Carbon fiber trunk

[ZDaddy]

[quote]SteveZ31 wrote:

i just can't see that spending $500 on a hatch is going to be a big difference.

you could buy a t4 compressor housing, and a t4 stage 5 wheel for about $450.

and have a much more powerful car that will more then make up for the weight.
I have a GT42 im not really worried about that.

Again I bought these because I like the way they look not for weight savings.

What did you do about the glass? I'm very curious. I'd like to have a fiberglass hatch with plexi/acrylic(?) windows one day. Can you post pics?

[SteveZ]

[quote]babydude wrote: [quote=SteveZ31]

i just can't see that spending $500 on a hatch is going to be a big difference.

you could buy a t4 compressor housing, and a t4 stage 5 wheel for about $450.

and have a much more powerful car that will more then make up for the weight.
I have a GT42 im not really worried about that.

Again I bought these because I like the way they look not for weight savings.
What did you do about the glass? I'm very curious. I'd like to have a fiberglass hatch with plexi/acrylic(?) windows one day. Can you post pics?

I just transfered the glass from the stock hatch to the VIS one.

[MrwassmanNA2T]

[quote]GotFast? wrote:

And that is why this thread should have been put in this area in the first place, for "cosmetics" not really for weight savings like he is claiming.
But the difference is, I am doing it for weight savings. The hatch and glass are heavy. Carbon fiber and lexan are not.

Theres not much more I can take out of this car. The only thing left in it is the engine/trans and suspesnsion.

There is no a/c, no heat, no dash, no interior, 11lb fiberglass seats and thats about it.

We all know the old racers saying "ounces add to pounds, pounds add to tens, and tens add to tenths"

Wow talk about a waste of money until you're running 11's...

I'll do better then that.

Hope you peeled all that goo shit out and cut any uneeded metal "reinforcements" out.

[SATAN]

[quote]GotFast? wrote:

And that is why this thread should have been put in this area in the first place, for "cosmetics" not really for weight savings like he is claiming.
But the difference is, I am doing it for weight savings. The hatch and glass are heavy. Carbon fiber and lexan are not.

Theres not much more I can take out of this car. The only thing left in it is the engine/trans and suspesnsion.

There is no a/c, no heat, no dash, no interior, 11lb fiberglass seats and thats about it.

We all know the old racers saying "ounces add to pounds, pounds add to tens, and tens add to tenths"

Wow talk about a waste of money until you're running 11's...

I'll do better then that.

I thought race didnt allways equal drag car as you put it?

What are your goals with the car? Just an all out performance machine? You are going to have a hard time breaking past the 11's with only 450hp. Your car would have to weigh somthing damn near impossible like 2000-2300lbs. That aint happening just with a C/F hood and hatch and interior completely gone. I have two seats a dash and front carpet and center console. NOTHING exept gauges in the dash. I can tell you my car weighs roughly 3050 with a 10pt cage. so unless you can pull another 700+ pounds from somewhere... But that would be pretty much a drag car with poor weight distribution wouldnt it? :wink:

Again what are your plans? you want an auto cross car that runs 10's or somthing??????? Two WAY different ball parks. Or a road car that runs 10's? stage III + .63 a/r = a lot of back pressure= a lot of heat for a 3 liter road car.

[MrwassmanNA2T]

Satan Speaks from wisdom and experience and satonismnesser

[GotFast?]

Actually sir, theoretically it should take 450 horsepower to run 11's in a car that weighs 3500 pounds. Ofcourse we all know theory is bullshit and never actually works. My goal is for the car to weight an even 2900 pounds. Again there is always the nitrous on top of what the car will make on boost alone.

It is easier to add weight to the car to bring it into proper balance, then it is to try and take it out. Besides whats the proper weight distribution for a car? 50/50? 53/47? It all depends on who you talk to. Ofcourse most people will say 50/50. Ofcourse having some extra weight towards the front can have some beneficial effects to.

The car is a weekend street car first and for most. Lets not argue the fact thats its going to be loud and uncomfortable because i cant control the climate. There will be days it will go to the drags races, there will be days that it goes to road america. Will it be the best at either. Nope. Will it be good at both yes.

The choices made with the car are a comprise based on the idea of being able to enjoy this car wherever i take it racing. Hence the smaller sized turbo and nitrous.

We can argue the point of wether its really worth 1000 to save 50 pounds between a hood and a hatch. Or we can argue the point that my turbos to small and I could easily go faster by making it bigger. This post was meant to inquire as to what people thought about VIS, wether anyone has their product already, and what it weighs.

stage III + .63 a/r = a lot of back pressure= a lot of heat for a 3 liter road car

When you talk about Porsche and why they used a larger turbo on there cars with slightly more lag, you might want to take that statement into consideration. And remember also how the 993's were cooled.

[300zxt]

I think what everyone is trying to get at is that the money spent on a carbon fibre trunk should go elsewhere before bothering with things like that. Jason is in the 11's with stock body panels, in my opinion when you're in the same ballpark then u should look at reducing the weight bigtime by getting carbon fibre everything if you so wish.

[GotFast?]

Next to the size of the turbocharger, Jason's and my setups are almost identical. The heads/cams/valve train are identical. I run a ported lower manifold with a sheetmetal upper plenum.

The only other major difference is that I have a direct port nitrous which can add as much or as little power as I please.

Im going to assume that my car is lighter then Jasons.

And im going to quote myself "This post was meant to inquire as to what people thought about VIS, wether anyone has their product already, and what it weighs."

[SATAN]

GotFast? wrote: Actually sir, theoretically it should take 450 horsepower to run 11's in a car that weighs 3500 pounds. Ofcourse we all know theory is bullshit and never actually works. My goal is for the car to weight an even 2900 pounds. Again there is always the nitrous on top of what the car will make on boost alone.

It is easier to add weight to the car to bring it into proper balance, then it is to try and take it out. Besides whats the proper weight distribution for a car? 50/50? 53/47? It all depends on who you talk to. Ofcourse most people will say 50/50. Ofcourse having some extra weight towards the front can have some beneficial effects to.

The car is a weekend street car first and for most. Lets not argue the fact thats its going to be loud and uncomfortable because i cant control the climate. There will be days it will go to the drags races, there will be days that it goes to road america. Will it be the best at either. Nope. Will it be good at both yes.

The choices made with the car are a comprise based on the idea of being able to enjoy this car wherever i take it racing. Hence the smaller sized turbo and nitrous.

We can argue the point of wether its really worth 1000 to save 50 pounds between a hood and a hatch. Or we can argue the point that my turbos to small and I could easily go faster by making it bigger. This post was meant to inquire as to what people thought about VIS, wether anyone has their product already, and what it weighs.

stage III + .63 a/r = a lot of back pressure= a lot of heat for a 3 liter road car

When you talk about Porsche and why they used a larger turbo on there cars with slightly more lag, you might want to take that statement into consideration. And remember also how the 993's were cooled.

Thats exactly what I'm saying. LOTS OF HEAT FOR SMALL TURBOS doesnt matter what kind of cooling system you have. heat is a bad thing when producing power. And you were the one that said you were going to do better than 11's. That leads me to belive 10's??? what would your car have to weigh to achieve say mid 10's with 450whp(taking normal HUMAN driving into consideration)???? what about 2300lbs right??? 100lbs supposedly equals 1/10th second and then room for human driving errors.

P.S. I'm not a dick and I do know some stuff :wink: And all carbon fiber aside I think your car will be badass MOSTLY all around with the setup you are looking to do. You just got me fired up because you seem very arrogant. But hey I geuss we all are at some point especially when we spend so much damn time learning about this shit. Good luck with your C/F. I dont have it so I'll STFU now

[GotFast?]

How fast can a car that weights 2900 pounds that makes 600 whp go.

Thats the beauty of the bottle. If I was being realistic, I would be happy with mid 11's. But I figured if I didnt set my goal just a little bit higher it wouldnt be so much fun. With the bottle, if it was possible to high 10.99 I would be pumped. Again, mid 11's are more realistic, but who likes to be realistic. LOL

Sorry if I came off as sounding arrogant. Bad habit i guess. My life revolves around cars. I fix them during the day (Apprentice Tech at a Chevy dealership, soon to be a Mercedes Benz employee), and then I come home every night to my peice.

Heat is a consideration. Unfortunatly I picked an oil cooled turbo only. So I am running a decent sized oil cooler. Hopefully that will help keep the turbo cool. The intercooler will become the big part of the equation. There Spearco 2-221 that Im using is just to small to do more then a few laps without becoming heat soaked (or so i think).

Ahh we'll find out soon. It's getting repainted after the body work is done, and then we'll be up and running again.

[MrwassmanNA2T]

Everyone hates on water cooled anyway

[2+2turbo]

GotFast? wrote:
When you talk about Porsche and why they used a larger turbo on there cars with slightly more lag, you might want to take that statement into consideration. And remember also how the 993's were cooled.

i dont get it? , 993's are the last of the air cooled , the water cooled totally suck , they are practically the same blocks as the boxster engine , just different bore , you also need about 1.5k in special tools to rebuild one of them because of their design on the block (very complicated and weird). overal i hate them ...

[SATAN]

[quote]2+2turbo wrote:

When you talk about Porsche and why they used a larger turbo on there cars with slightly more lag, you might want to take that statement into consideration. And remember also how the 993's were cooled.

i dont get it? , 993's are the last of the air cooled , the water cooled totally suck , they are practically the same blocks as the boxster engine , just different bore , you also need about 1.5k in special tools to rebuild one of them because of their design on the block (very complicated and weird). overal i hate them ...[/quote:e0512]

He's talking about the fact that because it was air cooled they needed to run a larger turbo that would A. build up less heat due to less back pressure in the exhaust and B. generate less heat while producing boost. Allthough he makes the reference of having only an oil cooled turbo, that doesnt have anything to do with the type of heat damage I am talking about.

[SATAN]

MrwassmanNA2T wrote: Everyone hates on water cooled anyway

shit, not me. I gotta have mine water cooled because there is not supposed to be enough oil flow to do the cooling part of it just the lube part.

.031" restrictor hole. I went larger with a .062" =1/16" hopfully I didnt over do it :!:

[craZed]

SATAN wrote:
.031" restrictor hole. I went larger with a .062" =1/16" hopfully I didnt over do it :!:

I did the same thing. Haven't blown any seals........
yet.