 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / June 20092010 Taurus SHO
Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish list. Still, I'd like to drive one! Dick > Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 > cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish > list. Still, I'd like to drive one! > > Dick How bout a 2011 Mustang with Ecoboost? Or a GT with the new Coyote motor?  SignatureTropic Green Y2K Mustang GT W/bits & pieces http://tinyurl.com/2uqoat >> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 >> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish >> list. Still, I'd like to drive one! >> >> Dick > How bout a 2011 Mustang with Ecoboost? Or a GT with the new Coyote motor? Hope it is a newer SVO! :) >>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 >>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Hope it is a newer SVO! :) That would be interesting to see, and more fun to compete at auto-cross races. > Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 > cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish > list. Still, I'd like to drive one! > > Dick test drive time. why go with turbos? seems like supercharger would be cheaper, more reliable >> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 >> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > why go with turbos? seems like supercharger would be cheaper, more reliable I agree. A Roots or twin screw blower would have zero lag and generate very good low end torque. Plus they are stone cold reliable and much less expensive to repair, if needed. >>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 >>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > very good low end torque. Plus they are stone cold reliable and much less > expensive to repair, if needed. Simple. "Twin turbo" sounds a lot better in the marketing materials than "blower." Jeez, I gotta explain everything? dwight >>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 >>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Jeez, I gotta explain everything? Heck, I wouldn't even tell them it had a blower. Maybe call it the "Breath Right" option package. Instead of blower related emblems just put a big replica of a Breath Right strip extending across the hood from fender to fender. Or a picture of Monica Lewinski? >>>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 >>>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > a big replica of a Breath Right strip extending across the hood from > fender to fender. When I think of her, I think of cigars. :) > Or a picture of Monica Lewinski? > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> a big replica of a Breath Right strip extending across the hood from >> fender to fender. > >> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 > >> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > very good low end torque. Plus they are stone cold reliable and much > less expensive to repair, if needed. Actually a properly sized turbo set up shouldn't really have any lag... so with twins I would think there really wouldn't be any noticeable lag. I've driven some turbo'd 4.0L V6 Stangs and they are simply amazing... and with no noticeable lag.. >>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 >>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I've driven some turbo'd 4.0L V6 Stangs and they are simply amazing... > and with no noticeable lag.. From what I have seen with turbos, to reduce lag to very low levels there needs to be plenty of exhaust flow. The rub to this, IMO, is this means that you need a larger displacement engine and therefore it can be designed to deliver performance without the need for forced induction. The other way to reduce turbo lag is to use sequential turbos but that just seems too complicated. Turbos do deliver the power though and they take very little power doing it. A twin screw blower, and to a lesser extent Roots blower, will make any size engine feel like it has 2-3 times the torque/hp all the way from idle to redline. The blower and intercooler can be incorporated into the intake setup and are very compact. There is no plumbing necessary for air flow, oiling, cooling for bearings etc. just what is needed for heat dissipation part of the intercooler. Also, a twin screw will typically outlast the engine so they are very reliable. > >>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 > >>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > heat dissipation part of the intercooler. Also, a twin screw will > typically outlast the engine so they are very reliable. I wonder if perhaps it had to do with "packaging"... twin screw basically has to go on top of the motor, while you can get much more creative with the placement of a turbo... Perhaps there simply wasn't room on top? I haven't looked at the new Taurus... but I know some one who will be getting a SHO later this year... i will have to check it out! ;) >> >>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 >> >>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > one who will be getting a SHO later this year... i will have to check > it out! ;) Must weigh a LOT, cannot find the weight anywhere bet this piggy is over 5,000 lbs making that 350 HP twin turbo seem like 150 HP > >> >>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 > >> >>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > making that 350 HP twin turbo seem like 150 HP Motortrend has the 2010 Taurus listed at 3930 pounds: http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2010/ford/taurus/specifications/index.html So I would think it would be well under 5000. Also has a 6 speed which should help? (low first gear?). We just picked up a new Acadia a couple months ago. 288HP in that big thing, (with a 6 speed) and much to my surprise