m2 upgrade
11-13-02, 01:46 PM
#76
The Ricer Eliminator
Artguy, truer words have never been spoken. If you try to be cheep with these cars, you're all done. They will frustrate you time and time again. It's just not worth trying to save money. You want to save money, buy a 5.0.
However, it should be noted that I got 110,000 miles on my stockers before they gave out(12psi). Some people have been lucky enough to be able to run higher boost for extended periods of time. Although meticulous mantainance is worth it's weight in gold, I truly believe those people to be lucky. God bless them. The stockers just weren't designed to make that much power.
Good used turbos are very hard to find. If you ask around, you'll hear a lot of horror stories. Most used sets that you come across are not going to be great. You take a true $500 chance.
However, it should be noted that I got 110,000 miles on my stockers before they gave out(12psi). Some people have been lucky enough to be able to run higher boost for extended periods of time. Although meticulous mantainance is worth it's weight in gold, I truly believe those people to be lucky. God bless them. The stockers just weren't designed to make that much power.
Good used turbos are very hard to find. If you ask around, you'll hear a lot of horror stories. Most used sets that you come across are not going to be great. You take a true $500 chance.
11-13-02, 02:28 PM
#78
All out Track Freak!
iTrader: (263)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Charlottesville VA 22901
Posts: 10,672
Received 412 Likes
on
250 Posts
For a quick car/fd its not what you put on but what you take off. Loose the A/C, power steering, air pump, rear carpet/spare tire, stock exhaust and stock battery (replace with small battery in the passenger bin), radio, big wheels with heavy fat tires, and of course the change in your pocket 
. Anyway try dropping the weight from your car and you'll take a good second off your times at the next autocross and you'll feel it in your *** just driving around town as well. Lets just stick with what got us to the dance to begin with; weight not power. And not only can you get out of the box quicker but you can also stop quicker and its easier on your entire suspension and driveline.
Things to add: Light flywheel/upgraded clutch, open intake, pfc tuned for 12lbs of boost, gab super r's with gc's 550 ff 350 to 450 rear, cb/hf-mc/dp, toyo tires either street or r compound are nice and light, water wetter in the rad and 2 stroke oil in the tank and spend your extra money on track time not power mods
Anyway just my two pennies
. Anyway try dropping the weight from your car and you'll take a good second off your times at the next autocross and you'll feel it in your *** just driving around town as well. Lets just stick with what got us to the dance to begin with; weight not power. And not only can you get out of the box quicker but you can also stop quicker and its easier on your entire suspension and driveline.Things to add: Light flywheel/upgraded clutch, open intake, pfc tuned for 12lbs of boost, gab super r's with gc's 550 ff 350 to 450 rear, cb/hf-mc/dp, toyo tires either street or r compound are nice and light, water wetter in the rad and 2 stroke oil in the tank and spend your extra money on track time not power mods
Anyway just my two pennies
11-13-02, 02:31 PM
#79
Super Snuggles
Originally posted by ptrhahn
I believe this is the same theory JimLab is using while building his V8 RX for precisely this application... and I bet his car will be much faster <from a roll> than any single-T RX making the "same" 600 peak hp (if it ever rolls under it own power again?sorry Jim!).
I believe this is the same theory JimLab is using while building his V8 RX for precisely this application... and I bet his car will be much faster <from a roll> than any single-T RX making the "same" 600 peak hp (if it ever rolls under it own power again?sorry Jim!).
Rice Racing's single turbo 13B makes 612 hp @ 7,500 rpm and 456 lb-ft. @ 6,500 rpm at the flywheel on pump gas. Taken by themselves, those are very impressive numbers, especially for such a small engine. But would you be surprised to know that his engine only averages 338 horsepower from 2,000-8,000 rpm and only 316 lb-ft. of torque in the same range?
My engine made 647 hp @ 7,000 rpm and 557 lb-ft. @ 5,000 rpm at the flywheel on pump gas. Quite a bit more torque, but not much more horsepower, right? 35 horsepower isn't that big a difference, right? Would it surprise you to know that my engine averages 466 horsepower from 2,000-8,000 rpm and 486 lb-ft. of torque in the same range? BIG difference.
