The TL Diet Videos
09-27-2009 | 10:56 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Safety Car
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,442
Likes: 482
From: Houston, Texas
The TL Diet Videos
Welcome to the "The TL Diet Videos". I will be adding more videos to this thread as the encounters occur. I will try to label each video as "No Race", "Partial Race", "Clean Race", etc, to quickly set your expectations before viewing. Here is one to get us rolling.
NO RACE
The Mustang obviously refused to race.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBLia...layer_embedded
I tried to entice him into the race by getting into the left lane after making that turn at the red light. I just slowly accelerated like a grandma until he rounded the turn too. I kept a close eye on him. He made a move to speed-up past me. He wanted to get past me (viewing me as a troublemaker) but obviously not to race as I later discovered.
Because of my camera getting the wrong exposure, you can barely see him in my rear-door window in the video (at 0:47). Below is a picture showing him at my rear door.
Please notice that this road is going uphill. It is interesting when racing uphill. The race and your "pull" on the other car occurs in slow motion than it would be on a level surface.
I suppose the Mustang heard and smelled those precat deletes and rolled-up his windows and shift into high gear quick. 
:surrender ...LOL !! joking
NO RACE The Mustang obviously refused to race.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBLia...layer_embedded
I tried to entice him into the race by getting into the left lane after making that turn at the red light. I just slowly accelerated like a grandma until he rounded the turn too. I kept a close eye on him. He made a move to speed-up past me. He wanted to get past me (viewing me as a troublemaker) but obviously not to race as I later discovered.
Because of my camera getting the wrong exposure, you can barely see him in my rear-door window in the video (at 0:47). Below is a picture showing him at my rear door.
Please notice that this road is going uphill. It is interesting when racing uphill. The race and your "pull" on the other car occurs in slow motion than it would be on a level surface.
I suppose the Mustang heard and smelled those precat deletes and rolled-up his windows and shift into high gear quick. :surrender ...LOL !! joking
09-28-2009 | 12:14 AM
#3
Thread Starter
Safety Car
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,442
Likes: 482
From: Houston, Texas
Mods (J32A3 w/5AT) = XLR8 j-pipe, RV6 precat delete, RV6 race pipe (3rd cat delete),
Custom insulated AEM CAI w/ oversized Dryflow filter, UR Pulley undersize,
Ultimate Cooling Mod, Outlaw Engineering Thermoblock Spacer, throttle body coolant bypass.
BTW - you mentioned that you cant really tell anything. Can you describe in more detail what you mean? Thanks greco9885 for any suggestiions.
Custom insulated AEM CAI w/ oversized Dryflow filter, UR Pulley undersize,
Ultimate Cooling Mod, Outlaw Engineering Thermoblock Spacer, throttle body coolant bypass.
BTW - you mentioned that you cant really tell anything. Can you describe in more detail what you mean? Thanks greco9885 for any suggestiions.
09-28-2009 | 12:25 AM
#4
u did a pretty damn good job of holding the camera good while driving lol.
i cant wait for some real races
09-28-2009 | 12:44 AM
#5
Thread Starter
Safety Car
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,442
Likes: 482
From: Houston, Texas
greco9885,
Thanks for explainig. The video is just for fun. Like having you ride along with me. Except in this case, you weigh just 1-1/2 pounds. Virtual passengers add no weight you know. 
Hope to have some better videos soon.
Thanks for explainig. The video is just for fun. Like having you ride along with me.
Except in this case, you weigh just 1-1/2 pounds. Virtual passengers add no weight you know. Hope to have some better videos soon.
Trending Topics
09-28-2009 | 04:12 PM
#11
Thread Starter
Safety Car
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,442
Likes: 482
From: Houston, Texas
Just from seeing the driver very briefly thru my rearview mirror, I would guess he was in the high 40's or low 50's.
But, that doesn't mean that those old farts don't know how to floor-it when provoked.
If you look at the drivers of most high hp cars($) during rush hour, they all are older dudes in their mid-life crisis (at least around Houston).
Now, what does all of that say about me?
ESTIMATED WEIGHT
-------------------
2984 Static
2762 Dynamic
ESTIMATED WHEEL HP EQUIVALENT WITH MODS (assuming mods produce 250 WHP) =
326 WHP (equivalent output)
But, that doesn't mean that those old farts don't know how to floor-it when provoked.
If you look at the drivers of most high hp cars($) during rush hour, they all are older dudes in their mid-life crisis (at least around Houston).
Now, what does all of that say about me?
ESTIMATED WEIGHT
-------------------
2984 Static
2762 Dynamic
ESTIMATED WHEEL HP EQUIVALENT WITH MODS (assuming mods produce 250 WHP) =
326 WHP (equivalent output)
09-28-2009 | 04:17 PM
#12
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 88,888
Likes: 11,843
From: Waffles, BU
I see a lot of older guys up here in Z06's that won't drive faster than 60 on the highway.. It's always the Prius owners that try to zig zag through traffic..
I'm amazed at your static weight.. bravo
I'm amazed at your static weight.. bravo
09-28-2009 | 10:09 PM
#15
All motor
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,530
Likes: 532
From: Long Island
Your car sounds SICK man! You really took off there too. The way you were pulling through the gears shocked me in the 5AT . How much weight reduction would you say you have done altogether? I know you've mentioned it before but I forget 
. How much weight reduction would you say you have done altogether? I know you've mentioned it before but I forget
09-30-2009 | 09:01 AM
#21
Thread Starter
Safety Car
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,442
Likes: 482
From: Houston, Texas
Thanks for the sick comments guys 
610 Static
832 Dynamic
catback = ? (no data)
J pipe = 4.0
race pipe = 3.5
pulley = 7.0 Static, 105 Dynamic
CAI = 8.0
----------------------------------------------------
22.5 Static, 120 Dynamic
Static weight is "weight on a scale". Dynamic weight takes into consideration if it rotates, such as a crankshaft or wheel. A reduction in rotating weight (for example, lighter wheels) has an increased effect on acceleration/braking as compared to an equal reduction in static (non rotating) weight.
Let's use lightweight wheels as an example. You have the weight reduction of the wheels themselves, such as weighing them on a scale. But in addition to that, the engine has a much easier time trying to get the wheels to spin (referred to a the flywheel effect).
Because it is easier for the engine to spin the wheels, this will free-up some HP. You gained that extra HP from the lighter rotating weight. So now, we must ask the following question. How much non-rotating weight reduction would had been needed to equal that same performance gain from that hp?
In my case with my lighter wheels (rims and tires), the scale shows that I reduced 62 lbs. But the improvement in the actual performance is the same as if I had removed 186 lbs of non-rotating weight. So, that weight reduction was 62 lbs Static and 186 lbs Dynamic.
Which number should we be concerned with? If this was a contest to see which car was lighter, then only the static weight would apply. If this is a contest to see which car can accelerate/brake better, then only the dynamic weight reduction applies.
The dynamic weight can only be used as a comparison tool against a reference point. You could *not* say to someone that your car has a Dynamic weight of 2748 lb. You can only state that your car weighs 2970 lbs (static).
You can say that your car has gained a performance improvement equal to removing 832 lbs (dynamic) from the car, although the scale shows you only removed 610 lbs (static).
So for me to describe my performance improvements that were gained from the weight reduction, I need to use the dynamic weight reduction. Remember that I said that dynamic can only be used for comparison. So, compared to my oem TL, my "TL Diet" car will brake/accelerate as if I had removed 832 lbs (dynamic) from the car.
832 Dynamic
J pipe = 4.0
race pipe = 3.5
pulley = 7.0 Static, 105 Dynamic
CAI = 8.0
----------------------------------------------------
22.5 Static, 120 Dynamic
Static weight is "weight on a scale". Dynamic weight takes into consideration if it rotates, such as a crankshaft or wheel. A reduction in rotating weight (for example, lighter wheels) has an increased effect on acceleration/braking as compared to an equal reduction in static (non rotating) weight.
Let's use lightweight wheels as an example. You have the weight reduction of the wheels themselves, such as weighing them on a scale. But in addition to that, the engine has a much easier time trying to get the wheels to spin (referred to a the flywheel effect).
Because it is easier for the engine to spin the wheels, this will free-up some HP. You gained that extra HP from the lighter rotating weight. So now, we must ask the following question. How much non-rotating weight reduction would had been needed to equal that same performance gain from that hp?
