|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 30
New CEG\'er
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 30 |
The car started out as a kit from http://www.aeonsportscars.com but I have modified just about everything to my way of thinking. The original chassis was a three seater but I wanted a conventional two seater because I needed a little more space (I'm a big fellah  ) so a central tunnel was installed which now houses all of the services from front to back. I've got Wilwood 4 pots on vented discs up front with Sierra brakes and discs bringing up the rear. I wasn't happy with the original bodywork so I redesigned just about every body panel and got moulds made. The front now uses BMW Mini headlights and indicators. The rear uses Alfa Romeo 156 lights, but in the Lexus style. The interior is quite high tech with an Evodash for all the instruments and remote door poppers to open the doors (no handles at all) There are 90 led's scattered around the interior which gives the car an eerie blue glow at night. The only conventional bulbs in the car are the headlights (which are HID units) - even the reversing lights are led's.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197 |
Correct link http://www.aeonsportscars.com/
GT3Coupe is nice! Very Noble like. $18,190 for the kit to build yourself or 32,648 for a turn key. What is shipping to the US for just the kit? 
-'96 SE MTX 3L
-'98 SVT 1,173 of 6,535
-'05 Mazda 6s, loaded, g/f's ride
-Need a 96-00 manual on CD? PM or email me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by RazMan:
I didn't bother to plug the holes between the twin ports of each cylinder because there won't be any differences in flow or pressure.
That is incorrect. The pressure generated by the different UIM port lengths (and thus different air speed & density respectively) does create an imbalance/bleed through.
All the other information has been online for 5 years or so but that was a nice refresher.
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 30
New CEG\'er
|
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 30 |
Ok maybe I oversimplified things but the small differences shouldn't affect power output to any measureable degree, especially as I am remapping the ecu to compensate.
I will probably junk the UIM & LIM later anyway and convert to Triumph Triple TBs with short trumpet intakes - but this will involve some bodywork mods and possibly some head work.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Gutting the secondaries. I got a tip --- Don't DO IT!  If you do a full 3L swap with 3L manifolds then do it IF you can correctly tune them. but you are asking for issues if you just gut them on a normal 2.5L. Besides, they are only there to improve low-end torque.
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 30
New CEG\'er
|
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 30 |
As I've already said, any loss of low end torque is not an issue as my car only weighs 700kg - it is going to give me 0-60 in around 3 seconds in its present state of tune and mid-top end is more useful on the track! I have lightened the flywheel to make it rev a little quicker too. Also I am mapping it with an MBE ECU so any mods will be compensated for.
The secondaries are quite restrictive in their natural form (and the shafts don't help matters either)and I found that on the track, the transition from 6-12 bores was a bit messy (powerwise) and pinning them open improved things a little, allowing a smoother power curve. Therefore removing all restrictions should logically make things even better. It will also prevent the carbon build up on the secondary butterflies which is a common problem on these engines.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Originally posted by RazMan:
As I've already said, any loss of low end torque is not an issue as my car only weighs 700kg - it is going to give me 0-60 in around 3 seconds in its present state of tune and mid-top end is more useful on the track! I have lightened the flywheel to make it rev a little quicker too. Also I am mapping it with an MBE ECU so any mods will be compensated for.
The secondaries are quite restrictive in their natural form (and the shafts don't help matters either)and I found that on the track, the transition from 6-12 bores was a bit messy (powerwise) and pinning them open improved things a little, allowing a smoother power curve. Therefore removing all restrictions should logically make things even better. It will also prevent the carbon build up on the secondary butterflies which is a common problem on these engines.
Okay, I guess in your case you have a valid point and a plan. You wouldn't fit in the normal category of people who try and gut them as a sole means of gaining more power.
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,600
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,600 |
I agree War, his circumstances are different than 99% of anyone else contemplating doing this.
For anyone that comes across this later, removing the secondaries is silly if the engine is still in a contique!
#4559 of 6535 born on Feb 17, 1998
Black 1998.5 CSVT
FOR SALE [cleaning house]: SVT rear swaybar. Reasonable offer and its yours!
|
|
|
|
|
