En zo zal het er ongeveer uit gaan zien.

waterman771 schreef:

Jemig Sans…. heb je dat blok eerst uit de tuin van ome Wim moeten opgraven of zo   Wat ziet dat ding d’r beroerd uit man! ‘t lijkt wel of het uit de Hoofdvaart komt

Precies mijn eerste gedachte: Heeft dat blok in het water gelegen of zo? ZIet er gruwelijk uit….

Zoals ik al zei, het valt wel mee hoor, het lijkt erger dan het is op die fotos. Niet dat het noodzakelijkerwijs precies dit blok wordt, maar deze was het makkelijkst om als eerste uit elkaar te halen.

Dat is een mooie rode foto Wendela… dat is wel cool

garagestmarien schreef:

En zo zal het er ongeveer uit gaan zien.

BlingBling!!!

Betekent dit trouwens dat the Beast al bijna weer de weg op is?

Nee hoor, dit is een foto van nog voor we naar Frankrijk vertrokken. Gemaakt op de oude locatie van CitroMonde. 

i’d be more than happy to ship you a CX .

Zo vandaag geen reet opgeschoten, behalve dat ik m’n koppelling heb gesteld. Productief he?

First off, please use punctuation marks in your text. It makes for much easier reading.

Citroen did not build any Beasts. John built ‘The Beast’, the one and only.  CGAT is also a one off, by a fellow named Neil.

The fastest CX built was the gti turbo 2, factory standard top speed 223 km/h, 167hp, 290Nm of torque, 0-100 km/h in 7.8 seconds.

The standard 2.0 athena has I believe 106hp and 163Nm of torque. It would take some real doing to make it as fast as even a standard Gti turbo. Not impossible ofcourse, but it would certainly take more than an electric supercharger.

Nu het toch echt warm genoeg begint te worden moet ik kiezen. Of the 16 inch superturismo’s nog even afdraaien en er 205/55ZR16 91Z opzetten…

Of, nog een setje 15 inch alfa staal scoren, en daar bijvoorbeeld dit opleggen:
http://www.novarota.nl/martdetail?artid=7583

Ik vind de zwarte stalen velgen namelijk toch ook wel heel erg cool ogen.

Beslissingen, beslissingen.

Thanks, the punctuation makes alot better.

As I understand, The Beast and CGAT (CGAT is from the car’s UK license plates, without the numbers) have similar power outputs, or rather had, similar power outputs, as as far as i know they’re both in overhaul, to get the horsepower further up. The similarity ends there though. As far asa I know John and Neil have different approaches to how they are developing the horsepower.

I also know of a third car, the FBAT (once again the letters from the uk plates), though I don’t know the specs there. Also, there are the Maikonics cars. Maikonics was a tuner that did CX’s in the UK, and their 2nd and 3rd stage cars were also very powerful. I only know of one still in existence though.

The pistons earlier in the topic are the new pistons for my engine, which is going to be built for me at Garage St. Marien, a small enterprise in France where the owner of the Beast resides.

A purely theoretical calculation based on te 2.0 athena engine. Assuming you can keep fuelling and ignition in good order, and that compression 1:9.2 isn’t going to cause detonation.

Say the minor improvements on airflow give you 10% increase in power, taking you from 106 to ~116.5hp. Then you will need to increase the effective capacity of the engine. You’re doing this with electric superchargers. These are quite inefficient, because crankshaft power is converted to electricity by the alternator, which is s conversion step and then electricity back into kinetic energy by the superchargers.

In order to get enough effective capacity to beat a stock gti turbo, you will need to get to about 170hp, the weight advantage should do the rest.

170/116.5 = 45% more effective capacity needed. In a perfect world this means 0.45 bar boost would be enough. Unfortunately, those superchargers need to be driven by that alternator whcih uses crankshaft power.

Unfortunately, even a mechanical supercharet actually uses up about 40% of the extra power it generates, which would be more if done electrically. Assuming that electric superchargers are say 60% users (and my guess is they’re less efficient than that). Then you will need to produce:

(170 - 116.5)/40% = 133.75 extra hp or a rough equivalent of 1.14 bar of boost. Unfortunately in a 1:9.2 compression engine, I would expect detonation to become a risk on pump fuel somewhere around 0.8bar of boost.

That doesn’t make it all impossible, just a larger more costly operation. Also the numbers above are almost criminally rough. Each step could probabt be as far as 20%, making the above calculation next to worthless, as anything other than a sense of scale of the problem. We haven’t even discussed getting enough fuel into the engine, or how to make sure the iginition responds to the boost.

An electric pump that switches extra fuel in manually? That sounds like a recipe for bore wash to me.

What amount of air can these electric superchargers displace. All the ones I have seen aren’t really up to the job. There’s a video somewhere of someone attaching a leaf blower to their engine and it having only very little effect.

A 2.0l engine at 5000rpm needs ~10,000 liters of air per minute, depending on VE. If you want 1.14 bar boost means a top of 21400 liters of air per minute depending on VE at that rpm.
\
Also, decreasing compression will decrease your ‘basic’ engine power, thus meaning you will need even more boost to reach 170hp.

For the application you seem to be building, go out and get yourself a nice cheap nitrous kit. Best bang for buck as far as short term performance goes.

10,000 litres of air is 10 cubic metres. A cubic metre is 35.6 cubic feet. so around 356 cubic feet of air per minute.

Zo, ik heb een nieuwe autoradio ingebouwd, maar nu blijkt dat de bluetooth op mijn debiele telefoon kapot is. Maar goed, dan maar vervangen.

Het lost wel eindelijk het CX/CD probleem op. Deze heeft gewoon geen CD, alleen SD kaarten, en bluetooth audio streamen. Dan kan er ook niks misgaan met het CD loopwerk .

Didn’t know FBAT had belonged to Neil. The owner I spoke to is quite insane and was building a 600hp chevy blazer with one mechanically driven axle, one hydraulically driven axle and a electrically driven axle (he’d added a third axle to it).

As for the results on John’s modifications, I will testbench it when it’s done. Then we’ll know. I have faith in the results. And it’s not going to cost me 9k GBP. I’m getting rid of the AFM alltogether and mounting a VEMS, for variable wastegate control.

Ah right, I can imagine that if you have to figure it out too, it could cost you 9k GBP… development costs.

So what are you doing? Going to buy an M25/662 or M25/666 for starters?