[s-cars] I don't understand

[Richard Tanimura]

Mike,

Thanks for both of those links. I will think about MEP. It is a point of
departure anyway. As regards static CR, I wonder if it is not so much CR
that is critical as the resulting change in the squish area that is the
significant factor when you lower the SCR.

Much to mull over,

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: MLP [mailto:mlped at qwest.net]
Sent: den 10 mars 2004 03:44
To: 'Richard Tanimura'; s-car-list at audifans.com
Subject: RE: [s-cars] I don't understand


Oh oh Rich, this sounds like you may be raising the old "Hap's ahead on
MEPs too" (even if he may not know it) thread.

First there was the kiwi contingent weighing in with
http://www.repco.co.nz/services/news_details.asp?artid=172&off

Followed by a lot of muttering and, as you've suggested a bit of 2-1 + 1
='s 3 deductive, but inconclusive analysis & reasoning.  I've forwarded
what I've been able to salvage of the Jan 13th or thereabouts Hap's MEPs
thread.

Looks like Audi's still following the recipe (using a lower CR for the
higher out put motor) in its 1.8 four cylinder motors
http://www.sae.org/automag/newenginereview/audi.htm

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: s-car-list On Behalf Of Richard Tanimura

In the quest for more boost, I have heard that you want to reduce the
static CR a bit in order to be able to raise the boost. This sounds a
little like first taking away 1 and then adding 2. I am wondering why
you don't just raise the boost by a little less and be done with it.

Enlighten me,

Rich

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 2004-02-20

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 2004-02-20