6pakattack Time
You mean you actually like something without a turbo? Knock me over with a feather.
Well, let's see what I have said to Dennis about his car in the past that could engender such a comment:
I said:
"It should be a fun ride, for sure! My uneducated guess would be a 15.20 @ 88 mph. That is movin' on out for an automatic slant in a 3,300-pound car. I love that instrument cluster! Just the right "ambience" for the interior! What color is the upholstery?Keep pluggin'... you're doin' great!!!:cheers:"
and before that, I said,
"WOWSER!!! That will be a show winner, for sure!!! The Buzzin' Half Duzzin' stripe looks factory!!! Great job, old timer!!! :icon_smi: "
and, before that, I said,
"That's a really nice-looking engine! I just never thought of having the engine and body the same color. What a great idea!!! Thanks for the pix!:icon_smi:"
and, before that, I said,
"That would be really cool, to have the engine and the body in identical colors. Unusual, too."
and, before that, I said,
"Good lookin' rocker arms; who makes those?"
and, before that, I said,
"Yeah, you rich guys always do it right! We had to paint ours...":angry7: Maybe someday, when my ship comes in (I am pretty sure it sank...) Those are gonna look GREAT.Yeah; I'm jealous as hell... :angryfir:"
and, before that, I said,
"Man, that paint looks GOOD!
Keep thrashin'!!!!:happy1:
and on and on...
I was a real poster of negativity, wasn't I....
Your continued perception of me as a one-trick-pony who is obsessed with turbocharging just doesn't hold water.
Consider the facts:
1. My only connection to a turbocharged vehicle IN MY LIFE, is half-interest in a project car that Freddie and I are attempting to put together now. I've never had one before. Never even DRIVEN a turbocharged car.
2. My two other vehicles, are a normally-aspirated '93 Dakota 318 pickup and a '72 Valiant 360 Magnum with a belt-driven Vortech supercharger.
3. I have pointed out many times in my voluminous ramblings on this message board that I have NO EXPERIENCE with turbos OR slant sixes and the great bulk of what I know, or think I know, came from reading posts on here, and conversations with folks like Tom Wolfe who DO have experience and obviously know what they're doing. It's been quite an education. I do have a lifetime of dealing with normally-aspirated high performance engines of a variety of types, and that helps me to understand, somewhat, how this turbo business works.
4. Your apparent opinion of MY perception of things is that I have no use for anything that doesn't have a turbo on it.
Neither of my cars are turbocharged, and as I said, I've never even HAD a turbocharged car.
I do have opinions about things, though, and as this is a open forum for the free exchange of ideas, I am entitled to my opinion. So are you.
My opinion, after watching some pretty talented people attempt to get impressive performance out of normally-aspirated slant sixes, is that it is a tough, uphill battle, and not a cheap nor easy thing to do.
Guzzi Mark's car is fast; no doubt about that. He is an exceptionally talented tuner who gets the absolute most out of his equipment. In order to run as quick as he does. However, he's had to employ some pretty extreme lightning techniques to get his car's weight down to the bare minimum. It doesn't hurt that he started out with the lightest of the A bodies. Smart guy!!!
Most of us, though, have cars like the Kid's; a 3,300-pound Dart that's almost 1,000-pounds heavier than Mark's rocket. Even with some well-thought-out mods, gears, a converter and an engine that is borderline streetable (for most people) his car is a low 14-second ride.
He has a ported head, and big valves. His chassis setup is good.
All he needs to go a whole lot faster is some forced induction.
Consider Tom Wolfe's car; a same-size Dart, with the same displacement.
Tom's car ran 11-flat and over 120 mph into a 15 mph headwind the last time he had it out.
Both cars have pretty much the same heads and carburetion systems.
Tom's car has a cam with not nearly as much duration as the Kid's.
Tom's car is geared 2.76:1 in the rear. The Kid has 4.10's, I think.
The normally-aspirated car needs to be run up to over 6,000 rpm to make good power. The turbo car is all done at 5,500.
Three seconds and over 25 mph difference in quarter-mile performance.
When I look at that, I just can't but think that a hairdryer is the ONLY way to get outstanding performance out of these motors as a practical consideration.
Turbos are relatively cheap. Yes, there are things you have to buy to make it all work (intercoolers, blow-off valves, waste gates, alcohol spray units, boost controllers, MSD BTM units, and the fact that off=the-shelf headers are non-existent for turbo slant 6's,) but when you look at the whole picture ($$$$), the turbo motor looks pretty good. It even looks good compared to a normally aspirared small block V8.
I don't think a lot of people are aware of all of the factors involved in a comparison of a N/A slant 6 and a turbo'd one; that's why I run my mouth about it.
The cylinder head that a 225 slant six has, is crippled from the start by the fact that it was designed for a 170. That's old news. As beautiful as yours is, it will never flow adequately to make 400 horsepower from a normally-aspirated 225 on gasoline.
Making 400 horsepower is child's play for a tubocharged slant 6. I just can't see pushing that pebble up that mountain with my nose, when a hairdryer can make it SO much easier...
I have tried to compliment and inspire Dennis about his car, repeatedly, because I think he's doing a masterful job of building a fun car. His choice to run it normally-aspirated is just that: HIS choice. It's still going to be a fast car and fun as hell to drive. I would have liked to see it turbocharged, but that doesn't mean that I can't like it with a 4-bbl and headers... It's gonna sound great! And run great! And, LOOK great!
If I come off sounding like a crazed lunatic just because I think the smart thing to do is make an end run around this asthmatic cylinder head with a hairdryer, and want to tell people about it, then maybe I am...
But, that's just me.
I also think that putting a turbo on a 170 and asking it to be competitive with medium-to-large engines in the real world is like inviting a one-armed man into a game of patty-cake.
The 170 is UNBEATABLE in a class where specific output is king (pounds per cubic inch) and will rev to the moon with ease... it's the perfect racing engine... in its class.
But, it's got a 33-percent handicap when compared to a 225 in the real world. That's a lot to overcome.
You can probably get ALMOST as much out of a normally-aspirated 225 as a turbo's 170. But, I gotta admit, it would sure be fun to hear that little sucker wind....:cheers:
So, I just wanted to let you (and everyone else know) why I say the things I do... Doesn't everyone know I'm RIGHT???:violent1: