Rovertech 2.0

Just wanted to say well done to Andy Nicholls (ANR) for his 2x 10 sec 1/4s today at Santa Pod.
He may have done more than this, but I only saw 4 runs - one was 15 odd due to him getting a by, and one was 14 something when he had a problem in the final. The other 2 were solid 10s (10.8 IIRC)
Any car making 10s 1/4s is mightily impressive, but a FWD car doing it...
Nice one.

Is this the bubble that he ran a couple of years ago at Elvington when he blew a water pipe off the block

Yeah - sure is.
Awesome achievement.
Don't get too tied up listening to rumours of power levels, specs etc mind you... Just take it on face value...

i heard it was 100 billion horsepower....

sorry, couldnt resist, was watching austin powers! Tis fast though that!

Nice. It's not a Cosworth lump with a Rover cam cover glued on is it?

He ran 10.3 and 10.4 2 yrs ago didnt he. B ut a solid effort erly in the season.

This car is awesome to watch and always clocks a nice 1/4 mile

sure he broke a gearbox several times.

that 14.5 second run he did he coasted to the line for the 2nd half of the strip!

black_sunrise wrote:sure he broke a gearbox several times.

that 14.5 second run he did he coasted to the line for the 2nd half of the strip!

Yeah, was a wicked launch!

MarkCoupe wrote:He ran 10.3 and 10.4 2 yrs ago didnt he. B ut a solid effort erly in the season.

on slick tyres -maybe this was on treads?

He doesn't hold the FWD record anymore though
Pretty sure CPLracing now has the record at 10.1@147mph in a civic !!!

& watch out for a black GT Turbo this year as a guy on RTOC is going for 10's, he's had 11.2 & has been tweaking the map on the 172 hybrid lump

Yup, thats nearly right. Guy did a 10.26@147 in his civic type r, however Andy still holds the record at 10.23 ...

For real?? AN Racing hold the world record for FWD quarter??

If so... makes me proud to own a Rover!!

I don't think its the world record, maybe british

Yeah there are spaceframe cars (fwd) running 7s at least i know of in the US.

I think there a few fast VW Golf's in Europe running in the 10's! The Storm developments R32 engined mk2 is running around 650bhp, so that has to be a fast runner when tested id say!

Yep, i reckon we'll see the 1st FWD in the 9's this year....

Yeah, i mean in terms of outright power, running 147 terminals needs pretty much 1000bhp(whether thats with or without gas). Its then harnessing that power.

Dunno about 1000hp, but certainly over 650, which in a FWD must be scary

Nah, 147 mph is way way over 650. Andy was doing circa 140s at 700hp+200gas

I wonder if you ran this in reverse if it would count as FWD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABTRXWcttLc

MarkCoupe wrote:Nah, 147 mph is way way over 650. Andy was doing circa 140s at 700hp+200gas

It is definitely not over 700hp PLUS gas!!
The turbo he is running is not big enough to flow over 700hp.

Also different cars/drivers, poss tyres.... all can account for that 10th of a second difference on the day..

Yeah, its more the terminals that impress me. 147 mph!!! crazy fast

When you look at last yrs TOTB winners with their quoted hp figures against terminal speed, that Civic must have alot of power:

A Paul Johnson Fiesta RS Turbo 11.86s 124mph 450hp
B Dee Ireland Calder Toyota Supra Turbo 10.62s 139mph 900+ hp
C Keith Cowie Skyline R32 GTR 9.40s 156mph 1000+ hp

Grant620 wrote:

MarkCoupe wrote:Nah, 147 mph is way way over 650. Andy was doing circa 140s at 700hp+200gas

It is definitely not over 700hp PLUS gas!!
The turbo he is running is not big enough to flow over 700hp.

It's close though.

The revs allowing near enough 11k when needed will certainly make use of the large turbo.

An awesome piece of kit, but he seems to be having issues with his new box. He's warped a few block too.

Mightly impressive, a thinner driver would probably help somewhat though, without trying to be nasty.

bendjunkie wrote: The revs allowing near enough 11k when needed will certainly make use of the large turbo.

11k?
Whoever told you that?
The turbo in it doesn't - IMO - flow enough to run over 700hp.
If it takes 11k to make 700hp then it is making very poor use of it!

nearly 11k rpm you sure its a t series under the bonnnet as i find that hard to beleive


john

Grant620 wrote:

bendjunkie wrote: The revs allowing near enough 11k when needed will certainly make use of the large turbo.

11k?
Whoever told you that?
The turbo in it doesn't - IMO - flow enough to run over 700hp.
If it takes 11k to make 700hp then it is making very poor use of it!

We have it on good authority that it revs to 11,000rpm. IMO I think Andy is almost at the peak of fwd 1/4 mile ability. Although I hope when he finally gets to grips with the new box he can break into the 9's. It makes you wonder though how hard it must be pilot that thing to a 10's 1/4,as having driven a few rwd cars capable of 13's 1/4's a few years back was a handful so his must be a nightmare. and +1 with Bendjunkie a slimmer driver would be good for at least 1 second.

Andy25 wrote:

Grant620 wrote:

bendjunkie wrote: The revs allowing near enough 11k when needed will certainly make use of the large turbo.

11k?
Whoever told you that?
The turbo in it doesn't - IMO - flow enough to run over 700hp.
If it takes 11k to make 700hp then it is making very poor use of it!

We have it on good authority that it revs to 11,000rpm. IMO I think Andy is almost at the peak of fwd 1/4 mile ability. Although I hope when he finally gets to grips with the new box he can break into the 9's. It makes you wonder though how hard it must be pilot that thing to a 10's 1/4,as having driven a few rwd cars capable of 13's 1/4's a few years back was a handful so his must be a nightmare. and +1 with Bendjunkie a slimmer driver would be good for at least 1 second.

That authority being Andy himself no doubt.
That means it will pull 2nd gear to over 100mph, 3rd to 147mph (so only 1 gear change needed).
Also, do you know the maximum piston speed at 11000rpm when a 2.0 engine is taken into consideration? I do!
Let's just say that with a piston that could take boost and gas we would be picking bits of Rover 200 up for weeks.
Sorry, but no way.
Some of the most efficient 2.0 Turbo engines don't rev that high with massively more efficient heads than the T16.

well as said in my opinion if you have to rev it to 11k to get 700hp its not very efficient

i would have gone down the 4g63 route on a 2.3 stroker kit and gt42r and think they rev them to 8500 and make more than 700hp

it would have been alot cheaper


john

Grant620 wrote:

bendjunkie wrote: The revs allowing near enough 11k when needed will certainly make use of the large turbo.

11k?
Whoever told you that?
The turbo in it doesn't - IMO - flow enough to run over 700hp.
If it takes 11k to make 700hp then it is making very poor use of it!

I never said it goes to 11k through ever gear, nor did I say it hit 700bhp, and certainly didn't say it needed the revs to make the power, but yes, then engine is capableof hitting the revs, working for AET turbo's I'm sure the turbo will be perfect for the job he intends it for. He's moved on to a dog box now I believe, so the gears could be anything, knowing andy, these will have been custom too. The engine uses a 1 off set pistons, 1off set of rods and a 1off crank as well as some 1off cams designed specifically for the job. There's not much of this car that's an off the shelf item from any supplier, or even a modified version of their design.

vi turbo wrote:well as said in my opinion if you have to rev it to 11k to get 700hp its not very efficient

i would have gone down the 4g63 route on a 2.3 stroker kit and gt42r and think they rev them to 8500 and make more than 700hp

it would have been alot cheaper


john

But then you have to realise the longer stroke crank makes for higher piston speed. Keeping the stroke short and increasing the bore is better for this kind of use, but then you risk bore warp, but when the car is trailered to the strip, it's the least of worries. Remember, it's not all about the peak power, it's about using the power and spreading the power in the most efficient way for the job, raising the rev limit will allow the large turbo to be spooled up and in the power band, with selected lower gearing this would make use of first gear, ready for second to kick in.
BANG, off he goes.

Some important points to note:
-I suspect it is NOT a longer stroke crank. I have my reasons for this, and I suspect you would think the same if you gave it some consideration.
-Certain other engines with less room between bores and much higher HP outputs (and lighter blocks) don't suffer "warp"
-The car in question is launched in 2nd gear.
-11k RPM is seriously unlikely - again, consider piston acceleration and relative forces on bearings/journals. Unless the pistons are carbon, this is almost certainly NOT true.

I said a shorted stroke.
He has suffered block warp before. Fact.
Are you sure your not on about his old box? Tbh, I don't know much about his new box. That's why I didn't state any gearing as fact. He's even after trying to get a triple plate clutch in there, this may well be reason behind the new box with custom shafts.

Grant, I am only passing on infomation, argue with it as you may, he's still going to beat you down the strip. :-p

Also, grant, we know of an exhaust maker who makes manifolds for bike engines (I can't remember which bikes, possibly CBR's) with T3 turbo flanges, that supposedly push upwards of 700bhp (with/without nos). I'll get some more info of the revs involved.