[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SVO - svo Digest - V01 #54



On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Dave Compton wrote:

> same price everybody else pays.  I havn't sold even ONE since those results
> came out.  So, actually I would be better off if I HADN'T dyno tested it. 
>
And I for one have a tremendous amount of respect for you doing that.
Facts are facts.  If nicks doesnt cut the mustard, why should he reap the
rewards as if it does? If it makes good power on a dyno test like yours,
its a good advertisement.  



 This is risky territory,  can you get dyno tests for ANY OTHER CAM IN THE
> WORLD?  You're damned right you can't.  So you (all of you, not just Cory)
> HAVE been badgering Nick.

Any cam that is being hailed as the greatest cam in the world for a type
of motor has some kind of info regarding it....if it doesnt, noone serious
uses it....Can you think of a popular, good cam that there is no info on
anywhere?  I cant...Cus usually to be good, it has to be proven good.  In
this case, it is jus told to be good. His only claim so far is it has
potential to make 358 hp....thats nice, but so does your engle, and the
engle has been proven to make even more. Does that make the engle a better
cam? No.  The numbers that count are IMPROVEMENT, and there are no
improvement #'s here...

> 
> So, what I mean by that, is....  So far, Nick has sold SEVERAL (alot) of
> the cams, and hasn't had to spend money on dyno testing it.  I doubt he
> makes what dyno testing it would cost him (with free labor), on 3 cam
> sales.  So, in reality, there's probably only 2 cam sales on this list, the
> rest are just poking and prodding.

Acvtually Joe, Cory and Chris R all said TODAY that they would at the
least seriously consider it if it made decent power..thjeres your 3
people..

  So, it doesn't make economic sense to
> dyno test it.  But, actually, it WILL happen soon.  Pretty decent of the
> man, I think.  HE IS putting his money where his mouth is.
> 

And I for one am not bitching, as long as he does the test like you did. 
Im not even bitching if he doesnt, other than to say his dyno test was a
waste of his time because it doesnt mean jack if there is not a good
baseline to go by. 


> DO YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THIS YET?
> 

Do you actually understand where everyone else is coming from? In case you
didnt notice, this is not only me Joe and Cory.  There are people that
harldy ever post saying he should test it, and do a before an after test. 

> 
> Besides, I want Craig to tell us all about his TC.  He removed Esslingers'
> cam and put in Nick's, and likes it better.  (BTW, that IS good enough for
> most people). 

Thats pretty sad.  

 He took off Esslinger's turbo and put on Nick's and likes it
> MUCH better.

Hmmm, would there be an aftermarket turbo floating around the list for
sale cheap?:)

> You prolly couldn't round up ten dyno sheets like I did in the whole
> freakin' world!  ON ANY CAM!! EVER!
> 
What was the deal with the tiny Avenger when they dyno'd the FMS Roller?
Did they change more than one thing?  I cant remember, that artcle was a
blurr.
And what about the article someone mentioned that BBK did years ago?  the
stock vs Engle 55, 65, and something else?


> Ads in magazines don't count, remember you can only change ONE thing.
> 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Join the turbo 2.3 mailing list by sending your subscription request to:
	ericksco@mhd1.moorhead.msus.edu

Scott
-71 Pinto, stock 2.3 turbo, 13.67@98, radials
	8.1@85 1/8th mile on slicks
	Big intercooler ON!
	T4 Compressor soon to be on!

-85 Merkur, let the modding begin! 
------------------------------------------------------------------------