167mph

Fiat Coupe Forum
- Founded by Kayjey & James Northam
- Funded by the Club for the benefit of all owners

Fiat Coupe Club UK

Fiat Coupe Forum

» Announced
Posting images

» Related sites
Main club site
fiatcoupe.net

» External data
owners listed

Top Posters(All Time)

barnacle 33,568

stan 32,122

Theresa 23,306

PeteP 21,524

bockers 21,071

pinin_prestatyn 19,937

JimO 17,917

Nigel 17,367

Countrycruising 17,227

Edinburgh 16,855

Print Thread

Page 1 of 2

167mph #203457 02/10/2006 02:27 02/10/2006 02:27
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	just read in redline mag that a coupe turbo reached a top speed of 167mph at the redline 10 of the best!!! a bloke called john dean is he a member on here?

Re: 167mph #203458 02/10/2006 02:29 02/10/2006 02:29
Joined: Dec 2005 Posts: 742 Midlands Easy Enjoying the ride
Easy Enjoying the ride Joined: Dec 2005 Posts: 742 Midlands	That'd be Mavric. Check here. 'Relegated' to second spot recently! Hall of Fame Last edited by Easy; 02/10/2006 02:32.

Re: 167mph #203459 02/10/2006 02:54 02/10/2006 02:54
Joined: Dec 2005 Posts: 17,367 Staffordshire Nigel Forum veteran
Nigel Forum veteran Joined: Dec 2005 Posts: 17,367 Staffordshire	Not bad after just 1 mile from a standing start

Re: 167mph #203460 02/10/2006 15:34 02/10/2006 15:34
Joined: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,390 Essex Trappy Forum is my life
Trappy Forum is my life Joined: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,390 Essex	Quote: Not bad after just 1 mile from a standing start What speed would a standard one make after a mile. I know they do 100mph @ 400 metres and 126mph at 1000m Reckon about 135mph? Just for perspective, Mavric and Johns do nearly 126mph at the 400 metre mark Awesome F**** b**** thing...

Re: 167mph #203461 02/10/2006 16:50 02/10/2006 16:50
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	Barbz was confident he'd have gone over that.....if his engine had not gone pop trying.

Re: 167mph #203462 02/10/2006 18:13 02/10/2006 18:13
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	I was watching at the mile marker when Barbz went past... even when it went pop he was probably still going faster than I could!

Re: 167mph #203463 02/10/2006 23:08 02/10/2006 23:08
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	I think that online log is a bit biased as it should only allow ATW figures really and not ATF guestimates to be honest and Mavrics still puts out a lot more torque as well that will certainly help a fair bit in that respect and Nysaa's is designed for track only use really

Re: 167mph #203464 02/10/2006 23:10 02/10/2006 23:10
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	Watching Mavric's 11.9 1/4 run on Google Vid or something, he seems to have been having a little nap before engaging warp drive when the lights changed - or did the other bloke jump the gun ? Surely that time is not with a dodgy start ?

Re: 167mph #203465 02/10/2006 23:15 02/10/2006 23:15
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	The time only runs from when the car crosses the line on open days - so you can take your time....

Re: 167mph #203466 02/10/2006 23:29 02/10/2006 23:29
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	or tease the opposition lol

Re: 167mph #203467 02/10/2006 23:45 02/10/2006 23:45
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	Quote: The time only runs from when the car crosses the line on open days - so you can take your time.... You say that like I didn't already know that PS I didn't know that

Re: 167mph #203468 03/10/2006 00:05 03/10/2006 00:05
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	Quote: I think that online log is a bit biased as it should only allow ATW figures really and not ATF guestimates to be honest and Mavrics still puts out a lot more torque as well that will certainly help a fair bit in that respect and Nysaa's is designed for track only use really 460 bhp at the wheels not enough for you? Does it really matter than my engine is in a race car - Mavrics 500 was mapped on race fuel which I doubt he ever uses day to day but that still counts? Course I'm down on torque compared to Mavric, his engine is 20% bigger than mine and I'm running wild cams and relatively low boost. Could have easily gone 2.4 to a similar spec but WTF am I going to do with 700bhp and front wheel drive Those of us who push the boundaries are only making things easier for everyone else, and we're paying your development costs. I'm going to push 20vt engines probably farther than anyone else in terms of thrashing all hell out of them, saves anyone else doing the "destruction" testing

Re: 167mph #203469 03/10/2006 02:36 03/10/2006 02:36
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	Quote: WTF am I going to do with 700bhp and front wheel drive Now that i would like to see

Re: 167mph #203470 03/10/2006 07:28 03/10/2006 07:28
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	Quote: Quote: I think that online log is a bit biased as it should only allow ATW figures really and not ATF guestimates to be honest and Mavrics still puts out a lot more torque as well that will certainly help a fair bit in that respect and Nysaa's is designed for track only use really 460 bhp at the wheels not enough for you? Does it really matter than my engine is in a race car - Mavrics 500 was mapped on race fuel which I doubt he ever uses day to day but that still counts? Course I'm down on torque compared to Mavric, his engine is 20% bigger than mine and I'm running wild cams and relatively low boost. Could have easily gone 2.4 to a similar spec but WTF am I going to do with 700bhp and front wheel drive Those of us who push the boundaries are only making things easier for everyone else, and we're paying your development costs. I'm going to push 20vt engines probably farther than anyone else in terms of thrashing all hell out of them, saves anyone else doing the "destruction" testing Stick the engine in teh back of the Kappa and stick a mild one up front Seriously though i dont mean to offend but its just me being pedantic about the figures as you cant compare like for like without the wheel figures as no 2 cars will lose the same amount of power between the flywheel and the rollers Just after consistancy Nyssa, i didnt mean to offend as i know your monster is certainly going nuts on the rollers i know your torque will be lower due to smaller displacement but it makes me think how much more will be there once this 2.5 or 2.6 engine finally hits the road on the race fuel. A cheaper option would maybe be to use ethanol instead and get the timing setup for that and use it and Vpower all the time on the road as IIRC the race fuel is about £2-3 a litre?? Still its good work though for all that power

Re: 167mph #203471 03/10/2006 13:24 03/10/2006 13:24
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	Given that my engine, Mavrics, Johns are all mapped by Mark at Owen Developments, surely any figures produced for them are fairly comparable? Don't want to get too involved in the discussion over the 2.5/2.6 engine (you do mean Matt?) but those of us at the top of the Hall of Fame have our engines up and running and have proven them. Matt's 575 claim is just that, he hasn't run within 140bhp of that yet. And for the record, race fule is illegal on the road unless you live close enough to one of the BP garages that sells 102 octane road fuel. As I've stated before, those other engines mapped on the rollers on race fuel almost never actually run like that again, TOTB runs excepted. My engines only ever run in the form in which they have been mapped, not in "detuned" mode And yes, the 2.4 engines produce more torque which is much better for road use - except when you exceed the capabilities of any road clutch of course - but they are f*****g expensive, way and above over what I paid for my engine (believe me, we did the sums this summer), and I already had the Motec and stuff that adds another £2-3k installed to the cost of a 2.4 We can pull the torque curve up with time, we've got afew things to try over winter but its hard doing too much during the season as there is always another race coming up. Winter plans include advancing the cam timing and bringing the turbo in earlier, we'll map on the track to sort that rather than on the rollers

Re: 167mph #203472 03/10/2006 13:35 03/10/2006 13:35
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	Nyssa,... what did intrigue me about Matts claims, is his use of the supercharger in conjunction with the turbo. I have thought for several years about how to make this work, but time and money ,.. still it sounds as though he has got it to work, by ditching the air con and running it there with a magnetic disengagement above a certain revs. I am hoping that some of Matts claims and offeres hold true, and even more that some of the ideas like the supercharger will be transferable to the road,....or track... Trevor, your engine came from Greece didnt it? regards Joe

Re: 167mph #203473 03/10/2006 14:08 03/10/2006 14:08
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	Doc, I think that must have been Cyprus. Haven't heard of such a beast around here, although a member of the Greek FCC is building a monster. I'd rather speak once I see a RR graph cheers

Re: 167mph #203474 03/10/2006 14:17 03/10/2006 14:17
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	ahh yes Vas, I think your right, he did call it the Cyprus engine. what I need is a load of money and then my engine to blow up ,.. but I doubt it will happen in that order Joe

