UPDATE: Looks Good on Paper & Living with a Pontiac

Life with the silver car continues, it’s been nearly two years since the first article, and I thought it was time for a follow-up. Things don’t seem to get better with age when it comes to most cars and this one is no exception.

Minor irritations also continue, first in the way of a failed HVAC control, seems the fan speed controller will only function in settings 3, 4, 5, and OFF. This isn’t a big deal in the winter, since the GTP’s heater struggles to keep the windows frost free on any setting lower than “5”, but in the summer it makes adjustment of the A/C quite bothersome and noisy. Replacement of the resistor is around $50 and an afternoon under the dashboard fiddling with Torx screws. However, if the problem lies in the actual heater controls finding a replacement dual-zone climate control panel could be very expensive.

Also during the summer, we had the passenger side window motor refuse to work. None of the switches wanted to respond until the door was given a good slam, likely the motor has a dead spot or the window track had somehow jammed. As of late it hasn’t happened again.

Something I forgot to mention in the first article was this vehicle’s propensity to digest headlight and driving lamp bulbs. I am reminded of this since I replaced yet another just a week ago. On average since owning this car, we’ve replaced a full set of 4 bulbs every 8 months or so. They don’t all go at once, so you have to keep an eye on them.

Most recently the GTP’s usually reasonable fuel economy has dropped into the pits. Typically, mixed City/Highway driving would return a modest 23-25 US MPG, currently we’re seeing 19-21 US MPG. When doing purely highway travel observing 29-32 MPG was not uncommon, but after a post tune-up 1000 km trip a few weekends ago, the best I could muster was 25 MPG, the engaging the cruise control would drop that number to 23.5.

Around the same time, we noticed the significant drop in fuel economy, the wife also noted a rough idle characteristic at times. It was completely random, but when sitting at a stop light or similar situation, the engine speed would drop to 500-600rpm and shudder or miss. Since the car was running on the factory plugs and wires that were nearing their recommended change interval, I sourced and installed replacements. I had suspected that the symptoms were indicative of a spark related issue. Pulling the plugs seemed to support this as well, 5 out of 6 were burned open to a .070” gap and the number 2 cylinder was fouled with a dry, black soot.

After the tune-up, the fuel economy failed to change at all.

Yesterday the car finally decided to give a peek into the situation when a “Check Engine” light illuminated. I knew this may either indicate our problem or may simply be playing Chicken Little about the gas cap seal, like it traditionally does any time the temperatures get a little chill.

The GTP was taken by the dealership to have the codes pulled and they reported the IAT sensor was out of range. The Intake Air Temperature Sensor being on the fritz could certainly account for terrible economy and drive-ability issues. When the car was brought home, it had set the Check Engine Light again; I yanked the little sensor out from the inlet tract for a look. Visually it appeared fine, and since I didn’t have the specs to bench test the unit, I gave it a few shots of contact cleaner and re-installed it. After a bit of test driving, the problem didn’t go away so I resolved to purchase a new sensor.

Cost on the new sensor was about $30 and I’ll install it later today, hopefully this fixes the issue. I’ll also have a look at the #2 spark plug again to check for fouling, if so I figure one of the coils could be underperforming and needing replacement.

For the record the car has just over 100,000 miles at this time, and I’m continually disappointed with these electrical related failures. On a high note, we plan to retire this car and replace it with a Ford Mustang of some sort in summer of 2011. So far it’s been a pretty silly ride, stay tuned for more updates as they occur.

Read the Entire Living with a Pontiac Series:

Looks Good on Paper:

http://darren5l.blogspot.com/2010/10/looks-good-on-paper-living-with-pontiac.html

UPDATE 1 –

 http://darren5l.blogspot.com/2010/11/update-looks-good-on-paper-living-with.html

UPDATE 2 –

http://darren5l.blogspot.com/2010/12/update-2-looks-good-on-paper-living.html

Back in the Grind - Looks Good on Paper & Living with a Pontiac

http://darren5l.blogspot.com/2010/12/back-in-grind-looks-good-on-paper.html

Tracking your Fuel consumption

Some time ago, I was looking around for a program that might keep better track of my gas mileage than the random pile of pay-at-the-pump receipts I'd been using. It didn't take long to come across a free online service that did everything I was after and more. Fuelly is a very simple system to use, simply create a login, build a "garage" of vehicles you wish to keep track of., and then log your fill-ups.

The Website is here: Fuelly | Share and Compare Your MPG

Logging a fill up can be done either with a trip meter reset at every fill, or by simply recording the odometer, however the system only works properly when you completely fill your tank. So obviously little $20 tank additions aren't going to work for you unless you keep a really detailed log.

Since I have 3 vehicles which are not known to be real fuel misers I decided it might be fun to keep an eye on what I can get out of them. That, and I like being a counterpoint to all the eco-friendly nonsense those sort of sites seem to attract. I quite enjoy disrupting the tickerbar:

So-and-So just got 56.7 MPG from their Prius

SomeOtherPerson just got 43.6 MPG from their Boring Honda

Darren5.0L just got 11.2 MPG from his SVT Lightning!

LOL

Somewhat surprisingly, owners of brands that are usually thought to be quite fuel efficient often report crappy (<20 MPG) mileage especially if it isn't a junker econobox model.

 

So maybe give fuelly a whirl and see what your vehicle can actually get for mileage under real driving conditions.

Where have the Imports gone?

In the last decade, I believe we have witnessed the rise and decline of the Sport Compact Car.

The concept of doing more with less has been around for ages, but the rise of the 4 cylinder and other non-V8’s really came into the North American mainstream somewhere around the late 1990s. I suppose movies like the Fast & the Furious (1999) probably were a significant contributor to the pop-culture trend of vehicle modification, true Import purists (and anti-posers) usually shudder at the mention of the F&F series but it did draw in new blood to the hobby of vehicle modification.

I’ll make it known here and now that I am a domestic performance vehicle enthusiast, specifically Late-Model-Domestic-Muscle, but I’m open minded to cars in general, so don’t let that make you think I’m completely biased.

Years ago, when I bought my first car, a clunker 1988 Ford Escort EXP, the world of big exhaust tips and neon underglow was just starting to take off. At that time I thought you basically bought a vehicle and basically how it worked out of the box was what you got. This concept of performance modification (with a few exceptions) was completely alien to me.

In 2003, when I was able to insert myself into the performance hobby, I was quick to note the variety of “performance” vehicles cruising the streets, and as the new owner of a 1995 Mustang GTS it wasn’t lost that domestic performance seemed to be a minority.

I have no idea what the actual ratio was, but it seemed for every domestic performance car you might run across 7 Import “Tuner” cars, that is sport compacts with some degree of modification.

About those modifications,

After all of the hype behind the import tuner cars, I gave them a fair bit of respect, that is, until I actually got to run a few and began to question my perceptions. This is of course from the perspective of a 15 second stock Mustang running 16 & 17 second imports. I came to understand that the typical formula of a sport compact car was generally lightweight, front-wheel drive, four cylinder engines, and typically made less than 200 horsepower peak, and even less torque.  Commonly, most of these tuner cars had only rudimentary and sometimes dubious engine modifications, backed by eye-catching and sometimes counter-productive appearance modification.

Exempting the power adder guys or the very rare max-effort engine builds these cars were quickly considered “easy pickings” for those from my car demographic.

While these Tuner cars were not the fastest thing on the streets or strip, they did create and fill a huge market segment for young and young at heart buyers. Each Japanese manufacturer had at least one model or option catering to that group. The aftermarket was flooded with speed and appearance parts for nearly everything.

Things looked good for the trend of import racer and import showcar, but over the last few driving seasons I have seen a huge decline in Sport Compacts and the like.

So what happened, and where did they all go?

Reflectively, I think a number of things changed against the tuner crowd.

Firstly, as these cars became more numerous and popular, public awareness also increased, with it came additional police and legislative attention.  When under the microscope of the law and enforcement, it can really take the fun out of any hobby.

Secondly, many of the Japanese manufacturers seem to have abandoned this market, gone from the dealership lots are new models of the Celica, Talon/Eclipse, 240SX, Mazda Speed 3 and so on. The remaining Civic Si, 350Z, RX-8, Evo etc are not very cost effective cars to a young buyer.

Third, the rise of the Right-hand-drive. The recent glut of Japanese Domestic Market (JDM) cars to hit North America has really changed the face of Import performance and may have really affected the desirability of the North American counterparts.

Possibly a fourth consideration is the resurgence of the modern muscle car. I have seen a number of car enthusiasts that have switched from Import to Domestic muscle, to summarize them, it’s a matter of low cost and big performance. When you compare Domestic to Import new cars, I believe it’s a very valid consideration.

As much as I’ve heard the term “Ricer” thrown around and the mockery that follows, I think it’s rather unfortunate to see this backslide of the Sport Compact Car continue, because the loss of every “Tuner” car is potentially the loss of another car enthusiast.

So despite the general hatred of the buzzy resonated exhaust tip and the obvious work-in-progress primer of a new “body kit” I still think it’s a shame to see it go.

Modern Performance Vehicles's K-Spec Drag Racing Program

08-26-2009

It’s green, it ain’t mean, it isn’t much to look at, and it certainly isn’t worth writing home about, but we’re doing it anyway. How’s that for an introduction to Modern Performance Vehicle’s idea for a silly project?

Behold Hotwheel’s kind donation to the MPV Kijiji Spec (That’s K-Spec!) drag program:

Shown with optional headlight delete

I suppose donation is the wrong term, something like “willing to go along with” or “be party to” works better. Anyway, Ford Motor Company’s wildly popular Tempo just got… …noticed again. Keeping in line with Hotwheel’s mantra of no matter how unsuitable, take everything down the strip, and Grand Touring Concept’s of anything can be hot-rodded, we bring you the K-SPEC drag program.

Taking a select (AKA running) example of the Ford Tempo, we obtained the fastest, most modern version, the top of the range, 1994 Tempo GL. We ensured it was equipped with nothing less than the potent (for a Tempo) 3.0L Vulcan V6, the consistent FLC-ATX 3-speed automatic transmission, 2 doors for lower curb weight, and just broken-in 280,000km mileage for peak potential. This car was sure to be a contender in this one-horse race.

The holy grail of Tempo performance, 3.0L V6!

Actually the entire thing above is total BS, Jesse had it lying around and we thought we’d try to drag it, and then (try to) make it faster. Footnote: (Without actually spending *any* money)

Before making something faster you have to establish a baseline, and on 8:05 PM, Car Number 4023 made it’s first of 5 passes at Edmonton’s Castrol Raceway Park.

Coiled and ready to... um what is it Tempos do? ... Maintain a steady beat?

 Hotwheels narrowed his eyes against to low setting sun, and prepared for what likely wouldn’t be one hell of a pass. The lights dropped and stomping the mild whirring noise pedal, he cut a .240 reaction time, the sixty foot was gone in a scant 2.833 seconds. With no hint of burning oil or coolant he eventually crossed the traps with a 18.188 @ 76.07 MPH. K-Spec drag racing, a much better past time to waiting in a doctor’s office, rather we had our baseline.

With his trademark enthusiasm, Jesse figured he could do better with colder air, so we waited a little and he made 4 more passes. The second last run was a surprising improvement to 17.618 @ 77.77 MPH, low 12’s were going to be easy! We’d already dropped over half a second and picked up 1.7 miles per hour with only telling Jesse to drive faster. Once we started modding the times should simply drop like the resale value of a Pontiac product, oh I did just go there…

Let’s talk horsepower here, you know real stuff. Fresh from the factory our updated Vulcan engine, with it’s reduced friction pistons, a strengthened block, roller camshaft and other changes, thumped out 141 Horsepower and 160 ft-lbs of Torque. This seasoned example was surely putting out more than the “detuned” factory trim so we had to see what we were working with.

To figure our horsepower out for certain, naturally the next step was to, you guessed it, the internet. (Who said dyno? Those things cost money!)

So, using the online ¼ mile drag calculator java program we can get some cheap-as-free results.

The drag calculator over at Dragtimes assured Flywheel horsepower rating or our money back, but we had to supply the numbers.

Quarter Mile times were 18.188 and 17.618.

Trap Speed supplied from the timeslips were 76.07 and 77.77MPH.

Let’s see, the infalliable wikipedia says that a Ford Tempo has a curb weight 2723 lb (1235 kg) and our Driver might weigh 175 lbs for a total of 2898 lbs

We also washed it to lower parasitic loss due to heat retention

With the numbers ready, the computer internet dyno began to spool up and everyone in the internet dyno cell was deafened as the display spat out our results:

Run #1 = 97.38 HP @ Flywheel
Run #2 = 105.57 HP @ Flywheel

Clearly the internet dyno must load heavier than a MD-600, but we can at least see the difference mod for mod, provided we always use the same internet dyno. Summarizing above, you can plainly see that telling Jesse to drive faster resulted in a whopping increase of 8.19 horsepower over stock, that friends, is massive.

Satisfied that we had a built on a Wednesday ringer, we planned for the next session.

Part 2:

09-03-2009

Back at the Grand Touring Concepts R&D facility (actually Darren’s garage which may have an adjustable wrench and a hammer) MPV 's goons set to work on extracting more horsepower from the wild Tempo.

Using some spare parts Hotwheel's has amassed, we set to work with a grinder mounted flapwheel to build a better inlet assembly. A high performance (junkyard) MAF was carefully milled (locked in a bench vise and attacked with a grinder) to accept a proven (again used) K&N conical Airfilter, we had specially chosen (of the 3 we had in a box) for this car. We retained the bottom part of the airbox assembly to act as a heat shield against the awesome under hood temps.

Grand Touring Concepts is kind of new to the FWD game but we understand this arrangement is called a "short-ram" intake, I guess it sounds better than exposed hot Air conical filter to folks not in the know. If my Dentist office reading of popular sport compact magazines indicated anything, we should behold outstanding gains from this modification.

So there it is; the GTC Exposed Short-Ram Conical Intake System (ESRCI) PN#X30V6 not on sale near you. Look for our booth at SEMA 2011.

As with all performance parts that "claim" to "add" horsepower, we needed to prove this part before K-spec marketing can ever begin. With that we're back to the strip...

On 7 August, Hotwheels was set to deliver a faster time with the newfound power provided by the experimental Grand Touring Concepts ESCRI. The K-spec Tempo made a grueling 7 passes, battling hot air temperatures to finalize gains made with the ESCRI. At 10:21pm a 17.640 @ 78.13 MPH was posted, followed by a 17.634 @ 78.17 MPH twenty minutes later. Late in the evening at 10:51 pm we had our best run; 17.607 @ 78.05 MPH, the ESRCI was a success, production can start immediately!

ESRCI Testing runs, available in HD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjSpvMZgF40


Working on our promotional material we needed to visit the online dyno with our new results so our HP gains could be advertised with the product.

Using the same weight number as the last test, (we are very certain that Jesse did not starve himself for the sake of going faster) we awaited the results…

The best run worked out to 106.4 HP at the flywheel with the other 3 posted runs supporting the findings.

ESCRI 106.4 HP minus Stock 97.38 HP equals 9.02 BHP, which is nearly a solid 10 horsepower gain. This modification system is clearly worth more than the $300 USD plus shipping that our PR department plans on charging.


Here are our performance tables so far:

Stock (Booo!)
97.38 BHP - 18.188 @ 76.07 MPH

Waiting for cooler air (Super Tuning)
105.57 BHP - 17.618 @ 77.77 MPH

Super Tuning + GTC ESCRI (Super Awesome, tell your friends)
106.40 HP - 17.607 @ 78.05 MPH

Disclaimer:
(Actual testing of ESRCI with Super tuning versus Stock with Super tuning may result in a net gain of only 0.83 Horsepower…)


With these awesome successes, we know we have to keep pushing forward in order to keep ahead of the currently non-existent (and likely never existent) competition.

Setting the bar a notch higher, we'll see you next time.

Not according to Plan Series 1

When my friend A_Gorman decided he wanted to delete the rather large hood scoop on his new 5.0L Mustang, he did what any reasonable person would do; Research.

Before

In Ford's manual on the 2011 Mustang, it indicated the the hood scoop is held on with 3M double-sided adhesive tape, so it should be easy. Out came the 10lb fishing line and cutting began, however, for some reason the line kept breaking and the scoop remained stubbornly in place.

Next, he did what any local Mustang owner I know does when faced with adversity, drop by Grand Touring Concepts and have their dedicated staff solve the problem.

Since the seal had already been broken, I decided to carry on where Andrew left off. I did ask the question "are you completely sure it's just 3M tape?" satisfied when told the Service Manual said so, I carried on.

After "sawing" the entire perimeter of tape and the scoop wouldn't let go I began to suspect my hunch had been right.

I removed the factory hood blanket and discovered what I had feared, four 10mm bolts. Knowing now that there were holes in the hood meant that the scoop had to stay on, but since we'd cut all of the 3M tape, it need to come off, be re-taped, and reinstalled.

Closing the hood, we wrestled the scoop from it's mount and discovered another set of 4 holes that had the scoop secured with one time use plugs and a locating dowel.

Grand Touring Concepts 2011 Mustang GT Hood Stripe Kit

 

 

Of course these plugs broke upon tampering and new ones needed to be sourced on a Saturday evening. Using some locally sourced brand-X jobber units I fashioned new Grand Touring Concepts Hood Scoop Mounting Pins.

9 Holes! That's good round of drinking golf at the official course of GTC

We painstaking re-taped the scoop edges, did surface prep and re-installed it to it's original home.

Behold the finished product!

After!

Well at least I have some practice now. LOL

Western Motorsports "Vanquish'd" V12 Mustang

Back when the S197 was a fresh new platform, I became aware of the body-in-white project that had arrived at Western Motorsports in Calgary Alberta. This bare Mustang chassis was to be the subject of a build I had not before ever seen, nor have since.

This Mustang was to be built up as a SEMA show car, which would display the product, talents, and capabilities of the fellows at WMS. This would be no rolling 1:1 scale model, nor would it be a 5 mph capable trailer queen, this would be a full out driver that would be street legal, registered, and even autocrossed.

This is the WMS Vanquish’d Mustang.

In typical fashion when building something from scratch, you’d select only the best components available, and when you have years of Ford performance experience the sky’s the limit.

The Vanquish’d is no exception.

The heart of Vanquish’d, like many other builds, is in the engine, WMS selected and modified an Aston Martin Vanquish V12 powerplant which gives this car it’s name. This is no simple engine swap car, it was not “shoehorned” in with brute force and ignorance, but engineered to the finest detail, and finished to such a high standard that it rivals many supercars.

