[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.
 Randall >>

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.

My .02