Autocross EVO - Street Modified Build

[mannymartinez]

im glad you brought that picture up matt.

i noticed a lot of the SM cars at the nationals with huge wings. one u wouldnt use at a track event.

not sure but i guess its to compensate for lack of down force in these courses...

[EVOlutionary]

Originally Posted by kekek

. . .. As for gearing, even with the shorter 285/30/18 you still don't spend all that much time up at the end of 2nd, and when you do it is momentarily. At no point during the season was I "wanting" more speed out of 2nd. . . . .

At many of my local events I DID find myself wanting to shift to third, or face riding the rev limiter (8K) for quite a while. I think if you have a built 2.0L and can rev to 8500 or 9000 you probably won't have a problem.

Someone mentioned the tradeoff of running wider tires as them sapping HP and torque. Remember, there were some Honda's and a Scirocco that finished ahead of me with 1/2 the power. With the EVO we can make plenty of power. What we really need in more traction in the corners. Just IMHO . . .

Originally Posted by kekek

. . . . Oh yeah, forgot to add this tidbit. Henry's Evo9 put down approx 250tq @ 3000rpm. He has dynoflash, MBC, intake filter, HFC and TBE. My Evo8, same mods w/test pipe, only had approx 150tq @ 3000rpm. WTF!!!! damn Mivec and turbo gets around 100ft-lbs tq EXTRA at 3000rpm, Son of a *****! Anyone looked at the logistics of an Evo9 Motor Update???

On a stock VIII block mine made 310-320 TQ on Buschur's Mustang dyno. That is with a 20G-9 and Revolver cams on a stock 2.0L. Although the 9's are showing some awesome torque numbers, I think a properly set up VIII can work as well. As more cams come and the EMS come out for the 9 it's performance potential will eclipse the VIII, but I don't think it has yet. . .

Originally Posted by madmax199

EVOlutionary in his original post brought up the aerodynamic factor as one of the tools to have a competitive car. I am curious to know the extent of the benefits guys with aero parts are seing in relatively low speed autocross courses. I do not doubt that at speed above 70 Mph aero parts are effective, but I was under the impression that Bsp/Sm evos(on top 2nd gear) are not reaching speed high enough to really need these expensive aero parts. Anyone with experience before and after please let us hear it.

I have tested a prototype front splitter. I've done a write-up on the results elsewhere on evoM. All I will say here is IT WORKS. There is a reason why all the top guys in SM and SM2 run splitters and wings. Guys who are winning with them might not be too quick to share their secrets. Also, alot of folks may not want to pay out the cash to do their own R&D. . .

EVOlutionary

[EVOlutionary]

Originally Posted by kekek

I think John Tak and Andy Lieber did some testing for us. At Nationals in colder temps and a rubber-less surface Tak almost matched Tunnell's later heat times. From the Nationals pics I see no aero enhancements to the Tak/Leiber Evo. Based on that and the fact that Daddio also does not have any I would begin to really doubt their effectiveness at lower speeds. I've also run wingless on my personal car and found no difference.

If anyone has any "real" data on the subject I could be swayed.

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with the wording. You can't say something doesn't work just because some folks don't use it. Just because they don't use splitters doesn't change the laws of physics. They do work. Maybe not necessary, but they do work.

John, an absolutely great driver who ran 2 absolutely great runs, was still a half second behind Bob Tunnell's final time. The EVO's killed BSP the first year there, just like they did last year in ESP. If John and Andy had built the car for SM I have no doubt that they would have been at the top of the pack. But I think it would have taken a bit more power and some more grip in the front tires to do the deed.

I bet we'll see at least a splitter on Daddio's car this year.

Originally Posted by mannymartinez

im glad you brought that picture up matt.

i noticed a lot of the SM cars at the nationals with huge wings. one u wouldnt use at a track event.

not sure but i guess its to compensate for lack of down force in these courses...

A wing that large would make too much downforce at road race speeds and therefore too much drag. As autocross speeds, though, they are extremely effective. Wings will be smaller this year as new rules will be coming out limiting size.

The stock wing makes about 90# of downforce at 100mph. The kind of wings the guys were running at Nationals make about 1000# at 100mph. The kind you see on Time Attack cars like the Voltex or Cusco or APR wings might make 300# at 100mph.


EVOlutionary

[Warrtalon]

EVOlutionary, in reference to TQ numbers, I think John was mainly referring to how EARLY the TQ came on in that IX, not necessarily the peak TQ. That IX saw 250wtq @ 3k rpm. On my VIII before cams but with alky, I made 300wtq on 26psi at around 3300rpm, but I have no reading at 3000rpm. Suffice it to say that the upswing is very steep, so I may not have had 250wtq at 3000rpm despite it only being 300rpm earlier.

[EVOlutionary]

I understand what he was saying - that the 9's are showing a trend towards making good power earlier than 8's. I was just showing that with the proper setup and tuning the 8's can make just as much power down low.

My torque peak is ~360 at 3800 rpms. However, it still makes over 300ft# from 2900 to 6300 rpms. That is with the Revolver cams. With the HKS 280's peak was 325ft# and made over 300ft# only from 3900 to 5800.

I just don't feel that an engine swap is necessary to be competitive at this time.

EVOlutionary

[kekek]

Originally Posted by EVOlutionary

I understand what he was saying - that the 9's are showing a trend towards making good power earlier than 8's. I was just showing that with the proper setup and tuning the 8's can make just as much power down low.

My torque peak is ~360 at 3800 rpms. However, it still makes over 300ft# from 2900 to 6300 rpms. That is with the Revolver cams. With the HKS 280's peak was 325ft# and made over 300ft# only from 3900 to 5800.

