# 1024 awhp AEB 1.8t;)



## Pisko (Jan 14, 2006)

with a Precision Gt4202 turbo at aprox 45psi (3.2 bar) on racegas. 
Made 940hp on pump 99oct fuel.. 
enjoy 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mywWchKK2g&feature=youtu.be


----------



## AmIdYfReAk (Nov 8, 2006)

Wow, grats man! 

you've officially ruined my day at work, Now all I'm going to do is watch this over and over.


----------



## 87vr6 (Jan 17, 2002)

*FV-QR*

Wowzers


----------



## Pisko (Jan 14, 2006)

here is the build thread I found on Audizine 
http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php/432909-1024hp-the-wheels-A4-B5-1.8TQ


----------



## velocity196 (Feb 19, 2006)

Holly crap!!


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

in****ingsane


----------



## vwb5t (Jun 23, 2008)

just cant stop watching the video :laugh:


----------



## Big_Tom (Aug 19, 2007)

:thumbup::what:


----------



## MKIII_96 (Nov 25, 2006)

thats awesome! i fuggin hate U2.


----------



## zerb (Mar 18, 2005)

build thread... 

http://www.zatzy.com/projekt/327545-kracing-audi-a4-imsa-5.html


----------



## stevemannn (Apr 17, 2008)

Goddamn! nice work man :thumbup:


----------



## sledge0001 (Oct 7, 2007)

Bad A$$ :beer:


----------



## dubinsincuwereindiapers (Jan 16, 2008)

WOW


----------



## dane. (Nov 16, 2007)

definition of nasty... euros know how to do it best and this is proof


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

awesome power, 9's are moving. How are (4) 900cc injectors enough for you? 

And I am positive the most powerful AEB is Joel Brown but he doesn't really care about the dyno numbers only track times.


----------



## acincys (Jul 10, 2006)

Stupid proxy at work! No youtube..


----------



## screwball (Dec 11, 2001)

Get this thing to Etown so all the big dogs can line up.


----------



## Mike Pauciullo (Jan 8, 2009)

love the car. jacob sent me the link of it a couple weeks ago :thumbup:


----------



## black lavender (Aug 5, 2005)

You know you're fast when you have a parachute on the back


----------



## 20thAEGti1009 (Jan 28, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> awesome power, 9's are moving. How are (4) 900cc injectors enough for you?
> 
> And I am positive the most powerful AEB is Joel Brown but he doesn't really care about the dyno numbers only track times.


 Yeah I don't think 900's are gonna cut it unless it's running like 8 bar base pressure.


----------



## MrSavvy (Mar 21, 2011)

it's almost as fast as my gti. damnnn


----------



## darzamat (Jun 1, 2007)

that is sick :what::screwy:


----------



## 16plus4v (May 4, 2006)

I


----------



## zerb (Mar 18, 2005)

16plus4v said:


> I


----------



## dubinsincuwereindiapers (Jan 16, 2008)

wylde said:


> definition of nasty... euros know how to do it best and this is proof


 Ya.. 

Ive never seen a 1000+ whp B series, or 4g63t... Ever... 

When will those guys get it right, and follow the path carved buy our innovative, "outside the box", forward thinking, community? 

Maybe... Just Maybe... Well see a Honda, or Mitsu run 9's.

One day maybe..

Someone call David Buschur, and Dr Charles Madrid to remind them that THEY are doing it wrong..

1.8t Nevaarr loozes....


----------



## Cryser (Sep 9, 2009)

dubinsincuwereindiapers said:


> Ya..
> 
> Ive never seen a 1000+ whp B series, or 4g63t... Ever...
> 
> ...


 ...sigh don't remind me that even though our engine and ecu is more then 10 years old we still don't have a fueling solution similar in power and price to Hondata or Tactrix =(


----------



## carbide01 (Jul 12, 2003)

1000whp on 900cc injectors?


----------



## Crazy Al 91 (Aug 13, 2008)

:what: wow


----------



## 16plus4v (May 4, 2006)

carbide01 said:


> 1000whp on 900cc injectors?


 Sure, why not ?


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

16plus4v said:


> Sure, why not ?


 plug the numbers in a fuel injector calculator and you will see why.


