The American Speed Myth
Discussion
It all started in a discussion about the relative values about Amercian Speed engines VS other builders...here > http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Apparently we got off topic by discussing the relation between real HP and dyno numbers
So, being the ever helpful and obedient netizen that I am, Ive done as requested and started this thread.
BACKGROUND
Just to clear up my personal position on this, I really dont give a monkeys either way. This discussion is mainly about small block chev engines. I dont have a small block, and I live in Hong Kong, where the car will never be compared to another car if and when I sell it anyway.
The only reason I post this is that when I was looking to buy my car, I looked to this forum as source of information. During my search for information I came across the issue of dyno correction figures. I found dyno charts posted in people's build diaries It was only when researching these figures that I found that the Correction Factor used on AS engines Dyno charts was higher than other companies.
So, when I was comparing the prices, I downgraded the AS numbers so that I could make a proper comparison.
Recently there has been some heated debate over whether an AS engine makes a car more valuable than one with an engine from another builder. The logic of this discussion is therefore whether an AS engine is more valuable than an engine from another engine builder.
I think really most of the discussion is based around UK cars, so we’ll assume for the purposes of discussion that we are talking about UK cars. After all in the USA you can get parts on every street corner (so parts are not an issue), and in places like Hong Kong you have to ship everything in anyway…..
To me, this is a myth which seems to be in two parts
THE SERVICING MYTH
The myth that is sometimes propagated on this forum is that an AS engine is easier to service than a non-AS engine because it has factory support. That’s really two issues isn’t it… is it easier to service, and is it because of factory support.
“EASIER TO SERVICE”
To make the comparison, we’d need to compare two identical spec engines. So, if we compare two identical spec engines, then it cant really be easier to service depending on the builder. Unless of course AS uses parts that are not available locally – which I doubt very much, but if this is the case then a locally built engine would indeed be easier to service (but not the same spec)
“BECAUSE OF FACTORY SUPPORT”
Lets look at the logic of this statement… lets start with an engine that blows up completely.
Big problem
The second time, an oil leak from the sump, the work was carried out by Charles Dunn, A/S approved UK repairer, under warranty.
The third time, detonation caused by running out of fuel on track (so I'm told), the work is being carried out by Charles - at my cost, and I've done what I should have done in the beginning, and gone dry sump and a few other A/S recommended changes to make the the engine survive what I throw at it.
That's how it works with me.
PeteNow, obviously if the engine blows up, this is either a problem with the building of the engine (which would be the builder’s fault) or a problem with the servicing routine (which would be the driver’s fault). This has absolutely nothing to do with the factory.
Small problem
Now, what about if its just a small thing…..
Assuming you have built the car yourself, one would expect that you are also servicing the car yourself. So lets say that you are able to find the problem… then obviously you already know which part to buy, so you make some calls to buy the part. If you bought the engine from AS you might call the factory, or you might call Charles Dunn, or you might call another of the many suppliers that stock Chev parts. Worst case is that you have to wait a day for parts. If you bought the car from another engine builder, there is one place you would not call, and that would be the factory. So, logically, you have one less supplier to call, no big deal really is it. Of course if you bought the engine from a UK supplier, you’d just call him, after all he is a specialist and he built the engine.
What about if you cant find the problem, what would you do? If the engine is an AS engine, you could call the factory (who may need to see the car to sort it out – so you’d have to get the car there), or you could post on this forum, or you could take the car to a local garage.
So really, the only time you need specialist advice is when something goes really wrong. The warranty doesn’t cover oil, plugs, tuning etc anyway, so no matter where you buy your engine, the only time you’re going to want to take it back where you bought it is for warranty claims…. Unless of course you live near your builder and its convenient for you to take it to him for servicing also.
So… if one can see the logic that getting your car serviced by the guy that built the engine adds value to the engine, then an engine from a local supplier is more valuable. If you're buying from overseas, there's no advantage in an AS engine vs any other builder.
All of this is how I would make a decision on whether the builder of the engine had any impact on the cost or ease of servicing. Others may have other reasons to make other choices, but to me, when we look at the logic of this and break it down, it is indeed a myth that an AS engine is any easier to maintain or service than a non-AS engine.
Apparently we got off topic by discussing the relation between real HP and dyno numbers
Stig said:
keep it on-topic or start a new thread.
TuxMan said:
Stigs right ,Crafty can you start a new thread on this ,some interesting stuff about CF .
- *******************************************************
So, being the ever helpful and obedient netizen that I am, Ive done as requested and started this thread.
BACKGROUND
Just to clear up my personal position on this, I really dont give a monkeys either way. This discussion is mainly about small block chev engines. I dont have a small block, and I live in Hong Kong, where the car will never be compared to another car if and when I sell it anyway.
The only reason I post this is that when I was looking to buy my car, I looked to this forum as source of information. During my search for information I came across the issue of dyno correction figures. I found dyno charts posted in people's build diaries It was only when researching these figures that I found that the Correction Factor used on AS engines Dyno charts was higher than other companies.
So, when I was comparing the prices, I downgraded the AS numbers so that I could make a proper comparison.
Recently there has been some heated debate over whether an AS engine makes a car more valuable than one with an engine from another builder. The logic of this discussion is therefore whether an AS engine is more valuable than an engine from another engine builder.
I think really most of the discussion is based around UK cars, so we’ll assume for the purposes of discussion that we are talking about UK cars. After all in the USA you can get parts on every street corner (so parts are not an issue), and in places like Hong Kong you have to ship everything in anyway…..
To me, this is a myth which seems to be in two parts
THE SERVICING MYTH
The myth that is sometimes propagated on this forum is that an AS engine is easier to service than a non-AS engine because it has factory support. That’s really two issues isn’t it… is it easier to service, and is it because of factory support.
“EASIER TO SERVICE”
To make the comparison, we’d need to compare two identical spec engines. So, if we compare two identical spec engines, then it cant really be easier to service depending on the builder. Unless of course AS uses parts that are not available locally – which I doubt very much, but if this is the case then a locally built engine would indeed be easier to service (but not the same spec)
“BECAUSE OF FACTORY SUPPORT”
Lets look at the logic of this statement… lets start with an engine that blows up completely.
Big problem
LuckyP said:
eliot said:
Question: If you are in the UK when you buy an AS engine, do you buy it from Ultima or from AS?
The point being;
If you purchase it from Ultima and it dies within the first year - its up to them to fix it. Which IS worthwhile.
If on the otherhand you have to purchase direct from AS yourself (i.e. the contract and therefore the warranty is between you and AS) - then I dont see the benefit. You have to pay for shipping both ways, and even then they could decide its not a warranty repair for whatever reason.
?
You buy from A/S direct, the warranty is with them. After mine decided that 3000 odd miles wasn't the best service interval for it's first oil change, I had to ship it back to US at my cost. It was fixed by A/S, at my cost (didn't follow the run in schedule). The point being;
If you purchase it from Ultima and it dies within the first year - its up to them to fix it. Which IS worthwhile.
If on the otherhand you have to purchase direct from AS yourself (i.e. the contract and therefore the warranty is between you and AS) - then I dont see the benefit. You have to pay for shipping both ways, and even then they could decide its not a warranty repair for whatever reason.
?
The second time, an oil leak from the sump, the work was carried out by Charles Dunn, A/S approved UK repairer, under warranty.
The third time, detonation caused by running out of fuel on track (so I'm told), the work is being carried out by Charles - at my cost, and I've done what I should have done in the beginning, and gone dry sump and a few other A/S recommended changes to make the the engine survive what I throw at it.
That's how it works with me.
Pete
Small problem
Now, what about if its just a small thing…..
Assuming you have built the car yourself, one would expect that you are also servicing the car yourself. So lets say that you are able to find the problem… then obviously you already know which part to buy, so you make some calls to buy the part. If you bought the engine from AS you might call the factory, or you might call Charles Dunn, or you might call another of the many suppliers that stock Chev parts. Worst case is that you have to wait a day for parts. If you bought the car from another engine builder, there is one place you would not call, and that would be the factory. So, logically, you have one less supplier to call, no big deal really is it. Of course if you bought the engine from a UK supplier, you’d just call him, after all he is a specialist and he built the engine.
What about if you cant find the problem, what would you do? If the engine is an AS engine, you could call the factory (who may need to see the car to sort it out – so you’d have to get the car there), or you could post on this forum, or you could take the car to a local garage.
So really, the only time you need specialist advice is when something goes really wrong. The warranty doesn’t cover oil, plugs, tuning etc anyway, so no matter where you buy your engine, the only time you’re going to want to take it back where you bought it is for warranty claims…. Unless of course you live near your builder and its convenient for you to take it to him for servicing also.
So… if one can see the logic that getting your car serviced by the guy that built the engine adds value to the engine, then an engine from a local supplier is more valuable. If you're buying from overseas, there's no advantage in an AS engine vs any other builder.
All of this is how I would make a decision on whether the builder of the engine had any impact on the cost or ease of servicing. Others may have other reasons to make other choices, but to me, when we look at the logic of this and break it down, it is indeed a myth that an AS engine is any easier to maintain or service than a non-AS engine.
Edited by crafty on Saturday 1st March 03:49
THE DYNO MYTH
I think for this matter I will repost from the previous thread.
I think for this matter I will repost from the previous thread.
crafty said:
OK... back to the matter of AS engines...
When I first heard about the correction factor issue a few years back I did some research and found a website with a “correction factor calculator”
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_cf.htm
The SAE standard (the basis used to correct for) is:
Air temp 77 deg F (25 deg C), 29.235 Inches- Hg (990 mb) altitude-corrected barometric pressure, 0 ft ( 0 m) altitude, 0% relative humidity.
Using the calculator here >> http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_cf.htm you need to enter:
Air Temperature in degrees F
Absolute Pressure in inches Hg
Vapor Pressure in inches Hg
I found a copy of an AS dyno chart with peak HP of 640HP. On that chart there is a value for “C.F” – which I am told is the correction factor. Of course if this is not the correction factor, I am wrong about this, but I am told that this is what the “CF” means.
The AS Dyno chart in question says 60 deg F, 29.92 Inches- Hg..... no value for vapor pressure.
The date is December ...so I checked the weather charts and found that the Vapor Pressure varies, but the average for in Moline IL (where AS is located) for Dec is 0.1 (see here http://climate.fizber.com/kansas-city-moline-clima...
Put that value in the calculator and you get 0.958 correction factor.
The values for Air Temperature and Absolute Pressure are measured values so we must assume they are correct, inside a heated factory in winter USA - they are reasonable..... so.....the only unknown is Vapor pressure, and I had used the average for December of 0.10, so I tried some other values:
At 0.01 (1/10th the average for Dec) you get a correction factor of 0.955
At 1.0 (10x the average for Dec) you get a correction factor of 0.994
.... but the dyno chart in question uses a C.F value of 1.143 ?
So with the Max HP shown as 643, the real corrected value should be 643 / 1.143 x 0.958 = 536HP!!!
So.... the engine that should be sold as a "Corrected 536HP" is being sold as a "Corrected 630HP"...... 630/539 = 1.19.... 19% more power!!!!
See… I don’t understand the logic behind this.
If the world record car (720HP AS engine) has a similar factor… then it is really a 603HP engine…… SURELY it would be better to say “an Ultima only needs 600HP to be the fastest accelerating car” rather than “you need 720HP to match the performance of the record beating car”
I am not taking anything away from a car with an AS engine..... I just dont understand the logic behind overselling (if this is indeed the case). At the end of the day the performance of the car is the important factor, not the numbers on the dyno... but it surely makes a difference when comparing to other engine suppliers.
Alternatively of course, the "C.F" number on the chart is not a correction factor and I am entirely wrong.
Can anyone shed any light on this? i.e. is the "CF" on the dyno charts really the correction factor?
When I first heard about the correction factor issue a few years back I did some research and found a website with a “correction factor calculator”
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_cf.htm
The SAE standard (the basis used to correct for) is:
Air temp 77 deg F (25 deg C), 29.235 Inches- Hg (990 mb) altitude-corrected barometric pressure, 0 ft ( 0 m) altitude, 0% relative humidity.
Using the calculator here >> http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_cf.htm you need to enter:
Air Temperature in degrees F
Absolute Pressure in inches Hg
Vapor Pressure in inches Hg
I found a copy of an AS dyno chart with peak HP of 640HP. On that chart there is a value for “C.F” – which I am told is the correction factor. Of course if this is not the correction factor, I am wrong about this, but I am told that this is what the “CF” means.
The AS Dyno chart in question says 60 deg F, 29.92 Inches- Hg..... no value for vapor pressure.
The date is December ...so I checked the weather charts and found that the Vapor Pressure varies, but the average for in Moline IL (where AS is located) for Dec is 0.1 (see here http://climate.fizber.com/kansas-city-moline-clima...
Put that value in the calculator and you get 0.958 correction factor.
The values for Air Temperature and Absolute Pressure are measured values so we must assume they are correct, inside a heated factory in winter USA - they are reasonable..... so.....the only unknown is Vapor pressure, and I had used the average for December of 0.10, so I tried some other values:
At 0.01 (1/10th the average for Dec) you get a correction factor of 0.955
At 1.0 (10x the average for Dec) you get a correction factor of 0.994
.... but the dyno chart in question uses a C.F value of 1.143 ?
So with the Max HP shown as 643, the real corrected value should be 643 / 1.143 x 0.958 = 536HP!!!
So.... the engine that should be sold as a "Corrected 536HP" is being sold as a "Corrected 630HP"...... 630/539 = 1.19.... 19% more power!!!!
See… I don’t understand the logic behind this.
If the world record car (720HP AS engine) has a similar factor… then it is really a 603HP engine…… SURELY it would be better to say “an Ultima only needs 600HP to be the fastest accelerating car” rather than “you need 720HP to match the performance of the record beating car”
I am not taking anything away from a car with an AS engine..... I just dont understand the logic behind overselling (if this is indeed the case). At the end of the day the performance of the car is the important factor, not the numbers on the dyno... but it surely makes a difference when comparing to other engine suppliers.
Alternatively of course, the "C.F" number on the chart is not a correction factor and I am entirely wrong.
Can anyone shed any light on this? i.e. is the "CF" on the dyno charts really the correction factor?
ultimaCZ said:
Crafty, I think you are right.
When I still had the AS engine, I put it on a dyno over here. At that time it had done approx. 2000 miles, fresh oil and plug change. The result on a 450HP engine (dyno sheet showed around 460HP) was approx. 360HP which is even a bit more than 20% less - that fits to your CF calculation... Cant find the old dyno sheet now, but I remember that the CF was also around 15%
When I still had the AS engine, I put it on a dyno over here. At that time it had done approx. 2000 miles, fresh oil and plug change. The result on a 450HP engine (dyno sheet showed around 460HP) was approx. 360HP which is even a bit more than 20% less - that fits to your CF calculation... Cant find the old dyno sheet now, but I remember that the CF was also around 15%
GTRCLIVE said:
Don't forget they "Reverse" Dyno Pull there engines to.... Starting at max RPM and put the brake on.... that's HP your never going to be able to use... unless you have your foot on the brake.... then whats the Point...
Ramthorne said:
I recall sometime ago Pi5ton showed a particular dyno result to be in fairyland by getting the atmospheric records from a nearby airfield for the time on the dyno sheet. Very amusing 
kylemrushall said:
Inspector Crafty......
You are right, the cf used seems to be a little high!!!
When i ordered my repacement SBC i spoke to many companies and indeed i did ask what cf they were using and to be honest AS seems to be the highest without exception.
The engine i bought was quoted at figures from 575-650bhp as an estimate by the builders. When i spoke to the people who i bought from he said i will be very surprised if it makes 600bhp max. AS quote 640bhp on similiar spec to my engine with a lower comp ratio and a lower flow rates on the heads??
I think as you said we as customers should get what we pay for not 20% less!! An industry standard should be used??
I must admit i do not fully understand cf factors, as im sure many others dont
You are right, the cf used seems to be a little high!!!
When i ordered my repacement SBC i spoke to many companies and indeed i did ask what cf they were using and to be honest AS seems to be the highest without exception.
The engine i bought was quoted at figures from 575-650bhp as an estimate by the builders. When i spoke to the people who i bought from he said i will be very surprised if it makes 600bhp max. AS quote 640bhp on similiar spec to my engine with a lower comp ratio and a lower flow rates on the heads??
I think as you said we as customers should get what we pay for not 20% less!! An industry standard should be used??
I must admit i do not fully understand cf factors, as im sure many others dont
TuxMan said:
Its so difficult with power outputs there are so many things that can effect power e.g. fuel type, air inlet temps ,exhaust fitted ect ,is this what the CF figuers are supposed to correct ??? i know in the Can-am that on a cold day the engine feels much crisper and gives alot more power the odd things is i never noticed it when it was running on a carb !!!
crafty said:
The whole idea of a correction factor is to set an industry standard.... the idea is to correct figures back to what would be achieved at Air temp 77 deg F (25 deg C), 29.235 Inches- Hg (990 mb) altitude-corrected barometric pressure, 0 ft ( 0 m) altitude, 0% relative humidity. You'll notice that if you use the calculator (http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_cf.htm) and input:
Temp = 77 deg
Abs Press = 29.235 Inches
Vap Press = 0
.... you get a correction factor of 1.
The reason your car feels more powerful on a cold day is that it is.
There's some good explanations of Correction Factors
Here:
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/cf.htm
and here:
http://www.dynamometer-info.co.uk/index.htm
Temp = 77 deg
Abs Press = 29.235 Inches
Vap Press = 0
.... you get a correction factor of 1.
The reason your car feels more powerful on a cold day is that it is.
There's some good explanations of Correction Factors
Here:
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/cf.htm
and here:
http://www.dynamometer-info.co.uk/index.htm
crafty said:
For example... if you took your car to a dyno (outside) in London today:
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/03772....
Temp: 45F
Bar Press: 30.01 in
Vap Press: ... say 0.121 (this makes little difference)
CF = 0.936
So.. you'd need to multiply the figures by 0.936 to get the same HP as you would at 77F and 29.235 ... which is the SAE standard.. based on readings taken in Detroit.
In other words, your car is producing 0.064% more power than it would at 77F and 29.235.
As you can see, the correction is very small. Really, the correction factor is something that should only be used for race teams looking for that very last bit.
If you play around with the calculator, you can see that you have to assume some silly things to need a CF of 14%.
The whole idea of standards such as this is to level the playing field...The EURO4 road test for emissions uses a similar method for correction. Years ago they used to drive the vehicle around a road in California and collect the particulates for measurement and analysis. When this became impractical to replicate, they measured the load readings on a lap around the road circuit and they now use those figures on a rolling road to check emissions.
The car is "driven" on the rolling road, the load is increased and decreased and that replicates the loads that would be encountered going up and down the hills on the test route.
That way each car tested in this manner has been tested on the same load conditions.
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/03772....
Temp: 45F
Bar Press: 30.01 in
Vap Press: ... say 0.121 (this makes little difference)
CF = 0.936
So.. you'd need to multiply the figures by 0.936 to get the same HP as you would at 77F and 29.235 ... which is the SAE standard.. based on readings taken in Detroit.
In other words, your car is producing 0.064% more power than it would at 77F and 29.235.
As you can see, the correction is very small. Really, the correction factor is something that should only be used for race teams looking for that very last bit.
If you play around with the calculator, you can see that you have to assume some silly things to need a CF of 14%.
The whole idea of standards such as this is to level the playing field...The EURO4 road test for emissions uses a similar method for correction. Years ago they used to drive the vehicle around a road in California and collect the particulates for measurement and analysis. When this became impractical to replicate, they measured the load readings on a lap around the road circuit and they now use those figures on a rolling road to check emissions.
The car is "driven" on the rolling road, the load is increased and decreased and that replicates the loads that would be encountered going up and down the hills on the test route.
That way each car tested in this manner has been tested on the same load conditions.
So... the Dyno Myth is really to do with comparing dyno numbers vs price, and how this is not the best method for making a decision on an engine.
The REAL way to make a decision is on spec vs price.
If you compare two equally specc'd engines, then you can actually compare prices. The power output for two equally specc'd engines should be very similar.
What this boils down to is that it is a myth that an AS engine is easier to service, and it is a myth that one should purchase based on dyno numbers.
The whole purchasing decision, if you think about it logically, should be based on specification and reputation of the builder. How you derive at the decision on both of these can involve an element of personal preference... however these preferences should be based on fact.
The facts in this case are that equally specc'd engines are equally easy to maintain, and that if you want to compare dyno numbers, make sure you look at the correction factors and make the appropriate adjustment.
The REAL way to make a decision is on spec vs price.
If you compare two equally specc'd engines, then you can actually compare prices. The power output for two equally specc'd engines should be very similar.
What this boils down to is that it is a myth that an AS engine is easier to service, and it is a myth that one should purchase based on dyno numbers.
The whole purchasing decision, if you think about it logically, should be based on specification and reputation of the builder. How you derive at the decision on both of these can involve an element of personal preference... however these preferences should be based on fact.
The facts in this case are that equally specc'd engines are equally easy to maintain, and that if you want to compare dyno numbers, make sure you look at the correction factors and make the appropriate adjustment.
Edited by crafty on Saturday 1st March 04:08
LuckyP said:
Good luck with this thread.
It seemed a few people were interested and chipped in on the other thread, judging by a handful of emails Ive received there's a few more that didn't want to post, but welcomed the info. As I said, when I was looking for an engine I had to unravel a whole load of info.... just trying to share my experience and research that's all, people can do with it as they please...... there's no goal or agenda (other than sharing info) so it doesnt need any luck.
Edited by crafty on Saturday 1st March 12:56
SlackBlevens said:
If I understand this CF thing correctly then, it's a bit like buying a 2Ghz computer, only to get home and find out it's really only a 1.5Ghz ...
It would depend on whether the guy selling the computer knew it was a 1.5Ghz computer. It might have been a one off mistake. Maybe the computer was second hand, and the guy selling the computer thought it was a 2Ghz because when he bought it, he got a receipt saying it was 2Ghz. If the guy that was buying the computer checked in the shop, and found the mistake, and the guy selling it didnt know, then it wouldnt really be the same thing. I would expect however that the guy that was selling the computer would change his advertisement to say the correct model of chip in the computer. However, if this is a problem with the label on the chips, that would be different. If the company building the chips was labeling the chips incorrectly, and passing off 1.5Ghz chips with 2Ghz labels, then that would really complicate matters.
Stig said:
I have mentioned off-line the risks of letigious comments on here, yet certain posters seem determined to
ENOUGH of the scaremongering / semi-threats. All I have done is post information that I have found. Your own build diary is what started me thinking about this in the first place as your own dyno chart is in fact the most mysterious of them all.If you notice, I have asked in my thread whether the CF figure in the charts is a correction factor or otherwise. I have suggested that if it is, then one should take that into account when comparing BHP to price figures. I have suggested that one should make a logical choice based on facts and should really be making a decision based on spec and reputation rather than Dyno figures.
There's nothing litigious in that, please lay off with the private and now public comments that "certain people" are making "letigious" comments, it is not helpful or meaningful or true..... Its not even technically correct, nor is is spelled correctly. "litigious" means someone that likes taking court action... so the comments can never be "litigious", someone that took action against comments would be litigious.
If a car magazine does some road tests and compares manufacturer's stated figures, and gives an opinion, is that libel? Are the discussion GTM vs GTR libelous?... no.... so lay off with the scaremongering and the comments about me breaking the law.
I would say that ALMOST EVERY person that buys an Ultima comes here for information, and EVERYONE that buys an Ultima goes through the decision making process on buying an engine.
Therefore all this type of scaremongering does is suffocate conversation on a topic that is perhaps the most important for anyone buying an Ultima.
Ultima do not sell engines, they merely recommend a company, but owners are free to chose. You may notice that every other forum has discussion about various engine options or aftermarket options.... why cant we have it here.
This is a public forum, its not owned by Ultima nor AS, in fact they almost never contribute here... this is a discussion about information that is available in the market, so you can leave out the "stern warnings" especially public ones, and the comments to the effect that I am breaking the law.
I cant see that the discussion of this topic breaks any laws or forum rules. Despite your fear of discussion over this topic, it seems to be a hot one that people want to discuss.
Edited by crafty on Monday 3rd March 05:39
LuckyP said:
Don't look now Crafty, but there appears to be a REAL PUNTER, with REAL MONEY talking REAL SENSE about why he values a Factory spec (and build) car over one of our own number's, over on the Can-Am thread
If you are quick, you might be able to convert him to the ways of the non-approved. "look in to my eyes, not around the eyes.........."
I knew that was coming.... however that's one guy, and for his own reasons he has made that choice.... that's fine... but if we were all that guy we'd all be driving factory built cars, but its a small minority that do.If you are quick, you might be able to convert him to the ways of the non-approved. "look in to my eyes, not around the eyes.........."
Edited by crafty on Monday 3rd March 10:33
sorry lucky, this is the thread about AS the myth that an AS engine is "better" or easier to service or maintain than another manufacturer... and with a side note on comparing specs and dyno numbers.. The OTHER thread is for discussing the differences in values... I'm not allowed to talk about dyno numbers over there - and you're not allowed to talk about values over here... so there!
Gassing Station | Ultima | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff