[s-cars] Worthy projects (was Alum..was UrS $)

[djdawson2 at aol.com]

And along those lines... that's why I'll closely watch the 2.5 projects.  I'm not a fan of the rod ratio, and that's why I haven't built one yet.  I even have ALL the parts to build one.  But I'm going to watch some more Happer R&D before jumping in.  I just hope it doesn't take 2 more years to see the results.
 
Again to your point... Ben Howell's 85 urq with the 2.5 is amazing.  It hasn't worked too well yet... still developing.  But even though it isn't working right, it is stunning.  It is a 2.5 running a very small turbo (46 trim T04E/T3 Garrett) with a fat hot side.  The low end is addictive.  If 2.5 proves reliable, I'll be there with a small turbo in hand... and a 7k rpm rev-limiter.
 
I'll not enter a torque vs. horsepower debate.  The answer is obvious.  However, horsepower always makes the news.
 
Dave
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: QSHIPQ at aol.com
To: Djdawson2 at aol.com; pkrasusky at ups.com; s-car-list at audifans.com
Sent: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [s-cars] Worthy projects (was Alum..was UrS $)


Aha, not a Miss Piggy, a Ginea Piggy!  I'm with you on that thinking Dave, that motor in a quattro 1thousand lighter has great potential.  And one that handles, has race car roots, and doesn't have a swaybar shooting thru the control arm.  I won't give up the torque on mine tho, I'm just shooting for the torque as low as I can get it in the AAN I have for my 84 urq.  I've tweeked several urq's (and S motors) and believe that the faster urq is the one with the most torque.  Audisport already has that feedback from drivers whom I consider gods.
 
SJ






See what's free at AOL.com. 
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.