[sciolist]

I have driven that section of road, but not yet in the STi.

Yes, knowing when, where and how has seen me to 40, and may even hold the promise of advanced age.

One of the features of doing *anything* well is learning how to get it on and live to remember it. Unfortunately that does not come with the hard drive, it has to be developed.

There are a lot of folks out there who have a lot more sauce than they know what to do with, and there is always someone who can take you to the cleaners with about half of what you've got.

[Flycaster]

All true. Hardware is no substitute for wetware. :wink:

[sciolist]

An interesting statement in the context of a "performance electronics" forum.

Personally, I try to maintain an equitable balance between hardware and wetware. Balanced asset allocation, I suppose.

[Flycaster]

Heh, as we both see, mixed metaphors have their place. Frankly, I see the brain as an essential part of "performance electronics." Asking a motor to do that which it is not designed to do requires a little thought. The original poster might have better asked, "Can I get 390whp with bolt-ons, and have any expectation of street reliability?" Cobb and the other tuner I spoke with would both give a definitve "no", at least so far.

AFAIK, this is quite a bit more than the WRC cars output (granted, they are only 2.0 litres), and they are supposedly re-built from the bottom up at least every other race. I cannot even imagine how much those motors cost, but it's gott be a bunch. FWIW, WRC cars are supposedly limited to under 300bhp by a "gentleman's agreement", but they are estimated to be putting out closer to 375BHP, and @ 420 ft/lb of torque, based on their known weight and measured acceleration times. (As if there are "gentlemen" in big time racing...what a joke!)

If you ever decide to hit 242 with yuour STi, do it in the early fall or late spring before 9am - the RV traffic can be a "distraction" otherwise.

[sciolist]

If you ever decide to hit 242 with yuour STi, do it in the early fall or late spring before 9am - the RV traffic can be a "distraction" otherwise.

Yeah, I would imagine... I must be getting old. That stretch feels pretty tight at any kind of speed.

[Flycaster]

It is tight - once into the lava field it becomes essentially a 30 mile, downhill autocross to the river. Super tough on brakes, tires...not to mention passengers. Great fun, but you have to have your head screwed on right to make it safe, and it helps to be in shape: you pull lots of repeated g's.

[donmei]

Flycaster,
17 vs "more mature former racer". Thats me also. I get on the car hard fairly often, but I never abuse it. There's a huge difference between
1) winding he engine up (once warmed up) to 7K RPM on an on ramp and
2) dumping the clutch from a standing start.

One is using the car the way it was intended, the other is abuse. I've owned Subarus before, most made well under 70 hp/liter, so its apples and oranges to compare the STI to my old GL wagon, but I'm convinced that with proper maint, an easy warm up and cool down as well as a lack of abuse, the car will make 150,000 miles with no major issues. After all, no matter how hard you drive, most of the time the car is only being asked to make 50 hp or less. (A steady 70 mph cruise takes about 30 hp)

Don

[Flycaster]

Most honest mehcanics will tell you that 150-200,000 miles between overhauls is what today's normally apsirated 911 engines are built for, and remember, they're making @ 340bhp, but out of almost 4 litres nowadays. (Personally, I never had an older Porsche motor make it that far, so I'm taking their word on this.) You think this turbocharged passenger car motor is as solid as a new normally-aspirated 911 motor? Hey, maybe it is, but...

I dunno...time will tell. I agree, however, if you do a lot of extended freeway driving and don't redline it all the time you can skew this upwards substantially. OTOH, where I live and drive, that ain't gonna happen.

Nonetheless, why take it to 7 grand? The power is already dropping off substantially as you pass 6K, at least it does stock. It makes so much torque above 3.5K I found that shifting at or b/4 6K results in much quicker corner exits, and less wheelspin/hop to boot. (The same was true in my old Carrera, but at "slightly" higher rpms.) :wink:

[donmei]

I really just do the redline run because its fun. Its not logical, but I also don't think it hurts anything.

Keep in mind one thing about older porsche motors, they were aircooled. As such they had much more widely varying internal tolerances. This was necessary because of the inconsistent temps they run.

I'm not a porsche guy, but I'm an airplane nut. Airplane engines are like big, heavy, expensive, low-tech porsche engines. At least from an architectural perspective.

Water cooling = consistent temps = lower rate of wear

I know of Subaru engines used in aircraft that have over 1000 hours on them. Typically, this involves a cruise RPM of 5300!! Takeoff is usually at 6000. These engines are built around a very very stout crank, as well as a top end that never seems to wear out . Sure you can break stuff, but they never seem to wear out.

Don

[Flycaster]

I'm with you. Bear in mind, however, that all 911's have been watercooled since 1997 - and those are what I was refering to. The older motors never made it that far. Frankly, it'll be interesting to see how the upper end holds up as well - the valves, stems and guides are subjected to some pretty intense induction temps, even with the factory TMIC.

>I know of Subaru engines used in aircraft that have over 1000 hours on them.< Umm, typo, right? Heck, the TSIO-520 Continental in my T-210 even had an official TBO of 1300 hours, and that was crappy compared to the Lyc's. Talk about re-build prices, Juheesus, these guys here don't have a clue!

[donmei]

The reason there isn't much experience over 1000 hrs on the subarus in aircraft is that they just haven't goten up that high in hours yet. Its not that people replace them at 1000 hrs. Also, how many Lyconentals do you know , that actually made it TBO without a top overhaul somewhere along the way. The great thing about subaru power is when you are ready to "overhaul" you just throw the old block away and buy a new long block from Subaru, for $4000 (if that) and you're on your way.

check out:
www.eggenfellneraircraft.com

Re: 911 longevity. I had forgoten that 911s were watercooled since 1997. Actually I though just the cyl heads were water cooled.

Don

[Flycaster]

Good stuff, but re-read your link - the overhaul cost and TBO are a lot diffeent that you apparently think. And, maybe I'm just lucky, but I never had a motor not make it to TBO - can't say the same for the accessories or the turbos however.

See ya.

[donmei]

?? From the web page:

The Eggenfellner is overhauled using a new short block and cylinder heads. It includes a rebuilt starter and fuel injection, harness and plugs
Overhaul Cost Comparison

Eggenfellner Overhauled Engine

Normally Aspirated
Parts Cost $4,000

Labor Cost $1,600

Total $5,600

The people I know would do their own work so labor costs are 0.

Re, making TBO. Thats great, you must fly a lot. I fly a lowly O-360 and those usually do pretty well with making TBO. But I don't know of anyone with a big turbo angle valve lycoming who has made TBO. I'm guessing thats because you flew it regularly. (I'm fortunate to be able to get up 2-3 times a week)

Don

[Flycaster]

We're way off topic here, but this was my point:

I was responding to this statement, "...buy a new long block from Subaru, for $4000 (if that) and you're on your way."

First of all, you're mixing aircraft and car terminology here. To 'long block" an A/C means a complete factory *new* FWF install (prop excluded). OTOH, rebuilding an aircraft motor and the accessories is a completely different animal, and costs a helluva lot less. Finally, I'm not saying that a subie motor can't be a good A/C powerplant, but there is a really good reason why they cost so much less than other A/C powerplants. Why? Simple, they're not certified, just as was the case with the Porsche motors they tried using about 15 years ago.

Use 'em at your own risk; even Subaru will tell you not to use them in A/C. As for me, I'm sticking with what works - I've been both burned and hurt by being a "scout" for new stuff in the past. When it comes to flying I'm "old, not bold."

Over and out.

[donmei]

Flycaster,

Funny, we're both on the same page, just coming from a different direction. When I build my next airplane, it will have a Lycoming, not a subaru. I am not bold either, when it comes to aircraft engines. But that doesn't diminish that some are using them successfully.

Yes, I did mix terminology. I meant an automotive long block. i.e. block, heads, minimal accessories.

If in 10 yrs eggenfellner has 500 aircraft flying behind subaru power with great rusults, then I may take the plunge.
I'm happy to be on the bleeding edge with certain things, but not aircraft engines, or auto engines for that matter.

Don