RE: Chevy speak (long)

["Mark Nelson" <tahoe@msn.com>]

Scott,

> Why do them?  Well, if one has blown
> an expensive
> 911/928S4 motor, a chevy v8 can be a very reasonable alternative.
>  A complete
> motor and harness can be had for under 2000USD (that's engine with ALL
> acessories, and the harness).  If multiple overhead valves are your cup o'
> tea, an all alum LT-5 (400hp from the box) can be had at a price quite
> competitively to a  built 911T motor (price a 993tt replacement motor
> recently?).  "Resale price of a v8 conversion"?   Well, if you
> blew the motor,
> what kinda resale do you have?

Wait a minute there...how familiar are you with Porsches and the parts
market?  The nice thing about the 911 motor is that you can buy crank cases
and cylinders separately from countless sources, and rather reasonably if
you know where to look. What exactly do you mean by "blew the motor"??
There are TONS of 911 crank cases and cylinders out there, so finding parts
reasonably, REALLY isn't a big deal if you know where to look.  It would be
stupid to go to a dealer to buy an engine, when there are gobs of engine
builders out there, that can build an engine for MUCH less than the dealer
gets for one (let alone the fact that there are a significant number of
rebuilt engines for sale).  You're going to find that it's much easier to
change out a cylinder on a 911, if one cracks, then fixing your chevy block
if you punch a hole through the cylinder wall...I've already punched a BIG
hole through the block in my Suburban, so don't even go there =).

> I really question that
> you "lose"
> when comparing the accounting (and what about the guy that will
> keep the car
> forever?).

One minor detail...unlike Audi's, Porsches actually HAVE resale value.  What
a concept! =)

>  A 911 with a proper v8 conversion is
> not a "true
> 911", but it can be close or better in performance.  As your
> quote points out,
> it sure can be worse, but doesn't that apply to most engine
> projects?

One minor detail Scott...a 911 has an Aluminum case and Aluminum
cylinders...your chebby motor has a HEAVY cast iron block.  You already have
a bunch of weight hanging behind the rear wheels, WHY put a bunch more back
there??

>  A read
> of a recent Turbo Magazine with the 11sec ET CRX might help put
> that quote in
> perspective.  That means the "kid in the Honda CRX" passes the
> 993tt by the
> 660ft mark.

Scott...I've seen a 911TT at speed...it will leave ANY CRX at will.  I've
been in countless older 930 Turbos with adjustable boost controls, that will
blow the doors off any CRX.  Realize that you can put an awful lot of boost
to a Porsche Turbo, and once it spools, there are VERY few cars on the road
that will catch it.  I don't care what kind of a CRX it is, and I question
the mentioned ET BTW, it simply will not touch a Turbo.  If you get a chance
Scott, go drive a Turbo...even an older one.  You can't even begin to
compare the awesome acceleration of one of these cars to an Audi, much less
any other car.

> Why do one into a 5ktq?  Well, let's look at some alternatives to
> performance...  A highly tweeked 5ktq 10vt (btdt) can maybe see 350 at the
> very top of the line (insert a single handful of folks that have
> this).  What
> do you need for that?  Minimum:  A high performance IC (1200USD), and a
> computer box (500+USD), and a RS2 turbo or equivalent (2000USD),
> a 3in exhaust
> turbo back (800USD).  That's 4500USD and the head and head gasket  will be
> next (btdt too) to make that power reliable over the next 100k.
> A 20vt motor
> maybe makes the most sense, but finding one for a reasonable
> price (average
> 4-5k) is not quite the e-ticket bang for bux (B4B).  Then, to
> just equal the
> performance of the STOCK LT1/LS1 (hp only, not torque), you will
> need a stage
> III chip (800USD), a 3in exhaust (800USD), and an RS2 turbo
> (2000USD), and the
> RS2 manifold (650USD).  Sound expensive?  Ok, back to the chevy.

I don't care what you do to a 5ktq, since they aren't worth squat, but IMHO,
there are better platforms for putting some serious power to the ground.
Personally If I were to go to another engine manufacturer for a transplant,
I would go to a Porsche 944 Turbo motor...tons of parts available, and cheap
too.  350HP is easy to get out of that motor.  On top of that, you're losing
the weight of that extra cylinder and not having as much weight hanging out
in front...heck just ask Ron Wood about his 16V VW motor in his rally car
=).  I should have been clearer as to the models of particular Q's, that it
might not be a good idea for...that would include the Ur-Q, CQ, '91 200Q,
and the S-cars.  Other than those, I don't see a problem with hacking a 90Q,
5ktq, or 4kq for some kind of a conversion.

> LT-1 conversion with an aftermarket wiring harness will put the motor at
> 325/350 (hp/torque).   No stressing hp mods here (mild chip comes
> with the kit
> Bob is using).  This is baseline HP, not tweeked.   FYI, 3rd gear on a 016
> gearbox gives up the teeth at 400hp.  So, here you sit with a couple grand
> invested, and you haven't even done more than (and can't really:)
> crack the
> Summit Racing catalog of hipo chevy parts (there's T-body mods, TFS heads,
> cams, etc.).  450+ is easily attainable with  bolt on parts, EFI
> harness is
> simple (Bonus alert:  If you get the Corvette LT-1/LT-5/LS-1, the
> computer box
> is IN the engine bay, plug and play feature with 5 wire external
> hookup), and
> the car will start and idle with a flick of the starter.  The engine
> conversion to the 016 trans is a stock available item, flywheel
> rearward is
> all audi.