it actually moves a lot better than I would have thought... My question is just how far can you push an Eco Boost? ;) >>>>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 >>>>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > one who will be getting a SHO later this year... i will have to check > it out! ;) I assume that this Taurus, like earlier ones, has a transverse-mounted V6. If so, is the turbo only on the front exhaust bank -- with resulting asymmetric back-pressure? If the turbo is downstream of both banks, then the plumbing must be really bent, eh? Has anybody seen pictures of the underside, to see the exhaust setup? SignatureCheers, Bob > >>>>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 > >>>>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > -- > Cheers, Bob Damn... they had one at Barber during the Mustang 45th event and I didn't think to take a closer look... found this... not sure if it helps... http://image.trucktrend.com/f/15601672/163_news090112_01z+ford_ecoboost_v6+ford- ecoboost-v-6-engine.jpg >>>>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 >>>>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > one who will be getting a SHO later this year... i will have to check > it out! ;) Going by the Mustang kits, I think they could fit them under a hood fairly easily. Twin turbos take a lot of plumbing and add a lot of complexity to manufacturing which in turn adds to cost. The up side of turbos is they take almost no horsepower to make boost where a supercharger does. I am glad that Ford is putting a good effort into the Taurus because it is vital, IMO, that they have a top selling family sedan. >>>>>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 >>>>>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > the Taurus because it is vital, IMO, that they have a top selling > family sedan. A shame it won't be RWD. And it looks like it'll be on the expensive side as well. Ford should've brought this bad boy to the states and converted it to left-hand drive rather than build a new Taurus: http://tinyurl.com/d4r4fg >>>>>>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 >>>>>>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > left-hand drive rather than build a new Taurus: > http://tinyurl.com/d4r4fg I've been arguing for that for the last dozen years. The EPA, USDOT, and UAW all make things difficult to mix the regional product lines. It's not like a car from Austrailia or Europe is going to be unsafe... 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other at worst. Then there is the idiotcy of US corporations regional marketing that demands they don't mix. >>>>>>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 >>>>>>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > left-hand drive rather than build a new Taurus: > http://tinyurl.com/d4r4fg It seems they would do this too from a cost standpoint but then maybe it is not possible to meet the regulations from so many countries with one car. Toyota, Honda etc. does the same with their cars so it seems to be an industry wide phenomenon. At least Ford seems to be moving in the right direction with the Taurus, IMO. just bringing the nameplate back shows that someone in Ford has some marketing sense. Michael Johnson <cds@erols.com> wrote in news:gtqbv7$2b3$1 @news.motzarella.org: >>>>>>>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 >>>>>>>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > car. Toyota, Honda etc. does the same with their cars so it seems to be > an industry wide phenomenon. The thing I don't get is why they think a Taurus platform would sell better than an Americanized Falcon or G6 platform. Do they really think the Taurus platform is superior? > At least Ford seems to be moving in the > right direction with the Taurus, IMO. just bringing the nameplate back > shows that someone in Ford has some marketing sense. True. But I wish that they had some damn RWD vehicles except the SUVs and the Mustang. I'll probably be looking for something new towards the end of the year, and I don't see much at all in the Ford lineup that moves me. > Michael Johnson <cds@erols.com> wrote in news:gtqbv7$2b3$1 > @news.motzarella.org: [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > better than an Americanized Falcon or G6 platform. Do they really think > the Taurus platform is superior? I think back to the last time an auto company tried the transplant route and it didn't work so well. That was with the GTO. While it looked great on paper it never lit a fire over here in the USA. Maybe the Falcon would meet the same fate. The trouble is ford can't afford to get the Taurus wrong again. I think there is a lot riding on this car for Ford. Maybe even the viability of the entire company. I can see why they may not want to put that much faith in an Aussie chassis. >> At least Ford seems to be moving in the >> right direction with the Taurus, IMO. just bringing the nameplate [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > end of the year, and I don't see much at all in the Ford lineup that > moves me. If I were running Ford the next car I would bring out is one with the Thunderbird nameplate. They could make this their somewhat upscale model and give it everything you are wanting. That being a V-8, RWD/AWD, coupe, IRS in back, sleek styling etc. The funny thing is the Thunderbird, before they made it a two seater, had ALL these traits. I consider the killing off of that car another one of Ford's BIG marketing blunders. We had a '94 T-Bird with a V-8 and it was a great car. It got 20+ mpg in the city, 28-30 mpg on the highway and had decent performance even though it weighed in at 4,000 lbs! We had 180k miles on it when the prodigal son totaled it. Then again, the Thunder SC was a capable car for its day too. It had a supercharged