Another interesting fact is that my engine makes more horsepower from ~6,000 rpm to 8,000 rpm than Rice Racing's engine makes at peak. And yet another interesting fact is that my torque never falls below 400 lb-ft. from 2,000 rpm to 8,000 rpm. For those of you that say torque doesn't matter, that only horsepower matters, are you aware that my 402 lb-ft. of torque at 2,000 rpm equates to ~153 horsepower? Nearly 100 more than Rice Racing's 13B. At 3,000 rpm I'm making 255 horsepower, compared to his 104... starting to get the picture? Torque IS horsepower, and average numbers are far more informative than peak values.
Peak numbers are fine for bragging rights. Sure, someone probably has a 700+ RWHP 13B single turbo FD somewhere that they call a "street" car or a "daily driver". But consider what that car must be like to drive in normal traffic conditions if it's making no real power until after 4,500+ rpm. And consider how those numbers were attained. It's not likely that they were attained without race gas, and with boost levels that they wouldn't run on the street if they were prudent and concerned about engine longevity. So exactly how "real" are those numbers? I'm more concerned with what I can run on the street, not what I can attain on a dyno with some high octane fuel.
As I've said often enough, build your car for how you'll use it, not for how someone else thinks you should use it. And furthermore, build it for drivability, not for peak numbers. Peak numbers are only good for bragging rights, and pumping up your ego with big numbers won't change the fact that you have to live with driving what you've built. With the 13B-REW, that likely means something that's not very fun to drive on the street, even if it did make you a dyno hero. Some people are far too concerned with dyno numbers, in my opinion.
11-13-02, 05:12 PM
#80
WTB** Very Low Miles 94-95
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tejas
Posts: 3,298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks jim...that post was great!...your numbers are amazing...
one thing to add to think about in regards to gregs car...he is running a stock cat. on my m2 set i could not at any time raise my boost past 15lbs on the stock cat...it was clean yet it choked flow to no more than 15lbs...greg is chocking his car quite a bit by running that cat...the flow difference between no cat or hi flow vs a cat wit the m2 set is tremendous...especially since 15lbs of boost on the m2 set has much more flow than 15lbs on a stock set.
I tried to up the boost past fifteen while tuning...no luck...could crank the 3bar boost controller to 30lbs if i wanted...it simply would not go past 15lbs...stomped out the cat with the ghetto broom and the boost control was at my finger tips.
with a midpipe on his current setup those dyno charts he posted would be somewhere near 380rwhp at 15lbs...add a ported motor and he would be at 400rwhp at 15lbs on them m2 set.....throw in the 3bar map sensor and race gas etc...up the boost to 20lbs and you would see in the neighborhood of 450 Id guess since he has the larger wheels than I do.
I run a ported motor and no cat right now.
so...mr glassman...how you like dem apples?
hehe
j
one thing to add to think about in regards to gregs car...he is running a stock cat. on my m2 set i could not at any time raise my boost past 15lbs on the stock cat...it was clean yet it choked flow to no more than 15lbs...greg is chocking his car quite a bit by running that cat...the flow difference between no cat or hi flow vs a cat wit the m2 set is tremendous...especially since 15lbs of boost on the m2 set has much more flow than 15lbs on a stock set.
I tried to up the boost past fifteen while tuning...no luck...could crank the 3bar boost controller to 30lbs if i wanted...it simply would not go past 15lbs...stomped out the cat with the ghetto broom and the boost control was at my finger tips.
with a midpipe on his current setup those dyno charts he posted would be somewhere near 380rwhp at 15lbs...add a ported motor and he would be at 400rwhp at 15lbs on them m2 set.....throw in the 3bar map sensor and race gas etc...up the boost to 20lbs and you would see in the neighborhood of 450 Id guess since he has the larger wheels than I do.
I run a ported motor and no cat right now.
so...mr glassman...how you like dem apples?
hehe
j
Last edited by artguy; 11-13-02 at 05:15 PM.
