- 1. Surge tanks and motor mounts, why not? (score: 1)
- Author: Doug Chase <dougcha@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 12:14:22 -0800
- I read through the re-wording of the fuel related SP rules in this month's FasTrack and they seem to be written in such a way as to make "surge tanks" (like the RX3 thread after Nationals) illegal. M
- /html/autox/1999-02/msg01076.html (10,168 bytes)
- 2. Re: Surge tanks and motor mounts, why not? (score: 1)
- Author: Mark Sirota <msirota@isc.upenn.edu>
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 15:27:53 -0500
- There is? I don't see the difference. Performance is relative. A car with a surge tank (if it's a car that needs one) goes faster if it has a surge tank than if it doesn't. It's lighter and it gets m
- /html/autox/1999-02/msg01077.html (8,043 bytes)
- 3. Re: Surge tanks and motor mounts, why not? (score: 1)
- Author: Randy Chase <randyc2@home.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:42:01 -0800
- Well... I would think anything that eliminates "losing performance" to therefore becomes something that "enhances performance". There are many examples of this. My inside rear wheel spin is only a pr
- /html/autox/1999-02/msg01078.html (12,103 bytes)
- 4. RE: Surge tanks and motor mounts, why not? (score: 1)
- Author: Doug Chase <dougcha@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 13:18:34 -0800
- Mark Sirota made the exact same point but I'm replying to this message because it also has motor mount stuff in it. Good point about the inside rear wheel spin and LSD. But something causing a car t
- /html/autox/1999-02/msg01083.html (10,783 bytes)
- 5. RE: Surge tanks and motor mounts, why not? (score: 1)
- Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 15:50:53 -0600
- -- Doug: I feel your pain. The turbocharged vehicles out there are grossly discrimintaed against in the rules, bu nothing more than sheer ignorance by the SCCA. Upgrading the compressor release valv
- /html/autox/1999-02/msg01089.html (9,481 bytes)
- 6. Re: Surge tanks and motor mounts, why not? (score: 1)
- Author: Joshua Hadler <jhadler@rmi.net>
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 15:27:56 -0700
- Nope. It's fuel sloshing away from the pickup in the gas tank and starving the engine out in high G turns. This happens on more than just a couple of cars, although CSP mazdas seem to be noticeably p
- /html/autox/1999-02/msg01090.html (11,197 bytes)
- 7. Re: Surge tanks and motor mounts, why not? (score: 1)
- Author: "Bruce Wentzel" <greendot@excelonline.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 21:14:32 -0500
- the tank, was assuming mods allowed in and than just prone to it. management the guys fuel rollover weight was a problem -within- the that solution to a So I don't have a dog in this fight (yet) but
- /html/autox/1999-02/msg01107.html (9,728 bytes)
- 8. Re: Surge tanks and motor mounts, why not? (score: 1)
- Author: Dale Thomas <dthomas@gv.net>
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 19:13:22 -0800
- I hope no one gets mad if I jump in on this one. But if you install a "surge tank" you are adding something to the car, hence you are adding weight. I also thinks it's more of a reliability issue. If
- /html/autox/1999-02/msg01109.html (8,587 bytes)
- 9. Re: Surge tanks and motor mounts, why not? (score: 1)
- Author: "David Hawkins" <otgrouch@twosrus.com>
- Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 14:12:05 -0600
- As the owner of a turbo car and one who has been disgusted by the many anti-turbo rules, I have to disagree with you here. The BOV (or pop off valve), while protecting the compressor wheel and shaft
- /html/autox/1999-02/msg01126.html (9,672 bytes)
- 10. RE: Surge tanks and motor mounts, why not? (score: 1)
- Author: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>
- Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 15:22:03 -0600
- -- You assume that additions to the car (which would be illegal) are present that would spin the turbo up while not under load, without that sort of system, the BOV is a zero HP gain. Without a BOV,
- /html/autox/1999-02/msg01131.html (11,777 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu