Message

It's true = that you're=20 providing us all with a useful list of things to avoid, and lots of good = wholesome entertainment,

&nbs= p;

Don't make me have=20 to come down there mister :-)

but=20 you're also "experimenting" in the true sense of experimental. It caught = my=20 attention when Ed mentioned that he was on his fifth intake, and Tracy = said he=20 didn't love his rotary until 80 hours. Perhaps you're giving up too = early on=20 this.

I = haven't given up=20 yet, but I am trying to sort out the facts. Aside from the = performance=20 issues, the plane is overweight, and very nose heavy. Losing the = turbo,=20 huge radiator, etc could net me 30-50 lbs of weight savings from the = nose,=20 which would do wonders for my CG. Lot's of things=20 to consider.

Lets take a step back for a moment. Forget about altitude. = On the=20 ground, and for say the first 3000 feet where you'll be doing most = of your=20 climbing, its a known fact that the turbo 13B produces considerably more = horses=20 than the NA version.

The = stock turbo=20 only made about 20% more HP than the non-turbo, and that was at 5.5 to = 6.5 psi=20 of boost. Ed's promising us all 15% with just some tuning (and a = dozen or=20 so intakes <g>).

The cars, running at the same = altitude,=20 don't blow their turbos and engines to bits, even at much higher RPM = than you're=20 doing. So whats the difference?

Cars have = intercoolers,=20 and lower compression rotors. They also probably have about a = hundred=20 million yen worth of development to make sure they don't blow=20 up. Even with all this, the stock 3rd gens, running 10 psi of = boost=20 blow up all the time. In fact it's rare to ever see one with more=20 than 100k miles on the engine. My 93 had it's engine replaced = at 60k=20 due to a broken apex seal. I didn't own it at the time, but it's = an all=20 too familiar tale. Of course, you can blame this on the = owners who=20 may accidentally run a tank of regular, or the oil metering pump, or = whatever,=20 but if that's all it takes to blow the engine under boost, it bears some = concern. Of course altitude is the key factor, since cars = are on the=20 ground where it's safe. If I blow the FD engine, I roll to = the side=20 of the road and call AAA=20 :-)

Why, at these=20 altitudes, should you're engine perform worse than the one in a=20 car?

I suspect = that it isn't=20 performing worse than a car. I = just believe that the turbo=20 car engine doesn't surpass it's NA brother until it reaches about 4=20 psi. I'm deciding if it's worth running that much = pressure just=20 to break even. On one hand, Bruce scared me by guessing that = I=20 shouldn't exceed 2-3 psi. On the other hand, 4-5 psi=20 of boost means nothing if it's only producing NA power. = The only=20 real concern is the higher intake temps down low, and the risk of=20 pre-detonation. Bruce also told me of a customer = running the=20 exact same basic engine in a car, with 17 psi of boost, who's = putting out=20 350 HP on a chassis dyno. Believe me, I ask myself = every=20 day why I'm worrying about 7 psi and 200 or so HP=20 :-)

I = really DO want to=20 keep the turbo, but only if I feel safe running it hard enough to = get some=20 advantage out of it.

Thanks for = adding fuel=20 to my dilemma :-)

Rusty

= ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C37D58.0C38A9E0--