Re: 5ktq Mods - truth in advertising

[QSHIPQ@aol.com]

In a message dated 97-10-26 22:08:18 EST, Randall as always, eloquently
orates the following 14 proses:

>Typical Scott Justusson crap!  If it does not come from his lips, it
>must be untrue.  I have known Eric since his car was by your own
>admission somewhat faster than yours.<--1//
Let clarify that claim for the record:  I am full of crap...  My calculator
thankfully, is more objective.  For MATH and PHYSICS purposes, I took the
assumption that every thing claimed IS TRUE, Randall, reread the post.
  Never said S.O.c. is "faster", don't know it, doubt it, but don't know it,
so that's putting words in my mouth, furthermore, I DON"T CARE if he is. 
 >I have seen the mods.  Have you
>seen the turbo? <--2//
Doesn't matter Randall.  Physics is physics.  2.79PR on a 134ci motor is
513CFM.  I can look at a bunch of turbo maps and get that at a lower PR (I
assume that to be a good thing, maybe you don't).  Maybe someone else here
can do some more math and explain to me how a 134ci 10v engine can flow
513CFM.  That might prove to be the real question of the day.  The fact you
saw mods is irrelevent to the math or physics portion.
>Do you know what turbo it is?<--3//  Have you seen the IC? <--4//
>Then how do you know what it is?<--5//
Don't need to. Again, Randall, it doesn't matter.  The IC is only efficient
at a progressively lower rate than the one it replaces (assuming single pass
here, it's in the post).  I suggest some book work might be in order. I
"assumed" S.O.c. to have increased the size, you're right, don't know that.
 Reread the exercise Randall, the purpose was to educate one on the effect of
IC efficiency on Air Density and given PR's.  You missed the point, again.
 No big deal, here's the summary for you:   IC EFFICIENCY DOESN'T CHANGE THE
PRESSURE RATIO ONLY THE DENSITY RATIO (remember S.O.c. has already claimed:
 "...  less than .5psi PD" across IC core). Not convinced you understand what
you are talking about here, a 2.79PR at 513CFM claim is irrelevent to the
Density Ratio.  I'm claiming only to be an idiot with a calculator and using
it only with the claims made.   Maybe I should switch to the HP with the
reverse polish notation :)
>  Just because you can post up numbers
>ion equations that I know that I have recently seen does not make what
>you say correct. <--6//
Hunh?  Correct me, after all, you "saw the mods", I didn't.  I have the
calculator ready.  2.79 * 184 = 513CFM.  Assuming one to use available
combustion engine theory, the specifics on the HOW achieved are irrelevent
intil the conclusions are drawn.  Once drawn, one can look around and find
questions on either the "claims" or the "mods".  What I propose (GIVEN: the
Claims are correct, why would anyone lie about them?) is that it's the mods,
specifically, that the wrong turbo is doing the wrong job on the wrong engine
AND that some, if not all the claims, have nothing to do with the "chip".
 That is correct as argued by math and physics vs. claims.  Please correct my
igorance to any theorems I might have missed.  Specific turbo, IC, t-body,
fuel, and chip (no control at 2.79PR anyhow) don't matter.  Only by the
claims given.  All you or your fellow StLouition have to do is show me
numbers. "Do the math" - quoting a lister here, I did.  I don't care what the
mods are, THEY are irrelevent in the formulas used.   Physics and math are
objective to mods, and are an EVALUATION to them.  By the given claims, they
indicate that something isn't right, that's all.  Sorry that makes you
uncomfortable Randall.  Is the car fast?  Your claim, yes.  That's irrelevent
to the math as I presented it.  The math really makes for a much grander
conclusion IMO.  I argue a calibration of your ass might be more relevent to
those here that don't get a free ride, but want to be as impressed. 
> THe formulas are, but your assumptions are way off and
>you have assumed everthing(since you know nothing of the actual mods).<--7//
Correct me, please, I DON"T NEED THEM.  Bottom line is this, 513CFM doesn't
require anything more than an "RS2 wannabe", and at a lower Pressure Ratio,
assuming 513 is what you want.  I don't jump on that assumption either,
however.
>But here you go shooting your mouth off on the list.  Are you a vendor
>Scott? <--8//
 A "vendor" - NO.  Do I and several others sell mods here, including Eric
(claimed - archives)? Sure.  Do I normally charge for what I posted.  You
bet.  Still, it's just numbers, no selling, I don't even care (and don't need
to know) what the mods are.  The claim Randall, is 513 CFM.  I don't claim: I
have it OR need it OR sell it.  Reread the post...  "assuming one WANTS
513CFM...".
 >Do you sell products such as turbos or do you share freely with
>specific info or just vague sales pitch?<--9//
What I gave this list and Mr. S2 on the CLAIM was for free, and available
formulas for anyone that wants to go to the library.  It's BASIC math applied
to engine and turbo theory, that's all.  No one has asked me to correct the
"mods" , I assure you, for that I would charge, and heavily, I have too much
time in this exercise as is.
 > I could tell you who will sell
>the chip, but that is not my place.<--10//
...  Nor at all necessary, Randall.  The claims presented aren't a chip
issue.  The fuel might be, not the PR, can't be, by definition of a 2.5 bar
PT
>  I guarantee that Eric will not sell
>said parts unless it is to go on my car and then it won't be for
>profit.<--11//
Ok, let me get this exactly right:  You are guaranteeing all that FOR him.
 Alrighty-then(?).  n=2 2B
 >So...what is your motive?<--12// 
Truth, calibration, and objective go faster mods (insert salute).  None
exibited here by the claims presented.  So are the claims wrong, or are the
mods?  Assuming the claims right, I can again, with math, give the target
calibration.  Or you can give the calibration and we can evaluate the truth,
claims and the mods.  "Can't beat the laws of Physics" -  Claimed 2 years ago
by the same S.O.c. that posted the "claims" on the very mods you saw,
Randall.
> Oh by the way, do you have a 20v motor and a K29 turbo on you car?
>  Better call Ned and tell himm he's doing it all wrong.  <--13// 
I don't have any "claimed" numbers from him, so I won't call him up and tell
him he's wrong.  Oh, btw, I talked to him for an hour and a half the other
nite too.  Just as relevent interject I suppose.
>Boy the list was awfully quiet there for a while.  What happenned to
> the Audicar.com gig?:-)<--14//
Several on this list know exactly Randall.  You obviously don't.  I'm very
comfortable with that.;-)

Then the S.O.c. writes all the claims, then wits about the S2 badge:
>>Yup.... On the trunk lid of my car as it blast's by 
>>yours.................... <--1a>
The definition I suppose, of the action part "...  The RSR turbo, a Ned
Ritchie turbo, blows the RS2 into the weeds."  

Well, that was fun.  Math is math, so are the physical properties of internal
combustion engines.  The claims are documented: 134ci 10v 5 cyl motor @
26psi=2.79PR=513CFM, 16psi in first, and 1325EGT,  and a given: 2.5 bar PT.
 Several basics to engine theory can extrapolate these to mean "something."
 Attacking me for doing so, doesn't change the physics OR the math, Randall.
 Argue specifics to the errors in my posts, Randall.  

My claim is only ignorance (oh, and full of crap), blissfully at that. 

Scott Justusson, RS2 wannabe
'87 5ktqwRS2
'87 5ktq
'86 5ktqw
'84 Urq