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 Last 24 Hours Clear All
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:36 PM
    We all know the 707 horsepower twin screw supercharged Hemi Hellcat V8 is absurdly powerful. In stock form it is even underrated. The amount of power and torque the engine is gaining with basic mods is incredible. Even something as basic as a catback exhaust system is showing major gains. This thing just loves to be tuned. The baseline from SeriousHP Houston shows 625 horsepower and 578 lb-ft of torque at the wheels. They added a catback exhaust from Magnaflow and the numbers went to 661 horsepower and 614 lb-ft of torque at the wheels. Those kinds of gains from a simple catback are just plain nuts. Imagine a full exhaust system with headers. The motor seems to be very restricted in stock form which is just absurd considering it already makes well into the 6XX wheel horsepower range off the showroom floor. 800+ wheel horsepower with basic bolt on modifications is well within reason. It also shows just how intense the horsepower war is. The Americans certainly do not look like they intend to lose it.
    14 replies | 129 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:41 PM
    This is certainly one that is fun to see. Now, the Porsche 911 GT3 really belongs on the road course. It is not about starightline speed although it is certainly no slouch in that area with its 475 horsepower 3.8 liter direct injected flat-6 engine that revs to an incredible 9000 rpm. The problem is that it is going up against the twin turbocharged and direct injected 4.0 liter M178 V8 under the hood of the AMG GT S which offers both more power and more torque. The GT3 carries roughly 400 less pounds and also has a dual clutch transmission like the AMG GT S. It just simply lacks the muscle of the turbo AMG GT S and it is surprising just how big the gap is in the real world. See for yourself.
    7 replies | 262 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:02 PM
    The recent BMW 3.0 CSL Hommage car is generating quite a bit of controversy. The general reaction of the public and that of enthusiasts here is that the car is ugly. Personally, BimmerBoost feels the design is stunning and a very well done modern take on the classic it is honoring. The styling debate will no doubt rage for time to come (especially once people get accustomed over time to the futuristic design) and is a very subjective matter. What about the engine? Well, BMW has left out drivetrain specifications but as this is a 3.0 CSL you expect a 3.0 liter inline-6 under the hood. The engine that makes the most sense from the current BMW lineup is the S55 motor from the F80 M3 and F82 M4. If we were to guess that is what BMW is using here in modified form. There are no power or torque specifications or really any details on it but what we do have is a clip of the car revving and the interesting note it produces from the side exhaust setup. Perhaps a video of the car in motion and offering some revs will produce some different reactions than those based on just press release photos alone.
    7 replies | 300 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:12 PM
    Mercedes killed off the Maybach name only to revive it with the latest generation W222 S-Class. The problem Maybach had is that it was essentially an S-Class with a premium price tag. Sure, they changed some things on the exterior as well as the interior and added Maybach badging. That is basically what this new 2016 Mercedes-Maybach S600 is. Except it is not pretending to be anything other than an S-Class. A $200k S-Class. That money buys you a beautiful and spacious interior. Also a 523 horsepower and 612 lb-ft of torque twin turbocharged M279 6.0 liter V12. The engine for whatever reason is detuned from the S65 AMG 621 horsepower and 738 lb-ft of torque. The Mercedes-Maybach S600 may be aimed at its premium British rivals but the Bentley is more than twice the price. The Maybach premium does not bring it close in prestige, position, and price. When playing at this level those things matter. It is also why Maybach failed in the first place. The Bentley does not look like a fancy version of something cheaper. It is premium to begin with. It simply is what it is which is a heavy, powerful, and opulent British boat. It needs those 811 lb-ft of torque from the twin turbo L-Series V8 to move its ample sized 6041 pound body around. At 5308 pounds the Mercedes-Maybach is the lightweight here. MotorTrend in their comparison comments on how it feels sportier and that it handles better. Does anyone in this class really care about the handling prowess or sportiness? If so, why not just opt for the S65 AMG to begin with as it handles better and is faster than either of these cars? The Bentley may be heavier, it may be slower, and it may handle worse. But it is far better at being a Bentley or even a Maybach than the Mercedes is. The Mercedes-Maybach comes off as an S-Class doing its best impression of a Rolls or Bentley. That just isn't good enough in this segment. You want the real thing. 2016 Bentley Mulsanne Speed 2016 Mercedes-Maybach S600 POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Front-engine, RWD Front-engine, RWD ENGINE TYPE Twin-turbo 90-deg V-8, alum block/heads Twin-turbo 60-deg V-12, alum block/heads VALVETRAIN OHV, 2 valves/cyl SOHC, 3 valves/cyl DISPLACEMENT 411.9 cu in/6,750cc 364.9 cu in/5,980cc COMPRESSION RATIO 8.9:1 9.0:1 POWER (SAE NET) 530 hp @ 4,200 rpm 523 hp @ 4,900 rpm TORQUE (SAE NET) 811 lb-ft @ 1,750 rpm 612 lb-ft @ 1,900 rpm REDLINE 4,500 rpm 6,200 rpm WEIGHT TO POWER 11.4 lb/hp 10.1 lb/hp TRANSMISSION 8-speed automatic 7-speed automatic AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO 2.92:1/1.95:1 2.42:1/1.77:1 SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Control arms, air springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar; multilink, air springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar Multilink, hydraulic and coil springs, adj shocks; multilink, hydraulic and coil springs, adj shocks STEERING RATIO 16.5:1 (est) 15.5:1 TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 3.4 2.2 BRAKES, F;R 15.7-in vented disc; 14.6-in vented disc, ABS 15.4-in vented, drilled disc; 14.2-in vented, drilled disc, ABS WHEELS, F;R 9.0 x 21-in, forged aluminum 8.5 x 20-in; 9.5 x 20-in, cast aluminum TIRES, F;R 265/40R21 Dunlop SP Sport Maxx GT 245/40R20 99Y; 275/35R20 102Y Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 2 DIMENSIONS WHEELBASE 128.6 in 132.5 in TRACK, F/R 63.6/65.0 in 63.9/64.5 in LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 219.5 x 75.8 x 59.9 in 214.5 x 74.8 x 58.8 in TURNING CIRCLE 41.3 ft 42.3 ft CURB WEIGHT 6,041 lb 5,308 lb WEIGHT DIST., F/R 49/51% 51/49% SEATING CAPACITY 4 4 HEADROOM, F/R 40.1/38.1 in 42.3/37.9 in LEGROOM, F/R 41.9/42.9 in 41.4/40.0 in SHOULDER ROOM, F/R 52.7/52.7 in (est) 59.7/58.7 in CARGO VOLUME 15.6 cu ft 12.3 cu ft TEST DATA ACCELERATION TO MPH 0-30 1.9 sec 2.0 sec 0-40 2.9 2.8 0-50 3.9 3.8 0-60 5.0 4.8 0-70 6.5 6.1 0-80 8.3 7.5 0-90 10.3 9.0 0-100 12.7 10.8 PASSING, 45-65 MPH 2.4 2.1 QUARTER MILE 13.6 sec @ 103.3 mph 13.2 sec @ 110.9 mph BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 110 ft 114 ft LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.84 g (avg) 0.90 g (avg) MT FIGURE EIGHT 26.6 sec @ 0.71 g (avg) 25.8 sec @ 0.75 g (avg) TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 1,400 rpm 1,300 rpm CONSUMER INFO BASE PRICE $341,325 $191,975 PRICE AS TESTED $411,123 $204,585 STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL Yes/yes Yes/yes AIRBAGS Dual front, f/r side/head Dual front, f/r side, f/r head BASIC WARRANTY 3 yrs/unlimited 4 yrs/50,000 miles POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 3 yrs/unlimited 4 yrs/50,000 miles ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE 3 yrs/unlimited 4 yrs/50,000 miles FUEL CAPACITY 25.0 gal 23.2 gal EPA CITY/HWY/COMB ECON 11/18/13 mpg 13/21/15 mpg ENERGY CONS., CITY/HWY 306/187 kW-hrs/100 miles 259/160 kW-hrs/100 miles CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB 1.46 lb/mile 1.24 lb/mile RECOMMENDED FUEL Unleaded premium Unleaded premium Source
    7 replies | 176 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:31 AM
    This is not a race you see every day. We all know diesels can put out a ton of torque. That is why semi-trailer trucks use turbo diesel motors to tow. This particular Kenworth W900 has some upgrades to its motor and also a driver who clearly knows how to shift the big heavy truck. The E60 M5 is not a torque monster with its 5.0 liter S85 V10 but it certainly has a lot of power and is light compared to a giant truck. It gets the lead here but once the turbo diesel spools and you see the black smoke pouring out it catches up and just barely passes at the finish line. The M5 owner probably would like a rolling highway rematch:
    5 replies | 361 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:33 PM
    This is certainly one that is fun to see. Now, the Porsche 911 GT3 really belongs on the road course. It is not about starightline speed although it is certainly no slouch in that area with its 475 horsepower 3.8 liter direct injected flat-6 engine that revs to an incredible 9000 rpm. The problem is that it is going up against the twin turbocharged and direct injected 4.0 liter M178 V8 under the hood of the AMG GT S which offers both more power and more torque. The GT3 carries roughly 400 less pounds and also has a dual clutch transmission like the AMG GT S. It just simply lacks the muscle of the turbo AMG GT S and it is surprising just how big the gap is in the real world. See for yourself.
