The Pink Car Thread

[Lavindathar]

I'm offended!!

Fartcan of an exhaust? That backbox was £600 alone. Whats that in USD? 900? 1000? Then the downpipe from the manifold to the backbox was £850. Then theres the manifold. And that was £800. It was custom built so that I could get a screamer pipe in off the wastegate.

Fartcan! OMG. It is rather large, it's 5". But that's because it's better to have a huge exhaust when you have a turbo on the car.

And the wing is also needed. I've had this car at a GPS measured 164. Having the downforce on the rear is definately needed. Read up on MR2 turbo's. They are stupidly twitchy as it is, due to the suspension setup. Toyota should of gone with Mcpherson struts, and they never. They changed the setup that not many RWD cars have. It works, but when it "snaps" it "snaps". So the downforce is needed im afraid.

But yeah my wheels rock. True I have lost slight acceleration due to the size, but gained top speed. Plus they look better, and the losses are minimal. The Mk2 Rev1 MR2 (which mine is) came standard with 14" wheels. The Mk2 Rev2 Mr2 moved to 15"s. General acceptance is that 16" are the best size to have overall. I just like the way 18"s look.

But fartcan?? [img]redface.gif[/img]

Edit - Look at the 2nd picture in the first post. Above the exhaust you can see where i've burnt all my bumper. Well proud of that, it pops flames every gear change and when letting off the throttle. (And yes it is overfueling ever so slightly, but it was mapped to run that way). Better to rich than to lean [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 09-15-2006, 06:49 AM: Message edited by: Lavindathar ]

[Sir Krustin]

Originally posted by Lavindathar: I'm offended!! Fartcan of an exhaust? That backbox was £600 alone. Whats that in USD? 900? 1000? Then the downpipe from the manifold to the backbox was £850. Then theres the manifold. And that was £800. It was custom built so that I could get a screamer pipe in off the wastegate. Fartcan! OMG. It is rather large, it's 5". But that's because it's better to have a huge exhaust when you have a turbo on the car.

You don't need anything more than 3" on a 2L, even with a turbo. You get diminishing returns past that point.

I know what I'm talking about, too - my last project car was a B18C stroked to 2L, operating at 15psi (25psi in race trim) and it had a 3" stainless exhaust, cat, and magnussen racing muffler. Output was 450bhp/700bhp, plus the stage-2 NOS adding another 150 shot. (My only concession to "ricey-ness" btw, was tinted windows and a Pioneer Premiere head unit, 400W amp, and 2 6x9 speakers). Top speed just under 200mph, and a 1/4 mile time in the low 10's.

Yes, it was a street-sleeper - looked stock unless you knew what to look for, Pilot Sport Cup drag radials, and the intercooler peeking below the front bumper.

As a bonus, in "street" mode, it was emissions-legal.

And the wing is also needed. I've had this car at a GPS measured 164. Having the downforce on the rear is definately needed. Read up on MR2 turbo's. They are stupidly twitchy as it is, due to the suspension setup. Toyota should of gone with Mcpherson struts, and they never. They changed the setup that not many RWD cars have. It works, but when it "snaps" it "snaps". So the downforce is needed im afraid.

Yes, it has a Porsche style rear suspension - this is a GOOD thing. It definitely takes some getting used to, though. Especially if you're used to driving FWD.

MacPherson struts? Why in the ache-eee-double-hockey-sticks would you want those?? That's a cheap suspension setup.

As to the wing, you don't need a dumbass looking wing on the street. Maybe on the track, but not the street. By dumbass, I mean it looks dumb. It's a boy-racer wing. Oh, and unless you got something custom made, it's unlikely you have a downforce-generating wing - by law, at least here in NA, wings sold for street use are required to be aerodynamically neutral.

Edit - Look at the 2nd picture in the first post. Above the exhaust you can see where i've burnt all my bumper. Well proud of that, it pops flames every gear change and when letting off the throttle. (And yes it is overfueling ever so slightly, but it was mapped to run that way). Better to rich than to lean [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yeah, you don't want lean in a performance car. Hondas (like I'm experienced with) luuuuuv A/F ratios around 12:1, but I tend to like making them at least nominally street legal and comply with the e-test standards. O2 sensors and modern fuel computers make this easy.

[Lavindathar]

You seem to know your stuff Krustin [img]smile.gif[/img]

I know the B18C is a Honda engine, but what car was it in? and hitting 750 with that engine seems impressive to me [img]smile.gif[/img] Kudos. Plus i didnt think the B18C came as a 2.0L.

Ok, my reposte :

Re The Wing - According to the company that I bought it from, in the brochure it stated that it was tested to increase downforce. They could be lying, but it's in print.

Re The Fueling - At least we agree on that.

Re The Exhaust - The system itself is 3" all the way through with no Cat. Due to a loophole in the law, I don't need a cat because my car has no UK equivalent, as it's an import. The MR2 turbo was never released in the UK, so I get away without a cat. So the actual system is 3" from the manifold to the backbox. But 've had it RR with the standard backbox (the 3" two can approach) and with my 5" single backbox on. It cost 600 pound like I said, and I got better results of the RR with the single 5". I still believe though that a bigger backbox is definately beneficially to the turbo, as then i KNOW im not gonna cause a build up of pressure the turbine fights against. Anyway, the RR said that one is better, and even if it's un-needed, it does sound awesome.