V-6, adjustable airbag suspension, adjustable shocks, big brakes etc. Ford just let the Thunderbird die and along with it one of its longest running, iconic models. Letting it go was akin to killing off the Mustang, IMO. >> Michael Johnson <cds@erols.com> wrote in news:gtqbv7$2b3$1 >> @news.motzarella.org: [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > car for Ford. Maybe even the viability of the entire company. I can > see why they may not want to put that much faith in an Aussie chassis. All understood and basically agreed with, but the cutting edge now seems to be RWD (ironic, isn't it). Hyundai Genesis underlines this IMO. Ford is basically playing it safe (maybe too safe) with the new Taurus and the forthcoming Fiesta. Ford's new cars are what Honda already has on the road. Also, I'm not suggesting that transplanting per se is the solution; I'm only saying that there are platforms out there that are much more appealing than the current crop of FWD lemmings. >>> At least Ford seems to be moving in the >>> right direction with the Taurus, IMO. just bringing the nameplate [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the Thunderbird, before they made it a two seater, had ALL these > traits. What about four doors and seating for four or five? That's a BIG factor. > I consider the killing off of that car another one of Ford's > BIG marketing blunders. We had a '94 T-Bird with a V-8 and it was a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > running, iconic models. Letting it go was akin to killing off the > Mustang, IMO. I don't think Ford handled the Thunderbird correctly at all after the SC. Marketing at that time was the absolute pits, and it's a wonder that Ford came through it all as well as they did. >>> Michael Johnson <cds@erols.com> wrote in news:gtqbv7$2b3$1 >>> @news.motzarella.org: [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > only saying that there are platforms out there that are much more > appealing than the current crop of FWD lemmings. I like the overall direction Ford is taking the Taurus. The styling isn't as horrendous as the 500 and they seem to be offering a high performance variant. I don't think Ford has to get the Taurus absolutely perfect for it to sell well. IMO, Ford is actually in a potentially great position being the only domestic left that doesn't have the Obama boot up their a.s and the good mojo of taking no taxpayer bailout money. I think there are a lot of people that want to buy domestics but won't buy GM or Chrysler because one they are in, of soon to be, in bankruptcy and they have pissed away billions of taxpayers money. I know I will not be buyer either of those brands likely for the rest of my life. >>>> At least Ford seems to be moving in the >>>> right direction with the Taurus, IMO. just bringing the nameplate [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > What about four doors and seating for four or five? That's a BIG > factor. I think having a four door variant would work but a coupe is where the car should be, IMO. Give it a good choice of drive trains including a manual transmission option. I think it would be a great niche car that could be expanded on in the future. >> I consider the killing off of that car another one of Ford's >> BIG marketing blunders. We had a '94 T-Bird with a V-8 and it was a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > SC. Marketing at that time was the absolute pits, and it's a wonder > that Ford came through it all as well as they did. Ford does have a long line of marketing blunders since the 1990s. >>>> Michael Johnson <cds@erols.com> wrote in news:gtqbv7$2b3$1 >>>> @news.motzarella.org: [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > isn't as horrendous as the 500 and they seem to be offering a high > performance variant. <yawn> > I don't think Ford has to get the Taurus > absolutely perfect for it to sell well. IMO, Ford is actually in a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > taxpayers money. I know I will not be buyer either of those brands > likely for the rest of my life. Depends on the price. If GM offered me a new Corvette for, say, 22k, I'd probably jump at the chance. ;) >>>>> At least Ford seems to be moving in the >>>>> right direction with the Taurus, IMO. just bringing the nameplate [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > manual transmission option. I think it would be a great niche car > that could be expanded on in the future. I'm not sure that the marketplace would support a car like that from Ford. I think that the higher-end coupe segment is pretty full right now, and I think that the competition might be a bit tough for Ford to produce a car with a good price point. >>> I consider the killing off of that car another one of Ford's >>> BIG marketing blunders. We had a '94 T-Bird with a V-8 and it was a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Ford does have a long line of marketing blunders since the 1990s. Indeed. ;) >>><snip> >>> All understood and basically agreed with, but the cutting edge now [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > <yawn> Therein lies the rub with the Taurus market segment. Make it too sporty and you fail to capture your target market. I think the car is about spot on for styling considering who will be likely to buy it. >> I don't think Ford has to get the Taurus >> absolutely perfect for it to sell well. IMO, Ford is actually in a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Depends on the price. If GM offered me a new Corvette for, say, 22k, > I'd probably jump at the chance. ;) With Obama calling the shots at GM now, what are the odds the Corvette will survive or continue to get the funding and special treatment in has enjoyed in the past? It doesn't meet the "green" agenda he has planned for GM and Chrysler. Obama has