    7 replies | 37 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:08 PM
    This is a bit disappointing as the $165,000 McLaren was poised to be an incredible value as well as put quite a bit of pressure on Porsche. The BoostAddict Network contacted McLaren and was told last month that the 540C would be sold in the USA and globally. Well, McLaren simply changed its mind based on feedback from potential 570S customers. Their statement is: Following feedback from a series of previews where interest from American customers has exclusively been in the 570S, the decision has been taken to concentrate on this model for the launch of Sports Series in the US. There is no change to availability of the 540C or 570S in other markets. So the 540C is still available in all other markets but it has been pulled from the US. The 540C would have represented a tremendous performance value but McLaren is likely protecting its image here. Were they worried the 540C would move them too far downmarket? Are 570S customers really concerned about a 540C model potentially offering too low of an entry point? This happens with many European cars. For example Mercedes traditionally does not bring its smaller gasoline or diesel engines available elsewhere for the SL to the American market. If you wanted a 540C and live in the USA, tough luck. It sure would have been nice to pick up a used example a few years down the line making for one heck of a McLaren and exotic tuning bargain.
    8 replies | 93 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:06 PM
    Mercedes killed off the Maybach name only to revive it with the latest generation W222 S-Class. The problem Maybach had is that it was essentially an S-Class with a premium price tag. Sure, they changed some things on the exterior as well as the interior and added Maybach badging. That is basically what this new 2016 Mercedes-Maybach S600 is. Except it is not pretending to be anything other than an S-Class. A $200k S-Class. That money buys you a beautiful and spacious interior. Also a 523 horsepower and 612 lb-ft of torque twin turbocharged M279 6.0 liter V12. The engine for whatever reason is detuned from the S65 AMG 621 horsepower and 738 lb-ft of torque. The Mercedes-Maybach S600 may be aimed at its premium British rivals but the Bentley is more than twice the price. The Maybach premium does not bring it close in prestige, position, and price. When playing at this level those things matter. It is also why Maybach failed in the first place. The Bentley does not look like a fancy version of something cheaper. It is premium to begin with. It simply is what it is which is a heavy, powerful, and opulent British boat. It needs those 811 lb-ft of torque from the twin turbo L-Series V8 to move its ample sized 6041 pound body around. At 5308 pounds the Mercedes-Maybach is the lightweight here. MotorTrend in their comparison comments on how it feels sportier and that it handles better. Does anyone in this class really care about the handling prowess or sportiness? If so, why not just opt for the S65 AMG to begin with as it handles better and is faster than either of these cars? The Bentley may be heavier, it may be slower, and it may handle worse. But it is far better at being a Bentley or even a Maybach than the Mercedes is. The Mercedes-Maybach comes off as an S-Class doing its best impression of a Rolls or Bentley. That just isn't good enough in this segment. You want the real thing. 2016 Bentley Mulsanne Speed 2016 Mercedes-Maybach S600 POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Front-engine, RWD Front-engine, RWD ENGINE TYPE Twin-turbo 90-deg V-8, alum block/heads Twin-turbo 60-deg V-12, alum block/heads VALVETRAIN OHV, 2 valves/cyl SOHC, 3 valves/cyl DISPLACEMENT 411.9 cu in/6,750cc 364.9 cu in/5,980cc COMPRESSION RATIO 8.9:1 9.0:1 POWER (SAE NET) 530 hp @ 4,200 rpm 523 hp @ 4,900 rpm TORQUE (SAE NET) 811 lb-ft @ 1,750 rpm 612 lb-ft @ 1,900 rpm REDLINE 4,500 rpm 6,200 rpm WEIGHT TO POWER 11.4 lb/hp 10.1 lb/hp TRANSMISSION 8-speed automatic 7-speed automatic AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO 2.92:1/1.95:1 2.42:1/1.77:1 SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Control arms, air springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar; multilink, air springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar Multilink, hydraulic and coil springs, adj shocks; multilink, hydraulic and coil springs, adj shocks STEERING RATIO 16.5:1 (est) 15.5:1 TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 3.4 2.2 BRAKES, F;R 15.7-in vented disc; 14.6-in vented disc, ABS 15.4-in vented, drilled disc; 14.2-in vented, drilled disc, ABS WHEELS, F;R 9.0 x 21-in, forged aluminum 8.5 x 20-in; 9.5 x 20-in, cast aluminum TIRES, F;R 265/40R21 Dunlop SP Sport Maxx GT 245/40R20 99Y; 275/35R20 102Y Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 2 DIMENSIONS WHEELBASE 128.6 in 132.5 in TRACK, F/R 63.6/65.0 in 63.9/64.5 in LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 219.5 x 75.8 x 59.9 in 214.5 x 74.8 x 58.8 in TURNING CIRCLE 41.3 ft 42.3 ft CURB WEIGHT 6,041 lb 5,308 lb WEIGHT DIST., F/R 49/51% 51/49% SEATING CAPACITY 4 4 HEADROOM, F/R 40.1/38.1 in 42.3/37.9 in LEGROOM, F/R 41.9/42.9 in 41.4/40.0 in SHOULDER ROOM, F/R 52.7/52.7 in (est) 59.7/58.7 in CARGO VOLUME 15.6 cu ft 12.3 cu ft TEST DATA ACCELERATION TO MPH 0-30 1.9 sec 2.0 sec 0-40 2.9 2.8 0-50 3.9 3.8 0-60 5.0 4.8 0-70 6.5 6.1 0-80 8.3 7.5 0-90 10.3 9.0 0-100 12.7 10.8 PASSING, 45-65 MPH 2.4 2.1 QUARTER MILE 13.6 sec @ 103.3 mph 13.2 sec @ 110.9 mph BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 110 ft 114 ft LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.84 g (avg) 0.90 g (avg) MT FIGURE EIGHT 26.6 sec @ 0.71 g (avg) 25.8 sec @ 0.75 g (avg) TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 1,400 rpm 1,300 rpm CONSUMER INFO BASE PRICE $341,325 $191,975 PRICE AS TESTED $411,123 $204,585 STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL Yes/yes Yes/yes AIRBAGS Dual front, f/r side/head Dual front, f/r side, f/r head BASIC WARRANTY 3 yrs/unlimited 4 yrs/50,000 miles POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 3 yrs/unlimited 4 yrs/50,000 miles ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE 3 yrs/unlimited 4 yrs/50,000 miles FUEL CAPACITY 25.0 gal 23.2 gal EPA CITY/HWY/COMB ECON 11/18/13 mpg 13/21/15 mpg ENERGY CONS., CITY/HWY 306/187 kW-hrs/100 miles 259/160 kW-hrs/100 miles CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB 1.46 lb/mile 1.24 lb/mile RECOMMENDED FUEL Unleaded premium Unleaded premium Source
    7 replies | 34 view(s)
  • richpike's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:09 PM
    I'm fortunate to live just south of the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. There are tons of benefits of having the AFA that close, but one of my favorites is graduation day and the Air Force flyovers leading up to it (and during it). Here are some pics I've taken over the last couple days from my back deck - lots of the Thuderbirds and a few of the B1s as well. Not car related, but I thought some folks might enjoy it. -Rich Here are a few from other sources as well that show different perspectives:
    6 replies | 95 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:29 AM
    This is not a race you see every day. We all know diesels can put out a ton of torque. That is why semi-trailer trucks use turbo diesel motors to tow. This particular Kenworth W900 has some upgrades to its motor and also a driver who clearly knows how to shift the big heavy truck. The E60 M5 is not a torque monster with its 5.0 liter S85 V10 but it certainly has a lot of power and is light compared to a giant truck. It gets the lead here but once the turbo diesel spools and you see the black smoke pouring out it catches up and just barely passes at the finish line. The M5 owner probably would like a rolling highway rematch:
    5 replies | 51 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:02 PM
    We love cars. We love boost. We love women. Combining these three is tough and often we hear stories on the network forums of wives and girlfriends getting upset about how much time and money is invested (that's right, not spent) in modifying and enjoying our cars. Well, here is one woman who understands. She took her stock automatic C7 Z06 out to the Gateway Motorsports Park drag strip and ran 10 second passes on street tires in 700-1400 density altitude. This is our kind of girl. The only thing that would make this better is if the C7 Z06 was manual. That way we could see how she handles a stick. P.S. The SHE-WNZ plate is a nice touch.
    4 replies | 92 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:57 PM
    This is an absolutely insane amount of horsepower from the Supra which continues to impress today with its iron block inline-6 motor. We do not have the full details on the specifications as they have not been posted but the turbocharger used is a 91 mm Garrett unit. This power is fed through a GM automatic transmission so no, not a factory box that has been upgraded. We also assume there is quite a bit of nitrous involved. How much boost, the engine specs (larger than 3.0 liters we assume), the fuel, etc., are all question marks here. This is very impressive work by Big Daddy Performance Center but it also is not exactly in a street trim car with the exhaust dumping out of the side of the engine bay and what is likely a high stall automatic for drag runs. Hopefully we get more details but the 2JZ engine continues to be pushed and continues to impress. Video: https://www.facebook.com/311576302187441/videos/995831877095210/
    3 replies | 118 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:54 PM
    Back in 1989 Japanese manufacturers informally agreed to a cap of 276 horsepower on domestically produced cars in order to prevent a horsepower war. BoostAddict believes this agreement handicapped Japanese high performance options with ramifications still felt today. In other words, the cap was about as shortsighted as this Bill Gates statement on RAM, '640k is more memory than anyone will ever need.' The Japanese essentially handcuffed themselves and throughout the 90's you may have noticed how many of their cars neatly on paper adhered to this agreement. The 1990 Honda NSX? 270 horsepower. 1992 MKIV Toyota Supra Turbo? 276 horsepower. 1990 Mitsubishi GTO (3000GT)? 276 horsepower. 1994 Subaru WRX STI? 271 horsepower. 1995 Mitsubishi EVO III? 270 horsepower. The Nissan 300ZX? 276 horsepower. While there may not have been anything official other than what the people involved with JAMA (Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association) knew the manufacturers were all respecting the agreement on paper with their outputs. What was the point of this restriction? For one, for there not to be the never ending horsepower arms race we now have and secondly to reduce Japanese road fatalities. For whatever reason the Japanese tied horsepower to road fatalities and did not see the giant error in their logic. Fatalities have fallen in Japanese car accidents from the 80's to today yet horsepower has risen so make of that what you will. This artificial limit led to a tuning arms race. If you could not get the horsepower from the factory, tuners would give you it. This is part of the reason turbo Japanese cars and tuning became popular. Many of the cars were relatively cheap, plentiful, and horsepower was fairly easy to extract from the turbo powerplants. In the case of the Supra, it literally was as easy as pulling a hose. This gave rise to some legendary builds and tuning houses. Look at the output of this stock 1989 Nissan GTR RB26DETT: 260 horsepower at all four wheels is not shabby for a car from 1989 but it also is not much. Especially with competitor's output rising and the Nissan GTR essentially being stuck at that level of output due to the agreement. Now look at this tuned example with bolt on modifications (baseline figure is with a tune): With a Garrett GT3582R turbo, 6Boost exhaust manifold, Turbosmart 50mm external wastegate, Sard 750cc injectors, an upgraded fuel pump, custom exhaust, and a tune output rises to just under 475 wheel horsepower. In other words, another 200 horsepower at the wheels on the stock internals. Any wonder why tuning the GTR became popular? Especially when you can get crazy with it like this 1000+ horsepower example: In 2005 Honda simply felt they could no longer adhere to the horsepower limit and compete. They released a Legend model with a 300 horsepower 3.5 liter V6. Soon other manufacturers followed and the agreement was over. The truth is the majority of them were making cars with more than 276 horses anyway as the R32 dyno shows but they did not want to break the agreement on paper. The Japanese really were the first ones to dramatically sandbag output. All under the guise of supposedly keeping the roads safer when it was improved safety standards doing that regardless of horsepower. It took a long time for the Japanese to truly recover and start producing world class sports cars again. The current GTR of course is pointed to but look at how long it has taken for Honda to produce a new NSX. Toyota still does not have a real Supra successor or high performance sports car on the market (no the LFA does not count). The good thing is that the Japanese tuning market exploded with the turbo cars barely being pushed from the factory and offering such tuning potential. So, maybe, the agreement was a good thing for enthusiasts. Especially considering the rest of the world ignored it anyway.
