RS_Matt

Building engines and knowing what kills them are two different things, as you say there are factors inc owner error but also design flaws from OE, I took my car to the most reputable tuner at the time and he couldn't tell me why I had failure on #1 and #3

One thing for sure there must be a number 1 killer.

So far I've deduced #2 and #4 running lean due to design and not being OE/tuner mapped for, tuners (US and UK) have claimed a few reasons without committing to a concrete cause, (furthest cylinders from the fuel pump crops up a bit ), it's something that can be mapped for. Cars that have been mapped for #2 and #4 frailties then must fail on #3 first if everything else is hunky dory?

So if Innovative Tuning allowed for all these factors, and sourced a 2.5 which didn't have "tight OE tolerances," then their 666+ bhp in a 2.5 can't be sniffed at?

BTW, Lightweight crank pulley on a WRX, yay or nay?

scoobyboy1

iTrader: (16)

Brilliant RS Matt Trying to explain/educate a engine builder(with 40 years experience) with internet quotes

Pretty sure McLaren are waiting for your e-mail to tell them how to tune there car for there next race!!!

RS_Matt

I'm kinda getting around to knowing if 666bhp can be reliably had on a 2.5 if you conquer limiting factors.

If it takes an experienced engine builder to guide or correct some knowledge then I won't pass on it.

I'm working with him not against. Hence the lack of insults on my part.

BTW, UK's top tuners have overlooked things on my car and caused issues many many times. That's why I let my wife do 50% of the work, she's thorough through not wanting to miss anything. Some tuners have been rushing and left so may things off or unplugged etc etc etc. Experience can sometimes be a burden and fresh companies can be a great place to get work done.

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

MATT you have reached a new high in making an **** of yourself, which I really didn't think was possible, talk about trying to teach your granny to suck eggs, as posted before, you obviously don't realise that your talking to one of the top engine builders in the country.

You really need to learn to wind your neck in sometimes.

RS_Matt

TBH the abused 2.5 engine never failed at 666bhp. AFAIK power was upped from 666bhp then shortly after they replaced it with a forged unit to handle even greater power for competition use.

It does boggle the mind as to how much power it could have coped with and for how long.

jayallen

iTrader: (31)

Yes but..................

thenewgalaxy

Do you really think Scoobynet's most doltish troll is capable of accepting the contribution of an F1 engine builder when he thinks his WRX is a drag strip monster capable of beating cars with significantly more power?

The Pink Ninja

iTrader: (23)

Is that 666 American ponies with funny fuel by any chance?

...and ATW or ATF figures?

RS_Matt

There's a lot of misconceptions on SN.

I'm happy to reverse them time and time again.

There's still somethings I can't get to the bottom of though, no matter who I ask...

RS_Matt

Instead of ridiculing me, ask them! Isn't anyone else curious?

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=2497782

scoobyboy1

iTrader: (16)

Yes it will probably run 500+bhp on the standard short block for a couple of weeks, but its not a long term thing you would want to do, hence why people forge the engine so there not replacing it every few weeks/months.

Trinity

iTrader: (28)

Come on, this has surely the final reasons needed to rename his account

RS_Matt = RS_Twatt

Blue by You

iTrader: (23)

aRSe_Twatt has been rumbled

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

Matt, the 2.5 might run 700bhp for a few passes but there is a very good reason why the Cosworth 400 runs a fully forged engine for a power level that is well proven on a standard 2.0L UK STI. In fact Cosworth could have saved a fortune by just dropping a 2.0L JDM engine in a hatch and making it 450bhp with twin scroll, which again is a well proven formula,could have even made it 475bhp and still had no worries.

Mated to a cryogenically frozen hawk 5 speed it might have even whooped the 666bhp 2.5L down the strip.

Berks-Jack

iTrader: (10)

I used to think that you were just trying to troll everyone, albeit it quite badly. I'm starting to think that you actually need to go and speak to a phycyatrist.

MOTORS S GT

iTrader: (2)

[QUOTE=RS_Matt;11608930]Building engines and knowing what kills them are two different things, as you say there are factors inc owner error but also design flaws from OE, I took my car to the most reputable tuner at the time and he couldn't tell me why I had failure on #1 and #3



So you think that there is no connection between engine builders & fault finding, you are so wrong on many issues, how do you think we go forward without getting to the bottom of failures, we would still have the steam engine on your narrow outlook, to start with a couple of instances of moving forward by the way of failures on your beloved 2.5, why do think pinning liners & closed deck inserts came about, from failures of headgaskets, forged pistons for your 2.5, if the OE were up to supporting the power asked of them nobody would buy them, & would probably never be a viable option for a piston manufacturer to produce.


I cannot vouch for whoever you took your car to for diagnoses, but I would need to find the cause of any issue before any repair could take place, otherwise you end up going down the same route in the future.



So if Innovative Tuning allowed for all these factors, and sourced a 2.5 which didn't have "tight OE tolerances," then their 666+ bhp in a 2.5 can't be sniffed at?



To run an engine with cranked up boost levels etc for 10 secs is hardly rocket science, & certainly will not suffer your quoted heat issues, as for tight tolerences, it depends on use, & materials, if you have your road car with large piston to bore clearences, I am sure you would be the first to complain it sounds like a machine gun.


I would like to see this 2.5 built engine you quote do an hours race flat out, if it lasted a season like that you would have a credible point, its quite apparent nobody over here runs a 2.5 in an elevated power spec with an OE block & liners for anything other than going down the shops.

Blue by You

iTrader: (23)

Nice try Paul, but I fear you're fighting a losing battle against a self-delusional fool.

Trinity

iTrader: (28)

Anticipating RS_Twatts response to MotorsGT....

Poll: How many internet websites will he quote in his response?

Blue by You

iTrader: (23)

No more quoting external sources. If he can't win the power debate he'll just hit Paul with the killer anti roll bar fuel saver

Matteeboy

Fairly confident my 2.5 will outlast me...

Well I hope so anyway.

Carnut

Is this RS Matt who knew.

Oh, he's not then. It made sense until I read on.

MOTORS S GT

iTrader: (2)

Its ok Steve, I am use to having work experience people with those type of questions.

Carnut

Bollocks, this is priceless.

Trinity

iTrader: (28)

Whats RS_twatts facebook name?

we should all add him.

legacy_gtb

iTrader: (3)

"BTW, UK's top tuners have overlooked things on my car and caused issues many many times. That's why I let my wife do 50% of the work"

Scoobynet just hit an all time new level of "dumbass"!

big daz2

I paid £8k for my mint low miles WRX which I love. I've owned Sti classics type rs cosworths this is the best all round car ive had. Fact no bull****

jayallen

iTrader: (31)

Whilst Matt is still trying to think up his come back maybe he could post up a few pics of Billy(his self named Impreza) and Billy's Win/Loose/Draw public highways race list.........................Yes he really does have one!

thenewgalaxy

Glad you like it!

Trinity

iTrader: (28)

RS_twatt was on here about twenty minutes ago.

He failed to reply to this thread.

Thats a first isn't it!

The Pink Ninja

iTrader: (23)

You dont need me to do that...you`re more than capable of doing that yourself