Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 637
W
Veteran CEG\'er
OP Offline
Veteran CEG\'er
W
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
D
Hard-core CEG'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG'er
D
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
W
CEG\'er
Offline
CEG\'er
W
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
L
CEG road warrior
Offline
CEG road warrior
L
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
D
Hard-core CEG'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG'er
D
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
D
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
D
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
T
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
T
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
D
Hard-core CEG'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG'er
D
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
2
New CEG\'er
Offline
New CEG\'er
2
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
P
Veteran CEG\'er
Offline
Veteran CEG\'er
P
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.

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5