Chad's car is a figment of his imagination! It has produced no public timeslips or dyno's. Chad does this car even exist?

Just giving you crap man don't get mad!

 

Buddy,

There was a time when our cars were both cutting edge about the same time. Alot of trail blazing done on both parts. Remember the Excellence Article done on my car? I believe the quarter (@ the Infineron drag strip) was conducted in 102 ambient temperatures and a 20 mph hour head wind. I can't even remember now 11.3 or 11.4 @ 126 mph. I believe at the time we were testing cyrogentic bulbs inside the "Y" pipe which just happened to obstruct air flow. It lead to the double jackets instead. I took nothing but sh#t from the forum over those numbers. That was about four years ago. Remember?

It was at that point that I decided not to post any more testing numbers. When we are finally done in the configeration we settle on the numbers will be posted. But to answer your question ......... I'm not mad.

 

The engines are starting the build now... We wont see the peak numbers that Mark and Scott have attained, but that was never the goal.Also, we arent using leaded fuel so that is a disadvantage as well. We should have solid power numbers with a very strong bottom and middle rpm range with a healthy redline. Kevin

 

KPG,

We all are rooting for you guys (new UMW Technology) as well.
All of this is "The Good Stuff" which is going to be the best year
ever for the 996TT Performance.

MK

 

marty I'm still rooting for you to go to those GT30s

 

Thanks Marty...you Proto guys have set such a high bar! At the end of the day, we are all just enthusiasts. I would like nothing better than for all of us just to get together this Fall and have a beer and drive these cars...although not in that particular order. Looking forward to some great numbers from you as well. Take care, kevin

 

geez 2500 posts!!! been skimming the whole thread for 2hours now, what a project man! it feels like the whole thing is getting close to the finishline now you must be so excited about it and I hope everything goes as it's planned. maybe I'll be lucky to see the Killer Angel before I go back to Sweden on June 18th *crossing fingers*

I wish you all the best of luck in the finishing of the project and I hope that the beast will turn out as you've wanted her! 3.5 years in the shop, but soon she will see the light of the racetracks and strips


J


Ps. read in the thread that your son graduated from UCSB some years ago, I'm attending that school right now you don't happen to live up here do you?

 

December 17, 2006; 3:20 pm (https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...postcount=2239 ):

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjv

Christian,

During our testing we have achieved 1400 crank hp already.

March 15, 2007; 6:04 pm (https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...7&postcount=69 ):

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjv

However, between the 900 to 1400 hp that can be on tap, depending on which turbo we install

March 23, 2007; 8:28 pm ( https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...6&postcount=35 ):

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjv

We have engine dyno tested three turbo's on our 3.995L. The largest turbo tested produced just under 1400 hp @ 1.7 bar @ 8600 rpm's.

May 13, 2007; 11:06 pm (https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...4&postcount=28 ):

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjv

We have produced just under 1400 fwhp @ 1.7 bar. That would equate to about 1160 rwhp. The build consists of a 3.99L motor.

You also posted interim testing power figures in this thread -- https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...6&postcount=72 – then subsequently deleted your posts:

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjv

It started about building a motor where money was no option. Markski pretty much described what we did but the numbers were a little off so I corrected. Sorry for the side track. I'll delete my posts.

After repeatedly posting that you made “1160 RWHP� and “1400 FWHP� while testing your motor, you posted the following earlier this morning in this thread (see above):

May 14, 2007; 7:48 am ( https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...5&postcount=32 ):

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjv

I took nothing but sh#t from the forum over those numbers. That was about four years ago. Remember?

I am confused Chad. In certain posts, you proudly claim to have produced “1160 RWHP� (“just under 1400 FWHP�) “during [your] testing.� Yet, in other posts, you state that you have “decided not to post any more testing numbers� (a decision you attribute to an event that occurred four years ago). I don’t see anything wrong with posting interim test results. However, if you are going to post such test results, don’t thereafter disingenuously claim that you are refraining from posting the precise test results that you have already boasted about several times.

