|
| Big Kev |
|
|||
|
yeh that twin TB falcon hasnt pulled 200rwkw...
Like a couple others I secretly pursued this and like myself and the other 2 guys on here in the end we've all canned it.... its big dollars and still driveable...it is possible tho cause the setup i went for wouild have went over the 200rwkw just with 19" rims
_________________ For Sale: 25 Farad Rockford Fosgate Competition Series Carbon Cap, more to come - pm me if interested |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| rushed |
|
|||
|
so brett got ~150 wit typhoon box, and filter.
and smilie got ~175 wit typhoon box and filter, and full exhuast. ba stock exhausts must suck |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Rick_Deckard |
|
|||
|
Question, would a BA engine in a EF shell be more economical than a BA engine in a BA shell? Isn't the EF lighter, so techinically it should get better fuel economy, even moreso than an EF engine in an EF shell?
_________________ E39 523i |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| stockstandard |
|
|||
|
Till_Lind wrote: Question, would a BA engine in a EF shell be more economical than a BA engine in a BA shell? Isn't the EF lighter, so techinically it should get better fuel economy, even moreso than an EF engine in an EF shell?
Absolutely. Not only better economy but it would go MUCH harder. The weight of the BA effectively takes 20rwkw off in comparison to a e-series.
_________________ Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| smiley235 |
|
|||
|
Till_Lind wrote: Question, would a BA engine in a EF shell be more economical than a BA engine in a BA shell? Isn't the EF lighter, so techinically it should get better fuel economy, even moreso than an EF engine in an EF shell?
I think you would be right there, so long as you drove it to the same power levels as you would in your ef.
_________________ 178.3 rwkw
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Rick_Deckard |
|
|||
|
Hmmm, I hope to do that one day. Would modifying the BA sump instead of the EF k-frame be the way to do legally?
_________________ E39 523i |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| smiley235 |
|
|||
|
Till_Lind wrote: Hmmm, I hope to do that one day. Would modifying the BA sump instead of the EF k-frame be the way to do legally?
hmm, not sure but I would think it would be hell trying to modify the sump.
_________________ 178.3 rwkw
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Ragvaror |
|
||
|
smiley235 wrote: hmm, not sure but I would think it would be hell trying to modify the sump.
Maybe. We modded one on a hilux once. Did an engine swap, but the bulges in the sump were at opposite ends with each. We cut the sumps in half and welded the bulge from one onto the top of another 
_________________ Sanity is for the Weak!! |
||
| Top | |
||
| smiley235 |
|
|||
|
Ragvaror wrote: smiley235 wrote: hmm, not sure but I would think it would be hell trying to modify the sump. Maybe. We modded one on a hilux once. Did an engine swap, but the bulges in the sump were at opposite ends with each. We cut the sumps in half and welded the bulge from one onto the top of another s**t, thts a nice effort there, well proves nothin is impossible.
_________________ 178.3 rwkw
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Molloy |
|
|||
|
Gotta love how that twin throttle looks, shame theres not many people making them for off the shelf sales.
_________________ SS Inductions CAI, K&N Filters, M-spec FMC, Turbosmart BOV, 8psi capa tune, X-force cat. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| shnoza |
|
|||
|
the problem is with the e series is that there is very limited aftermarket parts avilable. which makes it harder to gain power. i think ive ask this quetion before but why is the car bad to drive with the power around 200rwkw? is it because of the big cam which gives it a bad idle?
_________________ "Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits."
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| stockstandard |
|
|||
|
To get that sort of power you have to push the power band up higher (because more rpm = more power if you can keep the torque the same). Doing this requires the opposite of what you want to make low down torque, so what you end up with is an engine that is gutless below 3500-4000 rpm and then a rush of power to 6500rpm or so. Since you spend most of your time driving <2500rpm you have a car with a very bad idle and a crappy power band.
_________________ Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Molloy |
|
|||
|
stockstandard wrote: To get that sort of power you have to push the power band up higher (because more rpm = more power if you can keep the torque the same). Doing this requires the opposite of what you want to make low down torque, so what you end up with is an engine that is gutless below 3500-4000 rpm and then a rush of power to 6500rpm or so. Since you spend most of your time driving <2500rpm you have a car with a very bad idle and a crappy power band. righto that makes sense.
_________________ SS Inductions CAI, K&N Filters, M-spec FMC, Turbosmart BOV, 8psi capa tune, X-force cat. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| HaZZa |
|
|||
|
yeh they guy who did that twin tb soldit now has a turbodatso and anothermate has that xr but hestrying tosellit too. round14 k by memory.neway lokk smint.
easiest way is wack aturbo orblower on it then ull reach it easyier |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Who is online |
|---|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests |
