Re: Challenging the answers....

[PDQSHIP@aol.com]

In a message dated 95-12-01 07:46:06 EST, you write:

>
>Cams, turbos, etc. You guys are arguing about and comparing Ur-qs and 5KTQs,

>not a fair comparison!
>

Agree with glen on some of this.....  I would expect the urq's to have lower
accel times cuz you have a .8 compression differential, which MIGHT give the
S4 app a better advantage on the 30-70, also the later (5ktq>)cars have a
wastegate freq valve......  Regarding the cams, the urq's come with different
slopes by definition, cuz they are not hydraulic......  However, the lift is
key, and so is the lack of overlap on any turbo cam........  The lobes should
be shaped like ice cream cones, regardless of app.....  I heard a story
yesterday of one of the reputable q shops putting in a hydraulic cam in a
mechanical motor, and the clacking could call ducks at 2 miles......  So
sounds like that is the big no, no, (and lucky it didn't just spit the
shims), and the specs will be different anyhow.....   A mechanical cam will
have a smaller lobe cuz you have a MIN shim height of 1mm between the lobe
and the valve vs a hydraulic that runs right on the valve........  The ramps
on the mechanical have to be gentler to keep the ducks from calling and shims
from spitting.....   Hmmmm   ineresting aint it......   However, I think that
if we get enough posts, the difff between the 5k and the urq's should be
evident......  Anyone have a wet weight on the urq's, I know the pre 200tq's
are at about 3300......   

Glen, we are still talking performance here tho.....  And basically the same
engine displacement and efficiencies......  Isolating the differences is easy
here, cuz it has been documented the diff between the two cars in hardware
and software......   And the urq, by definition should be able to run higher
boost than the 5ktq's, so I think the differences should be minimal......

Scott