Just bought another engine

Silver Knight · Post by **Silver Knight** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:25 pm

good rare find jake hope everything goes well with the new build:rock:

:sleigh: :motorbike:

Post by **budget_crx** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:43 am

SweetEBPSi;2529 wrote:What are you going to do with the motor?

its going to AMT to lose some weight

Spork · Post by **Spork** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:50 am

budget_crx;2779 wrote:its going to AMT to lose some weight

you should have them delete one cam, that should save weight... and everyone knows SOHC is better. :rolleyes:

Post by **budget_crx** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:52 am

fuck that man, ill just make it a two cylinder. the ultimate weight reduction for an engine is cutting the whole thing in half

Spork · Post by **Spork** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:58 am

budget_crx;2785 wrote:fuck that man, ill just make it a two cylinder. the ultimate weight reduction for an engine is cutting the whole thing in half

dude, cut it the other way... you would eliminate half of the friction in each cylinder! that HAS to be better weight reduction, and you would keep it a 4banger and free up a lot more power with the decreased friction! I RULE!

Post by **budget_crx** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:59 am

Spork;2788 wrote:dude, cut it the other way... you would eliminate half of the friction in each cylinder! that HAS to be better weight reduction, and you would keep it a 4banger and free up a lot more power with the decreased friction! I RULE!

plus, with the low compression due to not having a cylinder head, i could run like 5,000 pounds of boost!!!!!

Spork · Post by **Spork** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:04 am

budget_crx;2790 wrote:plus, with the low compression due to not having a cylinder head, i could run like 5,000 pounds of boost!!!!!

...you know, I don't see a downside to this.

Post by **budget_crx** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:06 am

Spork;2792 wrote:...you know, I don't see a downside to this.

well to get that 5,000 psi i would have to use something like a train turbo, and that would just defeat the whole purpose of the weight reduction

Spork · Post by **Spork** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:07 am

budget_crx;2794 wrote:well to get that 5,000 psi i would have to use something like a train turbo, and that would just defeat the whole purpose of the weight reduction

damn.

but what about those electric superchargers...I hear those are pretty good. and they don't weight a lot! :dunce: :rolleyes: