[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: RM-EM logic
In a message dated 97-12-17 12:57:17 EST, you write:
<< QSHIPQ wrote:
> Porsche has used ceramic coating in their turbo cars for years. NOT, mind
> you, in or on the Exhaust Manifold. Given that they saw the importance of
> ceramic coating in production turbo cars, and chose exactly not to use it
> the EM, one has to wonder, "why not"?
Randall proposes the following with now trademark "RM" (tm) logic:
>> Maybe the same reason they liked those big single turbos on the the 911.
I propose maybe some even simpler logic might apply...
I might direct you to Rudy C.'s post instead. If what Rudy says is true, only
a bigger question given the goal, wouldn't coating the EM and the downpipe to
the O2 give even a faster lightup? I'm thinking, well maybe at some
"expense", or even, maybe heating all these components is a "good" thing.
Hmmmm.... This whole EM thread is nothing new, top secret or a proven
performance upgrade. I sure would pay attention to the information that is
available to you, "claims" aside. My point from post 1 on this subject. Do
the right things for the right reasons, not what you think makes sense = true.
Coatings reduce surrounding temps, that's all. Claims of HP are not founded,
by even the manufacturers. Up to x% (and the max I've seen claimed is </=3%)
could be 0. Given the length of the manifold on our audis, 0 is prolly more
valid than 3. Either way, hardly a justifiable jump.