Re: On a peel

[BRUCE <BRUCE@mannlawfirm.com>]

On a peel?  All I have reported on is what I have seen and felt.  If what I have said is not credible, then discount it; say it is impossible; say I'm lying; say whatever.  Funny thing is, not one person has asked me to describe what I felt.  Irrelevant you say, fine.  But, forgetting numbers for a minute, isn't it at least interesting that someone has added a larger turbo / better IC / better fuel system to an audi, and at least one person [me] who has ridden in it says it has less lag than the RS2?  If, as Scott infers, the low egt's are a result of a turbo that is too big, wouldn't the lag increase, not decrease [over the RS2] ? 
 I am not suggesting that these points answer all questions, but why not have an open mind?  I mean, could Eric be onto something here?  Or, would we hate to admit it?  Testosterone comes to mind.  

On the subject of egt's, this is why the low numbers were relevant to ME.  I have the 89 dual-knock sensor motor, which as you know, carries a slightly higher CR.  High CR's scare the bejesus out of me based on my experience with race engines---especially when you do something which creates a lean condition.  
Now, I think Scott and I can agree that no matter what CR you have, you cannot afford to go lean, at least for very long.  Scott experienced this in one of his 5000's, at the cost of a piston and a engine tear-down, as I recall.  I too have experienced it but not in a turbo car.  On modified engines, it is usually the result of either (1) pushing the envelope too far--even though you know better, or, (2) pushing the envelpe too far--when you think you know better but don't.  Either way, It is costly.   So, the egt's I saw were important to ME because it was, at a minimum,  indicative of a car that was not going lean---even though boost was modified and BMEP had necessarily increased.  Rather than trying to prove someone else wrong, I am merely trying to understand why I saw and felt what I saw and felt.