03 SRT vs. Turbo Lt1 Trans Am

This is my buddies slow slow neon racing a dude from the local meet. Has an LT1 T/A, Rear mount (STS?) Turbo System, on about 4 or 5 lbs. Traps about 115+

My friends Neon, bolt ons, stock turbo, stock exhaust, little thing gets away and the videos will surprise you, especially from the dig ;)

http://www.jlturbo.com/vids/race_9_23.wmv

Shiftknob im sorry your freinds neon left his ass i would say either he has a slow ass lt1 that runs like **** or he needs a tune.... not ragging but i have raced a stage 2 turbo neon and walked him easy.

Shiftknob im sorry your freinds neon left his ass i would say either he has a slow ass lt1 that runs like **** or he needs a tune.... not ragging but i have raced a stage 2 turbo neon and walked him easy.


same here... busted the guy 2 times... once last year (mopar stage I), and again this year (mopar stage II), got him even worse this year with the addition of a magnus intake, a pro-m mass air and tuning... guy was mad... "wait til next year" he said... "yeh, that's funny" i thought to myself, "next year i'll have a 4g64 and a HUGE garrot and not a mitsu turbo... then he'll really be pissed...", i responded "can't wait!!!" with a sheepish grin...

I raced a 03 SRT-4 that ran consistent 13.1 ~ 13.2s in my 93 Z28 before I sold it. He had all the bolt ons DR, and cranked the stock turbo up as far as it would go. He jumped me at the first then I ran him down and only lost by 1 1/2 ~ 2 cars. All the 93 Z28 had was bolt ons (LTs, Cutout, CAI, UD Pulley, Chip, 3.73s) 130K on the LT1 with 100% stock internals and was N/A. They can be fast, but a Turbo LT1 should be able to handle a stock turbo SRT-4 especially from a roll.

This isn't meant to bash them, they are definantly pocket rockets and can be made to move. :bow:

You sure that f-bod is turboed?? :think:

If so.. what a waste.

I'd pull the engine out and start over.

-Mindgame

same here... busted the guy 2 times... once last year (mopar stage I), and again this year (mopar stage II), got him even worse this year with the addition of a magnus intake, a pro-m mass air and tuning... guy was mad... "wait til next year" he said... "yeh, that's funny" i thought to myself, "next year i'll have a 4g64 and a HUGE garrot and not a mitsu turbo... then he'll really be pissed...", i responded "can't wait!!!" with a sheepish grin...

I hope you don't expect us to believe that your 14.2 second Talon ate a Stage II SRT4..unless it was your grandma driving the SRT4. I raced a bone stock SRT4 (2004) last SAturday at St Thomas Dragway, against a 120 lb girl who had never drag raced before. And she went a best of 13.7 @ 102.6 MPH, and went better than 14.1 all day long. I call BS on your claims.

Man oh man. That F-body got owned ! Props to the little Dodge. But that turbo f-body should be in the 12's if it was done right, maybe 11s.

:( :(

Who is it that says LT1's walk 99+GT's again? :p

That guy need to have that LT1 checked out

You sure that f-bod is turboed?? :think:

If so.. what a waste.

I'd pull the engine out and start over.

-Mindgame

Exactly! :lol:

But wait, all the STS "experts" said that was an awesome system! They couldn't possibly be wrong...just ask them!

Just think, $4000 STS system and you still get wasted by a mid 13 sport compact. If that isn't lame, I don't know what is.

Well for all you guys calling 13's....ha. My friends Neon doesn't go 13's...just a tad bit faster ;)

Well for all you guys calling 13's....ha. My friends Neon doesn't go 13's...just a tad bit faster ;)

The vast majority of SRT-4s go 13s. There are always exceptions to every rule.

Sounds like a quick Neon. Nevertheless, I'd be SEVERELY pissed if I had a twin turbo'd LT1 that only trapped 115 mph.

"Pissed"?

I'd drive the thing off a cliff to put it out of it's misery.

-Mindgame

I hope you don't expect us to believe that your 14.2 second Talon ate a Stage II SRT4..unless it was your grandma driving the SRT4. I raced a bone stock SRT4 (2004) last SAturday at St Thomas Dragway, against a 120 lb girl who had never drag raced before. And she went a best of 13.7 @ 102.6 MPH, and went better than 14.1 all day long. I call BS on your claims.

read my sig. ... the talon is gone (i also ran 16.0 @ 100mph with that (talon)car (1/2 throttle thru 1st gear then full on, i was 6 hours from home and drove the car, and saw 5 dsm's destroy trannys, and didn't feel like walkin)), the car was fast enough to run low 13's but pullin 2.4 60-ft times it just aint going to happen, any who my galant is MUCH faster)... the galant is the car that did the killin'... just fyi...

"Pissed"?

I'd drive the thing off a cliff to put it out of it's misery.

-Mindgame

:lol: :bow:

I raced a 03 SRT-4 that ran consistent 13.1 ~ 13.2s in my 93 Z28 before I sold it. He had all the bolt ons DR, and cranked the stock turbo up as far as it would go. He jumped me at the first then I ran him down and only lost by 1 1/2 ~ 2 cars. All the 93 Z28 had was bolt ons (LTs, Cutout, CAI, UD Pulley, Chip, 3.73s) 130K on the LT1 with 100% stock internals and was N/A. They can be fast, but a Turbo LT1 should be able to handle a stock turbo SRT-4 especially from a roll.

