766 replies to this topic

[da_murphster]

I volunteered my VX to a well known exhaust coy for them to develop an exhaust - the CAT kept tripping the ECU, they repeatidly "fixed" it only for it to go again. I lost about a weeks holiday and spend hundreds of pounds in fuel because of an un-proven product. Customer service and satisfaction is priceless and worth a wait. Saying that would love to know about both Johns turbo and the TB - surly sleep/food/blinking etc etc can all be sacrificed to satisfy my interest in these developments?!?

Edited by da_murphster, 25 August 2006 - 02:53 PM.

[ukez]

Project Managemet lol

[SPLAM]

John as you must have missed my question , have you driven a super charged VX? If so what did you think?

[Anarchy]

TB car was at national but not quite finished, however... I got a ride in it, it sounded nice , went a bit faster than mine but got passed by turbos. Ians awsome cornering kept him up on the bends. Not sure how finished the engine was but the car looked like it had been put back together using duck tape!

[Mick43]

TB car was at national but not quite finished, however...

I got a ride in it, it sounded nice , went a bit faster than mine but got passed by turbos.

and an NA with brakes and sorted suspension

[Thorney]

John as you must have missed my question , have you driven a super charged VX?

If so what did you think?

No, I've never had the chance. Hence thats why I'm not actually critical of the SC conversion at all....just the concept.

[Tony_M]

TB car was at national but not quite finished, however...



I got a ride in it, it sounded nice , went a bit faster than mine but got passed by turbos. Ians awsome cornering kept him up on the bends. Not sure how finished the engine was but the car looked like it had been put back together using duck tape!

Got a couple of Pax laps too Ian has an interesting method of cornering bloody good fun but I'm sure he should have used his brakes at some point

[MAP18W]

John as you must have missed my question , have you driven a super charged VX?

If so what did you think?

No, I've never had the chance. Hence thats why I'm not actually critical of the SC conversion at all....just the concept.

You could be right, however Lotus, Sabb and GM thought forced induction was the way to go with this engine.

[Thorney]

John as you must have missed my question , have you driven a super charged VX?

If so what did you think?

No, I've never had the chance. Hence thats why I'm not actually critical of the SC conversion at all....just the concept.

You could be right, however Lotus, Sabb and GM thought forced induction was the way to go with this engine.

.....and thats my point, they chose to SC the engine along completely different parameters to the conversion kits.....and Lotus disagreed with it

[MAP18W]

John as you must have missed my question , have you driven a super charged VX?

If so what did you think?

No, I've never had the chance. Hence thats why I'm not actually critical of the SC conversion at all....just the concept.

You could be right, however Lotus, Saab and GM thought forced induction was the way to go with this engine.

.....and thats my point, they chose to SC the engine along completely different parameters to the conversion kits.....and Lotus disagreed with it

Our SC conversion uses primarilly the same components that GM use, which is different to the earlier SC conversion. With regards to Louts objecting, one of the lotus engineers that worked on the project who is a close friend of Jon's (Shield), as far as he and his colleagues at Lotus were aware there was never any objection to this as it was putting less stress on the engine than the turbocharged variant that Saab and later Vauxhall adopted, as the SC has not got the inherent temperature spikes that the turbocharged engine produces. Towards the end of last year, clearly Lotus couldn't be too upset as they sent a Lotus engineer to America to develop the factory upgrades for the 2.0 SC engine.

Edited by MAP18W, 29 August 2006 - 03:25 PM.

[Thorney]

Well having spoken to an ex Lotus person the comment he had was that the 2.2 lump was never the preferred SC type, hence the 2.0l being chosen. My main objection to SC'ing (if you can call it that, as I don't object per se) is that if you want a FI VX220 it financially better to simply buy a turbo.

[MAP18W]

Well having spoken to an ex Lotus person the comment he had was that the 2.2 lump was never the preferred SC type, hence the 2.0l being chosen.

My main objection to SC'ing (if you can call it that, as I don't object per se) is that if you want a FI VX220 it financially better to simply buy a turbo.

Someone who is an ex-Lotus employee might well have a different line to someone still working there.

Most manufacturers use a 2.0 FI engine as this is generally, for a variety of markets, more beneficial in terms of car taxation i.e. lease/company car users as usually a 2.0 will fall into a lower bracket.

If you want a FI VX220, someone who already has a cherished 2.2 perhaps with suspension and brake upgrades already, they may not want to sell their car and purchase somebody else's turbo and in terms of being financially better when modifying a 2.2, this train of thought could be applied to both SC and TB conversions (looking at costings). Thank god for both of our sakes it doesn't.

Edited by MAP18W, 29 August 2006 - 03:38 PM.

