The good old days ?

are we having fun yet ? Is it like days of yore ?

Posting about Porkers is irrelevant ( one for the grammar police there ..is it correct or is it not )

Its totally relevant. It suffers the exact same problem.

This is why......that gas that is stuck in that manifold, doesnt give a rats ass what engine it came from....it could have come from an Alpine, a Porsche, or a steam engine, or from ones backside....if there is too much pressure in that manifold, then that engine will choke / one will get a hernia...

It's a bit more complicated than that and starts further up the path .

Really?

Ok here is some real world, non theoretical evidence.

PeterGs car, 260bhp, 300lb/ft made 260bhp at 5200 - When he went for more power it only gained a little, and went down to 4900rpm.. 1 Bar of boost - Dyno plots to prove..

Prima Racing did a customers car many moons ago, with a T3/T4, standard internals, but crude extra injectors for the fueling and played with the ignition timing at the crank sensor. It was running 25PSI!, but it made 285bhp, 300+ lbft - Again peak power made at 4900rpm - Dyno Plots to prove.

Politecnic France - Took a Lemans GTA, remapped the original ECU, ran a T3/T4 hybrid, 1.1 bar of boost, BUT did run modified cams (270 degree profile, more lift) It made 280bhp - so the cams did give them a bit of a gain - but the trade off as a mentioned before....it made peak torque at 4200rpm, and peak power at 4700rpm - and then died right off - Dyno plots to prove

Tonys A610 Engine GTA - Big turbo, bar of boost, 290 odd bhp, at around 5k? But then the manifolds glowed and collapsed.

Axel Ress - Germany. 2.5 and 3.0 GTAs, big turbos, 1.3 bar of boost, cams, circa 300bhp, with a massive car wide intercooler coming out of the rear spoiler...

Now the clincher - BVO in France took an A610 engine, 1.2 bar of boost - but put twin turbos on it, and 255 degree cams....nothing too lairy.

.....497 bhp at 6800rpm! - Dyno Plots to prove..

..and lets not forget the Safrane Biturbo - Same engine as the A610, running less boost, and makes 280bhp...

Now regardless of the accuracy of the final bhp figure - we could call it 20% either way for examples sake....all of the GTA/610 running standard manifold setup 'delivered' the power in the same way - the more power you made, the lower it got down the rev range, and was always capped off around 290bhp no matter what you do....When you see a standard car making peak power at 5750, and every tuned car making it at lower RPM - you have a restriction - and its not the cams as the Politecnic car proved - they still couldnt get past the magic 280-290 figure.

Then the moment you remove that restriction, and open up the potential, up to 200bhp more.and the power curve is excellent, linear and smooth all the way up to 7000rpm .That 610 was even running two standard 610 intercoolers sitting on the top of the engine bay, worst place for them.

Now the Politecnic car showed an increase with cams, but at lower RPM - At 5000rpm it made less power than an uncammed car, and it made peak torque 2000rpm later than an uncammed car - It had the power delivery of a turbo diesel, but without the torque delivery of a turbo diesel ...great combination...

So how much more real world evidence do you need?

Welcome back Dave!

I can sum the Alpine up in one Chinese Proverb...

'One who is constipated should not try to eat so much'....

Here's another Chinese proverb ...

' borrocks ! '



Which only proves my initial point that the 3l is in no way a superior engine

Here's another Chinese proverb ...

' borrocks ! '



Which only proves my initial point that the 3l is in no way a superior engine

How does a 610 engine making more power than any combination of 2.5 with more boost, or cams show that it 'is in no way a superior engine'....

Or on two standard cars, one makes 65, yes 65BHP more than the other, at the same boost.

Let's be generous then and compare PG with TS .

200 to 260 30% increase
250 to 300 15%

Both had the same degree of mods/improvements ,even running Adapt .So even given the known problems the ' better ' engine performs worst by some margin .
I'm confused but no change there .We will just go round in circles again on this one until JIL lump is finished .But then it is now 3l with 2.5 heads ,bigger valves ,shed loads of porting work and cams so not really a good argument there to be had


Anyway ...you not got a proper job to go to ? What you been up to then .Selling the Merc and coming back to the fold ?

Let's be generous then and compare PG with TS .

200 to 260 30% increase
250 to 300 15%

Both had the same degree of mods/improvements ,even running Adapt .So even given the known problems the ' better ' engine performs worst by some margin .
I'm confused but no change there .We will just go round in circles again on this one until JIL lump is finished .But then it is now 3l with 2.5 heads ,bigger valves ,shed loads of porting work and cams so not really a good argument there to be had


Anyway ...you not got a proper job to go to ? What you been up to then .Selling the Merc and coming back to the fold ?

Lee, please tell me you don't really think that equation is right, at the top?

Because by that logic, if we make the PRV 1 litre, it might be 100bhp, and guess what, if you crank lots of boost through it it will only make 300bhp again...

So by your logic, a 1L PRV is the best because it will make a 200% increase in power...

Why don't you get this. If we had a 300bhp n/a PRV, and we stuck a 300bhp turbo charger on it, and the manifolds, and ran it at 50psi of boost, it will still only make 300bhp! Thats a 0% power gain, throw that engine in the bin yes?

No Merc is sold this week, and purchasing a Porsche Cayman S.

Well feck off and annoy some porker owners instead then ,there should be more than enough of them with ' knowledge '

I'm just joking ..or am I ?
The argument being that it hits a wall ,I agree but it should be hitting it a lot harder surely ..

Well feck off and annoy some porker owners instead then ,there should be more than enough of them with ' knowledge '

I'm just joking ..or am I ?
The argument being that it hits a wall ,I agree but it should be hitting it a lot harder surely ..

Its a no different wall to picking the wrong turbocharger.

You mentioned your engine with the cams, headwork, etc etc - But you didnt even mention what turbo you are going to run. You could have a F1 engine, but if you stick a 300bhp turbocharger on it, it will only make 300bhp.

The turbo on Petes car was good for 300bhp, a Standard 610 turbo charger is good for 300bhp - The manifolds on both engines provide a bottle neck of around 300bhp - so why would you think any engine design inbetween those two points will make feck all difference to the ultimate power you can get out of it?

Let's be generous then and compare PG with TS .

200 to 260 30% increase
250 to 300 15%

Both had the same degree of mods/improvements ,even running Adapt .So even given the known problems the ' better ' engine performs worst by some margin .
I'm confused but no change there .We will just go round in circles again on this one until JIL lump is finished .But then it is now 3l with 2.5 heads ,bigger valves ,shed loads of porting work and cams so not really a good argument there to be had


Anyway ...you not got a proper job to go to ? What you been up to then
.Selling the Merc and coming back to the fold ?

Because the 3ltr hits the restriction of the manifolds

Let's be generous then and compare PG with TS .

200 to 260 30% increase
250 to 300 15%

Both had the same degree of mods/improvements ,even running Adapt .So even given the known problems the ' better ' engine performs worst by some margin .
I'm confused but no change there .We will just go round in circles again on this one until JIL lump is finished .But then it is now 3l with 2.5 heads ,bigger valves ,shed loads of porting work and cams so not really a good argument there to be had


Anyway ...you not got a proper job to go to ? What you been up to then
.Selling the Merc and coming back to the fold ?

Because the 3ltr hits the restriction of the manifolds

Or you could say it hits the restriction of the manifolds 'sooner' as it was already half way there from standard..

Turbo spec is secret

Turbo spec is secret

Turbo spec is irrelevant if you're running standard manifolds