thats the reason i avoided turbo’s. it’s easy to get the power, but the torque curve is either shonky or all over the gaff.
@JohnWaldock has a point, but for drivability’s sake I didn’t add too much boost pressure, and I installed a high-quality premium interior and satnav system to ensure that it could be a daily driver in all conditions. NA engines have a drivability and reliability advantage, though, although turbos provide a sizable torque and power advantage when done right.
Still playing with mine rest assured it will be entered just doing the final micro tuning.
And I want to show off my drivable turbo torque. Just remember a DSD car is the best quality money can buy.
Oh and I have a hand made interior with +6 sliders
The trick is to use tiny little turbos with large A/R low boost and high compression
i think this is one of those moments that everyone is, deeply in their hearts, screaming
“I WISH TURBO REVAMP WOULD COME SOONER”
@puffster i wish that was the case here. but insurance is not a law here, so that’s not an issue, but anything above 250cc is considered a ‘big’ bike, and a CBR650 literally cost the same as a brand new honda fit, because reasons.
@Darkshine5 only using regular 91 fuel?? not premium 95?
1 Like
You need to try a Beull dude! I had an 1150R and it was awesome a true Muscle bike.
Yep only 91 octane fuel, I have many areas that could be improved for power but I did not want a horsepower hero
Turbo revamp would be cool but I am waiting on supercharging or compound turbocharging (hurry up 2017)
@koolkei yep wrong spelling oops. Come to Australia and apply for an international permit much cheaper than the US an we have good bikes
you mean buell right? if so, you switched the letters there.
yeah… american only bikes. feels like i want to go somewhere just to tour on plenty of different bikes.
anyone have an international license?
So as I was saying, this is the engine I’ve settled on. I managed to have the curve even flatter, but had to compromise slightly for desired output and weight distribution. Especially the weight distribution: I’ve never seen a 1.8 ton Veyronesque bus pull 1.3g on the small circle test and I wanted to keep it that way.
Yes, I accept that the hit of torque between 2600 and 3000 rpm is pretty steep. But hey, I’m not even running much boost, besides, the customer said they wanted to enjoy pushing the limits of the vehicle 
6 Likes
I wouldn’t say it’s overly sharp. Though I’m a bit surprised at you for not going nuts with the power.
surprised that it seems some people are not pulling the max potential out of their fuel…
why though?
okay i officially finished my car now. nothing excels but nothing suffers. i tweaked so much to the point that if ANYTHING was just 1 notch off, at least 1 stats is going to drop at least 10%
I did max out my Premium Unleaded. 90.1 out of 90.3.
oh, AKI rating. right. my bad
That doesn’t sound like maxed out to me 
Presenting the Mott Works Mako
The Mako is an aggressively tuned super car. It’s powered by a 3L twin turbo V8, mounted in the front of the car, that produces 550hp and 370lb-ft which can propel the car to 60mph in just 2.9 seconds and up to a 200mph top speed. It’s also a very agile car due to an extremely low weight of just 2752lb due to full carbon fiber construction of the body and chassis which also helps the car achieve 25mpg. Overall the car uses many high tech parts throughout to ensure the fastest times around a track and will only cost you $150,000.
Also since everyone else is doing it heres my engine
It has more turbo lag than I would’ve liked but thats the result of 14.4psi of boost but its not too bad of a peak since its such a low torque engine already and the car has plenty of grip to not spin the wheels(6.5% spin) so you just get a kick into the back of your seat. Also it uses VVL because it made everything better since I could get a better power curve and considerably better economy.
1 Like
Any further adjustments provided no additional power, or sacrificed reliability, or increased fuel consumption. Leaving 0.2 octane worth on the table didn’t short me by much.
i didn’t make the most out of my car, so it’s rather basic. but, it does undercut the budget by 40k AU
i could get 1.3g small circle if i using basic interior, even higher G on big circle, plus the could help it even more in big circle in my (weird)case. sadly for comfortable issue i rather give up that stats. beside is rare to see solid 1.9 ton car able to pull more than 1,2g in small circle back in 2006.
and somehow after watching RCR 2006 Cadillac XLR video i feel like i miss the point of comfortable sport car(or rather super car)
First Order Automotive would like to present the 2006 Thunderhawk Extreme Edition.
Figures
10L Normally aspirated V12
1051 HP
6 speed DCT connected to a longitudinal AWD transmission
0-62 - 2.9
220.5 MPH
17.3 MPG (UK)
Other details
Luxury interior
All the driver aids to keep you pointing in the right direction
Military grade SatNav
Keyless entry
Drop dead looks
Pricing
$130,400 - 2 Seat edition (Presented)
$140,000 - 4 Seat edition
3 Likes
Yeah, I decided that the brief was quite firm in what it wanted, both implicitly and explicitly. I set myself a minimum driveability and wanted to keep the running costs down a bit. It’s already quite high due to the sheer amount of quality parts I’m using, which worries me a bit. I’ve managed to counter this by running lean and tuning for efficiency to keep fuel costs way down (60% the maximal allotment, which will save nearly 1000 bucks a year).
Also, more torque means more weight. My opinion is that cars become less fun the heavier they get, and pushing the limits becomes a technical Marcel over a visceral thrill. At 1.75 tons I’m well past the point, the car is well into Veyron and Aventador territory. That’s not company I’m fond of keeping, but it is what it is.
The final point is something that will blow minds: I hit some straight line targets that told me the car had ‘enough’. Sure, I could get a 9 second pass with 1000-1200bhp and a top speed of 400-420, but that extra premium with all the sacrifices it bought with it didn’t seem worth it for a buyer who still retained a modicum of sensibility in their newfound wealth.
Oh, I understand. I designed mine around keeping reliability up while making a decent amount of power. I set a few minimum requirements, specifically to drivability and comfort. The car’s expensive, but I don’t think I’ll make it as far in this round as I did in the last one. While I can make supercars/hypercars, they’re a bit out of my comfort zone.
Props to @rcracer11m for cramming a powerful engine in a tiny car, but I am not sure it will convince me if I were the round master due to the compromised reliability and turbo lag. Worse, it has only half the power of some competitors, but on the other hand, it’s really light, which should help with handling.
@strop managed a relatively flat torque curve with less lag. Oh, and he’s right about the pitfalls of using a body that’s too small. @Darkshine5 also faces the same problem, although his car’s engine has a flatter torque curve that kicks in sooner.