Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums Modifications Duratec Performance Twin Turbo?

Man, you guys just wouldn't stop, would you.

Anyway, to who ever said that the 100 shot doesn't add any torque; you better pass me on whatever you are smoking, it's some good chit. To give you an example, I spray 75 shot in my car and the car gained 90 ft/lbs of torque at the wheel the second nitrous comes on. "Increased cylinder pressure = more torque".

Again, to everyone who kept saying high end power is everything. Just compare the nitrous svt to the s/c svt. What are the times between the two? And which one is running faster? I think you can find the answer.

Also regarding to svt2000's time. Traction is not the only thing that gives him the 2.1 60'. You also need the power to get the lower 60' which means low end torque. svt2000 makes that up by being a nut launching the car at 5k so he has the power to get the car out of the hole. As all of you know it already, lower 60' equals to lower ET. How hard is it to figure that out?

I understand that Bret, but it is not giving me the God awful amounts of torque you are claiming needed to get into the 13's. It is a 100 HP shot of N20, not a 100 ft/lb shot. Hell, if you are gaining as much torque as 90 ft/lbs per a 75 hp shot, I'd definatley change the way I market N20. I'd be boasting the torque increases not the HP. I do know that it is not giving me a 200 HP boost to get me up to the said 400 hp needed to get into the 13's.

Quote:

you will just reinforce my point that you can't get into the 13s without more [b]torque.[/QB]

I understand that as well, but, show me (dynos on a SVT with N20) that I am gaining more tq than hp with my N20, and I will be a believer. Even if I am gaining 50 ft/lb with a 100 shot, I am still only getting 190ft/lb at the wheels, right? That is not a TON of torque...

They're actually fairly similar, with nitrous barely getting the edge using a 100 shot, which would equate to the power of a supercharged SVT.



Ummm, traction is pretty much the only thing that gives him a 2.1 60'.



Right, for whatever reason, he can hook up launching at 5k. You wanna know what *I* get launching at 5k? Whole buncha tire spin and smoke, and a 3 sec. 60'.

This, once again, proves that traction is what we need more than anything else. Even with my measly torque right now, I can't hook up, so how would low-end torque help me?

If I put on a set of slicks, with which I will bog down no matter how I launch, then I'll say we need more low-end torque to get low ETs.

John

coughdriverskillscough.....

Anyway, let me explain it another way. We will use the identical driver and identical car for example this time.

Take svt2000's car since he can obviously get traction. What do you think will happen if he launches the car at 3k? Bog, and with 2.4-2.5 60'; trust me, we tried it. And why? No low end torque. It will be easier to launch the car if you have more low end torque so you don't have to play with the "traction/launch rpm" game.

I hope you guys can understand it this time. The extra low end torque will make the car easier to drive therefore better chance to achieve better E.T. Is this concept really that hard to grasp?

The concept itself it very easy to grasp, and makes tons of sense in most applications, just not this one. We are not talking about adding 100 ft/lbs or more of torque to a rear wheel drive, 3:73 geared Mustang, we are talking about adding that extra torque to a SVTC. The more torque you add to the stock SVTC, the more wheelspin you get, regardless of what RPM you launch at. Sure you get more power, but with that power comes more traction issues. There is no way I would be able to lower my launch RPM's because of the increased torque. Sure I would come off a tad better, but I would punch it and still spin for 100'. Put slicks on my car, and if I am still bogging , then I will agree more torque is needed. The issue here is traction......is that concept really so hard to grasp???

Hehehe.



That's what I launch at, and get a 2.28-2.29 60' with the track not being prepped. Does that mean I'm a better driver than SVT2000? I guess I'm a better driver than SVT2000 then.



You sure it will be a benefit to a FWD car like the Contour, that ALREADY has trouble launching because of wheelspin and not enough traction?



You have a Cobra, how many times have you driven or launched a Contour at the strip?

No doubt the car will be EASIER to drive, that's obvious, but what makes you think it will launch better and get better 60' times? I'm on the verge of breaking the tires loose in the first 40-60 feet, and by that time, I'm ready to shift to 2nd, and I'm already way up in the powerband.

If I can't already get traction with 160 ft lbs of torque at the wheels, how would MORE TORQUE help me with traction? IT WON'T!!!

ONCE AGAIN, we need TRACTION more than anything else.

I'm far from being the most knowledgeable guy on here, but I've made a ton of passes on the strip, and I know what the car needs, and it's TRACTION, first and foremost, rather than torque.

Obviously, eventually there would be a point as to where TORQUE will help with better 60' times, i.e. getting slicks. Slicks might possibly cause me to bog down, THEN I will want and need more torque.

John

Man, it's pretty hard to argue with you guys. Now I know why Bret quit.

All right. I know that traction is a issue for most of you, but my argument is why svt2000 can overcome that? It's obviously that he has no problem with traction as evident by his 14s passes. And most of his passes were made at Milan dragway (a.k.a ice rink). I am sure most guys around MI can vouch for that. Just look at Rara's time(nothing against you there). I think the traction problem you guys are talking about is more related to driver skills.

In fact my cobra has the same problem when it was stock. The stock cobra comes with the 3.27 gear not 3.73 btw. Anyway, the car was very hard to launch due to the weak low end compare to rest of the v-8 muscle cars. Too much rpm in the launch then you blow the tires away; not enough rpm then you bogged the motor. And bogging the motor is a killer for 4V motors as it takes a while to recover; it would be a lot easier to recover if the low end torque is better as the Ls-1 or as my car after it's modded(picked up 20-30 ft/lbs).

With the limited torque, there is only a very small window for you to get proper launch. In my case, it was 3k but you would have to slip the clutch(you haven't really done it if you don't smell your clutch afterward) so I could achieve sub 14s pass. After the mods, my car was constantly in the 13s and I can launch lower without bogging.

It's pretty much the same for the contours or any cars for that matter of fact. Btw, I have driven svt2000's contour plenty of times. In fact, I was getting constant 2.2 60' and running better e.t in his car before he learned. Hmm, I wonder who taught him the 5k launch?

All I can say is to go to the track a lot and practice. svt2000 had made well over 100 passes before he was in the 14s, now he is pretty constant in the 14s without any traction problem.

Anyway, I think we have used up enough space for a topic that's labeled "twin turbo". Feel free to start another topic and I will be more than happy to discuss such issues. Till then, later.

posted by Bret
"one more thing... our cars need MORE low end torque. everyone is so worried about peak numbers and how much hp they make a 7500rpm. who cares."

I care. More specifically I care most about my HP curve from 4500 - 7000 RPMs. I get tired of hearing about low end torque as an endpoint. Because when going for speed our cars are only below 4500 RPM for about 1.5 sec in first gear then no more unless you screw up the shift. Its not peak HP its HP AREA UNDER THE CURVE in that 4500-7000 rev range. Your low end tourque often but not always correlates with fattening up the HP curve, but a big lowend torque spike (frequently seen with our dual runner V6s) often does not because it is not sustained across enough RPMs to benefit the relevent power band. (Feels good for part throttle around town grunt though.) And that power peak at 7500 RPMs means your "relavent" power band is moved 500RPM to the right to say 5000-7500 RPMs. Thus, the average power under the curve will be greater assuming you are still making good power at 7500 RPM. So we SHOULD be concerned with maximizing HP area under the curve. The magnitude and breadth of the torque curve AS WELL AS peak HP and how many available revs and what is the power drop off are ALL relevent toward this end.

its not engine torque that is giving you that wheelspin on 5k launches, the motor is putting out the same amount of tq at 2k as it is 5k, we have a very large torque curve.

as far as marketing n2o it is the age old say, "horsepower sells cars, torque wins races" and just so you know, the average tq output for a given shot of n2o is in the range of 90% - 110% i doubt the csvt is any different, although myself, i have never dyno'd a csvt with n2o, but if that 100 shot is doing anything less then 75+ lb/ft of tq, i will inhale the whole bottle.

in reply to TCobra:

I thought your argument was that we need torque, not traction.

Anyways, I'm done with this as well. Sorry to whoever started the 'Twin Turbo' thread.

Once I see somebody that can get consistent and better 60' times with a CONTOUR (not a Mustang) that's making considerably more torque than a stock motor, I'm standing by what I wrote.

Hey, it'd be boring if we all agreed on the same thing, wouldn't it?

Call be stubborn.

John