----------



## 16plus4v (May 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> plug the numbers in a fuel injector calculator and you will see why.


 Ok. 

You always have the ability to raise your fuel pressure. For instance, ID1000's at 3 bar flow 1015cc. Raise to 5 bar and you're at 1300cc.. I don't see why 900's couldn't make 1000whp.. It does seems a little out there but what are we saying.. He's a liar lol ? He's probably maxing out his fuel system but hey, it works lol


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

well im not here to argue because I really don't care but I don't see 900cc injectors supplying enough fuel for 1200chp and neither does a fuel injector calculator. The car makes power it ran 9's but I think that is a happy dyno. 

look at todd, 300 less whp and he goes faster, just sayin. 
Joel Brown, about the same power but goes [email protected] on his AEB. 

Both todd and Joel need bigger injectors than this Audi.


----------



## 16plus4v (May 4, 2006)

lol.. Regardless of people speculating injector size, without any other information about the setup were just blowing smoke. Kind of like how I would speculate a 1.8t making 1015whp at only 30psi right ? Happy dynos are everywhere.


----------



## radics1 (Jul 31, 2008)

45 psi as firts post says.:screwy:


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

16plus4v said:


> lol.. Regardless of people speculating injector size, without any other information about the setup were just blowing smoke. Kind of like how I would speculate a 1.8t making 1015whp at only 30psi right ? Happy dynos are everywhere.


 I understand what your saying, but the same dyno reading [email protected] has in house records saved on winpep of chris millers and just about every other honda from NY that goes 8's to compare to. 

bottom line is your right with out all the info we just don't know.


----------



## Stixsp11 (Apr 21, 2007)

...Can I have that...


----------



## 16plus4v (May 4, 2006)

radics1 said:


> 45 psi as firts post says.:screwy:


 
Really ? Thanks, I didn't see that Cpt. Obvious. You need to do your homework before you post sometimes.. You'll make less a fool out of yourself :beer:.


----------



## radics1 (Jul 31, 2008)

with a Precision Gt4202 turbo at aprox 45psi (3.2 bar) on racegas 

I assume it is 3.2 bar relative to athmospheric pressure. 

Dont know why you talk about 30psi,but you surely have ....


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

30 PSI was a different car we were talking about that also made over 1000whp, nothing to do with the AEB motor posted about in this thread.


----------



## radics1 (Jul 31, 2008)

1.8T?


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

yes but that was an AWP block with an AEB head.


----------



## mescaline (Jul 15, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> awesome power, 9's are moving. How are (4) 900cc injectors enough for you?
> 
> And I am positive the most powerful AEB is Joel Brown but he doesn't really care about the dyno numbers only track times.


 I would be very very careful when using phrase *most powerful*. Some EVO guys have been saying that stuff for a very long time and look what happened: http://forums.evolutionm.net/evo-dyno-tuning-results/447351-highest-hp-4g63-engine-2007-a.html 

You would be surprised how many REALLY big power cars are out there and not coming to vortex. Europe (especially germany) has some sick SICK cars. Look at that thread up there from evolutionm that I posted and read it ALL the way to the end. Trust me you won't be sorry. That company is basically producing their own turbos, billet heads ...even billet engine blocks. It's like Mitsubishi itself offered that guy "come be our main engineer" and he said nah thanks, i don't really need you lol


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

16plus4v said:


> Ok.
> 
> You always have the ability to raise your fuel pressure. For instance, ID1000's at 3 bar flow 1015cc. Raise to 5 bar and you're at 1300cc.. I don't see why 900's couldn't make 1000whp.. It does seems a little out there but what are we saying.. He's a liar lol ? He's probably maxing out his fuel system but hey, it works lol


 It's not even in the ballpark. I ran out of fuel on 870's @ 4 bar base around 720 CRANK. Don't forget he's running 45 psi of boost, so that would be 8 bar total pressure- aka a shiz load, just to get to your stated 5 bar... 

I would use the bosch 210lb or the deka 220lb for that. 

I am pretty sure he changed them when he changed the turbo- if you actually "read" the build, the first turbo was way smaller, and that's when he shows the pics of those injectors.


----------



## Bryoc (Apr 24, 2009)

wow! amazing number, excellent. :thumbup: 1024 mega bites is 1 giga bite, 1024 awhp is Bad ass


----------



## velocity196 (Feb 19, 2006)

Bryoc said:


> wow! amazing number, excellent. :thumbup: 1024 mega bites is 1 giga bite, 1024 awhp is Bad ass


 LOL!!


----------



## ncsumecheng (Nov 1, 2005)

For the folks saying 900cc isn't enough, check out the build thread. 

I think I see port nitrous injection, obviously a wet setup. Therefore, he could be spraying a ton of fuel in with the nitrous wet nozzles. 

Then, 900cc injectors wouldn't seem ludicrous, but rather logical.


----------



## derekb727 (Dec 22, 2007)

mescaline said:


> I would be very very careful when using phrase *most powerful*. Some EVO guys have been saying that stuff for a very long time and look what happened: http://forums.evolutionm.net/evo-dyno-tuning-results/447351-highest-hp-4g63-engine-2007-a.html
> 
> You would be surprised how many REALLY big power cars are out there and not coming to vortex. Europe (especially germany) has some sick SICK cars. Look at that thread up there from evolutionm that I posted and read it ALL the way to the end. Trust me you won't be sorry. That company is basically producing their own turbos, billet heads ...even billet engine blocks. It's like Mitsubishi itself offered that guy "come be our main engineer" and he said nah thanks, i don't really need you lol


 40 pages, take me a month to read that! lol


----------



## mescaline (Jul 15, 2005)

yea but it is one of the best threads EVER...


----------



## carsluTT (Dec 31, 2004)

something awesome this is!


----------



## Rideforlife_33 (Oct 18, 2008)

wow!!!


----------



## xtremvw3 (Jun 10, 2011)

who cares about dyno numbers.. make 2000whp and run 11s whats more impressive... We only made 715whp 2370lbs trapped 164mph some cars here made a hell of alot more dyno power and trapping same or just a bit more. 

So put it on the track and let that do the talking.. cuz those numbers don't lie, dynos.. well, we all know the answer... can be played with.


----------



## 16plus4v (May 4, 2006)

Marc, why do you keep getting banned ? :laugh:


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

because, like all teh useful and knowledgeable guys..he speaks his mind, but seeing as mos tof the people in charge are sheep..they disagree with out first amendment rights, because they are sissy's...most of em..few good and long time,contributing mod's left these days...


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

berilium pistons...titanium,hollow,billet cams...those dudes are fukn INSANE...so crazy...especially how some popular names got shot down on that thread..those dudes are fukn legit.:beer:


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

xtremvw3 said:


> who cares about dyno numbers.. make 2000whp and run 11s whats more impressive... We only made 715whp 2370lbs trapped 164mph some cars here made a hell of alot more dyno power and trapping same or just a bit more.
> 
> So put it on the track and let that do the talking.. cuz those numbers don't lie, dynos.. well, we all know the answer... can be played with.


are you all fixated on 1/4 mile times?

power is one thing
launch and traction is another

on track you obviously need both spot on to get a good time if 1/4 mile is your thing

As for this A4, its power band looks very narrow, and I would fear they fall off boost on gearchanges


----------



## mescaline (Jul 15, 2005)

Vegeta Gti said:


> berilium pistons...titanium,hollow,billet cams...those dudes are fukn INSANE...so crazy...especially how some popular names got shot down on that thread..those dudes are fukn legit.:beer:


Exactly. Top secret underground racing  Real F1 stuff. Imagen we get those guys to have a look at 1.8T


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

apparently he started out with the 16v....and actually does 1.8t stuff and is starting T3 turbo stuff and getting into the TFsi engine..makes me VERY excited...:beer::beer::beer::beer:


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)




----------



## xtremvw3 (Jun 10, 2011)

yeah cuz even if you don't hook, MPH will show some power.. you won't see a 1000whp car even if it spins trapp only 140mph

That powerband is very narrow and yes will fall on its face unless if uses no lift shift.


----------



## talx (Apr 4, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> It's not even in the ballpark. I ran out of fuel on 870's @ 4 bar base around 720 CRANK. .


@ what duty cyle?


----------



## sabbySC (Dec 29, 2009)

Vegeta Gti said:


>


haha, sweet!


----------



## derekb727 (Dec 22, 2007)

what size is the smaller turbo?


----------



## mescaline (Jul 15, 2005)

smaller turbo is also custom made, good for 1300hp. Larger turbo also custom made....apparently badged as "highest hp turbo on the planet".










They made it custom for Linde Bros Methanol project, 53 Corvette.




























hehe smaller wheel is apparently GTX3582


----------



## mescaline (Jul 15, 2005)

Read the thread here: http://forums.evolutionm.net/evo-dyno-tuning-results/447351-highest-hp-4g63-engine-2007-a.html


----------



## kamahao112 (Nov 17, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> I understand what your saying, but the same dyno reading [email protected] has in house records saved on winpep of chris millers and just about every other honda from NY that goes 8's to compare to.
> 
> bottom line is your right with out all the info we just don't know.



lets just say its a stock AEB W/ a ko3 that makes 150 hp and a 1000 ho shot of NAWZZZ :laugh:

or in reality its maybe a 800 hp 1.8t with a 400 shot ... thats believable ...well it is to me anyway...


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

i like my fun street car..but dude the extreme tuners guys are MENTAL...they have 141lb/min turbo's spooling at 5k and rollin hard from 200whp to 1000_whp in 800rpm and pullin to 12k..insanity...


i could careless about trap times and 1/4 and such, same with the extreme tuners guys. they jsut build stuff..i would rather build a dialed timeattack/solo car,etc.

i'll keep my street car. but, we'll see what dude puts down at the track, since this is suppossed to be a dragcar...marc and joel and aaron and hood and ed and such all make much less power, but have alot of hardwork and put in time at the track.:beer::beer::beer: to u guys


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

talx said:


> @ what duty cyle?


100% ... 



PS: Some of that stuff (beryllium pistons, ti cranks, etc) is either lost in translation, or just BS. Those are materials that do not work in those applications, for reasons other then just cost.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

i know..but it's sick someone is bring these alloys and synthetic and mixed compounds to the street car, not professional, not F1 or WRC world.

just awesome seeing someone do crazy crazy stuff lol. i like my stock pistons :]


----------



## mescaline (Jul 15, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> 100% ...
> 
> 
> 
> PS: Some of that stuff (beryllium pistons, ti cranks, etc) is either lost in translation, or just BS. Those are materials that do not work in those applications, for reasons other then just cost.


They have a whole engine block and engine heads custom CNC'ed. Those guys are completely insane....never saw something like that. It's like money is not an issue there...


----------



## talx (Apr 4, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> 100% ...
> 
> 
> 
> PS: Some of that stuff (beryllium pistons, ti cranks, etc) is either lost in translation, or just BS. Those are materials that do not work in those applications, for reasons other then just cost.




are you joking what's wrong with titanium cranks and beryllium valve seats (as I recall)? :sly:

obviously we are talking about composites but then if it's wrong to call them by a single element it is wrong to say aluminum pistons ass well


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

The original post on that build states that it uses "Beryllium" pistons and a "titanium" crank. Beryllium has never been, and almost certainly never will be used as a piston. For one thing, it would be a Be alloy, if it was used... Second, even F1 has never used that, but they have messed around with aluminum which has been alloyed WITH beryllium... Which, is an AlBe alloy, not "Beryllium"... There is only trace amounts in there. This was banned even in F1 due to health risks and cost. So, it could plausibly be an aluminum piston, alloyed with beryllium, but it is certainly not a piston consisting mostly of beryllium. 

Now, as far as the "Titanium" crankshaft is concerned, I again find this highly unlikely. The reason is that while Titanium alloys have a very good strength to weight (or mass) ratio, they are not really all that strong. A good steel alloy can still be 1.5-3x as strong as Titanium, per volume. Crankshafts are an *extremely* space limited component, where you cannot simply make it huge to make it strong. Furthermore, Ti is comparatively springy, having a LOW young's modulus of elasticity compared to steel, and in high speed engines, you need that stiffness to move the resonant frequencies up high enough that they are not encountered on a regular basis in operation. Those reasons, among many others- are why even in budget "unlimited" series, such as F1, alloy steel is still the choice. Granted, this guy clearly has a large budget, doing billet blocks and all, but in this case, it is not a matter of being limited by funding, simply that the "quaint" steel crankshaft is BETTER. Typically however, the F1 boys do employ LOTS of heavy metal slugs, to jack up the counterweight percentage, without putting the inertia through the roof. Something which I see is conspicuously missing from the crankshaft in those photos- and which would be even more required with the very low density of Titanium. 

