|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 637 |
if it's just the halfshafts i can buy stronger ones, thats not a problem, just wondering before i plop down a chunk of metal to be ground out to say 8 psi or so
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by LoCoZ2.0:
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Folks...
The Focus has a different (and much stronger) ATX than the CDW-27 platform has.
Um no read the Focus forums...the Focus has a weaker ATX. 
Reading forums has nothing to do with it.
The Focus most definitely has a stronger ATX. The TC is better built and the input shaft is rated at 240-260lb/ft vs the CD4E's 190-200lb/ft.
I remember how shocked I was at the numbers when it first came up many moons ago. Seems Ford learned a little after building the weak POS CD4E.
They still need to work on efficiency to even get remotely close to brands such as GM's line of slushboxes. (something the General actually does well)
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 125
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 125 |
I would not over-boost the jackson kit unless you build up the fuel system.
Check on the max hp for your fuel injector size @ 80% peak. You do not want to make any more hp than this.. or its bad, very bad.
Jackson + high boost = lean fuel condition = LOTS of ping(s) = BANG dead motor.
I have seen this a couple times on honda's. The best was a piston turned that melted and fused into the block, but then he was running over a bar on stock injectors.
Woz
2000 Contour SVT #136
Black with Blue leather
30% tint all around
12.2" Wilwood Billet NDL
PS: I hate ALL Ford Dealers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 17,248
CEG road warrior
|
|
CEG road warrior
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 17,248 |
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Originally posted by LoCoZ2.0:
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Folks...
The Focus has a different (and much stronger) ATX than the CDW-27 platform has.
Um no read the Focus forums...the Focus has a weaker ATX.
Reading forums has nothing to do with it.
The Focus most definitely has a stronger ATX. The TC is better built and the input shaft is rated at 240-260lb/ft vs the CD4E's 190-200lb/ft.
I remember how shocked I was at the numbers when it first came up many moons ago. Seems Ford learned a little after building the weak POS CD4E.
They still need to work on efficiency to even get remotely close to brands such as GM's line of slushboxes. (something the General actually does well)
Well I got that info from some of the more informed members.  TC was the problem.
GM slushboxes efficient?  Ask some Grand Prix owners how good the slushbox is. 
Hector
2003 Rally Red Mitsubishi Evolution VIII
257HP/259TQ
2005 Lapis Blue Mazda 6s
RET: 00 Cabernet Red Ford Contour Zetec ATX SUPERCHARGED
160HP/141TQ
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by LoCoZ2.0:
GM slushboxes efficient? Ask some Grand Prix owners how good the slushbox is.
For a slushbox they are.
Now don't think that means they will ever be as effecient as the direct connection of a manual transmission will be, but they are ahead of a lot of the competition. (definitely well ahead of all US manufacturers - which unfortunately is not saying much these days)
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Got to say GM builds a good ATX..that and the LS1/6 "low tech pushrod" V8 are about all they do particularly well. The GM turbohydromatics were used in Rolls Royces for years until BMW bought them & changed to ZF. The are relatively efficient (ATX Z28s for example are often within 10-15 RWHP of MTX..compared to a 20 FWHP difference with the CD4E on a much weaker motor = big % difference).
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,165
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,165 |
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Originally posted by LoCoZ2.0:
GM slushboxes efficient? Ask some Grand Prix owners how good the slushbox is.
For a slushbox they are.
Now don't think that means they will ever be as effecient as the direct connection of a manual transmission will be, but they are ahead of a lot of the competition. (definitely well ahead of all US manufacturers - which unfortunately is not saying much these days)
What about the new Audi CVT's. How would you rate those boxes of goo.. hopefully well out of the slush range.
'01 GTP: 3.3" pulley, Headers, 3" Exhaust, Straight Pipe, Intense Air to Water Intercooler. Pictures
Old Ride: 95 Mystique LS V6 ATX: Pictures
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by Tim:
What about the new Audi CVT's. How would you rate those boxes of goo.. hopefully well out of the slush range.
I would say CVT's are the epitome of Slushdom. 
I can not fault the engineering and logic behind them but they still do not allow the driver the choose the rpm to keep the engine at and therefore still are relegated to second class driving IMO.
If they were so much better then a manual then they would be used in racing cars every where right???
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 29
New CEG\'er
|
|
New CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 29 |
I would say CVT's are the epitome of Slushdom.
Yes the driver still does not control the RPMs but the CVT is definitely an improvement over a regular automatic transmission. The CVT will get better performance and gas mileage than a regular automatic transmission. As an example, the performance numbers between the Audi A4 of a CVT and a manual are pretty close. If the driver with the manual did not shift perfectly, the CVT would win a drag race.
As an improvement to the manual transmissions in most current cars, I would like to see sequential manual transmissions with the driver controlling shifting on the steering wheel and the car controlling the clutch. One button for shifting up and another button for shifting down and the driverâ??s hands would always be on the steering wheel. This way it would be almost impossible to mess up shifting.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
Originally posted by 2000BLKSVT:
As an improvement to the manual transmissions in most current cars, I would like to see sequential manual transmissions with the driver controlling shifting on the steering wheel and the car controlling the clutch. One button for shifting up and another button for shifting down and the driver’s hands would always be on the steering wheel. This way it would be almost impossible to mess up shifting.
This kind of transmission is available from BMW and Ferrari. They cost up towards $10,000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
