Oh...would anyone mind if I linked this to M.net? It seems we post enough threads from there here talking about how stupid people on M.net are, so it would seem only fair if it worked both ways.

I am sure they would get a chuckle over it.

you gays need to get over yourselves and just rub your cocks together.

OMG. In the time and effort you guys used having your e-penis battle you could have probably built the motors and proved your theories.

I'm not wrong. I'm not in a hole. BSFC is not LIMITED to .5-.6. It's just a number. .5-.6 may be TYPICAL, but it's not the only range of values. If you read said "source" you'll see it says "general values".

If you reread my post on BSFC, you'll see I said the initial value .5 was ARBITRARY. Do you see that? Do you know what it means? I'll explain. It means it doesn't matter. It's simply a point that I choose for illustrative purposes. It could be more or less, but I picked .5 to ILLUSTRATE THAT YOUR PREVIOUS MATH WAS WRONG. Based on my initial numbers, my formulas are correct. I could have used .5 and .55 or .6 and .55 or whatever the hell I wanted. I was showing you how to use a formula you could not figure out how to use. The end. I was not wrong. Stop saying I was.

It does.

It's not a question of what's easier, it's a question of what's feasible. I consider the Turbo F1 era to be the pinnacle of turbocharged engine technology. Do you think they ran high compression or low compression?

I've ran 28psi on a 7.8:1 compression engine on gasoline. Try running 28psi on an 11:1 compression engine and get back to me.

Speaking of all this fear about engine knock, anyone here have any experience with Evans Coolant? My N/A experience with this stuff would support the idea that this could really help those with this engine configuration.

www.evanscooling.com


(This argument is on the verge of petering, I thought it a good time to offer this possible 'cure' against knock. If the group disagrees, feel free to delete this post and I will start a thread on it instead)

If you look at the MSDS sheet on their web site it is just 99% propylene glycol with a little bit of water and a rust inhibitor. Nothing new.

I don't believe I offered it as something 'new', only as something that would help cure problems with knock...

http://www.evanscooling.com/main21.htm

Apologies for their website in advance, it really sucks navigating.

Shhh...wait for his source to tell him the same thing.

Ah...let me guess, 6-bolt 4G63? Stock turbo? If stock turbo, you could have gotten away with 9:1 and made more power, had more low-end power, and spool faster. But, of course, this hasn't been proven to be true in this thread yet, so it's speculation.

A few people at MSR used it. It eats aluminum heads. So I would not advise using it.

You're being a pompous ass, acting like you knew knew about c/r and the effect on VE. If you look at post #39 on page 2, I was the one that said

So I guess you want to compare cars using 120octane race gas? It's only what they said was required to run in the lower range they provided. It said it good be more, but certainly mentioned the EXTREMES you would have to go to get to even .5, yet you want to try using .4**?

Let's try this again. I did it on spreadsheet so everyone can see everything.

All I changed was the BSFC from .55 to .54, I didn't even change the VE. Using .54 as the BSFC for the HC motor, you give me the CORRECT BSFC for an engine 12% less efficient. I'll plug it in, and we can all compare.

I only changed the VE from .96 to .97. With the .97 being the HC engine, you give me the CORRECT VE for an engine 12% less efficient. I'll plug it in, and we can all compare.

Now for the formula with both changes

Obivously these are just examples since I need you to give me your numbers for the 12% less efficient LC engine. As soon as I get the correct VE and BSFC for the LC engine from your own math, I'll put them in and we can see the difference.

I'm awaiting your numbers.

Thanks.

Do you have any proof for this?


I've used it for more than five years with -no- wear to the head (several 4-cylinder VWs). What's more, a mechanic friend who has used it for the same period of time has converted at least 20 cars/trucks/vans to it, again with no wear to the head and no other adverse affects. In fact, it is one of his favorite mods to do to the VW Vanagon. They had a wet-sleeve design, in that the steel piston sleeve is bathed in coolant, and it seals to the aluminum head by way of an 0-ring. Vanagons have a nasty history of corroding at this point what with the dissimilar metals only slightly separated. With evans, not only has there been no cooling failures, there is no increase in corrosion since there is no longer any water to cause it.

I did know. And I see you did, too. If I remember correctly, you are the one who came up with the 12% rule I am using. Consider that a compliment that I use your numbers.

actually, KISS came up with 12% first.

Not stock turbo.

The point is, that if one wants to try it out, then all one has to do is go buy some propylene glycol antifreeze (pet safe, enviro friendly, whatever) at the auto parts store and use it undiluted. You do not have to buy their stuff which is overpriced at $30+ a gallon.

Um, Ok. What would you like to hear? That all you need is the right tune and high octane fuel? Cuz that's all it takes on hard parts that will handle it.

Evans is the only coolant on the market that is 100% PG; they are also the engineers of using it in a cooling system. To me, that is good insurance. That, and I can't find any source for pure PG anywhere else. :)

It's expensive sure, but if it is pure it will be a lifetime coolant.


Back to the point of my post; I believe this will help inhibit knock. Does no one here use this in their Miata, or will I be the first?

I've thought about this, but then why does their newer NPG-R have a lower viscosity than their older NPG? The NPG has lower viscosity than Sierra (cheaper PG) antifreeze too... IIRC Sierra is meant to be run with water, Evans isn't.