So, that's why I originally stated, and still hold to the fact that either technical details were lost in translation, or simply perhaps.... drummed up a little bit. I never intended to cut down the guys build, which is clearly sick, and obviously DOES use a set of Ti rods, a billet block, and all sorts of other neat parts. Now, lets cease to pollute this guy's thread with irrelevant banter about an unrelated issue. :laugh::thumbup:


----------



## talx (Apr 4, 2003)

thanks for the crash cores in material engineering but I already passed that course a few years ago :facepalm:

he clearly stated Superalloy and beryllium versions nothing wrong with that what are you looking for? 
an exact percentage of each alloy in the components every time he mentions theme?
there is only 1-3% of beryllium in CB valve seats but it still gets mentioned in their technical name I'm not questioning his reliability but I do know beryllium has been used in pistons and titanium has been used in cranks in what extent it doesn't mater 

most of the people reading these threads don't have the technical knowhow to really understand many of the terms anyways it still sounds cool just like Superalloy sounds cool and there is nothing super dooper about it also mentioning beryllium sound cool even if there is only 1% of it maybe because it's used in the construction of nuclear weapons


----------



## sabbySC (Dec 29, 2009)

talx said:


> most of the people reading these threads don't have the technical knowhow to really understand many of the terms anyways it still sounds cool just like Superalloy sounds cool and there is nothing super dooper about it also mentioning beryllium sound cool even if there is only 1% of it maybe because it's used in the construction of nuclear weapons


You sir, ride a high horse. 

Pete offers insight all the time into many different facets of engine building without ever saying he is smarter than the next guy. You should take a hint from that.


----------



## talx (Apr 4, 2003)

sabbySC said:


> You sir, ride a high horse.
> 
> Pete offers insight all the time into many different facets of engine building without ever saying he is smarter than the next guy. You should take a hint from that.




and who are you and what do you have to do with this conversation?:what:
I think Pete is a big boy he can speak for him self

when did I ever mention myself to be any smarter than the next guy I just disagree with what he wrote down 


and hear is a hint for you go climb someone else's tree


----------



## sabbySC (Dec 29, 2009)

talx said:


> when did I ever mention myself to be any smarter than the next guy I just disagree with what he wrote down


You said it right there in the quote that follows.



talx said:


> most of the people reading these threads don't have the technical knowhow to really understand many of the terms anyways it still sounds cool just like Superalloy sounds cool and there is nothing super dooper about it also mentioning beryllium sound cool even if there is only 1% of it maybe because it's used in the construction of nuclear weapons


 I don't have any issue with anything in this thread, I just don't like when people think they are smarter than others. Let the people reading this forum make up thier own minds.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

i like pooping


----------



## TheBossQ (Aug 15, 2009)

Vegeta Gti said:


> i like pooping


Yeah you do. :beer:


----------



## sabbySC (Dec 29, 2009)

Vegeta Gti said:


> i like pooping


I just wanted to stir the pot, you did one better and sat right on it


----------



## talx (Apr 4, 2003)

sabbySC said:


> You said it right there in the quote that follows.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any issue with anything in this thread, I just don't like when people think they are smarter than others. Let the people reading this forum make up thier own minds.


you are missing the point which is the fact the most of the people aren't engineer's reading these threads so it doesn't really matter if they get into the technical specifics of engineering materials or whatever it has nothing to do with being smarter than anyone just like if someone is not a doctor they wouldn't be expected to understand all the medical terms

ok enough of this e-thuging you guys should stop getting your knickers into a twist over nothing


----------



## dubinsincuwereindiapers (Jan 16, 2008)




----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

tryin to decie what i wanna make my next turd ou tof..it's lunch time... was thinkin gPho or pizza..or hotdog place..hmm


----------



## 16plus4v (May 4, 2006)

talx said:


> you are missing the point which is the fact the most of the people aren't engineer's reading these threads so it doesn't really matter if they get into the technical specifics of engineering materials or whatever it has nothing to do with being smarter than anyone just like if someone is not a doctor they wouldn't be expected to understand all the medical terms
> 
> ok enough of this e-thuging you guys should stop getting your knickers into a twist over nothing


Easy there Mr. Superego. We didn't come in here to discuss one another's education. Because your education is far from one that impresses this crowd. Take your ego and run with the wolves please.


