Jump to content

Welcome to Autoworld Forum !

Sign In or Register to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Close
Photo

Any Fully Mod NA Proton`s Car That Can Beat TypeR?


  • Please log in to reply

#31
75evo

Posted 23 February 2002 - 01:27 PM

75evo

    Road Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 801 posts
Ilsaw,

Electromagnetic valvetrain or something else?

#32
llsaw

Posted 23 February 2002 - 02:17 PM

llsaw

    Tokyo Drifter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,516 posts
evo75,

Most probably electro-hydraulic. The problem today is addtional valvetrain mass required by such a system and it`s ability to react and respond at 18,000+ revs. I guess we`ll only know when the manufacturers wants us to know..

#33
czero

Posted 23 February 2002 - 04:31 PM

czero

    Road Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 620 posts
most of em don`t use valve springs at all huh ? there is no way an internal combustion engine can work without the valves. Like i said, same concept but different design. Still don`t understand ? They might not use camshafts even but the valves still need to open & close at a point. The ECU timing is what is similar and not the high-cam like u assumed. Like u said we`ll only know when the manufacturers wants us to know. So what makes u think u know so much more as the manufacturers only reveal so much to us. Unless you work for a F-1 company. If like that i rest my case.

#34
75evo

Posted 23 February 2002 - 05:15 PM

75evo

    Road Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 801 posts
Electro-hydraulic? Electromagnets to open the valve and air pressure to shut the valves ? Heard about this. Some companies are thinking of using 48V electrical system (for the engine electronics) to power the electromagnets.


czero,

There also exist rotary cams/valves. Hard to explain words. But the valves don`t look like conventional valves with stems and faces. It`s all integrated into one shaft.

#35
seantang

Posted 23 February 2002 - 10:09 PM

seantang

    Fast & Furious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,064 posts
Bzz bzzzz .... too much static... not getting through. Anyway, I don`t want to argue anymore. You win lah. And we never said we know a lot. All we`re did was make it painfully obvious that you made a lot of comments without getting your facts right.

#36
Glee

Posted 24 February 2002 - 01:02 AM

Glee

    Fast & Furious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,437 posts
enuf of F1 cars.. they have nothing in common with road cars as far as I`m concerned.

c0ckad00 , before you go about and shooting your mouth.. many people in this forum drive protons, and your comments are so broad as to actually make me feel that you are directly insulting me and my friends in this forum as "proton maniacs". Too actually insult someone before getting to know them?? thats a really low-blow buddy. Just because you`ve lived overseas doesn`t make you an expert on the local car scene. Also, since when does a sentra or an altis , or even the new 1.7 ivtec honda think they can outrun a proton?

please think before you post your comments up, as they are seen by everyone.

#37
agz74

Posted 24 February 2002 - 02:47 AM

agz74

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
hi all,
just wondering.... isn`t B18C type R is a fully modified engine?

#38
czero

Posted 24 February 2002 - 02:51 AM

czero

    Road Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 620 posts
Yea, enough with this F-1 thing lar. I actually feel so silly saying those things Cool hahahaha. Anyway, whatever i`ve said was from reading articles over the internet, so maybe i read the wrong pages also. Sorry if i insulted anyone in anyway (you know lar.. young people get angry fast) hahaha Smile
c0ckad00 , i think because a majority of Malaysian drives protons, they tend to drive like mad to prove their car is great. I for one agree with those people for i feel proud to drive a national car (cheh cheh) althouh i`m not too impressed with their quality.
llsaw, i`m not being ignorant about F-1 technology nor do i look down on your knowledge about it. Lets just shake and forget all about it. Get back to find out how can we get our protons to nail those Type-R`s out there.




#39
75evo

Posted 24 February 2002 - 07:33 AM

75evo

    Road Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 801 posts
czero,

I doubt you can ever beat a type-R with a modified 4G93. And I know you already know this 8-). Remember the modified 4G93 on teammatrix`s site has 180 bhp. A stock Type-R B18C5 (USA spec) has 195 bhp stock. Honda has lightweight reciprocating mass technology, they have the motorbike business, which is a high revving engine business, and their experience with F1 too. Maybe they have the means to cheaply mass produce reliable high-revving parts. What I mean is they have a process which is cost effective.

Maybe other automakers don`t have the means to bring down the cost. I mean high-revving high power stuff is not black magic to any car manufacturer. All of them can do it, the question is, which of them can get it done at a good price so that it makes good business sense.

Now if you wanna go custom, then it`s the usual. Lightweight and strong material for the rods, shot-peened, balanced, short skirt, lightweight pistons, coated crowns, at least one Total Seal gapless ring for good compression leakdown prevention, flowed and ported heads but not enough to cause laminar flow, etc etc. Haven`t personally done any of those, but these do seem be the some of the essential ingredients.

Honestly, IMHO, it`s not worth it (unless you have money burning a hole in your pocket), you may as well turbocharge you car, strip it down and have a monstrous torque curve that kick you in the pants at 3000 rpm don`t you think so?

#40
keong

Posted 24 February 2002 - 08:46 AM

keong

    Road Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 941 posts

i don`t think czero like turbo!Big Smile