Miatapower List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Ralph W. Gould" <(email redacted)>

This turbo vs. NA Miata discussion brings to mind an autox experience =
that may help to focus on the real determinant in a "Who's faster" =
argument.
In the early 80s our local autocross club held our events at the now =
defunct Pease Air Base in Newington, N.H. The course was popular because =
we maintained the same layout throughout the autocross season allowing a =
driver to assess his skill's progress and because it was FAST! (course =
layout covered ~25 acres!)
I was campaigning a modified Fiat X1/9 and had invited Kim Baker of =
Baker Racing to an autocross ( you may have viewed his assault on the =
Silver State Classic
with his 200+mph Corvette on SpeedVision) bringing his well prepared =
street version X1/9 to the event. When Kim arrived , late in the day's =
event, the FTD in our class was somewhere around 1 min 30 sec. With =
street tires (shaved Pirellis) he nonchalantly, in his first and only =
run with street tires,knocked 4 sec. of that time. Just for grins he =
slapped on a set of Goodyear Bluestreaks (the racing tire of choice in =
those days) and with equal cool, on his second and final run,knocked =
another 4 sec of the mark! He complained briefly that the concrete was =
destroying his tires so declined another run! Sadly his best time was a =
whole second slower than the event FTD, an open wheeled Brabham BT26 =
IIRC!
Conclusions: NA vs. turbo arguments are subordinate to proper tires and =
suspension and - the DRIVER! But you knew that. Right?

Regards,
Ralph

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Mike Inman)


At 10:44 11/4/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
> This turbo vs. NA Miata discussion brings to mind an autox experience that
> may help


.....

>
> Conclusions: NA vs. turbo arguments are subordinate to proper tires and
> suspension and - the DRIVER! But you knew that. Right?
>  
> Regards,
> Ralph


Of course.....

At the "fully developed" end of the scale, most racing series that (used to)
allow turbochargers and NA engines to compete directly against each other, I
believe the turbocharged cars were limited to 1/2 the displacement of the NA
engines (like 3 liters TC vs 6 liters NA). These were competitive series
where
neither turbo or normally aspirated engines had a lock on victory.

In SCCA Mod classes (which, at the national level, is also a realm of highly
developed cars), the turbocharging displacement multiplier is still 1.4, less
than 2.0 used in road racing, but the "powers that be" in SCCA still recognize
a turbocharger as an advantage.

In your local parking lot autocross, I'd rate the top 10 factors for FTD as:

10. How cool you look (this being least important)
9. Overall power output (this being next to least important)
8. Overall weight
7. Low end torque output
6. Weight distribution
5. Proper suspension / alignment
4. Tires
3. The driver
2. The driver
1. The driver

Turbocharging an engine improves number 9 in the list, and since most
turbocharged autoX vehicles are dual use (would make NO sense to turbocharge a
car simply to win SCCA trophies with it), items 8 through 1 usually are
somewhat neglected.

I don't buy Mr. Goodwin's argument that TC cars are significantly heavier, I
still run stock 14x6 alloy wheels, my clutch / flywheel actually lost
significant weight in the upgrade process, and I can't imagine that the
turbine, intercooler and associated plumbing weigh enough to matter. Compare
that to the weight of a 1.6 x 1.4 = 2.24 liter engine (no, I don't think you
can reasonably bore and stroke a 1.8 out to 2.24....)

In the end, I quit doing parking lot autocrosses shortly after the
turbocharger
went in, mostly because I prefer to spend my race rubber on more open tracks,
which are a whole lot more fun with POWER. And yes, some of you might run
rings around me on any track with your 116hp bone stock Miata, but I wouldn't
be having any less fun.

M

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Ralph W. Gould" <(email redacted)>


Mike,
Good summation with the "Top Ten Factors" for FTD.
Our club never adopted SCCA classifications for reasons I don't fully
recall - mostly our "Yankee independent" attitude and the exceptional
resource availability (Pease AFB) for some truly WOT and use of all 4/5
gears autocrossing. Really was effectively a road course without the
attendant tree,concrete barrier, gravel pit etc. impediments.
The few visits made to the parking lot variety autocross were never again
very rewarding. Because of the speeds attainable we attracted lots of
interesting machinery and in 8 years suffered only 3 rollovers! This was
enough, however,for the Air Force to eventually,and although stated as
primarily for security reasons, end an 8 year relationship.
And you're right - the fun factor is after all what it's all about so if you
don't run with a turbo - your fun times are well - just a bit more
sedentary. Only kidding!

Ralph




-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Inman <(email redacted)>
To: Ralph W. Gould <(email redacted)>
Cc: (email redacted) <(email redacted)>
Date: Thursday, November 04, 1999 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Autoxing turbo vs. NA, etc. (NMC)


At 10:44 11/4/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
> This turbo vs. NA Miata discussion brings to mind an autox experience that
> may help


.....

>
> Conclusions: NA vs. turbo arguments are subordinate to proper tires and
> suspension and - the DRIVER! But you knew that. Right?
>
> Regards,
> Ralph


Of course.....

At the "fully developed" end of the scale, most racing series that (used to)
allow turbochargers and NA engines to compete directly against each other, I
believe the turbocharged cars were limited to 1/2 the displacement of the NA
engines (like 3 liters TC vs 6 liters NA). These were competitive series
where
neither turbo or normally aspirated engines had a lock on victory.

In SCCA Mod classes (which, at the national level, is also a realm of highly
developed cars), the turbocharging displacement multiplier is still 1.4,
less
than 2.0 used in road racing, but the "powers that be" in SCCA still
recognize
a turbocharger as an advantage.

In your local parking lot autocross, I'd rate the top 10 factors for FTD as:

10. How cool you look (this being least important)
9. Overall power output (this being next to least important)
8. Overall weight
7. Low end torque output
6. Weight distribution
5. Proper suspension / alignment
4. Tires
3. The driver
2. The driver
1. The driver

Turbocharging an engine improves number 9 in the list, and since most
turbocharged autoX vehicles are dual use (would make NO sense to turbocharge
a
car simply to win SCCA trophies with it), items 8 through 1 usually are
somewhat neglected.

I don't buy Mr. Goodwin's argument that TC cars are significantly heavier, I
still run stock 14x6 alloy wheels, my clutch / flywheel actually lost
significant weight in the upgrade process, and I can't imagine that the
turbine, intercooler and associated plumbing weigh enough to matter.
Compare
that to the weight of a 1.6 x 1.4 = 2.24 liter engine (no, I don't think you
can reasonably bore and stroke a 1.8 out to 2.24....)

In the end, I quit doing parking lot autocrosses shortly after the
turbocharger
went in, mostly because I prefer to spend my race rubber on more open
tracks,
which are a whole lot more fun with POWER. And yes, some of you might run
rings around me on any track with your 116hp bone stock Miata, but I
wouldn't
be having any less fun.

M

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Beau Randall <(email redacted)>



I think Brian was referring to the weight distribution. The turbo
kit comes in at some 60 lbs. (that's about what I got when I weighed
it). Say your 1.6 was 2200 lbs. before the addition of the turbo and
you had a perfect 50/50 distribution... now it's 1100R/1160F which
would make a 48.7/51.3. The flywheel helps, but the turbo+plumbing sit
higher and more forward on the engine. I guess when you're dealing
in tenths of a second this could matter. Of course, a roll bar
pretty much evens the weight distribution out. - Beau

--- Mike Inman <(email redacted)> wrote:
>
> I don't buy Mr. Goodwin's argument that TC cars are significantly heavier, I
> still run stock 14x6 alloy wheels, my clutch / flywheel actually lost
> significant weight in the upgrade process, and I can't imagine that the
> turbine, intercooler and associated plumbing weigh enough to matter. Compare
> that to the weight of a 1.6 x 1.4 = 2.24 liter engine (no, I don't think you
> can reasonably bore and stroke a 1.8 out to 2.24....)
> M
>
>