----------



## talx (Apr 4, 2003)

clearly you are not on the intelligent side because I never mentioned anything about any ones education including mine which is none of your business :facepalm: :banghead:


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

talx said:


> thanks for the crash cores in material engineering but I already passed that course a few years ago :facepalm:


this..


----------



## stevemannn (Apr 17, 2008)

Vegeta Gti said:


> i like pooping


i like turtles


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

stevemannn said:


> i like turtles


:beer::beer::beer::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::wave::wave:


----------



## 16plus4v (May 4, 2006)

talx said:


> clearly you are not on the intelligent side because *I never mentioned anything about any ones education including mine* which is none of your business :facepalm: :banghead:














talx said:


> thanks for the crash cores in material engineering but I already passed that course a few years ago


:thumbdown::facepalm: * CLEARLY,* you're a goof.


----------



## Stixsp11 (Apr 21, 2007)

> Furthermore, Ti is comparatively springy, having a LOW young's modulus of elasticity compared to steel, and in high speed engines, you need that stiffness to move the resonant frequencies up high enough that they are not encountered on a regular basis in operation


If titanium isnt ideal for engine internals, why does the bugatti Veyron have titanium rods...


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 24, 2009)

Stixsp11 said:


> If titanium isnt ideal for engine internals, why does the bugatti Veyron have titanium rods...


Why does VW use plastic water pumps? 

get my point.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

There is absolutely nothing wrong w/ titanium connecting rods. If you're planning on running an engine 10+k, its the material of choice. There's just a few downsides to using titanium, but that is easily remedied. The biggest hurdle is machinability and cost. But power/weight ratio-wise, its hard to beat..


----------



## TheBossQ (Aug 15, 2009)

Stixsp11 said:


> If titanium isnt ideal for engine internals, why does the bugatti Veyron have titanium rods...





[email protected] said:


> Why does VW use plastic water pumps?
> 
> get my point.


Titanium rods were most likely ideal for the *application*. Light weight was probably a bigger concern than ultimate strength. 16 cylinders. 1000 bhp. 900 (or so) lb ft of torque(I think this is close to correct). 63hp and 56tq per rod. That's not asking a lot out of a rod. I doubt anyone is going to go through the trouble of putting titanium rods into a 1.8t for 250hp and 225lb ft.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

If you re-read my post, you'll notice that I said it does not work well for *crankshafts*, because it doesn't have high enough tensile strength, and it's too springy. However, in a connecting rod, there is generally room to just add more material- the strength to weight ratio is better then steel despite the lower actual strength... So the final component weight comes out lower... The springyness is also not a bad thing, in a connecting rod. Like an aluminum rod, it can actually damp the peak forces on the crank, which is a good thing usually. 

There is no magical mystery material which is optimum for all applications, at any level of price. Hell, everybody is so nuts over Titanium valve spring retainers, you can often replace them with a heat treated moly steel piece which will last forever- at only a tiny percentage weight gain. 

People just like the way Titanium sounds :laugh:


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 23, 2008)

I actually dont like Ti Retainers at all for daily driven cars. Its no mystery that in the industry, titanium can be somewhat gummy and any repeated raw contact w/o a buffer material is suspect to me. On a daily driver or even a build, I dont even mind the stock retainers at all. But for con rods titanium in specific apps is totally acceptable. Crankshafts wouldnt be too bad either if alloyed and forged correctly.


----------



## Stixsp11 (Apr 21, 2007)

> Since when did the Bugatti Veyron set the bar for automotive performance? lol. It's an exotic car with a large price tag to make rich people feel cooler. I'd classify the "it uses titanium rods" statement in the same category as people saying how good cross-drilled rotors are... they sound cool at first and look cool but don't really do any too special.


