photos Forum Forums Articles Articles
Filter by: Popular Forums Last 30 Days Clear All
  • Termn8u's Avatar
    07-03-2016, 01:23 AM
    Hey everyone. A guy I know has a 2008 SL65 with speed driven intercoolers and a tune on it. I own a 2016 E63 S with awd and eurocharged's latest stage 3 tune. They tell me it makes 645 at the tire...... Idk if that's true or not but it has kicked the shit out of a lot of fast cars already. Last week I ran a 2010 C6 corvette with Cam, I take, exhaust, auto,3.45 gears Mickey Thompson ET streets that were aired down and a 100-150 shot of nitrous. From a dig, using race start I got him by 3-4 cars and then from a 30 mph roll I pulled him even more. How should I fare against this guys SL65?His car suffers really badly from heat soak.........
    21 replies | 7203 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    07-02-2016, 01:51 AM
    Many readers are familiar with twin scroll turbocharger systems but it never hurts to in basic terms explain turbocharger technology which can seem like witchcraft to the casual car fans. In the most basic of terms, a twin scroll turbocharger is like having two turbos in one. How is that possible you say? Well, just think of your classic V6 or V8. There are two exhaust banks. Traditionally, an efficient turbocharger setup would mean two turbos hanging off the manifolds at the bottom of the car. Each is fed by that set of cylinder banks which it is connected to. It looks like this: Such a setup can make a ton of power, no doubt about it. A good twin set of modern single scroll turbochargers on a V8 or V6 can produce quadruple digit horsepower. However, look at all that piping. Look at the distance the exhaust gases have to travel. Can a single twin scroll turbo do the job of these twins more efficiently? Absolutely. Imagine if the exhaust gases traveled to the turbocharger right from the cylinder head. That poses a packaging problem but one that a twin scroll turbo helps alleviate. The new B9 Audi S4/S5 3.0 TFSI turbo motor is a great example of this: Audi placed a twin scroll turbo in the V at the top of the motor and with a very trick manifold feeds a single turbo with both banks of exhaust pulses. It is like having two in one yet also with the benefit of less piping, less travel distance, and quite simply greater efficiency. BMW started the trend with a pair of twin scroll turbochargers mounted in the valley of their S63 V8. It is the same principle except they are feeding two turbochargers with a cross engine manifold: BMW has two V8 twin turbo motors, the N63 and the S63, but the S63 outpaces the N63 considerably. Why? Because of the twin scroll cross manifold design. The N63 can essentially be turned into an S63 by changing the manifold and turbos and that is basically what an S63 is. Imagine turbochargers being fed by pulses from both banks instead of just one bank. That is exactly what a twin scroll setup does with the turbocharger taking in exhaust gases from both banks. This pays dividends in many areas. Spool is said to be increased which leads to low end torque gains as well as an improvement in throttle response. The turbos in theory will make more power through the rev range as they are continuously fed with exhaust pulses through the curve. One should also see a decrease in intake charge dilution during valve overlap along with lower exhaust gas temperatures. You also have reduced pumping losses and better fuel consumption. What are the disadvantages? There really aren't any other than more manufacturing and tuning complexity. In theory a good sized single twin scroll turbo will cost you less than a pair of high end traditional turbos. The main thing to get right is the firing order feeding the twin scroll turbo. For example a four-cylinder motor usually fires 1-3-4-2. You would want one exhaust passage to get gases from the number 1 and 4 cylinders and the other from the 3 and 2 cylinders. This may all sound too good to be true but the principle has been tested and a twin scroll setup is simply more efficient: More power through the curve? Yep: You also get the benefit of greater boost at lower engine speeds which is that low end torque and response benefit discussed earlier. You are going to see more and more twin scroll turbocharger applications in production cars. Expect variable geometry twin scroll turbochargers as well which means the turbocharger has vanes that can adjust. This way the turbocharger can adjust itself to maintain the speed of gas flow based on how much exhaust gas it is being fed. Turbo lag will never be eliminated but with twin scroll and variable vane turbo technology manufacturers are getting so close it may no longer matter. The modern turbo era is providing excellent response, efficiency, and power with fuel economy nobody would have thought possible not too long ago. Much respect to twin scroll technology!