FWIW, I would love to see a dyno graph for your 1400 FWHP run. I’m sure others would as well. Do you have a dyno graph? Can you post it?

I heard through the proverbial grapevine that you have blown-up one or more motors during testing dyno runs. I have no idea if this information is accurate. However, I would be interested to know if the 1400 FWHP run resulted in a ventilated and/or otherwise damaged engine.

Regards,

Craig

Ps: Please do not respond to this post with reference to my prior post wherein I demonstrated a remarkable lack of understanding for performance tuning by adding up the incremental power gains from serial mods. You have surreptitiously referenced my post several times, but to no avail. I freely admit that I am a complete idiot when it comes to such matters, and my naive and uninformed opinions should be ignored accordingly as they often diverge sharply from reality.

 

Sorry for the Hijacked thread...

Sharkey, I cannot afford GT30's due to the fact that I am building new
house/garage right now to accomodate my $500 used lift I bought that
does not work in my existing home...Priorities, LOL.

MK

 

Craig,

I am referring to showing a graph/posting power/torque/AR's/Boost as materials that I won't post until the final product is complete. On the other hand I will post a simple overall number without any graphs etc. Do you understand that?

I have spent countless hours and dollars producing what we have to date. I am sure you understand that some of what we have produced has been copied without so much as a credit. There are a few people out there who we have shared certain very costly information and parts ..... free of charge. They know who they are. Can you give me a good reason why I should post certain graphs. All that is going to do is show some what is possible and point them in that direction.

As for your "grapevine," no we are not one of the people who have blown up, bent valves etc. with GT3 turbo motors on a dyno. I do personally know of three who have, but that is not public knowledge. If they wanted to say so ......... they would have. Even if we had destroyed a motor while testing, whose business it that? You know "Hot Rodders" use to be a word that described people who experimented with their own cars at their own expense. There was no shame to trying and have failed. Today people have someone else do it for them and just love to ridicule someone else who tries and fails. So many people today simply want to go to a store and pick their parts, packages, kits, stages etc. off the shelf without having the foggyist idea what makes it tick. Nothing really wrong with this, but what is wrong is when they proceed to mindlessly criticize. Does this bring you any closer to understanding why I no longer will post interium information to just anyone?

As for your last comment. Most people probably don't know what you are refering to because my comments were not done in a mean spirit and I politely made corrections without using any inflamatory words like idiot, naive or uninformed. I politely said something wasn't quite right because the numbers used can't be produced by the specific turbo's being utilized. I am really surprised you missed that.

 

My main residence is in the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County. Near the City of San Jose.

 

okay, just wondered if you were living near me

 

Chad - everyone has benefited from your efforts- and that is an absoloute credit to you and I for one are very gratefull that you embarked on the very interesting path/s you have chosen. Undoubtedly some of your work has had direct benefit to others that have been able to utilise the research quicker than your own project. You have chosen to keep moving the goal posts in search of the "ultimate" engine and the resultant delays have fueled the critics , skeptics and knockers.To shut them up you could do interim engine- it would be in excess of your original goals and at the least comparable with some of the numbers now published. There is a saying that is relevent--" no one person has a mortgage on good ideas" -- the trick is to recognise a good idea and capitalise on it!!!

 

Red 9,

I have no interest in capitalizing on any of my ideas. I caused the problem myself I guess by privately sharing information while the public doesn't have a clue where it came from. What really irks me is alot of information that is flat incorrect or the possible weak links are not spotlighted (or possibly not know or proven) and for most of the public they don't even have a clue.

You are correct about the "goal posts" much to my own dismay. New things are coming up faster than I ever expected.

Life was much less stressful when information was shared strictly with a small group of not for profit friends who meet several times a year to race, share info over dinner or beers, go home make a few changes and start the whole thing over again. None of us really care who wins on what month as it usually rotated. I was just expecting too much from these world wide forums.

 

You have to draw the line somwhere Chad. New tech will never stop coming down the line.