It set the bar when it made over 1000hp reliably...reliably. It was desinged by the best german engineers for the performance enthusiast...not for rich people to feel cool...everything on that car serves a purpose....its not for looks or for how cool it sounds


----------



## kamahao112 (Nov 17, 2007)

:wave: im going to have a piece of titanium in my arm soon .. lol... does that count ???:laugh:


----------



## kamahao112 (Nov 17, 2007)

Stixsp11 said:


> It set the bar when it made over 1000hp reliably...reliably. It was desinged by the best german engineers for the performance enthusiast...not for rich people to feel cool...everything on that car serves a purpose....its not for looks or for how cool it sounds


no it wont .. its still a volkswagen .. it will have coil pack problems and plastic water pumps ...lol


----------



## kamahao112 (Nov 17, 2007)

erevlydeux said:


> It takes $1.5 million dollars to make 1000hp reliably? Lolololol. :laugh:


three letters NRE http://www.nelsonracingengines.com/engines/chevy/Twin-Turbo-Daily-Driver-Series.html


----------



## Stixsp11 (Apr 21, 2007)

> It takes $1.5 million dollars to make 1000hp reliably? Lolololol.


No...it takes $1.5 million to take a 4000lb car and make it handle almost 270mph like its nothing....it takes 1.5 million to make it stop from 250mph to a standstill in under 10 seconds using its "cool" rear spoiler creating almost 1.5gs of just deceleration force....it takes 1.5 million to make customs tires at $25K a set that dont rip off at 250+ mph...get my point


----------



## stevemannn (Apr 17, 2008)

wow 25k for a set of tires? pffff pocket change lol


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> There is no magical mystery material which is optimum for all applications, at any level of price. Hell, everybody is so nuts over Titanium valve spring retainers, you can often replace them with a heat treated moly steel piece which will last forever- at only a tiny percentage weight gain.
> 
> People just like the way Titanium sounds :laugh:


Crazy question, why didnt you use moly steel for your retainers being released?


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

erevlydeux said:


> Sounds ****ing retarded. NASCAR Cup engines rev upwards of 9k and have steel conrods... yet the Bugatti peaks at 1k BHP @ 6k rpm... must really need the tensile strength of Ti for those rods that are seeing soooooo much force... you know, with all 80-85ftlb per cylinder. F1 cars use blank rotors and stop from far higher speeds far more often than anyone in a Bugatti will... yet the Bugatti has cross-drilled AND slotted rotors.. There are plenty of examples I can give of instances where other people/companies have done way better for way less/with way less.
> 
> It may be awesomely fast... but it's still a car that has a lot of **** made for show. How could you honestly justify it's design in a "form follows function" way? It's a car built for people who want air conditioning as they go 250mph down a road for at most 11 minutes?  Sounds like it lasts just long enough at it's top speed for the owner to blow their load about how awesome their car is.




They probably just wanted to keep the rotational inertia reasonable, there are lots of rods in that thing... There also may not have been room for very large crankshaft counterweights, who knows. 

Plus the fact that they can say the magic word "titanium" will surely help owners not feel so bad about the stack of cash they just dropped. :laugh:

They are way cheaper when you can do them as forgings and just a hair of machine work, rather then billets or whatever.


----------



## gdm_not_jdm (Apr 15, 2011)

that's a sick a4


----------



## talx (Apr 4, 2003)

the only reason F1 cars don't use titanium for their cranks is because the rules limit them to steel. there rods are titanium and exhausts are made from inconel which has titanium in its composite
actually the biggest problem with using titanium for crankshafts ore any other moving part in the engine that comes in contact is galling, which will cause excessive wear a problem on all the journals of the crank and all other contact points 
this is why the crank would have to go through a variation of surface treatments in order to harden and prevent this, ion implantation, flame spraying of tungsten carbide, plasma spraying, anodizing and nitriding are a few that come to mind you would also want to cover the contact surface with a hard lubricant coating such as graphite or molybdenum disulfide in order to prevent corrosion and to lubricate it
i would also expect to find a higher percent of vanadium ore maybe chromium in order to give it a higher tensile strength but I am no expert in material engineering
no one said it is going to be easy to use titanium but it's not impossible and has been done in the past


----------



## maradits (Aug 3, 2010)

kudos :beer::thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

Here is an interesting read with further explanation and elaboration as to why Titanium is not used as crankshafts: 

http://www.ret-monitor.com/articles/1577/why-not-titanium/

:thumbup:


----------



## dubinsincuwereindiapers (Jan 16, 2008)

^^^that was a good, quick read..


