Re: Um.. no
Posted: October 12th, 2009, 5:24 pm
hey, this reminds me of some people in this forum 
Page 3 of 3
Re: Um.. no
Posted: October 12th, 2009, 10:36 pm
hilharious
Re: Um.. no
Posted: December 11th, 2009, 2:42 pm
Well hang on a second some of your grammer wasn't all that good. Stop running him down about the spelling (i'm not worlds best). Honestly though if I was to see that car on the road I would borrow a wrecking ball and see just how fast it can really fly 
.
Boy racers piss me off
. Boy racers piss me off
Re: Um.. no
Posted: December 11th, 2009, 4:30 pm
He is above the surge limit of a T91 turbocharger which would
finally spool up at 15000 rpm assuming two. So 0.9L running about
95 psi of boost at 15000rpm would make 1200 Horsepower.
But yeah still its above the surge limit and not by just a little.
Not to mention unless its a one piece head and block unit like
indy cars the head would asplode.
Maybe HK = Hefner-kerze which is 0.92 candlepower and its referring
to the sick halogens. 'Sick' halogens.
finally spool up at 15000 rpm assuming two. So 0.9L running about
95 psi of boost at 15000rpm would make 1200 Horsepower.
But yeah still its above the surge limit and not by just a little.
Not to mention unless its a one piece head and block unit like
indy cars the head would asplode.
Maybe HK = Hefner-kerze which is 0.92 candlepower and its referring
to the sick halogens. 'Sick' halogens.