With regard to the suspension -

I'm 50/50 with this one. McPherson struts are a cheaper design, and probably have more flaws. But, they have one MAJOR advantage. They give you a warning when the back end is about to step out.

With the setup the Mr2's use (and yes Porsche's too, well done [img]smile.gif[/img] ) is that you get NO warning. If you push too hard, then the back end will just go. No warning, nothing. Thats the only downfall. Up until that point of taking it too far, the suspension is brilliant.

Oh, and my car is regularly featured on the track. Which is why I have the "big" wing. And why sometimes the suspension scares me, theres been a few times ive span out when I didnt see it coming.

Anyway, thanks for your post [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 09-16-2006, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: Lavindathar ]

[Sir Krustin]

Originally posted by Lavindathar: You seem to know your stuff Krustin [img]smile.gif[/img] I know the B18C is a Honda engine, but what car was it in? and hitting 750 with that engine seems impressive to me [img]smile.gif[/img] Kudos. Plus i didnt think the B18C came as a 2.0L.

It comes 1.8L stock, it has a non-stock crank and piston setup for increased displacement to 2.0L - i.e. "stroked". The pistons were forged (of course) but the stock titanium valves in the B16Z racing head were quite adequate. The cams, of course, were custom ground with a radical high-flow setup on the high-rpm side of the VTEC. (One nice side-effect of VTEC is the incredible driveability at low rpm despite the race-car like behaviour at speed)

The secret is in the cam setup, and B16Z head is generally held to have the best flowing ports of all the Honda heads. The APEX controller handles the fuel managment duties. Don't forget I'm getting 750 (est.) from 25psi of boost as well. (That basically means I'm generating "only" 275bhp on the motor, before boost )


edit: oh, and it was a 1998 Civic, any colour you like as long as it's black!

My current project car is equipped with a "frankenstein" K24 and a Jackson Racing supercharger.

I'm off to the Pub, so don't expect any more replies tonight.

[ 09-16-2006, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

[Lavindathar]

Well I knew it was a Civic engine as standard, and knew it wasn't a 2l. Right on them parts [img]smile.gif[/img]

I take it you use a Civic Coupe...not many of them around here. Have to say, I've never heard of 750bhp.

I'm slightly skeptical, even with the details youve provided. So please, elaborate.

As far as I know, on the Honda models , NO honda Vtec was ever equipped with a turbo. That leads me to believe your using what we call a "bolt on". And I know for a fact a bolt on wont yield those results.

So, actually, you must be using a differnt turbo setup. What turbo are you using? It must be a very big size to hold 25psi. That's coming up to 2 bar. And also a bolt on will never take that. What car was the turbo off, and do you have a model number?

I'm assuming it's Garrett, but what size? T35? T4? Also thinking it'll be custom made to fit....I'd like to know.

275 from a Honda Vtec is easily achievable, but another 500 on top just from the turbo side of things? I'm pressed, so please go into detail for me. You won't lose me, I'm a mechanical engineer. And I did work for Honda briefly, but only a year.

Not doubting you, but need to see some more first [img]smile.gif[/img]

Enjoy the pub!

[Sir Krustin]

I'm kinda in a hurry right now, but most modern compressors have a V(eff) of 1.0, so it's straight mutliplication to get the effects of boost. 25psi is 1.7 bar over atmospheric, so you multiply output "on the motor" by 2.7 to get final output.

The compressor is a one-off custom built (by a friend of mine who is a turbo expert, and knows a few people at the Racing end of Garret), and the motor is a VTEC powerplant from an Integra. (This doesn't mean much because the head is the important part for VTEC, and it's from a B16Z racing motor)

The intake and the exhaust are both custom-built, exhaust being tubular stainless and the intake welded tubular and plate aluminum.

[Lavindathar]

Ok, but what size turbo are you using? To handle 25psi it must be a serious turbo. Wondering what model number you use.

Mine is a Garrett T28.

Edit - Some pics would be apreciated.

[ 09-17-2006, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Lavindathar ]

[Sir Krustin]

I believe the frame was a GT42 stainless steel ball-bearing turbo. Not sure how much this would help, I think they changed their model numbers a while back.

I have some pics somewhere, I'd have to look. (I no longer have the car, I sold it to fund the current project - besides the g/f would kill me if I tried to keep 2 project cars. )

One thing to note, the track setting predicates racing gas, It's unlikely I could squeeze that much out with pump fuel.

[ 09-17-2006, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

[Cloudbringer]

Don't know about compressors,but it sure is stylin! Did you choose that color or did someone else recommend it? Any particular reason or just to make it show up more amongst the others at car shows?

[ 09-17-2006, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

[Lavindathar]

Cloudy, just chose that colour because it's different. It is pink that shines blue. I love it [img]tongue.gif[/img]

But when your driving that, EVERYONE is looking at you. Some of it bad, but most of it good. It's awesome [img]smile.gif[/img] Plus the car does 160, so when you do get ricers [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

And Sir Krustin, T42 is quite huge to be honest. Wouldnt of thought it would have gone on a Honda Vtec. Kudos anyway.

I use 97 ron fuel for the road, and occasionally 99 ron. Gets pricey though. Never use 95, my car is still mapped to run on Jap fuel.