 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Land Models / September 2006Engine options......revised
OK, I've revised my list o' engines for the Savage. Here's where I am right now: Axial .28 Axial .32 STS .28 STS .30 (found an american distributor!!) O.S. .30 VG I'm leaning towards the Axial .28 at the moment; great HP and RPM specs and a very reasonable price! Your thoughts? Doc > OK, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Doc I can only comment from experience on the STS and the OS. The OS is power, power, power - any and every point of the rev range is power. I can't think of a single bad point to it except it's needed a little tweaking of the HSN and LSN but I expect this as it breaks in. The OS is a serious torque monster, not so much with the high end oompf. The Axial's get great reviews on Sav Central. I can't think of a reason for the STS .28 when there is a .30 :)  SignatureDan - on his PC Dan (or anybody) have you found any documentation of the STS .30 vs. .28 RPMs yet? > > OK, > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > on Sav Central. I can't think of a reason for the STS .28 when there is a > .30 :) > Dan (or anybody) have you found any documentation of the STS .30 vs. .28 > RPMs yet? I've been scouring the net for hours. Nowhere are HP or RPM figures listed for either engine! Doc ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > > Dan (or anybody) have you found any documentation of the STS .30 vs. .28 > > RPMs yet? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Doc Ditto, there is nothing to be found on Google.com, Google.co.uk, Google.com.au, Google.nl, Google.ru and Google Groups (except for this message). Yes I tried them all because you can search in each country only and even looked on the STS web page and still no info except for the warning in the manuals to say that you shouldn't rev the motor more than 40,000 rpm. I have to wonder if they make the motors for Traxxas because info on their motors is next to impossible to find too. Cheers >> > Dan (or anybody) have you found any documentation of the STS .30 vs. >> > .28 [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Cheers To be fair, IME you always have to take these things with a pinch of salt anyway IMHO - but I can tell you the STS is lots faster than a K4.6 :) SignatureDan - on his PC >>> > Dan (or anybody) have you found any documentation of the STS .30 vs. >>> > .28 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > To be fair, IME you always have to take these things with a pinch of salt > anyway IMHO - but I can tell you the STS is lots faster than a K4.6 :) Most figures are just that: greatly inflated. Those who read RC mags know that real-world dyno results never equate the manufacturer's "claimed HP." However, OS Engines is an exception! Every single engine I've seen dyno'ed came within +/- 0.1 HP of claimed HP. They claim 3.0 HP on the .30 VG, it dyno'ed at 2.98HP. I've seen other results with "claimed" HP ratings of 3.8HP where in reality they were turning 2.5 HP or so. Experience is the name of the game here, and unless you own one or know someone who does, you'll likely never get the truth! Danny-Boy...........I'm glad you grabbed up that STS as I never would have even considered one prior to you giving it kudos on the ng. Keep us posted on how it continues to run-in. Doc > Most figures are just that: greatly inflated. Those who read RC mags know > that real-world dyno results never equate the manufacturer's "claimed HP." [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Doc http://nitrodynesystems.com/Engine%20Database.htm That might be of great interest to sir... SignatureDan - on his PC >> Most figures are just that: greatly inflated. Those who read RC mags >> know that real-world dyno results never equate the manufacturer's [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > That might be of great interest to sir... Those figures are WWWWAAAAAYYY low for every engine tested! I did find that link, but quickly discarded the results. Axial .32 is advertised at 3.5HP, their tests showed 1.66. Axial .28 is advertised at 3.2HP, their test results showed 1.43. So, these numbers might be good for comparison, but IMO they are way off. And because not every engine is listed that we've been discussing, this data is limited even for comparison purposes. Didn't the figures strike you as a bit odd? Doc >>> Most figures are just that: greatly inflated. Those who read RC mags >>> know that real-world dyno results never equate the manufacturer's [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Didn't the figures strike you as a bit odd? I must admit, they struck me as a bit low. Possibly a different method of Dynoing? Scored some 23mm hexes, a full set of dishes wearing Mulchers and a full set of Wabashs wearing Road Rage's for them ;) Thinking the cheapo project might be a pavement machine. What mods are we thinking? It's gonna be running the spare K4.6 I have, 40 series 23mm Wabash wheels and road rage tyres, don't have any more soft springs so gonna try that fuel tube inside the shock body mod I've seen to lower it a smidge. Obviously RR spur gear as well ;) SignatureDan - on his PC >>> Most figures are just that: greatly inflated. Those who read RC mags >>> know that real-world dyno results never equate the manufacturer's [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Doc yeah they all looked low to me as well. But the important thing to consider here is that all those tests seem to be done on the same setup so even though they are lower than expected, they should consistent between them, ie it is an excellent table to compare 2 different engines. That table for example lists the difference between a K46 and the Axial engines on the same dyno. You wont get the same comparison by using the quoted factory figures as we all know they are inflated... Cheers Dre >>>> Most figures are just that: greatly inflated. Those who read RC mags >>>> know that real-world dyno results never equate the manufacturer's [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Cheers Dre It also shows just how good the Nova XSP is... SignatureDan - on his PC >>>>> Most figures are just that: greatly inflated. Those who read RC mags >>>>> know that real-world dyno results never equate the manufacturer's [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > It also shows just how good the Nova XSP is... Ummm, where did you see that engine, I cant see it in that list at all! Cheers Dre >>>>>> Most figures are just that: greatly inflated. Those who read RC mags >>>>>> know that real-world dyno results never equate the manufacturer's [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >> > Ummm, where did you see that engine, I cant see it in that list at all! The Top 528X - I knew what I meant :-D SignatureDan |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.