I'm well aware of the potential of the Chevy small black...especially the
TPI motors, and I think many vehicles would be ideal candidates for that
motor, but there are some cars that it just doesn't make sense for IMHO.
Again, I really don't care about 5ktq's since they're not worth much money,
and there are tons available...but for a 911, which is worth a fair bit of
money, it doesn't make sense, especially considering all the parts available
and potential of the flat-6.  There really isn't much to those motors...heck
I've helped build several, and I'm fascinated by how much power those motors
churn out.

> Looking at the rest of your post, I'm amazed by some of the
> claims.  1)  If a
> rock stock CRX can't touch your CQ, the performance data I have
> on both cars
> are false, you are comparing the HF version, or you have a
> conversion of your
> own in your CQ

As I've mentioned to you in the past, the gearing and traction make up for
any other shortcomings.  This is one of the reasons why I don't consider
ET's to give accurate HP figures...it's what I like to call "the reality
factor".

  2) regarding your thoughts on v8 porsche
> conversions.  Not
> quite with you here either.  The 914 is the best candidate for a 911 6/T
> transplant, not a v8.  Your "it handles terribly" might be better
> applied to
> the 911, since a properly setup 914 can take ALL 911/T/S parts (including
> brakes, suspension and engine) with no modifications to the body
> structure,
> and it's better balanced and has a lower baseline weight and cog.  And a
> properly setup 914 with the 911 conversion will take most tweeked
> porsches at
> the track (bt-seen and drove-t)  A properly setup 951, easily
> takes the rear
> driver 911's.

Scott...that's a myth.  It was originally thought in the early '70's that
the 914 was a much better car than the 911, however it was realized that a
911E, 911T, and 911S handled much better, and was much faster on the track.
The 914 REALLY does not handle that well especially at high speed...as a
result there were many on-track accidents that killed many drivers, most
notably in the 914-6.  Are you aware that Porsche quietly started buying up
a large percentage of the 914-6's in the late 70's from people, and started
destroying them, because of their concern over the car's poor stability and
accident problems?

>
> Modern motors?  Well, I suppose that refers to the pushrod design
> of the LT-1
> vs. the DOHC version of the 928.  I know it doesn't include:
> cheap available
> parts, ease of install, cheap bolt-on upgrades, and flawless
> starting and dead
> solid stock reliability.  Your "tons of bolt on parts" to the 928S4 seems
> unfounded based on my research a year ago.  There are cams
> available.  What
> else?  Prices?

Scott - Andial has all kinds of parts available, Schrick has cams, as well
as three or four other sources, pistons are readily available from Mahle,
stainless valves are available, etc., etc.  Pricing depends on what you buy
and where you look.

> What can a 4 cam 928S motor be bought for complete with
> harness? How much is the custom Bellhousing to engine adapter?

Look around...you can pick up a motor for what you can pick up a 20vt motor
for, or even less.  As far as bellhousings, call Advanced Adapters...they
have adapters available for just about everything, including a few 928
conversions (boat people have used this motor occasionally), or will make
you an adapter...they're rather reasonable too!

> It all boils down
> to Bang 4
> Bux.  A 20vt conversion is a neat and solid upgrade.  But to
> truly make it a
> stormer, it needs help, expensive help.

I agree...my biggest complaint with Audi engines is the cost, and that's
what I b*$%& the most about.

>  That's what makes the LT1/LS1/LT5
> conversions into a plethora of cars, solid performance
> alternatives.  In ALL
> aspects of performance.

I agree with that...again no argument.

> Doing a one off LTQ is something that we
> should all
> encourage, not debate, berate or opin (DBO).

Again, I apologize that I didn't go through and pick out the particular
models that might not be a good idea to convert.  This thread was originally
posted to the 20V List, so that kind of narrowed down the list of cars we
focus on...being the CQ and 90Q20V.

>  Bob and I have already btdt
> (DBO), and from the above post, at least a couple hundred hours
> more than you
> (no offense, just defending a really thick file of research, and a lot of
> measure and micrometer hours, not to mention said LT1 motor
> bolted to the 016
> in THE car).  I have been involved in the conversion Bob is doing
> from concept
> to execution; the pros and cons of the engine options are over a
> year past.
> Happy to clear up the simple claims with the complicated  and
> more thorough
> homework.

Again, fine by me...you guys are the one's putting in the LT1 motor into a
Q, so I would expect you to have more experience in THAT aspect of it.

> Mark, when I see "loony" and "stupider" (sic), I see some strong opinions.
> When I see the rest of the post, I see incomplete reasoning and
> homework to
> back the claims.  Then I go back to the beginning of your post, and feel
> proud, to be both loony and stupider.

Again, let me clarify, the majority of my comments were directed towards
doing the conversion on a Porsche...which I apologize for not clarifying in
the original reply.

cya!
-mark nelson
mailto:tahoe@msn.com
http://www.quattrosport.com