Top 10 Air-Cooled Porsches

From 356 to 993, These are the Cars that Built a Teutonic Legend

The air-cooled, horizontally-opposed engine design that Porsche used with great success over decades had humble beginnings as a four-cylinder development of the original Volkswagen powerplant, but grew to become one of the most iconic engines ever found in both sports cars for the street and pure race cars. Here are ten milestones that cover the 50-year history of Porsche air-cooled boxer street cars.  

1948 – Porsche 356

From the rubble of war-ravaged Europe, a small, lightweight, rear-engine sports car based on the basic powertrain design of the pre-war Volkswagen “People’s Car” was created, dubbed the 356. The flat-four engine grew in displacement (from 1.1 to 1.5 liters), valve count (the 4-valve Carrera became optional at the end of 1955) and horsepower (29kW/39HP initially, 118kW/160HP in the most highly developed version) over the 356’s 76,000+ unit,19 year production run.

1964 – Porsche 911

With the 356 still selling but at the end of its development potential, the automaker introduced a new design, retaining the rear-engine layout but adding an additional two cylinders, which bumped the displacement to 2 liters and power to 96kW/130 horsepower. You may not have heard of this obscure model, as production only continued through 1989, but it represented the cornerstone of Porsche’s business model, with a legacy that continues to this day.

1965 – Porsche 912

Concern over the increased cost of the new 911 model compared to the outgoing 356 led to the introduction of an ‘entry-level’ version of the platform powered by a holdover flat-four sourced from the latest versions of the 356. Lighter, less expensive at $4,700 list price, and offering 66kW/89HP, the 912 substantially outsold the 911 at first, but by 1969 production facility realignment and stricter looming emissions requirements in the critical US market led to the decision to end 912 production in favor of the 911 and 914. In 1976, the 912 name was revived for an “E” model to replace the 914 as the bottom step of Porsche’s three-rung performance ladder until a proper successor came on-line. Just shy of 2,100 total 912E models were manufactured during that single model year, and were only sold in the US market. 

1969 – Porsche 914

Born out of a contractual obligation to provide developmental support for Volkswagen and the need to phase out the 912 in favor of a new model, the 914 was originally conceived as being sold as a VW when powered by a flat-four and a Porsche with 6-cylinder power. Concern about the US market and potential brand confusion led to Porsche marketing both models, bringing the long-standing ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ between the two companies to a sour conclusion. The car itself was a success, outselling the 911 and pioneering a rear-mid-engine powertrain layout that placed the engine ahead of the rear axle instead of behind it as it had been in the 356, 911, and 912. Though more than 118,000 were sold worldwide during the eight year production run, a bare 3,300 914/6 models would be produced. Largely overshadowed today by the runaway success of the many 911 models that appeared subsequently, the 914 was in many ways the blueprint for the modern Boxster/Cayman platform. 

1973 – Porsche 911 Carrera RS

The Rennsport (‘racing sport’) version of the classic 911 is widely considered to be one of the most desirable models from a collector’s standpoint, thanks to their improved performance and relatively low production numbers. Porsche, looking for a competitive edge in racing organizations that demanded a minimum number of cars be built and sold to the general public, created the RS as a ‘homologation special’ with a bigger and more powerful 2.7 liter six delivering 154kW/207HP. Other changes from the standard production model were an upgraded suspension, wider rear wheels and tires, more capable brakes, and aero mods that included the now-iconic “duckbill” rear decklid spoiler. In addition to these features of the “Touring”-spec RS, buyers could also tick the Sport Lightweight box on their order form which substituted thinner body panels and glass, saving an additional 220 or so pounds over the already-light 2,400 pound curb weight of the RS Touring.

1974 – Porsche 930

Though officially referred to as the 930 in the US, this variation was universally known worldwide as simply the “911 Turbo”. Introduced with a 3.0 liter engine rated at 190kW/260HP, the 930 had grown by 10 percent in displacement and another 40 horsepower by 1978; while 300 ponies doesn’t sound like much by modern sports car standards (or even compared to some crossovers), in a lightweight chassis with extreme rear weight bias and legendary turbo lag, it was more than a handful to drive. Even comically-wide rear fender flares to cover enormous rear tires and a giant whale tail spoiler could only partially correct the car’s off-throttle understeer/snap oversteer handling characteristics, and perhaps no vehicle in history other than the Beechcraft Bonanza has actively tried to kill as many doctors, investment bankers, and trust fund kids as the original 911 Turbo. Nevertheless, it remains an object of pharmaceutical-grade desire for anyone who was aware of cars in that era.

…perhaps no vehicle in history other than the Beechcraft Bonanza has actively tried to kill as many doctors, investment bankers, and trust fund kids as the original 911 Turbo…

The 930 had a hiatus in the US market due to emissions issues from 1981 until it was reintroduced for 1986, and by then the car was long in the tooth in terms of engineering, but it was still hugely profitable for the company. Porsche squeezed every bit of sweet, sweet juice out of the Turbo nonetheless, introducing the ‘slant nose’ version towards the end of production in 1989.

1989 – Porsche 964

Marketed as the “Carrera 2” and “Carrera 4”, the internally-designated 964 platform carried over just 15% of its design from the ‘classic’ 911, and was the first version to offer all-wheel-drive; as a matter of fact, the original 1989 model was only available in Carrera 4 configuration with the Carrera 2 coming on-line a year later. Power came from an equally new 3.6 liter air-cooled flat six designated the M64 rated at 184kW/247HP, and the suspension design made the radical shift from torsion bars to coil springs, with the ubiquitous MacPherson strut configuration up front and an independent semi-trailing arm rear. Coupe, Targa, and Cabriolet body styles were offered, and power steering and ABS were introduced as standard features. Buyer demand in the US led to an RS America version for 1993 and 1994, based off of the Carrera 2, featuring a whale tail spoiler, de-contented interior, and lower 2,954 pound curb weight, among other changes. Overall, the naturally-aspirated 964 spanned just half a decade of production but racked up 63,762 cars built among all the configurations.

1990 – Porsche 964 Turbo

With the introduction of the new chassis and naturally aspirated motor but a successor to the previous Turbo’s powerplant still under development, the 930’s engine was used as a stopgap. Changes increased rated power to 235kW/376HP but blunted a bit of the turbo lag, which along with the revised chassis and suspension made the car much easier to drive at the limit than the previous Turbo, but still not particularly forgiving of large changes in throttle position mid-apex. 1992 saw the debut of the Turbo S, which had the same peak power but detail revisions to the tune, a lightweight interior similar to the RS America, a manual steering rack, and lowered suspension. Only 86 were produced, making for one of the rarest road-going 911 models ever offered. By 1993, a new boosted M64 was finally available for the Turbo 3.6 model with 265kW/355HP on tap, but the 964 was nearing the end of its abbreviated lifespan and only one model year and less than 1,500 total cars were produced to that spec. 

1994 – Porsche 993

For the 1995 model year, Porsche once again mutated the 911 DNA to produce another generation with minimal (claimed less than 20%) carryover from the 964. Major frame and suspension design changes improved handling and further tamed the inherent snap-oversteer characteristics common to rear engine designs, and once again both 2 and 4 driven wheel models were offered. While the M64 engine design was carried over, this generation gained a sixth gear in the manual transmission and a bump to 200kW/268HP at introduction. Coupe and Cabriolet body designs were manufactured, along with a complex “greenhouse” roof marketed as a Targa but with a power-retractable glass panel in place of the previous removable section. Production ended in 1998 thanks to the air-cooled design no longer being able to reasonably meet emissions and noise standards, but not without one final model to properly put a coda on the end of the air-cooled 911 symphony…

1995 – Porsche 993 Turbo

Everything came together in the last air-cooled Turbo 911, with a 3.6 liter twin-turbo M64 cranking out 300kW/402HP, the first all-wheel-drive layout for a 911 Turbo, wider rear bodywork, and of course a whale tail spoiler. All the nasty surprises of the original 930 had been eliminated, creating a car that was more forgiving when pushed, not a carnival ride in bad weather, and shockingly quick under all circumstances. The ante was upped in 1997 with the Turbo S’ uprated engine delivering 424 horsepower, and another homologation special, the GT2, was produced and sold in small numbers, making it highly sought-after by collectors. All things considered, the 993 Turbo was a fitting conclusion to the first part of Porsche’s 911 evolution. 

Online Car Buying – The Next Big Thing?

Your Next New Car could be Made to Order and Delivered Straight to Your Door

Over the past twenty years, untold billions of items have been purchased over the internet, and nearly as many articles have been written about the effect of online retail on traditional brick and mortar businesses. Even before the handbrake got yanked on in-person retail due to Covid-19 concerns, it was already possible to buy anything from groceries from the local supermarket to electronic components of questionable quality direct from the manufacturer in China, delivered straight to your door or mailbox. 

With so much commerce going on via the web, there are still some things that aren’t so easy to buy with the click of the mouse, though – One of them is a new car or truck. The complications involve both the unique aspects of vehicle purchasing and some long-standing laws that were originally designed for consumer protection against manufacturer monopolies, but now mostly shield those who are heavily invested in traditional dealer networks from competition.

Today, we’re going to take a look at the current state of online car shopping, explore the reasons why the status quo exists, and make some predictions about what the future holds for those who’d like to be able to buy a new vehicle with the same convenience you’d expect when ordering Pad Thai because you just can’t bear the thought of cooking again tonight. 

Dont Four-Square Me, Bro…

As far back as the year 2000, almost half the people who responded to a J.D Powers and Associates survey said they would opt to buy cars directly from the manufacturer, even if it didn’t save them any money, and it’s unlikely that near-majority of customers would be less likely to do so today. Clearly, the traditional brick and mortar new car dealership system has a serious problem when so many people would prefer to avoid it entirely even if there was no cost advantage to doing so. 

Today, there are more resources available than ever for car shoppers to do their research, revealing invoice costs, rebate and financing offers, and even once-esoteric hidden seller profit sources like ‘dealer hold-back.’ Nevertheless, the average person may buy a handful of new cars over the course of their entire life, while the dealer literally sells them every single day. Even with better-educated customers closing the information gap, sellers still hold a huge advantage in experience, and the psychological manipulation that is often part of the game is well-documented. It should come as no surprise then that many would-be buyers would welcome the chance to spec out and price a new vehicle the same way you can order a new laptop, with zero interaction (or hard-sell pressure) from ‘helpful sales professionals.’

Manufacturer-Direct Pricing

Another 2001 study on the effect of auto buying referral services in California estimated that on average, those services saved consumers almost 2% compared to traditional sales channels, even though a middleman was still involved in the transaction. Direct sales from auto manufacturers offer even more potential savings, eliminating a lot of the financial ‘friction’ inherent in the current system that requires a huge infrastructure to store, merchandise, and eventually deliver new vehicles to their owners. 

So if nearly half of all potential customers would prefer to buy direct, and it would make new cars less expensive, why do dealerships still exist? There are several reasons, some good, and some bad. One primary obstacle is legislation that specifically prevents OEM sales to consumers outside of the dealer network – only a few states don’t either directly prohibit it or place extensive restrictions on the practice. This dates back more than a century when many of these laws were first enacted, ostensibly to prevent ‘vertical integration’ of the new vehicle market.

At the time, long-standing monopolies in many forms of business were being vigorously dismantled by ‘trust-busters’ in the name of consumer protection. Allowing car and truck manufacturers to completely control the market from raw materials to delivery was seen as unacceptable, and considering the limited range of choices available in the market and the low bargaining power of buyers, a network of dealers/middlemen was seen as the lesser of two evils. Today, there is a LOT of money tied up in the current system, from the real estate and buildings required for dealerships to the inventory they carry on their books and in their lots, so resistance to direct online sales is strong and well-funded. 

What is it Even Good For?

On the positive side for dealers, most new car buyers are going to insist on being able to test-drive vehicles prior to purchase, and the dealership sales model is well-suited to providing that opportunity. This is especially true when consumers aren’t set on the make and model of car that best fits their needs and want to cross-shop, but even the die-hard Corvette guy who knows exactly what he wants is going to make sure ‘his’ car drives properly before taking ownership.

This “showrooming” problem became apparent in the early days of online commerce, where consumers would go to big box retailers or specialty stores to hold something in their hands, then go and order it on the internet for a lower price. The physical store was stuck with all the costs of infrastructure and inventory, with no sales to show for it. 

One possible solution comes from what’s already been tried in countries without restrictions on direct manufacturer sales, where franchised dealers receive a commision for online sales in their exclusive territory as a way to cover the costs of maintaining a sales and service network and providing the “last mile” of vehicle preparation and delivery.

Speaking of service, warranty work, ongoing maintenance, and parts sales turn out to be a significant revenue source for new car dealers, one that even outweighs the profitability of car sales themselves. According to the National Automobile Dealers Association, over a ten-year period studied the average new-car dealership’s sales department varied between over $150k in profit and almost $50k in losses, while the service and parts department were continuous money-makers with net profits growing from $150k per location to over $300k. Much like the old business strategy of giving away razors to sell more blades, it seems that the most consistently profitable part of a new car dealer’s operations lie in taking care of vehicles rather than selling them. 

…it seems that the most consistently profitable part of a new car dealer’s operations lie in taking care of vehicles rather than selling them…

What About Tesla?

At this point, the only new vehicle manufacturer actively making direct-to-consumer sales is Tesla Motors, and in order to do so they’ve had to come up with convoluted custom legal work-arounds in almost every jurisdiction. In some places, Tesla showrooms can offer test drives and answer questions, but any talk of pricing or ordering is as taboo as saying “bomb” in the airport. In others, the number of Tesla sales locations is limited to a handful per state, or the semantic distinction of not having any ‘franchised dealers’ allows the company to simply ignore laws originally written to protect traditional sales outlets.

Regardless of how Tesla has managed to make direct sales work, any traditional manufacturer with an established dealer network is going to have to fight with their existing franchise owners to allow consumers to skip the usual baffling ordeal that is the new car purchasing experience. It seems inevitable, though, given consumers’ strong preference for online buying and the significant savings possible. Traditional dealers will be faced with choosing to hang on to an expensive business model their customers hate that has been made obsolete by technology, or pivoting to provide the profitable services that will still be necessary when large-scale direct sales become a reality.

Canyon Carving on a Budget

Top Tips for Making the Most Out of Your Sunday Drive

Let’s get this out of the way right from the beginning: We do not condone operation of a motor vehicle on public roads in an unsafe manner, or the violation of traffic laws. Streets are not a racetrack or dragstrip, and bad things can and do happen with greater frequency and more severe negative outcomes as the result of that kind of behavior.

With that said, however, we understand that one of the major joys of having a car that’s fun to drive is driving it in fun ways, and a relaxing, yet spirited romp down a challenging road is a fine way to spend a Sunday morning. A car that doesn’t get driven is like a stuffed lion in the natural history museum instead of running free in its natural habitat. 

Keeping all that in mind, we’ve come up with a short list of ways to get the most out of your safe, socially-responsible leisure time behind the wheel at minimum cost. It’s not comprehensive, but it is all born from experience, and sometimes painfully and expensively learned experience at that. 

A car that doesn’t get driven is like a stuffed lion in the natural history museum instead of running free in its natural habitat…

Mechanical Mods

Tires

We’ve said this before, and we’ll say it again – nothing affects your car’s performance (acceleration, braking, and cornering) more than the four small places where tread meets asphalt. Even stock wheels can benefit from upgraded tires biased toward performance, and the key thing to look for here isn’t necessarily what DOT-approved rubber is the latest and greatest in terms of maximum grip. Instead, you want a tire with approachable limits and forgiving characteristics that provide feedback with plenty of traction left in reserve before breaking free. On a racetrack, another 0.1g might be worth dealing with razor-edged traction, but out in the world, there aren’t many safe runoff areas or gravel traps to let you find out where the limit is without having a really bad day. When choosing tires, the manufacturers’ marketing materials may help a little bit, but the best bet is to look to owners’ groups for your make and model so that you can leverage the experience of others.

Brake Pads

When people discuss brake mods, the talk almost always is about big, slotted rotors and six-piston calipers peeking out of large-diameter aftermarket wheels. But like tires, brake pads are another routine consumable that you will have to replace on a regular basis anyway, and spending a little bit of extra money and a few minutes researching your options will pay huge dividends. Even stock calipers and rotors can be inexpensively upgraded with a change to a performance pad compound, and there are multiple companies making drop-in replacements for pretty much every interesting car built in the last 30 years. Characteristics like cold coefficient of friction, initial “bite,” and resistance to fade are all customizable with off-the-shelf pads using different friction material. For optimum results, new stock or stock-replacement rotors properly bedded in using the pad manufacturer’s instructions are the way to go. But even if you forego replacing rotors and just clean and scuff the still-serviceable discs you have now, it will make a world of difference in brake performance.

An honorable mention here goes to flushing the brake system with new fluid, a proper bleed job, and even an upgrade to inexpensive but still DOT-approved braided stainless brake lines that won’t balloon under pressure to replace the worn out factory rubber ones.

Seat Belts

Here’s another mod that’s relatively inexpensive but pays big. Proper restraints, fastened and adjusted correctly, eliminate the steering wheel isometrics and knee-wedging that we end up doing unconsciously to remain in position during cornering and braking. Factory seatbelts are designed for comfort (mostly to increase usage) and to work as part of the supplemental restraint system in a crash, with belt pre-tensioners, precise attachment point geometry, and even sections of belt designed to stretch or extend via sacrificial stitching. None of this actually helps you prior to the rapid unplanned deceleration, however. Options here include SFI-style racing harnesses in 4 or 5 point configurations, and aftermarket belts designed specifically for the street, some of which even have DOT approval. Keep in mind, however, that just like removing and replacing a factory airbag-equipped steering wheel, you are defeating a safety device and the potential consequences are on you and you alone.

Here’s a completely free “mod” for cars with seatbelts that have a solid connection at the base of the B-pillar and a belt that passes through a slotted buckle before continuing to a retractor at the shoulder: Push yourself firmly back into the seat in the position you want to be in, run the waist part of the belt across your body while taking out any slack, and put a twist in the belt before clicking the buckle into place. It may take a few tries to get it the way you want it, but ‘free’ is the best price of all, and a snug fit across the waist will get you some of the advantages of costly race harnesses in terms of resisting side g loads with no real downside in safety. 

Sway Bars and Bushings

Sure, you might have a full set of double-adjustable coilovers on your wish list, but in terms of making a difference you can really feel, replacing the worn-out bushings in your factory anti-roll bar mounts and end links is incredibly cheap and rewarding. If you can stretch your budget just a little bit, stiffer bars (or even adding a rear bar to a car not factory equipped with one) will also radically improve handling. The best part is that as long as you stick with polyurethane bushings and don’t make the mistake of running solid bearings and heim joints on the street, it’s another mod with no downside to your car’s practicality for daily driving. Just be aware that factory anti-roll bars are calibrated to provide understeer at the limit on purpose, and making wholesale changes with roll stiffness can do unpleasant things to even the tamest car’s cornering balance. Pay attention to what the bar manufacturer recommends to steer clear (pun intended) of this issue. 

Preparation Matters

The Driver Mod

What’s something that only costs a modest amount, never wears out, and will make any car you drive for the rest of your life quicker? The legendary “driver mod,” of course! While this is often talked about in the context of a weekend bombing around the track at a race driving school, it doesn’t have to be that complicated and expensive if you live within reasonable distance of a local autocross venue. The Sports Car Club of America (SCCA) is probably the best-known national group that organizes these parking lot events, but there are plenty of other opportunities as well, from big car shows to brand-specific clubs. For a few bucks, you’ll get to test yourself and your car in a controlled environment and learn where the limits are without worrying about exceeding them. Many events will even provide experienced drivers to coach first-timers from the passenger seat, and if you really want a humbling experience, switch places and let them show you just how much faster your car is with somebody behind the wheel who really knows what they are doing.

Preflight Check

Here’s another not-mod that you really shouldn’t skip, for obvious reasons. Before you head out to the twisties, take just a moment to make sure your fluid levels are ok, nothing’s coming out from where it shouldn’t be, tire pressures are correct, and all the random junk in your back seat is left at home just in case. Grab the top of each of your front tires (or as close to it as you can, for those with sick stance and zero fender gap) and give them a nice hard wiggle to check for wheel bearings ready to give out or slop in the steering rack. Yes, it sucks to have to cancel your weekend fun because there’s something that needs attention, but it sucks a lot less than dropping a ball joint mid-corner and having to pay for a tow from way out in the boonies. 

Pre-run It

Even if the road is one you’ve driven a thousand times before, and you know every apex and straight, conditions change. While it might not be very exciting, prerunning your route at a leisurely pace before returning along it at a more spirited clip will let you find things like oil, coolant, water, rock slides, and even the occasional car on its roof (obviously driven by somebody who hasn’t read this article) with plenty of room to avoid them. It goes without saying that this is also a good way to gauge the current law enforcement level of interest on that road as well. More importantly though, this will significantly reduce the chance that you’ll yeet yourself off a cliff and into the afterlife because you only discovered an obstacle or puddle of oil once you got up close and personal with it. 

It goes without saying that this is also a good way to gauge the current law enforcement level of interest on that road as well…

We’ll end with one last thought – keeping a low profile and being respectful of other road users is extremely important. Nobody likes having a car in a ditch in front of their house every weekend, and loud exhausts, screeching tires, and aggressive driving in normal traffic lead to increased traffic enforcement or even nastiness like rumble strips and speed bumps. Enjoy the drive, but don’t be the reason things get ruined for everyone else.

The Big Squeeze: High Compression vs. Low Compression

One of the defining characteristics of an engine is the compression ratio, which in simple terms is a comparison between how much volume there is inside the cylinder when the piston is at its highest and lowest points (don’t get me started on Wankel rotaries – they’re basically witchcraft). Compression ratio interacts with a lot of other factors to produce power, and can be changed to some extent by selecting different components for the same basic engine during the build. To add another plot twist, the mathematically-calculated static compression of a particular combination can differ significantly from the engine’s dynamic compression in operation, thanks to sophisticated intake and exhaust design, forced induction, or even EGR (exhaust gas recirculation). 

A Real World Application for High School Geometry

To start calculation compression ratio, you need to know an individual cylinder’s displacement. This is the area of the cylinder multiplied by the length of the crank stroke. But you’re not done yet, because you also have to know how much space there is in the cylinder head with the piston all the way up as well. The difference between the maximum volume with the piston at bottom dead center and the minimum volume at the top is the compression ratio. This is, of course, a huge over-simplification, but it will give you an idea of what a number like “9.5:1” means – there is 9.5 times more volume inside the cylinder at BDC than there is at TDC.

Designs with long crank strokes relative to their bore diameters tend to also have high compression ratios. Diesel engines, which rely on very high compression to ignite the fuel and air mixture, are a typical example. But there are other factors that have a major impact on compression ratio. The design of the cylinder head’s combustion chamber is a big player here, as the smaller volume it incorporates, the higher the CR will be. Another significant way to alter compression ratio is through piston design – a ‘dished’ piston will have lower compression than a flat one, all other things being equal, and a domed one will have higher compression. Even things like the thickness of the gasket between the head and the block and whether the valves are dished will affect compression ratio.

Though it’s possible to math most of this out with a little applied geometry (or plug the appropriate numbers into an online calculator like a lazy internet tech writer would), the volume numbers for the piston and the cylinder head have to be actually measured, if they’ve been altered in any way from how the manufacturer delivered them. A head that has been “decked” by having material removed from the surface that contacts the block will have a higher static compression than an unaltered head, and pistons can be milled to lower compression, either on purpose or as a side effect of cutting pockets for larger diameter valves. While measuring actual piston dish/dome volume is kind of a pain, doing the same for a combustion chamber is actually quite easy, only requiring a measuring device with accurate markings in cubic centimeters, a piece of clear plastic with a hole drilled in it, some tinted water, and a bit of grease to seal the valves and where the plastic covers the combustion chamber. 

Compression Consequences

Now that we’re solid on what static compression ratio is, let’s take a moment to discuss why it’s important. In general terms, high compression (which is a relative term itself) is desirable because it enables more power production. Each cylinder-full of air/fuel mixture will have more room to expand and do work, making the engine more efficient. As mentioned before, diesel engines take advantage of very high compression to operate very efficiently compared to gasoline engines. But the same thing that makes diesels work in the first place – compression ignition – is also a big limiting factor for how much compression ratio a gas-powered engine will safely tolerate. 

In general terms, high compression (which is a relative term itself) is desirable because it enables more power production. Each cylinder-full of air/fuel mixture will have more room to expand and do work, making the engine more efficient…

120 or so years ago at the dawn of the automobile, engines were typically very low-compression compared to modern designs. The Ford Model T had a 2.9 liter inline four cylinder engine that produced a whopping 20 horsepower with a compression ratio of just 3.98 to 1. While the power output wasn’t all that thrilling, the low compression was a necessity during that time period when fuel was of uncertain quality and highly variable octane rating (we’ll get to more on that in just a minute).

As oil companies began to create standards for pump gas, compression rose to take advantage of better fuel, and the Second World War really turned up the wick on engine design. Because of ‘high test’ fuel, naturally aspirated engines for trucks, tanks, and especially aircraft became lighter and more powerful, and turbo and supercharged engines were finally practical. Even so, after the war when the first small block Chevy V8 engines were introduced in 1955, they ran compression ratios as low as 8.2:1 for durability. 

No-Knock Entry

The limiting factor on how much compression an engine can run is the knock-resistance of the fuel, commonly referred to as the octane rating. It gets its name based on a comparison of how hard it is to ignite relative to pure octane, a specific hydrocarbon fuel – gasoline rated at 93 octane in a particular test is easier, while 100 is comparable and 110 is more difficult. You’ll sometimes hear people say that what happens inside a cylinder is an “explosion” but if that’s what is happening, something has gone terribly wrong. It’s actually a ‘deflagration’ – rapid, but controlled burning. When fuel is compressed too much, it will spontaneously ignite and lead to preignition, detonation, or simply knock. Whatever you call it, it has the potential to very quickly melt spark plug electrodes, burn holes in piston tops, break the ring lands off the sides of the piston, and push out head gaskets. None of these are desirable outcomes

The limiting factor on how much compression an engine can run is the knock-resistance of the fuel, commonly referred to as the octane rating…

It’s possible to compensate to a degree for lower-octane fuel by running less ignition timing, but that’s a compromise at best. Because it takes a non-zero amount of time for an engine to completely burn a cylinder of fuel, all but the lowest-RPM designs incorporate some amount of ignition advance, firing the spark plug before the piston reaches top dead center on the compression stroke. As the flame front moves away from the spark plug towards the edges of the combustion chamber, it compresses the remaining unburned fuel and air, and if it squeezes it too hard, it can spontaneously and nearly instantly ignite instead of a smooth burn. This is one example of the dynamic compression we mentioned earlier.

Every engine has an ignition timing “sweet spot” that produces the best power when it is fed fuel with sufficient knock resistance, but it can run successfully, though with lower performance, if the ignition timing is retarded to later in the compression stroke to keep peak pressure in the cylinder below the knock threshold. You’ll often see modern vehicles with manuals that advise “Premium fuel preferred – 87 octane minimum” because they have sensors that listen for knock and pull out timing if they’re fed Regular instead of Premium. They’ll make more power on high octane fuel not because the gas is more powerful, but because they can operate at their designed ignition timing settings.

VE Made EZ

Another source of increased dynamic compression comes from an engine’s volumetric efficiency, which is a way of expressing how completely the cylinder fills with a fresh charge of air and fuel on the intake stroke. A 500cc single cylinder engine that ingests exactly 500 cubic centimeters of air per cycle is running at 100% VE, for example. Now, if you were raised to respect the laws of thermodynamics, you’re probably saying, “no mechanical system is 100 percent efficient!” and you are absolutely right, but there’s an interesting caveat. While the restrictions posed by the intake tract do indeed cause naturally-aspirated engines to normally operate below 100% VE, very clever engineering can allow an all-motor design to achieve over 100 percent under certain specific operating conditions.

This is possible because air, while not being very dense, does have mass, and moving mass has inertia. Careful design of the intake and exhaust manifolds, combined with specific valve timing, can take advantage of positive and negative pressure pulses reflected through the system in a narrow RPM range to ‘internally supercharge’ the engine and push VE over 100%. Though this was once confined to racing powerplants, increasingly sophisticated factory designs with variable valve timing and lift and variable intake geometry have made this effect worthwhile for mass production.

The net result of pushing VE over 100 percent is that the total compression ratio the engine experiences can be higher than the calculated static CR. Taken to the extreme, adding boost in the form of turbocharging or supercharging throws even more dynamic compression into the mix. Careful tradeoffs have to be made with forced induction engines to balance out the effect of boost with reduced static compression in order to keep detonation at bay – the efficiency lost by running lower compression ratios is more than offset by the increased power offered by intake pressurization. 

Approaching the Limit

Modern engine designs have seen compression ratio increased across the board, even for factory forced induction, and this is largely thanks to a much better understanding of what happens inside the combustion chamber during a power stroke. One look at a current engine’s piston and combustion chamber design will show you just how far technology has come from the days when the two-valve hemi head, with its combustion space shaped like half an orange peel, was the state of the art. Features like ‘squish bands,’ swirl-inducing peaks and valleys, and stratified charge strategies allow today’s engines to run compression ratios that would make those of just 20 years ago go ‘pop’ on the very same fuel. By figuring out what it takes to create a margin of safety for the knock threshold but still increase compression ratio, engineers continue to squeeze (pun intended) more and more out of every cubic inch of displacement. 

Getting Ratio’ed

The Importance of Power to Weight

How do bees get airborne? How do hummingbirds gracefully hover? How do helicopters chase you out of your favorite spot at 2:30 on a Sunday morning with that stupidly-bright spotlight? Lots of power moving as little weight as possible. 

Horsepower to the tires has big implications for automotive performance, but like everything else about going fast, it’s not about one number. What’s more important is how many pounds each horsepower has to move around, and the overall power-to-weight ratio is the real determiner of more than just how quickly a car accelerates. Today, we’re going to talk about some things you might not have considered before when thinking about how much power you need to achieve your performance goals, or on the flip side, how light your car has to be with the horsepower you currently have.

What’s more important is how many pounds each horsepower has to move around…

Defining Terms

Power to weight ratio is just what it sounds like – how much power is available, compared to the mass of the vehicle. You can express it in any unit of measure you prefer; our European friends will like kilowatts and kilograms, but US readers will probably find it easier to relate to how many pounds each pony has to carry around, so that’s what we will stick to here. To give you some perspective, here are a few examples of production car power to weight ratios, based on factory figures:

• Toyota Prius (2022): 121 HP (net power), 3,010 pounds curb weight = 24.9 pounds per HP
• Honda CRX Si (1987) 91 HP, 1,953 pound curb weight = 21.5 pounds per HP
• Mazda Miata (1997): 129 HP, 2,180 pound curb weight = 16.9 pounds per HP
• Dodge Challenger SXT V6 (2021): 303 HP, 3,858 pound curb weight = 12.7 pounds per HP
• Honda S2000 Club Racer (2008): 237 HP, 2,765 pounds curb weight = 11.7 pounds per HP
• Acura NSX Type R (1992): 270 HP, 2,712 pound curb weight = 10.0 pounds per HP
• Chevrolet Corvette 1LT Z51 (2021): 495 HP, 3,366 pound curb weight = 6.8 pounds per HP
• Dodge Challenger SRT Super Stock (2021): 808 HP, 4,429 pound curb weight = 5.5 pounds per HP

Just for fun, let’s throw in a couple of fairly tame sportbikes:

• Kawasaki Ninja 400 (2022): 45 HP, 541 pounds curb weight (includes 175 lb rider) = 12.0 pounds per HP
• Kawasaki Ninja 650 (2022): 67 HP, 598 pounds curb weight (includes 175 lb rider) = 8.9 pounds per HP

We can draw some initial observations from these examples right away. First of all, the two motorcycles shown are generally considered pretty weak sauce by two-wheel standards, but they are still in a totally different realm than most cars. Second, there are some cars we’d all consider “fun to drive” that don’t have very good power to weight ratios – more on that in a minute. Finally, the top of our list has a Challenger model that is an absolute whale, but thanks to an equally gargantuan engine, is in a class of its own in terms of power to weight.

The point to be made here is that cars (and motorcycles) that are lighter in absolute terms tend to be more enjoyable for enthusiasts even if they are only middle-of-the-pack in horsepower. That’s because weight, or more correctly mass, affects more than just straight-line acceleration. 

Massive Implications

Because inertia applies in all directions, not just to acceleration, with all other factors being equal a car that weighs less overall will need less tire, less suspension, and less brakes to achieve the same results as a heavier but more powerful one with the same power to weight ratio. Conversely, better tires, suspension, and brakes will be more advantageous on the lighter car as well. 

As time has passed, increased safety requirements for side impact air bags, crush zones, and a hundred other advances, combined with customer demand for things like heated power-adjustable seats and Bluetooth-connected in-car entertainment systems have inexorably pushed curb weight up, even for cars built to be lightweight. The 2014 5th Gen Camaro Z/28 is a good example, being available without air conditioning or a stereo, but the need to incorporate government-mandated audio feedback for turn signals, seat belt warnings, and whatnot meant that it still had to have at least one speaker.

So far, though, the increase in curb weight of the average car has been more than offset by the increase in average horsepower. But it also means more capable (and more expensive) suspension, tires, and brakes are required. It’s also often said that “light costs money” and that’s very true when you are trying to achieve the same results with less weight, like substituting an aluminum block of comparable strength for a cast iron block in the same engine design. On the extreme end, carbon fiber body panels, aluminum frames, and other semi-exotic materials and manufacturing methods can be employed by the factory.

Simplicate and Add Lightness

Fortunately, even if you’re on an instant ramen budget and spending a ton of money on featherweight aftermarket parts isn’t in the cards, all is not lost. Manual cloth seats from a base model car can replace the seven-way heated leather ones you have, for example, and you may even end up money ahead by selling them to some would-be baller looking to upgrade. AC deletes, while trending toward the hardcore end of the spectrum, are typically good for some significant weight savings, and if you still want to keep cool and not make your own gravy while sweating out the summer, we bet that without even trying too hard the typical enthusiast could find at least 20 pounds of loose junk in the car that you have been Ubering around for free. Those passenger seats sitting in the pits at the local autocross or dragstrip grudge night take zero dollars to do, and they give you a place to sit and hang out with your friends in comfort while you wait for your run group.

Fortunately, even if you’re on an instant ramen budget and spending a ton of money on featherweight aftermarket parts isn’t in the cards, all is not lost…

There’s something really satisfying about making your car faster without adding a single pony under the hood, and all it takes is a little bit of imagination and some elbow grease. As a bonus, you’ll be able to corner harder and brake later – sure, it’s not as sexy as putting on a turbo or jetting up the nitrous, but it’s a tried and true speed not-so-secret. 

Ten Euro Standouts

The Most Influential US Imports from the Old World

After the end of the Second World War, America emerged unchallenged in terms of manufacturing and industry. All the domestic car companies who had turned their might to supply the “Arsenal of Democracy” were quickly pivoting back to products designed to fill pent-up civilian demand. And yet, in Europe just as in Asia, war-ravaged economies saw the US domestic market as a way to jump-start their own reconstruction, despite formidable barriers. 

…war-ravaged economies saw the US domestic market as a way to jump-start their own reconstruction, despite formidable barriers…

For the next five decades, German, Italian, English, and French manufacturers worked to solve the puzzle of selling stateside. While there were many misfires and failed attempts along the way, we also received a lot of cars that stood out for their innovation, performance, or just plain lovable weirdness. These weren’t the Porsche and Ferrari sports cars, but often very ordinary designs that rose to greatness. Here’s ten Euro cars that all made their mark on the United States, for a lot of very different reasons. 

1949 – Volkswagen Beetle

A literal “people’s car” designed for a dystopia that thankfully never fully came to be, the Volkswagen Type 1 finaly reached mass production just in time to help a shattered Germany get back on its feet. It went on to see more than 21 million cars sold worldwide over its very long production run, and although it started out as underpowered and unsophisticated even by 1930s standards, the Bug went places nobody could have imagined. In every form of motorsports from road courses to drag strips to Baja, the VW was embraced and found success. In the driveway, it taught Boomers to wrench without fear (and how to drive stick – once you master a VW transmission, everything else is cake), and it’s pretty safe to say that as long as there is gas to burn, somebody will be turning out new air-cooled flat-fours for them.

1960 – Austin Mini

Not everyone knows that the UK spent almost ten years after WWII with rationing of certain items still in effect – the war had taken a high toll in manufacturing infrastructure and massively disrupted public transportation. Against that backdrop, the Austin Mini debuted in 1959 and a year later, left-hand-drive versions began export to the US. While the total numbers that made it to our shores weren’t spectacular (approximately 10,000 over seven years), the impact they had is hard to understate. Here was the first widely-available transverse engine front wheel drive economy car most people ever experienced, and its space-efficient two-box profile and drivetrain layout set the standard for tens of millions of cars from dozens of makers in the subsequent years. 

1968 – Fiat 124 Spider

Designed by Pininfarina, the little convertible Fiat somehow managed to be an Italian sports car in the same mold as England’s classic roadsters, but with ever-so-slightly better reliability. First appearing in the US in 1968, the model managed to soldier on all the way into the early 1980s, with upgrades in engine displacement along the way. Many say that the Mazda Miata was an homage to those English roadsters, but the commercial success of the Fiat Spider made it a more direct ancestor (even if it wasn’t good enough to keep the company in the US market.)

1974 – Fiat X1/9

This toon town caricature of Italy’s vaunted mid-rear-engine exotics never made more than 75 horsepower from the factory, was undrivable by anyone taller than six feet, and was abandoned by its parent company in 1982 to be picked up by Bertone and limp on in the US (the car’s largest market by far) through 1987. It was also a riot to drive, and foreshadowed the MR2 and even the Fiero as an affordable mid-rear two-seater.

1982 – BMW E30

It’s not throwing shade on BMW to call the E30 3-series their version of the Civic. It revived the market formerly served by the classic 2002 for enthusiasts who wanted a compact car that was fun to drive and affordable. In the secondary market, it became a tuner superstar thanks to its easy availability and the fact that all the fundamentals were done right. 

1983 – Audi Quattro

If you like the GT-R, EVO, and WRX STi, you can thank (at least in part) Audi for blazing the trail. The original Quattro hit the US market at a time when the only other car with full-time AWD was the AMC Eagle. While the Eagle was special in its own way, it was no performance car, and the Audi’s turbocharged inline 5-cylinder and rally pedigree were something totally new in America. Though the first Quattro sold in miniscule numbers in the USDM, it was the vanguard of things to come worldwide.

1983 – Mercedes W201

Not to be outdone by their rivals at BMW, Mercedes jumped right into the compact market with the 190-series “baby Benz,” gifting the W201 chassis with a sophisticated suspension and a rev-happy inline four cylinder engine in various displacements. While it didn’t gain the same traction with street tuners in the US that the E30 did, it found great success in road racing worldwide and changed Americans’ conception of Mercedes as either Gullwings or diesel-powered living room couches to a viable performance brand.

1983 – Volkswagen Golf/Rabbit GTI

Though the VW Golf Mk1 arrived in the US in 1975 (and was called the Rabbit, for reasons which are not entirely clear) and overseas markets got the hot rod GTI version a year later, Americans would have to wait until 1983 to get a Rabbit GTI. While the 90 horsepower 1.8 liter engine (uprated to an even 100 for 1984) is nothing special by today’s standards, in the light and well-engineered Mk1 chassis it was a paradigm shift in economy car high performance. Looking back, the “hot hatch” category was inevitable, but Volkswagen got it right first, and created a legend that continues to this day.

1984 – Volvo 760T

Sure, the Volvo 122S/Amazon had European rally cred in the 60’s, and the P1800 looked exotic and cool to American eyes (and even had a star turn as Roger Moore’s ‘hero car’ in The Saint TV series), but by the mid-Eighties, the Swedish car-maker was known for safety and cars that could be accurately modeled with LEGO blocks. Then, in 1984 US buyers were offered the turbocharged 760T, which not only led to the widespread misuse of the word “intercooler” but more importantly gave us a quick, practical, and safe car with a bulletproof boosted RWD drivetrain. To this day, “turbo bricks” still have a small but very enthusiastic owner base in America.

1985 – Merkur XR4Ti

You knew you weren’t getting out of this without us throwing in at least one really weird one, and the Sierra XR4i from Ford’s European branch certainly checks that box. Rebadged and rebranded as the Merkur XR4Ti in America and sold through 800 or so Lincoln/Mercury dealers, you wouldn’t mistake one for anything else thanks to the ‘aero’ nose, biplane spoiler, and notch-profile 3-door hatchback body. The FR drivetrain layout was motivated by a 2.3l iron-block inline four topped by a turbo pushing 14 PSI – the same engine in the SVO Mustang and Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, minus the charge cooler, with 175 horsepower on tap in manual transmission cars. Ultimately, sales didn’t justify updating the model to meet increasingly tight safety regulations, and the strong Deutschmark didn’t help. The short-lived experiment left a bad taste with Ford US, and we wouldn’t see another Euro-manufactured model from the Blue Oval again until the Ford Focus RS arrived in 2016.

So there’s our list – we’ll admit that it’s subjective, and reasonable people can disagree over things like this. What USDM cars imported from Europe would you put on your own list of most influential models? 

What is VTEC?

How Honda Created a Legend With a 10mm Pin

What does it take for one specific bit of simple, yet brilliant technology to achieve meme status? In the case of Variable Valve Timing and Lift Electronic Control (better known as VTEC), it started out as a way for Honda to offer better performance while still meeting emissions standards and displacement limits at the start of the 90s and arguably gave the company’s automotive division the same kind of high tech street cred their motorcycles already enjoyed. 

The original VTEC led the way for a whole new slate of variable valve actuation systems from practically every major manufacturer, with a wide range of complexity and effectiveness seen today. Back in the day, it would be hard for anyone to imagine that a simple pin moved by a hydraulic actuator could become such a legend, but in retrospect it seems like one of those “why didn’t I think of that?” inventions.

Best of Both Worlds

To understand the impact of VTEC on the automotive world, it’s worthwhile knowing exactly what it is and what it isn’t. Conventional piston engines rely on one or more camshafts, turning at one-half engine speed, to control the motion of the intake and exhaust valves. No other single aspect of engine design has a bigger effect on performance, economy, or emissions than the timing and intensity (for lack of a better word) of valve events, and for engines without some sort of variable valve control, every compromise gets carved in steel at the factory and can’t be changed without getting into the ‘wet’ part of the engine. 

This is important because the physics involved in getting air and fuel into the cylinder and exhaust out mean that a cam lobe design optimized for low-end grunt is going to be unhappy at high RPM and vice versa. At lower speeds, cylinder-filling is improved by having relatively small valves with low lift, trading away some pumping losses in exchange for keeping velocity up in the intake tract, but towards the upper end of the RPM scale, bigger is better and low lift will kill airflow. Similar tradeoffs for valve duration (the part of the 720 degree four-stroke cycle when the valve is open to a meaningful extent) and valve overlap (degrees of crank rotation during which the exhaust valve is still closing while the intake valve starts to open at the end of one cycle and the beginning of the next) also have a big effect on how the engine delivers power. 

With a traditional camshaft, it’s one and done since whatever specifications were ground into the lobes at the factory are all you have to work with short of a swap. Hot rodders came up with some work-arounds, of course – part of the skill set of the traditional pushrod V8 racer was ‘degreeing the cam’ which involves using an adjustable timing gear set to move the cam’s timing earlier or later in the cycle, and dual overhead cam engines can use the same strategy plus change the intake and exhaust timing relative to one another to get some adjustability for overlap, but this was strictly something done in the shop rather than on the fly while the engine was running. More crucially, it didn’t change the cam lobes’ profile or lift.  

A Stroke of Genius

The solution seems obvious now, but at the time it required asking what sounds like a dumb question – “If the engine runs best with one cam design at low speed, and another at high speed, why not give it two cams?” At its core, that is all VTEC is – a way to put two completely different camshaft grinds into the same engine, and switch between them on demand. That’s much easier said than done, though, especially when whatever you come up with has to be simple enough to produce economically, durable enough to last for a hundred thousand miles or more, and designed to fail ‘gracefully’ and not leave you stranded if something goes wrong. 