 

 Focusing on that potent V12 powerplant, which produced 520 horsepower stock, which has been reworked by Western Motorsports. It draws in a cool, dense air charge through dual WMS Velocity Cold Air Kits, dual Accufab Throttle Bodies and WMS Ported Manifolds. Fuel and spark control are by a pair of WMS/SDS standalone injection systems, with two MSD DIS 4 Ignition systems to ensure a fierce spark for complete burn of the fuel charge. Even the internals have been fortified with a 6.1L stroker, filled with JE pistons, Eagle rods and extensive Head work by WMS. No bolt was left untouched and upgraded to ARP Fasteners.

 

Spent exhaust gases are evacuated by a set of one-off WMS 6-2-1 Longtube Hedders, mated to a 3” off-road Magnflow “Magnapack” Exhaust, which provides a very distinctive tone throughout all throttle conditions.

The estimated 600 horsepower is transferred to the Tremec T56 transmission by a McLeod Street Twin clutch which motivates the 8.8” rear axle with its Eaton Detriot Trutrac differential and 3.73 gears.

The exterior received just as much attention, but is so well executed that you really have to pick the trees from the forest to gain full respect for all of the custom touches. Complimenting the BASF R-M Carrizma Candy Blue Paint is a GT500 front fascia and splitter, a complex WMS Billet grille, and very trick custom billet vents from Colecraft.  

A Classic Design Concepts Glassback roof provides an open air feel with none of the structural losses of a canvas top. Across the rear decklid, nothing “spoils” the car’s profile and smooth lines that end in a CDC Trunk Blackout Panel.

Rolling stock is nothing less than iForged’s Essen line of wheels with 19 X 9” fronts and stunning 19 X 12” rears, wrapped with Michelin Pilot Sport Tires P275/35R19 and P345/30R19  front to back. Slowing down this show stopper is a set of Baer Extreme 14" 6 piston Brakes and KW Suspension Coilovers rounds out the handling aspects.

 

The interior treatment is a tasteful departure from many typically overdone show cars, you’ll find no giant subwoofers or dead-weight amplifiers here. The creed here is form meets function, from the Cobra Missano leather/alacantara Seats to the AiM Strata Dash & Datalogger. The ambient light from the CDC glassback really makes the blue accents pop from the black contrasts throughout the cockpit.

 

 

 After a experiencing this car a from the spectator standpoint, it was time to experience it as a passenger. The 4 point safety harnesses settled me into the supportive Cobra seat with absolute confidence, once buckled in, Shannon took to the road.

A with gentle slipping of the clutch and we were off. Once rolling, the throttles were cracked open and that V12's sweet exhaust note filled the cabin. The power came on with building aggression, forcing me into the lumbar, the engine climbed the digital tach quickly and effortlessly. Reaching the shift point the T56 was slotted into the next gear, and the power swelled again. The broken centerlines became closer together, next gear faster still, another shift and still pulling. Approaching another shift, we were on the brakes and nearly hanging against the harnesses as we were pulled back down to a stop. After a quick turnaround we were back at it again, the car making the perfect noise, unlike any Mustang I'd ever heard before.

After the test ride I was only able to mutter out; "That's damn cool."

Vanquished Mustang Video 

After my visit for the photo and video shoot I decided to follow up with Shannon Wall and ask a few interview questions to better define the project.

 (Following Photos credited to Western Motorsports)

Darren5.0L – “If you were to have a mission statement for this project what would it be? Or more plainly, why did you guys build this car, and why did you select the parts you did?”

Shannon – “The project was motivated by a few circumstances; We had the Aston Martin V12, we’d bought a few of them 'cause it's a really cool engine. We’d always liked Aston Martins and that’s about a close as we’re going to get to having one. It is also Ford's most exotic engine and really is built by Ford, it’s even listed in the Ford Racing catalog under engine specs for those who don't believe.  When the 2005 Mustang was unveiled we thought that would be a perfect chassis to put it in so we put together a plan for a SEMA project to show off what can be done with a ground up build of one of these cars."

Darren5.0L – “ Did you run into any snags along the build and describe how they were resolved?”

Shannon – “I'm sure there were many snags along the way...  in typical hot rodder fashion though we just had to get creative, keep working and get around it.  The SEMA schedule did add some stress to it all and there were lots of last minute fixes.  I do remember polishing the intake scoops in the hotel parking lot in Vegas and installing them in the trailer!  Really though it all worked very well, engine fits in quite nicely and the miles of wiring all worked as planned - it fired right up.  One of the more challenging and tedious parts of the project would be the hedders, a couple days of fitting, cutting and welding.”

 

Darren5.0L – “What kind of public events has this car attended and any accomplishments or awards?”

Shannon – “Of course the car made it's debut at the SEMA show placed in the Mustang Dyno booth where it caught a lot of attention. While there, one of our more interesting conversations was with some Ford exec's who were quite concerned where we got the Aston Martin engine. It has been at 2007 World of Wheels and won Best Engine, Street Achievement and Best in Class.  Also been to the International Mustang Meet and local (Calgary) Mustang club events.”

Darren5.0L – “Who are all of the people involved in the build, and anyone who you have special thanks to?”

Shannon - “Main builders were myself, Dave Lockwood and Rudy VanVeenendaal. Paint was done by Dwayne Flodel here in Calgary.  A special thanks to our families for putting up with our long working hours."

Darren5.0L – Do you guys have any future plans for this project or coming ones?

Shannon – “The Vanquish'd project is complete now and we are actually thinking about selling it now as we are starting a new project with a 2011 Mustang 5.0."

Specifications & Modifications:

Engine

6.1L Aston Martin V12 DOHC 48V
WMS Ported Heads
WMS Ported Intake Manifolds
JE Pistons
Eagle Rods
Dual WMS Velocity Cold Air Intakes
Dual Accufab Throttle Bodies

WMS Custom 6-2-1 Longtube Hedders
Magnaflow 3" Offroad X pipe
Magnaflow Magnapack Exhaust

WMS/SDS Engine Management
MSD DIS 4 Ignition
WMS Wideband O2 Sensors

ARP Engine Fasteners
 

Driveline

Tremec T-56 6-speed Manual Transmission
Mcleod Street Twin clutch
Eaton Detroit TruTrac Differential
3.73:1 Final Drive
 

Suspension

KW Suspension Coilovers Front & Rear
Baer Extreme 14" 6 piston Brakes
iForged 19 X 9" Essen Wheels Front
iFroged 19 X 12" Essen Wheels Rear
P275/35R19 Michelin Pilot Sport Tires Front
P345/30R19 Michelin Pilot Sport Tires Rear
 

Appearance
BASF R-M Carrizma Candy Blue Paint
Classic Design Concepts Glassback Roof
Classic Design Concepts Hood Struts
Classic Design Concepts Rear Blackout Panel
Cobra Missano Leather & Alcantra Seats
AiM Strada Dash/Datalogger
Colecraft Billet Custom Fender and Hood Vents
WMS Custom Aluminum Grille
GT500 Fasica & splitter, fog lamps,

For more information about this project or Ford performance modification please visit www.wmsracing.com

From the author: I would like to extend my thanks to Shannon, Rudy and Joel at WMS for having me at their shop and taking the time to share this car with the Mustang world, and Robb for his photography work.

