The race car idea thread

[sperry]

Originally Posted by cody

Well, there's no perfect solution, and I don't even know what ITE is other than it sounds like a class, but I still say the best bang for the buck (including the notion of dependability) is going to be a conservative race gas tune, rotated mount turbo, EJ25 with CP pistons.

The alternative is a Vette (RE: $$$) and Scott said no to that.

Um, I *have* an EJ25, with forged pistons, and a 20G at 22psi on race gas making 350whp. I'm already doing what you're suggesting, and it's expensive. Blowing that motor costs between $4,000 and $10,000 to repair.

I should be able to make 350whp on an LS1 or 302 for a lot cheaper, and without pushing the motor. Keep in mind, making 350whp on an STi motor is easy... on a dyno, on a street car... but doing it all day long at the race track is a bit different. At least it's been my experience that after a few laps at those power levels, things tend to get hot and not cool down.

[cody]

Scott, do you think the problem could be that you're getting tuned at sea level and when you run up here, things get a little lean? When Ed retuned my car up here recently, he mentioned that if anything, my car will run rich at sea level, it seems the inverse would be true for you. You do any datalogging (including AFR's) up here?

Ed admitted to me that there are some maps that Cobb hasn't unlocked, that would allow better control over how the ECU controls things at different elevations...there's only so much a tuner can do, even if they know how to tune a car for different elevations. Basically it seems safer for a car to be tuned at the highest elevation it will be run at (regardless of the elevation is like octane thing).

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by cody

Basically it seems safer for a car to be tuned at the highest elevation it will be run at.

That's interesting, I always thought it was the other way around because of the extra boost at sea level. I guess there will be a lot of retuning happening if Mike ever opens his shop up here.

[sperry]

There is certainly something going on with my car, though I don't know what. Altitude would be a common denominator, but on the other hand, so are the high temperatures the car has to run at (plus the less effective cooling due to altitude).

I'll be datalogging the car to get a better idea what's really going on as soon as my wideband shows up for my Hydra. But keep in mind: I'm tuned on speed/density (MAP, no MAF) so altitude shouldn't really make much difference... absolute manifold pressure, air temp, and rpm... things that don't really change due to altitude. 22 psi (well 37 psi absolute) at X degrees is the same amount of air, regardless of the starting pressure on the uncompressed side of the turbo, know what I mean?

But, I'm a tuning n00b... I'm just teaching myself this crap. Mike Warfield, who tuned the car, has tuned race cars that have run at Miller Motorsports Park without issues, so I can't imagine the culprit is the tuning as much as it's the driver pushing the car too hard. Besides, Mike's seen what I do to cars, I get the feeling he's not pushing my car all that hard on the tune 'cause he knows I (unintentionally! ) beat on it.

Though, it would be nice if the problem was something obvious in the tune at altitude, 'cause that's easy to fix. If the issue is lateral G's, or oil starvation, or lack of cooling, or something similar that will require reengineering the car... that's when making the car reliable becomes really expensive.

And on a side note: I've never seen a Subaru with a dry sump. Hell, I don't think even the WRC cars use 'em... it's just not needed on a flat motor, since the pistons are already half in the oil. I can't imagine I'm seeing G loads so bad they can starve out the oil.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Pat R.

I've heard that '86 MR2s make awesome race cars.

You still got that thing? If I had a shop, I'd be all over it!

[MattR]

Buy an old Winston Cup stock car and set it up to road race.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by MattR

Buy an old Winston Cup stock car and set it up to road race.

I was waiting for that suggestion... from you.

And I know you're kidding, but just to address it anyway, with the exception of that historics series for 'em, where would I go racing? Plus... I get the feeling keeping a 1989 Chevy Lumina cup car running is going to require either a ton of money, and/or fabrication skills I don't have. I mean, if I bend a control arm that was made by hand by some dude in Charlotte NC 20 years ago... I'm not finding the part at Kragen. Which is why I want to stick to production based cars.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by sperry

You still got that thing? If I had a shop, I'd be all over it!

Wait, if the MR2 needs a shop... what race car doesn't?

