Tractive Effort: Ed..UK

[cisco]

Just found this thread, randomly searching Google

http://www.micra.org.uk/archive/index.php/t-10647-p-2.html

Quick note to Ed in UK: Please look up "tractive effort". Its the raw measurement of torque that real dynamometers measure torque by. Its not "torque at the wheels". Tractive effort is like the raw torque measured on the rollers, you have to divide that figure up by the gear ratios and stuff to calculate the accurate torque at the engine. Of course there is no way blue monster made 800Nm at the wheels. Man, its "tractive effort" = raw torque measured by the rollers. Common on "real" dynos, not those dynos which "estimate" torque at the flywheel.

Blue monster made a bucketload of torque and in combination with the 31v gear ratios it was real world fast, despite what jealous people like Ed/UK may think. Ed, I wish you could have experienced a micra with that much grunt yourself first hand. There was a stupendous power band between 4000-7900rpm, that's 4000rpm. Below that you could cruise burning hardly any petrol - best of both worlds. I wouldn't go back to a T25 at all. The T25 had better response below 4000rpm, but above that, it topped out quite quickly and left you with no big real world push back. Blue Monster with the T28BB had the big mid range and top end to absolutely blow past WRXs and stuff. It was definitely the best setup. After all, I did play with a number of setups and trial and error from real world learning and money spending/wasting

 

[CMF_55bhp is more than enough]

tractive effort is usually used to descride "pulling power" or the effort needed to move the vehicle forward usually thought to be measured at the back of the vehicle. Ive never heard of it being used on a dyno graph though, must be different standards here in the UK. Is it common in australia?

I know its used a lot in locomotive standards and have only really heard of it through my engineering degree course. but yeah you to get tractive effort you multiply the torque and total ratio of the running gear and then divide it by rolling radius of all 4 tyres.

so if you look at blue monster you can get the torque rating from the engine by multipling tractive effort by the rolling radius and then divide by the total ratios of the drive train.

Id do it but im not that up on blue monster

but say if you had a overall radius of like 17 inches and a total gear ratio of like 10 (im really guessing at that) then you would end up with like 270 ft/lb which considering ive had a few glasses of whiskey and the fact that i guessed at some stuff, works out about right.

 

[CMF_Sean]

cisco WROTE:

"Just found this thread, randomly searching Google <BR><BR><A title=http://www.micra.org.uk/archive/index.php/t-10647-p-2.html href="http://www.micra.org.uk/archive/index.php/t-10647-p-2.html" target=_blank>http://www.micra.org.uk/archive/index.php/t-10647-p-2.html</A><BR><BR>Quick note to Ed in UK: Please look up "tractive effort". Its the raw measurement of torque that real dynamometers measure torque by. Its not "torque at the wheels". Tractive effort is like the raw torque measured on the rollers, you have to divide that figure up by the gear ratios and stuff to calculate the accurate torque at the engine. Of course there is no way blue monster made 800Nm at the wheels. Man, its "tractive effort" = raw torque measured by the rollers. Common on "real" dynos, not those dynos which "estimate" torque at the flywheel.<BR><BR>Blue monster made a bucketload of torque and in combination with the 31v gear ratios it was real world fast, despite what jealous people like Ed/UK may think. Ed, I wish you could have experienced a micra with that much grunt yourself first hand. There was a stupendous power band between 4000-7900rpm, that's 4000rpm. Below that you could cruise burning hardly any petrol - best of both worlds. I wouldn't go back to a T25 at all. The T25 had better response below 4000rpm, but above that, it topped out quite quickly and left you with no big real world push back. Blue Monster with the T28BB had the big mid range and top end to absolutely blow past WRXs and stuff. It was definitely the best setup. After all, I did play with a number of setups and trial and error from real world learning and money spending/wasting

Here here!

That car was and still is the quickest car I have ever been in, the G's you pulled in that thing were amazing...

I miss it and it wasn't even mine, I recon if it came up for sale I'd be hard pressed NOT to buy it...Can someone post if he is interested in a sale? I think he was a while ago..

Sean

 

[CMF_mipcar]

I've got "tractive effort" in my four wheel drive lol...
I just engage low range.... heheheh.

Sorry guys, just couldn't resist.

Mychael

 

[CMF_evade]

lol this is STILL going on

 

[CMF_Yom]

On torque and dynos - I thought that australian dynos were setup differently to dynos around the world and are more accurate than UK dynos because ours don't estimate flywheel figures. BUT the more images I've seen posted up with the huge amount of scales and measurements used here and around the world its become obvious to me that noone is using a set standard - its very much a free for all and operators tend to go with what they prefer (or what brings the highest figures as high figures = happy customer which means they come back/tell their friends). And as all dynos can be setup differently it is silly to compare figures from different machines (even if they're the same make and model). Operators can do what they want if they're tech savvy.

As for the figures.. no 1.3L will make 800NM of torque @ fly. Duh. Even a 5L turbo diesel will struggle to make that sort of torque at flywheel. It is quite obvious that figure has been MEASURED (not calculated) at the hubs (knowing it was a hub dyno that it was measured on) with no gearing compensation. Unless you know your gear and final drive ratios as well as the exact tyre size (if using chassis dyno instead of a hub dyno which avoids the issue of wheel size) comparing different vehicle's torque measurements is completely useless. Gearing is there for torque multiplication! If we had enough torque we'd have a direct drive from the clutch to a differential to the wheels - internal combustion engines just can't generate the torque required for this to be an effective solution. Electric motors on the otherhand...

 

[cisco]

Haha yeah its still going on..

I tell you what, being in Japan and all around the hot cars buzzing around everywhere, makes me think about enjoying Aussie modified car scene life again! One of the great thing about the R Colt, is that it has refinement and modern nice things already all done for me. E.g. perfect crystal headlights, perfect racing recaro seats, leather steering wheel, airbags/safety, stacker/mp3 etc.. The interior and bodywork is basically perfect straight from the factory. So if you did decide to modify one, you could 100% focus on engine/suspension/mechanical. Where as with blue monster, so much of the money also went to improving the cars looks and aesthetics and user-friendliness (Colour coding everything, new interiot trim, new stereo, steering wheels, gearknobs, seats, crystal lights that don't even aim straight etc)..

Ralliart just released an official factory LSD item for the Colt now too.. You can simply bolt it straight in there.. If I was to spend any kind of money on improving a car again, I would never go through the same massive path of "modernising" an "old-ish" car again, the money that adds up to is just stupendous and the results are never perfect anyway: e.g. crystal lights that look great but don't work properly. Just start with a modern car in the first place and all those problems are perfectly solved.

Hardly anything available for the R Colt yet even in Japan though. Its still too new. Needs another couple of years to really blossom even over here.. Surprising, I thought they would be onto it already.. You can't buy anything hardly at all to boost the power yet.. Apart from a mildly uprated exhaust which only adds like 11kw or something. The factory exhaust is already pretty fat and decent flowing. To me, biggest issue with the Colt is lack of top end power, which could all be fixed by hotting up the turbo system, because the MIVEC engine underneath it all is rock solid and the best/latest technology, so a great basis to work from.

 

[CMF_NissTrust]

love the r colt, do you still have it cisco? I'm thinking in a years time a EVO VIII MR edition, there is a fantastic aftermarket scene ready and waiting on EVO's and any modification from standard is a bonus as the cars perform great from the factory..

 

[CMF_Yom]

Cisco I think the colt is suffering the same issues of the Starlet GT (slow to develop). People develop things for cars which feature well in motorsport because they know there'll be an enthusiast following out there.

Its (ralliart colt) the odd one out in motorsport. Because it is forced induction it can't compete with all the other small NA cars of its size and design. It is forced into the next class up of more powerful, much more established and larger vehicles where it simply can't cut the mustard due to it being at heart an economy design with not enough boogey under the hood.

If it were a hi-po naturally aspirated unit I suspect it'd have alot more focus for new bits and pieces to wrangle more power from it - not to mention a much greater influence in motorsport than it currently does.

Thats the opinion I formed with a few competitors in the rally QLD a few months ago. They simply cannot compete with a production evo, and it is too quick to compete with even a production 1.6L MIVEC lancer.

 

[CMF_Nissanmania]

Yom, you've hit a very important point for guys interested in competing in motorsport with their cars. The idea of what class your car will end up in. Obviously Ralliart haven't configured the Colt to be a killer-app otherwise they would have gone all out and stuck the Evo motor in one. As it is it will sit in the over 2 litre class where it won't cut it with lots of other 2litre+ turbo 2wd cars or bigger NA cars like the 350Z!

The funny thing is capacity doesn't generally count for 4WD's - they're usually all lumped together.

If they were aiming at motorsport useage they would have put in a 1170 cc turbo unit in to keep it in the under 2 litre class (multiplication factor of 1.7). Or gone all out and whacked in a 2L turbo jobby.

I think the Colt would do really well in club motorsport in motorkhanas and shorter sprints and hillclimbs. It handles really well and has decent power and grip on tap. With an LSD you could really start using more power.

 

[CMF_evade]

Ive done two motorkhana's this year and would have absolutely LOVED to have driven my micra on them..i reckon it would have taken out a lot of the bigger cars..

DAMN! wouldve been so much fun too..

 

[cisco]

You reckon the micra would have been quicker than your 200sx around those courses aaron?? Sounds awesome..

Yeah good point Yom, definitely makes sense.. Its like mitsu just made the RColt to be a zippy little city hot hatch, but not really a motorsport contender.. But I guess also in some ways similar to the micra.. A popular little car, that was never super fast enough to break any land speed records.. But over time became more popular and parts started to show up for them. Although Colt sales are happening slower than I would have expected. So far I've only seen one in Japan (heaps of non Ralliart ones though) and they are only slowly selling in Australia. It seems gutless K cars are far more popular over here in Japan.

Saw some funny spacey things called Toyota Wish too, but they are huge.

 

[CMF_evade]

Hrmm i'm not sure! I reckon it would be a fair contender though..pitty we'll never know!

I know it would have easily made the middle of the pack though out of about 50 cars..

That said the micra wouldn't have been as 'fun' on the courses..you can't hang out the arse end like the S15 coming back down to the garage..which is half the fun of it

 

[CMF_Nissanmania]

I regularly compete in motorkhanas in my S14 (430 rw hp so there's plent of tail-out fun!) and would bet that my Micra (when finished) will beat its times. Might even compete with both on the same day as a comparison!

The Colt has plenty of tractability which I think would see it do really well around a motorkhana. Possibly better than an Evo which has a woeful turning circle. I'm not sure if body roll would be an issue, but hey, most factory supension setups will roll a fair bit till tied down with some aftermarket swaybars.

 

[CMF_evade]

Lol,

The EVO's are the cheater cars for motorkhana's..even mildy stocky ones are always placing up in the top 10...

damn AYC.

 

[CMF_Nissanmania]

Yeah, I know what you mean. An event last Sunday was very wet and of the top 7 places 6 were 4wd's, 2 were Evos which finished 3rd and 4th. The Evos will eventually dominate over the Rexes as the flood of imported Evo8 MR's and Evo9's hit the track. They are amazing to watch on a wet bit of tarmac - go nearly as fast as in the dry!

 

[CMF_mipcar]

Technology and I'm talking traction control, stability control etc etc. is all good stuff for the daily driver. Makes average drivers safer in the wet and stuff.

But for me, I would always be asking myself, "am I getting around this corner fast because I am driving the car well or because all the technology is doing it for me" ???

Airbags, ABS, yep I'd have them both but I want to drive well because I "drive well" not because some computer is doing it for me.

Look how engineering advances de-skill drivers. Look how many people cannot even drive a manual car. See how close they sit to each other 'cos "oh yeah I've got ABS attitude".
Modern radial tyres (a good thing) but take all these advances, all it does is allow bad drivers to crash 30 k's faster then before. Skid control,, what's that a driver won't even know how close he is to the edge till the driving aids reach their limits of compensation and then away it goes.

Sure a car with all the aids will easily beat my Micra, but I'm being beaten by a computer, not a better driver.
There's no "feel" to a car if technology does it all for you.

And drivers are still gunna crash.

Mychael

 

[CMF_evade]

I think its different though..at the end of the day a car with all the technology will still have its limits...and it still takes a good driver to know how to drive within those limits

it is an advantage though..

 

[CMF_Nissanmania]

The AYC/ESP/ABS/4WD etc etc cars still take a good driver to extract their best. But an average driver now is only 5% slower. That's the difference with the new-tech cars that drive themselves around a corner. So now an average driver with this sort of car will cane someone with better driving skills but without the electronic backup.

These cars should all be switchable so you can compete without any electronic assistance to see who can drive the car on their own merits, not the merits of the software programmer who worked on the ecu's controlling the diffs etc.

But as far as a car you can safely hand the car keys to anyone on a wet day - you can't beat them.

 

[CMF_mipcar]

Nissanmania WROTE:

But as far as a car you can safely hand the car keys to anyone on a wet day - you can't beat them.

True, but it's missing my point. The best "safety feature" in any vehicle is a good driver.
Lets say hypothetticly that we could take a 1960's driver who was only familiar with cross ply tires, drum brakes and nothing power assisted and place him in a modern car.
Now he would be aware of how cars from his era drove and handled and would allow himself larger braking distances and be more careful in the wet. Apart from maybe being caught out by the faster acceleration of a modern car I bet you he would not be running into the back of the cars in front or sliding off on wet roads. His skill/attitude plus modern technology would be perfect.
And that is my point, people need to drive their cars as if they were 1960's models and give themselves the margins instead of trusting to technology to cover up their bad driving habits.

The bigger issue is that so many drivers are not interested or are not even aware of how poor their skills are as modern vehicles compensate so much for them. As more and more cars become standard with all the good bits there will be a time in the future where there are no thinking skilled drivers remaining.

Mychael

 

[CMF_Nissanmania]

I agree with your view Mipcar. Drivers have become complacent and disconnected from their cars thinking that the ABS/EBD will stop them from hitting the car they are tailgating, the ESP will stop them spinning when they fly through a greasy roundabout, and if it all goes to pot, the safety cell and 15 air bags will cocoon them from coming to harm.

These electronic nannies are great but they should be considered you safety net to rely on as a last resort. Far better to drive with room for error. You only have to drive down the freeway once to see your safe following distance constantly wittled by morons jumping into that nice space you've left!

My biggest gripe is that people treat driving as a period when they can catch up phone calls to friends, smoke, check their makeup and hair, fiddle with the stereo etc instead of an activity that demands 100% of your attention. It isn't a mobile loungeroom! Though nowdays most cars give you that sensation.

I enjoy driving a car that relies purely on your own inputs to control it. The 90's car will be the last generation free of the shackles of electronic gadgetry. The cars I enjoy driving the most don't have traction control etc and are a hoot. They demand your complete attention and are involving to drive. I have one car with all the electronic wizadry and I find it all a bit clinical. But you would never say it isn't safe.

What isn't safe is the drivers who get lulled into a false sense of security when they assume these things will save the day every time. You can't ignore the physics of a vehicle in motion with a tenuous grip on the road via 4 hoops of rubber. Once you exceed their capabilities you are in the weeds or shortening the car in front!

Unfortunately there is very little avenue to test your car's limits till you have an emergency. In Perth you get your car confiscated and get labled a hoon if you do test braking! You should get labled a hoon if you tailgate, weave in lanes and generally put yourself and everyone else at risk though bad driving.

 

[CMF_mipcar]

Oh so true Nissanmania. The statement about unassisted cars being "involving to drive". It's the insular experience from post 90's cars I really hate.
Although power steering makes it far less fatigueing to drive a heavy car, just think that if there were no power steering then there would probably be no mobile phone use as drivers would fast discover they need both hands on the wheel.
Car makers are also to blame in the way they advertise their products, I reckon they should be forced to put a disclaimer in all their new car ads like "all the features in this car are to assist safety but should not be used to replace good driving habits".

As an aside it's interesting how sometimes a road safety feature can actually make some situations worse, Take ABS, the more expensive 4x4 started having them. No You don't want ABS if your out driving off-road as sometimes in a really slippery down hill track, with your wheels in ruts like tram tracks you want to lock you wheels to build up a ramp of dirt in front of your tires to help slow you down, ABS wont allow that and you slowly start sliding faster and faster out of control.

Mychael

 

[CMF_Family Hack]

Oh so true mipcar ans nissanmania. Us old guys were taught to drive in cars that had none of the modern bits and pices,had 4 wheel drum brakes very ordinary handling and if you were to become a good driver you had a lot to learn. When you got into the car your mind was on one thing only and that was driving the car and being very aware of its limitations.
I agree 100% with fitting all the bits and pices to modern cars to help in making the car overall a lot safer but sad part is this is compensating for people to develope driver skills.
Nah give me the cars of days gone bye where how well you drove was a lot more dependant on your skills and not what the car could compensate you for bad driving habits. The sense of achievement was a lot higher and I am sure a lot more fun.
Time to fade away into the sunset.

 

[CMF_Yom]

Hey the 1974 Mazda Capella 1600 i learnt to drive in had front disc brakes!! Don't think they were power assisted though. Nor was the steering.

But power steer and aircon were optional extras according to the manual! So was a rotary engine but stupid original owner didn't option it :'(

ABS gets on my nerves in the micra. 50% of the time I hate it and the other 50% of the time I seem to enjoy having it there? Weird. I could live without it if I had to though.

 

[CMF_Nissanmania]

ABS is not perfect and can cause issues when you least want it. 99.9% of the time it's OK and they are probably made smarter now.

I've had the ABS get tricked into shutting off the brakes when breaking heavily where there is no slippage or skidding. This happened once at 200km/hr (in my S14 - my Micra's not quite that fast!) on a racetrack - very scarey. Its also happened when I've hit a bump while braking which has probably partially unweighted the front wheels at normal road speeds. Rather than have a pulsing of the brakes the solenoid has just decided to disengage them for a few seconds.

Needless to say I take out the ABS fuses for any track duties now.

 

[CMF_mipcar]

Yom WROTE:

"Hey the 1974 Mazda Capella 1600 I learnt to drive in had front disc brakes!! Don't think they were power assisted though. Nor was the steering.

Now they were a great little car. I had a 1600 ,it was nothing remarkable except it would go forever.
Then I got an RX2 which was a basically a Capella with rotary engine and better interior. That was quick with an unbustable gearbox. Didn't really handle though.

Mychael

 

[CMF_Yom]

This 1600 didn't die. Remarkable little car. Clutch slipped pretty badly and leaking rocker gasket cover didn't do it any justice. Lots of rust.

Vynil interiors suck. I'll never retrim with vynil seats EVER.

 

[cisco]

Good point mipcar.

The driver is the most important and most neglected safety item.

I still am all 100% for technology as it does reduce deaths and at the same time creates cars that are capable of actual faster results = more fun.. But yeah the raw feeling of driving a real natural no-technology old car is never there like it is in new cars. Agree, you don't know how much of the driving is done by you or the computer! I think that in the colt sometimes with its electronic handling..

I used to flog my 1974 Morris/Leyland Marina around terribly. 3 spd auto, 1.75 carby dog motor, torsion rod suspension, non existant brakes. That thing was dangerous. I lost it and almost hit a power pole once, but it just gripped in time and the arse end came back in. What a piece of **** that car was bahahaha.

 

[CMF_Family Hack]

Marina? A mate of mime had a Marina Red 6 I think it was called with a 6 cyclinder motor shoved in the front. It was bloody dangerous. It could really haul but the brakes, suspension were terrible and the whole body used to vibrate like hell after 120kph. At that speed the front end was about to take off.Have never ever seen a Marina on the road for years which is a good thing.

 

[CMF_mipcar]

Actually Torsion bar Suspension is not too bad. If it is like what I had on My Morris Minor.
A few hours work and you had an adjustable front end as you could move the lower control arms to different positions on the torsion bar splines and have either a firmer/higher suspension or a softer/lower setting without the need to buy more parts.

Mychael

 

[CMF_Sean]

If you guys want to experience a ride where there's no technology in the world that can help you if you stuff up then buy a motorbike...

Trust me, if you're not fully aware of everything thats going on then you're not going to last long....

PS. Ed, get over it mate I've been watching your comments for years... You don't see us slandering your car on the internet. Seriously just because cisco's old car was more popular than yours doesn't mean you have to try and discount, disprove and challenge both the cars and cisco's integrity. I have no doubt that if you met both cisco and blue monster you would cream your pants at cisco's honesty and integrity and blue monsters raw power and attention to detail. If it was a popularity contest, which it isn't, cisco and blue monster would win anyway..

Sean

 

[CMF_Yom]

Well there was a Colt in the Dutton rally 2 weeks ago. Anyone see it? Young girl driver. Previously was driving a Mirage 1600cc Cyborg and kicked alot of ass.

She came 5th in the class with the 2.0L's which are the Golfs, Astra VXR's etc. Not too bad at all. Was a tarmac rally though so I suspect the colt's chassis and suspension shortcomings weren't a major problem? Different terrain would have the greatest effect on the types of vehicles I guess.

Oh it should be noted that her parents are quite deeply involved with TRD racing in australia so I'd say they had some pretty experienced crew fitting out and getting the colt up to scratch!

 

[cisco]

Go the Colt!!! Hehe..

Actually, Ralliart just sent me another free gift. How lovely. A really nice laser cut embossed keyring thing with Ralliart on it. They said its a special owners "money can't buy" edition that only owners get issued with.. I just wish they would advertise more.. They have been real nice to me.

Haha Seano, the cheque's in the mail. Aww you didn't have to say all that mush mate I definitely miss the raw power of blue monster. The Colt has great drivability, but I wish it had the big top end like blue monster did.

 

[CMF_Ed]

Ok I have not read all this thread. I am simply replying to the very first post directly pointing at me.

First of all, why have a dyno produce such an obscure figure (with no mention), when every other single dyno on the planet gives real figures that make sense to a normal person. The Dynapack are perfectly capable of this. You know as well as I do no one is going to sit there and try and calculate real torque figures from these. So they are meaningless, to 99% of the population since they have nothing to compare to.

Why do people always assume others are jealous when they have their car criticised? I speak truthfully about my thoughts on other peoples work. If you cannot handle what I say to be quite honest that's not my problem. I can assure you however. I do believe your work requires respect, it takes an awful lot of money and effort to get the results you did, but if you upload and share it, good and bad comments is something you have to expect.

And since you brought it up again, I have had another look at your previous dyno graphs. Like I said last time your torque curve was poor and I still stand by that statement.
Your choice of turbo was too big and looking at the graphs the cams were too restrictive and over all the system was poorly optimised, as demonstrated by a 500rpm torque peak. I personally think you built this to look better on paper than it did in real life. This does not say that it was not fast, but it was without question not as fast and progressive as it could have been. Had you better matched the components it would have made a steady peak torque from as little as 4000 rpm right to the limiter, and as a result the area under the torque curve which is the REAL test of an engines overall ability would be significantly better, as would any real road test you put it under.

For those interested the only set standard of dyno results I true as comparable are dyno dynamics. They have a networked dyno lockout mode that means every dyno using this shoot-out will show very similar results. Those who get a power run with a dyno dynamics roller using this (such as many on the MSC do) have perfectly comparable results. Also its important to understand that Dynapack read approximately 10% higher than dyno dynamics, due to the fact that they don't have the tyre losses. In real world terms, If you were to put this car in question on a dyno dynamics roller, it would have made approximately 173bhp/140lb/ft @ wheels 6500 RPM. That is approximately what we would have seen if had been put on the rollers in the UK.

 

[cisco]

Hi Ed,

- The dyno was owned by my chosen tuner, not because I went around picking the best dyno for overseas people to use for comparison purposes. Any dyno is good for measuring before/after gains, that's the value I see in dynos. If my car made 1hp, but was still as fast as it was, I would be just as happy with it. All you need to effectively measure before/after gains is a % increase/decrease in torque. E.g. "this latest modification gave me 13% more torque, therefore I am happy with the results". Tractive effort(Nm) is more than fine for this. Sure its not the ideal perfect meaningful figure if you are only interested in comparing your torque to other vehicles e.g. production vehicles which have their engine torque rated and disclosed, but you can calculate that in 5 seconds, I have done it heaps of times. Calculating/estimating engine torque from a tractive effort figure is a piece of cake. You can find the peak tractive effort figure and come up with the engine torque in 5 seconds if you are interested in comparing the car's torque to other cars with engine torque figures.

- The turbo was "too big" if you wanted a mid range responsive setup with lots of everyday low speed drivability, e.g. for your Mum to drive to the shops with or for instant response at low-ish RPM exiting roundabouts. But it was "perfect" if you wanted the ultimate top end power and therefore the fastest performance. The drivability wasn't as good, I was always the first to say that the car made next to nothing below 4000rpm in comparison to what it made above 4000rpm. But in real actual values, it made more power at 4000rpm than a factory micra makes anywhere. You don't have to drive with your foot totally floored all the time. Even with half throttle that thing screamed and half throttle would be much smoother than the jerky rush of exponential power that full throttle provided. You have to consider the path I went through in arriving at the decision of installing the T28BB. I did have a smaller "T25" turbo for ages. I was not happy with its downfalls and opted for the larger ball bearing turbo, for my own personal goals and interests, it perfectly met all my goals and was extremely enjoyable to drive. The torque curve was "steep" and "severe" at full throttle, but not "poor".

- There is an interesting article on Autospeed's homepage right now written by some well known car guy. All about how power really is everything when it comes to both acceleration and top speed and that the shape of the torque curve really just determines drivability. Torque can be substituted by gearing, but power cannot be substituted. Outright power was my goal and I still ended up with a 4000rpm range with great torque and yes the torque did come on in a big rush, but that was what I was after, again personal preference for wanting outright power and grunt - I already had the smooth little smaller turbo setup previously and wanted more - its a project car for an enthusiast who enjoyed it, not some blueprint that has to conform to some viewpoints.

- I always agreed 100% that CAMS would have topped the engine off. I just ran out of patience/interest before spending the money/time to upgrade the CAMS. But I agree, that would have improved things even more, the car was still running factory micra CAMS while making the power it made!

- I have always welcomed bad comments or criticism. And I have always received a bit here and there, which is great - nothing is perfect, heaps of ideas and comments that I received at times actually influenced my thinking and modifications a lot, I made so many mistakes it wasn't funny. The car was a personal hobby, not a trophy. I built the car to drive great and be bags of fun, not so that I could impress some people on the internet or win any contests. I never went to any car shows, I never entered any contests, I never went to any official events, I just drove the car in my own way and enjoyed it on the road. Its just that you tend to have a more negative approach of pointing out negatives without little consideration of things such as (a)personal preference, (b)project timelines (Just because it didn't have CAMS doesn't mean it was flawed, it most likely means that I just hadn't done that yet). You never give anything positive feedback, all of your feedback is basically negative/critical. I have no reason to stand up for a large turbo setup and defend it any more than I should a smaller turbo setup, but from all the effort/time/money/stress I invested, I can honestly simply say the car was far more fast and enjoyable with the larger BB turbo on it. Even more practical in the sense that it was perfect for highway cruising and ultra power by chosing whether you wanted to drive above or below 4000rpm. Exactly what my own personal preference goals for the car were. The stupendous torque curve just changed how many times a factory micra's torque the car would make based on the amount of applied throttle. The power was there if you needed it, but you could always drive the car very smoothly by applying less throttle. Just actually having that power there was the biggest thing that most cars don't have. Imagine re-plotting that torque chart if I'd only ran it on the dyno with half throttle. It would be a lot smoother and a lot less exponential. And the torque made would still be a helluva lot. The savage torque curve shows the cars maximum ability, not how you have to drive it at every press of the throttle.

Cheers