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

holy cow this shiat got out of hand..


----------



## Tybolltt (Sep 13, 2001)

Pete, what is your educational background in engineering?


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

Tybolltt said:


> Pete, what is your educational background in engineering?


BSME - University of Utah :thumbup:


----------



## Stevebilt (Jul 30, 2010)

Not for nothing, that car is pretty impressive. Anyone can talk trash and be a desktop warrior. What it comes down to is progress. I'm guessing that car has been around for ~2yrs and every year they make more power and go faster, and now they have a consistent 9sec car. Think of the numerous people that have been building their cars for YEARS and don't improve worth a damn. These guys have gone faster every year and by the looks of it they will continue to do so. Put down the Haterade for once and appreciate the people in this scene that push the envelope:beer:

Nice work guys:thumbup:


----------



## TeaEightySix (Oct 13, 2004)

very nice!:thumbup:


----------



## Tybolltt (Sep 13, 2001)

Thanks Pete, I appreciate it. So many kids on these boards a lot of times it can be hard to tell who is who, so please don't take my question personally 

Albemet (beryllium) pistons were outlawed in racing due to the Young's Modulus rule. It is costly, hazardous to produce, and gives an unfair advantage. Check out what fastfouriertransportation on speedtalk has to say about it, he has a high level of integrity and is one of the sharpest minds I've read on the net in a long time. I should add that this paragraph contains information he presented. 

There are advantages to using Ti rods, the research was presented on several boards that are more technically inclined, although Vortex is a fun place, it shouldn't be included in that grouping. 

The Evo build discussed in that thread did indeed use the afor mentioned pistons, despite what the first post says. The pistons themselves cost thousands of dollars. The block itself, or something comparable, could be contracted by a number of top shelf firms, anyone/everyone has access to that information, it isn't magic. Think 10s of thousands for a custom block and you might be close. 

What do you say to a client who tells you he wants a Ti crank and you know he is willing to pay for it? Well, you get him the crank. This no doubt has to do with a bit of showmanship, but who cares? It's fun to read, but no one needs to concern themselves with these kinds of builds, especially when there are only a handful of people knocking on the 1k hp mark with a 1.8t. 

Heck, if you want to ruffle some feathers, start a thread on rod stroke ratio; always good for some laughs; some MEs will say there is no advantage, others will say the opposite, everyone will take their positions as personal . The facts were presented regarding a 1.8t years ago by Bob over at QED, he was ignored, which is most unfortunate.


----------



## mescaline (Jul 15, 2005)

1024 awhp is just 1 kiloawhp anyway


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

Tybolltt said:


> Albemet (beryllium) pistons were outlawed in racing due to the Young's Modulus rule. It is costly, hazardous to produce, and gives an unfair advantage. Check out what fastfouriertransportation on speedtalk has to say about it, he has a high level of integrity and is one of the sharpest minds I've read on the net in a long time. I should add that this paragraph contains information he presented.
> 
> Heck, if you want to ruffle some feathers, start a thread on rod stroke ratio; always good for some laughs; some MEs will say there is no advantage, others will say the opposite, everyone will take their positions as personal . The facts were presented regarding a 1.8t years ago by Bob over at QED, he was ignored, which is most unfortunate.


Yep, outlawed - and still I wouldn't really call Albemet "berrylium"- it's a hell of a lot further from the element then most aluminum alloys for example. Especially since it's a powdered metal / pressed type then machined... 

The rod ratio thing is an interesting discussion. I have contacts who have done testing at a range of rod ratios- and not picked up any significant power at the higher ones... Buuuut, on the flip side, the lower rod ratio's tear up the piston skirts if you rev them too much (for whatever that rod ratio is). If you want to see the effects of terrible rod ratio, the USDM E36 M3's are a good place to look... With a ~1.48 rod / stroke ratio, those are about the worst I have seen. The factory piston has a pretty large piston skirt. Compared to those, we are living like kings!


----------

