Supermac 7

silly people...

To the starter of this thread, your 6 ports might not be fully open.

Running perfectly, my car bone stock (no precats) ran up to 138 mph on a perfectly flat stretch of road. i had a few friends in turbos and FD's pace me, and they said my speedo wasnt off at all.

My car is an 88 gtu

Jameson

13bpower

Im not sure if all you turbo guys haven't had a N/A or what. I can very effortlessly get my FC N/A vert past 120. I do have a full exhaust and intake but still, 140+ in my FC, Yes. And not with 200 whp.

2ndGen.rocket

i know the car could go faster, because it didnt seem topped out. i still had RPM's left in 5th gear, but it was at like 4 and a half grand and just didnt seem to want to go past that for some reason. my car runs great, its in perfect condition, exhaust, intake, clutch, flywheel, i mean i have a bunch of mods so i dont understand it. if it was the 6 ports not opening fully, wouldnt i feel that at higher RPM's? and if they are stuck, how do i go about opening them?

chrispapas

I have a 88se with a k&n air filter and 14lb 17in rims header no cats I hit 138+ I backed down who knows with the wheel and tire combo it might have changed the spedo

NZConvertible

Nobody here seems to really appreciate just how much extra power is required to increase a cars top speed. Power required increases to the third power of speed, meaning 2x speed = 2x2x2 = 8x power. Even if you assume the actual top speed of a S5 NA is 125mph, and CdA doesn’t change, 135mph (+8%) would require 26% more power (184hp) and 140mph (+12%) would require 40% more power (205hp). These are the laws of physics; you can’t break them! So claiming 140+mph with mild mods means only one thing: inaccurate speedo!
I'm not saying anyone's lying about the top speed they saw, just that they're trusting an inaccurate instrument. Most factory speedos (especially mechanical ons like ours) are usually way out at these speeds and can’t be trusted. If you really want to know, measure your tire diameter and calculate your speed from rpm. It’ll be closer to reality.
And if you don’t believe me about the power required, read this article.

The 7

www.azstreetracing.com/forum

Jimmy325i

You turbo II guys all **** off about having all this extra power, when a slightly modified N/A will pull harder than you do stock.

I have an `86 with open intake and exhaust that puts down 170rwhp after turning 115K on the motor with working 6 ports. In a couple weeks I'll have either a massive street port or bridge port and should be well over 200 at the *** end where it counts.

So either respect the N/A for doing it without forced induction, tell us about your T4 and how much money you sunk into that Haltech, or shut the hell up. 200hp All motor is a whole lot more respectable than turning up a boost adjuster.

Just my $.02

Scott 89t2

ya but near redline the tach is probably off by a few hundred rpm too

2ndGen.rocket

i dont know, but it is pissing me off. i know i dont have much of a powerband about 6k, is that cause of my ports? i mean, it doesnt seem to die or anything it still pulls, but there isnt as much power. the exhaust helped out alot, but i was kind of expecting it to pull alot harder from about 4k and up. how do i check my 6 ports?

NZConvertible

Um, so what? You have to spend money to go as fast as a stock car and you think that's a good thing? The same money spent on a Turbo will yield even bigger gains. I don't know what got you so upset, this is a discussion about top speeds, not NA vs Turbo. If you think people respect you because a highly modded NA makes the same power as a Turbo, you have an inflated sense of self-worth. I've got nothing against NA's, only insecure NA drivers.

NZConvertible

I wouldn’t get to upset about top speed; it’s pretty irrelevant in real world driving. A headwind will know several mph off your speed just as easily as a few lost hp. How a cars accelerates it a lot more important to me. Do the usual checks on you aux port system (search if you don’t know) and get it dyno’d. You should be able to see any major probs from that.

BlackSport0187

NAs don't get the respect they deserve, I'm tired of hearing that NAs aren't worth modifying. If I really wanted to have a T2, I would have bought one a long time ago. I want to see how fast I can make my NA, and I won't stop until I'm beating slightly modified T2s.

Isaac

Jimmy325i

Spend lots of money for a highly modified N/A that will keep up with a stock TII??? I have EXACTLY $1,134.67 in my ENTIRE car.... I'll spank any stock TII any time!

Half of my investment was exhaust. (header and custom cat back actually cost more than the purchase price)

When I'm done rebuilding the motor, (shot water jacket from day 1) I'll be looking at a power band equivalent of not only the bigger turbo, but a lot more expensive add on crap to make that turbo work. Not to mention the thousands you'll spend trying to get it to run properly. Oh, and I'd be willing to bet that extra 100lbs of turbo crap doesn't help you in the 1/4mi either. I sit relatively stock at a wet weight of 2460lbs.

NZConvertible

I still don’t know what made you think this was an NA vs Trubo thread, but since you started it... Define “spank”. Do you have timeslips to back that up? Slapping an exhaust on a NA doesn’t exactly turn it into a rocketship... No matter what you do to it, a 13B is never going to have the power band of a 13BT. Compare a (say) 250hp NA to a 25hp Turbo and the Turbo will have a lot more torque and require a lot less revs to make that power and torque. These are the facts. All this comment demonstrates is you don’t know very much about turbos. Sticking with what you know might be a good idea.

I’m not trying to knock NA’s here, just state the facts. I think Jimmy’s just a little hung up on being anti-turbo to see that.

NA86RULZ

If I redline ALL gears (except shitfting at 5500 in 1st), I can get up to 130 no prob. This is also with just the primary injectors working (my secondaries havent worked in months). My father had her up to 140 with a new cluth, and less miles.

Mike
-------
'86 NA

VetteKiller

NZConvertible

This could be the funniest thing I've ever heard...

BlackSport0187

I don't think Jimmy has the problem, I think you do. I too felt the anti-NA vibe you were putting in your posts. What's your deal anyway man? I happen to like NAs over T2s does that make me a bad person or an uneducated person on the topic of Turbos? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, either way I'm tired of you almighty T2 owners knocking us lowly NAs. Give us a break, so we want a daily driver without the added expense of a Turbo, is there something wrong with that? I personally could have bought a T2 over my NA, but I chose the NA for simplicity purposes and for a good car to learn the basics of the 13B. Any-hoo, keep it spinning nevertheless.

Isaac

BlackSport0187

There is no need to treat people the way you do. Learn to tone it down a bit bro.

Ziggy682

Hehe, that is pretty funny. 130 mph with no secondary injectors.

Jimmy325i

I'll have it dynoe'd as soon as I have the rebuild broken in. Right now my car will pull like mad and keep up with 13-14 second cars and that is entirely bone stock on the inside of the motor. Unfortunately, I have had a blown water jacket from the day I bought it and will be fixing that shortly.

I was picking up on lots of anti-N/A vibes this afternoon which is why I went off.

Telling me I don't know turbos... lol Having owned a turbo car in the past, and having a roommate with an aftermarket turbo kit (nothing but problems so far) and having a best friend who's spent thousands trying to get a stock turbo motor to run properly in an N/A chasis. I'll say experience speaks for me here. N/A is easier and more reliable, not to mention cheaper. I'll go head to head with a T2 right now for as long as I can keep my coolant in the radiator and I won't be making excuses for why they lost...

Poindexter10thae

iTrader: (2)

my n/a will easily do 150, as soon as I purge the system and flip the on switch to put it on the squeeze

But seriously, on the motor alone I have topped out my car at 143 mph, on a perfectly flat grade(yep, out in the south texas highways, that means desert). Here are my mods:
91 N/A
working vdi + 5+6 ports
RB header, Straight pipe to mufflers
RB lightweight steel flywheel
ACT 4 puck clutch
K+N cone filters
14" perma cool e-fan
RP power pulleys

Nitrous:
Nitrous express Import EFI system(wet), purge kit, jetted to 100HP shot

NZConvertible

Hmm, seems I’m upsetting some people...
I’ve said this many times; I’m not anti-NA! A Turbo is my personal preference, and I’ll defend my love of turbos (on any car) until I’m blue in the face, but I challenge you to find a post where I’ve said NA’s are crap or how they’re easy to "spank" (not my word) like others have.
This thread had absolutely nothing to do with turbos (it was top speeds) until Jimmy came along saying Turbo owners "**** off about having all this extra power", how he spanks stock Turbos (so?) and how I need "lots of add-on crap" and "thousands of dollars to make it run properly". That just shows Jimmy’s ignorance of turbos in general, not which car is better. He also mentioned information regarding powerbands that was technically incorrect, again demonstrating lack of knowledge. I corrected him, that’s all. And his claim that "a slightly modified N/A will pull harder than you do stock" just shows he’s never driven a Turbo.
I’m well aware of the disadvantages of Turbos over NA’s, because I know a lot about both; and not just RX-7’s, but cars in general. But you don’t see me jumping into threads that have nothing to do with Turbos or NA’s specifically and going off about beating NA’s, etc, etc. I don’t need to defend my preference, despite its downsides. But if anyone posts information that is factually or technically incorrect (as opposed to opinion), why shouldn’t I (or anyone else) correct it? If you think I’m wrong, say so and back it up with facts.
So once more for the record, I’m not anti-NA. If I was, why have I spent so much time answering NA-related questions? I just get annoyed when less secure NA owners feel the need to defend themselves by talking crap. Note that most don’t need to.
And you gotta admit, the "secondaries not working" thing was funny!

NZConvertible

How are either of these problems caused by the turbo? Both sound like someone doesn't know what they're doing, because both have been done successfully many times before. Easier? Only if you don't know what you're doing. More reliable? Possibly, but that depends on how it's looked after and modified. Cheaper to buy? Yep. Cheaper to run? Yep. But hp/$? Nope... Any takers?

Jimmy325i

In both cases the turbo and related components are at fault.

I'm insecure? hahahahahahahahaha While you're waiting to spool, I'll be out of the corner and half way down the track. Not to mention that your torque curve will be far higher in the power band than an N/A's and it will be able to pull from deeper in the revs. Thats where the difference in the two identical Hp engines comes in.


I'm not here to flame, and I already explained why I went off topic. So, if you can't get over this, then I guess that's your problem.

note: my Hp figures were from a calculation of accelleration vs weight. I lost the sheet with the #'s, but I'm not afraid to post the dyno sheet when the motor is back together.