… that is all VTEC is – a way to put two completely different camshaft grinds into the same engine, and switch between them on demand…

In 1984, Honda launched the New Concept Engine program with goals that included increasing torque and horsepower for their car engines across the RPM range, with an eventual benchmark of achieving 100 horsepower per liter of engine displacement for production engines. Initially, the NCE initiative led to powerplants like the DOHC ZC (forerunner of the D-series engine) as early as 1985, but the real breakthrough came when previous research begun in 1983 into a system intended to improve fuel economy was rolled into the new project. 

One of the main players in the NCE project was Ikuo Kajitani from Honda’s First Design Department in their Tochigi R&D Center. “Characteristically,” Kajitani said, “four-valve engines are known as high-revving, high-output machines. And for that reason we knew it would be quite difficult to achieve low-end performance if the engine’s displacement were too small.” He was certain that a solution to the problem could be found in the work done on the fuel economy project in the form of an engine that could change valve timing and lift dynamically during operation.

This capability took shape as a very simple but elegant system that uses only a few additional parts compared to a conventional valvetrain. At the beginning, the team had considered around thirty different methods of achieving this goal, but to narrow down the field, priority was given to systems that relied on proven technology rather than novel approaches that might have unforeseen show-stopping flaws. With a mixture of caution and optimism, ideas that seemed promising but had a high risk of being developmental dead-ends were set aside. One of the most important goals was to have a mechanism that could handle 400,000 cycles without failing. In the end, the team settled on the system we now know as the original VTEC.

For each cylinder, instead of a single cam lobe to control valve events, there would be three: Two low-speed lobes with a single high-speed lobe between them. With the system deactivated, each valve would be controlled by its own low-speed lobe, while a third cam follower with no direct connection to the valves followed the profile of the single high-speed lobe. On computer command, a hydraulic valve would send oil pressure to move a pin into place to connect the outer followers to the inner one and lock the whole assembly together, causing the valves to follow the more aggressive center cam lobe profile. 

No Magic Involved

Though the concept was simple, there were still significant technological hurdles to overcome. One major example of this was the fact that they needed to squeeze three lobes into the space originally occupied by one, and those lobes would also be operating the valvetrain under higher loads and engine speeds than they’d previously been engineered for. Solving this issue required improvements in both metallurgy and design, but the team achieved their goal (and then some) in time to confidently introduce the new technology for the 1989 model year. 

While VTEC in its original incarnation does allow an engine to operate in ways that a fixed valvetrain simply can’t, there’s a widely-held misconception that it’s some kind of super-science that works like hitting the switch on a nitrous system. In reality, what it did was allow Honda to build engines with the ability to change between a cam designed for efficient, clean, and fuel-sipping performance to one with the grind the engineers wanted to use in the first place. As a matter of fact, it’s not uncommon in race applications to use a single-grind camshaft that actually defeats VTEC in order to increase tolerance for abuse and reduce complexity and weight. When street driving isn’t high on your priority list, the flexibility and broad powerband that VTEC allows isn’t as important, but it makes a huge difference in your daily driver.

…it’s not uncommon in race applications to use a single-grind camshaft that actually defeats VTEC in order to increase tolerance for abuse and reduce complexity and weight…

The Bigger Picture

For all the popularity of “VTEC just kicked in” memes, the system actually does what it was intended to do – Allow small-displacement engines capable of high fuel economy and low emissions during test cycles and normal driving to also provide exceptional horsepower when run hard. In the process, Honda managed to turn cars like the Civic from quirky but reliable transportation devices into ones that were actually fun to drive fast. Whether it was their intention or not, you can argue that the evergreen popularity of all the generations of Civic that followed were a direct result of the NCE project and the development of VTEC. 

Today, every manufacturer has implemented some sort of variable valve timing setup, even for old-school pushrod V8 engine designs. There’s a veritable alphabet soup of acronyms used to describe all the different proprietary ways manufacturers have come up with to adjust valve timing, intake versus exhaust cam phasing, and so on, and Honda has gone on to improve their own engines with VTEC-E, 3-Stage VTEC, i-VTEC, and i-VTEC with Variable Cylinder Management. But the real special sauce – changing to a completely different cam profile on demand – remains at the core of VTEC technology. Until we reach a point where camless valve actuation via pneumatic or electronic direct control finally makes its way from the cost-is-no-concern pressure cooker of Formula One racing to the street, Honda’s approach will likely remain as the best way to change lift and duration on the fly. 

You Bought A New Track Car – Now What?

Essentials for Hot Laps on a 5k Budget

So you’ve taken the plunge and bought yourself a dedicated track car. You did your research, found what you were looking for in sound mechanical condition and not already so far from stock that you’d have to rip everything out before doing it the way it should have been done in the first place, and you’re eager to get it prepped and put some laps on it. But you’re not made of money, and your meme stocks only got you into low earth orbit instead of to the moon, so you have a $5,000 budget for everything you’re going to need. 

Some hard choices will have to be made, because every dollar spent in one area means a dollar less to spend somewhere else. Here’s how we would allocate those 50 Benjamins most effectively – while your priorities are going to vary from ours, having a plan is the difference between a car on the track and yard art on jackstands for another year because you ran out of money and motivation.

Helmet – $350 ($4,650 Remaining)

Yes, we know you already have a helmet you bought off Craigslist. Yes, we know you are the one driver who will never, ever crash. This is still non-negotiable. Every reputable track day event organizer will insist on an ‘in-date’ skid lid that meets an accepted testing standard. Most often this is Snell SA or its equivalent – some sanctions will accept a Snell M-rated helmet, but the DOT-only models are almost always not considered good enough, for a reason.

Helmets designed to meet the SA and similar ratings have features that make them better suited for automotive use, where sharp impacts with objects that can penetrate the shell are more likely than the types of forces involved in motorcycle crashes, and they’ll have a fire-resistant liner. The “in-date” part is important too; the impact-absorbing liner has a finite lifespan, which gets shorter the more it is exposed to temperature extremes or solvent and gasoline fumes. 

While it’s possible to get an open-face helmet that carries a SA2020 tag for as little as $160, we recommend a full-face model, and as the list price goes up you’ll also get better fit and finish and improved comfort, which is important when you’re trying to concentrate on-track. Throw in another $40 or so for a fire resistant head sock (also good for comfort, as well as keeping the liner of the helmet cleaner) and $350 is a reasonable starting point for this critically important item.

Tires/Wheels – $2000 ($2650 Remaining)

We’re assuming that if you’re limited to a $5k overall budget for track car upgrades, you’re probably not going to trailer to and from events. We’re also going to assume that you will want a separate set of wheels and tires so that you’re not burning through expensive high-performance tires daily driving on them (though mad props to you if you are hardcore like that – we’ve been there ourselves). Like everything else on this list, wheels aren’t an area where you want to cut corners, but it’s entirely possible to get into a set of four new, quality wheels from a reputable manufacturer for around a grand. For that price, you are looking at cast rather than forged wheels, so the tradeoff is slightly higher weight for a lower price, as well as not being as forgiving or repairable when tweaked during inevitable encounters with debris or curbs.

Like everything else on this list, wheels aren’t an area where you want to cut corners, but it’s entirely possible to get into a set of four new, quality wheels from a reputable manufacturer for around a grand…

Tires are consumables, and depending on how hard you run them and what your level of compromise is between grip and longevity, these may have to be replaced several times a season. Fortunately, it’s often possible to find a well-heeled fellow enthusiast who always has used tires that have ‘gone off’ for full-boogie competition purposes but still have plenty of laps left in them for less serious use, so we’re compromising and putting a cost of $250 a corner out there to give some wiggle room for that initial set. Like always, your experience may vary, and cars with uncommon fitments or really big meat will tend toward the more pricey end of the spectrum. 

Brake Upgrades – $1250 ($1400)

Here’s another area where there is a wide range of possibilities – if your track car has decent stock brakes, all that may be necessary for anything less than full competition use might be a change to a different brake compound, braided stainless flex lines, new rotors, and a fluid flush and bleed. On the other hand, most cars of interest to the track day crowd have a lot of bolt-on options at surprisingly reasonable prices. If you don’t go totally nuts, our budget should at least cover a front caliper upgrade in addition to the other things mentioned above, plus a spare set of pads to be bedded in and brought with you if you’ve chosen a soft-but-grippy compound and a tight course to run on for a mid-day swap.

if your track car has decent stock brakes, all that may be necessary for anything less than full competition use might be a change to a different brake compound, braided stainless flex lines, new rotors, and a fluid flush and bleed…

Suspension upgrades – $1400

We’re going to take the last of our remaining budget and allocate it toward suspension. On the less expensive end of the scale, a complete, properly engineered and matched set of quality replacement springs, dampers, anti-roll bars, and polyurethane bushings can set you back as little as $750, while the sky is the limit for a complete competition-spec coilover conversion with multi-way adjustable dampers. We’re splitting the difference here, but odds are you will come in either substantially above or below our average estimated price. Depending on what kind of tracks you prefer, you may prioritize suspension above brakes, or the other way around, and adjust your spending on these last two categories accordingly.

One thing you absolutely do not want to do under any circumstances is to cheap out here; there are a lot of janky ‘lowering kits’ and coilover conversion setups with suspiciously low price tags and brand names you have never heard of, but spending any money on components of dubious quality and unclear origin can only lead to disaster. 

That Money Went Fast…

As you can see, it doesn’t take a whole lot to blow through $5k getting your new toy set up properly, but going into it with clear expectations for the cost and effort involved can keep your dreams from dying before you ever get to the track. Keep in mind that this is just a start, and in order to keep your racing fun sustainable, it’s a good idea to set aside money for every event you attend in some place where you won’t spend it, to be used for future consumables like tires, brakes, and maintenance items. Budgeting is never fun, but it makes the fun stuff possible, and helps you to drive more and dream less. 

Hot Swaps

Engine And Chassis Combos Limited Only By Imagination

Engine swaps might seem like a recent thing, but OG hot rodders did it back in the 1950s, putting the then-new small block Chevy V8 into Ford Model T chassis, and when Cadillac created a long-stroke 500ci version of their corporate big block in 1970, wrecked Eldorados became a prime target for drag racers looking for as many cubes as they could get. Today, despite tightening regulations that threaten to make any kind of automotive modification illegal, let alone a complete motor swap, mixing and matching cars and drivetrains has never been more popular. Let’s look at some of the most common types of hybrid chassis and engine combinations (and we mean that in the cool way, not the electric motor ‘hybrid’ sense) and the reasons behind them.

All In The Family

In terms of sheer numbers of completed swaps, updating (or backdating, in some cases) a particular car with an engine from the same manufacturer takes the top position. In the import and sport compact world, the most common swaps involve upgrading Hondas with more powerful engines – the trend began with taking lightweight Civic or CRX shells originally equipped with fuel-sipping but low-output D-series four cylinder engines and replacing them with more powerful B-series engines from models higher up on the price and performance ladder. With the introduction of the even more powerful and versatile K-series, those became the donor engines of choice, despite being somewhat more complicated to swap due to the necessity of changing transmissions as well. The extra effort is worth it, though; 200 horsepower or more from a completely stock engine in a late-90’s Civic that tips the scales at under 2,400 pounds makes for very entertaining performance at an affordable price.

In terms of sheer numbers of completed swaps, updating (or backdating, in some cases) a particular car with an engine from the same manufacturer takes the top position…

Honda engine swaps have become so popular that you can find ready-made components like engine and transmission mounts, headers, and ECU adapters for pretty much any reasonable (and more than a few unreasonable) combination of engine and chassis. With the trailblazing handled, potential compatibility issues have all been sorted out by somebody somewhere. It just takes a bit of research to come up with a proven recipe to follow, and entire books have been written on the subject covering every last detail.

Another common form of swap involves putting an engine not available in the US market into a chassis that was sold here, with the first example that comes to mind being the Nissan 240SX. Known in Japan as the 180SX and Silvia, when the company brought this fun little RWD coupe to America, they decided to replace the JDM CA and SR series turbocharged engines with KA series naturally aspirated ones. This decision was likely based on the fact that the KA engines were already “federalized” for US emissions regulations and would be less expensive than bringing in a new powerplant without an existing approval. Though well-suited for mainstream buyers, since these engines had previously been used in Nissan’s Hardbody line, they were derided by some as ‘truck engines’ unworthy of the car’s sporty image.

Of course, enthusiasts care not for things such as EPA regulations, and many CA and SR engines got strapped to pallets in Japanese wrecking yards and shipped to the west coast to be reunited with S13 and S14 240SX models here. Some particularly ambitious souls went as far as to cram RB26DETT twin turbo inline sixes from the JDM Skyline GT-R (among other applications) into that chassis as well.

Speaking of legendary Japanese turbo sixes, let’s not forget the Toyota 2JZ-GTE. This engine powered a whole generation of the company’s flagship performance models, but only came to US showrooms in the Mark IV Supra Turbo. This engine has found its way into a number of different swaps, including both Lexus IS300/GS300/SC300 models as a replacement for its naturally-aspirated sibling, the 2JZ-GE, as well as other non-Toyotas with engine bays long enough to accommodate the sizeable inline six. 

Could Have Had a V8

Don’t think this is just limited to import brands, either. When Ford ended production of their classic pushrod 5.0 liter V8 engine in the mid-90s and replaced it with the high-tech overhead cam Modular family, it was only a matter of time before those engines started to find their way into Fox-body Mustangs and even classics. One of the disadvantages of overhead cam cylinder heads in a V-configuration engine layout is that compared to pushrod designs of similar displacement, they inevitably end up larger in width and height. Adding cams and timing gear to the top of the cylinders makes them inherently taller than engines that simply have to accommodate rocker arms beneath the valve covers. In a bit of irony, older muscle cars with their large engine bays have more room to accept Modular V8 swaps, making them somewhat easier to work on than modern factory Fords with cramped under-hood layouts. 

While Ford was breaking ties with their previous engine architecture, GM took a less radical path, introducing the first LS-series engines. These successors to the original small-block Chevy V8 and its follow-on “Gen II” LT replacements are in many ways a “what might have been” look at the direction Ford could have taken with their own small-block pushrod architecture. Though the Gen II engines had a lot of problems including a notoriously unreliable optical ignition pickup and were widely panned by gearheads, the Gen III/IV LS family turned out to be a huge success.

Lightweight, powerful, durable, plentiful, and cheap, they quickly replaced the venerable SBC as the engine of choice for GM swaps. Like the aforementioned Honda engines, a huge aftermarket has developed to make putting an LS into an older car easy, right down to complete kits that handle ignition and carburetion should you choose to go old-school and ‘downgrade’ from EFI. Another factor that led to their popularity was that they were manufactured in both iron and aluminum block form, so that those in search of an inexpensive and bomb-proof bottom end could simply grab a low-compression iron block truck motor from the local pick-a-part and feed it a decent amount of boost or nitrous without a lot of drama.

Cross Breeding

While mixing and matching engines and chassis from the same manufacturer often makes things somewhat easier because of shared mechanical and electronic components, taking an engine from one maker and stuffing it into another company’s car has been popular forever as well. As we mentioned before, early hot rodders who started out by putting Ford Flathead V8 engines into Model Ts embraced the original small-block Chevy with great enthusiasm as soon as they started turning up in junkyards. Today, purists will howl in outrage about LS-swapped Fox Mustangs, but a dispassionate look at it shows this is the same kind of thing gearheads have always done. Mustang engine transplants aren’t limited to just Chevy engines either – Most famously, the notable 2006 documentary film The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift included a 1967 Ford Mustang Fastback with a Nissan RB26DETT as a ‘hero car.’

Today, purists will howl in outrage about LS-swapped Fox Mustangs, but a dispassionate look at it shows this is the same kind of thing gearheads have always done…

Like Honda swaps, the popularity of the LS Fox combination has led to an entire range of aftermarket parts to make the process close to turn-key, and all the information necessary to make it happen successfully is easily accessible online and in print. In fact, there has been a strong “LS all the things!” movement in the enthusiast world, with practically every rear wheel drive platform becoming a candidate for a Gen III/IV GM V8 swap. It’s even reached the point where a backlash has occurred against it – many people see the commonality of the LS as a detriment to the originality and creativity of Pro Touring builds, preferring original or at least period-correct engines. Odds are that any SEMA resto-mod build that isn’t intended to specifically highlight another engine will have some flavor of LS power, to the point where it’s become a running joke among writers and photographers.

Regardless of one’s feelings about LS engine transplants, they’re going to be with us for the foreseeable future, and not just in cars. They’ve become the weapon of choice for inboard-powered boats of all kinds, as well as aircraft and even homebuilt helicopters. But eventually something new will come along, and it’s entirely possible that we may one day see all-electric powertrains with ‘universal’ designs developed to simply drop in place of an internal combustion engine and transmission. While one-off attempts at this have come and gone, as the hardware becomes standardized for OEM use (and thus also becomes more affordable) and battery technology advances to increase energy density, peak output, and cruising range, garage mechanics who want something completely different under the hood will embrace these swaps as well. 

About the Author: Paul Huizenga is a California-based freelance contributor who has owned, raced, and written about everything from Subarus to Mustangs to Corvettes over the last two decades. He is currently studying the feasibility of an LS4 engine and transmission swap into a Fox-body to convert it to Chevy power and front-wheel drive, because some men just want to watch the world burn.

Springs vs. Coilovers vs. Bags: What’s the Difference?

Are Springs, Coilovers, or Air Suspension Best for Performance?

It might seem like common sense that having more choices when it comes to just about any decision is a good thing. In many circumstances, that’s true, but when presented with too many options, ‘decision paralysis’ can set in, making it harder instead of easier to choose the right path. Instead of making life easier, it causes anxiety, slows down or even stops decision-making, and can even lead to remorse after the fact as you churn through all the possibilities you didn’t pick. 

When it comes to upgrading a car’s suspension for high performance street or track use, we’ve reached the point where for many popular platforms, there’s no clear winner for every situation out of a wide variety of aftermarket setups. While we can’t guarantee you’ll avoid ‘paralysis by analysis,’ we might be able to help clarify your priorities with the following look at the pros and cons of the three basic categories of mods: Spring and damper replacement, coilover conversion, and air suspension. 

Springs and Shocks/Struts

This category encompasses replacing the factory-spec springs and dampers (whether those are conventional shock absorbers, MacPherson struts, or a combination of the two) with upgraded aftermarket parts.  

Pro:

• Likely to be the least-expensive option, both to buy and to install (if you don’t do it yourself)
• Properly-engineered matching suspension kits take the guesswork out of picking the right spring rates and compression/rebound settings
• Durability is often as good as or better than factory parts
• Some high-end kits offer limited damper adjustment for fine-tuning
• Fewest compromises in ride quality and noise for dual use street/track cars

Con:

• Limited range of spring rates for applications ‘out of the mainstream’
• Systems on the most affordable end of the spectrum usually offer no ride height or damping adjustment

The Bottom Line:

Usually the least-expensive and most-available option, but with significant compromises in adjustability and performance as the tradeoff.

Coilover Conversion

For the purpose of this discussion, we’re going to define coilovers as a complete replacement of the factory spring and damper setup, whether those are individual components or struts, with aftermarket alternatives. This is the most typical choice for serious track applications, but also has a wide fanbase for street/track use as well – partially because of the serious race cred and the ‘hardcore’ aura that goes with the tradeoffs involved. 

Pro: 

• Short of a completely re-engineered suspension right down to the control arms and chassis attachment points, coilovers offer the best possible handling and the widest range of adjustment, as well as more precision and repeatability when changing settings
• Good coverage from multiple manufacturers for the most popular car applications
• Narrower coilover units can offer more clearance for wider wheels and tires without fender modification
• Adjustable ride height without altering spring rates
• Dampers available in configurations from non-adjustable to 4-way (high/low speed compression and rebound)
• Relatively simple and easy to change spring rates with ‘universal’ springs to suit different track conditions

Con: 

• A very, very wide range of quality/price, from pro level down to “I bought this off of Wish – why doesn’t it fit?”
• A whole new form of decision paralysis – lots of adjustment often means more ways to get it wrong
• Systems intended for track use can be noisy and harsh on less-than-perfect pavement
• Expect to either replace or rebuild the dampers on a regular basis, as they are usually designed with longevity as a lower priority
• Less-common performance cars may need to have coilover sets pieced together from components if ‘all in one box’ kits aren’t available

The Bottom Line:

Not the best choice for comfort or street driving, but the de-facto standard for full-race use. Beware of pitfalls in quality at the low end of the scale, and excessive complexity at the high end.

Air Suspension

Commonly referred to as “bags,” today’s performance-oriented air suspension systems are a far cry from the lashed-together rigs that pioneered the technology. Once strictly an option for “stance” and car shows instead of performance, it’s now a solid contender for track-oriented builds.

Pro:

• Adjustable ride height is the main attraction here – modern air springs offer a wide range of spring heights selectable simply by adding or reducing pressure, and clever design of the air bags themselves achieves this without significant changes in spring rate
• Compatible with multi-adjustable race-spec dampers for suspension tuning
• Systems with quality air springs rival conventional factory steel springs for durability
• A great choice for cars that will see use on both the race course and the street, making low ride height that would be a disaster with a ‘static’ coilover suspension achievable in a car you can still drive to and from the track
• Complete, ready-to-install kits are available for more applications every day

Con: 

• Trends towards the expensive end of the scale compared to anything but full-race coilover systems
• Additional hardware like compressors, tanks, solenoids, and pressure gauges required for adjustment on-the-fly, which adds expense and weight
• Modern air springs only allow changes in ride height while spring rate remains the same, requiring complete replacement of a relatively expensive component to alter it
• Like coilovers, less-popular applications may require ‘a la carte’ component selection instead of an off-the-shelf solution

The Bottom Line:
The king of adjustability, at the expense of additional weight and cost. Limited (but growing) off-the-shelf choices.

Wrapping it Up

There’s no one-size-fits all solution to picking the right path for the suspension on your project car or daily driver, and the wide variety of choices (made worse by conflicting advice from all directions) doesn’t help. Hopefully we’ve made it a little bit easier for you to organize your priorities, from the cost involved to the complexity of installation and tuning to your personal intended use (which often turns out to be somewhat different from where you actually end up in practice). Relax, take a deep breath, and consider the options we have set before you as a starting point in your search for the perfect suspension.