=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at auctions.yahoo.com

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Mike Inman)


At 10:44 11/4/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>    I think Brian was referring to the weight distribution.  The turbo
>kit comes in at some 60 lbs. (that's about what I got when I weighed
>it).  Say your 1.6 was 2200 lbs. before the addition of the turbo and
>you had a perfect 50/50 distribution... now it's 1100R/1160F which
>would make a 48.7/51.3.  The flywheel helps, but the turbo+plumbing sit
>higher and more forward on the engine.   I guess when you're dealing
>in tenths of a second this could matter.  Of course, a roll bar
>pretty much evens the weight distribution out. - Beau

Furthering the balance issue is the heavier Torsen diff, too.

If you're this critical about balance, you will need Ground Control, or other,
adjustable coilovers to get the cross weights right.


M



>
>--- Mike Inman <(email redacted)> wrote:
>>
>> I don't buy Mr. Goodwin's argument that TC cars are significantly
heavier, I
>> still run stock 14x6 alloy wheels, my clutch / flywheel actually lost
>> significant weight in the upgrade process, and I can't imagine that the
>> turbine, intercooler and associated plumbing weigh enough to matter. 
Compare
>> that to the weight of a 1.6 x 1.4 = 2.24 liter engine (no, I don't think
you
>> can reasonably bore and stroke a 1.8 out to 2.24....)
>> M
>>
>>
>
>
>=====
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Bid and sell for free at
<auctions.yahoo.com/>auctions.yahoo.com
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Beau Randall <(email redacted)>



Brian runs GCs ;-) - Beau

--- Mike Inman <(email redacted)> wrote:
> Furthering the balance issue is the heavier Torsen diff, too.
>
> If you're this critical about balance, you will need Ground Control, or other,
> adjustable coilovers to get the cross weights right.
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> >
> >--- Mike Inman <(email redacted)> wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't buy Mr. Goodwin's argument that TC cars are significantly
> heavier, I
> >> still run stock 14x6 alloy wheels, my clutch / flywheel actually lost
> >> significant weight in the upgrade process, and I can't imagine that the
> >> turbine, intercooler and associated plumbing weigh enough to matter. 
> Compare
> >> that to the weight of a 1.6 x 1.4 = 2.24 liter engine (no, I don't think
> you
> >> can reasonably bore and stroke a 1.8 out to 2.24....)
> >> M
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >=====
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Bid and sell for free at
> <auctions.yahoo.com/>auctions.yahoo.com
> >
>
>


=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at auctions.yahoo.com

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: The Dealer Alternative <(email redacted)>


Don't forget that a lot of your 60 lbs is replacing a lot of parts that you are
removing, such as stock manifold, downpipe, etc.

Beau Randall wrote:

> I think Brian was referring to the weight distribution. The turbo
> kit comes in at some 60 lbs. (that's about what I got when I weighed
> it). Say your 1.6 was 2200 lbs. before the addition of the turbo and
> you had a perfect 50/50 distribution... now it's 1100R/1160F which
> would make a 48.7/51.3. The flywheel helps, but the turbo+plumbing sit
> higher and more forward on the engine. I guess when you're dealing
> in tenths of a second this could matter. Of course, a roll bar
> pretty much evens the weight distribution out. - Beau
>
> --- Mike Inman <(email redacted)> wrote:
> >
> > I don't buy Mr. Goodwin's argument that TC cars are significantly heavier, I
> > still run stock 14x6 alloy wheels, my clutch / flywheel actually lost
> > significant weight in the upgrade process, and I can't imagine that the
> > turbine, intercooler and associated plumbing weigh enough to matter. Compare
> > that to the weight of a 1.6 x 1.4 = 2.24 liter engine (no, I don't think you
> > can reasonably bore and stroke a 1.8 out to 2.24....)
> > M
> >
> >
>
> =====
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Bid and sell for free at auctions.yahoo.com

--
Bill Cardell
The Dealer Alternative, Inc.
Grand Junction, CO
dlralt.com
200mphmiata.net
970-242-3800 tech inquiries
1-800-FLY-MX5S orders only

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Mel Hoagland" <(email redacted)>


Hey, Bill! Welcome home! Boy, have we been busy while you were gone.

How's the tan?

Mel

PS, love the race rad.
------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Hoagland ((email redacted))
"Wheezy" black 96 FMII vrrooommmm


----- Original Message -----
From: The Dealer Alternative <(email redacted)>
To: Beau Randall <(email redacted)>
Cc: Mike Inman <(email redacted)>; Ralph W. Gould <(email redacted)>;
<(email redacted)>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: Autoxing turbo vs. NA, etc. (NMC)


>
> Don't forget that a lot of your 60 lbs is replacing a lot of parts that
you are
> removing, such as stock manifold, downpipe, etc.
>
> Beau Randall wrote:
>
> > I think Brian was referring to the weight distribution. The turbo
> > kit comes in at some 60 lbs. (that's about what I got when I weighed
> > it). Say your 1.6 was 2200 lbs. before the addition of the turbo and
> > you had a perfect 50/50 distribution... now it's 1100R/1160F which
> > would make a 48.7/51.3. The flywheel helps, but the turbo+plumbing sit
> > higher and more forward on the engine. I guess when you're dealing
> > in tenths of a second this could matter. Of course, a roll bar
> > pretty much evens the weight distribution out. - Beau
> >
> > --- Mike Inman <(email redacted)> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't buy Mr. Goodwin's argument that TC cars are significantly
heavier, I
> > > still run stock 14x6 alloy wheels, my clutch / flywheel actually lost
> > > significant weight in the upgrade process, and I can't imagine that
the
> > > turbine, intercooler and associated plumbing weigh enough to matter.
Compare
> > > that to the weight of a 1.6 x 1.4 = 2.24 liter engine (no, I don't
think you
> > > can reasonably bore and stroke a 1.8 out to 2.24....)
> > > M
> > >
> > >
> >
> > =====
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Bid and sell for free at auctions.yahoo.com
>
> --
> Bill Cardell
> The Dealer Alternative, Inc.
> Grand Junction, CO
> dlralt.com
> 200mphmiata.net
> 970-242-3800 tech inquiries
> 1-800-FLY-MX5S orders only
>
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Ryan Hooper <(email redacted)>


>
>
>Don't forget that a lot of your 60 lbs is replacing a lot of parts that you are
>removing, such as stock manifold, downpipe, etc.
>

I just threw the stock manifold, downpipe, and heatshield on my scale.
It all comes to about 16 pounds. An aftermarket header weighs much
less than that, too. So the weight gain is substantial. In any case,
the turbo kit has to be significantly lighter than a supercharger
(except for the Nelson/Paxton, perhaps), doesn't it?
--
Ryan Hooper
Silver '90
URL: ece.utexas.edu/~hooper/
E-MAIL: (email redacted) (or)
(email redacted)

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Beau Randall <(email redacted)>


Sorry, brain fart. Although I doubt more than 20 lbs. of stock stuff
is removed for the 60 lbs. that were added... but it does make turbo-charging
a 'lighter' power adder than supercharging. My Autorotor kit weighed 68 lbs.
when I shipped it, fwiw. - Beau

--- The Dealer Alternative <(email redacted)> wrote:
>
> Don't forget that a lot of your 60 lbs is replacing a lot of parts that you are
> removing, such as stock manifold, downpipe, etc.
>
> Beau Randall wrote:
>
> > I think Brian was referring to the weight distribution. The turbo
> > kit comes in at some 60 lbs. (that's about what I got when I weighed
> > it). Say your 1.6 was 2200 lbs. before the addition of the turbo and
> > you had a perfect 50/50 distribution... now it's 1100R/1160F which
> > would make a 48.7/51.3. The flywheel helps, but the turbo+plumbing sit
> > higher and more forward on the engine. I guess when you're dealing
> > in tenths of a second this could matter. Of course, a roll bar
> > pretty much evens the weight distribution out. - Beau
> >
> > --- Mike Inman <(email redacted)> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't buy Mr. Goodwin's argument that TC cars are significantly heavier, I
> > > still run stock 14x6 alloy wheels, my clutch / flywheel actually lost
> > > significant weight in the upgrade process, and I can't imagine that the
> > > turbine, intercooler and associated plumbing weigh enough to matter. Compare
> > > that to the weight of a 1.6 x 1.4 = 2.24 liter engine (no, I don't think you
> > > can reasonably bore and stroke a 1.8 out to 2.24....)
> > > M
> > >
> > >
> >
> > =====
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Bid and sell for free at auctions.yahoo.com
>
> --
> Bill Cardell
> The Dealer Alternative, Inc.
> Grand Junction, CO
> dlralt.com
> 200mphmiata.net
> 970-242-3800 tech inquiries
> 1-800-FLY-MX5S orders only
>
>
>


=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at auctions.yahoo.com

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Mike Inman)



~40 lbs for 80+hp, not a bad trade....

anyone know the relative weights of the 1.6 and 1.8 engines?

M

>--- The Dealer Alternative <(email redacted)> wrote:
>>
>> Don't forget that a lot of your 60 lbs is replacing a lot of parts that you
are
>> removing, such as stock manifold, downpipe, etc.
>>
>> Beau Randall wrote:
>>
>> >     I think Brian was referring to the weight distribution.  The turbo
>> > kit comes in at some 60 lbs. (that's about what I got when I weighed
>> > it).  Say your 1.6 was 2200 lbs. before the addition of the turbo and
>> > you had a perfect 50/50 distribution... now it's 1100R/1160F which
>> > would make a 48.7/51.3.  The flywheel helps, but the turbo+plumbing sit
>> > higher and more forward on the engine.   I guess when you're dealing
>> > in tenths of a second this could matter.  Of course, a roll bar
>> > pretty much evens the weight distribution out. - Beau
>> >
>> > --- Mike Inman <(email redacted)> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I don't buy Mr. Goodwin's argument that TC cars are significantly
heavier, I
>> > > still run stock 14x6 alloy wheels, my clutch / flywheel actually lost
>> > > significant weight in the upgrade process, and I can't imagine that the
>> > > turbine, intercooler and associated plumbing weigh enough to matter. 
Compare
>> > > that to the weight of a 1.6 x 1.4 = 2.24 liter engine (no, I don't
think
you
>> > > can reasonably bore and stroke a 1.8 out to 2.24....)
>> > > M
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > =====
>> >
>> > __________________________________________________
>> > Do You Yahoo!?
>> > Bid and sell for free at
<auctions.yahoo.com/>auctions.yahoo.com
>>
>> --
>> Bill Cardell
>> The Dealer Alternative, Inc.
>> Grand Junction, CO
>> <dlralt.com/>dlralt.com
>> <200mphmiata.net/>200mphmiata.net
>> 970-242-3800 tech inquiries
>> 1-800-FLY-MX5S orders only
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>=====
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Bid and sell for free at
<auctions.yahoo.com/>auctions.yahoo.com
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>


I would not bet on that... Sure the S/C (the autorotor) is not light, but as you
meantioned the difference between my header and the cast iron manifold comes into
play... when I mailed off my S/C total weight was 42 pounds. including ECU injectors
and spare parts. :)

Mark


Ryan Hooper wrote:

> >
> >
> >Don't forget that a lot of your 60 lbs is replacing a lot of parts that you are
> >removing, such as stock manifold, downpipe, etc.
> >
>
> I just threw the stock manifold, downpipe, and heatshield on my scale.
> It all comes to about 16 pounds. An aftermarket header weighs much
> less than that, too. So the weight gain is substantial. In any case,
> the turbo kit has to be significantly lighter than a supercharger
> (except for the Nelson/Paxton, perhaps), doesn't it?
> --
> Ryan Hooper
> Silver '90
> URL: ece.utexas.edu/~hooper/
> E-MAIL: (email redacted) (or)
> (email redacted)

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Ryan Hooper" <(email redacted)>


Interesting...does that include an intercooler? That's got to be a good
5-10 pounds there.

Ryan

>From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>
>To: Ryan Hooper <(email redacted)>
>CC: (email redacted)
>Subject: Re: Autoxing turbo vs. NA, etc. (NMC)
>Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 13:25:14 -0800
>
>I would not bet on that... Sure the S/C (the autorotor) is not light, but
>as you
>meantioned the difference between my header and the cast iron manifold
>comes into
>play... when I mailed off my S/C total weight was 42 pounds. including ECU
>injectors
>and spare parts. :)
>
>Mark
>
>
>Ryan Hooper wrote:
>
> > >
> > >
> > >Don't forget that a lot of your 60 lbs is replacing a lot of parts that
>you are
> > >removing, such as stock manifold, downpipe, etc.
> > >
> >
> > I just threw the stock manifold, downpipe, and heatshield on my scale.
> > It all comes to about 16 pounds. An aftermarket header weighs much
> > less than that, too. So the weight gain is substantial. In any case,
> > the turbo kit has to be significantly lighter than a supercharger
> > (except for the Nelson/Paxton, perhaps), doesn't it?
> > --
> > Ryan Hooper
> > Silver '90
> > URL: ece.utexas.edu/~hooper/
> > E-MAIL: (email redacted) (or)
> > (email redacted)
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at hotmail.com

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>


Yes that included an Intercooler.

Mark


Ryan Hooper wrote:

> Interesting...does that include an intercooler? That's got to be a good
> 5-10 pounds there.
>
> Ryan
>
> >From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>
> >To: Ryan Hooper <(email redacted)>
> >CC: (email redacted)
> >Subject: Re: Autoxing turbo vs. NA, etc. (NMC)
> >Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 13:25:14 -0800
> >
> >I would not bet on that... Sure the S/C (the autorotor) is not light, but
> >as you
> >meantioned the difference between my header and the cast iron manifold
> >comes into
> >play... when I mailed off my S/C total weight was 42 pounds. including ECU
> >injectors
> >and spare parts. :)
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >
> >Ryan Hooper wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Don't forget that a lot of your 60 lbs is replacing a lot of parts that
> >you are
> > > >removing, such as stock manifold, downpipe, etc.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I just threw the stock manifold, downpipe, and heatshield on my scale.
> > > It all comes to about 16 pounds. An aftermarket header weighs much
> > > less than that, too. So the weight gain is substantial. In any case,
> > > the turbo kit has to be significantly lighter than a supercharger
> > > (except for the Nelson/Paxton, perhaps), doesn't it?
> > > --
> > > Ryan Hooper
> > > Silver '90
> > > URL: ece.utexas.edu/~hooper/
> > > E-MAIL: (email redacted) (or)
> > > (email redacted)
> >
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at hotmail.com

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Beau Randall <(email redacted)>



Hmm... that's odd. I didn't have any superflous packing, just a
bunch of newspaper - it was sent with AFPR, fuel pump, J&S, and 8
and 10 psi pulleys, and I was charged for 68 lbs. by the USPS.
- Beau

--- Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)> wrote:
>
> I would not bet on that... Sure the S/C (the autorotor) is not light, but as you
> meantioned the difference between my header and the cast iron manifold comes into
> play... when I mailed off my S/C total weight was 42 pounds. including ECU injectors
> and spare parts. :)
>
> Mark
>
>
> Ryan Hooper wrote:
>
> > >
> > >
> > >Don't forget that a lot of your 60 lbs is replacing a lot of parts that you are
> > >removing, such as stock manifold, downpipe, etc.
> > >
> >
> > I just threw the stock manifold, downpipe, and heatshield on my scale.
> > It all comes to about 16 pounds. An aftermarket header weighs much
> > less than that, too. So the weight gain is substantial. In any case,
> > the turbo kit has to be significantly lighter than a supercharger
> > (except for the Nelson/Paxton, perhaps), doesn't it?
> > --
> > Ryan Hooper
> > Silver '90
> > URL: ece.utexas.edu/~hooper/
> > E-MAIL: (email redacted) (or)
> > (email redacted)
>
>


=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at auctions.yahoo.com

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>


Must have been the 12 pound AFPR. :)

Seriously the fuel pump and AFPR stuff is a lot heavier than the ECU and Injectors.
Especially that fuel pump. My kit was stripped for use with an FM-ECU. Which means only
the I/C, I/C tubes, Supercharger, pulleys and mounts were shipped with the ECU and
Injectors. I may have had a smaller intercooler, I know I did not have the "racer"
intercooler.

Mark


Beau Randall wrote:

> Hmm... that's odd. I didn't have any superflous packing, just a
> bunch of newspaper - it was sent with AFPR, fuel pump, J&S, and 8
> and 10 psi pulleys, and I was charged for 68 lbs. by the USPS.
> - Beau
>
> --- Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)> wrote:
> >
> > I would not bet on that... Sure the S/C (the autorotor) is not light, but as you
> > meantioned the difference between my header and the cast iron manifold comes into
> > play... when I mailed off my S/C total weight was 42 pounds. including ECU injectors
> > and spare parts. :)
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> > Ryan Hooper wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Don't forget that a lot of your 60 lbs is replacing a lot of parts that you are
> > > >removing, such as stock manifold, downpipe, etc.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I just threw the stock manifold, downpipe, and heatshield on my scale.
> > > It all comes to about 16 pounds. An aftermarket header weighs much
> > > less than that, too. So the weight gain is substantial. In any case,
> > > the turbo kit has to be significantly lighter than a supercharger
> > > (except for the Nelson/Paxton, perhaps), doesn't it?
> > > --
> > > Ryan Hooper
> > > Silver '90
> > > URL: ece.utexas.edu/~hooper/
> > > E-MAIL: (email redacted) (or)
> > > (email redacted)
> >
> >
>
> =====
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Bid and sell for free at auctions.yahoo.com

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Mark V. Mellinger" <(email redacted)>


At 02:37 PM 11/8/99 -0800, Mark Peugeot wrote:
>... I may have had a smaller intercooler, I know I did not have the "racer"
>intercooler.

It's the "weenie" intercooler. Mel H. & Lester S. giggled when I unpacked it!
Mark M.
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Mel Hoagland" <(email redacted)>


Hey, what can I say? It a cute little thing.

+ ^ )
------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Hoagland ((email redacted))
"Wheezy" black 96 FMII vrrooommmm


----- Original Message -----
From: Mark V. Mellinger <(email redacted)>
To: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>
Cc: Ryan Hooper <(email redacted)>; <(email redacted)>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: Autoxing turbo vs. NA, etc. (NMC)


>
> At 02:37 PM 11/8/99 -0800, Mark Peugeot wrote:
> >... I may have had a smaller intercooler, I know I did not have the
"racer"
> >intercooler.
>
> It's the "weenie" intercooler. Mel H. & Lester S. giggled when I unpacked
it!
> Mark M.
> >
>
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>


It still works fine. :)

"Mark V. Mellinger" wrote:

> At 02:37 PM 11/8/99 -0800, Mark Peugeot wrote:
> >... I may have had a smaller intercooler, I know I did not have the "racer"
> >intercooler.
>
> It's the "weenie" intercooler. Mel H. & Lester S. giggled when I unpacked it!
> Mark M.
> >