NoOne

Did John just say "Dave said..."

<img src="gr_grin.gif" border="0">

blackhawk2000

Not in so many words. Dave is pretty smart when it comes to turbos, obviously, but his business skillz suck. I really don't have a problem with him other than that. Now if I bought a kit and was still waiting, my days would be spent making his life miserable <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0">


BTW has anyone heard from him since last year?

LIL SS

iTrader: (9)

[quote]Originally posted by Rob Bonemarte:
<strong>Give it another year before you see some serious LS1 power on the streets (1000 hp).

The engineering department here at GM really screwed up on the head bolt length. I won't go into any more detail, but at least two shops know what I am talking about and have fixed the head lifting problem.

It is not rocket science and shouldn't be treated as such. I am not going to say just to let them captilize on their common sense for the time being.

Rob

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Rob Bonemarte ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

I was just thinking and maybe some people have tried it and it didn't work, but could you not drill the holes where the heads bolt to the block deeper and thread them different to keep the heads from lifting?

I'm trying to play Devil's Advocate here. There are also plenty of high HP LS1's that aren't running the times either. Hell, to be honest, I'm pretty disappointed with our 707rwhp/9.94 pass. But it takes time to dial everything in "correctly". Have you forgotten how long it took to get a Turbo V6 Buick into the 9's? And now, 9's are so common on Turbo Buicks that we barely notice them anymore!


A good example of this is my car.. I can't hook because I am not equiped with slicks, rear and clutch. My best run to date is a 13.0 @ 117 and this was at 800 psi in the bottle. At 1050-1100 I'm sure my mph would be like 119 or so.. It does me no good with out traction.. I'm not a turbo car but it's the point that I have power I can't use..

In the turbo cars it seems the lack of torque is the problem. Every setup takes time to get right. I know where my hang up is. I'm sure the turbo guys know the torque issue has a lot to do with thiers.

blackhawk2000

[quote]Originally posted by LIL SS:
<strong>In the turbo cars it seems the lack of torque is the problem. Every setup takes time to get right. I know where my hang up is. I'm sure the turbo guys know the torque issue has a lot to do with thiers.</strong><hr></blockquote>

???

LS1derfull

Stock Supras have 320 hp? What do they run stock?

NoOne

Almost identical to stock LS1's.

They aren't as torquey but are not as heavy either.

I know they were exspensive but I feel they really got looked over in the performance car field, the RX7 got more attention but the Supra was a better all around performer.

LS1derfull

NO ONE, im feeling clueless on this subject but did toyo stop making the Supra? And what times did they run stock(if you know) Thanks.

JimmyKash

[quote]Originally posted by NoOne:
<strong>Almost identical to stock LS1's.

They aren't as torquey but are not as heavy either.

I know they were exspensive but I feel they really got looked over in the performance car field, the RX7 got more attention but the Supra was a better all around performer.</strong><hr></blockquote>

supras are close in the 3600-3700lb range there NoOne

NoOne

You sure?

I just read this article:

http://www.autofan.com/november/2/

Because I thought they were lighter. They say 210hp per ton, at 320hp, thats 2000lbs for the first 210 hp and .65 ton's, or 1300lbs for the remaining 110hp, or 3300lbs.

Could not find a listing for their real weight, that was the closest I could come.

LS1derfull

No more Supra? Any stock 1/4 times? Help! <img src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

mach1

iTrader: (6)

toyo's last year of the supra was 98, i think it ran mid to high 13's in the 1/4th, 320HP and they were underrated but a lil on the heavy side...

NoOne

I think he means lack of torque at launch, not total lack of torque.

LIL SS

iTrader: (9)

[quote]Originally posted by NoOne:
<strong>I think he means lack of torque at launch, not total lack of torque.</strong><hr></blockquote>


NO ONE,
That is what I meant.. Thanks for cleaning up my bad communication skills..

blackhawk2000

Ahhh I see now <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0">