Sport Compact Car's reply

Scanned from the Oct 1998 issue of SCC
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