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?

 

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

 

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.

 

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!

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

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...

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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!!!....." . 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! ......

 

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