This isn't meant to bash them, they are definantly pocket rockets and can be made to move. :bow:

hmmmm....my friend has a srt-4 that runs that all day and it is stock...just a bov and boost controller. i think set at like 18lbs. i tell him all the time that kids in just full exhaust lt1's are rompin on stage 2 srt4's and stuff. just thought that i should share w/ you that some are faster than others, lol

but i finally persuaded him to ditch the mopar and go w/ the f-dody! its up for sale now. 2003 srt4 18,500 on the clock and 100,000mile warrenty.....$16,500 obo

hmmmm....my friend has a srt-4 that runs that all day and it is stock...just a bov and boost controller. i think set at like 18lbs. i tell him all the time that kids in just full exhaust lt1's are rompin on stage 2 srt4's and stuff. just thought that i should share w/ you that some are faster than others, lol

but i finally persuaded him to ditch the mopar and go w/ the f-dody! its up for sale now. 2003 srt4 18,500 on the clock and 100,000mile warrenty.....$16,500 obo


If you're friend was running low 13s with a car a few bolt ons, AND still had a warranty I wouldn't have been talking him into a F-Body.... Most LT1s are getting up there in the milege as are the LS1s. It is almost impossible to find a dealer willing to warranty a used LT1, unless its 3 month/3 K miles.

Plus, most normal LT1 bolt on cars (N/A, stock top end and bottom end, stock suspension, street tires) would be near the SRT-4's time, if not slightly ahead. Sounds to me, unless he hated the car, he had a good starting place to make a quick car ;)

hmmmm....my friend has a srt-4 that runs that all day and it is stock...just a bov and boost controller. i think set at like 18lbs.

You have a weird definition of stock. So now stock SRT4's are going 13.2-13.2 :rolleyes: Stock is stock, as in how it was drove off the factory floor. A bov and cranked boost is not anywhere near stock.

Dan

Did anybody else notice the increase in rpm's between everyshift for teh TA. Not justifying it, but I think he was either spining the tires with every shify (not likely) or his tranny was giving him problems. It could be either clutch (M6) or clutches inside tranny (A4). Just my .02,

Kyle

i know the mods for the trans-am, ported heads, cc306, which is not helping his turbo, he was on 3lbs plus another lb from the overlap, he was on drag radials also.

http://www.southfloridaracing.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14794&perpage=15&pagenumber=2
Thats the link to the race it was 94silver vs TAseal

You have a weird definition of stock. So now stock SRT4's are going 13.2-13.2 :rolleyes: Stock is stock, as in how it was drove off the factory floor. A bov and cranked boost is not anywhere near stock.

Dan

Well...its a HELL of a lot "stocker" than a stage two or full bolt-on's only running 13.2's...he has about $110 worth of mods. Sorry, almost stock ;)

the srt has nitrous, and the t/a blew the motor last night

Well...its a HELL of a lot "stocker" than a stage two or full bolt-on's only running 13.2's...he has about $110 worth of mods. Sorry, almost stock ;)

Yes, but he's running close to stage 2 times if he's running 13.2

When you are talking about turbo's and superchargers, you really have to be careful about saying things like: "It's close to stock because it has only $110 into it."

There are very inexpensive mods for forced induction cars that make big gains. The problem is that they also reduce longevity significantly. That's why a manual boost controller is not a very minor mod, and neither is a pulley on a SC car. Those 4 cylinder engines get the HP mostly due to boost, so cranking boost for them is like allowing better breathing on our cars, like doing headers and catback. It's cheap for them, but that doesn't mean that it's close to stock.

Just my thoughts on it.

Dan

Yes, but he's running close to stage 2 times if he's running 13.2

When you are talking about turbo's and superchargers, you really have to be careful about saying things like: "It's close to stock because it has only $110 into it."

There are very inexpensive mods for forced induction cars that make big gains. The problem is that they also reduce longevity significantly. That's why a manual boost controller is not a very minor mod, and neither is a pulley on a SC car. Those 4 cylinder engines get the HP mostly due to boost, so cranking boost for them is like allowing better breathing on our cars, like doing headers and catback. It's cheap for them, but that doesn't mean that it's close to stock.

Just my thoughts on it.

Dan

Well put :)

that has to be the most pathetic lt1 ive ever seen...

If the LT1 were really on DR's then I would've launched the living crap out of it....not wait for the SRT-4 to get rolling like it did....

That TA was horrible. Good thing he blew the motor cause it gives us LT1 guys a bad rep!

YThere are very inexpensive mods for forced induction cars that make big gains. The problem is that they also reduce longevity significantly.
Have you even owned a forced induction car long enough to back that up? I've got two boosted cars, and I'm hard on both EVERY TIME I drive them. One wasn't even designed for boost, and it's fine.

Have you even owned a forced induction car long enough to back that up? I've got two boosted cars, and I'm hard on both EVERY TIME I drive them. One wasn't even designed for boost, and it's fine.

Are you seriously going to argue that higher boost doesn't reduce longevity? :rolleyes:

Dan

Are you seriously going to argue that higher boost doesn't reduce longevity? :rolleyes:

DanSure will. At the levels you'll see on the street, you'll see no difference in wear. None.

How many boosted engines have you rebuilt? I've got 5 under my belt. 3 were stock, two were very not stock. The internals looked IDENTICAL.

Hell, diesels run 20-25:1 compression with 20 pounds of boost and last for HUNDREDS of thousands of miles between rebuilds.

Are you seriously going to argue that higher boost doesn't reduce longevity? :rolleyes:

Dan

I don't know much about cars but its common sense that the more hp an engine has the more stress on that engine. Boost increases power therefore there will be more stress on the engine. You can't argue that.

I've got 5 under my belt. 3 were stock, two were very not stock. The internals looked IDENTICAL.

That says nothing without the mileage number. Were they rebuilt at 20K miles? 100K miles? 200K miles?

That says nothing without the mileage number. Were they rebuilt at 20K miles? 100K miles? 200K miles?They were all fairly high milage. None of them were babied. They were all showing copper on the main bearings, they all had carbon buildup, and all of them saw some ovaling of the cylendars. But none of them failed - even the ones running higher boost than stock (two of them were GNs). In fact, they came apart looking identical.

Raising the boost in an engine (within reason, which is what we're discussing) typically won't change how rapidly it wears, especially if it's a daily driven street car. The percentage of time a car actually spends at WOT (when you'd actually see the added boost) is probably less than 5% of the total engine run time.

I love how people "hypothesize" about these things without having any actual experience, then spout off some "fact."

It's good to hear some first hand information; I'll keep it in mind if I ever get a FI motor, or add it to mine. :D

Sure will. At the levels you'll see on the street, you'll see no difference in wear. None.

How many boosted engines have you rebuilt? I've got 5 under my belt. 3 were stock, two were very not stock. The internals looked IDENTICAL.

Hell, diesels run 20-25:1 compression with 20 pounds of boost and last for HUNDREDS of thousands of miles between rebuilds.

I really don't want to get into a long, drawn out debate with you about this.

Your first statement is just plain wrong. You'll see no difference in wear? Why do you think factories limit the amount of boost a turbo or SC is allowed to put out? Reliability is a big factor. Increased psi=increased pressure, heat, stress and wear. There is not way to deny that.

Take our cars for example(well, not yours), adding a SC or turbo is a big stress on our motors. Granted they weren't built for boost, but this is just an example. Even at 6 psi, our motors take a lot of stress from a SC. Up that to 8 psi and it's borderline destructive without any other mods to support it. So yes, boost decreased longevity in that case.

Now lets take a look at a vehicle that is designed for boost. Upping the psi from, lets say 11 psi to 15 psi is a big deal to an engine, but is easily achieved with a MBC(manual boost controller.) The car was not DESIGNED for this level of pressure and HP and it WILL wear more quickly than stock, given the exact same driving conditions, assumming that the driver gets to full boost once in a while.

As a mechanical engineer, who has worked for GM and designed powertrain parts, I can tell you that higher boost = increased stress = decreased longevity. It may not be enough for you to worry about, for the length that you plan to drive your car, but it is the truth. Go ahead an keep increasing the boost on your engine until it breaks, then tell me like you originally said, that you'll argue that increased boost doesn't decrease longevity.

By the way, why did your FI cars need rebuilds?

Dan

Raising the boost in an engine (within reason, which is what we're discussing) typically won't change how rapidly it wears, especially if it's a daily driven street car. The percentage of time a car actually spends at WOT (when you'd actually see the added boost) is probably less than 5% of the total engine run time.


Raising the boost increases heat, which pushes combustion closer to the detonation threshold. Much more damage can be done in ONE 1/4 mile run with elevated boost pressures than 100K miles would do to a typical shortblock, so your "percentage" theory is of no consequence. And while I agree that if properly done , a reasonable increase in boost pressure would have little effect on wear since power loads typically don't stress a shortblock. Inertial loads do that and that is a completely different topic. But let's face it...we don't up the boost just to putter around town. ;) Pushing the limits always puts you that much closer to the edge, and further away from the standard OEM reliability.

Your first statement is just plain wrong. You'll see no difference in wear? My statement is 100% correct. I've built these engines. Not theorized about them in CAD like you. I have real world experience rebuilding street cars and building race engines. Anything from your average 10 second street car to your 7 second SS/0 car.

Why do you think factories limit the amount of boost a turbo or SC is allowed to put out? Reliability is a big factor. Increased psi=increased pressure, heat, stress and wear. There is not way to deny that.They limit the amount of boost for a number of reasons, but I can assure you that on an SRT-4 (the car in question here) the engine was not the concern for limiting boost. It was the driveline they worried about (the stock axles are a known weakness). The stock block, crank, and head will support over 1,000 horsepower. There are NUMEROUS 425+whp SRT-4s on a stock engine, and guess what - they're lasting! (time will tell, but if an engine is going to go, it will do so pretty quickly. Ask me how I know)

Take our cars for example(well, not yours), adding a SC or turbo is a big stress on our motors. Hmm. A 10.5:1 compression engine with powdered rods and hypereutectic pistons is stressed by boost?!??!?! NO ****!

The car was not DESIGNED for this level of pressure and HP and it WILL wear more quickly than stock, given the exact same driving conditions, assumming that the driver gets to full boost once in a while.That's where your wrong. The SRT-4 was designed for a high-horsepower application. It is very detuned from the factory. Mine has gone fatter than 10:1 a/f on the dyno. It's RICH.

As a mechanical engineer, who has worked for GM and designed powertrain parts, I can tell you that higher boost = increased stress = decreased longevity.That's great. What does GM have to do with the SRT-4? How much do you know about the engine in it? I'm guessing from your replies that the answer is little to none.

By the way, why did your FI cars need rebuilds?

Because just like almost everything else I've owned, it eventually gets turned into a race car.

Big Red Jim,

You're loosing credibility with me Jim, but who cares. You obviously don't want to see things any other way than yours, even if it's the truth, so I'm stopping my discussion with you.

By the way, I listed my credentials because you seem to push it in other's faces that you have worked on FI cars. Who cares? That doesn't mean you know anything about longevity, just that you can repair broken engines, and build higher HP engines. Whoopie. BTW, you don't know much about engineering if you think that we sit and design on CAD all day, but that's another discussion altogether.

You don't seem to get the difference between longevity, and an engine withstanding mods. An engine can "handle" more boost, but will it just won't "handle" it as long. Like you said yourself, it's not just the engine you need to worry about, but all the parts downstream from the engine as well.

Take care,
Dan

You obviously don't want to see things any other way than yours, even if it's the truth,
Same could be said to you. Good night.

The stock block, crank, and head will support over 1,000 horsepower.

Attention Big Red Jim....your credibilty has just FLOWN OUT OF THE ****ING WINDOW......you show me a freaking NEON making 1000hp on STOCK, block crank and head and I'll show you a rolling ****ing BOMB......Seriously, do you realize the implications of what you are saying? There is absolutely no way this is true, and if for some strange reason there is a 1000hp neon motor I will GARUNTEE it will not last more than, lets call it, two trips down a quarter mile without seriously needing to be rebuilt.

I don't know if a stock Neon block/crank/rods can handle the power that Jim says it can, but if so, I think his point is that because it can, the difference between putting out 250 Hp to the ground or 350 Hp to the ground is essentially meaningless as far as the motor is concerned. IOW, well below its ultimate limit.

I've read articles about GMs Ecotec 4 banger putting out 1000+ horses, so why not a Neon motor?

Attention Big Red Jim....your credibilty has just FLOWN OUT OF THE ****ING WINDOW......you show me a freaking NEON making 1000hp on STOCK, block crank and head and I'll show you a rolling ****ing BOMB......Seriously, do you realize the implications of what you are saying? There is absolutely no way this is true, and if for some strange reason there is a 1000hp neon motor I will GARUNTEE it will not last more than, lets call it, two trips down a quarter mile without seriously needing to be rebuilt.It's unfortunate that you don't have a clue.

Get one. http://www.nhrasportcompact.com/2004/drivers/s_Carlson.html

Stock block, crank, and head. Well over 1,000hp.

Now go crawl back under the rock you came from.

Like is said...the engine in that car is REBUILT after every single run. The fact that the factory crank can "support 1000hp" is completely irrelevent, the rods will fail LONG before the stresses shear the crank in half, so that only leaves inertial forces acting on the crank, and if its balanced properly (which I promise you the crank in that neon is) (read:modified, as in, NOT FACTORY STOCK) the inertial forces can be minimized. Now on to the head....while the actual head itself may well be a factory neon head I promise it has been ported and given new valves (read: NOT FACTORY STOCK), and as for the block, its probably sleaved (read: NOT FACTORY STOCK), I feel like beating some common sense into your head with the "rock I came from".


BTW, your little link doesn't say one single word about stock anything nor does it say anything about 1000hp....try again chief

I've read articles about GMs Ecotec 4 banger putting out 1000+ horses, so why not a Neon motor?

I'm not saying it isn't possible, hell if you throw enough money at a geo metro it will run 8's, I'm only saying that the parts used in this hypothetical 1000hp motor will NOT be factory stock, they may be original parts but they will be modified in some way. If you honestly believe that a factory part on ANY motor will handle that kind of horsepower for any meaningful period of time then you're just niave, plain and simple.

Like is said...the engine in that car is REBUILT after every single run.No it is not. I'm betting you've never see the car run, since you've obviously never even heard of Shaun Carlson. I've been there, in the pits between runs. It does not get rebuilt "after every single run." Period. God damn you're ignorant.

The fact that the factory crank can "support 1000hp" is completely irrelevent, the rods will fail LONG before the stressesIt's not irrelevant at all. My statement is 100% fact. That is a factory crank supporting 1,000hp. It is not a Scat crank or anything like that. It is a factory crank. Modified? Possibly, but besides maybe knife edging and balancing, it is a factory crankshaft. You confuse "factory" with "factory stock." Look at a rulebook sometime, maybe then you'll understand.


the inertial forces can be minimized. Now on to the head....while the actual head itself may well be a factory neon head I promise it has been ported and given new valves Again. Difference between factory and factory stock. That is not a Trick Flow head. It is not an AFR head. It is not an Edelbrock head. It is a factory head. How many SBC's do you see making 1,000+hp on a factory head? Not many. Let alone the fact that this car has a mere 4 cyls.


(read: NOT FACTORY STOCK), and as for the block, its probably sleaved (read: NOT FACTORY STOCK), I feel like beating some common sense into your head with the "rock I came from".You don't know the first thing about this engine block. Did you know there are no main caps? The block splits in half and cradles the crank. It's a *wee* bit stronger than the traditional main cap design, which flexes like crazy.

By the way, judging the car you drive, you won't be "beating me" any time soon.


BTW, your little link doesn't say one single word about stock anything nor does it say anything about 1000hp....try again chiefThat is a 7 second car, the times listed on that page are a year old. Do you honestly believe a car is going to run in the 7s with anything LESS than 1,000hp? If you do, you don't know **** about drag racing.

This little pissing contest was started when someone made the claim:
Yes, but he's running close to stage 2 times if he's running 13.2 [and later] There are very inexpensive mods for forced induction cars that make big gains. The problem is that they also reduce longevity significantly.

So what's the point? Jim took exception to that claim, based on first hand knowledge. Nobody was talking about longevity in 1000Hp motors. It was relative to whether a stage 2 motor would reduce longevity significantly. Stage 2 is only 280 hp http://www.mopar.com/srt_stage_2.htm so THAT's why Jim said it makes no difference.

Yes, it's a fact that more horsepower causes increased wear, however, it is NOT a fact that stage 2 levels cause any increased wear. It is only your *ass*umption that it does. Meanwhile, Jim has first hand knowledge that it doesn't. Not at street levels.

It's not irrelevant at all. My statement is 100% fact.


while may know a lot about drag racing you obviously have a pretty loose grasp on the english language....do you even know what "irrelevent" means? I'll clue you in, it means "of no consequence", fact or not, its IRRELEVENT.

BTW, I never said anything about beating you, as in a drag race, what I wrote was that I'd like to beat some common sense into your head (as in physically beat). Besides, I'll race your neon (which you're obviously so proud of) anyday and hand your ass directly to you. Sure you could beat me on your crotch rocket or in your 11 second mustang, but I'm calling you out in the car we are having a discussion about.

Anyway, you are correct, I assumed you meant factory stock. So in that regard I stand by my original statement, there are no factory stock 1000hp neon motors and I defy you to prove otherwise (or prove anything at all, as of right now you haven't proven anything, and its still your word against mine).

while may know a lot about drag racing you obviously have a pretty loose grasp on the english language....do you even know what "irrelevent" means? I'll clue you in, it means "of no consequence", fact or not, its IRRELEVENT.

BTW, I never said anything about beating you, as in a drag race, what I wrote was that I'd like to beat some common sense into your head (as in physically beat). Besides, I'll race your neon (which you're obviously so proud of) anyday and hand your ass directly to you. Sure you could beat me on your crotch rocket or in your 11 second mustang, but I'm calling you out in the car we are having a discussion about.

