Re: Flow II

[QSHIPQ <QSHIPQ@aol.com>]

In a message dated 97-10-30 14:33:56 EST, you write:

<< 2.  I do not see the RS2 turbo as the solution for me for several reasons.
First, >as documented by VW / Audi Car mag,  and by the trip I took in a stock
one, the >thing has lag that I find intolerable.  You like it?  Good, buy it.
Second, as soon as >you modify an RS2 turbo you no longer have an RS2 turbo.
What you have is a >very costly turbo that may have had its low end problems
solved, but, it ain't the >RS2 anymore.  Finally, our cars suffer from fuel
problems when modified.  Graydon >has found it and his own solution, and
deserves mucho credit for doing it.  Since I >don't have Graydon's talents in
the fuel department, I have looked elsewhere.  When >it is done on my car--I
will report.  
how bout some more numbers to crunch bruce.  If you drove the RS2 in a stage
II box, you drove the wrong one.  Pay attention to your numbers, not the
claims here.  Math and Maps should indicate what should be.  When the claim
ain't even close to a number on ANY map, something is up.  If Eric's "hybrid"
flows better than an RS2 at high rpm, that should tell you something about
numbers.  You want to defend fast, I want to define it.  Right now it doesn't
add up.   So, either the claim is wrong, or the turbo is, period.  And it's
fast.  How bout putting that SAME computer in a rock stock k26 car with a
single pass IC, bet you say fast as well.  A chip doesn't change a turbo map,
just VE, and not by much.  I am frustrated here, cuz I have one guy  that
claims the impossible, and those who ride in it defending the speed.  Wow.
What to do, ignore physics and math, cuz it's fast.  I don't think so, sir.
You need a better comparo.  Take a ride in Carl Jerritts car or Ross Espisitos
car, bet your butt calibration has a correction factor.
 
 >3.  As for the comment about Ross and Eric's ego, that is a shot along the
lines >Mr. Goggins took the other day.  I don't play that game.  Frankly, I
think the list >suffers when we talk shit.  I want results--nothing else.
  >>
As do I.  And 2.79PR on a 2.50PT is talking **it, defined.  So lets talk
claims that are realistic.  You or Randall watch that boost guage the next
time you ride and post up 26psi corrected.  Performance is NOT spoken
fluently, in fact, it's barely spoken at all.  At least Ross was willing to
attempt mod description and feedback.  What I've heard here, is not even that.
I have ego, when it comes to claims that just throw puffstuff on the fire.
Zip up the pants and give RESULTS.  Fast is Ross' claim already, that ain't
enough for this list anymore.  

Mr. Goggin lives in a very interesting town with turbo tweekers close by, too,
btw.  Hmmm.

Scott