Re: 167mph #203475 03/10/2006 15:14 03/10/2006 15:14
Joined: Dec 2005 Posts: 3,158 Near Reading JohnS I need some sleep
JohnS I need some sleep Joined: Dec 2005 Posts: 3,158 Near Reading	A supercharger is quite easy to fit where the aircon is because the aircon even uses the same type of belt that is commonly used for supercharging. The reason why it hasn't been done is more to do with ensuring a smooth switchover/switchback between supercharger and turbocharger. Yes the S4 did it years ago, but up until the Golf GT 1.6 there hasn't been a mass-production car that has done it. Also it would be more difficult for a normal ECU coupe as you'd need it piped in via the same MAF sensor adding a even more piping etc. I thought about it when I had a 2.0, and we had a discussion on the old forum a few years ago about how to pipe it up. Trevor is doing some fantastic testing for all of us

Re: 167mph #203476 03/10/2006 23:00 03/10/2006 23:00
Joined: Dec 2005 Posts: 2,033 I WANT F40 S S1MMA Competition Level
S1MMA Competition Level S Joined: Dec 2005 Posts: 2,033 I WANT F40	that golf is a 1.4 IIRC, Supercharged and Turbocharged. Quite an achievement really, I quite like the idea of that engine in a lightweight car, should fly! Sideways a LOT

Re: 167mph #203477 04/10/2006 00:24 04/10/2006 00:24
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	Quote: Trevor is doing some fantastic testing for all of us I don't mean to be Really need an engine to hold together for a while at least - but now I'm more worried than ever about gearboxes. Will be stocking up on 6 speed casings and Alfa gearboxes over winter I'd like to think Matt's engine will turn out as planned, but think that running the twin blowers is going to be way out of reach for any of us. I've spent more than I wanted to (or could afford) but nothing like what I imagine that kind of work would take

Re: 167mph #203478 04/10/2006 01:26 04/10/2006 01:26
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	aww im hoping to hunt down a cheap 6 speeder at some point as well but looks like youll buy all the ones in existance up :'( Wasnt slating your work above by the way just my thoughts on how the stuff should be set out on that page realyl

Re: 167mph #203479 04/10/2006 02:31 04/10/2006 02:31
Joined: Dec 2005 Posts: 3,158 Near Reading JohnS I need some sleep
JohnS I need some sleep Joined: Dec 2005 Posts: 3,158 Near Reading	Trevor, I was mainly thinking about the hydraulic lifters at high rpm unless of course you're running solid lifters - which I doubt you are. Correct me if I'm wrong!

Re: 167mph #203480 04/10/2006 03:43 04/10/2006 03:43
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	I only want a spare casing, so if anyone's actually broken a 6 speed box.....

Re: 167mph #203481 04/10/2006 03:45 04/10/2006 03:45
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	Quote: Trevor, I was mainly thinking about the hydraulic lifters at high rpm unless of course you're running solid lifters - which I doubt you are. Correct me if I'm wrong! I share your concerns! They are still hydraulic - when I was running the Alfa V6 I was offered a solid lifter conversion, guess there's decent demand for them on Alfas. Any idea if anyone does such a conversion for the 20vt, or do I have to start this one off?

Re: 167mph #203482 09/10/2006 16:27 09/10/2006 16:27
Joined: Dec 2005 Posts: 3,158 Near Reading JohnS I need some sleep
JohnS I need some sleep Joined: Dec 2005 Posts: 3,158 Near Reading	I have heard there is a design which exists (someone in Italy) but know little more than that. It probably isn't as simple as just the lifters. We might also need new valve springs to complement them, which adds up to a lot of money.

Re: 167mph #203483 09/10/2006 21:57 09/10/2006 21:57
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	Wouldn't it be better (if possible) to design something without springs? Like Ducati MC engines, where the camshaft not only opens the valves but also close them.

Re: 167mph #203484 09/10/2006 23:09 09/10/2006 23:09
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	Hmm... ducati engines... Love the sound, but don't they have very short service intervals and quite complex inards. The desmodromic (sp) is a great idea though. Surely Guy Croft would have a good idea as to what is possible - and IIRC begbie is raising his rpm limit to 8k. Chris

Re: 167mph #203485 09/10/2006 23:10 09/10/2006 23:10
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	Desmodromic?

Re: 167mph #203486 09/10/2006 23:21 09/10/2006 23:21
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmodromic_valve. Basically the cam has a rocker above and below the cam, so it opens and closes the valve instead of using lifters and springs. Chris

Page 1 of 2

Hop To