cut the balls off the management of any corporation he has gained control over. He has already said Chrysler will be a green automaker. Say goodbye to the Viper, Challenger, 300C, Charger and anything with an SR/T badge on it. >>>>>> At least Ford seems to be moving in the >>>>>> right direction with the Taurus, IMO. just bringing the nameplate [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > now, and I think that the competition might be a bit tough for Ford to > produce a car with a good price point. I think they could hit a home run with a Thunderbird that takes the Mustang strategy of providing a lot of bang-for-the-buck. They can take a page from Hyundai's play book with their Genesis cars. >>>> I consider the killing off of that car another one of Ford's >>>> BIG marketing blunders. We had a '94 T-Bird with a V-8 and it was a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Indeed. ;) Not as bad a line of mistakes as GM and Chrysler though. ;) Michael Johnson <cds@erols.com> wrote in news:gtted3$715$1 @news.motzarella.org: >>>><snip> >>>> All understood and basically agreed with, but the cutting edge now [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > and you fail to capture your target market. I think the car is about > spot on for styling considering who will be likely to buy it. Two questions: a) How is the current Taurus doing? b) What's different about the "new" Taurus (not the SHO, but the "family" car)? >>> I don't think Ford has to get the Taurus >>> absolutely perfect for it to sell well. IMO, Ford is actually in a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > will be a green automaker. Say goodbye to the Viper, Challenger, 300C, > Charger and anything with an SR/T badge on it. All of that remains to be seen. There is a small but certain market for powerful vehicles which, if American makers ignore, will be captured by foreign makers. I don't believe Obama is "calling the shots", either. The government may be involved in general, high-level business planning (i.e., ousting Wagoner), but I don't think it's going to get down to the level of dictating what models to cut and keep. >>>>>>> At least Ford seems to be moving in the >>>>>>> right direction with the Taurus, IMO. just bringing the nameplate [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Mustang strategy of providing a lot of bang-for-the-buck. They can take > a page from Hyundai's play book with their Genesis cars. I'd have to disagree here. I don't think Ford can out-Hyundai Hyundai. >>>>> I consider the killing off of that car another one of Ford's >>>>> BIG marketing blunders. We had a '94 T-Bird with a V-8 and it was a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Not as bad a line of mistakes as GM and Chrysler though. ;) Good point! All in all, I agree with you in that I'd be hard-pressed to buy a GM or Chrysler vehicle. However, I'll be most likely shopping later this year and I'll leave no stone unturned. > Michael Johnson <cds@erols.com> wrote in news:gtted3$715$1 > @news.motzarella.org: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > a) How is the current Taurus doing? I don't know how it is doing. It is a rebadged 500 and was never intended to fill the roll the Taurus was designed to fill, IMO. The 500 is just too milk toast (way more milk toast than the 2003 Taurus my wife drives). Ford just wanted to get the Taurus name back in the showrooms ASAP and the 500 was the only way to do it. The new car has been designed as a true Taurus replacement so it will be interesting to see how well it does. I think Ford has designed a decent car. Now the question is, can they market it? > b) What's different about the "new" Taurus (not the SHO, but the > "family" car)? Styling is MUCH better. Inside and out. That in itself is a good start. The 500 based car made the Camry look like a Ferrari. Plus, if the bones are there to allow for a good SHO then that speaks well for the base Taurus, IMO. >>>> I don't think Ford has to get the Taurus >>>> absolutely perfect for it to sell well. IMO, Ford is actually in a [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > powerful vehicles which, if American makers ignore, will be captured by > foreign makers. Obama has said Chrysler will be a green automaker. With Fiat, UAW and Obama calling the shots the days of torquey V-8s are gone for Chrysler, IMO. > I don't believe Obama is "calling the shots", either. The government > may be involved in general, high-level business planning (i.e., ousting > Wagoner), but I don't think it's going to get down to the level of > dictating what models to cut and keep. Obama forced the resignation of GM's CEO and told Citi's CEO he is out too. He is definitely calling the shots for Chrysler, GM, Citibank, Freddie, Fannie etc. We are in the midst of having whole industries and business sectors nationalized right before our eyes and most Americans could care less. They will once it is too late and jobs are scarce for decades and their taxes are at the level of Sweden's. ;) >>>>>>>> At least Ford seems to be moving in the >>>>>>>> right direction with the Taurus, IMO. just bringing the [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > I'd have to disagree here. I don't think Ford can out-Hyundai Hyundai. .... and they can start with a new value minded Thunderbird. >>>>>> I consider the killing off of that car another one of Ford's >>>>>> BIG marketing blunders. We had a '94 T-Bird with a V-8 and it was [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Chrysler vehicle. However, I'll be most likely shopping later this year > and I'll leave no stone unturned. The biggest reason I won't be buying a GM or Chrysler is I don't think they have a prayer of surviving. Chrysler isn't really "Chrysler" but a subsidiary of Fiat or, in reality, a subsidiary of another POS