I just don't feel that an engine swap is necessary to be competitive at this time.

EVOlutionary

I guess some of my reference to the E8 vs E9 was based more on BSP, a little OT for this thread. I do agree that an E8 has a better chance of being competitive (vs the E9) in SM than vs the E9's in BSP right now. I just don't have an SM budget at the moment.

As to my earlier reference's about tires, I apparently screwed up the tire height vs hp logic. However most of the wider tires 305+ get to be pretty tall for the evo vs the standard 285 setup. So this could help gearing on the top end esp with the WHP your car makes.

Just curious, at Nationals were you bouncing off the limiter? Last year I had no issues at the Deven's Tour nor the DC Pro, although some other local events can be different.

John

[Warrtalon]

Originally Posted by EVOlutionary

I understand what he was saying - that the 9's are showing a trend towards making good power earlier than 8's. I was just showing that with the proper setup and tuning the 8's can make just as much power down low.

My torque peak is ~360 at 3800 rpms. However, it still makes over 300ft# from 2900 to 6300 rpms. That is with the Revolver cams. With the HKS 280's peak was 325ft# and made over 300ft# only from 3900 to 5800.

I just don't feel that an engine swap is necessary to be competitive at this time.

EVOlutionary

Oh ok, but you never mentioned your tq at 3000rpm. Could you show a dynograph with 300wtq at 2900rpm? I'd be very surprised with that much torque that early on those mods.

[ratt_finkel]

Take the Tak/Lieber car, give it more power, less weight, more grip and more aero.

[EVOlutionary]

Originally Posted by kekek

. . .

Just curious, at Nationals were you bouncing off the limiter? Last year I had no issues at the Deven's Tour nor the DC Pro, although some other local events can be different.

John

No prob. I did hit 8000rpm limiter at Nationals this year, in at least one spot and probably 2. The biggest was coming through the finish on the West course. Every time I would hit it for 1/2 to 1 second before I crossed the line. This year I will have more power so I fear I would hit it sooner. The other spot I don't remember. I will have to go look at the course map to see if it jogs my memory.

One thing to remember - this is an 8000rpm rev limiter. Most people I think do not take the stock motor quite that high. If you keep your limiter at 7500 or 7700, you will be on it more often.

EVOlutionary

[broeli]

I run SM and run the stock motor to 8000 rpm also. It still isn't enough. I've found myself, on several courses, hitting the rev limiter. I've actually picked up a little time shifting to 3rd and allowing the car to accelerate further. A built head with the limiter raised to 9000 would be optimal imo.

[EVOlutionary]

Originally Posted by Warrtalon

Oh ok, but you never mentioned your tq at 3000rpm. Could you show a dynograph with 300wtq at 2900rpm? I'd be very surprised with that much torque that early on those mods.

Sorry, you are right. When I first mentioned it I did not state at what RPM I was talking about. Here is the thread I started last spring when I got the turbo - graph shown.

Results! 16G/HKS 280's vs. Buschur 20G-9/Revolvers

It has since been retuned and made even more power and torque. When I get the LT on and tuned I expect to spool 200rpms later but have alot more midrange and top end power. We'll see how it turns out. Working on a new engine setup . . .

Originally Posted by ratt_finkel

Take the Tak/Lieber car, give it more power, less weight, more grip and more aero.

ABSOLUTELY! If I was starting from scratch and wanted to win a Street Modified (or BSP) championship, that is EXACTLY what I would do. You would get a brand new (untitled) car you could finance through his dealership, rediculous tested and tuned and optimized suspension, and access to Andy and John's guidance. I know that's what has allowed me to do what I have in only 2 years of racing. That car may not even need less weight and more grip - just give it another 100HP and some downforce and you're good to go!!

BTW, the car IS still for sale


EVOlutionary

[kekek]

Originally Posted by EVOlutionary

...

BTW, the car IS still for sale


EVOlutionary

Whats the price tag on that bad boy?

[Warrtalon]

EVOlutionary, you can see by that graph how your normal setup is powerful with good torque, but it's way later than what John was mentioning. On your crazy setup, which is beyond the norm (Revolvers are nuts), you have some crazy early torque. I'm not actually sure how that happened with a bigger turbo and crazy cams, but you can see it - it's nothing like a normal Evo torque curve on an 8 with a stock-like turbo. The combo of mods you did had a big impact on spool, the onset of torque, and torque sustainment (up to 5k rpm or so).

[EVOlutionary]

Originally Posted by kekek

Whats the price tag on that bad boy?

Sorry, just found out today the car sold. The car is still in his showroom, but it has been paid for and is awaiting delivery to the lucky new owner.

[EVOlutionary]

Originally Posted by Warrtalon

EVOlutionary, you can see by that graph how your normal setup is powerful with good torque, but it's way later than what John was mentioning. On your crazy setup, which is beyond the norm (Revolvers are not nuts), you have some crazy early torque. I'm not actually sure how that happened with a bigger turbo and crazy cams, but you can see it - it's nothing like a normal Evo torque curve on an 8 with a stock-like turbo. The combo of mods you did had a big impact on spool, the onset of torque, and torque sustainment (up to 5k rpm or so).

The "normal" graph is with an AEM EMS, HKS 280 cams and the stock turbo as tuned by Tym Switzer. The only changes for the better graph are a 20g9-5, ported stock exhaust manifold, eBay 02 housing, revolver cams and springs, and Buschur's tune. The revolver cams and Buschur tune really DO spool the turbo that much faster. . . no "crazy" stuff going on here.

EVOlutionary