[cody]

Originally Posted by sperry

There is certainly something going on with my car, though I don't know what. Altitude would be a common denominator, but on the other hand, so are the high temperatures the car has to run at (plus the less effective cooling due to altitude).

I'll be datalogging the car to get a better idea what's really going on as soon as my wideband shows up for my Hydra. But keep in mind: I'm tuned on speed/density (MAP, no MAF) so altitude shouldn't really make much difference... absolute manifold pressure, air temp, and rpm... things that don't really change due to altitude. 22 psi (well 37 psi absolute) at X degrees is the same amount of air, regardless of the starting pressure on the uncompressed side of the turbo, know what I mean?

But, I'm a tuning n00b... I'm just teaching myself this crap. Mike Warfield, who tuned the car, has tuned race cars that have run at Miller Motorsports Park without issues, so I can't imagine the culprit is the tuning as much as it's the driver pushing the car too hard. Besides, Mike's seen what I do to cars, I get the feeling he's not pushing my car all that hard on the tune 'cause he knows I (unintentionally! ) beat on it.

Though, it would be nice if the problem was something obvious in the tune at altitude, 'cause that's easy to fix. If the issue is lateral G's, or oil starvation, or lack of cooling, or something similar that will require reengineering the car... that's when making the car reliable becomes really expensive.

And on a side note: I've never seen a Subaru with a dry sump. Hell, I don't think even the WRC cars use 'em... it's just not needed on a flat motor, since the pistons are already half in the oil. I can't imagine I'm seeing G loads so bad they can starve out the oil.

Since you run a Hydra, you should probably run a different map for this elevation than you do at sea level. It doesn't adjust for elevation. Interestingly enough, Ed said that, while stock ECU tuned cars that were tuned at seal level run leaner at this elevation, with a Hydra, it's an unknown until you log it.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

Wait, if the MR2 needs a shop... what race car doesn't?

The MR2 needs space to be rotisseried. It's basically just a shell that needs a ton of work, including a motor transplant of some sort.

With the amount of space I've got, I could probably only do enough work to go out and run door to door with Steve Singley. But I'm not really interested in a car that's 20 seconds a lap slower around RFR than my WRX.

[cody]

Oh, what about an RX7 twin turbo? There was a yellow one that I had no business chasing at RFR last time I was there. Cool car.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by cody

Oh, what about an RX7 twin turbo? There was a yellow one that I had no business chasing at RFR last time I was there. Cool car.

An FD RX-7 is pretty much the perfect example of the car I'm trying to avoid. It's a near super-car in cost, it's got a ridiculous motor that needs tons of boost and tons of revs to go racing with, it's notorious for blowing motors if you just think about abusing them, parts are retarded expensive 'cause it's a fanboi car... Basically, everything that's "wrong" with my WRX is 10 times worse with that car, though they are beautiful cars.

Now, talk to me about an FC with a LS1 swap, and you're talking about something I've actually considered, except for there being no place to go racing in 'cept for ITE, which I've already got a car for.

And just FYI, here's ITE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo6hCVyQOUs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94JBx4jDCvE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beX164b2GbY

[cody]

Originally Posted by sperry

Now, talk to me about an FC with a LS1 swap

That sounds like the best of both worlds. You like swaps.

I think you're just in denial that you'll eventually own a Vette.

[Tahoe C5]

Scott,

Come down to Infinion for NASA on 9/22 and 9/23. You need to see what a Mazada FB with a 13B bridge port motor can do. I'm not talking about my car with the 12A, but rather a 2,000lb RX7 with a N/A rotary. Even you can fit in one of these cars, Doug Driver did. I can set you up for a ride that may change your mind about this option. You can get into these cars CHEAP and there is tons of parts and mods available. BIG HP = BIG $$ You won't be doing 130 in the straights but you'll be grinning through the twisties!

Mel

[knucklesplitter]

240Z with a 5.0l Ford V8. <2700 lbs in race trim, 300bhp without breaking a sweat, and relatively cheap to maintain. Your buddies in Moundhouse know exactly what to do, and I'd help.