Anyway, you are correct, I assumed you meant factory stock. So in that regard I stand by my original statement, there are no factory stock 1000hp neon motors and I defy you to prove otherwise (or prove anything at all, as of right now you haven't proven anything, and its still your word against mine).

ok since jim isnt here, im gonna pick up kinda where he left off. why CANT that motor withstand 1000hp? i think its pretty obvious to everyone that higher horsepower levels are made by increasing the amount of air the engine can move. more air means more heat. more heat leads to detonation. if you can control detonation then you are fine.

that engine is also an inline engine; again another obvious point. inline engines are SIGNIFICANTLY stronger by design than a vee style engine. its common sense because the crank is only taking forces from one direction at any given time. it doesnt have multiple rods pushing n multiple directions.

so you tell me WHY that engine cant withstand 1000hp. and dont just say "because 1000hp has more wear than 250hp" because you will lose all creditibility.

OK...I'll break it down real simple like for you....

we were arguing about the engines ability to withstand the 1000hp not to make it.....and no just keeping the detonation in check is not all you need to worry about as I shall elaborate on shortly....

Keep in mind at ALL times that I am refuting a claim* that an SRT4 motor will make 1000hp "factory stock" (* a claim later to be clarified as "factory modified")

The head: A factory stock head that flows well enough to make useable torque at 200hp levels WILL NOT flow enough air to make 1000hp. Before you even start to think about saying "yeah well just crank up the boost" I'll tell you that this method will only work up to a point and then the flow will become far to turbulent to be usefull. The head must be ported/polished, given new valves possibly, etc. etc. etc....hence, it will cease to be factory stock

Crank: The problem with a factory crank withstanding 1000hp is not the amount of shear force due to the rods, as I already stated the rods will fail LONG before they shear the crank apart. It is the inertial force that will be experienced when the engine rapidly accelerates through the rpm band which will destroy the crank. A factory crank will not be well balanced enough to withstand this force, hence it will need to be balanced/knife edged etc. etc....and NO LONGER WILL IT BE FACTORY STOCK.....

Block: I will take back my statement that the block will not withstand 1000hp...Big Red Jim has enlightened me to the superior block design and in light of this I concede that the block MIGHT be able to withstand 1000hp if the cylinder walls are thick enough not to necessitate being sleaved.

Side note: you are missinformed about inline engines being stronger by design.
What you might be attempting to regurgitate here is that inline engines are able to rev higher than V configuration engines. This is due to the harmonics that develop at higher engine speeds in a V configuration engine which do not develop in a (properly balanced) inline engine. also....The crank is under the same number of forces in both configuration engines. It "feels" the force of the rods pushing down on it and the force of the main caps pushing up on it......the only difference is that in an inline engine these two forces act verticley and in a V engine they act at an angle......

OK...I'll break it down real simple like for you....

we were arguing about the engines ability to withstand the 1000hp not to make it.....and no just keeping the detonation in check is not all you need to worry about as I shall elaborate on shortly....

Keep in mind at ALL times that I am refuting a claim* that an SRT4 motor will make 1000hp "factory stock" (* a claim later to be clarified as "factory modified")

The head: A factory stock head that flows well enough to make useable torque at 200hp levels WILL NOT flow enough air to make 1000hp. Before you even start to think about saying "yeah well just crank up the boost" I'll tell you that this method will only work up to a point and then the flow will become far to turbulent to be usefull. The head must be ported/polished, given new valves possibly, etc. etc. etc....hence, it will cease to be factory stock

Crank: The problem with a factory crank withstanding 1000hp is not the amount of shear force due to the rods, as I already stated the rods will fail LONG before they shear the crank apart. It is the inertial force that will be experienced when the engine rapidly accelerates through the rpm band which will destroy the crank. A factory crank will not be well balanced enough to withstand this force, hence it will need to be balanced/knife edged etc. etc....and NO LONGER WILL IT BE FACTORY STOCK.....

Block: I will take back my statement that the block will not withstand 1000hp...Big Red Jim has enlightened me to the superior block design and in light of this I concede that the block MIGHT be able to withstand 1000hp if the cylinder walls are thick enough not to necessitate being sleaved.

Side note: you are missinformed about inline engines being stronger by design.
What you might be attempting to regurgitate here is that inline engines are able to rev higher than V configuration engines. This is due to the harmonics that develop at higher engine speeds in a V configuration engine which do not develop in a (properly balanced) inline engine. also....The crank is under the same number of forces in both configuration engines. It "feels" the force of the rods pushing down on it and the force of the main caps pushing up on it......the only difference is that in an inline engine these two forces act verticley and in a V engine they act at an angle......

do you have a factual basis for any of what you just said? you still didnt prove anything, you just reiterated what you have already said.

ok where to start? head flow is whats nice about DOHC motors. the flow a TON. it could very easily flow enough for 1000hp. the head can flow that much and still make useable torque at the 200hp level from the size of the turbo. this isnt a stock ls1 we are talking about here.

let me ask you then, why there isnt an aftermarket crank for the honda B series engines? or aftermarket head? its because in stock form these parts suffice for even the 6 and 7 second drag cars. hell the first aftermarket transmission just came out not too long ago for them. the stock head on a honda can see over 800whp from what ive seen.

i still have not seen any proof yet. just reiteration. :rolleyes:

OK...I'll break it down real simple like for you....




The head: A factory stock head that flows well enough to make useable torque at 200hp levels WILL NOT flow enough air to make 1000hp. Before you even start to think about saying "yeah well just crank up the boost" I'll tell you that this method will only work up to a point and then the flow will become far to turbulent to be usefull. The head must be ported/polished, given new valves possibly, etc. etc. etc....hence, it will cease to be factory stock

The definition of the word stock over the years has been giving many different meanings, usually twisted to accomadate your own point. "stock" most times means its factory POS. like an LT1 head, but when we talk about a factory modifed part. like an LT4 head. yes its still considered stock but by no means a pos. and no one wants to draw the line there. if GM had AFR make stage 3 ported heads for fbodys. the heads would be considered stock since they came straight from the factory even though they can flow enough for over 600hp. and it would be used as a bragging tool in an argument. kinda like how "stock" supra motors can handle 800hp. its sure can the factory built it with stout components. components similar to what you would buy from the aftermarket. however when toyota used it, its "stock" when you build it with the same parts. its not. peopel need to draw the line between stock and cheap part. in this case the srt-4 head is stock, it hasnt been replaced so its stock.

It is the inertial force that will be experienced when the engine rapidly accelerates through the rpm band which will destroy the crank. A factory crank will not be well balanced enough to withstand this force, hence it will need to be balanced/knife edged etc. etc....and NO LONGER WILL IT BE FACTORY STOCK.....

What does rapidly mean? RPMs are RPMS no matter how much power you make. 1000hp at 5k rpms is no different than 500hp at 5k rpms. what changes is TENSILE load because more pressure is being put down on the pistons which put more loads on the rods. NOT the crank. RPMS hurts cranks, not Tensile load. and whats that about not being well balanced enough? if your never change the weight of the pistons or rods, then the motor will always be balanced, balancing has ZERO to do with power. balancing is to control harmonic resonances, as they can create vibrations that can wear bearings, shatter the oil pump etc, until you change the rods and pistons, you will not have any additional harmonic resonance just be cause you added hp.




Side note: you are missinformed about inline engines being stronger by design.
What you might be attempting to regurgitate here is that inline engines are able to rev higher than V configuration engines. This is due to the harmonics that develop at higher engine speeds in a V configuration engine which do not develop in a (properly balanced) inline engine. also....The crank is under the same number of forces in both configuration engines. It "feels" the force of the rods pushing down on it and the force of the main caps pushing up on it......the only difference is that in an inline engine these two forces act verticley and in a V engine they act at an angle......

You just contradicted yourself why inline is stronger than Vee, unfortunaely there are no V and inline motors of the same displacement built with the same parts. so all we have to go off is what we have around us. you know the saying "RPMS.. ruins peoples motors" thats a fact. its not "HP ruins peoples motors" the higher you can rev and continue to make power. is the stronger the motor is than another that can't. while making the same power, Compare a built 2jz to a built LC2 (buick grand national motor)

do you have a factual basis for any of what you just said? you still didnt prove anything, you just reiterated what you have already said.....i still have not seen any proof yet. just reiteration. :rolleyes:

I have no need or desire to "prove" anything to you, or anyone else for that matter. Proof of what I type can be found in Engineering Mechanics text books ( Statics, Fluid Dynamics, Mechanics of Materials) If you don't believe me then go look it up there. Either way I really dont care.

let me ask you then, why there isnt an aftermarket crank for the honda B series engines? or aftermarket head? its because in stock form these parts suffice for even the 6 and 7 second drag cars. hell the first aftermarket transmission just came out not too long ago for them. the stock head on a honda can see over 800whp from what ive seen.

:confused: When did this discussion become about honda B series engines? This whole little paragraph you just typed is completely irrelevent. Now before you say "its not irrelevent, its %100 fact", please see above post for definition of the word irrelevent.

What does rapidly mean? In this context rapidly means accelerating through the RPM band more quickly. Say a stock motor will go from 1000 rpm to 5000 rpm in 4 seconds, a heavily modified motor will accelerate from 1k to 5k in maybe 2 seconds (given the same gearing etc.). I was talking about a 1000hp motor accelerating through its rpm range more quickly than stock which causes INCREASED INERTIAL LOADS ...you do know what inertia is dont you?

...what changes is TENSILE load....

here you are just plain wrong, tensile loads are axial loads which pull away from a member, or stretch it. Notice, if you will, the striking similarity between the word "tensile" and the word "tension", see there, its not so hard. The loads we are discussing are compressive (and in the case of the crank, shear).

because more pressure is being put down on the pistons which put more loads on the rods. NOT the crank


again, wrong....the LOAD (not pressure) is put from the piston onto the wrist pin, wrist pin onto rod, rod onto rod bearing, and rod bearing onto crank, crank onto crank bearing and finally crank bearing onto main cap. Then if you want to keep going from the main cap the load is transferred into the bolts holding the main cap on, then from the bolts to the block , then from the block to the motor mounts......etc. etc. etc.. This is all an example of aplication of newtons third law of motion .....point being the loading does not stop at the rods, or do you think you can argue with Sir Isaac Newton?

... just be cause you added horsepower

"because" is one word pal.



This will be my last post in this thread, I dont even care anymore, if you want to go on living believing that a stock neon motor will make 1000hp then go ahead.... :rolleyes:

You have a weird definition of stock. So now stock SRT4's are going 13.2-13.2 :rolleyes: Stock is stock, as in how it was drove off the factory floor. A bov and cranked boost is not anywhere near stock.

Dan
I was thinkin the same thing lol

In this context rapidly means accelerating through the RPM band more quickly. Say a stock motor will go from 1000 rpm to 5000 rpm in 4 seconds, a heavily modified motor will accelerate from 1k to 5k in maybe 2 seconds (given the same gearing etc.). I was talking about a 1000hp motor accelerating through its rpm range more quickly than stock which causes INCREASED INERTIAL LOADS ...you do know what inertia is dont you?

My goodness, please tell me you did not just try to tell me that going to redline faster due to more hp means that the crank is turning higher Rpms than the redline. you will ALWAYS get to peak power faster with more power. your rpms NEVER under no circumstance change. it doesnt matter how fast you get to peak/redline . what you are trying to say is transient torque is affected,transient torque is a measure of how quickly an engine can accelerate (including under load) through its useful rpm range. Stated another way, under sudden conditions of WOT, how fast it will span from low to high rpm. From a measurement standpoint. again transient tq does NOT cause problems, after all cranks were designed to spin. RPMS too many RPMS with a poor rod to stroke ratio is what causes problems.



here you are just plain wrong, tensile loads are axial loads which pull away from a member, or stretch it. Notice, if you will, the striking similarity between the word "tensile" and the word "tension", see there, its not so hard. The loads we are discussing are compressive (and in the case of the crank, shear).

Wrongs again, you just gave the OPPOSITE meaning of what Tensile is, Tensile is a Compression load, its does not stretch. it compresses!! here is an axial load tester http://www.p-h-s.co.uk/Auto_L5.htm it puts tension on both ends of the tool to compress it inwards. to see its limits before bending form


again, wrong....the LOAD (not pressure) is put from the piston onto the wrist pin, wrist pin onto rod, rod onto rod bearing, and rod bearing onto crank, crank onto crank bearing and finally crank bearing onto main cap. Then if you want to keep going from the main cap the load is transferred into the bolts holding the main cap on, then from the bolts to the block , then from the block to the motor mounts......etc. etc. etc.. This is all an example of aplication of newtons third law of motion .....point being the loading does not stop at the rods, or do you think you can argue with Sir Isaac Newton?

Load is a product of cylinder pressure, pressure which creates the twisting force we all love and call tourqe, there is absolutly NO dfference between pressure and load, not from a mechanical stand point and not from a technical standpoint. everything you just said in that comment was you explaining partially how Tq makes the car move..... :eek:


"because" is one word pal.

I made a mistake, I didnt know we were graded on this, feel free to point out all my spelling errors


This will be my last post in this thread, I dont even care anymore, if you want to go on living believing that a stock neon motor will make 1000hp then go ahead.... :rolleyes:

:bs: $10 says that you come on here and post again.



:cool:

I have no need or desire to "prove" anything to you, or anyone else for that matter. Proof of what I type can be found in Engineering Mechanics text books ( Statics, Fluid Dynamics, Mechanics of Materials) If you don't believe me then go look it up there. Either way I really dont care.

you still have yet to prove anything to me except that you have an unfounded hypothesis that has no factual basis for this discussion. you made a few posts that added to the arguement that had others prove they were right. so i called your bluff. and you failed to prove what you said was true. im still waiting on that proof.



:confused: When did this discussion become about honda B series engines? This whole little paragraph you just typed is completely irrelevent. Now before you say "its not irrelevent, its %100 fact", please see above post for definition of the word irrelevent.

the b series engine came into this when you said that no factory stock crank could withstand 1000hp. i said you were wrong because there are 1000hp single second hondas running stock cranks. and FWIW i know what irrelevant means and in this case what i said WAS relevant.

I guess you're right. I absolutely love arguing about stuff like this. I'll give you your $10 as soon as you come to my house and pick it up ;) .

Now I was assuming that you knew what inertia, tension, and compression are and I guess I was wrong....lets consult a dictionary shall we....

Inertia: a property of matter by which it remains at rest or in uniform motion in the same straight line unless acted upon by some external force.
Applied to the crank: If the crank accelerates too quickly the inertial forces may cause it to flex and break. Notice the use of the word "accelerate". This has nothing to do with redline, or even any specific rpm. If the crank accelerated from 1000rpm to 1001rpm in .00000000000000001 seconds (or tried to) the inertial force would tear the crank apart like a piece of paper. This is what I am talking about with respect to the neon crank.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=tension


http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=tensile

...see above and read em and weep. Tension is THE OPPOSITE OF COMPRESSION. THERE ARE NO TENSILE FORCES ACTING ON A ROD IN AN ENGINE. That instrument tests axial loads which can be TENSION OR COMPRESSION. For compression it will push the member against itself for tension it will pull it apart. I have first hand experience using such a machine to test a piece of aluminum.

Now....difference between pressure and load.. Pressure is Load per unit area. Load is a force. Pressure is measured in PSI, Bar, Kpa, etc. etc.
Load is measured in Lbs. and newtons. How bout some water to wash all that down now that you have to eat your words.

Honestly, my room mate and I were on the ground laughing when we read "
tensile is a Compression load, its does not stretch. it compresses!! ".....seriously man, keep it coming, this is truly entertaining. :lol:

you still have yet to prove anything to me except that you have an unfounded hypothesis that has no factual basis for this discussion. .

:lol: oh man you too, this is too much.....ok lets get this straight...

I say : "I dont need or want to prove this to you, if you want proof look it up"

You say: "well you still haven't proved it"

.....ooook.....we have covered this...I am not going to sit here online and explain engineering mechanics to you, If you want to learn, look it up. For the crank discussion look in books title "statics", "dynamics", and "mechanics of materials" and if you're really into it "elasticity theory"....for the cylinder head look in "fluid dynamics".

What's funny is that this is all a moot point.

I stated before, and I will state again, that at the street level we're talking about here, there will be no measurable increase in wear. I've proven it with a micrometer and magnafluxing. Have you?

I guess you're right. I absolutely love arguing about stuff like this. I'll give you your $10 as soon as you come to my house and pick it up ;) .


Applied to the crank: If the crank accelerates too quickly the inertial forces may cause it to flex and break. Notice the use of the word "accelerate". This has nothing to do with redline, or even any specific rpm. If the crank accelerated from 1000rpm to 1001rpm in .00000000000000001 seconds (or tried to) the inertial force would tear the crank apart like a piece of paper. This is what I am talking about with respect to the neon crank.









you can keep the $10, but I can bet you $100 that I can show you a 100% internally stock srt-4 motor making 997whp, after you prove what you just said

:lol: oh man you too, this is too much.....ok lets get this straight...

I say : "I dont need or want to prove this to you, if you want proof look it up"

You say: "well you still haven't proved it"

.....ooook.....we have covered this...I am not going to sit here online and explain engineering mechanics to you, If you want to learn, look it up. For the crank discussion look in books title "statics", "dynamics", and "mechanics of materials" and if you're really into it "elasticity theory"....for the cylinder head look in "fluid dynamics".

im asking you to prove something because you give nothing but open ended answers and dont prove anything. so until you prove you get marked down in the book with the other jackasses that never have a factual basis for what they say. you wouldnt happen to be running for president would you? cuz you would make a GREAT candidate. :rolleyes:

You said..
"Load and pressure is not the same thing"

I said..

"you are WRONG there is absolutly NO dfference between pressure and load"

then you said..

Pressure is Load per unit area. Load is a force. Pressure is measured in PSI, Bar, Kpa, etc. etc.

WTF! :confused:

odd, you contradicted yourself 3 time so far. oh wait I know, its because your not a 22 year old engineer....no way! :eek:

Tell me again howTensile load is not a compression load put on the pistons and rods, but infact the opposite, its a force that stretches the rod. I mean afterall...


here you are just plain wrong, tensile loads are axial loads which pull away from a member, or stretch it.


yes thats it, tell me how loads are not put on the pistons and rods. tell me how they are put away from them. then tell me how rods are being stretched inside your motor.

:cool:

All of you guys should just make up rap songs and "battle" each other. :death:

I have no need or desire to "prove" anything to you, or anyone else for that matter. <snip> Either way I really dont care.

If you didn't have any desire to prove anything or if you didn't care, you never would have replied in the first place. The fact that you continued to argue shows the claims above to be lies.

Tension is THE OPPOSITE OF COMPRESSION. THERE ARE NO TENSILE FORCES ACTING ON A ROD IN AN ENGINE.

There are no tensile forces acting on a rod in an engine? Since when? Have you ever head of rods stretching? You DO understand that the stretching of a rod can only occur via a tensile load, right?

Since all of your experience seems to be from books, here's some real world experience with rod stretch:

"If you’re stuck building an engine with marginal connecting rods, don’t install parts that increase engine speed (hot cam, ported heads, big carb, and so on). Instead, go with nitrous oxide, a blower, or turbo. Adding power through compressive loading is actually easier on the rods than the high-tensile loading that comes with screaming rpm."

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/82378/index1.html

Load and pressure are not the same thing. Pressure is load per unit area . It's as foolish as saying acceleration and velocity are the same thing. Acceleration is Velocity per unit time. They are totally different. If you cannot see the difference then I am sorry but I can't explain it any differently and this is your shortcoming for being so dense.

As far as my not being a 22 yr. old engineer, well you're right, and I never claimed to be so I don't really see you're point in making this statement. A little FYI for you though I am a 4th year engineering student, so I do know what I'm talking about, its my job to know.

As for the tension/compression thing, click on the links I provided for you, they give "definitions" of the words tension and tensile. After reading these definitions you still don't realize that compression and tension are opposites then you are simply unteachable and I pity you. I was, however, wrong to state that there are no tensile forces acting on a rod in an engine, what I was thinking was in reference to the power stroke (where the load is compressive), I was not considering the end of the exhaust stroke or the whole intake stroke, which is where tensile loading does in fact take place on a rod. My apologies for being unclear.

Finally, as far as my not having any desire to prove anything, you're wrong, if I wanted to I could look all of this up for you and mail it to you (as it would be far to long and complicated to post here) but since I dont really care I'm not going to put forth the effort to do so. I continue to post, because (A) as previously stated I love arguing about this kind of stuff. (B) as previously stated, the crap you guys come up with is sometimes downright hilarious. "tensile forces compress members!!!....." :lol: . I guess the statement itself is not comical, but the fact that you try to throw it in my face to flaunt your supposed knowledge of the subject and end up falling on your face by proving in your own words that you have no clue what your talking about, is pretty funny.

I predict that this thread will probably get locked since we are doing nothing but bickering now. I'm not going to make you see it my way and you're not going to make me see it your way, but if you want, we can continue to bicker, I get a kick out of it.

*DING DING end of round 5

*Bikini girls walk out*

*DING ROUND 6! ......

Side note: you are missinformed about inline engines being stronger by design.
What you might be attempting to regurgitate here is that inline engines are able to rev higher than V configuration engines. This is due to the harmonics that develop at higher engine speeds in a V configuration engine which do not develop in a (properly balanced) inline engine. also....The crank is under the same number of forces in both configuration engines. It "feels" the force of the rods pushing down on it and the force of the main caps pushing up on it......the only difference is that in an inline engine these two forces act verticley and in a V engine they act at an angle......

You're quite wrong. Whomever it was that said that an inline engine is inherently stronger (by design) is correct. An inline motor has 1 bearing for every cylinder, while a Vee motor has 1 bearing for every TWO cylinders. There are exceptions, of course, to each, but on the whole each bearing in an I-4 has much less stress to endure than a bearing on a Vee motor. Harmonics, as you've pointed out, are also decreased. This leads to greater strength given any equivent loading due to reduced fatigue stresses. As a studying engineer, I assume you're aware of the effects of fatigue stress on the ultimate yield strength of materials.

The advantage of a Vee motor? Vee motors are built because they are compact. It's certainly not because they are stronger by design than an inline motor -- they aren't.

As a practical matter, are you aware of any production Vee motors that can take the insane amounts of boost that a Supra motor can take, on a STOCK shortblock?

That TA was running 3psi (test boost) and 9.6 AFR!! There was a problem with the MAF which caused it to run extremely rich no matter what the power enrichment was tuned to.

So lets see, 3psi, 9.6AFR = just about stock performance (no turbo) or even worse. 5-6psi is where this kit makes serious power.

Also I have heard of that SRT running all over a lot of cars.

uhhhh

thats me....

i was on 3 psi, and that prior to that race, i had blown a piston, since that race, my car hasnt been driven, and its being rebuilt right now...

that srt supposedly traps 120s...

hes raced a sollid roller 383 that supposedly runs 11.6@121 and the 383 lost...

ssnakekiller and i were working on teh car.... after the race, the car broke down on the way to the house...

if i had known car was about to brake down before the race, i would have never raced...

omg, a neon that traps 120mph raced a turbo ta on 9.6 AFR/3psi and 7 pistons

OH NO THE MISERY

geesh