Thanks for Reading,
Darren (5.0L) Lynch

Day to Day Living with a Kenne Bell 2.2L Supercharger, Season 1

This is intended to be a bit of an observational log and performance dairy of my 1995 Mustang GTS equipped with a Kenne Bell 2.2L Flowzilla Supercharger.

First and foremost; I am not a qualified mechanic nor do I have any formal automotive training, in fact I don’t even hold a degree. (gasp!) This however does not mean I am unskilled and most certainly not inexperienced. Further, I hold no affiliation with Kenne Bell other than I have purchased and installed one of their supercharger kits, for my own personal use.

While I can attempt to outline my experiences with this supercharger, and answer specific questions pertaining to how I did things, I cannot answer technical questions about the Supercharger itself. Those specific questions are best suited to the qualified staff at www.kennebell.net

For anyone who has not read the install, it can be found posted on a variety of online forums, one such copy is listed here:


To completely sum up the entire document for the impatient I’ll begin with the end:

Conclusion:

After the first season of use, I am quite happy with my purchase. I have experienced no mechanical failures, performance shortfalls, or problems. I have noticed and remarked about Kenne Bell’s rapidly improving customer support, and communication. I would purchase this product again without hesitation.



Thanks for reading,

Darren (5.0L) Lynch


Onwards to the meat and potatoes of the document.

The foundation of this install is well accounted for in the install thread, but for the basics here it is:

1995 Mustang GTS 5.0L - 5 Speed – 3.55 Gears

Factory short block had 182,000km’s (114,000 miles approx) when the supercharger was installed.

Trickflow TFS heads - Factory camshaft – 1.6 Scorpion Rockers

Long-tube Headers – Off-road Midpipe – SVO Side Exit Exhaust

Ported GT40 Intake Manifold – 75mm Throttle Body – 90mm Lightning MAF – Custom fender well Cold Air Intake Tract.

42lb/hr Ford Racing Injectors – Walbro 255 L/Hr Fuel Pump - Factory Fuel Pressure Regulator and Rail.

Professionally Tuned using a TwEECer R/T – Mallory Hy-Fire 6A Ignition – Crane Fireball 2 Coil – 1 Step Colder plugs 0.035” gap.

Kenne Bell 2.2L “Blowzilla” Twin-screw Supercharger, GT40 Lower Intake manifold, 90mm Flowzilla Inlet, Integral bypass. Pullies for 6, 10, 14, and 18 lbs of boost.

That should about cover it for parts pertaining to the engine side of things.

The overall intent of the project was to end up a balanced car, that could give a decent account of itself on a road course, drag strip, and hooliganize the street where it would serve most of its duties. In the end, I believe this was completed to my satisfaction, but with any modification there are things that I wish to further hone.

Care and Feeding:
Fairly basic here, always ensure the supercharger (henceforth also referred to as the blower, and other slang) oil is within the specified levels, changed as directed and good quality fuel is used. Aside from that it’s pretty like any other moving part on an engine, inspect obvious problems should they occur.

As is important with any performance vehicle, good fuel is a must, and my car became very sensitive to “bad” fuel. During my first major road test with the supercharger, I found myself in a little town called Creston, British Colombia. While I had no problem finding good fuel on my trip in, it became necessary to fuel up to begin my trip home. (1,000 miles round trip) There were only a handful of stations there, so I picked the Esso with a cluster of sport bikes fueling from the premium pump. (91 octane) Within few miles from the station I had knocking and pinging at the first touch of boost, certainly alarming. One feature I had programmed into the TwEECer was a few different WOT spark tables, for adjustments on the fly. I had 17, 15 and 13 (limp home) degree tables for different situations. Usually I could run the 17 degree tune at 11 psi without issue, sometimes if it was hot out I would need to use the 15 degree map, never had I needed the 13 degree one until now.

So for the next 200km I climbed a mountain range and stayed out of boost doing so, (more on that bypass valve later) not the fun romp one usually has in hilly country.
My next stop was at a Chevron gas station, 94 octane and a bottle of octane boost later; I was breathing a sigh of relief as the car was able to run 17 degrees again.

I almost wonder if the Esso station had 87 octane filled in the premium tank, and I also wonder how the guys on the sport bikes got on…

Lessons Learned (Fuel):

1. Always use the best fuel available, from a high volume station.
2. It may be handy to keep a bottle of reputable octane boost in the trunk. (KB recommends NOS Race Formula)
3. Being able to adapt your timing tables on the fly might also be a good capability to have.
4. Having a Vacuum/Boost gauge can help you anticipate and avoid part throttle boost when having problems with poor fuel.
5. The bypass system for the Flowzilla is certainly worth the purchase when experiencing these problems.

Cooling;

Something I also observed on that trip related to cooling of the engine. Until that trip, the car had been equipped with a March under drive pulley set, which as you may know “frees up” existing horsepower by turning accessories like the water pump at a slower speed. I had not experienced any major problems with this arrangement until I unluckily found myself wedged in bumper-to-bumper traffic anchored to Calgary’s Deerfoot trail. During this 45 minute torture test, the temperature began to creep steadily toward the ‘H” side of the gauge, while Ford factory gauges are not very accurate, the air temp from the heater confirmed my fears. In the end I was able to push through the gridlock without overheating and owe the “heater core as a second radiator” trick and my electric fan for the success.

In preparation for my next big trip I re-installed the factory pulley kit and coolant temps were completely manageable from then on.

Another footnote is that I have been using a 180 degree thermostat, which is significant because Kenne Bell supplies and insists on a 160 degree unit. My choice to use a 180 degree T-stat came after careful consideration and discussion with local racers and tuners. Based on my location, (Edmonton, Alberta Canada) which is somewhat more northern than California where Kenne Bell is located, experience has found that since our summers rarely see daytime high of greater than 95*F a 160 thermostat usually causes problems with open/closed loop switching. While I do not advocate using a 180 degree thermostat for all users, it may be a solution if you have problems. Should cooling have continued to be an issue, the 160 T-stat was ready on the shelf.

Lessons Learned (Cooling)

1. Monitoring cooling problems is best done with an accurate gauge; a reputable aftermarket unit from your preferred company should do the trick.
2. Underdrive pulleys are probably not a great idea as they reduce water pump speed at idle, where you need the circulation most This may be mitigated with the use of the Kenne Bell supplied 160 degree thermostat.

Further about the March pulley kit and boost levels, I had been running a crank to pulley ratio which should have generated 10 psi, but I had been seeing 11 psi on the gauge. I suspect that March’s crank pulley is a little smaller than Kenne Bell’s literature assesses, and may over-spin the blower somewhat more than you plan. For me this condition went away once I switched back to the stock lower pulley and ordered a matching 10 psi upper pulley.

3. In a pinch, turning the heater to full-on and fan speed to high, you can get a marginal cooling increase at cost to passenger discomfort. Remember, passengers are replaceable but engine tear-downs are time consuming.

The Big Trip;

After logging over 1000 miles on the combo, I decided it was reliable enough for a more ambitious long distance run. The plan was to attend a large muscle car show in Lethbridge, Alberta and from there run to Las Vegas and return. I figured why not use the GTS? This 4800 km round trip would certainly be an interesting go, provided everything went as planned. In short, it did.

I departed from Lethbridge after the Sunday car show had finished up, and found myself in Helena Montana about 5 hours later. Driving at the Interstate mandated 75 MPH really made the miles pass quickly, but considering I sat in the sun during the car show, I shut things down for the evening at 9 pm.

The next leg of the journey went across 5 states from Helena MT to Las Vegas NV in 10 hours of near constant driving. A little observation about the trip down was summed up in a forum post I had made upon my arrival:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren5.0L; How about those inefficient parasitic Superchargers? So far this entire trip I have averaged a terrible 26.5 US MPG, spending much of my journey a rather high elevation, 7500ft at one point, and 5000-6500 was rather common. My worst MPG was 18.5 climbing some mountain in Montana, and beating on it through the twistys down the other side. However I did see 29.3 from Pocatella Idaho to Salt Lake City Utah. I just don't know what to do about this thing, my 1960's engine equipped with a inefficient power adder still hasn't burned a drop of oil, despite having over 185,000km's.

A bit of an inside joke among some friends dispelling the myths about how small displacement turbo cars are better than any V8 with a blower. Remember that bit earlier from the Creston trip about the boost bypass being awesome, that’s the secret to fuel economy here.

Boost Bypass

In the old days of Positive Displacement superchargers, the car was always in boost anytime the engine was running. This additional airflow requires appropriate amounts of fuel to run at a safe A/F ratio, compression heated the air charge, and it drew power from the engine.

Simple enough, but as technology progressed, the use of a simple vacuum actuated valve allows a car to run with almost a dual nature. Kind of like Mad Max’s Interceptor, without a complicated clutch type supercharger pulley.

Essentially in high vacuum conditions like idle and cruise, the bypass stays open. Even though the supercharger is spinning, it is nearly freewheeling, drawing less than 1/3 of a horsepower, generating nearly no additional heat, and requires really no extra fuel. The engine is just as fuel efficient as it would be without the blower.

On the demand of your right foot, (WOT, 0 inches Vacuum, or heavy load) the bypass snaps shut and since the supercharger is already spinning at speed, it generates full boost instantly. With very little practice it is very easy to decide with your right foot whether you want to be in boost or not. Of course once in boost all expected supercharger physics apply normally.

Once arriving in unfamiliar territory I was a little worried about the prospect of someone deciding to steal my car, considering its age, it would be fairly easy to make off with. Remembering one of the features of my TwEECer is when the "controller" is removed the computer reverts to whatever is programmed into position one (of five). To make use of this, I had built a "junk tune" that wouldn't allow the car to run, like a slightly oversized key fob, I pocketed the Tweecer controller whenever the car was left out of sight. Thankfully no one bothered the car or its contents during my travels.

While in Vegas car hit the strip (not the drags) for a few trips and was generally great, aside from the black interior and no-A/C.

It was mid-July, in the desert, and no air conditioning you ask? It was actually a little worse than that, I might add the not yet mentioned floor-warming MAC Longtube headers, nor my awesome 1995 Cobra R cowl hood.

I had arrived in Vegas around midnight on the second day, meaning I had crossed the hot spots of Arizona and Nevada after sundown, while it was a little humid from a bit of rain, no big deal. Five days later, my morning departure trip home would be something quite different.

I'd never much noticed it before but the longtubes did make the floor quite warm, enough that I ended up switching out to my "Las Vegas driving shoes" aka pool side flip-flops.

Then came the matter of the Air conditioning, you might be thinking it died trying to cool in the desert, but it never even had the chance, I had killed it months before. During build I was faced with a decision, stemming from servicing the spark plugs, a simple choice, pull the blower, or pull 1 bulky A/C line from the driver's side. I'm sure you can guess my obvious choice, plug accessibility for passenger comfort, I usually just ran the fresh air vents anyway, and so what's the loss?

It turns out that when the early '95 Cobra R race cars were being campaigned, there were driver complaints about the cowl hood extracting engine compartment air and superheating the driver's compartment. Ford then had the hood vents redesigned partway through the racing season, blocking one of the extractors. The very hood I had on my car was one of these later examples, but faced with the heat of my supercharged engine in the desert, my fresh air vents provided nothing but very, very, hot air.

For few hours it took to climb out of the desert of Nevada, through the mountains of Arizona and into relatively better conditions of Utah, things were a quite uncomfortable with the heat. For me it harkened back to times spent in a less friendly desert, only without having to wear body armor this time, for the wife however, this was entirely new and very unpleasant.

Considering the heat, and the multitude of vehicles gushing steam on the side of the road during my climb I was very concerned about the capabilities of my own vehicles cooling system. During the Creston trip I had cooling issues in Canada, so I hoped my switch back to standard pulleys would keep me from boiling over. Keeping out of boost and being careful allowed the radiator to maintain a safe coolant temperature and I made it home without incident.

In all it was a fantastic and exciting trip, the US Interstate system is a dream to drive on, and my car made the whole thing worthwhile.

So what happened in Season 2?

This;

Time for a TKO (Video)

Not according to Plan Series 2

Yesterday Chris2006GT dropped by Grand Touring Concepts for a Steeda control arm install on his 2011 5.0L. The aim was to mitigate some of the inherent axle hop found with the factory arrangement.

Ford has made some notable changes since the the 2005-2009 (possibly 2010) 3 link.

1. The lower arms are now a closed I-beam design made of stamped steel, opposed to the open C-channel and gusseted C-channel as found on the old GT and GT500 respectively.
    
2. The new lower arms are much stronger torsionally, but still have a compliance bushing on the body mount.
    
3. The upper arm has a very revised bracket which uses a huge 24mm main bolt which required nothing less than a Snap-on 650 ft-lb Impact to break torque.
    
4. The gas tank "skid plate" no longer inhibits removal of the upper arm and mount as an assembly, therefore you can do easy bench servicing on the upper arm and mount.
    
5. Most importantly the upper arm to upper arm bracket bolt has been significantly up-sized leading to my final point;

An upper control Arm designed for a 2005-2009 Mustang will not work on a 2011 5.0L Mustang GT (and possibly other models) so make sure you get the proper unit. The lowers fit fine and work without issue.

Just another fine day of removing an OEM part to put it right back in LOL.

Dodge Omni GLH & GLHS series

Although many modern performance enthusiasts believe that the 1980’s were a dark unmentionable age for modern muscle, it isn’t entirely true. New and exciting things were being developed in the R&D departments of almost every single major manufacturer.

After the fuel crisis of the mid-70’s it was a wonder that anyone would be thinking about performance, but better performance and efficiency do go hand in hand. With the widespread application of now industry standard fuel injection, OEM’s were discovering that this previously underdeveloped technology had come into its own.

There is not one specific year that really can be isolated as the birth of modern muscle, but somewhere around the mid-80’s various cars, unusual cars, were being fielded at dealerships across the continent. In this chapter of the roots of modern performance, we take a closer look at a particular Dodge offering, the GLH and its bigger brother the Shelby GLHS.

Starting from it's most basic design the GLH was in essence a Dodge Omni, a squarish, 4 door FWD, with heavy European influences. Stemming from it’s Simca (Now Peugeot) parentage.


Released in 1978, the standard Omni was really no performance marvel, and barring the GLH model it would have never been worthy of note. Once production was stabilized, the Omni was powdered by the 2.2L engine famous in the K-Car, it produced about 93 horsepower, with peak torque of 122 lb-ft at only 3,200 rpm

For 1984 however, this changed, Performance and Racing legend, Carrol Shelby became interested in a special Omni project called "Coyote"

Renamed the GLH (Goes-Like-Hell) by Mr. Shelby, this sporty model featured a few upgrades which bumped the performance numbers to 110 bhp. This was accomplished through use of a unique camshaft, and milling the cylinder head 0.020" to increase compression. In the appearance department, a chrome valve cover was fitted while Mopar Direct Connection offered add-on ground effects kits. Performance was a tidy 17.2 in the quarter mile and 9.4 seconds in the 0-60 dash.

The very next year, the '84 model would be easily eclipsed by its turbocharged replacement. The 1985 GLH was a much more improved package; power was boosted to 146 BHP @ 5200 RPM and 170 BTQ @ 3600 RPM.

Looks improved with last year's Direct Connection body kit standard, a tape stripe package, and larger alloy wheels. A Garret turbocharger provided positive pressure and this engine assembly became widely known as the "Turbo I" series.
This adjusted the ¼ mile sprint to 16.2 and reduced 0-60 1.3 seconds, to 8.1

Not to rest on on success, 1986 brought in a even more aggressive model, the GLH-S (Goes-Like-Hell-Somemore) This vehicle would be the last development year of the GLH series, but it would be a great one.

Starting with engine performance, a turbocharged and intercooled 2.2L featured a boost friendly 8.5:1 compression ratio. At 12 pounds of boost it developed a whopping 175 BHP @ 5300 RPM and 175 BTQ at a tabletop flat 2200-4800 RPM range. The air-to-air intercooler is capable of shunting heat by 100°F while an optional oil-cooler could further extend open track capabilities.

Track manners were improved through use of Koni adjustable shocks and the addition of a stiffer front roll bar. Special edition Shelby “Centurion” wheels were wrapped with Goodyear Gatorback’s 205/50/15, that were halted by heavy-duty front discs, at 10.2 in and 8” drums in the rear. A factory installed roll bar was optional.

Interior and appearance were not thrown to the wayside either.
Additional lighting was supplied by Bosch driving lamps, while factory tint and blackout striping gave the car a look of business like menace. Black was the only offered paint color and all interiors were finished in grey. Custom high back seats ensured a stable driving position while heel-toe pedals allowed precise downshifts of the 5-speed manual.
Further interior refinements included a leather wrapped wheel and shifter, numbered Shelby dash plate, and 135 mph speedo with tachometer.

Final performance numbers were impressive for the little Shelby, it could do 0-60 in a stunning 6.50 seconds, with a 14.7 quarter-mile (@ 94 mph). Cornering was quite good, with a skid-pad measurement of .88g. Shelby Automobiles was able to advertise that “names like Porsche, Ferrari, Audi, and BMW all finish behind Carrol Shelby’s new Limited Edition GLH-S.”


So next time you see an 80’s Dodge econobox, give it a second glance, it may just go-like-hell.

It's all about Horsepower

Yesterday I was reading an article in a Mustang Monthly about a 1972 Mach and it raised the question that I have always asked about factory horsepower ratings.

The older Mustangs (and muscle cars in general) were advertised with, until recently, stratospheric and unsurpassed horsepower ratings, but why are the new cars equal to or faster than their higher rated HP predecessors?

Fast question, what was the fastest reported 1/4 mile time for a factory stock vintage Mustang?

A quick survey of google reports the 1971 BOSS 351 ran a 13.8, which is the quickest recorded of any of the '73 and older cars. Sorry no vintage numbers for the BOSS 429 and other very heavy hitters, but regardless the 1971 BOSS 351 was advertised at 330 BHP @ 5400 rpm. This car in street trim was reported to weigh about 3220 lbs.

