Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*SP\s+rules\s+and\s+ESP\s+Clarification\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*SP\s+rules\s+and\s+ESP\s+Clarification\s*$/: 47 ]

Total 47 documents matching your query.

21. Re: SP rules and ESP Clarification (score: 1): Author: "msmith2" <msmith2@columbus.rr.com>; Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 19:19:43 -0800; That's easy. In order to get your 325lb/ft, you had to get the automatic that goes back to first when ya do a 20mph roll-on in 2nd. The faster 4th gen cars are all 6-spds (due to the lower torque pea; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01360.html (10,242 bytes)
22. Re: SP rules and ESP Clarification (score: 1): Author: Sam Strano <strano@stranoparts.com>; Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 19:52:12 -0500; Well, my car is an L98 w/ 345 foot pounds, and we did different tests. Every time I got killed. The faster 4th WRONG!!!! An LT1 makes 325 ft/lbs @ 2400 rpm. My L98 makes 345 ft/lbs. @ 3300 rpm. And t; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01362.html (10,688 bytes)
23. Re: SP rules and ESP Clarification (score: 1): Author: "richard nichols" <rnichol1@san.rr.com>; Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:12:39 -0800; This is an N/A car??!! Seems to me, then, all this talk about turbocars' "unfair advantage" (Mark Donahue, where are you when we need you?) is misplaced :( Don't know about the other turbocars, but; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01370.html (9,182 bytes)
24. Re: SP rules and ESP Clarification (score: 1): Author: Perry Kincy <kincy@ccnet.com>; Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 19:16:23 -0800; Assuming 3600 lbs with driver and fuel, 104 mph trap speed is about 280 to 290 rwhp. Most stock LT1s in a 3600 lb car run 98-101 mph trap speed which relates to their 260-275 rwhp. Most LT4s run 107-; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01379.html (9,958 bytes)
25. RE: SP rules and ESP Clarification (score: 1): Author: "Fedja Jeleskovic" <Fedja_Jeleskovic@pictel.com>; Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 09:07:21 -0500; At the same time that Supra we all talk about can hardly have 200 ft-lbs at 2000 RPMs. But when it comes on a bit later, it really does! Fedja "Stevens, Kevin" <kstevens@ventritex.com> on 03/22/99 05; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01400.html (9,913 bytes)
26. RE: SP rules and ESP Clarification (score: 1): Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>; Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:24:50 -0700; -- If 4,000rpm is "a bit later" sure, but since you're probly turning by that point....; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01409.html (8,945 bytes)
27. Re: SP rules and ESP Clarification (score: 1): Author: steve.cirian@us.pwcglobal.com; Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 12:00:45 -0600; Not YET. If the rule passes, turbo cars WILL be hamstrung. What else do you call a rule that singles out certain cars for restrictions? Maybe it is the NA cars that are not suited for autox, if rule; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01423.html (10,150 bytes)
28. RE: SP rules and ESP Clarification (score: 1): Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>; Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 11:16:48 -0700; -- I think it will be just the opposite. The SCCA will be building itself to be the exclusive home for NON tuborcharged cars. A HUGE section of the sports-car society will be ostracized from even co; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01424.html (9,827 bytes)
29. Re: SP rules and ESP Clarification (score: 1): Author: Sam Strano <strano@stranoparts.com>; Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:48:22 -0500; Yeah, okay. Whatever. The Normally aspirated cars that rolled out the factory, that make up probably 90% of all competitors, that were around long before a few turbo's are the ones NOT suited to auto; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01425.html (11,853 bytes)
30. Re: SP rules and ESP Clarification (score: 1): Author: "msmith2" <msmith2@columbus.rr.com>; Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:42:16 -0800; See below. I suppose I did have the LS1 in mind when I wrote that (335@4400). Sorry I didn't clarify it a little better. Torque converters only suck up power if you don't have enough already(just as; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01426.html (10,090 bytes)
31. Re: SP rules and ESP Clarification (score: 1): Author: Sam Strano <strano@stranoparts.com>; Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:02:34 -0500; Still makes over 300 foot pounds @ 2000 rpm. An LT1 auto launces just as hard as an L98 auto. Both are capable of 1.9 60' at the drags on street tires. A friend has a '98 Firebird with an auto and a; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01428.html (11,469 bytes)
32. Re: SP rules and ESP Clarification (score: 1): Author: "msmith2" <msmith2@columbus.rr.com>; Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:47:31 -0800; I hope so! The entire 1/4 involves more than just torque and the LS1 has at least 60hp on ya. My previous L98 would practically fall on it's face at about 4500. Anything more than that and I was mak; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01437.html (10,655 bytes)
33. Re: SP rules and ESP Clarification (score: 1): Author: steve.cirian@us.pwcglobal.com; Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:11:55 -0600; Thanks for your reply. I did not mean to single your comment out, but it just fit with what I was thinking at the time. So sorry if I offended anyone. of Removing the restriction from the exhaust sy; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01439.html (13,055 bytes)
34. Re: SP rules and ESP Clarification (score: 1): Author: "richard nichols" <rnichol1@san.rr.com>; Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 12:28:46 -0800; I certainly did. Turbos are GAINING in popularity, especially with the Japanese imports, not losing it. I only have one turbo on my car, much less a pair that are sequential -- and no, I'm not compla; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01441.html (9,292 bytes)
35. RE: SP rules and ESP Clarification (score: 1): Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>; Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:43:25 -0700; -- That SHOULD have been taken into account when boost-assisted cars were first classed. But since they screwed that up, they wanna shove a stick up our pipes. Yeah, thats fair. This might sound red; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01443.html (9,202 bytes)
36. Re: SP rules and ESP Clarification (score: 1): Author: "Hung-Jen Hung" <hhung@inreach.com>; Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 12:50:52 -0800; Then can we add a boost controller to limit the boost? The answer is no. I have a downpipe in my RX-7. Yes, it indeed adds boost, but actually I don't wanna that much boost that will eventually kill; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01445.html (9,631 bytes)
37. Re: SP rules and ESP Clarification (score: 1): Author: "richard nichols" <rnichol1@san.rr.com>; Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:06:29 -0800; My own car, which would benefit from downpipes et al. for power, will NOT show an increase in boost from the reduction in back pressure. Mine's mechanically limited by the pressure seen at the compre; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01447.html (10,251 bytes)
38. Re: SP rules and ESP Clarification (score: 1): Author: Alek Tziortzis <alextz@comm.mot.com>; Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:07:40 -0600; The reason the 3rd gen and 4th gen camaros/firechickens (fbodies) are close in autox is really one factor: camber. you can get about -1.7 degrees of negative camber on your average 3rd gen car (each; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01448.html (9,572 bytes)
39. RE: SP rules and ESP Clarification (score: 1): Author: "Stevens, Kevin" <kstevens@ventritex.com>; Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:08:41 -0800; You could size your downpipe to be more or less restrictive, as everyone else in the class does... KeS; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01449.html (9,890 bytes)
40. Re: SP rules and ESP Clarification (score: 1): Author: Sam Strano <strano@stranoparts.com>; Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:33:14 -0500; That's why I advocate a 2 psi over stock limit. Run you controller if you want, just be legal. Sam Strano Jr. Strano Performance Parts 800-729-1831 814-849-3417 (tech.) www.stranoparts.com; /html/autox/1999-03/msg01450.html (9,003 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3]