Man thats a trap. I hate to ask hypothetical questions but Mr. Buschur, what do you believe it will run once you get the first 1/4 of the track locked down?

Scorke

 

I don't want to guess what the car will run. We are taking it back out this week. This time I'll remember my cable for the laptop and try to use the 2 step

David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com

 

can you spell F***'n FAST...;-)

 

I was told the same story. Al's motor grenaded in close proximity to Dave's shop. Fact or fiction??

 

False!!!
Fiction!!!!
IT DID NOT BLOW UP,, if you can read you would have seen Mr. buschur's response on the previous page.

Al's car did NOT throw a rod..it did NOT blow up..
it did however, make over 900 HP

The people who told you this are probably bitter that they bought expensive parts from somewhere else and still have a SLOW car... never the less... this is a blatant lie created for the sole reason of attempting to discredit BR. ( a poor attempt at that too..)

BR motors are nearly indestuctable. John Sheppard of Shep racing, has had a bottom end from BR running the entire season last year and his 1G does the quarter in 7.9 seconds....
it was never torn down or rebuilt the entire season....
absolutly incredible...

 

From Mr. buschur himself..........

 

It's odd that this rumor started. There was a huge group of guys here that weekend. Al took Fireball for a ride in the car, returned to the shop and then we loaded it on the dyno where it put down multiple 700+ whp pulls. We then took the car back off the dyno and tuned more customers cars.

The car was left here and was then driven to the vinyl shop to have the lettering and such moved and changed on the car and driven back here. If there was a rod thrown on the car I don't think it would have been driven off the dyno and back and forth to the graphics shop twice.

To make things perfectly clear though, the car does have a 2 liter in it now and the stroker has been removed. The stroker was not going to cut it for the 1/4 mile. The RPM's were too high for sure, our car was hitting almost 11,000 rpm coming out of 1st gear already. The crossing the finish line at well over 9,000 rpm.

David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com

 

I'm not so sure how this makes sense...from everyone I've heard running a 2.3 liter 4g63t (in evos or dsms) the extra displacement allows you to shift at lower points (the red line is lowered). Why would you be reving the engine MORE than a 2.0 liter?

 

Uh.........we are revving higher because the cars are going 151 mph through the traps in 4th gear.

David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com

 

Did you just answer your own question? 2.3l=more tq lower redline 2.0l=more hp higher redline.

Scorke

 

It's a question of gearing, if you want to trap the MPH that these beasts are you need to avoid shifting into 5th for that huge RPM drop and added shift time... To do that you either rev higher or change your gear ratios. Putting in a taller final drive will reduce power to the wheels, so reving higher is the logical choice (for a race car). Reving higher also helps broaden the powerband on a car with a large turbo (like these cars). Of course that kind of RPM is hell on every moving part in the motor and puts a serious hurting on the syncros, but hey.... these are race cars.

 

Christ, people are actually reving 2.3 liter 4g63's to 11,000 rpm!? WTF! These engines AREN'T ROTARIES! Why do you need to rev that high? The torque and power come at a lower RPM on a 2.3L, so that shifting at a lower RPM is feasible. Shifting at a high rpm is pointless on a 2.3L.

 

Obviously you didn't read anything since we're talking about 2.0L engines....

 

Yeah I thought you guys were talking about the 2.3L. I've never heard of any 4G63 engine being able to survive 11,000 rpm revs (2.0 liter ot 2.3 liter). Won't valve float destroy the pistons and valves? Is the valve train upgraded? How are you guys able to rev this high without destroying the motor?

 

They were talking about the reason they switched FROM the 2.3L to the 2.0L. The rod-ratio of a 2.3 stroker increases the piston speed ( I won't get inot the greater lateral forces here, but that is a factor as well) to a point that makes the bottom end ill-suited durability-wise for high-RPM applications. It's not the valve train they have to worry about on high-RPM use (providing its setup well), it's the rod bolts (or studs depending on the build) and rod bearings that take way too much of a beating with that kind of piston speed at high-RPMs (above 9K). Since they are using a massive GT42 turbo, the RPM operation range is shifted from 5-9k to 6.5-10.5k+ (approx.) to drive that large of a turbo. A measly increase of .3 liters is just not enough to keep the motor RPM operation range well matched to the turbo's needs. Sure, it would make it spool a bit sooner (maybe 300 RPM sooner on a GT42), but not enough to justify missing the 1.5K to 2K of RPM operation band up top where that massive turbo needs it to stay in its efficiency range for best quarter mile times and traps.



Stretching 4th gear up for better traps is an ancillary benefit as well, but (safely) matching the engine’s rev-range to the needs of such a large turbo is the main reason for it imho. BTW, stock DSM valve trains have seen 9K without float, and there are prepped DSM valve trains out there that see 11k (Shep) without damage.