A Streamlined Guide to Aero

What Do All Those Wings and Fins Do, Really?

Getting into the subject of aerodynamics as they relate to cars is asking for trouble. Whether you’re talking about imports with big goofy wings and dive planes that look like anime road catfish, or even just owners of a certain domestic brand who steadfastly refuse to remove the banana-yellow shipping guards on their cars’ factory splitters, it’s a topic that draws a lot of derision. Sometimes that’s warranted, but there is a place for aero mods in the tuner’s toolbox. Understanding the goals of functional aero is the first step in moving from the realm of questionable styling choices into something worth doing for the sake of improved performance. We’re going to jump in with both feet and banish the poser-tech to the Land of Wind and Ghosts, so hang on…

No Free Lunch

Aerodynamic modifications to a car serve one or both of two main functions; reducing drag and reducing lift. Most changes affect both drag and lift, and while downforce can be important, achieving meaningful results in that area without a huge drag penalty can require some finesse. Drag is especially important because it increases with the cube of velocity – drag-inducing elements of a vehicle’s design that aren’t worth worrying about at low speed become big problems on the highway or racetrack. Like almost any part of car design, the ability to maximize the desired effects while minimizing the drawbacks is what separates winners and losers.

An excellent example of this that’s become ubiquitous over the last two decades in OEM car designs is limiting the volume of air that passes underneath a car. In older designs, this was a source of both lift and drag, and as a result, modern vehicles have become lower and they’ve added aerodynamic features to the nose of the car to redirect flow. These changes cost virtually nothing for manufacturers to implement but provide real benefits.

One area of special attention that was often poorly-understood or simply ignored in the past was air passing through the front grille, into the engine bay, and out through the open underside. Smaller air inlets better-sized to the radiator core and ‘bottom breather’ noses that actually relieve pressure at the lowest point under the bumper, plus aerodynamic trays covering the underside of the engine compartment are all examples of the way modern designs improve aero in this region.

We have to admit that we’ve been among those who have either intentionally removed an engine bay undertray to make maintenance less of a pain, or simply lost one due to ill-advised encounters with curb stops or speed bumps, but not having them in place as intended is a significant source of both drag and lift. There’s little point in trying to improve aerodynamics at the nose of the vehicle with added parts if the primary flow-control features of the factory design are missing. 

Presuming that you’re starting from an intact, OEM aero standpoint, is it possible to modify things yourself and achieve meaningful, non-cosmetic results? The answer is a qualified yes – like every other aspect of automotive engineering, factory designs are always a compromise between competing goals, and the compromises you might choose as an enthusiast aren’t always the same as the ones that are aimed at satisfying the greatest number of ‘normie’ potential customers. In the case of aero, low drag, stable handling at freeway speed, and low noise top the factory wish list. 

As an enthusiast, you may be willing to trade away some extra drag (and lose a bit of fuel economy at cruise) in exchange for added downforce to improve traction. Increased wind noise may also not be a concern for you, and you might be willing to accept the negative consequences of a lower ride height, like increased susceptibility to damage from potholes and curbs. These are just a couple of considerations when planning out aero changes to your vehicle. 

With all this in mind, let’s start from the front and work our way back, describing different aero components and how they function (or at least are supposed to function).

Nose Dive

It used to be that air dams with splitters (a horizontal plate attached at the bottom of the air dam) were only seen on race cars, but they’re appearing with greater and greater frequency on factory cars as well – often with the aforementioned plastic protective bananas still attached, because reasons. The purpose of a splitter is to cleanly divide flow between the air moving around and through the nose of the car and the air traveling underneath the body, as well as limiting how much air goes low instead of high. To be truly effective, splitters need to be quite close to the ground, and even though factory-designed ones are usually higher than ideal, they still provide an endless source of horrible scraping noises over curbs, driveway entrances, and other obstacles if the driver isn’t careful. 

A properly-designed splitter and air dam combo will reduce both drag and front end lift by reducing turbulent flow to the underbody, and will also help the engine bay tray (if present) to do its job. A secondary purpose is to help guide flow around the front wheel openings, which are a major source of drag. 

Dive planes, canards, fins, or whatever you want to call other small aero devices placed on the quarter panel in front of the wheel arches also serve this purpose, as do longitudinal fences at the gap between the fender and the hood. Properly engineered canards can also help promote the flow of air from brake cooling ducts that source air from the high pressure area in the bumper by creating a local region of lower pressure to draw air away from the rotors and wheels after it has done its job. 

Care has to be taken with hood fences, though – viewed in profile, a car is shaped somewhat like an airplane wing, and just like a wing, air that is accelerated over the upper side creates an area of reduced pressure, generating lift. Ideally, fences will keep high pressure air from spilling over the fenders (thus increasing front downforce) without forcing it to follow the curve of the windshield over, rather than around, the passenger cabin. Fences, as well as canards/dive planes to a lesser extent, can also greatly increase turbulence around external mirrors – while this isn’t a huge source of extra drag, it can create a lot of interior noise ranging from a very-low-frequency ‘brown note’ rumble to intolerable high-pitched whistling. 

Side View

Extended lower sills along the sides of the body are another example of managing airflow beneath the vehicle. Like splitters, to be completely effective they need to be impractically (at least for on-road use) close to the ground, but they aren’t totally useless even when compromised for the sake of clearance. 

An interesting side note here is that a number of competition vehicles, ranging from the 1970 Chaparral 2J Can Am car to modern Formula SAE karts have been built with ‘powered downforce’ using a fan to pull air from underneath the car. Working like a reverse hovercraft of sorts, the front, sides, and rear of the underbody were sealed to the road surface via flexible skirts with polycarbonate sliders at the bottom to reduce air leakage, and a slight vacuum created by the fan across the entire underside of the car delivered enormous downforce at zero MPH with no aerodynamic drag. It was said that the 2J could develop enough suction to allow it to stick to the roof of a tunnel at a standstill, and the pair of 17 inch fans, driven by a separate snowmobile engine, could drive the car forward at 40 MPH just by their thrust alone.

Of course, in Can Am competition the technology was immediately outlawed, as these things tend to be, but in racing situations where it isn’t outright banned by the rulebook, this unique form of “aero” is still an extremely effective one. In the real world with roads that aren’t billiard-table smooth, the skirts take a beating, and getting rocks and dirt actively sucked up through powered fans does not make the people driving behind you very happy. Nonetheless, a good front splitter and side skirts, combined with a rear end shaped to create a low pressure area can still take advantage of this same effect, though only in motion and with much less total downforce. 

On the roof of the car, vortex generators can be fitted along the back edge just ahead of the rear window. These are small triangular features that are actually designed to create turbulence, but in a very controlled way. By inducing a narrow band of swirling flow, they act in the same way as a solid fence and can help keep flow attached to a surface, with a small drag penalty. Originally vortex generators (as well as fences) were found on aircraft wings as a way to stop span-wise (side to side) airflow and improve stall performance. In the automotive world, you’ve undoubtedly seen these on factory Mitsubishi EVO sedans, and their budget cousins can easily be found in the stick-on plastic whatsis aisle at your local auto parts store, alongside portholes, fake vents, and chrome Punisher symbols. Usually, these cheap little pyramids are poser tech, but they can actually be effective when used in the right spots. Unfortunately, without sticking tufts of yarn all over the outside of the car to see how air is moving locally across the roof and backlight, the ‘right spots’ are impossible to determine beyond an educated guess. 

Winging It (Spoiler Alert)

Finally, we get to what you’ve all been waiting for, the defining piece of aero hardware – the wing or spoiler. First, though, please understand that the terms aren’t interchangeable, and although both reduce lift/increase downforce on the rear end of the vehicle, they do it in different ways. Let’s start with the simpler of the two, the spoiler. 

The name for this aerodynamic device comes directly from its function; ‘spoiling’ the lift of a wing-shaped surface. Earlier, we described how the body of the entire car in side-view resembles an aircraft wing with a curved upper surface, and just like an aircraft wing, since air has to travel farther and faster across the top than the bottom, it will generate lift. A spoiler on the back of the car works exactly as it would on a wing, disrupting that flow of air to kill some of the lift being produced. 

Just as importantly, a spoiler can actually reduce total aerodynamic drag despite being an impediment to the smooth flow of air. Back at the dawn of ‘streamlining’ (as aerodynamics were first called 100 or so years ago) inventors looked at the teardrop shape of a falling droplet of water and concluded that nature was providing them with a blueprint for the perfect low-drag shape. As a result, a lot of the first efforts at streamlining included long, pointed tails to allow the airflow to smoothly rejoin behind the vehicle without producing an area of low pressure.  

As zippy as these designs looked, they were somewhat impractical for road vehicles, and designers searched for other solutions. The most successful was developed by a German fellow by the name of Wunibald Kamm in the late ‘30s when he discovered that an abruptly cut off vertical shape at the back of the car was nearly as effective in reducing drag as a pointed tail. By inducing some of the boundary layer air close to the surface of the body to tumble into that space behind the car, it created an area of turbulence that didn’t mix with the other air flowing around the car and worked like an invisible (and weightless) pointed tail.

Since that time, the “Kammback” has been widely adopted, and can be seen in cars ranging from the original Honda CRX to many modern hybrids. For best results, the vertical surface should be placed at a point where the body’s cross section has sloped back down to about 50% of its maximum, but this limits the workable roofline and tail shapes quite a bit. Add a spoiler to the trunk lid or the back edge of the roof on a hatchback, though, and you get a similar drag reducing effect as a full Kamm rearend. 

Wings, particularly those that are intended to do something more than just look cool, are somewhat more complex. Ideally, a wing will be placed far enough away from the body of the car to be in “clean” air instead of sluggish and turbulent boundary layer flow. Interestingly, the 1969 Dodge Charger Daytona and 1970 Plymouth Superbird, with their fender-mounted ‘basket handle’ rear wings that were higher than the roofline had ideal placement for them, but it wasn’t for aero reasons – they had to be that high so that the trunk lid could still open underneath them!

A few years earlier, the Chaparral 2E Can Am design had debuted a tall strut-mounted rear wing that had what would be now considered “active aero” – A pedal on the floor would flatten out the angle of the wing and simultaneously close a shutter on the air dam that normally allowed air out through a vent in the front bodywork when depressed, letting the driver reduce drag when downforce wasn’t needed along high speed straights. The struts for the wing were also directly connected to the suspension, so force was applied straight to the rear tires instead of through the springs. While it worked very well, it proved to be fragile and after a few failures in the cars adopting these kinds of movable wings, they were outlawed (leading to the aforementioned Chaparral 2J ‘sucker car’).

Today, it is very common to see high-end (and even some not so high-end) sports cars with rear wings that automatically deploy and adjust their angle based on road speed and cornering forces. For aftermarket race-style wings, the angle of the airfoil (or in many cases, multiple airfoils) can be changed in the garage by altering the mounting points in order to customize the balance between drag and downforce for a particular race venue. Spill plates on the ends of the wing serve the same purpose as the winglets commonly found on commercial jets, reducing drag caused by vortexes shed by the ends of the wings. 

It’s also worth noting that a wing can help high-speed stability side-to-side by moving the car’s center of pressure rearward. The center of pressure is the imaginary point where all the aerodynamic forces are balanced, and the farther behind the car’s center of gravity it is, the more the car will want to travel in a straight line. Any kid who’s built a model rocket and decided to put all sorts of fins on the front will tell you that having the center of pressure at or ahead of the center of mass gets you something that flies like a pinwheel instead of an arrow, and the same applies to car aerodynamics. We should also point out that the ever-popular ‘wing on the back of a FWD car’ isn’t necessarily just poser-tech. At high speed the car doesn’t care that much about which wheels are doing the motivating, and since FWD cars tend to have a forward weight bias in the first place, a properly-designed rear wing can greatly increase stability and cornering balance.

Finally, we get to the last details as we reach the very tail end of the car. Wings and spoilers often have small features on their rear lips to enhance their effectiveness, which can be either fixed or adjustable. A small tab, usually a half-inch high or less and mounted at the very trailing edge of a wing or spoiler at a right angle to the surface is usually referred to as a “Gurney flap.” It gets its name from the legendary racer and team owner Dan Gurney who came up with the idea as a quick handling fix for his driver Bobby Unser’s car. To hide the true purpose of the modification, he initially floated the story that it was just a way to protect crewmembers from the sharp trailing edge of the wing while working on or pushing the car, but soon enough everybody figured it out and it became commonplace in race car aerodynamics.

A taller, usually adjustable trailing edge lip is typically called a ‘wickerbill,’ and explanations for the name are easy to come by but none are definitive. These fall into the category of aero devices that can be tuned in the garage or pit to suit the race course by sliding them up or down in their mounting slots. 

So there you have it – the incomplete guide to understanding car aerodynamics. We hope that we’ve fired your imagination and that you’ll follow up on the subject with further reading, since it’s a topic of pretty high importance for both factory and modified vehicles. Plus, aero stuff looks cool when it’s done right, but you already knew that…

Top 5 Affordable Supercars

Let’s say you’ve come into some money. Not life-changing, private island money, mind you. More along the lines of catching a hedge fund in a short squeeze, getting into (and out of) cryptocurrency at just the right time, or even just scratching a particularly good lottery ticket. While a new Lamborghini isn’t going to be in the budget, what are some head-turning cars that you can actually drive and enjoy, but are within your financial reach?

We’ve come up with a list of a few different ideas, should you want to scratch that supercar itch without paying a price tag that’s more in line with real estate than something you can park in a garage. It’s not all-inclusive, and we’re sure that many readers will have their own top choices, but daydreaming is always fun and it’s even better when those dreams are within the realm of possibility.

Honorable Mention: “Component Cars”/Replicas

Though ‘kit cars’ got a bad reputation decades ago when they were mostly based on aircooled Volkswagen or Fiero chassis and a LOT of optimism about your own fabrication skills, the industry has come a long, long way in terms of quality and value-for-money. Companies like Factory Five Racing and Superformance offer the chance to own cars like a Cobra, Daytona Coupe, Corvette Grand Sport, or GT40 that would simply be out of financial reach if you wanted an original. As a plus, with modern components and drivelines, they’re going to be a whole lot more reliable and drivable than the originals (and potentially a whole lot faster on the track), and you can customize them to suit your own must-have list.

You will need a warm, dry, comfortable place to work, a bitchin’ set of tools, some mechanical aptitude, and an unusually high level of patience if you chose this route, though. If you are like the author and are the kind of person who loses interest in the 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle after the edges and two out of the three kitten faces are done, this is not for you. 

#5: 996 Porsche

For a lot of people, the Porsche 911 family defines the idea of an aspirational sports car. Many of those reading this article had a poster of the original 911 Turbo on their bedroom wall as a kid. None of those reading this article can afford one, and even if you could, it would try to kill you the first time you drove it. 

Fortunately, though, the long history of the marque offers some choices that are within our parameters for affordability and that are actually reliable and fun to drive. We’ve singled out the 1998-2004 996 as our favorite in this category because it’s about the least expensive way to get into a Porsche that you can actually be proud of (apologies to those 914, 924/944, and 928 peeps out there. You know we’re right.) A little history explains why these cars are what they are – they represent a radical shift from previous 911 models, trading a new water-cooled flat six for the old air-cooled design that was no longer capable of meeting ever-stricter environmental and noise standards, and sharing a ton of parts with the less-expensive Boxster that had just been introduced. Porsche purists clutched their pearls in dismay, but despite the somewhat meh styling, the 996 was a huge hit with new car buyers and a ton of them were produced in many variants. 

While there are a lot of keyboard warriors who make a big deal out of the faulty design of the intermediate shaft bearing that can do expensive damage to the M96 engine in non-GT2, GT3, and Turbo 996 models if it fails, by now most of the cars susceptible to this problem have already been either junked or fixed – just be sure to get a car with a verifiable service history that shows it has been corrected, or budget another two grand or so for a shop to replace it with the improved design.

#4: V8 Ferraris

Is there a manufacturer more closely-associated with the term “supercar” than Ferrari? And yet, thanks to the miracle of depreciation, you can get yourself into a good one for less than a new optioned-out Ford F150. While the Italian carmaker is known for their screaming V12 engines, bargains can be found if you can live with four fewer cylinders. 

In the ‘classic’ (or at least classic-adjacent) category, we have cars like the 308 GTB/GTS from 1975-85, which will make you feel like Thomas Sullivan Magnum III every time you turn the key, its improved successor, the ‘86-’89 328 GTS which is actually known for its (relative) reliability and easy maintenance, and the 348 which replaced those in turn for the 1989-1995 model years if you want Testarossa strakes on a budget. 

Moving on to more recent V8 models, prices start to rise, as you might expect, but you can still get an awful lot of Ferrari for the money with cars like the F355 (produced from 1995-1998), the 2000-2004 360 Modena, or even the front-engine 2009-2014 California if you can stretch your budget to six figures.    

The caveat here is that maintenance costs are not for the faint of heart, and depending on where you live, even finding a mechanic who has ever even seen one of the Ferraris you just bought off of Facebook Marketplace may not be possible. But hey, even a broken Ferrari in your garage is still a Ferrari in your garage, right?

#3: Nissan R32 Skyline GT-R

The EPA giveth, and the EPA taketh away – while there’s currently a fight going on to preserve the right to even work on your own car, let alone modify it, there’s also the 25-year rule that turns unimportable pumpkins into glittering carriages as soon as they hit the quarter-century mark. And no forbidden fruit was quite so attractive to an entire generation raised on racing video games than the original Godzilla, the 1989-1994 Nissan Skyline GT-R. 

Over the course of the production run, Nissan cranked out more than forty thousand R32 GT-R models in a variety of specifications, and since 2014 every one of them has been legal to own in the US (at least as far as the Feds are concerned; your state may suck like the author’s does and impose its own restrictions). As far as all-wheel-drive turbocharged cars designed in the late 1980s go, they’re reliable and have a robust supply chain plus plenty of folks here in the ‘States who know how to work on them. 

Despite their large production numbers, though, prices are on the rise and we predict that before long they’ll exceed what’s sensible for a car you actually want to drive on a regular basis. Get in now if one of these right-hand-drive dream cars is on your wishlist.

#2: C6 Corvette Z06/ZR1

The 2005-2013 Corvette earns our ‘bang for the buck’ award on this list, especially in the form of the naturally-aspirated LS7-powered Z06 and supercharged LS9 ZR1 models. When these cars were new, there was nothing that could touch them in terms of performance per dollar spent, and the arrival of the C7 for the 2014 model year helped drive down their resale value. Throw in the introduction of the mid-rear engine C8 for 2020 and the bottom got knocked out of prices for used sixth-gen Corvettes, making them the performance bargain of the 21st century. 

The Z06 and ZR1 have very different personalities; the 505-horsepower LS7 in the former is about as good as a non-forced-induction big displacement V8 engine gets, and the car was clearly aimed at track performance with a first-for-Corvettes full aluminum chassis and suspension tuning that owed a lot to the experience earned in competition with the previous C5’s near-interchangeable underpinnings. The 638 horsepower ZR1 is a T-Rex of a car, and driven hard you’ll find yourself unexpectedly bumping the redline because the blown powerplant just doesn’t nose over and run out of breath as it climbs the tach.

Another big plus with these cars is their reliability and serviceability. Maintenance and repair is well within the ability of a home mechanic, and if you’d rather have somebody else take care of it, literally any Chevy dealership on the planet can get parts. There’s a huge aftermarket if you want to upgrade the suspension or engine as well. While some Z06 models had issues with the LS7 dropping valves, by now they’ve all either been fixed under warranty or they’re not going to fail. About the only downsides are that the interiors are just “good for a Chevy” rather than extraordinary, and you will also be required by law to wear jorts and white New Balance tennis shoes while driving one.

#1: First-Gen Acura NSX

You knew this one would make the list, since part of the original mission statement for the 1990-2005 NSX was to be the original ‘affordable supercar.’ The goal was to match the performance of the Ferrari 328/348 without the reliability issues or the price tag, and the styling was closely based on the Pininfarina-penned HP-X concept car. Honda being Honda, the NSX would also avoid all the ergonomic woes common to other mid-rear exotics, with decent interior room and really excellent all-around visibility from the driver’s seat.

The NSX started out with a 270 horsepower 3.0 liter V6, which was replaced for 1997 with an improved 3.2 liter, 290 horsepower engine. In such a light car (depending on model and year, curb weight was between 2,800-3,160 pounds) this made for plenty of performance, and in 1992 a NSX-R variant was introduced with a focus on track use, trading away a little bit of street manners. 

The car got a facelift for 2002, most easily recognizable by the replacement of the original pop-up headlights with less-fun fixed projector HID units, and beneath the skin there were some changes to the suspension calibration with stiffer springs front and rear and a higher-rate rear anti-roll bar. Regardless of the model year, these cars have held their value well and remain insanely fun to drive while still being about as practical as a mid-rear two seat sports car can be. Best of all, even though they’re “just” a Honda/Acura, they still turn heads thirty years after they hit the market, punching way above their weight class in terms of coolness.

So that’s our supercar list – like any of these things are, it’s subjective, and your opinion may place other cars higher than the ones we’ve picked out here. The important thing, though, is that there are more affordable, desirable supercars available on the used market today than there have ever been, so being on a budget doesn’t have to mean living with something boring in the driveway. 

The 2JZ-GTE: What Cars Have The 2JZ Engine?

There’s no magic behind the success of Toyota’s most popular powerplant, the 2JZ, just sound engineering and a focus on getting the basics right.

Toyota’s 2JZ-GTE is legendary among car enthusiasts for its durability and power potential, capable of reliably delivering 700-plus horsepower without ever touching the factory long block, and four-digit dyno numbers with the right internals. A product of 1990s Japan’s economic boom, saving money on its design and construction was nowhere near the top of the priority list, and the result was an engine fit to be Toyota’s flagship in the secret JDM horsepower war of the era.

It certainly didn’t hurt this engine’s reputation to be paired with the MKIV Supra; a whole generation of enthusiasts grew up with Toyota’s ultimate sports car as an ‘aspirational vehicle’ the same way 80s kids had posters of the Lamborghini Countach on their bedroom walls. A certain movie franchise that will remain unnamed here helped fuel that fire, and even if you didn’t know a wastegate from a blowoff valve, if the 90s were your formative gearhead years  you could recite the factory 2JZ-GTE specs by heart like your older brother could rattle off the Konami code.

