(07-06-2010 01:50 AM)soccerbummer1104 Wrote: [ -> ]when they put down the 10.4 they were even a bit disappointed and claimed it needs some suspension work to get it right for the strip. they have done some more stuff to it since then and beefed up the engine a bit since that time and they are gunning for the 8 sec range.
and it definately idles higher than 1600, mine idles at 1800 on a normal day and 2000 on a really hot day... (if it does below 1750 it will start to diesel like crazy... )
and as to the engine idling and stuff... i did say rumored in the first post 
and as for me saying why not on the idle, well thats because if you see the dyno graph (ill see if i can dig it up) it has relatively no power below that point.
I can understand your engine idling that high for the first minute or so on cold-starts, but not the whole time...thats pretty damn high!
My car will bump up to about 1500 on really cold starts and drop to about 6-700 once the cats are warm enough...and our engines are made basically by the same company.
(07-06-2010 05:17 AM)JB Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2010 01:50 AM)soccerbummer1104 Wrote: [ -> ]when they put down the 10.4 they were even a bit disappointed and claimed it needs some suspension work to get it right for the strip. they have done some more stuff to it since then and beefed up the engine a bit since that time and they are gunning for the 8 sec range.
and it definately idles higher than 1600, mine idles at 1800 on a normal day and 2000 on a really hot day... (if it does below 1750 it will start to diesel like crazy... )
and as to the engine idling and stuff... i did say rumored in the first post and as for me saying why not on the idle, well thats because if you see the dyno graph (ill see if i can dig it up) it has relatively no power below that point.
I can understand your engine idling that high for the first minute or so on cold-starts, but not the whole time...thats pretty damn high!
My car will bump up to about 1500 on really cold starts and drop to about 6-700 once the cats are warm enough...and our engines are made basically by the same company.
Yeah, 1800-2000 rpm is not normal, even for your car. GF's mom has a mini cooper s, it idles at a normal 750-900ish when it's warm, and runs as smooth as can be.
And this: "and as for me saying why not on the idle, well thats because if you see the dyno graph (ill see if i can dig it up) it has relatively no power below that point." makes zero sense. let's make everything idle just below it's powerband, or even better, right below its peak output!
im not talking right below.... but i am saying that in about 500 rpm's this car goes form havign 150whp to having 635whp, and i guess it really doesnt need to idle that high, but it would be nice i guess if you could adjust the throttle level on the fly.
oh, and i did a lil math last night (really simple math mind you)
since it still uses the stock tranny, and from the drag video where it does the 10.4 at 135, he was in either 3'rd or 4th gear
in third he would have been at 10,052 rpm's
in 4th he would have been at 8406rpm's
so im goin wth 4th here and saying that the rev limiter must be around 10k or just under.
when i stated that i said it was just speculation, as abf has kept a lot about that car hidden.
(btw, abf stands for A (not sure who) B= Jan Brugeman F=Hubie Fuh, one of the best custom turbo fabricators in the nation
the car was tuned by mynes out of irvine california using its own byteronic tuning software (this company is also currently developing a custom aftermarket ECU that will let them manage a lot more stuff than the stock mini ecu would. they have it working to the point that the car will run, but are still integrating features such as windows, dsc, and abs into the ecu)
oh, and i was on crack last night or something when i wrote down my idle speed,, it idles at 800-1k rpm's, but will stall below 1200 if its in gear, below 800rpm's it starts to rough idle like crazy unless its really cold outside.
and john... our engines are not made by the same company, from 2002-2006 the mini has a crystler/peugot hybrid engine (not green hybrid, two companies workign together hybrid)
its the same engine that waas in a dodge neon and a 1.6l pt cruiser.
(i know, you can start making fun on me now :/ )
and yes, i realize that it is a tubed chasi custom build car, but its a 1.6l (smaller than most) and its still fwd...
(mini usa sponsored the car and required them to leave these two features in tact )
also, when the drag video was recorded "Running 38 psig of turbo boost and making 9000 rpm shifts didn't help matters much either"-autoblog.com (talking about when it snapped both axels on its first launch at pinks)
the dyno video was after pinks and they have turned up the turbo a little more and improved the piping.
(07-06-2010 11:18 AM)soccerbummer1104 Wrote: [ -> ]and john... our engines are not made by the same company, from 2002-2006 the mini has a crystler/peugot hybrid engine (not green hybrid, two companies workign together hybrid)
its the same engine that waas in a dodge neon and a 1.6l pt cruiser.
(i know, you can start making fun on me now :/ )
and yes, i realize that it is a tubed chasi custom build car, but its a 1.6l (smaller than most) and its still fwd...
(mini usa sponsored the car and required them to leave these two features in tact )
LOL sucks...I guess I was thinking of the newer turbo DI Mini S motors...and I'm not sure on those either because I'm too lazy to look it up
yea, the new motors ate a bmw and either seat or peugot. the new engine develops a lot more torque and power needless to say due to its better design (which is why they went turbo, a supercharger would have created too much torque for what they wanted)
(07-09-2010 08:39 PM)soccerbummer1104 Wrote: [ -> ]the new engine develops a lot more torque and power needless to say due to its better design (which is why they went turbo, a supercharger would have created too much torque for what they wanted)
Or maybe because a turbo is more efficient...
(07-09-2010 08:39 PM)soccerbummer1104 Wrote: [ -> ]yea, the new motors ate a bmw and either seat or peugot. the new engine develops a lot more torque and power needless to say due to its better design (which is why they went turbo, a supercharger would have created too much torque for what they wanted)
fail,
turbo vs supercharger, the superchargers never produce a better powerband than a correctly selected turbo.
there have been numerous tests proving this.
this is way beyond that fact that no supercharger exists that would produce 635 whp from 1.6L with a proper powerband.
true, but no turbo provides bettter instant power delivery. the new superchargers are getting better though, and are capable of pushing out 22-24 psi (tvs series form eaton) vs the old m series which maxes out at ~14-16psi, plus at 22-24 psi, the charge is still cooler than the old m series at 14psi.
yea yea, turbos make more power, but i think ill always be addicted to superchargers, as i lve the punch they give you instead of the wave of power.
I bet Marc, one of probably only a couple thousand has experienced both, at the same time, what do you prefer Marc?
Sam
plus turbos make me go ohh lala, but the kid inside of me has a crisis everytime i hear the whine of a sc
god i love the sound the vxr8 bathurst makes.