In my case with my lighter wheels (rims and tires), the scale shows that I reduced 62 lbs. But the improvement in the actual performance is the same as if I had removed 186 lbs of non-rotating weight. So, that weight reduction was 62 lbs Static and 186 lbs Dynamic.
Which number should we be concerned with? If this was a contest to see which car was lighter, then only the static weight would apply. If this is a contest to see which car can accelerate/brake better, then only the dynamic weight reduction applies.
The dynamic weight can only be used as a comparison tool against a reference point. You could *not* say to someone that your car has a Dynamic weight of 2748 lb. You can only state that your car weighs 2970 lbs (static).
You can say that your car has gained a performance improvement equal to removing 832 lbs (dynamic) from the car, although the scale shows you only removed 610 lbs (static).
So for me to describe my performance improvements that were gained from the weight reduction, I need to use the dynamic weight reduction. Remember that I said that dynamic can only be used for comparison. So, compared to my oem TL, my "TL Diet" car will brake/accelerate as if I had removed 832 lbs (dynamic) from the car.
09-30-2009 | 09:22 AM
#22
Thread Starter
Safety Car
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,442
Likes: 482
From: Houston, Texas
In post #11, I stated the wrong numbers. I was looking at my notes that were out-of-date. Here is the correct info.
ESTIMATED WEIGHT
--------------------
2970 Lbs. Static
2748 Lbs. Dynamic
ESTIMATED WEIGHT
--------------------
2970 Lbs. Static
2748 Lbs. Dynamic
09-30-2009 | 12:58 PM
#23
eat, sleep, NGC
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 368
Likes: 2
Thanks for the sick comments guys
610 Static
832 Dynamic
catback = ? (no data)
J pipe = 4.0
race pipe = 3.5
pulley = 7.0 Static, 105 Dynamic
CAI = 8.0
----------------------------------------------------
22.5 Static, 120 Dynamic
Static weight is "weight on a scale". Dynamic weight takes into consideration if it rotates, such as a crankshaft or wheel. A reduction in rotating weight (for example, lighter wheels) has an increased effect on acceleration/braking as compared to an equal reduction in static (non rotating) weight.
Let's use lightweight wheels as an example. You have the weight reduction of the wheels themselves, such as weighing them on a scale. But in addition to that, the engine has a much easier time trying to get the wheels to spin (referred to a the flywheel effect).
Because it is easier for the engine to spin the wheels, this will free-up some HP. You gained that extra HP from the lighter rotating weight. So now, we must ask the following question. How much non-rotating weight reduction would had been needed to equal that same performance gain from that hp?
In my case with my lighter wheels (rims and tires), the scale shows that I reduced 62 lbs. But the improvement in the actual performance is the same as if I had removed 186 lbs of non-rotating weight. So, that weight reduction was 62 lbs Static and 186 lbs Dynamic.
Which number should we be concerned with? If this was a contest to see which car was lighter, then only the static weight would apply. If this is a contest to see which car can accelerate/brake better, then only the dynamic weight reduction applies.
The dynamic weight can only be used as a comparison tool against a reference point. You could *not* say to someone that your car has a Dynamic weight of 2748 lb. You can only state that your car weighs 2970 lbs (static).
You can say that your car has gained a performance improvement equal to removing 832 lbs (dynamic) from the car, although the scale shows you only removed 610 lbs (static).
So for me to describe my performance improvements that were gained from the weight reduction, I need to use the dynamic weight reduction. Remember that I said that dynamic can only be used for comparison. So, compared to my oem TL, my "TL Diet" car will brake/accelerate as if I had removed 832 lbs (dynamic) from the car.
610 Static
832 Dynamic
catback = ? (no data)
J pipe = 4.0
race pipe = 3.5
pulley = 7.0 Static, 105 Dynamic
CAI = 8.0
----------------------------------------------------
22.5 Static, 120 Dynamic
Static weight is "weight on a scale". Dynamic weight takes into consideration if it rotates, such as a crankshaft or wheel. A reduction in rotating weight (for example, lighter wheels) has an increased effect on acceleration/braking as compared to an equal reduction in static (non rotating) weight.
Let's use lightweight wheels as an example. You have the weight reduction of the wheels themselves, such as weighing them on a scale. But in addition to that, the engine has a much easier time trying to get the wheels to spin (referred to a the flywheel effect).
Because it is easier for the engine to spin the wheels, this will free-up some HP. You gained that extra HP from the lighter rotating weight. So now, we must ask the following question. How much non-rotating weight reduction would had been needed to equal that same performance gain from that hp?
In my case with my lighter wheels (rims and tires), the scale shows that I reduced 62 lbs. But the improvement in the actual performance is the same as if I had removed 186 lbs of non-rotating weight. So, that weight reduction was 62 lbs Static and 186 lbs Dynamic.
Which number should we be concerned with? If this was a contest to see which car was lighter, then only the static weight would apply. If this is a contest to see which car can accelerate/brake better, then only the dynamic weight reduction applies.
The dynamic weight can only be used as a comparison tool against a reference point. You could *not* say to someone that your car has a Dynamic weight of 2748 lb. You can only state that your car weighs 2970 lbs (static).
You can say that your car has gained a performance improvement equal to removing 832 lbs (dynamic) from the car, although the scale shows you only removed 610 lbs (static).
So for me to describe my performance improvements that were gained from the weight reduction, I need to use the dynamic weight reduction. Remember that I said that dynamic can only be used for comparison. So, compared to my oem TL, my "TL Diet" car will brake/accelerate as if I had removed 832 lbs (dynamic) from the car.
09-30-2009 | 03:46 PM
#24
AZ Community Team
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 32,488
Likes: 7,771
From: N35°03'16.75", W 080°51'0.9"
....
Let's use lightweight wheels as an example. You have the weight reduction of the wheels themselves, such as weighing them on a scale. But in addition to that, the engine has a much easier time trying to get the wheels to spin (referred to a the flywheel effect).
Because it is easier for the engine to spin the wheels, this will free-up some HP. You gained that extra HP from the lighter rotating weight. So now, we must ask the following question. How much non-rotating weight reduction would had been needed to equal that same performance gain from that hp?
In my case with my lighter wheels (rims and tires), the scale shows that I reduced 62 lbs. But the improvement in the actual performance is the same as if I had removed 186 lbs of non-rotating weight. So, that weight reduction was 62 lbs Static and 186 lbs Dynamic.
Let's use lightweight wheels as an example. You have the weight reduction of the wheels themselves, such as weighing them on a scale. But in addition to that, the engine has a much easier time trying to get the wheels to spin (referred to a the flywheel effect).
Because it is easier for the engine to spin the wheels, this will free-up some HP. You gained that extra HP from the lighter rotating weight. So now, we must ask the following question. How much non-rotating weight reduction would had been needed to equal that same performance gain from that hp?
In my case with my lighter wheels (rims and tires), the scale shows that I reduced 62 lbs. But the improvement in the actual performance is the same as if I had removed 186 lbs of non-rotating weight. So, that weight reduction was 62 lbs Static and 186 lbs Dynamic.
Question on this:
Since the engine only drives two wheels (via the transmission), can you still claim "dynamic weight reduction" for the rear wheels, or should the dynamic change be only for the two fronts?
I realize you've reduced rotating mass on all 4 wheels, but only tow of those wheels are rotated by the drivetrain. The other 2 (rears) just spin freely.
Oh!! And if an airplane were on a treadmill .... ?
09-30-2009 | 04:51 PM
#26
Team Owner
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 20,172
Likes: 1,812
From: Bakersfield
Question on this:
Since the engine only drives two wheels (via the transmission), can you still claim "dynamic weight reduction" for the rear wheels, or should the dynamic change be only for the two fronts?
I realize you've reduced rotating mass on all 4 wheels, but only tow of those wheels are rotated by the drivetrain. The other 2 (rears) just spin freely.
Oh!! And if an airplane were on a treadmill .... ?
Since the engine only drives two wheels (via the transmission), can you still claim "dynamic weight reduction" for the rear wheels, or should the dynamic change be only for the two fronts?
I realize you've reduced rotating mass on all 4 wheels, but only tow of those wheels are rotated by the drivetrain. The other 2 (rears) just spin freely.