While even casual US fans of import performance hold the 2JZ in high esteem, unless you’ve torn one apart and put it back together again, all the details both large and small that earned its bulletproof reputation may not be a part of your knowledge base. To rectify that, we’re going to look at why this twin-turbo inline six became a world-beating engine, starting from the very basics.

Getting That 6-Pack

To begin with, there’s the cylinder layout. Today’s 6-cylinder engines are almost exclusively V-block designs – this layout makes for a very compact engine that is well suited for short engine bays in cars with longitudinal drivetrain designs (where the engine’s crankshaft runs front-to-back) as well as in front wheel drive transverse setups (with the crankshaft running side-to-side). Unfortunately, V6 engines offer significant challenges in terms of firing order, requiring either ‘split’ rod bearings on each of the three pairs of crank throws to even out the timing of each power stroke, or an “odd-fire” crank design with the cylinder pairs sharing a single throw, but the firing events at uneven intervals of crank rotation.

Another option is a flat-6 design, favored by Porsche and Subaru. This also gives a very short engine from the crank snout to the flywheel, but a very wide one. Firing intervals aren’t an issue in what effectively is a V6 engine with a 180 degree cylinder bank angle, but this layout has inherent imbalances in the reciprocating and rotating planes because of the offset of the cylinders.

The 2JZ, however, is a classic inline-six. This engine geometry offers ‘perfect’ primary balance and silky-smooth operation at any speed–an important consideration for a powerplant intended for use in Toyota’s premiere performance cars. The firing order, with evenly-spaced firing intervals and overlapping power strokes, also lends itself to turbocharging as it smooths out pressure delivery to the turbine(s).

Materials Matter

Another critical factor in the 2JZ’s high threshold for abuse is the cast-iron block. While it’s certainly possible to build a durable all-aluminum engine for forced induction, iron is more forgiving of stress, with less thermal expansion and a defined fatigue limit. The latter sounds like a bad thing, but it’s the reason springs are made from steel and not aluminum – when stressed below its fatigue limit, an iron block can handle an effectively unlimited number of load cycles without metal fatigue, while aluminum gets a tiny bit closer to failure every time stress is applied. There is a price to be paid for the 2JZ’s iron block construction, though; it’s one of the major reasons why a fully-dressed engine tips the scales at over 500 pounds.

Speaking of that block, it’s a seven-main-bearing design with a deep skirt at the bottom that extends past the crank centerline. Many engine blocks are designed in such a way that the main part of the structure ends right at the crank midline and the main bearing caps project beneath it. While less expensive to cast and machine, this type of block usually needs reinforcement of the main bearing journals for high performance use. In classic domestic V8 engines, you’ll hear about “four-bolt mains” where each cap has an additional pair of bolts, often splayed at an angle to the primary pair, to cure this weakness.

While the 2JZ has two-bolt main caps, they are inset into the block’s thick main web, which gives them extra support without needing an additional pair of bolts. Nissan addressed this issue in the 2JZ’s arch-rival, the RB26DETT, with a ‘girdle’ that incorporates all the main caps into a single structure, and modern V8 engine designs like the GM LS and Ford Modular families use deep-skirt blocks with cross-bolt main caps. Compared to these other fixes, Toyota’s approach is elegant and simple, and hasn’t proven to be an issue even when the 2JZ is pushed far beyond its original horsepower and torque output.

A cast cover with a separate small, stamped metal sump for oil control rounds out the bottom end of the 2JZ, with the cover acting as a stressed component of the block rather than simply keeping all the oil from falling out the bottom of the engine. Having a fully “boxed” crankcase is another intentional choice by Toyota to make the block assembly as strong and rigid as possible, without introducing additional complexity or expense.

The stock 2JZ crankshaft is another strong point of these engines. Because inline-six cranks are, by necessity, relatively long compared to most other engine layouts, there’s the potential for them to act like torsion bar springs, twisting along their axis and even having issues with destructive feedback if the frequency of the power pulses lines up with the harmonics of the crank. Knowing that this was a potential weak spot, Toyota’s engineers specified a forged, rather than cast crank, with relatively large 62mm main and 52mm connecting rod journals. While aftermarket billet cranks are available, for all but the most extreme builds they’re simply unnecessary–that’s how good the factory crank is.

Heading up the block, you’ll find special GTE-spec rods that are stronger than the ones found in naturally-aspirated 2JZ-GE engines, plus turbo-specific cast pistons with a slight dish to lower compression ratio to a boost-friendly 8.5:1. The underside of the pistons are cooled by oil squirters fed by a gallery at the bottom of the cylinder bores to help prevent detonation caused by hot spots as well.

Getting a Head

Where the block meets the head, the 2JZ uses a ‘closed deck’ design that fully supports the cylinder bores. Compared to an ‘open deck’ block, this leaves less room for coolant passages, but it is a far better way to prevent head-gasket-killing bore shift under boost and maintain the head-to-block seal. Speaking of head gaskets, the stock 2JZ comes with a multi-layer steel gasket of the type typically used as an aftermarket upgrade as another way to prevent combustion leaks. The head is secured with 14 bolts, arranged so that each bore is surrounded by fasteners on all four corners. Replacing these factory parts with upgraded bolts or studs is a relatively inexpensive way to make an already-stout engine just a bit more durable – since the factory fasteners are single-use ‘torque to yield’ bolts they will need to be replaced anyway once the head comes off for any reason, so you might as well upgrade while you have the engine apart.

The bore and stroke are “square” at 86mm each for an actual engine displacement of 2,997cc. The bore diameter leaves plenty of room in the pent-roof combustion chamber for a pair of 33.6mm intake valves and two 29mm exhaust valves. Those valves are activated by a pair of belt-driven cams; while the JDM Aristo and 1998-2002 Supra got VVT-I variable cam timing on the intake side, the 2JZ-GTE in the US-spec MKIV Supra did not. To keep valvetrain mass to a minimum, the cams activate “bucket” tappets that act directly on the valve stem instead of through any kind of rocker, with lash adjusted by shims of variable thickness between the buckets and valves. Though not as quiet or maintenance-free as a valve drive with hydraulic lash adjusters, this system, which is almost universally used in high-performance motorcycle engines, is incredibly reliable and doesn’t require a ton of spring pressure to control valve motion at high RPM, reducing frictional losses. The wide buckets do limit max valve lift and cam lobe design to some extent, but the 2JZ is less sensitive to cam grind limitations than a naturally-aspirated engine would be thanks to forced induction.

Fuel and Spark

Sequential electronic fuel injection was standard, with JDM versions getting 440cc injectors and the US import 2JZ blessed with larger 550cc models. Even with elevated fuel pressure, these can be a bottleneck for power production, but fortunately Toyota used the common top-feed design and aftermarket injectors with much higher flow are common and relatively inexpensive.

One of the quirks of the 2JZ design is in the ignition. Many people think it’s coil-on-plug, but it’s not. The engine uses what’s known as a ‘wasted spark’ setup where two cylinders that are 360 degrees out of phase in the firing order share a single coil. One cylinder gets the coil perched atop the plug at the center of the pent-roof combustion chamber, while the other spark plug is connected to the same coil by a short high-voltage lead. Both cylinders receive a spark when the piston is just about to get to top dead center; one is on the compression stroke, while the other is on the exhaust stroke, and that spark is ‘wasted.’ It’s a clever way to make three coils do the job for a six cylinder engine, and while it’s possible to replace the entire ignition with an aftermarket setup that has individual coils for each cylinder, experience has proven that the stock coils in good condition provide a spark that’s “hot” enough to reliably prevent misfires even at elevated boost.

It’s worth mentioning that the 2JZ-GTE also employs dual knock sensors, which are transducers screwed directly into the engine block that act like a microphone to detect the first signs of detonation. The ECU can then act to protect the engine from serious damage by pulling ignition timing advance, reducing boost, or both in response.

Making Good Things Even Better

The 2JZ-GTE as implemented in the US MKIV Supra delivered 321 horsepower and 315 pound-feet “at the brochure” and featured a novel sequential twin turbo setup that reduced boost lag by relying on just one unit at low RPM to make the most of available energy in the exhaust stream, then bringing the second identical unit up to speed as the revs climbed to supply sufficient airflow. The result was an amazingly well-balanced power curve, but about an hour after the first Supra was sold in US dealerships, somebody was already pulling off all the intake and exhaust plumbing to install a big single turbo and ditch the dinky side-mount air to air intercooler for a giant FMIC. As the years have passed, pretty much everything you can think of in terms of a turbo setup has been tried on the 2JZ, and hitting an arbitrary horsepower target number is as straightforward as looking to see what’s worked in the past and using that as a blueprint.

It’s a tribute to just how right Toyota got this engine that here, almost 20 years after the last one was produced, people are still building and racing them, parts are widely available, and they pretty much just aren’t wearing out. While newer designs that are lighter, smaller, or cheaper to produce have taken the 2JZ-GTE’s place, it’s doubtful that any of them will earn the same bulletproof reputation or fanbase as Toyota’s legendary twin-turbo inline six.

10 Engines That Changed the World

We take a lot of things for granted today – engines that start with the turn of a key, deliver abundant horsepower from minimal displacement, squeeze every mile possible out of a gallon of gas, and run for a hundred thousand miles and beyond with only routine maintenance. But over the last century or so, there have been some definite turning points where new technology and fresh ideas have radically changed how we drive. Here’s a look at ten of them that deserve recognition.

Ford Model T – 1908

Henry Ford’s car for the masses was one of the few vehicles in history that actually got simpler and cheaper over its long production run, and the basic 144 cubic inch inline-four under the hood, delivering a whopping 20 horsepower, was the perfect powerplant for the job. With a 3.98:1 compression ratio, this side-valve engine wasn’t all that sensitive to fuel quality, which was an important selling point in a world where the availability of highly-refined gasoline was pretty much non-existent.

Everything about the Model T’s engine was simple by design. There was no fuel pump, with the single sidedraft carb relying on gravity feed much like a lawnmower engine, and spark was provided via magneto and four “trembler” coils to step up the voltage. After an initial short run of a few hundred engines equipped with a water pump, Ford switched to a ‘thermosiphon’ cooling system that relied on the natural circulation of hot water. Hand crank starting was supplemented with an optional electric starter in 1919.

Although Model T production ended in 1927, the engine continued to be manufactured all the way up through the fall of 1941 for use in industrial and marine applications to power pumps and generators. 

Ford Flathead V8 – 1932

Though the V8 engine configuration, with two banks of cylinders sharing a single case and crankshaft, dated back to the turn of the 20th century, Ford’s original 221 cubic inch “Flathead” V8 was revolutionary in 1932. Most widely-produced car engines up until that time were either inline four or six cylinder designs, and even luxury cars with powerful (for the time) eight cylinder engines almost always were inline block layouts. The relatively compact Flathead was initially rated at 65 horsepower, then improved via an increased compression ratio to 85, and the design morphed into a number of different displacements ranging all the way up to a 337 cubic inch version and shrunk down to a diminutive 60-horsepower 136CI model.

Despite having cooling issues stemming from the necessity of routing exhaust passages through the block, and the general inefficiency of the valve-in-block cylinder head design, it’s impossible to understate just how important the Flathead was as an automotive powerplant. It was the engine that spawned the original hot rod movement, and countless aftermarket performance parts, up to and including overhead valve “Ardun” cylinder head conversions. Eventually overshadowed by more modern V8 engine designs, the Flathead still remained in production (albeit in highly-modified form) all the way up until the mid-1960s, and it continues to be popular with hot rod builders interested in retro or period-correct power.

Volkswagen Flat Four – 1936

Designed during the era of German nationalism that metastasized into the Nazi Reich, the horizontally-opposed, air-cooled flat-four engine from the “people’s car” ended up powering decades’ worth of vehicles that became synonymous with peace and love, and remained in factory production for more than 50 years, eventually spawning a water-cooled successor and laying the groundwork for Porsche’s legendary aircooled 6-cylinder “boxer” engines.

Despite its uber-simple design, which utilized a horizontally opposed layout to make it as compact as possible and fan-driven air cooling to eliminate the need for complex castings incorporating passages for liquid coolant as well as the weight of a water pump and radiator, the VW flat-four featured some remarkably sophisticated engineering for the era. The heads were manufactured from aluminum, while the finned cylinders were cast iron, and the crankcase was made from lightweight but strong magnesium.

With displacements ranging from 1.0 to 2.0 liters, and horsepower ranging between 24 and 99+ in factory trim, the VW flat-four found its way into a lot of vehicles other than the iconic Beetle – vans, the mid-engine Porsche 914 and “entry level” 912, countless dune buggies and kit cars, and even aircraft. As a matter of fact, its similarity to the widely-used Continental and Lycoming horizontally-opposed air cooled aircraft engines led not only to conversions for experimental kit planes, but even certified versions for aviation use. Its simplicity, durability, and tuner-friendly nature mean that the VW aircooled four will be popular for as long as internal combustion engines still exist.

Jaguar XK6 – 1948

There were inline-six engines before the Jaguar XK, and there were dual overhead cam engines before it as well. But the 3.4L engine that first appeared in the Jaguar XK120 sports car (their first sporting model since the unpleasantness on the Continent ended production of the SS100 in 1939) was the engine that all subsequent I6 designs and all DOHC powerplants of any cylinder count worth mentioning can claim as an ancestor.

When Nissan, Toyota, and even BMW set out to build their own I6 powered sports cars, the XK6 provided the archetype, so if you are a fan of the RB, 2JZ, or M30, you owe a debt of gratitude to this seminal design.

The XK6’s iron block was topped by an aluminum cylinder head; the material had been selected not only for light weight but also for its ability to efficiently move combustion heat into the cooling system, which allowed a higher compression ratio without detonation (and took advantage of the massive increases in fuel knock resistance that the war had brought). Widely-spaced, large valves and ports designed to increase intake charge swirl let it breathe, and the XK6 quickly went from a rated 160 horsepower to 210, then 250.

The Jag 6 was the result of a generation of engineers who had been pushed hard for a decade to defeat an existential threat to their nation turning their now-razor-sharp skills on making the best auto engine they possibly could, and between 1948 and the end of its run in 1992, the design in all its variations and displacements made its way into dozens of different Jaguar models, and even powered the Scorpion and Scimitar armored fighting vehicles.

When Nissan, Toyota, and even BMW set out to build their own I6 powered sports cars, the XK6 provided the archetype, so if you are a fan of the RB, 2JZ, or M30, you owe a debt of gratitude to this seminal design.

BMC A-Series – 1951

The Austin Mini holds pride-of-place as the car that first put together all the elements of the modern automotive transportation appliance in the same package: All the bulky mechanical parts out ahead of the passenger compartment, with a transaxle powering the front wheels driven by a transverse inline-four engine. The diminutive car required a similarly-tiny engine, and the BMC A-Series, ranging in displacement from 0.8 to a whopping 1.275 liters, was the perfect companion.

While outside of Japan’s Kei sub-sub-compacts, almost every other FWD car is huge compared to the original Mini, but they all draw inspiration from it. Nissan’s CA family can show a direct engineering family tree to the BMC A-Series, having been built around a licensed version of the little Austin’s blueprints. The A-Series inline four wasn’t anything particularly revolutionary in terms of performance or mechanical engineering, but it led the way in how engines would be packaged in the future to free up maximum space for people and things on the inside of the vehicle, making an impact on the automotive world that was as enormous as the engine itself was small.

Chrysler Hemi – 1951

Born from an experimental aircraft engine design that reached maturity just a bit too late to contribute to the Allied war effort in 1945, Chrysler’s hemispherical cylinder head concept was, at heart, the engineering solution to the problem of fitting the biggest possible pair of valves into any given cylinder bore diameter. Once civilian car production re-started, the company took what they had learned in developing that engine and applied it to their FirePower 331 cubic inch V8 that debuted in 1951, delivering between 180 and 300 rated horsepower depending on configuration.

Thanks to the design’s wide bore spacing, displacement grew throughout the decade, and DeSoto Fire Dome and Dodge Red Ram and Power Dome versions of the same architecture were introduced. But the second-gen Hemi, introduced in 1964 and displacing 426 cubic inches, was what put the name on the performance map. The over-the-counter version available to the driving public from 1965 to 1971 was rated at 425 horsepower (gross, with no accessories like a water pump drive or alternator to put parasitic drag on the engine) and 490 pound-feet of torque. In competition, NASCAR and professional drag racing teams embraced the enormous (and enormously powerful) Hemi, and there are still traces of the original 1964 Hemi DNA in today’s nitromethane-burning supercharged Top Fuel and Funny Car engines.

While the name was revived (rendered in all caps – “HEMI” – don’t you forget it!) for a third generation in 2003 that continues in production today, the engine bears little resemblance to its forebearers – a true hemispherical combustion chamber as seen in the second-gen engines, while allowing very large valves, ends up with a “squish” space that looks like an orange peel. This makes the design sensitive to fuel quality and ignition timing to make sure that large, thin volume of compressed gas and air burns smoothly and completely. Modern multi-valve “pent roof” cylinder heads with four facets for a pair of intake and exhaust valves, plus a fifth for the spark plug, achieve the same airflow advantages of a two-valve Hemi head while allowing more efficient combustion chamber shapes. Nevertheless, Chrysler’s Hemi remains as an iconic turning point in performance engine design.

Small Block Chevy – 1954

Arguably the most popular engine of all time, the original “small block” Chevy V8, first introduced in the 1955 model year Corvette and Bel Air, caught lightning in a bottle, and its descendants continue to be manufactured today for use in cars like the mid-rear-engine C8 Corvette. Unlike the Flathead, Chevy’s V8 utilized an overhead-valve cylinder head that allowed for higher compression, a more efficient combustion chamber design, and improved cooling.

The original 265 cubic inch design eventually grew into 400CI factory engines with the same bore spacing, and the SBC was one of the first production engines to deliver more than one horsepower per cubic inch of displacement. Over five separate generations, there have been countless changes to the original Chevy V8, including various mixes of cast iron and aluminum blocks and cylinder heads, distributor-fired and coil-per-plug ignition, carburetors, mechanical fuel injection, and EFI, and even cylinder deactivation for “displacement on demand” and variable valve timing.

Through all these changes, from the original 162 horsepower Gen I in 1955 to today’s naturally aspirated Gen V LT2 rated at 490 horsepower in the 2020 Stingray and the 638-horse supercharged Gen IV LS9, the SBC has retained one archaic design feature (with the exception of the unique Lotus-designed DOHC 1989-1995 LT5) – a single cam located in the center of the vee, with pushrod valvetrain actuation. In a world dominated by overhead cam designs, GM’s venerable cam-in-block design continues to prosper in everything from trucks to sports cars.

Wankel Rotary – 1964

Out of all the engines on our list, the Wankel is definitely the most revolutionary (pun intended). Forgoing the conventional piston-engine layout, the design originally conceived by Felix Wankel and patented way back in 1929 is a graduate-level education in geometry and physics. Instead of reciprocating, all the internal components in a rotary spin in the same direction, and although it operates in the same general way a four-stroke piston engine does, it has the power delivery characteristics of a two-stroke, with one power “event” per turn of the output shaft for each rotor assembly.

…but whenever there’s a need to pack a huge amount of horsepower in a high-RPM engine the size of a pony keg, the Wankel is ready to answer the call.

German manufacturer NSU was the first to bring a semi-practical design to mass production, but it took Mazda to really embrace the Wankel, licensing the patents and working out many of the unique challenges posed by the design, which included developing combustion seals for the rotor apexes and between the rotors and housing sides that would be durable enough to compete with piston engine technology that had several decades’ head start. Legendary Mazda cars like the Cosmo, RX-2, -3, -4, -7, and -8, and even a compact pickup (which was singularly unsuitable for rotary power in practical terms, but an awesome example of Mazda’s “Wankel all the things!” enthusiasm) featured rotary power, and many US manufacturers considered using variations of the design for everything from subcompacts to Corvette concepts.

Unfortunately, some inherent drawbacks remained hard to overcome – apex seal lubrication required a small, but continuous consumption of oil as there was no crankcase to separate lube from the combustion process, and although Wankel rotaries are very compact and mechanically simple compared to piston engines that deliver the same power, they’re also thirsty thanks to the thermodynamic inefficiency of their continuously variable combustion space. In the end, even Mazda more or less gave up on rotary engines for production vehicles, but whenever there’s a need to pack a huge amount of horsepower in a high-RPM engine the size of a pony keg, the Wankel is ready to answer the call.

Honda B-Series – 1988

Where would a list of the Ten Engines that Changed the World be without the Honda B-series? For one thing, the author would be risking violence at the hands of a pitchfork and torch wielding mob of Honda fans, but this particular inline four earns its place on merit. It’s arguably the most-popular modern inline four in history, and it combined all the features and technology we take for granted in high-tech engines today. Although it was never intended for turbo– or supercharging, it proved itself to be readily adaptable to boost, and there’s no small-displacement engine family that can boast as much aftermarket support as Honda’s killer B.

With displacements ranging from 1.6 to 2.0 liters in factory trim and rated horsepower from 126 to 190, there were a wide range of variations in both short and tall deck versions, with a panoply of different details like cylinder head design. But the big thing Honda gave the world with the B-series was the widespread introduction of VTEC, their term for a system to switch cam profiles through the use of a hydraulically-actuated cam follower setup. Activated by a signal from the ECU, VTEC allowed the engine to flip between valve timing, lift, duration, and overlap optimized for fuel economy to higher performance and back again, foreshadowing all the current variable valve control technology incorporated into state of the art engines today.

Like the Ford Flathead and classic Small Block Chevy, the Honda B-series has become a favorite of racers and enthusiasts due to the broad availability of performance parts and the extensive tuning knowledge gained over the past thirty years (has it really been that long?)

Nissan VC-Turbo / Mazda Skyactiv / Hyundai Cvvd – Today

It might seem like a bit of a cheat to give the last spot in our top ten list to a whole group of modern engines, but there are so many new technologies being introduced to production internal combustion engines that we can’t simply ignore their effect on the landscape. Gasoline direct injection (GDI) was the first to become relatively commonplace, offering both performance and fuel efficiency increases, but compared to what’s come after, it seems almost quaint – after all, Diesel engines have more or less always been direct-injection.

Nissan’s recently-released VC-Turbo engine uses a multi-link connecting rod assembly to provide a continuously variable “static” compression ratio, from 8:1 for turbocharged operation under boost to a miserly 14:1 under low load and atmospheric intake pressure for maximum efficiency.

Mazda introduced a whole range of new technology under their “SkyActiv” trademark, from the aforementioned GDI to a low-compression (14:1) advanced diesel with two-stage turbocharging to eliminate a large percentage of the particulate and NOx emissions normally associated with compression-ignition engines. They’ve even rolled out a gasoline “SkyActiv-X” engine with two-stage direct fuel injection and variable spark or spark-plus-compression ignition that promises 20-30% greater fuel efficiency.

The “camless” engine has been the holy grail of powerplant design since the middle of the last century, and while certain exotic-but-impractical designs have been proposed or used for pure race engines, and some production engines like BMW’s N55 have implemented systems that can dynamically control cam phasing and variable lift, Hyundai’s Continuously Variable Valve Duration (CVVD) technology comes as close as we’ve seen so far to offering complete control over when and how much a conventional tappet valve opens. While it still relies on mechanical contact between a cam lobe and a follower, it’s a good compromise between practicality and theoretical “perfect” control of valve motion.

We’ve done our best to pick the most significant engine designs without prejudice or favoritism, but we’ve undoubtedly left some of you scratching your heads as to why we overlooked your personal selection in our Top Ten. Make your case in the comments below, and we might just revisit the topic in a future article to mend the error in our ways…

Brake Kit Upgrades for Racing Applications

Really great brakes are like an upgrade to your confidence on the track – more deceleration on tap means lower lap times thanks to being able to go deeper into corners, and less fade gives you the reassurance to do it corner after corner and lap after lap. But it’s not as simple as just slapping on a brake kit with the biggest rotors and largest calipers that will clear your wheels, and it’s even possible to have “too much” brake, making the car a chore to drive and slowing you down even when you’re not using them.

Today, we’re going to look at some useful information when it comes to putting together a brake kit for competition, and how to get the most out of the hardware you’ve selected. We’ll concentrate on circuit racing, including autocross, time attack, and open track days; while brakes for drag racing are also a complicated subject, they’re a different kind of animal thanks to the special demands of straight-line competition, and are beyond the scope of what we’re talking about here.

When it comes to how effective brakes will be, it all comes down to the interface between the rotor and the pad – everything else simply serves to support this relationship. At a microscopic level, a properly-bedded-in cast-iron rotor will actually have some pad material embedded in its surface, and pad compounds and rotor metallurgy both take this into account. Before using any new brake kit in practice or competition, you must make sure that the pads and rotors have gotten to know each other properly via the manufacturer’s recommended break-in process. This goes for spare pads as well; if you are competing in a form of racing where you’ll go through more than a single set of pads in a weekend (or a single race, for those running endurance events), you’ll need to make sure your spares are already broken in and ready for use.

…it’s even possible to have “too much” brake, making the car a chore to drive…

Speaking of pads, this is an area where a racer has a lot of opportunity to “tune” brake performance to their liking. One popular manufacturer of racing brake pads offers no less than  nine different compounds just for motorsports applications (and a similar number for high performance street use), with a range of different characteristics and performance trade-offs.

The first aspect of a pad compound to consider is torque – how much grip the pad can apply to the rotor, using the available pressure from the caliper. While this might sound like the start and end of the story, consider the fact that a broomstick jammed into the spokes of your bicycle will deliver more brake torque than you can effectively use.

Peak torque is an important factor for cars with a lot of grip from big, sticky race compound tires, a lot of downforce, or both. But in order to be useful, that torque has to be available in a controlled way, and pad compounds can be formulated to adjust how it is delivered. Cars with limited traction under braking can benefit from compounds designed with a linear torque delivery, to allow the driver to modulate braking short of lock-up (or ABS activation, in situations where that’s a factor.)

While this might sound like the start and end of the story, consider the fact that a broomstick jammed into the spokes of your bicycle will deliver more brake torque than you can effectively use.

You’ll also hear the term “bite” to describe initial braking force – cars with a lot of downforce and/or tire grip can take advantage of pads with a lot of it because the first moments of braking deliver the most deceleration, but quite often, drivers will describe brakes with high initial bite as “grabby” and there can be a steep learning curve before you become comfortable with the non-linear torque characteristics. “Release” is the flip side of bite, describing the brake feel as pressure comes off the pedal, and pads with good release characteristics are easier to modulate at the very edge of tire traction.

Heat tolerance and rotor wear are the two other major dimensions of compound selection. For situations like autocross or (to some extent) time attack where your brakes are going to start off cold and then be subjected to a large heat load, you’ll want a pad composition that is engineered to deliver consistent torque across a wide heat range, possibly at the expense of developing some fade if the heat input exceeds the ability of the system to shed it over a longer time period. For multi-lap track day use or wheel to wheel competition where it will be possible to get the pads and rotors up to a ‘working temperature’ and keep them there, a composition optimized to deal with heat that trades off poor cold torque is going to make more sense.

For high-end racing applications, carbon brake rotors and matching pads offer the widest range of heat tolerance without fading. In the past, these were competition-only parts due to their poor performance when cold, their lack of durability, and their sensitivity to pad/rotor contamination, but recent years have seen them make their way into many OEM applications in sports cars as well. These brake setups are far more reliable and capable than the track-only carbon brakes of the past, but they carry very steep initial costs and replacement of the consumable components is expensive as well. It’s not unheard of for some non-professional racers to ‘downgrade’ to metallic brake rotors and conventional pads to keep costs for a season of racing in check.

…a vented rotor will also be more rigid, ounce for ounce, than a solid one.

Since we mentioned consumable components, it’s definitely worth talking about rotors at this point. Once you begin to put laps on your car, you will quickly discover that it’s not just the friction material in the pads that wears out – brake rotors have a finite lifespan as well, and should be considered a component that requires scheduled replacement. There are numerous styles of rotors available, but the vast majority you’ll see that are suitable for competition are “vented” designs. These rotors have two friction faces separated by cast-in vanes that allow air to circulate from the hub center to the outside of the rotor, helped by centrifugal force.

There’s some debate about just how effective this circulation actually is – the amount of air being moved is small, and it’s likely that the biggest advantages of a vented rotor design over a solid disk are increased mass to act as a heat sink, and improved dimensional stability. In the same way that a box girder resists being deformed better than a flat plate made from the same amount of material, a vented rotor will also be more rigid, ounce for ounce, than a solid one.

You’ll also see a lot of debate about drilled and slotted rotors. In theory, both allow trapped gasses and debris to escape from the interface between the pad and the rotor, but in recent years drilled designs have fallen out of favor to some extent as many manufacturers and users believe that holes provide starting points for cracks in the rotor surface without offering a significant difference in performance over slots that don’t completely pierce the rotor faces. This impression wasn’t helped by the flood of cheap “drilled” rotors that came on the market that were simply some small ‘manufacturer’ taking an OEM part and throwing it on a mill to put some holes in it without any consideration for the overall strength of the rotor. You will also see debate about the advantages of a two-piece rotor assembly over one that is cast as a single component. Primarily, these claimed benefits fall into two categories; one, a rotor assembly with a separate disc is less expensive to maintain because the friction surface can be replaced independent of the mounting “hat,” and two, if the rotor is designed to “float” on the hat (which is quite typical of motorcycle applications, but less so in four-wheel vehicle designs) distortion of the rotor from expansion and contraction is reduced.

Finally, there is the question of caliper selection. Once again, there is a huge range of possibilities in terms of piston count and other features, but for most sportsman-level racers in economical classes, the biggest bang for the buck will come from an upgrade from factory “floating” calipers that have a single piston and rely on the entire housing shifting on its mounts to apply even pressure to the rotor to a design with opposed pistons. Most cars with sporting aspirations will come from the factory with opposed-piston calipers, which can benefit from an upgrade to designs that offer staggered piston size for more consistent pad wear, additional pistons to spread clamping force over a larger swept area, or calipers and matching mounting brackets that allow an upgrade in rotor size to take full advantage of the room available within larger-diameter wheels.

We’ve obviously just scratched the surface of this topic, but hopefully we’ve provided a jumping-off point for further research into competition brake upgrades. Remember – a car that won’t start is just an inconvenience, but a car that won’t stop will ruin your whole day.

The 2021 Ford Bronco: What to Expect

The Blue Oval Boys Take On the Jeep Wrangler on Its Home Turf.
Do They Have the Right Formula to Unseat the King of Hardcore Off-Roading?

For the last 75 years, Jeep has been the brand to beat when it comes to street cred where the streets end. From the original civilian CJ-2A to today’s JL Wrangler, they’ve set the standard for no-compromises off-road performance straight off the showroom floor. Throughout that long, successful run they’ve faced many challengers; the Toyota Land Cruiser, the Chevy Blazer, the International Scout, and of course the Ford Bronco.

Though they all found their own fans, over the past few decades all those nameplates have fallen to the wayside, leaving only Jeep still selling vehicles that are so strongly biased in favor of all terrain performance over creature comforts and day to day practicality.

Now, Ford is poised to take a run at the Wrangler with the 2021 Bronco, which will be revealed in full to the world on Monday, June 13, 2020. This long-rumored return of a classic off-roader shows every sign of being specifically targeted at the same market segment as the JL, but can it really go toe-to-toe with Jeep’s flagship? Here’s what we know so far…

There Will Be Three Different Broncos

This is a mortal lock, based on what Ford has already shown us. The lineup will include a 2-door, a 4-door, and the Bronco Sport. But honestly, you can just ignore the Sport – it isn’t going to share anything but a nameplate with the “real” Bronco, and is going to be positioned as a competitor to softroaders like the Jeep Renegade, not the Wrangler. A pickup version to compete with the Jeep Gladiator is possible as a follow-on in subsequent model years, depending on how sales of that model (as well as the 2- and 4-door Bronco) pan out.

The Doors Will Be Removable (Without Tools)

US Patent 10,550,615 B2 granted to Ford in February describes a “door hinge assembly incorporating a latch to facilitate selective door removal.” Unlike the Wrangler, it seems that the Bronco’s doors will be easy to remove and replace without needing any tools. Ford has also filed multiple patents for things like doors with separate skins that leave a side-impact protection structure in place when removed, an airbag compatible with a detachable door, and even retractable safety rails between the front and rear pillars that are either constantly in place when the doors are off, or activate automatically in the event of a crash. Ford would undoubtedly prefer for you to keep the doors on your new Bronco while driving on the road in the name of greater occupant safety (and will also certainly put a lot of warnings about it in the manual, where nobody will read them), but based on the fact that the hinge latch patent has not just been applied for but granted, that seems very likely to be incorporated at launch.

The Bronco Will Have Body-On-Frame Construction and a Solid Rear Axle With IFS

The rumor is that the Bronco will be built on the same platform as the new mid-size Ranger pickup in the same facility, and that implies a separate traditional ladder frame instead of unibody construction. That’s good news for the aftermarket, as it will allow body lifts to easily accommodate larger-diameter tire fitments without re-engineering suspension components, plus many people will prefer that design’s inherent ruggedness for serious off-roading. The Bronco will also almost certainly have a coil-sprung solid rear axle with a multi-link suspension, but unlike the Wrangler, the front suspension is going to be independent. This is a wise move for Ford; IFS is the right answer for 95% of the questions asked of the Bronco both on and off road, and they don’t have to worry about a small but extremely vocal cadre of purists raising a ruckus like Jeep will when they inevitably have to switch the Wrangler over from a solid front axle. 

There Won’t Be a Traditional Transfer Case and 4-LO

This prediction is more speculative than some of the others, but images circulating on the interwebs point to a manual gearbox with a ratio labeled “C” on the shifter rather than a separate lever/button to engage low range. Ford has plenty of experience with 4WD systems, from full time to shift on the fly to manually-selectable, but this is a new twist. In addition to a ‘creeper gear’ you can also expect selectable locking for the front and center differentials, and either a limited slip or locker for the front as well. 

Want a V8? That May Be a Long Wait for a Train That Doesn’t Come

Way back in the early 1990s, Ford decided that the future of their powertrains lay in the direction of smaller-displacement engines with more sophisticated designs to replace their tried-and-true pushrod V8 design. While there’s much to be said about whether overhead cam V8 engines were the right idea for their trucks as well as their passenger cars, they have remained steadfastly devoted to the idea of high technology instead of raw cubic inches.

On the dyno, either engine choice for the new Bronco absolutely murders the old SBF V8…

For the Bronco, it’s very likely that the workhorse “base” engine will be the 2.3 liter EcoBoost 4-cylinder delivering something in the neighborhood of 270-280 horsepower and 310 pound-feet, biased toward low-end horsepower and torque. The optional upgrade is likely to follow the rest of Ford’s truck lineup with the twin-turbo 3.5 liter EcoBoost V6, producing around 375 horsepower and 470 pound-feet. 

On the dyno, either engine choice for the new Bronco absolutely murders the old SBF V8, but buyer acceptance is going to come down to whether the market they’re trying to court (both in terms of people with fond memories of Broncos past, and would-be Jeep Wrangler owners cross-shopping) believe that a turbocharged small-displacement engine is the right solution. Engine calibration is going to make or break the success for the new Bronco among shoppers who are looking for off road competence, and the benchmark Wrangler JL offers not only a standard naturally-aspirated 3.6 liter V6 gasoline engine rated at 285/260, but an optional 2.0 liter turbo inline four with 270 horsepower and 295 pound feet, plus a turbocharged 3.0 liter EcoDiesel that delivers an estimated 260 horsepower and 442 pound-feet.

Offering a 5.0 liter gasoline V8 based off the current Coyote architecture would seem to be an attractive option for Ford, should customers desire a NA engine over the EcoBoost 4 and 6 cylinder powerplants, but considering how the wind has been blowing with their Raptor models, a hopped-up EcoBoost V6 seems more likely as a future ‘premium’ engine upgrade.

It’s Ford’s chance to show the world what they can do when they’re turned loose to compete with the current heavyweight champ.

The Devil in the Details

While we feel we are on pretty solid ground with these predictions, Ford has kept most of the details for the new Bronco very close to the vest. You can be sure that every engineering, styling, and marketing decision for the new model was vetted against the Wrangler archetype, though – the company has a clear vision of what they’re trying to accomplish with 2021 Bronco, which is something pretty rare these days when focus groups, shareholder opinions, and low-risk strategies dominate new car and truck designs. That’s what’s really exciting about the upcoming reveal. It’s Ford’s chance to show the world what they can do when they’re turned loose to compete with the current heavyweight champ.

The Rotary Revolution

In the 140-plus years since the modern internal combustion engine was invented, there have been a countless variety of different designs; 2-, 4-, and even 6-stroke cycles, inline, vee, W, X, H, and horizontally opposed cylinder arrangements, combustion chamber shapes ranging from flathead to hemispherical, and all manner of the different valve and camshaft configurations. The technological pressure cooker of wartime development brought forth oddities like the Great War’s rotary piston engines that spun the entire crankcase and cylinders around a crank firmly bolted to an aircraft’s nose. Those evolved into radial engines with stationary crankcases, culminating in massive 28-cylinder beasts displacing more than 4,000 cubic inches and delivering 4,300 horsepower by the end of the Second World War. Then, there was the truly strange “Deltic” design that arranged three crankshafts at the corners of a triangle, each powered by pistons that moved in opposition to each other, with no cylinder head at all.

It’s the sort of mechanism that feels like it was reverse-engineered from a crashed UFO, or taken straight from the Old Testament book of Ezekiel compared to a piston engine.

But whatever form even the strangest of those engines took, they all shared one design feature that Nikolaus Otto, the creator of the first modern internal combustion engine, would instantly recognize: A reciprocating piston moving back and forth in a cylinder bore, translating linear motion into rotation via a connecting rod and crankshaft. It’s a concept so simple and elegant, but so well-suited to the task that the overwhelming majority of internal combustion engines have employed it. Though they’ve grown in sophistication over the years with new materials and manufacturing techniques, decent piston engines can be made using very basic design skills and fairly simple machine tools. Because of how difficult it is to build a “better mousetrap” than a piston engine, almost every attempt has fallen short in one way or the other and been forgotten, with one notable exception: The Wankel rotary.

Thinking Outside the Box (Or Tube, in This Case)

First conceived in the late 1920s by German engineer Felix Wankel, despite having only two main moving parts, the rotary engine’s principle of operation isn’t intuitive at first glance like a conventional piston engine. The Wankel goes through the same four stages as a piston engine – intake, compression, combustion, and exhaust – using a bowed triangular rotor that moves around an oval housing (technically, an ‘epitrochoid’ shape, a word that means “you didn’t do well enough in your Trig class to understand what’s going on here”) on an eccentric shaft. A fixed gear on the side of the housing engages a ring gear on the inside of the rotor so that for every complete turn of the rotor, the eccentric shaft turns three times.

It’s the sort of mechanism that feels like it was reverse-engineered from a crashed UFO, or taken straight from the Old Testament book of Ezekiel compared to a piston engine. But the important thing is that the motion of the rotor within the housing causes the volume between the rotor face and housing to vary in a useful way, just like the rise and fall of a piston in a cylinder bore. Though Wankel filed his first patent for the rotary engine in 1929, it would take until 1957 for him to develop a working prototype while employed at the German NSU car company. His original prototype, while using the same general principle as the rotary engines we are familiar with today, was somewhat more complex with a rotor housing that spun inside an outer casing as well as the moving rotor on the interior.

Working in parallel (and without Wankel’s knowledge), NSU engineer Hanns Dieter Paschke also developed a working prototype stationary-housing rotary engine in 1957, and it would be this design that evolved into a practical car engine. Intrigued by the potential of the Wankel, auto manufacturers from around the world, including AMC, Ford, General Motors, Citroën, Mercedes-Benz, and even Rolls-Royce licensed the design to develop their versions, but in the end, Mazda was the only company to produce Wankel rotaries in any significant quantity. While the rotary had some significant advantages over conventional piston engines, it also had several drawbacks that were inherent to the design, plus several non-trivial technical hurdles to overcome before it was suitable for mass production.

You Win Some, You Lose Some

On the positive side, the Wankel ran with a smoothness that no piston engine could match. In television ads, Mazda used a catchy folk song with the chorus, “Piston engine goes (boing, boing, boing), Mazda engine goes ‘hmm’” to emphasize that attribute. The lack of reciprocating parts also meant that Wankels could safely turn RPM numbers that would float the valves on any conventional production line piston engine, limited only by the strength of the rotor and stationary gears and what the engine-driven accessories like the alternator and water pump could endure.

In terms of size and weight, rotaries are extremely compact and light for their power output. Though they commonly had their displacement described in terms of a single chamber on each rotor’s volume (making the ubiquitous Mazda 12A and 13B rotaries nominally 1.2 or 1.3 liters), the fact that there were three such chambers for each rotor made them perform more like an engine with twice the stated displacement.

…NSU’S struggle to build production rotaries that didn’t blow bits of apex seal out the exhaust was the major reason the Wankel quickly gained a reputation as an unreliable engine.

As far as drawbacks go, the first problem facing anyone trying to make the Wankel practical as a production car engine was creating effective and durable seals. In a conventional piston engine, the gap between the piston and the cylinder wall is sealed by a ring package that uses a combination of gas pressure directed into the ring lands and the pressure differential between the area above and below the ring itself to dynamically load the top ring and keep it at the proper tension. While modern piston ring design and the materials used have become very complicated and sophisticated, simple iron rings with a square profile will do the job quite nicely if you’re not trying to squeeze out that last few percentage points of power and efficiency. As a bonus, circular rings are a piece of cake to manufacture to precise tolerances as well.

This isn’t the case with a Wankel. A look at how the rotor oscillates in the housing tells you that you’re going to need three long, gently curved seals on either side of the rotor, plus three seals at the apex of each point of the rotor’s triangle to separate the individual “combustion chambers” from one another. While the side seals didn’t turn out to be a big deal, coming up with apex seals that were durable enough for a production car ended up being a real challenge. NSU’s struggle to build production rotaries that didn’t blow bits of apex seal out the exhaust was the major reason the Wankel quickly gained a reputation as an unreliable engine.

Mazda managed to develop reliable apex seals for their rotaries, but another challenge came from the fact that unlike a piston engine, where the cylinder bores are continuously lubricated by oil slung from the connecting rod bearings as the crankshaft spins, there’s no convenient way to get lubrication to the apex seals. The solution came from injecting small amounts of engine oil into the intake airstream, providing the same end result as premixed fuel and oil for a 2-stroke dirt bike or chainsaw.

In the end, rotaries proved to be more trouble than they were worth, even for Mazda, at least in terms of production car use.

Unfortunately, about the same time Mazda got that issue figured out, the oil crisis of 1973 sent fuel prices skyrocketing, and in the US, emissions standards began to be taken seriously. This double whammy hit the Wankel where it lived – although the engines were efficient in terms of size and weight for their power output, their Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (the amount of gas required to produce a particular amount of horsepower) was poor compared to a conventional piston engine and having to constantly inject a bit of oil mist into the engine inevitably lead to unavoidable higher hydrocarbon emissions.

Thermodynamics Is a Harsh Mistress

As it turns out, a piston engine with cylindrical bores is about the best practical shape for keeping heat contained inside the combustion chamber, since it has the least surface area for any given volume. The arcane geometric wizardry that makes a Wankel even possible also dictates that the constantly changing combustion chamber shape is going to have a lot of surface area for the engine’s displacement, which means that a disproportionate amount of the heat energy from burning fuel is going to end up slipping away into the rotors, side housings, or endplates instead of doing useful work. That unavoidable fact meant that rotaries would never be able to match a conventional piston engine’s fuel economy pony for a pony, even when installed in a car optimized for the Wankel’s lightweight.

There are other quirks to rotary engine design as well – because of that oddly-shaped combustion chamber, Mazda used two spark plugs per rotor with staggered ignition timing to make sure the air/fuel charge burned as completely as possible. Additionally, variable cam timing and/or valve lift can dynamically change the characteristics of a piston engine’s combustion cycle, but a Wankel engine’s intake and exhaust timing are fixed, much like a valveless two-stroke engine, dictated by the position of the ports on the side housings and periphery of the center housing.