    2 replies | 79 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:46 PM
    Back in 1989 Japanese manufacturers informally agreed to a cap of 276 horsepower on domestically produced cars in order to prevent a horsepower war. BoostAddict believes this agreement handicapped Japanese high performance options with ramifications still felt today. In other words, the cap was about as shortsighted as this Bill Gates statement on RAM, '640k is more memory than anyone will ever need.' The Japanese essentially handcuffed themselves and throughout the 90's you may have noticed how many of their cars neatly on paper adhered to this agreement. The 1990 Honda NSX? 270 horsepower. 1992 MKIV Toyota Supra Turbo? 276 horsepower. 1990 Mitsubishi GTO (3000GT)? 276 horsepower. 1994 Subaru WRX STI? 271 horsepower. 1995 Mitsubishi EVO III? 270 horsepower. The Nissan 300ZX? 276 horsepower. While there may not have been anything official other than what the people involved with JAMA (Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association) knew the manufacturers were all respecting the agreement on paper with their outputs. What was the point of this restriction? For one, for there not to be the never ending horsepower arms race we now have and secondly to reduce Japanese road fatalities. For whatever reason the Japanese tied horsepower to road fatalities and did not see the giant error in their logic. Fatalities have fallen in Japanese car accidents from the 80's to today yet horsepower has risen so make of that what you will. This artificial limit led to a tuning arms race. If you could not get the horsepower from the factory, tuners would give you it. This is part of the reason turbo Japanese cars and tuning became popular. Many of the cars were relatively cheap, plentiful, and horsepower was fairly easy to extract from the turbo powerplants. In the case of the Supra, it literally was as easy as pulling a hose. This gave rise to some legendary builds and tuning houses. Look at the output of this stock 1989 Nissan GTR RB26DETT: 260 horsepower at all four wheels is not shabby for a car from 1989 but it also is not much. Especially with competitor's output rising and the Nissan GTR essentially being stuck at that level of output due to the agreement. Now look at this tuned example with bolt on modifications (baseline figure is with a tune): With a Garrett GT3582R turbo, 6Boost exhaust manifold, Turbosmart 50mm external wastegate, Sard 750cc injectors, an upgraded fuel pump, custom exhaust, and a tune output rises to just under 475 wheel horsepower. In other words, another 200 horsepower at the wheels on the stock internals. Any wonder why tuning the GTR became popular? Especially when you can get crazy with it like this 1000+ horsepower example: In 2005 Honda simply felt they could no longer adhere to the horsepower limit and compete. They released a Legend model with a 300 horsepower 3.5 liter V6. Soon other manufacturers followed and the agreement was over. The truth is the majority of them were making cars with more than 276 horses anyway as the R32 dyno shows but they did not want to break the agreement on paper. The Japanese really were the first ones to dramatically sandbag output. All under the guise of supposedly keeping the roads safer when it was improved safety standards doing that regardless of horsepower. It took a long time for the Japanese to truly recover and start producing world class sports cars again. The current GTR of course is pointed to but look at how long it has taken for Honda to produce a new NSX. Toyota still does not have a real Supra successor or high performance sports car on the market (no the LFA does not count). The good thing is that the Japanese tuning market exploded with the turbo cars barely being pushed from the factory and offering such tuning potential. So, maybe, the agreement was a good thing for enthusiasts. Especially considering the rest of the world ignored it anyway.
    2 replies | 14 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:39 AM
    KandyCave7, we appreciate you taking the time to join.
    0 replies | 35 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:43 AM
    Welcome RobinTroll, take a look around, I think you will like what you see.
    0 replies | 34 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:01 AM
    Papos, we appreciate you taking the time to join.
    0 replies | 33 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    0 replies | 32 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:34 PM
    Welcome to a real enthusiast forum d21spike.
    0 replies | 26 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:27 PM
    Lyman Raggio, we appreciate you taking the time to join.
    0 replies | 26 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:38 AM
    BevT314586, we appreciate you taking the time to join.
    0 replies | 26 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:12 PM
    Welcome tsaghtralp, take a look around, I think you will like what you see.
    0 replies | 24 view(s)
More Activity