11-13-02, 06:23 PM
#81
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Edwards, CA
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Note, this isn't specifically towards anyone:
...castles in the air. What if you choke on the exhaust side of the stock twin housings at 390 rwhp? All that compressor won't help much.
I'm not knocking upgraded twins. Hell, I'd be first in line if there was proof that they could do what you guessed. However, its always "if this" or "next week" or "I made 270 rwhp but it was pulling" or "Mr. X made 380 rwhp at 14 psi but the dyno sheet magically vanished" or "My car pulls so hard on the street, then I trapped 108mph at the track last night but..."
Can we start a pool or something for someone to go and actually dyno a set of upgraded twins on a car that actually runs right? I'd chip in a 5 or 10 to see it.
with a midpipe on his current setup those dyno charts he posted would be somewhere near 380rwhp at 15lbs...add a ported motor and he would be at 400rwhp at 15lbs on them m2 set.....throw in the 3bar map sensor and race gas etc...up the boost to 20lbs and you would see in the neighborhood of 450 Id guess
I'm not knocking upgraded twins. Hell, I'd be first in line if there was proof that they could do what you guessed. However, its always "if this" or "next week" or "I made 270 rwhp but it was pulling" or "Mr. X made 380 rwhp at 14 psi but the dyno sheet magically vanished" or "My car pulls so hard on the street, then I trapped 108mph at the track last night but..."
Can we start a pool or something for someone to go and actually dyno a set of upgraded twins on a car that actually runs right? I'd chip in a 5 or 10 to see it.
11-13-02, 06:35 PM
#82
WTB** Very Low Miles 94-95
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tejas
Posts: 3,298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
castles in the sky maybe...ya gotta reach for the stars right? we shall see how close we get....same idea goes for the boys running the rx6...it will be great to see what the ceiling is.
Im curious as to what the point of maximum power is out of the stock manifold myself.
I will find out...dont you worry bout that. I wont be dynoing my car til Im done with my move to boston.
my car is having some work done as we speak actually...doing the 3bar and some other stuff...am actually checking into having my wheels upgraded to the same size as gregs...would be another trade off on the power vs spoolup but Im thinking about it.
great point though.
j
Im curious as to what the point of maximum power is out of the stock manifold myself.
I will find out...dont you worry bout that. I wont be dynoing my car til Im done with my move to boston.
my car is having some work done as we speak actually...doing the 3bar and some other stuff...am actually checking into having my wheels upgraded to the same size as gregs...would be another trade off on the power vs spoolup but Im thinking about it.
great point though.
j
11-13-02, 08:26 PM
#83
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: cupertino
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow... i didn't think that my one question would go on for 4 pages..... but hey thanks guys for all the info... i'm really thinking about the m2's... plus m2 is only 45 mins away from me... ooo by the way i have 130,000 + on my stock twins.. still pulling hard...
11-13-02, 11:36 PM
#85
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Mechanicsburg, PA USA
Posts: 1,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, I made a post late last night and come on tonight and there are 2 more pages..popular thread. Seems like more and more people are getting interested in upgraded twins over single turbos. Seems like most people that are interested in street driving are impatient and don't want lag. I'm still surprised that some of you are not impressed with greg's dyno numbers. Show me another 360 rwhp stock motor FD with a HF cat anywhere. This is about the max power you can get out of a FD with a ported motor and even a midpipe. I'm sure these turbos give atleast 20-25 more rwhp at the same psi over the stockers, plus add reliability, less heat, and are able to run at much higher boost than the stockers, thus able to make upwards of 50+ more rwhp over the stock turbos.
I know you guys are impatient for dyno numbers but you have to look at how many people have upgraded twins and also how many are on this forum - not many. Single turbos on FDs are as popular as Brittney Spears right now. Greg's dyno run has proven that upgraded twins car can run with single turbo FDs and are more streetable down low.
Scenario: let's say I'm cruising at about 55-60 mph in 4th gear right next to a T-78 FDrunningthesame amount of boost. He wants to go..hmmm, he's not in his power band, so we both downshift to 3rd (no idiot will downshift to 2nd at 60 mph) and run to 100 mph - I bet it would be dead even if not the twin-turbo car ahead. Most single turbo cars I've seen pull hardest in 4th and 5th gear up top.
The most power I've seen made on this forum with stock twins is 368 rwhp..so if the dynos come in on artguys M2s or my BNRs at anywhere from 380-400 rwhp at 15 psi, then the upgraded twins are defintely worth the money.
I know you guys are impatient for dyno numbers but you have to look at how many people have upgraded twins and also how many are on this forum - not many. Single turbos on FDs are as popular as Brittney Spears right now. Greg's dyno run has proven that upgraded twins car can run with single turbo FDs and are more streetable down low.
Scenario: let's say I'm cruising at about 55-60 mph in 4th gear right next to a T-78 FDrunningthesame amount of boost. He wants to go..hmmm, he's not in his power band, so we both downshift to 3rd (no idiot will downshift to 2nd at 60 mph) and run to 100 mph - I bet it would be dead even if not the twin-turbo car ahead. Most single turbo cars I've seen pull hardest in 4th and 5th gear up top.
The most power I've seen made on this forum with stock twins is 368 rwhp..so if the dynos come in on artguys M2s or my BNRs at anywhere from 380-400 rwhp at 15 psi, then the upgraded twins are defintely worth the money.
11-14-02, 01:57 AM
#86
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nutty
Just thought I'd add one more data point to the whole topic since my numbers seem to have generated a reasonable brou ha ha...
I'm not necessarily touting the M2's over a single, it definitely depends on what you're looking for but I thought I should set the record straight on what I actually *gained* by switching to the M2s...
...my car dyno'd 285whp at 16psi with the stock twins at XS with everything else the same except the hi-flo cat and the Exedy flywheel (and of course the larger injectors but more fuel wasn't the issue with the stockers anyway). No problems were found with the stock turbos after removing them, that's just what the car could do. I make no warranty that someone else's car will see the same net gains
I'm not sure what someone did to make 360+whp on the stock turbos but I am skeptical that it was a better $$/performance/reliability tradeoff.
In my case, I feel it was well worth the money for the twin turbos considering the gain of 75whp (at 1psi lower no less)/low end torque/reliability/smog-ability/etc.
Best,
Greg
I'm not necessarily touting the M2's over a single, it definitely depends on what you're looking for but I thought I should set the record straight on what I actually *gained* by switching to the M2s...
...my car dyno'd 285whp at 16psi with the stock twins at XS with everything else the same except the hi-flo cat and the Exedy flywheel (and of course the larger injectors but more fuel wasn't the issue with the stockers anyway). No problems were found with the stock turbos after removing them, that's just what the car could do. I make no warranty that someone else's car will see the same net gains
I'm not sure what someone did to make 360+whp on the stock turbos but I am skeptical that it was a better $$/performance/reliability tradeoff.
In my case, I feel it was well worth the money for the twin turbos considering the gain of 75whp (at 1psi lower no less)/low end torque/reliability/smog-ability/etc.
Best,
Greg
11-14-02, 03:16 AM
#87
Ghost Ride the Whip
I'm not sure what someone did to make 360+whp on the stock turbos but I am skeptical that it was a better $$/performance/reliability tradeoff.
what were your mods?
11-14-02, 05:43 AM
#88
Full Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: PNW
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok I get the point.....Lag VS low RPM boost VS Reliability So my question is what is the price of the M2s? and Where do you get them? We just bought our 7 an 93 R1 so we have the stock turbos with 105K on them but we do have a problem with the second turbo actuating.....so it is time for a upgrade or should we just go through the Solenoids? ......the previous owner said that he inspected the Turbos and they looked good? So do I get the stockers working or just upgrade?