The Wankel Legacy

In the end, rotaries proved to be more trouble than they were worth, even for Mazda, at least in terms of production car use. The end of the line for the venerable original 13B, which remained in production for an astonishing three decades, came with the end of FD RX-7 production after the 2002 model year. By then, the 13B-REW had evolved into a twin-turbo 280 horsepower plumber’s nightmare of vacuum lines and emissions control hardware that was far removed from the simplicity promised by the original Wankel design. Its successor, the naturally-aspirated 13B-REW RENESIS found in the 2003-2013 RX-8, improved emissions, and fuel economy via a radical rework of the exhaust port location and truly heroic engine control calibration efforts, but ended up falling short of ever-more-restrictive emission limits in the US and Europe nonetheless.

…the real legacy of Herr Wankel’s inspired engine design is the unmistakable sound of a three-rotor peripheral port engine banging against the rev limiter at the race track, sounding like a cross between a machine gun and the end of the world.

Mazda continues to experiment with Wankel engine design, showcasing things like hydrogen-fueled rotaries that burn much cleaner than gasoline-powered designs in concept vehicles, but it’s unlikely that we’ll ever see the widespread enthusiasm for this radically different kind of internal combustion engine as we did in the late 1960s and early 1970s again. For niche applications where a high power-to-weight ratio and compact dimensions are critical, the rotary will retain its popularity, but the real legacy of Herr Wankel’s inspired engine design is the unmistakable sound of a three-rotor peripheral port engine banging against the rev limiter at the race track, sounding like a cross between a machine gun and the end of the world.

Old School Cool: All About Air Cooled Engines

It’s an unfortunate reality that internal combustion engines are inefficient, turning more than half of the energy from every drop of fuel burned into waste heat instead of forward motion or sweet, sweet tire smoke. Much of that lost energy goes into the exhaust, but in order to keep things like cylinder heads, pistons, and engine blocks in a temperature range where they can operate reliably, every engine has to have some way to move waste heat away from the metal and into the air.

Air-cooled engines have been around for basically forever; they’re simple, light, and less complicated than liquid cooled designs, and yet aside from some very specific niche applications, it’s hard to find any large-displacement air-cooled engines in production today. In the US market, most people would be hard-pressed to identify any air-cooled car engines other than the one used by VW for decades across their entire model line, from Beetle to Bus, Porsche’s flat-six 911 powerplants, and perhaps the Corvair. In the motorcycle world, air cooling held on for a lot longer, but even BMW and Suzuki eventually gave up on fins in favor of water jackets for their street bikes.

Battle-Tested

As with so many important aspects of piston engine technology we take for granted today, the competition between air and water cooling saw its most intense period of development during the Second World War. The original 1903 Wright Flyer, the first practical aircraft, used a four-cylinder water-cooled engine (although it had no radiator, relying on boiling off its limited supply of water during the short duration it had to run) and during the Great War, both air-cooled rotary engines (no, not Wankels – that’s a story for another time) and liquid cooled inline engines rapidly developed.

By the late 1930s, aircraft engines, which needed to be both light and powerful, had evolved into two basic forms: Watercooled inline or V designs, and air-cooled radials. The legendary Merlin that powered the P-51 Mustang, and the Allison V-1710 that was installed in pairs in the P-38 Lightning were both liquid cooled, while fighters like the Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair, and Thunderbolt all had big, round air-cooled radial engines. Neither approach to engine cooling held a clear advantage (as a matter of fact, it was actually possible for the extremely clever radiator or cooling fin ductwork to generate net thrust from waste heat, though the effect was almost too small to measure) and things mostly came down to packaging within the airframe and streamlining. There, the liquid cooled engines had the advantage of a smaller cross-section, versus simplicity and the lack of a vulnerable radiator for the air cooled radials. By war’s end, both types of engines were capable of more or less the same peak power output and had similar power-to-weight ratios.

Cars Aren’t Airplanes Though…

Perhaps the world’s best-known air-cooled engine (and certainly the most widely-produced), the iconic Volkswagen flat four, was conceived during that same tumultuous time as an inexpensive and compact powerplant for Ferdinand Porsche’s “people’s car.” While the design for the Volkswagen Type 1 was set by 1938, it wouldn’t be until a decade later that civilian versions were manufactured in any numbers in post-war Germany. Czechoslovakia’s Tatra had also made a number of air-cooled cars before the war, and continued all the way through the late 1990s (and even still makes air-cooled heavy trucks today) and FIAT and Citroën embraced these kinds of engines in their small, economical post-war vehicles as well.

The only major US domestic manufacturer to put an air-cooled engine into mass production in the modern era was Chevolet, for the 1960-1969 Corvair. These flat-six engines were actually very successful, though the car they were designed for suffered from the first wave of consumer safety activism that would later target Pinto, Audis, and GM trucks for design flaws that made them somewhat more dangerous (though not greatly so) than their contemporaries. Chevy’s air-cooled flat six got thrown out with the bath water, and all subsequent GM engines would rely on liquid cooling.

Of course, it would be impossible to discuss air-cooled auto engines without mentioning the wildly successful Porsche flat-6, which powered the 911 family all the way through the 1998 model year before finally being replaced by a water-cooled design with a similar layout. The ongoing success of that engine family showed that it was certainly possible to create a completely modern, extremely powerful and reliable engine that didn’t need coolant. So why the switch?

Modern Problems Require Modern Solutions

The dominance of water-cooling in present day automotive engine applications comes down to a few main factors. First, there’s the issue of performance. Though Porsche’s air-cooled flat six (as well as innumerable air-cooled motorcycle engine designs) proved that it’s possible to build engines that are very powerful and reliable without coolant jackets, and more importantly water circulating through the cylinder head, as specific output climbs it becomes harder and harder to control hot spots in the combustion chamber using air cooling alone.

The exhaust valve and port area is one particular trouble spot – without coolant flowing through adjacent passages, it’s hard to move the heat build-up from this area in particular out to the atmosphere, no matter how much cooling fin you throw at the problem. There simply isn’t enough room to accommodate the necessary surface area on the head for adequate heat rejection, and issues arise for cooling the cylinders that aren’t first in line for airflow.

Pistons are another potential issue, as they must first transfer the majority of their excess heat through the ring package and into the cylinder wall before the engine block can take it away, whether it’s water- or air-cooled. Even in water-cooled high performance engines it’s not uncommon to use oil squirters directed at the underside of the pistons to help cool them, and the problem is compounded in air-cooled engines that often use very large amounts of oil circulating in the engine and pumped through an external radiator to assist in temperature control.

Better control over cylinder head and piston crown temperatures allows more leeway before preignition (and the engine damage that goes with it) sets in, making water-cooled designs generally less sensitive to fuel quality and more tolerant of high compression ratios or boost. This factor alone weighs heavily in favor of abandoning air cooling for max-performance production engines.

Another increasingly important consideration is tailpipe emissions. The industry has done an incredible job reducing pollution over the last four decades, with emissions control strategies that have a surprisingly small performance downside. The last untapped source of potential improvement, though, was engine startup. Because engines run so clean once they’re up to operating temperature, the majority of tailpipe emissions left to deal with happen during the cold start process. This is why current best practices close-couple a catalytic converter to the cylinder head in the exhaust manifold collector, to reduce the time it takes for the catalyst to ‘light off’ and start doing its thing.

The same is true with ECU mapping during cold starts. Additional fuel must be added – back in the day, we had this thing called a choke that manually blocked airflow through the carburetor and enriched the mixture to the cylinders, but now it’s all handled via computer, with more fuel called for from the injectors until the engine reaches normal operating temperature. An air-cooled engine, even with modern fuel injection, is still slower to get to that point because the cooling system is always ‘on,’ but a water-cooled engine with a thermostat can keep the radiator out of the loop until everything is up to temperature.

Although it’s certainly possible to build an air-cooled engine with baffles to control the airflow past the cylinders (and indeed, this is a ubiquitous feature on light aircraft engines like the Continental and Lycoming flat-four and -six engines that power practically every Cessna, Piper, Beechcraft, and Lancair in the world today), the quick warm-up and precise in-operation control of temperature gives liquid-cooled engines an enormous advantage when it comes to clean tailpipe emissions, and it’s the main reason why Porsche (and to a lesser extent, Volkswagen) eventually adopted it after a long history of successful air-cooled engines.

Finally, there’s the issue of noise. This may not seem like a big deal at first, but many countries have adopted noise standards that don’t just include the exhaust – intake and other engine noise all count toward the maximum decibel level a vehicle can legally produce. Liquid-cooled engines are inherently quieter than air-cooled ones, partially because of the dampening effect of the water jacket around the cylinders, and because there are no cooling fins directly attached to the reciprocating parts of the engine that can act as resonators, amplifying certain frequencies.

Even the notoriously atavistic Harley-Davidson motorcycle lineup, one of the last strongholds of air-cooled engine technology for road vehicles, is reluctantly moving toward liquid cooling. Their most recent design, the “Milwaukee-Eight,” circulates oil through passages in the cylinder heads, though the cylinder barrels remain air-cooled. It’s only a matter of time until they join their Japanese V-twin competitors and fully embrace water-cooled designs that retain vestigial cylinder fins for cosmetic purposes, if for no other reason than noise limits. After all, every decibel saved in mechanical noise from the engine itself is another decibel available for that all-important exhaust note, and while it’s hard to keep your customers from swapping to louder pipes once they get their bike home, it’s not practical short of complete replacement to go back to an air-cooled engine design.

Like many different technologies that were competitive for quite a while, but eventually fell out of favor for the majority of users, air cooling has seen its time in automotive applications come to an end. Nevertheless, for other situations where light weight and simplicity are still the main priorities (like piston aircraft engines), they’ll remain in production and use for the foreseeable future, as they remain a viable solution to those particular needs. And of course, as long as there’s a single gallon of gas left on earth, somebody somewhere will be using it to fire up the 1600 flat four in their lovingly-maintained VW Super Beetle that still runs like a top.

10 Amazing JDM Cars, and How We Got to Buy Them Here

The Japanese domestic car market has produced a lot of innovative, cool models over the years, creating JDM gems that never make it to our shores. It doesn’t take huge numbers of cars sold to make a car a success in Japan – in 2019, just shy of 5.2 million cars were sold there in total, of which nearly 2 million were “Kei” cars designed specifically around a set of tax and registration rules that make these miniature vehicles less expensive to buy and own. 

To put those numbers into perspective, between the Ford F-series, Dodge Ram, Chevy Silverado, and it’s twin the GMC Sierra, Americans bought more than 2.4 million full-sized domestic-brand pickup trucks alone. While there is plenty of money to be made in the US by Japanese manufacturers (especially if they have plants located stateside), the volume of sales required to make an imported car successful absolutely dwarf what would be considered a hit in the home market.

“Federalizing” an imported model to prove that it meets US crash performance and emissions standards is not an inexpensive or quick process, and as a result many of the wild and wonderful JDM-only models we all lust over were never brought to our shores as new cars. But the ones we did get tend to fall into a few very specific categories that made them worth the effort for Japan to export and sell in US showrooms. 

The Halo Cars

The first entries on our list are cars that didn’t have to sell in huge numbers in the US (even though some turned out to be wildly popular) because their purpose was to act as flagships for the brand – performance cars that, through association, would help sell the bread-and-butter commuter cars.

Datsun/Nissan Z

By introducing American enthusiasts to the 240Z in 1969, Nissan (known in America as Datsun back then, but that’s a tale for another time) proved that Japanese imports weren’t exclusively cheap, boring economy cars, and that a world-class sports car didn’t need to be expensive, unreliable, or temperamental. After six generations in the US, the lineal descendant of the original Z, the Nissan 370Z, remains popular, though the mantle of performance and technology leader for the company has finally passed to the GT-R in the US.

Mazda RX-7

Following the trail blazed by the Z-car, Mazda introduced their own sports car to the US market a decade later with the first-gen RX-7. With a unique Wankel rotary powerplant that set it apart from anything else available then or now, it built Mazda’s performance reputation in North America through three generations. At the close of the 20th century, Mazda finally began to step away from the rotary due to emissions and fuel economy concerns that were inherently harder to solve than in piston engine designs. The 2003-2012 RX-8 was the last hurrah for Mazda’s line of flagship sports cars, and even that was more of a grand tourer; a far cry from the light, flickable first-gen cars. 

Toyota Supra

Starting out as simply a stretched version of the Celica, the Supra found its true Kung Fu in the third generation cars introduced in 1986 that were split out into their own model line, and a turbocharged engine was offered for the first time. But the Mark IV Supra would be the defining version of the mark, and from 1993 to 2002 the Supra would arguably rule the Japanese performance car market in the US. A diminishing US demand and no new-generation JDM model put an end to the Supra, but Toyota revived the name for a rebadged car based on the BMW G29 platform used in the Z4 in 2019, to a decidedly mixed reception among enthusiasts.

Honorable Mention: Acura NSX

When Honda launched the Acura sub-brand in 1986, the first ‘high end’ badge for a Japanese carmaker in the US market, their product line was limited to what were essentially optioned-up, very nice versions of the same cars in Honda dealerships. Much like the Spanish Inquisition though, nobody expected the first-gen NSX in 1990, sold as a Honda in the home market but badged as an Acura in the US. This mid-rear two-seat sports car was legitimate competition for many exotics of the time, and was certainly far cheaper and more reliable than your average ‘90s supercar. Though it was never a huge sales success in and of itself, it certainly provided a lot of eye candy in Acura showrooms for customers to drool over while the salesman worked his four-square sheet to get them into a nice Integra or Legend with the undercoating and extended warranty rolled into a single monthly payment…

The Cool Cousins

This next group of enthusiasm-worthy cars made it to US shores because they had a much more sensible relative they could rely upon to help them get a foot in the door. These models are the JDM performance versions of the manufacturers’ bread-and-butter models, adapted for US regulations and let in because their sensible relatives already did most of the hard work. 

Subaru WRX/STi 

In 1993, Subaru first brought the Impreza to America as their sensible family car, with an uninspiring 1.8 liter, 110 horsepower naturally aspirated flat-four under the hood. A 2.2 liter optional engine was quickly added, and in 1998 we got the 2.5RS – a toe dipped in the water to see if America was ready for the real thing. After the second gen Impreza hit US showrooms, there was finally a turbo WRX model available alongside the more pedestrian naturally aspirated Imprezas, and sales of Subaru’s performance flagship were high enough to ensure it remains in their US lineup to this day.

Mitsubishi Evo 

While Mitsubishi had gone through a “Turbo All The Things!” period in the late 80s and early 90s in their US imports and joint ventures with Chrysler, by the end of the century they’d pivoted to crossovers and commuter cars. Their perpetual JDM rival Subaru had shown there was money to be made in bringing performance models across the Pacific with the WRX, and in 2003 the Evolution VIII was offered to US buyers for the first time. Two subsequent generations followed in North America, but 2016 saw the end of Evo production for all markets worldwide, and Mitsubishi seems focused on SUV, truck, and crossover models to the detriment of their legendary performance car heritage.

Nissan 240SX

You know a car model is successful when the company making it keeps the old model in production while simultaneously bringing out a new version, which is exactly what Nissan did with the 180SX and its successor the S14 Silvia in the Japanese domestic market. Nissan hedged their bets with the USDM 240SX, substituting their tried and true naturally aspirated KA24 “truck motor” for the turbocharged CA18DET in the 180SX, deftly sidestepping the need to gain EPA approval for a different engine unique to this particular model. Nevertheless, the S13 and S14 generations of the US 240SX sold well between 1989 and 1999, inspired untold numbers of amateur drifters, and were the recipients of countless LS engine swaps. 

Honorable Mention: Lexus IS 300

Built on the Toyota N platform, which it shared with the SC 400/300 sports coupe that had been in the US market for almost a full decade, the IS 300 debuted as a 2001 model year car in America, and came with the same naturally-aspirated 220 horsepower 2JZ-GE engine found in the earlier non-turbo MKIV Supra. This four-door platform, in addition to allowing you to comfortably terrify more than one passenger at a time (unlike the Supra, with its vestigial back seat) also introduced the world to clear “Altezza” tail lights, and things would never be the same. The IS is still in the Lexus lineup in the US market, now in its third generation and available with a 241 horse turbo inline 4 or a 311 horsepower naturally aspirated V6, but the original Altezza hit the sweet spot where performance, practicality, and JDM street cred overlapped.

the [JDM cars] we did get tend to fall into a few very specific categories that made them worth the effort for Japan to export and sell in US showrooms.

The Unicorns

Finally, there are some cars that made it to the US despite the fact that there was no way they were ever going to sell in big numbers, or even well enough to amortize the costs involved in getting them approved for sale in America. Three of them on our list are based off of popular mainstream cars, while the fourth is just… weird. But for all these rare and wonderful vehicles, there had to be somebody behind the scenes who stuck their neck out and said, “I know these won’t make us a pile of money, but Americans deserve to have them anyway.”

Mazda 323 GTX

In the days before the WRX or the Evo, and before most US enthusiasts had even heard of rally cars, Mazda built a homologation special version of their Familia/323/Protege, a very sensible little three-door hatch that was doing a pretty decent job in the Americas as a frugal commuter car. In place of the standard naturally-aspirated 1.8 liter, 100 or so horsepower front wheel drive setup was a 1.6 liter, 132 horse turbocharged engine coupled to a manual transmission and AWD drivetrain with a lockable center differential and viscous limited slip. The engine took to tuning like tigers on sardine oil, and it was easy to tweak the revvy little turbo motor to 180 horsepower and beyond. Only 1200 or so made it to the US in 1988 and 1989, and the vast majority of them lived short but glorious lives under the heavy right foot of enthusiast owners, so they’re rarely seen today. Nevertheless, all credit where credit is due to whoever it was at Mazda that decided America needed this insane little hatch.

Toyota Celica All-Trac Turbo

The Celica and Supra, once based on the same chassis, had parted ways in the 1986 model year, with the Supra becoming its own RWD model and the Celica going to front wheel drive. Toyota didn’t completely abandon Celica performance models, though – in the domestic market, they introduced the GT-Four all-wheel-drive system with an advanced-for-the-time electronically controlled center differential, and fitted it to a number of different models, including a turbocharged Celica. Though they’re rare as hen’s teeth in America today, the first-gen Celica All-Trac Turbo made it to the US market for the 1988 and 1989 model years, then surprisingly survived the Celica’s generation change for 1990, but only about 1,600 were sold in the States through the 1993 model year. Making a solid 200 horsepower (compared to the next-best N/A Celica’s 135 or so) and with a stout 5-speed manual gearbox coupled to a rally-tested all wheel drive system, the All-Trac was the Eclipse GSX/Talon TSi AWD/Laser RS Turbo AWD two years ahead of the wildly-popular DSM triplets. But the price premium and lack of visual distinction from other Celicas doomed it to obscurity among all but true enthusiasts.

Mitsubishi Galant VR-4

Speaking of the Eclipse GSX, for the 1991 and 1992 model years, Mitsubishi also decided that America should receive a version of their sensible, highly respected, and strong-selling Galant 4-door sedan that shared the same turbo all-wheel-drive layout as the first-gen DSM coupes. This proto-Evo delivered 195 horsepower to all four corners with a sophisticated (for the ‘90s) driveline using a viscous coupling center differential and 4-wheel “in phase” steering that could turn the rear wheels as much as 1.5 degrees in the same direction as the front at speeds above 30 miles per hour. As a technology and luxury showcase, it also incorporated now-common features like a fade-out dome light and the ability to operate the power windows and sunroof for a half-minute after turning off the ignition. The Galant VR-4 was ahead of its time in many ways, and it’s a shame that after just two years and around 3,000 cars imported to the US, its tenure in the American market was over. 

Subaru SVX

This might just be the king of the fantastic beasts on our list – in 1989 Subaru debuted the Alcyone SVX (pronounced “al-SIGH-uh-nee” because reasons…) at the Tokyo Auto Show, and followed up with a production model for the 1992 model year. As the flagship of the Subaru line, it represented the best in luxury and performance, and unbelievably they managed to sell more than 14,000 of them in America (more than half of the total worldwide sales) through the 1996 model year. A naturally-aspirated 3.3 liter naturally-aspirated flat-six engine that was basically an EJ22 with two extra cylinders sat under the hood, sending power to an automatic transmission, as none of Subaru’s manual gearboxes at the time had the capacity to reliably handle the rated 231 horsepower and 228 pound-feet of peak torque. All-wheel-drive was standard, of course, and the swoopy styling included fixed side windows with small, inset retractable panes, a la the Lamborghini Countach and the DeLorean. For a company known in the early ‘90s for quirky, small economy cars that happened to have AWD, the SVX was a wild departure from the norm, and the styling has actually aged pretty well over the decades.

So there you have it – our list of the top cool Japanese cars that we actually got to buy here in the ‘States. Our sincere thanks go out to the anonymous decision-makers and influencers working inside those manufacturers’ head offices who took a risk in bringing cars that might not have made a lot of money to our showrooms, but gave us some of the most amazing and wonderful cars the Japanese Domestic Market has to offer. 

Is the Future of Automotive Fully Charged?

Electric VS. Internal Combustion Engine Debate

I have seen the future, and it is electric. This might not sound like good news for the tuner scene, old-school hot rodders, and racers, but it actually is (though not for the reasons you might think). To see how I have reached this conclusion, it’s necessary to understand what hurdles electric cars have yet to overcome, and how they require a fundamental change in the way we think about getting from point A to point B.

Companies like Tesla and Toyota have proven that pure-electric vehicles don’t have to be boring, slow, or impractical, and nobody can really argue with the results that General Motors has already achieved with the eCOPO purpose-built electric-powered drag race Camaro. But we’re still a long way from seeing the end of internal combustion, despite what lawmakers in certain states believe. Once you look past the mechanical differences between electric and fossil fuel power for personal transportation, the main issues come down to power storage and infrastructure.

Density Matters

When the Horseless Carriage first began its conquest of the world’s roads, nobody knew what a car was “supposed to” be, and different ideas flourished. As the 20th century began, it wasn’t clear what technology would prevail, and both internal combustion and electric cars found eager (though mostly rich) buyers. In short order, though, piston-engine cars proved to be more practical, and one of the main reasons was that the best battery technology of the time was the lead-acid wet cell, which only offered very limited range.