Oh!! And if an airplane were on a treadmill .... ?
09-30-2009 | 05:03 PM
#27
Thread Starter
Safety Car
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,442
Likes: 482
From: Houston, Texas
It applies to all four wheels equally. Because all four wheels must increase their rotational speed (RPM) equally, all four wheels benefit equally from the performance gain of the reduced rotating mass.
It has nothing what-so-ever to do with if the wheel is a "driving wheel" (applying power to the ground). It is only the “flywheel effect” that matters, and all four wheels experience the same “flywheel effect”.
A brief definition of "flywheel effect" is rotating objects tend to resist acceleration and deceleration. The heavier that the rotating object is, the more it will resist any change in it's RPM (revolutions per minute).
To learn more on this topic, a person can Google these terms: "Angular Momentum" & "Polar Moment of Inertia"
It has nothing what-so-ever to do with if the wheel is a "driving wheel" (applying power to the ground). It is only the “flywheel effect” that matters, and all four wheels experience the same “flywheel effect”.
A brief definition of "flywheel effect" is rotating objects tend to resist acceleration and deceleration. The heavier that the rotating object is, the more it will resist any change in it's RPM (revolutions per minute).
To learn more on this topic, a person can Google these terms: "Angular Momentum" & "Polar Moment of Inertia"
09-30-2009 | 05:07 PM
#28
Thread Starter
Safety Car
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,442
Likes: 482
From: Houston, Texas
09-30-2009 | 05:44 PM
#30
eat, sleep, NGC
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 368
Likes: 2
Wow. So I was browsing youtube and I found this vid of a E46 M3 that sounds and pulls exactly like your TL it's almost scary to watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AIIidK1N3g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AIIidK1N3g
09-30-2009 | 06:57 PM
#33
Lead Footed
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 15
From: Plano - Texas
It applies to all four wheels equally. Because all four wheels must increase their rotational speed (RPM) equally, all four wheels benefit equally from the performance gain of the reduced rotating mass.
It has nothing what-so-ever to do with if the wheel is a "driving wheel" (applying power to the ground). It is only the “flywheel effect” that matters, and all four wheels experience the same “flywheel effect”.
A brief definition of "flywheel effect" is rotating objects tend to resist acceleration and deceleration. The heavier that the rotating object is, the more it will resist any change in it's RPM (revolutions per minute).
To learn more on this topic, a person can Google these terms: "Angular Momentum" & "Polar Moment of Inertia"
It has nothing what-so-ever to do with if the wheel is a "driving wheel" (applying power to the ground). It is only the “flywheel effect” that matters, and all four wheels experience the same “flywheel effect”.
A brief definition of "flywheel effect" is rotating objects tend to resist acceleration and deceleration. The heavier that the rotating object is, the more it will resist any change in it's RPM (revolutions per minute).
To learn more on this topic, a person can Google these terms: "Angular Momentum" & "Polar Moment of Inertia"
I've explained this to some of the guys and some say they get it, but I don't think most do. The first mod I ever did was put some light weight wheels and tires on. With no other mods I ran 14.7s the first time at the track. I had the 2nd quickest time and beat the guys with headers and or CAI. I dropped over 9lbs per tire/wheel.
Ruf
09-30-2009 | 11:22 PM
#34
You need to get that thing to the track and get a timeslip. It's definitely the quickest N/A 5AT TL anywhere. Hell, it's probably quicker than a supercharged 5AT. Do you seriously think it's making 250 whp though? I'd guess more like 235, especially without a catback.
09-30-2009 | 11:44 PM
#35
Thread Starter
Safety Car
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,442
Likes: 482
From: Houston, Texas
^ Yep. I usually research things fairly well. And, I searched our forum fairly well comparing dyno results that have my same engine mods. Plus, with the Ultimate Cooling Mod, I retain all of it out on the road.
09-30-2009 | 11:51 PM
#36
Lead Footed
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 15
From: Plano - Texas
I just remembered I saved some info on sprung and unsprung weight. It really helps one to understand what is what and the effect has on it. 
{{ Weight is the enemy of performance vehicles. As your vehicle tries to accelerate, negotiate a turn or simply drive over uneven pavement, the vehicle’s weight begins to limit its performance. Racers often do what they can to reduce weight by stripping the vehicles interior and replacing heavy steel body pieces with fiberglass or carbon fiber. This effectively reduces the “sprung” mass of a vehicle such as engine, body, interior and anything else supported by the suspension. “Unsprung” mass consists of the shocks, springs, wheels, tires, brakes and other components that move with the suspension. The heavier that “unsprung” mass is, the more force that is exerted on the sprung mass, which affects handling, ride comfort and the vehicle’s overall performance. One of the most effective ways to reduce “unsprung” mass is to reduce the weight of your wheels. }}
Ruf
02 WDP TLS Black Interior w/ Black Grill Inserts & Cleared Headlights
**1/4mile 14.46 @96.07MPH (45-70mph test - 3.5 secs)
17x7 Konig Appeals SMF – 16.8lbs each
P225/45ZR-17 Bridgestone RE960 AS - (Falken Ziex ZE-512s for track)
CT Icebox, Custom RamAir, CT Sways & Springs
3nd Gen Innovative Motor Mounts – Front & Side Only
Bored out Intake & TBs, Mugen Cooling Mods & Thermoblok
Ceramic Coated XS Headers & Random-Tech Hiflow CAT
NEO Anti Freeze & 5w-20 oil w/Militec-1
Tranny #3 Installed 11.17.2008
Note: (** 14.46 was before headers, Hi-flow CAT, IMMs, Bored out Intake & TBs)
{{ Weight is the enemy of performance vehicles. As your vehicle tries to accelerate, negotiate a turn or simply drive over uneven pavement, the vehicle’s weight begins to limit its performance. Racers often do what they can to reduce weight by stripping the vehicles interior and replacing heavy steel body pieces with fiberglass or carbon fiber. This effectively reduces the “sprung” mass of a vehicle such as engine, body, interior and anything else supported by the suspension. “Unsprung” mass consists of the shocks, springs, wheels, tires, brakes and other components that move with the suspension. The heavier that “unsprung” mass is, the more force that is exerted on the sprung mass, which affects handling, ride comfort and the vehicle’s overall performance. One of the most effective ways to reduce “unsprung” mass is to reduce the weight of your wheels. }}
Ruf
02 WDP TLS Black Interior w/ Black Grill Inserts & Cleared Headlights
**1/4mile 14.46 @96.07MPH (45-70mph test - 3.5 secs)
17x7 Konig Appeals SMF – 16.8lbs each
P225/45ZR-17 Bridgestone RE960 AS - (Falken Ziex ZE-512s for track)
CT Icebox, Custom RamAir, CT Sways & Springs
3nd Gen Innovative Motor Mounts – Front & Side Only
Bored out Intake & TBs, Mugen Cooling Mods & Thermoblok
Ceramic Coated XS Headers & Random-Tech Hiflow CAT
NEO Anti Freeze & 5w-20 oil w/Militec-1
Tranny #3 Installed 11.17.2008
Note: (** 14.46 was before headers, Hi-flow CAT, IMMs, Bored out Intake & TBs)
09-30-2009 | 11:58 PM
#38
Lead Footed
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 15
From: Plano - Texas
Probably why I've only made a couple of trips to Austin. Seriously, it would be great to hook-up . . and we can talk and compare mods.
Oh, the HP estimates seem good to me . . . I've estimated mine to be the equivalent of 320+ at the crank.
Ruf
Last edited by RUF87; 10-01-2009 at 12:01 AM. Reason: adds
10-01-2009 | 12:16 AM
#39
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 88,888
Likes: 11,843
From: Waffles, BU
BTW, why've you not come to any of the big Texas meets we've had in the DFW area? Probably why I've only made a couple of trips to Austin.
Seriously, it would be great to hook-up . . and we can talk and compare mods.
Oh, the HP estimates seem good to me . . . I've estimated mine to be the equivalent of 320+ at the crank.
Ruf
Probably why I've only made a couple of trips to Austin. Seriously, it would be great to hook-up . . and we can talk and compare mods.
Oh, the HP estimates seem good to me . . . I've estimated mine to be the equivalent of 320+ at the crank.
Ruf
