Sport Compact Car's reply
Letter to Sport Compact Car
Last Update:
SCC's reply
On September 14th 1998 I sent a longish letter to Sport Compact Car. Basically I wanted to comment on their Project Probe. I guess I really didn't expect an answer, especially not after getting nothing for a week. But I finally received a response which was interesting to say the least. What follows first is my letter to the editor. In retrospect there are parts here and there I would like to edit and change (cuz I kind of sound like a weenie) but for the sake of completeness I left it in its entirety. In response, I received a long reply interspersed with parts of my initial email. So without any further a-do, here is my email:
Subject:
Dear Mr. Saavedra
Date:
Mon, 14 Sep 1998 14:50:49 -0700
From:
Jin 'Time Traveler' Kim
To:
scceditor@aol.com
Pardon the intrusion today, but I felt a need to write to you and
comment about your recent Project Probe.
Before you pass this off as yet another angry letter with nasty words
about your magazine, rest assured that this is not the case. Please
indulge me for a few minutes and read my letter despite its rather
lengthy nature.
--
I've been the owner of a 1995 Probe GT 5 speed since June 1995. In the
3+ years I've driven my car, I have had no thoughts about trading it in
for a newer model. I won't go into details about my disappointment with
FoMoCo's handling of this car because that's irrelevant here. What is
important is that in those years of ownership, I was rather ignorant of
the possibilities of doing more with what I have. Ealier this year,
around February, uncovered what I found to be a nationwide network of
Probe owners on the internet. Prior to this I never even gave a thought
to checking the internet for such sources. I have learned more about my
car in the past 7 months than I ever knew in my previous 2.5 years of
ownership. I'm not referring to just the various "performance" parts,
but also about general maintenance and troubleshooting. This
information has become invaluable to me as I became more active on the
mailing list.
In the meanTime, I had taken it upon myself to modify my car with the
usual bolt-on parts, following a "recipe" set out by people who had
already done this. Between April 98 and the present, I spent a lot of
my Time and effort on modifying my car. The results were positive, to
say the least. With the addition of an intake, headers, and an exhaust,
I managed to squeeze out an extra 15 horses out of the engine. Granted,
this isn't a HUGE gain, but it's a 10+% increase on the existing wheel
HP.
Several months ago a group of us formed the Southern California Probe
Owners Club. It's just a loose assocation of people from LA to SD who
share a passion for our cars. About a month ago five of us had our cars
dynoed at a shop in Garden Grove (Superior Automotive) and compared
results. Joe Sweeney (owner of your current Project Probe) expressed
interest in attending but was unable to make it. I had really hoped to
meet him face to face so we could discuss the progress of Project Probe.
--
But enough history about myself. When I learned about Project Probe
back when I first joined the mailing list, (The October 1997 issue was
your first mention? I happened to have the issue where you first
commented on the project laying around but hadn't read the editorial) I
could sense that from the beginning people were very wary about the
idea, but showed some degree of interest. As the months had passed, I
got the impression of the impatience a lot of people were exhibiting at
the delays. When the first installment came out, a couple of people
were downright angry at the lack of real content. One of the list
members, a fellow by the name of Michel Fortier who you may have had
some contact with in the past or present, said that he was involved with
some talks with SCC but I lost track of what he said a while back. I
believe he hoped to present some advice to your publication about what
worked and what didn't.
With the recent release of the second installment, the general mood of
the internet Performance Mailing List hadn't changed significantly.
They still considered your publication to be taking the wrong approach.
I consider myself to be a much more moderate individual than some of my
hot headed colleagues on the list, so I have taken it upon myself to
"distill" down the information passing through the list into a more
"agreeable" form for your consideration. A lot of what they say is
quite useful, but can be distracting and emotional in its nature.
I should probably itemize the issues I wish to address.
1. Overachieving stock PGT
2. Choice of parts
3. Future development
4. Methodology and conclusion
--
1. Your latest installment of Project Probe states that your baseline
stock vehicle had 146 HP at the wheels. My personal stock baseline was
135hp. Granted that this may be due to random variance, but I counter
this by pointing out that I have the dynojet dyno files for numerous
Probe GTs, both stock AND with various levels of mods, and none of the
stock vehicles had a rating above 135 wheel HP stock. I have spent a
lot of Time collecting and trading dyno runs with people so I believe I
had some knowledge on the subject. Jackson Racing (as well as St.
Andres) is just a couple of miles from my house and I've heard about
their reputation for years. They were even featured in an article in
Car and Driver several years ago. I would hesitate to say that they're
wrong, but their dyno figures are in dispute with multiple dynojet sites
across the country. Even some modified PGTs aren't able to match the
output figures you attained. I'm not saying that they (J.R.) aren't a
strong automotive presence, but maybe you could consider taking the car
to make a dyno run at a different location at least once, just to see if
their results aren't a touch inflated.
By the way, my web page has a detailed list of how the various
performance mods affected the wheel HP of my car. I believe that Joe
Sweeney may have passed on this information to you not too long ago, but
I just want to make sure.
http://wwww.slamsite.com/chrono/myprobe.htm
The dyno page hasn't been updated in a while, but the major mod results
are all there now. I urge you to have a look and consider what has been
done and how it benefitted the car.
--
2. Although I can understand the "start from scratch" approach to
modifying a car, I feel that all the trouble you have gone through for
Project Probe so far is relatively unnecessary and Time-inefficient.
Instead of starting from scratch, why not start with what has already
been established as "known working" parts and go from there. Many
people on the Performance List have questioned your selection of
particular parts such as the HKS exhaust or the PRM intake. Not much is
known about the HKS cat back and no one on the list has yet actually
bolted one on and put it on the dyno, so there's no way to confirm or
deny your statement that it provided no real extra power. As for the
PRM intake, a couple of people have talked about its potential, but
there are those who think that the smallish filter in the setup is a
restrictor. Another item that a lot of people have taken issue on is
your choice of the ARC2 Mass Air sensor. While the stock VAF may appear
restrictive, this has not found to be the major bottleneck, at least not
for the mildly modified PGT. As a side note, a member of the list, Mike
Palmer, replaced his VAF with a custom MAF (he's some electronics
engineer) some Time back. His report was that there wasn't a
significant power gain, just as you reported.
What works: All the following have been dyno tested/proven
independently by various people on various occasions.
Intake: Hotshot cold air tube. Not CARB legal, but it can be easily
removed/installed/swapped with the stock intake in just a few minutes if
you REALLY need to.
Exhaust: Borla and Greddy cat back are the most popular choices.
There's been a debate about which is better, but both are proven to be
beneficial in the long run. I can write a lot more about this subject,
but I'll refrain. But a LOT of people would LOVE to see a "back to
back" of a Greddy vs. Borla cat back shootout on a stock as well as
modified car. It would probably help to win a lot of favorable opinion
as well, as this is something that a LOT of people wish to see (hint,
hint).
Headers: While hotshot has been the most popular up to this point,
There are some mentions of the benefits of the long primaries of the
Pacesetter, even if its quality is considered mediocre at best. The
Bosal/Brospeed headers you mentioned in your Part 2 should also serve
nicely, as a member of the list (Brian Young) has some figures posted
for the power gains associated with it (Clayton dyno tested). His web
page is http://www.mtco.com/~westcj/Brian/bosal.htm
There are other components that are being tossed around with their
[still-debated] benefits such as the Unorthodox Underdrive pulley or the
use of Phenolic spacers to keep the intake air cooler. Instead of
starting from scratch, wouldn't you save yourself a lot of Time and
aggravation by starting with what is already known to work? My Hotshot
intake/HS headers/Borla exhaust have helped me go from 135 to 150,
surely your results would see similar gains.
--
3. The impression I get is that you're looking into doing some
considerable engine work. I'll discuss this in the next section, but
for now, might I suggest some alternatives to internal work?
A lot of your other projects have started "mild" which later became
"wild," i.e. Project MR2. If you're looking for quick and easy power
gains, why not consider a simple bolt-in NOS system? I didn't think
this was part of your methodology, but in part 2 of Project CRX Si you
indeed do use an NOS kit. If you plan on a similar route for the PGT,
consider starting with a Mustang 5.0 kit, the 5115, I believe, and using
50 hp jets for starters. I'm not the NOS expert on the list, but there
are a number of very mechanically inclined individuals on the list who
have been running Nitrous starting with the 5115 kit in their cars for a
number of months or years (William Chenoweth, Michel Fortier, Dan
Dunhem, Ross Lapkoff, and Jaewon Ahn to name a few). Many of their dyno
plots are also available (I have some from all of them), all making
180-220 wheel HP at peak.
If you're looking for something different, Dan and William are currently
working together on making a custom Turbo kit for the PGT. Looks like
Ross may be joining them as well. Also, Unorthodox Racing
(http://www.unorthodoxracing.com) in the NY area is also working on
developing a Supercharging kit based on the Vortech V5 for our cars.
There is currently one test mule driving around for testing, owned by
Wayne Ip. His car was recently tested on a dyno and with 6psi boost, he
put out 210hp and 270lb-ft at the wheels. Unorthodox is also holding on
to a list of people who are putting down a deposit for the finished kit,
myself included. A company in LA called OverBoost
(http://www.overboost.com) has also done 3 PGT turbo projects. Scott
Croughwell of OverBoost talked about them on the Perf list a while back,
with outputs of 270-370(or maybe 500) HP seen at the wheels.
--
4. I do not know what your eventual intentions are for Project Probe,
but consider this fact about most PGT owners. The PGT for most of us is
a daily driver. A lot of us can't afford to have the car sitting on
blocks for a whole business week while the engine is being torn down to
have it machined and blue printed. Joe Sweeney definitely seems to be
in the minority here.
I have an 8-5 job and go to school from 7-10 at night after work for
most of the week. I need my car almost daily and whatever mods I do I
have to do myself or make sure to have my car back the same day. Cost
is also a large consideration of what we have done. Perhaps the ARC2
MAF that you are using now may eventually become a useful bolt-on, but
for now most people can't afford the high cost ($800?) of such an item
when a cat back exhaust and an intake together cost less and give equal,
if not greater, benefit. Having cams reground would also fall under the
category of too expensive and too Time consuming. Perhaps in your
eventual quest for greater power some of these alternatives might seem
attractive, but I feel that you are doing many people a disservice if
part 3 bypasses what already works and goes straight for the rods and
pistons. As I've seen in your magazine in the past, these things are
reserved for "part 5" and should stay there.
Many who read your publication probably haven't touched their Probes
yet, hoping that you will have some positive information to publish, so
it would benefit them greatly to show them what already works. Even
development and testing costs aside, I have seen the dollar values
associated with some of the projects and it makes my head spin at the
prospects. Several issues ago you even published a letter from someone
complaining about the costs involved in repeating a "project" car on
their own.
--
Thank you for taking the Time to evaluate the contents of this letter.
I'm among the majority of people who want to see the project succeed and
head in a positive direction, but I AM in the minority of those who
think that your staff can pull it off. I still have faith in the
capabilities of the people making Project Probe happen and I hope that
my submission here can help the project along in any way. If there is
any way I can be of assistance in the future, do not hesitate to ask as
I believe that all PGT owners can only benefit from your project.
--
Jin "Time Traveler" Kim
chrono@ibm.net
http://www.slamsite.com/chrono
'95 PGT - SCPOC
Sport Compact Car's reply
Dave Coleman responded back to my letter. Keep in mind that he is replying to my email, so if you read this part first, keep that in mind, because otherwise I sound pretty ignorant. For example, I do state the obvious here and there, like the use of nitrous. It goes without saying that Nitrous will boost the power of just about any application. My text will appear in color. Anyway...
Subject:
RE: Dear Mr. Saavedra
Date:
Mon, 5 Oct 1998 10:38:07 -0700
From:
Dave Coleman
To:
"'chrono@ibm.net'"
CC:
Josh Jacquot
Jin,
Thanks for taking the time to summarise the feelings on the net.
I'll try to address some of your comments one at a time. I encourage you
to forward this back to the Probe list, too, if you get the chance.
1. Your latest installment of Project Probe states that your baseline
stock vehicle had 146 HP at the wheels. My personal stock baseline
was 135hp. Granted that this may be due to random variance, but I counter
this by pointing out that I have the dynojet dyno files for numerous
Probe GTs, both stock AND with various levels of mods, and none of the
stock vehicles had a rating above 135 wheel HP stock. I have spent a
lot of Time collecting and trading dyno runs with people so I believe
I had some knowledge on the subject. Jackson Racing (as well as St.
Andres) is just a couple of miles from my house and I've heard about
their reputation for years. They were even featured in an article in
Car and Driver several years ago. I would hesitate to say that they're
wrong, but their dyno figures are in dispute with multiple dynojet sites
across the country. Even some modified PGTs aren't able to match the
output figures you attained. I'm not saying that they (J.R.) aren't a
strong automotive presence, but maybe you could consider taking the car
to make a dyno run at a different location at least once, just to see if
their results aren't a touch inflated.
I tested Jackson Racing's Dynojet against the Dynojets at DPR
and R&D Dyno Service in the May 1998 issue (page 14) There was never a
variation of more than 1 hp between the three dynos. More likely is that
the car is exceptionally powerful out of the box. I don't think this is
production variation, though, I suspect it is just how the '97 models
are. I have yet to speak to anyone who has tested a '97, though I would
be curious if you have any dyno results in your file that might help.
I even have a theory as to why: Most manufacturers make small
changes year to year to keep their engines emissions compliant while
still maintaining horsepower ratings. To use Nissan's SR20DE as an
example, later engines have smaller camshafts and a less advantageous
intake port design. Both early and late engines are rated at the same
power output, though. Changes in tuning, muffler design, or other
seemingly unrealated areas usually are made to maintain power when a
change is made. As you probably know, the '96-'97 Probe had some minor
changes vs the earlier years. The most obvious of which was the addition
of close-coupled catalysts in the exhaust manifolds on the '96 model.
Our '97 did not have these catalysts, even though the manifold was
designed for them. It is quite possible that someone decided to stop
installing the catalysts as a cost cutting measure on a car that was
already endangered, and managed to get it to pass emissions without
them. They probably didn't have the time or budget to find some way to
restrict the power back to 135 hp (at the wheels), so they make a little
more power. Silly things like this are all to common in the automotive
world. Of course, without seeing what any other '97s have done.
By the way, my web page has a detailed list of how the various
performance mods affected the wheel HP of my car. I believe that Joe
Sweeney may have passed on this information to you not too long ago,
but
I just want to make sure.
http://wwww.slamsite.com/chrono/myprobe.htm
Yes, he did, but believe it or not, I do not have web access from the
office. Yes, I know that is an unbelievably assinine situation for
someone like myself who is supposed to collect and disseminate
information, but it's out of my hands. I have glanced at the page when
checking from home, but my connection is too unreiable to download your
dyno file. If you would be so kind as to e-mail the dyno info to me at
davec@McMullenArgus.com I could probably get a lot more out of it.
2. Although I can understand the "start from scratch" approach to
modifying a car, I feel that all the trouble you have gone through for
Project Probe so far is relatively unnecessary and Time-inefficient.
Instead of starting from scratch, why not start with what has already
been established as "known working" parts and go from there. Many
people on the Performance List have questioned your selection of
particular parts such as the HKS exhaust or the PRM intake. Not much
is known about the HKS cat back and no one on the list has yet actually
bolted one on and put it on the dyno, so there's no way to confirm or
deny your statement that it provided no real extra power. As for the
PRM intake, a couple of people have talked about its potential, but
there are those who think that the smallish filter in the setup is a
restrictor. Another item that a lot of people have taken issue on is
your choice of the ARC2 Mass Air sensor. While the stock VAF may appear
restrictive, this has not found to be the major bottleneck, at least not
for the mildly modified PGT. As a side note, a member of the list, Mike
Palmer, replaced his VAF with a custom MAF (he's some electronics
engineer) some Time back. His report was that there wasn't a
significant power gain, just as you reported.
frankly, this surprises me. Would you rather see us repeating
what you already know, or would you like us to tell you something new?
We always strive to break new ground since we know you guys have already
been there and done that with most of what is out there. Previously
nobody had bolted on an HKS exhaust and tested it on the dyno. Now
someone has. Your collective pool of knowlege is now larger. Isn't that
the point? Of course, lest we condem HKS for their non-functional
exhaust, lets remember that our results may be unique to the '97 model.
Headers: While hotshot has been the most popular up to this point,
There are some mentions of the benefits of the long primaries of the
Pacesetter, even if its quality is considered mediocre at best. The
Bosal/Brospeed headers you mentioned in your Part 2 should also serve
nicely, as a member of the list (Brian Young) has some figures posted
for the power gains associated with it (Clayton dyno tested). His web
page is http://www.mtco.com/~westcj/Brian/bosal.htm
There are other components that are being tossed around with their
[still-debated] benefits such as the Unorthodox Underdrive pulley or the
use of Phenolic spacers to keep the intake air cooler. Instead of
starting from scratch, wouldn't you save yourself a lot of Time and
aggravation by starting with what is already known to work? My Hotshot
intake/HS headers/Borla exhaust have helped me go from 135 to 150,
surely your results would see similar gains.
We just installed Brospeed headers. I don't want to ruin the
suspence, but lets just say the results affirm our belief that we are
dealing with something different.
3. The impression I get is that you're looking into doing some
considerable engine work. I'll discuss this in the next section, but
for now, might I suggest some alternatives to internal work?
We are not going to do any serious engine work simply because it
is well beyond what most people will do to their Probes. The Probe V6 is
not exactly the most servicable engine in the world. What we have said
is that the only way to make power with this car may be internal work.
At the minimum this could be simply replacing the cams, but as you
probably know, there is nothing simple about replacing the cams on that
engine.
A lot of your other projects have started "mild" which later became
"wild," i.e. Project MR2. If you're looking for quick and easy power
gains, why not consider a simple bolt-in NOS system? I didn't think
this was part of your methodology, but in part 2 of Project CRX Si you
indeed do use an NOS kit. If you plan on a similar route for the PGT,
consider starting with a Mustang 5.0 kit, the 5115, I believe, and using
50 hp jets for starters. I'm not the NOS expert on the list, but there
are a number of very mechanically inclined individuals on the list who
have been running Nitrous starting with the 5115 kit in their cars for a
number of months or years (William Chenoweth, Michel Fortier, Dan
Dunhem, Ross Lapkoff, and Jaewon Ahn to name a few). Many of their dyno
plots are also available (I have some from all of them), all making
180-220 wheel HP at peak.
Nitrous oxide works on everything. We won't learn anything new
by doing it to the Probe.
If you're looking for something different, Dan and William are currently
working together on making a custom Turbo kit for the PGT. Looks like
Ross may be joining them as well. Also, Unorthodox Racing
(http://www.unorthodoxracing.com) in the NY area is also working on
developing a Supercharging kit based on the Vortech V5 for our cars.
There is currently one test mule driving around for testing, owned by
Wayne Ip. His car was recently tested on a dyno and with 6psi boost, he
put out 210hp and 270lb-ft at the wheels. Unorthodox is also holding on
to a list of people who are putting down a deposit for the finished kit,
myself included. A company in LA called OverBoost
(http://www.overboost.com) has also done 3 PGT turbo projects. Scott
Croughwell of OverBoost talked about them on the Perf list a while back,
with outputs of 270-370(or maybe 500) HP seen at the wheels.
We are probably not going to go that far with this car, but we
are already speaking with the owner of that mule about a feature. We
also have an upcoming feature on a supercharged MX-6 V6.
Perhaps the ARC2 MAF that you are using now may eventually become a
useful bolt-on, but for now most people can't afford the high cost ($800?) of such an item when a cat back exhaust and an intake together cost less and give
equal, if not greater, benefit. Having cams reground would also fall under
the category of too expensive and too Time consuming. Perhaps in your
eventual quest for greater power some of these alternatives might seem
attractive, but I feel that you are doing many people a disservice if
part 3 bypasses what already works and goes straight for the rods and
pistons. As I've seen in your magazine in the past, these things are
reserved for "part 5" and should stay there.
Consider this: If we had not installed the ARC2, how
would you know you should spend your money elsewhere? Also, should you
get another car in the future with a more restrictive air flow meter,
you will know the ARC2 is an option.
Thank you for taking the Time to evaluate the contents of this letter.
I'm among the majority of people who want to see the project succeed and
head in a positive direction, but I AM in the minority of those who
think that your staff can pull it off. I still have faith in the
capabilities of the people making Project Probe happen and I hope that
my submission here can help the project along in any way. If there is
any way I can be of assistance in the future, do not hesitate to ask as
I believe that all PGT owners can only benefit from your project.
I appreciate your support. It is all to common for internet car
clubs to become nothing but frothing pools of negativity. Such is the
power of the internet. Remember, we are not miracle workers and our
budgets are much smaller than you think. But we are objective and we
strive to educate and inform our readers as much as possible. Rest
assured, if this project were being done by any other magazine (save Car
and Driver, perhaps) you would hear nothing but rosy reports of how well
everything was working, even if it wasn't. Sometimes the truth isn't
pretty, but it is the truth. HKS, JET, and PRM are none too happy with
us at the moment, and as they are advertisers that doesn't make our
management very happy. We are on a limb, but we are out there for you
and the rest of the Probe community. We put out balls on the line in the
name of honesty, and I sincerely hope our readers can tell the
difference.
-Dave Coleman
Engineering Editor
Sport Compact Car Magazine