Yeah, I guess that's part of it too.

Don't you think a lot of shops based their cam decisions on AMS's cam test? Or at the very least made everyone think of the pros and cons of the different cams. If nothing else it helped the community as a whole to help pick the cams that made the most sense for their specific project/goal.

Just seems kind of pointless to share that you will be doing this test and only give us half the of the results (which is useless without all the results). Why tell us?

In the general scheme of things, if they don't share, not a huge deal. I understand both sides of the story. I just fall on the side of the story of sharing. Guess that's the open source side of me talking



-Bink

 

We dont want to keep the results for our selfs only, or to hide our results from another shops or tuners stateside, we just want to protect the crank companies. and its not fair for them that we broke their parts at 10-12000rpms and 1500hp just to test their limits.
All of the cranks are suitable for <1000hp and < 9000rpms.

The shops that we support will know the results if they ask us, also our retail customers will have more benefit from this.

We dont use all the above cranks above 1000-1200hp and >9000rpms either way.
We built our own that are specially designed for eatch aplication and cost much more.

To built a correct designed crank needs needs many parameters, i will show them tomorrow also.

 

Makes plenty sense Spyros, maybe mentioning your top 3 choices of off the shelf cranks will do the community good, (and one bang for the buck) while keeping the underperforming cranks manufactures secret. And what you say is realistic because 99% of us will never even reach the 1000 whp plateau let alone pushing the cranks to their breaking point (I'm sure something else would fail before the crank did)

 

agreed 100%

 

Mike,
I think Spyros has addressed that issue with the US build that will be debuting at the Shootout this year. I say wait patiently. Better yet, bring a car that is faster and prove your point on the track.

 

What the person above you was quoting is a few years old already, but I hope all the nay sayers in this thread (shops) come out and put on a show in next years shootout.

 

He may have said it a long time ago, but I bet if you called a few shops we all know... they would still echo that comment. Evident by their new customer quoting a comment from the past.

 

Thanks for the reply.


I suppose that's fair.

Still, I think we'd like to see the results.

If nothing else, maybe the crank vendors can improve upon their products and we as customers can make a more informed decision before we buy a vendors product.


-Bink

 

so stupid.

 

As we built some frond face co drivers side steel 316 manifolds for our T3 power full units.

These are low cost manifolds from 316 stainless steel that anybody can afford as the price is very reasonable. We keep more than 10 in stock. Just the manifold with t3 flange or complete turbo kit fitted 60-62-64-67-72mm 11blade high power units.

I will upload pics tomorrow ready and installed.
These pics below are with our 67mm power full T3 unit.





















Spyros

 

I want the 58mm setup you mentioned before!. Next year you will do a lot of business stateside.

 

Here are some crank tests from the balancer machine tested to 14000rpms.
Some of them fail even at 8000rpms

























Spyros

 

Some fail at 8,000 RPM's??

You should DEFINITELY release the results. That's ridiculous!

Can you at least tell us how the stock mitsu crank did? (If you tested it)



-Bink

 

I mean fail for our standars.

Mitsubishi design the engine at 7-7500redline.
Stock crank needs a lot of balance for our standars but its in the correct tolerance from the factory literature (<2.5g)
Its not design to work >6500rpms in continuous use. The counterweights are correct designed and in correct place, its better designed than many aftermarket but suffers from elasticity as the material properties are not better than billet 4340than most aftermarkets.

 

+1, Mitsi has nothing to prove/hide