The Lotus Cars Community banner

201 - 220 of 238 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,571 Posts
I don't know anything about your finances, or where you want to go with this.

But, I strongly recommend that you don't chase HP and moreover TQ with little tweaks. Save up, but a BOE #300. I love (and am surprised by) mine.

I had a chip. Blower is another world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
941 Posts
I have a blower. I don't want a blower. I want to go NA. It's not logical, but it's what I want. And nothing about these cars is logical.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,571 Posts
Well, LionZoo, as you guessed, this makes little sense to me, but we all want you to be happy.

Could you explain why, if you have a blower, you want to remove it (it seems)??

Thx.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
941 Posts
Power is about the 10th thing I care about. I'd rather save weight through removal of the blower and help improve the weight distribution of the car for dynamic reasons (I'm trying to get the car to about a 42/58 F/R weight distribution and right now it's about 38/62) and to make the car more enjoyable to drive. I also track a lot and the potential extra failure points due to having a blower (extra risk of detonation, fuel starvation, etc.) is not worth the headache. I track to maximize my own driving skills after all, not to reach some arbitrary time goal by making my car faster. There's also the extra romance of having a naturally aspirated motor. It would just be nice to have a bit more midrange from the NA motor
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
941 Posts
I'm sorry if my frustration comes across. I'm just a bit jaded from having to explain this desire all the time. I tell people I don't want a supercharger and want to go NA and they look at me like I have two heads. It's hard to explain to people that I don't just think faster car = better.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,571 Posts
I understand and didn't mean to add to your frustration. If you've explained this already, put link to it in your signature.

But, I read this as "I want a faster car but not much faster". Otherwise you wouldn't have added chip and inquired about cams. You lose me a bit there. But, not totally.

When I had the chip, there was a large boost by avoiding that valley before cam changeover. However, that was only for some seconds.

Isn't fuel starvation tied to cornering and tires and level of fuel more than a supercharger?

I imagine that the factory S/Cs are pretty damn safe, btw.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
941 Posts
I'll take extra power if it doesn't come with a weight penalty. When it adds weight, even ten pounds, then it becomes a much harder sell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,723 Posts
Discussion Starter #209
I'll take extra power if it doesn't come with a weight penalty. When it adds weight, even ten pounds, then it becomes a much harder sell.
I'm genuinely curious if anyone can feel a ten pound weight difference in a car, even one as light as the Elise. That's a 0.5% change in mass, and when you're talking about adding an extra hundred horsepower in terms of an aftermarket blower, the 'weight penalty' becomes completely insignificant. I really don't know if I would notice an extra 10 pounds tacked onto my motorcycle unless it was high enough to affect the center of gravity.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,571 Posts
I'll take extra power if it doesn't come with a weight penalty. When it adds weight, even ten pounds, then it becomes a much harder sell.
We know extra weight has to be cornered and braked, but the power to weight ratios are surprising.

2000 lbs/200 hp = 10 lbs/hp

2040 lbs/300 hp = 6.8 lbs/hp

So, performance will go from so-so to brilliant.

Headers would lighten the rear weight, as would smaller battery. Someone showed how they moved batter to passenger footwell years ago.

You are certainly correct when it comes to rear bias: Riley & Scott said they didn't care about driveline layout and wanted 56% of weight on rear.

IIRC, you said you had a supercharger, but is that on some other car??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
941 Posts
Yes I realize 10 pounds would be almost impossible to feel, but I'm doing a complete redevelopment of my car with benchmarks. As part of that, I actually don't want too much power (for reliability and personal preference reasons) and a BOE kit would be way more. I currently have the supercharger on this car, but I had a previous NA Elise. I liked the NA car better, but both are imperfect. My perfect Elise motor would have power output similar to the NA motor (maybe 200 crank hp), but with a bit more midrange than the stock 2ZZ so that the motor is more driveable.

Like I said, I'm not really one that likes power and I've found that having a ton of it just isn't really my cup of tea, especially in a car as feel based as the Elise.
 

·
Less is Better
Joined
·
2,477 Posts
Yes I realize 10 pounds would be almost impossible to feel, but I'm doing a complete redevelopment of my car with benchmarks. As part of that, I actually don't want too much power (for reliability and personal preference reasons) and a BOE kit would be way more. I currently have the supercharger on this car, but I had a previous NA Elise. I liked the NA car better, but both are imperfect. My perfect Elise motor would have power output similar to the NA motor (maybe 200 crank hp), but with a bit more midrange than the stock 2ZZ so that the motor is more driveable.

Like I said, I'm not really one that likes power and I've found that having a ton of it just isn't really my cup of tea, especially in a car as feel based as the Elise.
You're not alone. While I don't agree that the NA's acceleration is so-so, you do have to work to get it. But that's part of the fun, the frenetic nature of the engine and the need to really wring it out to get everything out of the car is a big part of the fun.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,571 Posts
Lion, most things one can add (intake, cams, exhaust) are designed to add power at top end. Does anyone tune engines for the Lotus supercharge?

I think for mid-range, blower perhaps the only path, nitrous aside.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,571 Posts
@LionZoo,

Was wondering what you thought after reading my post.

Pls advise.

thx
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,905 Posts
My perfect Elise motor would have power output similar to the NA motor (maybe 200 crank hp), but with a bit more midrange than the stock 2ZZ so that the motor is more driveable.

Like I said, I'm not really one that likes power and I've found that having a ton of it just isn't really my cup of tea, especially in a car as feel based as the Elise.
I totally get your approach - I would rather have an NA screamer than that a shts-and-giggles powerful car. One thing to keep in mind is that, with stage 3 cams and a tune, "midrange" is now 6000-7000rpm where you'll have plenty of grunt and gearing will turn all that hp into torque for you.

My ideal build is 9,500rpm, ITBs, stage three came with no VVT-L hardware and a nice 2000rpm idle. A track day or mountain blitz would be perfect with that setup/
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,571 Posts
I totally get your approach - I would rather have an NA screamer than that a shts-and-giggles powerful car. One thing to keep in mind is that, with stage 3 cams and a tune, "midrange" is now 6000-7000rpm where you'll have plenty of grunt and gearing will turn all that hp into torque for you.

My ideal build is 9,500rpm, ITBs, stage three came with no VVT-L hardware and a nice 2000rpm idle. A track day or mountain blitz would be perfect with that setup/
Uh, what?? I am 72. If I referred to myself as middle aged, wouldn't I be expecting to live to ~140?

No where is 6-7000 rpm characterizable as "mid range".

Moreover, you can rev the crap out of your now very expensive engine and I'll be able to pass you while adjusting the radio.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
6000rpm is mid range if you hav long duration cams.You won't be passing the guy with big cams and
shouldn't have a radio if you want to go fast.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,571 Posts
I am not familiar with that theory, but 6k is merely half of 12,000 rpm.

Radios have zero to do with anything. Are you kidding us?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,905 Posts
Uh, what?? I am 72. If I referred to myself as middle aged, wouldn't I be expecting to live to ~140?

No where is 6-7000 rpm characterizable as "mid range".

Moreover, you can rev the crap out of your now very expensive engine and I'll be able to pass you while adjusting the radio.
Sorry, all I got from that is "GeT OfF mAh LaWn!!"
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,571 Posts
I thought my language was plain and the concept obvious. I assume it amuses you to type what you did (and it's not not funny), but what you wrote just makes no sense.

The poster was someone who wanted mid-range power and you simply tried to redefine "mid-range". Doesn't work for our current administration or for you.

I am sorry.
 
201 - 220 of 238 Posts
Top