[Thorney]

lol, fair point on both. IMO the beauty of the NA is exactly that - normally aspirated. No matter how hard we try (and we both try very hard) you'll never be able to replicate that thorttle response with any kind of FI regardless of how small the turbo is or how well designed/low boost the SC is, hence our reason to go with TB's. Thats not to say SC is somehow wrong but IMO it goes against the very idea people want to keep their NA's rather than'upgrade' to turbos. I looked at it financially and the £5/6k needed to SC a NA was about the same as changing from an NA (trade of about 9k say) to a VXT at £14500-15k. Things like brakes and suspension are pretty much swappable between cars (only a spring change on Nitrons) so put it back to stock and the numbers stack up well in favour of a VXT change rather than SC the NA. That leaves the owner with a VXT which they can then mod (should they see fit) to 350bhp or minor tweaks to 250bhp but still keep it sellable or capable of being put back to standard and sold. With an SC NA who knows what its worth but I'd be surprised if it could be stripped and sold for 50% of it cost as you would expect from exhausts, brakes, Nitrons etc and you're pretty much limited to 220bhp or so (unless you want to spend mega bucks going to next stages). Its not a criticism of the system or those who chose to do it but IMO I'd rather pursue the ultimate normally aspirated route than bolt on FI.

[ShinyAndy]

IMO the beauty of the NA is exactly that - normally aspirated. No matter how hard we try (and we both try very hard) you'll never be able to replicate that thorttle response with any kind of FI regardless of how small the turbo is or how well designed/low boost the SC is, hence our reason to go with TB's. Thats not to say SC is somehow wrong but IMO it goes against the very idea people want to keep their NA's rather than'upgrade' to turbos.

Even with the best will in the world you won't get perfect throttle response/low down power on a cam'd, ported and remapped TB'd car. Even a Stage3 NA felt like driving a turbo car such was the lack of low down response when you really needed it. Having now driven PaulCPs car that was pretty close to no lag and almost perfect throttle response. You've admitted that you've not even driven a SC conversion yet, maybe you should try and blag one so you can experience what it's like ?

[MAP18W]

lol, fair point on both.

IMO the beauty of the NA is exactly that - normally aspirated. No matter how hard we try (and we both try very hard) you'll never be able to replicate that thorttle response with any kind of FI regardless of how small the turbo is or how well designed/low boost the SC is, hence our reason to go with TB's. Thats not to say SC is somehow wrong but IMO it goes against the very idea people want to keep their NA's rather than'upgrade' to turbos.

I looked at it financially and the £5/6k needed to SC a NA was about the same as changing from an NA (trade of about 9k say) to a VXT at £14500-15k. Things like brakes and suspension are pretty much swappable between cars (only a spring change on Nitrons) so put it back to stock and the numbers stack up well in favour of a VXT change rather than SC the NA.

That leaves the owner with a VXT which they can then mod (should they see fit) to 350bhp or minor tweaks to 250bhp but still keep it sellable or capable of being put back to standard and sold. With an SC NA who knows what its worth but I'd be surprised if it could be stripped and sold for 50% of it cost as you would expect from exhausts, brakes, Nitrons etc and you're pretty much limited to 220bhp or so (unless you want to spend mega bucks going to next stages).

Its not a criticism of the system or those who chose to do it but IMO I'd rather pursue the ultimate normally aspirated route than bolt on FI.

Financially, it could make sense for someone wanting FI to change an NA for a VXT, although if you have a nice NA you may not want to change it for someone else's possibly abused VXT.

Furthermore, having driven both and being the owner of a VXT, the SC car delivers its power/boost in a far more linear fashion than the turbo charged car, as the boost pressure does not have to be built once the throttle is depressed. The Eaton Supercharger being driven by the engine has boost pressure available at any given rpm not far above tickover.

As regarding residual values modifying any car in any way can always potentially affect the residual values.
With regards to stripping a SC off a VX and selling it separately from the car come resale time, the same could apply to the TB set up. How many sets of TB's do you see advertised in Motorsport news/Ebay etc for sale second hand at quite often knock down prices.

Again thank goodness most owners don't look at this from an investment point of view but from a hobby/driver enjoyment point of view.

[VIX]

I'm not going to join the debate other than to say that, having had a pax around the block in PaulCP's SC at the National, you have to have a go in one John!

Edited by VIX, 29 August 2006 - 05:12 PM.

[SPLAM]

Try one John I think you'll be plesantly surprised at just how linear and easy to balance the throttle it is, OK I'm and haven't ever driven on track so maybe it would be completely different to fast road driving Resale is pointless to talk about, firstly no one mods to make money (apart from tuners ) secondly a SCd VX has never to my knowledge been sold so no one yet knows the hit it will take, and thirdly what would make a TB VX easier or financially more sound to sell? I love my SC and I'm pretty sure others will love the TBs, like I've said before variety for the NA is finally (nearly) here at last.

[minime]

for me the sc offers everything! it has the power from very low down and all the way thru to max revs! where as with the a high powered tb powered car you will have to miss out on anything below 3500rpm!

[SPLAM]

for me the sc offers everything! it has the power from very low down and all the way thru to max revs! where as with the a high powered tb powered car you will have to miss out on anything below 3500rpm!

To be fair minime you don't exactly seem to be much of a lover of any of Thorneys stuff


I think jumping to conclusions that the TB car is going to be a nothing/everything cammy beast is a little bit premature and unfair.

[Mick43]

Paulcp and I are doing the same track event in September, so I hope to blag a 'non-competitive' drive My NA with upgraded suspension, sticky tyres, correct set-up and sorted brakes is as quick/quicker than most VXTs (including modified) as seen at many circuits around the UK This may be [partly] on account that the NA is easier to apply power, as there is not so much of it.. so I'm very interested in linear delivery... I'll keep prodding Paulcp for that drive