Just another quick pull from the same site takes the 2005 Mustang GT through the traps at 13.5, a full 3 tenths faster than the BOSS. We all know that the S197 is a heavier platform than even the "big" 71-73 years, and I wouldn't be far off the mark with a 300lb difference. Further the 05 car was geared with 3.55 and a 5 speed transmission while the BOSS powered a close ratio 4 speed and 4.10 - 4.30 gears.

So a heavier car, with less horsepower runs faster than the vintage unit, cry foul? Think not.

Something between 1971 and 2005 had certainly changed in Factory horsepower reporting ratings, but anyone who as been in the performance game for awhile knows that this is no surprise. Enter the term SAE, the real focus of this article. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) is; (from wikipedia)

"SAE's original purpose was to promote the use of standards in the nascent automobile industry (initially in the United States) and to promote the better interchange of ideas and expertise, in a similar manner to many other technical societies."

One area where a SAE exercised it's influence was a standardization of engine testing and reporting of results, this was done for very good reason. It would not take much for an engine producer to "skew" their horsepower results for interested purposes. Think about it, even today, Horsepower does sell cars, and if there were no standards of testing, then any marketing people worth employing would certainly report as much as possible. Not convinced that HP matters, take a look at the arguments of a Mustang Dyno vs a Dynojet online, people will always slap down the higher number reported and scoff at a lower one. After seeing the nonsense from that argument, imagine in a modern time if manufacturers were offering their own "certified" in house horsepower testing standards?

It would be difficult to make an apples to apples comparison between engines to say the least.


In the days of pre-SAE engine testing things were a bit muddy, read these wiki excerpts below:

"Brake horsepower
Brake horsepower (abbreviated bhp) is the measure of an engine's horsepower without the loss in power caused by the gearbox, differential, transfer case, or other drivetrain related losses. Brake horsepower is a standard measurement used by manufacturers to represent the horsepower developed at the crankshaft of an engine with it's "production" accessories. This is opposed to the older "gross" horsepower measurement taken with no drive accessories, as was the norm in the 1960's and 1970's. "Brake" refers to a device which was used to load an engine and hold it at a desired RPM. During testing, the output torque and rotational speed were measured to determine the "brake horsepower". Horsepower was originally measured and calculated by use of the indicator (a James Watt invention of the late 18th century), and later by means of a De Prony brake connected to the engine's output shaft. More recently, an engine dynamometer is used instead of a De Prony brake. The output delivered to the driving wheels is less than that obtainable at the engine's crankshaft."

Moving on wards we have the first example of SAE Horsepower:

"SAE gross horsepower
Prior to the 1972 model year, American automakers rated and advertised their engines in brake horsepower (bhp), frequently referred to as SAE gross horsepower, because it was measured in accord with the protocols defined in SAE standards J245 and J1995. As with other brake horsepower test protocols, SAE gross hp was measured using a stock test engine, generally running with few belt-driven accessories and sometimes fitted with long tube (test headers) in lieu of the OEM exhaust manifolds. The atmospheric correction standards for barometric pressure, humidity and temperature for testing were relatively idealistic."

For 1972 we seen this:

"SAE net horsepower
In the United States the term "bhp" fell into disuse in 1971-72, as automakers began to quote power in terms of SAE net horsepower in accord with SAE standard J1349. Like SAE gross and other brake horsepower protocols, SAE Net hp is measured at the engine's crankshaft, and so does not account for transmission losses. However, the SAE net hp testing protocol calls for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings in closer alignment with the power produced by the engine as it is actually configured and sold. The change to net hp effectively deflated power ratings to assuage the auto insurance industry and environmental and safety lobbies."

Comparisons between SAE Gross and SAE Net Horsepower have often draw my original question a bit further. If the testing became more stringent and a subsequent reduction in numbers were reported, on average how much difference did this make? Reading the Mustang monthly article about the 72 Mach 1 cleared this up somewhat, it said the featured 72 Mach 1 came with an R-code 351 which was virtually identical to the last year's BOSS. The non-Boss 351 was rated at 275 bhp versus the BOSS 351's 330 which they claimed was mainly attributable to the new for 72 SAE standard.

Pulling out my abacus I can see that we have to account for 55 SAE Gross horsepower between the two ratings. Based from that change of 16.7% a rough scalar could be drawn. 16.7% is significant, that makes a 500 Horsepower car rated in 1971 only 420 by 1972 standards, don't put away the calculators yet because things changed again.

"SAE certified horsepower
In 2005, the SAE introduced a new test protocol for engine horsepower and torque. The new protocol eliminates some of the flexibility in power measurement, and requires an independent observer present when engines are measured. The test is voluntary, but engines completing it can be advertised as "SAE-certified".

Many manufacturers began switching to the new rating immediately, with multi-directional results; the rated output of Cadillac's supercharged Northstar V8 jumped from 440 horsepower to 469 horsepower under the new tests, while the rating for Toyota's Camry 3.0 L 1MZ-FE V6 fell from 210 horsepower to 190 horsepower. The first engine certified under the new program was the 7.0 L LS7 used in the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06. Certified power rose slightly from 500 horsepower to 505 horsepower."


For note, the 2005 and forward Mustang was also tested to this standard, and it's SAE Certified 300 Horsepower is a great number, so what happens when we try to guess to pre 1971 horsepower rating for a new engine?

With the above changes I believe the GM gains are possibly attributed to typical under-rating of power, that generally occurs now to be on the safe side of marketing. For fun let's adopt the Toyota Camry's loss as our rounding figure.

190 vs 210 accounts for a 9.5% drop in rated HP so we will apply that to the Mustang's 300 SAE to get the estimated SAE Net number

300 X 9.5% = 28.5 HP

328.5 SAE Net HP is our estimated 1972 test standard Number

Now let's apply the same theory to SAE Net to step back to SAE Gross

328.5 X 16.7% = 54.9 HP

383.4 is our theoretical pre-72 factory HP rating for the 4.6L 3V engine.

Looking back we recall the;

1971 BOSS 351 rated at 330 HP ran a 13.8
2005 Mustang GT rated at (383.4) HP ran a 13.5

Interesting stuff eh?

I cannot call this bit of maths anything more than a exercise, but the numbers are close~ish enough for discussion.

Hope you had fun and learned something along the way, but is this the end of the discussion? Certainly not, another time we'll cover the real life difference between Peak HP and Average HP.

Darren