TIA
TIA
11-14-02, 12:41 PM
#89
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
****,
I dyno'd 285whp with the following mods:
M2 Large Intercooler
M2 Intake
Mazdatrix downpipe
RacingBeat catback
Cosmo fuel pump
B&M ignition booster
UR pulley kit
Blitz boost controller
PowerFC computer
just to clarify again...
to make the 360whp I added
M2 twin turbos
1300cc injectors
ntech midpipe w/ hiflo cat
Exedy lightweight flywheel/ACT clutch
I also drove the car directly to XS after the turbos were put on and had them spend as much time on dyno as needed to tune my PowerFC (think it cost about $500). If you get these turbos GET DYNO TUNED!!! You will definitely regret not doing so, you might even blow your friggin engine if you try to street tune it yourself. Reworking maps from the stock setup by just adding fuel is playing with fire. Especially since these turbos are most likely to fry your engine BELOW 4k rpm where the little stock 550cc injectors are on their own trying to deal with all the boost the turbos make down low due to the quick spooling.
Porting the motor was an option but that isn't cheap either and would have left my car unable to pass smog here in CA. I know because Rotary Power rebuilt my engine 20k miles prior to getting the new turbos I didn't do any porting but I did replace the 2mm apex with 3mm just for a little insurance.
Again it depends on your situation, if I lived somewhere without such strict smog I would have ported the engine and probably gone single... but I'm in smog-**** CA, and I was looking to build a smog-able, hassle free, daily driver...
Maroon, unless you've gone through all the other bolt on mods I wouldn't look to upgrading your turbos yet, especially since you would need other mods anyway to accomodate the M2 twins (especially some sort of programmable fuel computer). First things first I would have your 'rat's nest' zip tied (all the vacuum lines under the intake plenum), then check the solenoids...
I think M2 is selling the turbos for about $3000 but if you plan on having someone else install them add another $800-$1500 for that plus dyno time $200-$500.
I dyno'd 285whp with the following mods:
M2 Large Intercooler
M2 Intake
Mazdatrix downpipe
RacingBeat catback
Cosmo fuel pump
B&M ignition booster
UR pulley kit
Blitz boost controller
PowerFC computer
just to clarify again...
to make the 360whp I added
M2 twin turbos
1300cc injectors
ntech midpipe w/ hiflo cat
Exedy lightweight flywheel/ACT clutch
I also drove the car directly to XS after the turbos were put on and had them spend as much time on dyno as needed to tune my PowerFC (think it cost about $500). If you get these turbos GET DYNO TUNED!!! You will definitely regret not doing so, you might even blow your friggin engine if you try to street tune it yourself. Reworking maps from the stock setup by just adding fuel is playing with fire. Especially since these turbos are most likely to fry your engine BELOW 4k rpm where the little stock 550cc injectors are on their own trying to deal with all the boost the turbos make down low due to the quick spooling.
Porting the motor was an option but that isn't cheap either and would have left my car unable to pass smog here in CA. I know because Rotary Power rebuilt my engine 20k miles prior to getting the new turbos
I didn't do any porting but I did replace the 2mm apex with 3mm just for a little insurance. Again it depends on your situation, if I lived somewhere without such strict smog I would have ported the engine and probably gone single... but I'm in smog-**** CA, and I was looking to build a smog-able, hassle free, daily driver...
Maroon, unless you've gone through all the other bolt on mods I wouldn't look to upgrading your turbos yet, especially since you would need other mods anyway to accomodate the M2 twins (especially some sort of programmable fuel computer). First things first I would have your 'rat's nest' zip tied (all the vacuum lines under the intake plenum), then check the solenoids...
I think M2 is selling the turbos for about $3000 but if you plan on having someone else install them add another $800-$1500 for that plus dyno time $200-$500.