    31 replies | 2359 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    07-12-2016, 06:05 AM
    Nurburgring laptimes are basically a big dick measuring contest. That is fine of course as most things associated with automotive performance can be boiled down as such. The problem is everyone is not playing with the same sized ruler. What does this mean? Well, take Porsche's recent claim of a world record on the Nurburgring with the new Panamera Turbo. This tops the record set by the Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio's 7:39 laptime. Alfa Romeo never proved they set a 7:39 time by providing a video as proof. Did they do it? Maybe, maybe not, but who knows at this point if it wasn't just a marketing ploy. The issue is Porsche did not provide a full laptime video now either. They simply wrote '7:38' and claimed a world record in their video and that is supposed to be good enough. It isn't good enough. The gold standard for proving a laptime is what Dodge did with the Viper ACR. They claimed thirteen track records and provided thirteen timed videos of the car lapping the tracks as proof. Lamborghini did a beautiful job showcasing their 6:59.72 Nurburgring lap from the Aventador Superveloce. A video of the whole run with timing included is exactly how to display the result. So why are we taking Alfa Romeo and Porsche's word for it? How do we even know if the cars are running factory tunes? Nissan started this whole mess when they would claim lap records with the R34 GT-R but everyone knew they were upping the boost. Part of the problem Nissan had was that old (and stupid) Japanese horsepower cap. Porsche accused Nissan of cheating with the GT-R on the Nurburgring back in 2008: Was Nissan using ringers? Nobody else was able to match Nissan's own GTR laptimes. Nissan provided videos as proof but the problem is a video doesn't tell us what software the car is running or what tires. Nissan's response to Porsche was to post a video of a 7:29 GTR lap and to tell Porsche they would offer Porsche test drivers training. They essentially mocked Porsche as beating them in their own backyard was unacceptable to the Germans. Complicating matters beyond manufacturers playing games with software, tires, or just making claims without proof is that the Nurburgring imposed a testing ban recently. Sections of the track were repaved, changed, and additional safety precautions were put in place. The Nurburgring tested on now is not the same Nurburgring and this is a large factor when even fast laps are over 7 minutes long. Minor changes will add up. Add into this that differing weather conditions will change laps considerably as will traffic on the track. BMW rented out the track specifically for their F82 M4 GTS test which of course gives them an advantage over times set with traffic to avoid. The result was a 7:28 time which tops the Porsche Carrera GT and Koenigsegg CCX. Does anyone really believe the M4 GTS laps a track quicker than those two lighter cars with mid-engine layouts that are far more aerodynamic and more powerful? Porsche and Alfa Romeo proved people will believe whatever they say. At least BMW posted a video of the M4 GTS making its run even though we do not know what software they used (and BMW does use special press software for marketing). Porsche just decided to put the Panamera Turbo ahead of the Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio as Alfa Romeo never backed up their time with anything of substance and Porsche wanted big press for the new Panamera. You can not trust manufacturers to play this game honestly when the general public will not take any factors into account other than time X is less than time Y. If the Nurburgring is to be taken seriously as an automotive testing ground a standard must be created where production cars are brought in to set the records and more than one driver not on the manufacturer payroll get a crack at setting a time. Until then, you can not trust anyone because there is simply too much BS being thrown around. That is unfortunate for those competing honestly. Enough of the bullshit. If we are going to use the Nurburgring for comparisons then testing for timed and record laps must be standardized.
    32 replies | 1396 view(s)
  • SeanWebster's Avatar
    07-15-2016, 06:14 PM
    I got some nice runs in last night against some friends. Summary: M5 made 500whp - Lost Mustang has not yet dyno'd - Even Golf R made like 315whp I think - Lost Infiniti Q50 is stock - Lost M5 and Mustang runs: Golf R and Q50 runs:
    19 replies | 2213 view(s)
  • DQE92's Avatar
    07-02-2016, 02:08 AM
    Brand new upgraded fuel system I purchased a while back when I was going to upgrade turbos. These are still brand new in the box and need gone ASAP!! Spent over $3000 for this fuel system Asking Price is $2500 including shipping or OBO Complete Fuel-it Stage 3 with hobbs switch MOTIV Port Injection Spacer, Rail and Injector Kit (#MOTIV-PIFS-SRIK1) Select Model: 335 MOTIV Port Injection Feed, Regulate, and Return Kit (#MOTIV-PIFS-FRRK1) Which Port Injection Fuel System Will You Be Using?: MOTIV Spacer, Rail, and Injector Kit Select Model: 335 Split Second - Additional Injector Controller (#SPLIT-AIC1-G6H) Please message me for inquiries
    15 replies | 2444 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    07-18-2016, 09:00 AM
    While direct fuel injection brings with it certain upsides such as greater fuel economy and higher compression ratios on pump fuel there are downsides to the technology as well. One such downside is carbon buildup which you see on the intake valves. This is why walnut blasting to clear out carbon deposits is popular maintenance especially considering buildup can and will reduce engine output. Not to mention if it gets severe enough it will cause other problems. Newer motors are better about this (especially engines with dual injection systems where fuel sprayed on the backside of intake valves helps keep them clean) but anyone with a direct fuel injected motor would be wise to monitor their carbon buildup situation. You don't want that much gunk just sitting in your motor, do you? The photo is from carbon deposits removed from a VW TSI engine with 78k miles.
    22 replies | 773 view(s)
More Activity