automaker. GM is next on the butcher block. I have ZERO faith in the UAW in collaboration with the federal government being able to run an automaker and delivering cars anyone wants to drive. Look for Ford to be put in Obama's cross hairs after he castrates Chrysler and GM. He can't have a domestic automaker building cars that the public wants and pushing GM and Chrysler further into the whole. If he controls the Big Three then the tariffs will roll out on the foreign automakers and we will be forced to drive the sh.t boxes mandated by a socialist government. Don't be so naive to think this isn't coming if Obama runs unchecked long enough. ;) > >>>>>>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 > >>>>>>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > right direction with the Taurus, IMO. just bringing the nameplate back > shows that someone in Ford has some marketing sense. You are right... it's all the regulations that make it impossible... A good friend of mine is an engineer at Ford... way back in the late 80's or early 90's he got stuck on a project to work on a world car... he said it was simply impossible due to the wildly varied regulations between the countries... A co-worker from Belgium was here in the States for 3 few years. He bought a VW Jetta while he was hear and then shipped it back to Belgium when he transfered back to Belgium... The officials there made him change the tail lights! Seems they weren't up to their regulations... so that should give you a taste of what you would run into... LOL >> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 >> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > why go with turbos? seems like supercharger would be cheaper, more > reliable Not sure but food for thought. S/C takes hp to make hp. Also maybe it interferes with the new fuel direct injection. >>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 >>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Not sure but food for thought. S/C takes hp to make hp. Also maybe it > interferes with the new fuel direct injection. With a name like "EcoBoost" you gotta figure that has something to do with it. Even the import crowd knows how to squeeze all they can from such puny dimensions. Free boost combined with a reliable passive device such as an intercooler mounted forward should attract plenty of young hotrodders. >>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 >>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > dimensions. Free boost combined with a reliable passive device such as an > intercooler mounted forward should attract plenty of young hotrodders. but the weight, 4000 lbs........ most SC take little HP you can turn them freely with your hand Cant intefere with direct injection, same boost. Turbos have a common axle (intake side, exaust side) which heats up the intake side air, hot rotor, so tuning is fussier over rpm/boost > >>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 > >>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Turbos have a common axle (intake side, exaust side) which heats up the > intake side air, hot rotor, so tuning is fussier over rpm/boost Actually... the number tossed around for the Vortech that I had on my 4.0L was round 40HP to get 10PSI... You have to remember that an SC will spin freely since there is no resistance due to building up air pressure in the intake.... >> >>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 >> >>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > will spin freely since there is no resistance due to building up air > pressure in the intake.... true, this gets back to efficiency of the compressor, I think the KeeneBell takes about 12 HP for 8# (about 75 - 80% efficient) Roots are about 50% efficient forgot what the Vortechs are (60%?), the less efficient add more heat to the air. got some books on it somewhere around here >>>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 >>>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Turbos have a common axle (intake side, exaust side) which heats up the > intake side air, hot rotor, so tuning is fussier over rpm/boost I can't imagine that you can spin them with your hand to make any boost at all. It takes about 50 hp to make 10# of boost with a centrifugal sc. And I don't think that heat soak is as bad as it was back in the 80s. Better bearings and oiling. > Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 > cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish > list. Still, I'd like to drive one! > > Dick If Obama and the Car Czar have their way, the performance car will go the way of the Dodo bird. If you want to increase performance in future cars you'll have to add another battery. "Fred Brown" <fredbrown@nowhere.com> wrote in news:4a32585e$0$213 $bb4e3ad8@newscene.com: >> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6 >> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > will go the way of the Dodo bird. If you want to increase > performance in future cars you'll have to add another battery. One day the performance car will be back with a vengeance - only it'll be electric. Check out the torque curve on an electric motor. It's completely flat. <snip> > One day the performance car will be back with a vengeance - only it'll > be electric. Check out the torque curve on an electric motor. It's > completely flat. They're here already, but expensive. Check out the Tesla site at: http://www.teslamotors.com/ > <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > They're here already, but expensive. Check out the Tesla site at: > http://www.teslamotors.com/ Yeah, been there before. But that's only the tip of the iceberg. Once battery technology gets better you can bet on more electrics becoming available and at lower prices. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.