11-14-02, 06:02 PM
#91
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just read the entire forum. It was very informative. I just bought a 93 rx7. The car has 69,850 miles on it. Of course I plan on adding other mods before the turbos. The M2's are sounding like the ones I would want. Only thing is that (Artguy...I believe who it was) HAD to get new turbos, so he decided on the M2's. But I don't NEED them... And if there's not really all that much of a power gain by buying the $3K M2's, should I just wait to buy them when my car NEEDS new ones? Thanks
11-14-02, 06:07 PM
#92
WTB** Very Low Miles 94-95
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tejas
Posts: 3,298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
greg...we tuned my car on the street..ourselves!
it was very very easy...the pfc datalogit has new mapwatcher software which makes it possible to simply inch around and get all your afrs for the particular cels.....you just add and remove fuel SLOWLY and PATIENTLY and do more runs...Im now running 11s across the board and am a bit richer up top...
you see...I advise against xs...they nearly blew up my car TWICE. their customer service was like getting multiple kicks in the nuts...their tuning was worse.... now the only tuner I trust is me...and FD RACER.
thank god for fd racer....way to go ray.
anyhow...thats my two cents.
j
it was very very easy...the pfc datalogit has new mapwatcher software which makes it possible to simply inch around and get all your afrs for the particular cels.....you just add and remove fuel SLOWLY and PATIENTLY and do more runs...Im now running 11s across the board and am a bit richer up top...
you see...I advise against xs...they nearly blew up my car TWICE. their customer service was like getting multiple kicks in the nuts...their tuning was worse.... now the only tuner I trust is me...and FD RACER.
thank god for fd racer.
...way to go ray.anyhow...thats my two cents.
j
Last edited by artguy; 11-14-02 at 06:09 PM.
11-14-02, 08:00 PM
#93
Full Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an afterthought to what jimlab was saying about Torque IS power...
I agree. Horsepower is only a function of torque. The equation is (TORQUExRPM)/5250 if im not mistaken, though i probaby am
The reason that the smaller, higher-revving engines make so much more power than torque is that they simply can rev higher. Torque is the measurement of how hard the engine turns the wheels.
I still like the rotary engine more, the design is so much more simplistic. I would also like to comment that i think most of the major auto producers agreed with me. The reason that there aren't more rotaries on the road is that it tried to break into the mainstream just as emissons laws were growing tougher and gas prices were soaring. GM actually contracted the construction of a 4 rotor naturally aspirated corvette!! However, for the above reasons, it wasn't really feasible.
Rotaries Rule!
kyle
I agree. Horsepower is only a function of torque. The equation is (TORQUExRPM)/5250 if im not mistaken, though i probaby am
The reason that the smaller, higher-revving engines make so much more power than torque is that they simply can rev higher. Torque is the measurement of how hard the engine turns the wheels.
I still like the rotary engine more, the design is so much more simplistic. I would also like to comment that i think most of the major auto producers agreed with me. The reason that there aren't more rotaries on the road is that it tried to break into the mainstream just as emissons laws were growing tougher and gas prices were soaring. GM actually contracted the construction of a 4 rotor naturally aspirated corvette!! However, for the above reasons, it wasn't really feasible.
Rotaries Rule!
kyle
LMFAO!!
11-15-02, 11:05 AM
#95
Full Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Yeah!
Hey guys I just want to say thanks for the debate and information. This is one of the best threads I've read. I live in Cali so I'm leaning toward the M2's. JimLab your power numbers are impressive, but is the weight that engine going to throw the balance of your car off? With the 13B it's 50/50 weight distribution.
Last edited by am3210; 11-15-02 at 11:16 AM.
11-15-02, 11:36 AM
#96
Senior Member
Re: Oh Yeah!
Originally posted by am3210
Hey guys I just want to say thanks for the debate and information. This is one of the best threads I've read. I live in Cali so I'm leaning toward the M2's. JimLab your power numbers are impressive, but is the weight that engine going to throw the balance of your car off? With the 13B it's 50/50 weight distribution.
Hey guys I just want to say thanks for the debate and information. This is one of the best threads I've read. I live in Cali so I'm leaning toward the M2's. JimLab your power numbers are impressive, but is the weight that engine going to throw the balance of your car off? With the 13B it's 50/50 weight distribution.
11-15-02, 10:21 PM
#98
Speed Mach Go Go Go
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: My 350Z Roadster kicks my RX7's butt
Posts: 4,772
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I think the ball bearing M2's make up for the lack of(low end)torque. Combine that with higher 4.5 gears and maybe you'd get the V6/V8 burnout/take off or at the least get rid of lag and get instant response.
