The 1 (metric) ton, 2.3-litre, Evgenis Yokubo Supersports has been sent in
I’m in. This is the HYPERSPEED Auto Garage Bee, again. 
It’s powered by an 2.8 NA I4, due to Demo-restriction.
That car is wider than it is tall!
99% of cars are anyway! 
276 is the magic number. WIP.
Yeah, at your redline… see what happens when you pop that up a bit. 
shhh! no company would ever artificialy set their redline lower then it had to be in order to meet a HP limit.
Let’s just say that there’s a certain, not so hidden, weird little fuse which, if it happen to be accidentally removed, would allow for a tiny amount of extra fun.
i would have limited it with the exhaust.
more useable rpm range.
plus - you get slightly more torque at lower revs
[quote=“mer_at”]i would have limited it with the exhaust.
more useable rpm range.
plus - you get slightly more torque at lower revs[/quote]
Quoted for truth. In fact, as niall has also noted earlier, baffling or reverse flow muffling can be very effective. Not to mention the comfort requirements here are greatly aided by less engine noise, so it was a win win!
When building cars I always start out with double baffled mufflers. Cheap, light, and boost efficiency and low rev torque at the cost of a steeper high rpm drop off. This can then be reversed by either bypass valves, for sporty or immature cars, or by enlarging the exhaust pipe by a tick or two. Unless its a full blown luxury car or a contest really requires comfort I never touch the reverse flow, too heavy and expensive. Straight thoughs are fun in theory, but two of them are basically the same stat wise as a large pipe double baffle or smaller pipe single with bypass so again only on pure super sport cars will I use them.
Tl:dr just stick with baffles
Looks like its time for me to seriously look into judging the cost effectiveness per application!
[quote=“mer_at”]i would have limited it with the exhaust.
more useable rpm range.
plus - you get slightly more torque at lower revs[/quote]
Yes, it would have been preferable, but in it’s current configuration the engines cannot sustain a higher RPM while keeping the reliability above 50. I’m pretty sure I can adjust the cam profile and timing in order squeeze a little bit more torque.
[quote=“RaduST”]
[quote=“mer_at”]i would have limited it with the exhaust.
more useable rpm range.
plus - you get slightly more torque at lower revs[/quote]
Yes, it would have been preferable, but in it’s current configuration the engines cannot sustain a higher RPM while keeping the reliability above 50. I’m pretty sure I can adjust the cam profile and timing in order squeeze a little bit more torque.[/quote]
Edit: found extra reliability by switching from racing to p̶e̶r̶f̶o̶r̶m̶a̶n̶c̶e̶ standard intake. Increased RPM limit from 7900 to 8̶3̶0̶0̶ 8800 => improved track times. TY
Gemina XIII Frivola
After a gestation period longer than that of the new NSX, this is finally it.
Also, I ditched the VVL because IMO it was nothing than a weight drag in a race
And one last thing. Who wants to guess what it has in common with this:
I have no idea. Uhm. Turning circle? 
Also fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu another lesson learnt: could have used the standard air filter for extra noise reduction, dropped some of the excess sound insulation weight, and shaved off an extra couple of tenths on the track!!!
I know! Speed! 
Nope guys. Keep trying. Hint: Strop, I learned that from you in the 1980 commie race, but I had to go in the opposite direction to actually make the car faster.
Hmm. I should install some mods. Very nice looking car.