[knucklesplitter]

Originally Posted by sperry

But, I'm a tuning n00b... I'm just teaching myself this crap. Mike Warfield, who tuned the car, has tuned race cars that have run at Miller Motorsports Park without issues, so I can't imagine the culprit is the tuning as much as it's the driver pushing the car too hard. Besides, Mike's seen what I do to cars, I get the feeling he's not pushing my car all that hard on the tune 'cause he knows I (unintentionally! ) beat on it.

I've seen your timing map, and you run less timing with 100octane than I do with 91 octane. I would call that conservative, and I doubt the tune killed your engine.

I am curious why a speed density system, which basically gets it's main information from the MAP sensor, would need a retune at elevation. I don't doubt it, I just would like to learn why. The only thing I can think of is that the volumetric efficiency changes in the thinner air.

[cody]

Originally Posted by knucklesplitter

I've seen your timing map, and you run less timing with 100octane than I do with 91 octane. I would call that conservative, and I doubt the tune killed your engine.

Have you seen his AFR's?

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by sperry

I was waiting for that suggestion... from you.

And I know you're kidding, but just to address it anyway, with the exception of that historics series for 'em, where would I go racing? Plus... I get the feeling keeping a 1989 Chevy Lumina cup car running is going to require either a ton of money, and/or fabrication skills I don't have. I mean, if I bend a control arm that was made by hand by some dude in Charlotte NC 20 years ago... I'm not finding the part at Kragen. Which is why I want to stick to production based cars.

Just to address the stock car suggestion: it's actually a sweet idea. I don't know where you'd race it, but in terms of purely being a track car they're pretty good values. It doesn't have to be an expensive buy like an old Cup car that has nostalgia $$$ tacked onto the price. There are plenty of old cars out there from the minor series, like Featherlite Southwest tour, etc...

You don't have to worry about minor stuff like bending control arms, you can get new ones straight out of the Coleman (or any other stock car vendor's) catalog. Pretty much any moving part on most of those cars is easily replaceable. And stock car parts are pretty cheap, because there's 23453587602348 guys racing some kind of stock car in the US. Drop a SBC 350 in it, and you've got solid power that'll run for a long time. And I know your tall ass will fit inside one.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by cody

Have you seen his AFR's?

Scott doesn't have a wide band until the near future...

[MPREZIV]

Originally Posted by knucklesplitter

240Z with a 5.0l Ford V8. <2700 lbs in race trim, 300bhp without breaking a sweat, and relatively cheap to maintain. Your buddies in Moundhouse know exactly what to do, and I'd help.

Do this, and I'll help you get all the Nissan parts you can imagine! Hell, if you drop the Ford motor () and put a Chebby powerplant in it, I'm more than capable of tuning that too!

[wrxkidid]

what about the 924/944 spec series?

http://www.spec-944.com/info/index.htm

[sperry]

Originally Posted by wrxkidid

what about the 924/944 spec series?

http://www.spec-944.com/info/index.htm

I don't have $45,000 for a car, or the $20,000/season in parts for the car. Remember, the goal is to find a car that's cheap than a WRX! Porsche == WRX * 3

[wrxkidid]

http://motors.search.ebay.com/porsch...01QQsamcmZ6001

all less than 10gs.

they arent the turbos. and wont make 350whp so i fail nvm.

[Dean]

Scott, you still haven't told us what your reasonable/acceptable initial investment is... You can potentially get a whole lot more of what you are looking for if you spend $30-80K up front.

But based on this thread and your responses to everyone's suggestions, I propose you change your Motto in your profile to:

Fast, Reliable, Cheap, I can fit in it, fun, a class/venue/series where I can be competitive, not a Corvette, open wheel, vintage, etc... : I want them all!!!

[sperry]

Originally Posted by wrxkidid

http://motors.search.ebay.com/porsch...01QQsamcmZ6001

all less than 10gs.

they arent the turbos. and wont make 350whp so i fail nvm.

The 944's are quite a bit cheaper than I thought as long as you stay away from the Turbo's. A Turbo S will run you $10,000+, and then the conversion to a racecar... not cheap. But the 4-banger base 944 is pretty affordable... but again, for the performance, I think there are better deals at that price... no matter what the initial investment, you're still maintaining a Porsche.