n/a BETA max hp #'s
07-12-2002, 11:19 AM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BV1,
you could still do quite a few things to your car...now I realize you aren't made of money, but why don't you have a lightend flywheel yet? After I put in my headers that maybe the next thing I do. Also, you need a goood head job (thats what she said...)
What's wrong with you man??? Come on!! GET WITH THE PROGRAM YOU BUM!!!
hehehehehehe just kidding
Seriously, if I pour in $2,000 worth of mods and I am not gonna break the 7 sec mark 0-60, I am just gonna stop now before I waste anymore money and just buy something that will. 2gs is a down payment for something faster.
you could still do quite a few things to your car...now I realize you aren't made of money, but why don't you have a lightend flywheel yet? After I put in my headers that maybe the next thing I do. Also, you need a goood head job (thats what she said...)
What's wrong with you man??? Come on!! GET WITH THE PROGRAM YOU BUM!!!
hehehehehehe just kidding
Seriously, if I pour in $2,000 worth of mods and I am not gonna break the 7 sec mark 0-60, I am just gonna stop now before I waste anymore money and just buy something that will. 2gs is a down payment for something faster.
07-12-2002, 05:16 PM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i broke the 0-60 7sec mark a few times, haven't taken it to the track yet. My rsm-gp is near perfectly tuned below 80mph so its pretty accurate, i haven't tunned it on a dyno to get me proper dyno readings, but guessing my weight i'm in the high 140's and dabble in the 150 sometimes.
i'm taking my car to the dyno to get my s-afc properly tuned, so i'll see how close my rsm is then smile.gif
i'm taking my car to the dyno to get my s-afc properly tuned, so i'll see how close my rsm is then smile.gif
07-13-2002, 12:03 AM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The flywheel is the only thing I am still craving (aside from NOS) but for the cost, NOS is going in first.
But if you wanna get down to the 7.4-7.5 second range for cheap. Do a TRUE CAI and a 2.5* custom catback.
For under $400 US you lost a second of your 0-60 times.
-Steve
But if you wanna get down to the 7.4-7.5 second range for cheap. Do a TRUE CAI and a 2.5* custom catback.
For under $400 US you lost a second of your 0-60 times.
-Steve
07-13-2002, 03:02 AM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey random I can only remember one time chevy made a 302. It's was in 99 or 00. When they put it in the camaro and pulled out like 400hp or something like that. But chevy usualy builds 305 and ford thakes the 302
07-13-2002, 09:13 AM
#35
http://www.hyundaiaftermarket.org/images/vendor1.png
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: x3 accent gk tiburon santa fe
not to hack the post, but the chevy 302 was made around 1968 to 1970
they built those engine to compete in certain class of racing (to meet the max displacement limit)they used steel crank with 3* stroke steel 5.7* con rods and 4* bores
advertise hp and torque was 290/290
Denis
they built those engine to compete in certain class of racing (to meet the max displacement limit)they used steel crank with 3* stroke steel 5.7* con rods and 4* bores
advertise hp and torque was 290/290
Denis
07-13-2002, 10:59 AM
#36
Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guys, I think that they were probably talking about a 305. Just got it confused with the 302 that everyone hears Ford guys talk so highly about. Probably not worth pointing out that mistake, I think everyone knows what they are talking about. Oh yeah, this is my first post, Hey everyone.
07-14-2002, 04:08 AM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: 01 Tiburon
so if we want many hp we go turbo...
Why does the beta motor respond better to turbo applications and produce so many hp????
Can sb explain that with simple words????
Why does the beta motor respond better to turbo applications and produce so many hp????
Can sb explain that with simple words????
07-14-2002, 08:45 AM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Angelos:
so if we want many hp we go turbo...
Why does the beta motor respond better to turbo applications and produce so many hp????
Can sb explain that with simple words????
</div>I'm guessing it is because the engine was originally based off the eclipse turbo engine...
so if we want many hp we go turbo...
Why does the beta motor respond better to turbo applications and produce so many hp????
Can sb explain that with simple words????
</div>I'm guessing it is because the engine was originally based off the eclipse turbo engine...
07-14-2002, 08:49 AM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Dopeskills:
I'm guessing it is because the engine was originally based off the eclipse turbo engine...</div>Nope. The BETA motor was based off the Eclipse just as much as it was based of the Sentra, the Civic, the Corolla and the 323... Essentially saying, it was based off 4 cylinders and front wheel drive.
The motor responds much better to turbocharging because of cylinder head design. The *trough* combustion chamber shape and the bad exhaust port design lend themselves to forced induction rather than normal aspiration.
Combine that with the fact that these motors turn into Hyundai Hand Grenades when revved above 7500, and you basically are stuck with something that needs to make horsepower very low on the RPM band.
I'm guessing it is because the engine was originally based off the eclipse turbo engine...</div>Nope. The BETA motor was based off the Eclipse just as much as it was based of the Sentra, the Civic, the Corolla and the 323... Essentially saying, it was based off 4 cylinders and front wheel drive.
The motor responds much better to turbocharging because of cylinder head design. The *trough* combustion chamber shape and the bad exhaust port design lend themselves to forced induction rather than normal aspiration.
Combine that with the fact that these motors turn into Hyundai Hand Grenades when revved above 7500, and you basically are stuck with something that needs to make horsepower very low on the RPM band.