Of course, we still use lead-acid batteries today to start our cars and to power things like forklifts and golf carts, because the batteries are relatively inexpensive, offer a decent service life, can deliver very high power output for short periods, and are tolerant of a good deal of abuse without failing in horribly dangerous ways. But the amount of energy that can be stored per pound of lead-acid battery is pretty miserable when compared with even very inefficient internal combustion engines, which puts a hard limit on its practicality for personal transportation. A typical 12-volt car battery has an energy density of about 30-40 Watt-hours per kilogram. Gasoline, on the other hand, has an energy density of over 12,000 Watt-hours per kilo. To put it in more relatable units, a 15-gallon fuel tank holds about the same potential energy as more than 700 average 40-pound car batteries.

Obviously, driving around in a car that has a 14-ton battery pack isn’t really a practical option to get the same amount of available energy as a gas-powered car, and fortunately battery technology with far higher energy density has been developed, with commercially available lithium-ion batteries offering as much as 200 Watt-hours per kilo. But even at a five-fold increase in energy density, you still end up needing a battery pack that weighs 5,700 pounds to contain the same energy as less than 100 pounds of filled gas tank. This is the heart of the problem for electric vehicles – barring some scientific breakthrough that improves battery power density by an order of magnitude, the amount of total energy available in a reasonable electric vehicle chassis is always going to be far below that provided by an internal combustion drivetrain.

Companies like Tesla have proven that pure-electric vehicles don’t have to be boring, slow, or impractical…

The current gold standard for practical electric cars is the Tesla Model 3. It’s available in “standard” and “long range” versions with Li-Ion battery packs assembled from a large number of individual, commercially-available cells in capacities ranging from 50 to 75 kilowatt-hours. Estimated range on the EPA drive cycle for the Model 3 varies accordingly, from about 250 miles to about 320 between fully charged and fully discharged, which is an astonishing accomplishment considering how little energy the battery packs contain, compared to a tank full of gas. The quoted mass for the Model 3 long range pack is 480 kg, or about 1,060 pounds – more than a quarter of the total curb weight of the vehicle.

Tesla manages to achieve decent range by keeping the non-battery mass of the vehicle as low as possible, and by employing regenerative braking to recapture a portion of the energy spent getting the car moving to help stop it. It also helps that electric motors are very efficient in terms of converting input energy into useful work compared to internal combustion engines, which rarely operate in the narrow range of engine speed and load that is most effective in turning gasoline into motion. On the flip side, though, an ICE-powered vehicle won’t lose a significant portion of its potential range as the result of brief, aggressive application of the right-hand pedal, but this will absolutely murder the miles-to-empty on an electric vehicle.

We’ve been using Tesla as our example here because to be honest, it’s the only pure electric mass-produced vehicle most enthusiasts would even consider owning. Nissan, GM, Fiat, and many others have offered their own all-electric models, but they tend to occupy the part of the market that is only concerned with efficiency. Nevertheless, they also have practical unrecharged ranges that are a fraction of comparably-sized gas-powered cars. Chemistry and physics both dictate just how much electric power can be stored on-board a practical car, and barring huge breakthroughs in battery technology, this will continue to be a primary challenge for the future of all-electric transportation.

Power to the People

The second major hurdle electric cars have to clear is the infrastructure required to recharge them. Utilities have built out their generation, transmission, and distribution networks without the additional load from car recharging in mind, and ‘time of use’ becomes a major issue. Electric power consumption from residential consumers peaks in the late afternoon and early evening, drops down overnight, then rises again during the day, while industrial demand is primarily concentrated during working hours. The grid is designed to cope with peak demand (hopefully – your experience may vary if you’re in California during the summer months) so the good news is that during off-peak times, there’s a considerable amount of additional capacity available for battery recharging. The bad news is that ‘green’ power doesn’t operate on a convenient schedule – wind happens when it happens, and solar output is dependent on time of day, the season, and weather.

The traditional approach to planning generation capacity is to have the ‘baseline’ load taken care of by relatively inexpensive, large-scale fossil fuel power plants that run constantly but can’t react quickly to changes in demand, supplemented by smaller plants that are less efficient and cost more per kilowatt-hour but that can be quickly brought on-line or shut down as needed. Nuclear power once promised ‘electricity too cheap to meter,’ but as we all know, the technology wasn’t exactly ready for prime time in terms of safety. Improvements to reactor designs have made proposed future nuclear plants safer for people and the environment than any other electric power source, including wind and solar if the complete life-cycle of the system from mining raw materials to decommissioning are considered, but the stigma attached is simply too great for massive new nuclear projects to be viable from a public acceptance standpoint.

So, the challenge is, “how do you charge all these electric cars without building a bunch of new fossil fuel plants or doubling the capacity of the transmission and distribution grid?” Big solar generation plants are one possible solution that takes advantage of the economies of scale offered by centralizing power production, but as was previously mentioned, solar doesn’t run on a convenient timetable. That means that, just like electric cars themselves, power storage becomes an issue. Battery storage on a massive scale appropriate for a power grid would be absurdly expensive and/or take up a huge amount of space, but “pumped storage” is one potential option.

The idea behind pumped storage is a lot like keeping a grandfather clock ticking by pulling weights up to the top, then letting them run the mechanism by slowly dropping down on their chains. During the day, solar energy is used to run pumps that fill a man-made reservoir on top of a hill, then when power is needed and the sun isn’t shining, the pumps run backwards as turbines to generate power by letting the water flow back down into the lower reservoir. Overall, the process isn’t very efficient, with the majority of the power supplied by the solar generation lost to friction, resistance and heat, but it has the advantage of being both very cheap compared to batteries and very easy to scale up, simply by digging bigger reservoirs.

…solar doesn’t run on a convenient timetable. That means that, just like electric cars themselves, power storage becomes an issue.

In the end, though, electric cars themselves may be the solution to the generation and storage problems they pose. Thanks in large part to government grants and tax credits to offset costs and outright building code requirements to include photovoltaic panels in new construction, businesses and homes are adding solar generation to their roofs at an increasing rate. In some sunbelt states, so much excess capacity is being added during daylight hours that electric utilities are now faced with having more power than they need being fed into the grid. More electric cars on the road would mean more batteries on wheels, parked during the day and ready to soak up that solar-generated electricity from a distributed network of roof-top solar panels at work and at home, but it will require a significant shift in the way we think about keeping our personal vehicles “topped up.”

Think “Phones” not “Cars”

We’re used to the idea that cars can be driven until the needle is on “E” and then quickly brought up to their full range capacity in just a few minutes at the pump. You can even see this in the way Tesla markets their vehicles, highlighting that the Model 3 can get up to 75 miles of additional range in just five minutes at one of their “Supercharger” stations, though normal charging to full battery capacity takes hours – 30 to 44 miles of range per hour on the typical home charger. Rapid charging is also inefficient and very hard on batteries, which last a lot longer when they’re charged and discharged at slower rates.

Without realizing it, though, Apple, Samsung, LG, HTC, and all the other phone manufacturers have been training the rest of us for a smooth transition into future electric car ownership…

But almost all of us carry around a battery powered device that has the same kind of charging quirks as a Tesla; smart phones like being slowly charged and discharged, and their batteries last longest when they never drop below 20% charge or rise above 80%. If you’re the kind of person who is perpetually at 10 percent charge on your iPhone, you are probably going to face the same kind of challenge keeping an electric car powered up. Without realizing it, though, Apple, Samsung, LG, HTC, and all the other phone manufacturers have been training the rest of us for a smooth transition into future electric car ownership, where we will apply the same methods of keeping our car battery charged – keep it plugged in whenever you’re not using it, and never pass up an opportunity to throw it on the charger for a few minutes.

The Future of High Performance

With these factors in mind, what does the future of “enthusiast” cars look like? Well, it’s a sure bet that for normal transportation needs, electric vehicles are going to take over the market despite their drawbacks. Fossil fuels are a finite resource, and whether ‘peak oil’ happens in ten years, or fifty, or a hundred and fifty, it will happen. There is no foreseeable end to the availability of fuel for internal combustion engines, though – even if the last drop of crude oil was pumped from the ground tomorrow, it’s still possible to synthesize gasoline and diesel from other sources, albeit in a very expensive way. For applications where the energy density of liquid fuels is important, like commercial aircraft, long-haul trucking, or military vehicles, there’s simply no viable electric alternative on the horizon, either.

The good news is that as more of the mundane duties of personal transportation are taken over by electric vehicles, demand for gasoline will drop, stretching out the availability of relatively inexpensive fuel. It’s likely that in the near future, the most popular form of car will be a plug-in hybrid like the ones available today that derives most of its day to day range from electric power drawn from the grid, with a small ICE power plant to act as a range-extender for trips that exceed the storage capacity of the on-board battery. Another option will be pure-electric vehicles that are designed with the ability to connect to a small trailer equipped with a generator and fuel tank; for daily driving you’ll rely on normal battery power, but if you want to go on a road trip to take the family to see your cousins three states away, you’ll be able to rent the range-extender tag-along so you can keep driving for as long as your bladder will allow. Either option will require the continued existence of an infrastructure to keep them fueled.

New internal-combustion-only cars will become rare, limited to niche markets and buyers with deep pockets, but with the proliferation of clean, primarily solar-powered electric cars taking the pressure off of fossil fuel consumption and limiting the ecological impact of personal vehicles, there will be room for hobbyists and racers to maintain, build, and drive cars with combustion engines, and do it guilt-free.

Changes to the way we get from point A to point B day to day are inevitable; while the timeline is up for debate, the switch to electric cars is going to happen. Fortunately, it’s not necessarily a disaster for car enthusiasts. It will just take some adjustment, and some sound public policy that acknowledges the fact that gearheads want a better future too, and can keep their passion alive while still achieving that goal.

Spray to Play

Nitrous and the N2O Need-to-Know

Call it spray, squeeze, juice, the bottle, or simply “naws” – nitrous oxide is one of the high performance world’s most popular power-adders, as well as being the most misunderstood. Because it’s easy to conceal a nitrous oxide injection setup, many consider it to be ‘cheating.’ Because it’s easy to give an engine more than it can safely handle, many consider it dangerous to your car’s health. Today, we’re going to take a quick look at how it works, bust a few myths, and tell you what you need to know about N₂O.

Nitrous oxide is a chemical compound consisting of two nitrogen atoms bound to a single oxygen atom. First synthesized in 1772 by Joseph Priestly (who was the guy who arguably was the first chemist to discover and isolate oxygen), by the mid-1800s its effects on human consciousness had led to its use as both an anesthetic for medical purposes and a party drug, both of which continue to this day.

It took another century for its usefulness as a power-adder for piston engines to be widely recognized; during the Second World War, many Luftwaffe fighter aircraft were fitted with what was referred to as the GM-1 system of nitrous oxide injection that greatly improved engine performance at very high altitude. Post-war hot rodders in the US made sporadic use of the gas, but in the late 1970s, the aptly-named Nitrous Oxide Systems (or NOS) company popularized it by producing the first widely-available kits and components that made it relatively easy to use without an engineering degree.

How Nitrous Works

People will often say that an engine is “like an air pump” – while that analogy is useful to a point, a better analogy would be a forge. Pump more air into the forge with bellows, and the fire gets hotter and more intense. The energy an engine can produce is directly related to how much fuel it can efficiently burn, and in order to create more horsepower, you have to burn more fuel, more quickly. In a high-performance naturally-aspirated engine, multi-valve cylinder heads and high RPM do the job of rapidly combining fuel and air into a mixture that can be ignited and turned into pressure to move the pistons. In a turbocharged or supercharged engine, a mechanical compressor forces additional air into the cylinders for every combustion cycle, and the additional air allows more fuel to be burned and converted into useful work.

In an engine with nitrous oxide injection, instead of increasing the rate of combustion events per second, or forcing more outside air into each one of those events, the composition of the intake air gets changed. The normal air we breathe is about 21 percent oxygen, give or take, while nitrous oxide brings one oxygen atom to the party for every two nitrogen atoms – about a 12 percent increase in the oxidizer available to burn more fuel.

“Why not just use pure oxygen instead?” you might ask. The answer is that nitrous oxide has another trick up its sleeve. Because it takes energy in the form of heat to decompose it into nitrogen and oxygen molecules, using N₂O as an oxidizer has a ‘buffering’ effect. At around 1,050 degrees F inside the combustion chamber, the oxygen is liberated, but not before absorbing some of the heat of combustion to power the reaction, slowing and controlling it. Pure oxygen fed into an engine will cause something more like an explosion than a controlled flame, but nitrous oxide is well-suited to the task of burning more fuel, without an uncontrolled reaction.

Nitrous oxide also has the benefit of cooling the ‘normal’ intake air charge as well. Stored as a liquid under pressure, when it’s released into the intake tract it flashes to a gaseous state, and the energy required for this phase change super-cools the air around it. This increases the density of the intake charge, delivering more air to mix with the available fuel and further adding potential power.

Nitrous System Terminology and Technology

There are two basic kinds of nitrous oxide systems: “dry” and “wet”. Dry systems only add nitrous oxide to the intake charge, while wet systems provide both N₂O and additional fuel. Dry systems were developed first, and relied on carburetors or mechanical fuel injection calibrated to run very rich when the system wasn’t in operation, so they wouldn’t be dangerously lean when the nitrous began to flow. Modern dry systems are a different story – they’re typically connected to an electronic fuel injection system that can provide the desired amount of additional fuel on command upon activation.

Wet systems are designed in a way so that when the system is activated, a calibrated dose of both fuel and nitrous oxide is delivered to the intake airflow at the same time. Both types of systems can introduce nitrous or the nitrous/fuel mix at a single point in the intake plenum, through a plate with spray bars or slots, or via individual nozzles located in each cylinder’s intake runner.

Nitrous oxide is stored in a self-pressurizing tank, with a capacity measured by the weight of its contents – ten and fifteen pound tanks are the most common. The tank is partially filled with nitrous oxide that is in a liquid state, topped by nitrous oxide gas. A siphon tube extends down to the bottom of the tank and leads to a valve that supplies the system. The pressure in the tank is determined by its temperature, and as nitrous flows out, some of the remaining liquid “boils off” inside the tank. To maintain temperature, a thermostatically-controlled electric heater can be used; sometimes you will see racers use a propane torch to heat a bottle, but this is an extremely dangerous practice as it can lead to weak spots in the tank that may not cause it to blow up on the spot, but that can lead to it catastrophically failing in the future when it is being refilled.

Nitrous flows from the valve up to the engine bay, where a solenoid (an electrically-operated on/off valve) controls the activation of the system. Wet nitrous setups will have a solenoid to control the flow of additional fuel as well, which is activated by the same circuit as the nitrous solenoid. One popular addition to the nitrous plumbing is a “purge solenoid” located adjacent to the main nitrous solenoid – by momentarily opening it, gaseous nitrous oxide is purged from the supply line and liquid is brought all the way up to the main solenoid, so that when the system is first activated it won’t briefly run rich.

Past the solenoids, the nitrous (and fuel in a wet system) proceeds to the plate or nozzle where it will be injected into the engine. At the connection to the plate or nozzle, a ‘jet’ is inserted inline to regulate the flow. Jets are made from brass, stainless steel, or other similarly durable materials and have small, very precise holes drilled through them. These orifices, measured in thousandths of an inch in diameter, are used to calibrate the oxidizer and fuel mixture. System manufacturers provide charts that explain, “With this nitrous jet, and this fuel jet, your engine will produce this much extra horsepower.”

It’s worth noting that the horsepower provided by a particular jet combination is constant, whether the engine is a 1.6 liter 4-cylinder or a 500 cubic inch big block V8, and it’s not dependent on engine RPM either. “100-shot” jetting is going to be very, very hard on a small four-banger, but is usually going to be OK with a large displacement eight cylinder engine. Even the V8 is going to have a hard time digesting that much fuel and nitrous below 2,000 RPM, though, because there aren’t going to be very many combustion cycles per second to safely burn all that extra fuel.

To increase the safety of a nitrous system, it’s possible (and advisable) to include components like a ‘window switch’ that will prevent the system from operating below or above preset RPM limits, a fuel pressure switch that shuts things down before the engine runs too lean, and even sophisticated progressive and multi-stage controllers that can pulse the solenoids many times per second instead of leaving them wide open as well as actively reducing ignition timing to prevent detonation. This allows the user to create a customized power delivery curve for the nitrous assist instead of it being a simple on/off proposition. But all of that aside, the most important advice to a would-be nitrous oxide user is “don’t be greedy – follow the manufacturer’s recommendations.”

Because it’s so easy to switch jets in a nitrous system (sometimes known as ‘pill it till you kill it’), the temptation is always to step things up and see what happens. But when used as directed, nitrous oxide is a safe, inexpensive, and effective way to significantly increase the performance of almost any engine.

Benton Performance: From the Ashes

In early November 2019, a perfect storm of a vehicle fire on an adjacent lot, a tank of stored diesel that collapsed and fed the flames, and California’s unpredictably predictable winds ravaged one of the world’s premiere vintage Porsche restoration and repair shops. Four months later, John Benton is ready to open his doors once more. Here’s what it took to go from disaster to a new beginning.

“The ambient temperature in the voids was 2,200 degrees. It reduced a Bridgeport mill to scrap. It made cast iron give up. It was pretty intense heat.”John Benton

By now, you may have heard the story of how an out-of-control late night fire fanned by 40+ mile per hour winds consumed a major portion of Benton Performance in Anaheim, California. For more than 35 years, John Benton and his crew have been repairing, restoring, stockpiling original parts for, and otherwise loving air-cooled Porsches. While the disaster didn’t claim all of Benton’s property, it hit his inventory particularly hard.

“There was nothing that was salvageable,” Benton explains. “The ambient temperature in the voids was 2,200 degrees. It reduced a Bridgeport mill to scrap. It made cast iron give up. It was pretty intense heat. When you have a steel building with magnesium as the main energy source going off, and 40 mile per hour winds going through it, it’s a convection oven. Every steel beam in the frame of the building was sagging. All the tension cables were sagging.”

Before even a rough estimate of the damage could be made, the remains of the buildings had to be inspected and made safe for people to enter. Then the hard work began.

Per Benton, “Once we emptied the building, then we began cleaning, and it was a mess. We looked like coal miners. Then we had to disassemble the building, filling these 20-yard roll-offs with steel and debris. I was running a cutting torch, and I haven’t done that work since I was a young man, but I’ve done it, so it was just a matter of relying on muscle memory and telling the guys, ‘cut here, cut there, let’s get this into pieces’ and little by little we did it.”

“I don’t ever anticipate accumulating $2 million of new old stock stuff again, because I’m never going to find that stuff.”

“Finally, we had a concrete pad, and then it started raining! I was undeterred, though,” he continues. “The next challenge was getting the residue out of the concrete because we knew we were going to have an open pad, since it wasn’t going to be hidden beneath flooring. It had taken some damage, and it was pretty scored in spots, so I rented a core cutter and a jackhammer and cut out the one big section that was damaged, then side drilled, laid rebar, and poured new concrete. Once that was done, we got the three 20 foot containers delivered, and started building a perimeter wall with a gate. So now we have this beautiful facade that opens up into a courtyard with our three big containers.”

Those containers are where Benton Performance’s inventory will reside now, though it will only be a shadow of what was on-hand before. “I don’t ever anticipate accumulating $2 million of new old stock stuff again, because I’m never going to find that stuff,” Benton admits. “I have procured a lot of choice parts over the years, and when we used them I would always go looking for more. I know where to find them, and I will get what I need to get, but I don’t anticipate stockpiling them ever again.”

Fortunately, Benton didn’t have to start from zero, and the relationships he’s built over the past four decades gave him a running start.

“I had some stuff at my house, and I had some stuff in a separate storage unit, but not much. I had my clean room here, so there were a lot of choice parts for builds that were taking place. But people in the community have been very, very nice and donated some startup parts. Jack [Diramarian] from Scientific [Motorcars] in Pasadena, had one of his guys come over in a pickup that was full of vintage 4-banger parts.

It’s not big stuff – it was parts that need some work, but we’re good at that. We got some head cores, and some case cores, rods, carburetors, manifolds – just stuff that will make an impact. If we can build one or two motors out of that, that gets us to the next place, and we go on from there,” he explains.

“We built this shop off of our people, and we have to keep the team intact.”John Benton

The term “human resources” is almost a punchline in the corporate world, but for small businesses like Benton Performance, the people who make things run are literally the most important asset.

“I have six guys who depend on this business for their livelihood, and they are the driving factor behind my decisions,” says Benton, with the pride evident in his voice. “We built this shop off of our people, and we have to keep the team intact. After a couple of days when it finally sunk in that we weren’t functional and it was just a debris field, everyone was kind of under a black cloud. So we all went out back, and I said look, every single one of you guys has come to me over the last five, ten, twelve years and said, I want this, I want that, how come we don’t have this? I want a list. I don’t care how long it is – I want to know. We will find a way. We might be dead in the water now, but we are going to do it right.”

But the favorite thing I did was hang a disco ball above bay 1 with four spotlights on it, because when I flip that switch on, it makes me smile.”John Benton

The result was a reborn business, designed with the input of all the key players to make it more efficient than the old layout, better for customers, and a more pleasant place to work.

Per Benton, “This has brought us together as a family on a whole ‘nother level – it’s something we will never forget. It looked like a bomb went off, and now, although the shop is smaller than it was, it’s going to be more efficient. Everyone worked very hard on ‘smoothing the corners’ and improving the flow.”

“We put in LED lighting. We fixed the AC in the back unit so there’s better air circulation back there. We took all the stuff we used for cleaning parts and moved it outside. We moved all the machine shop stuff inside, and made a compact and efficient area for machining and welding.

We moved carburetor and distributor repair to right outside the clean room where we build engines. We looked at the flow, and made sure it was what we wanted. We had limited space, so we built integrated custom shelving into the containers for parts storage to maximize that space. But the favorite thing I did was hang a disco ball above bay 1 with four spotlights on it, because when I flip that switch on, it makes me smile.”

“You have to find solutions, and not focus on what you don’t have. Learning that cost me so much time, money, and whiskey, you don’t even know. It was one of those things where I was thinking about all we had to do and I wasn’t sleeping well, and I was on Amazon buying exterior lighting, and as I am browsing, ‘disco ball’ comes up in the suggestions, and I thought, ‘yeah, I think I will have that.’” Benton explains. “Now I have a 12 inch disco ball – who doesn’t want one of those? So when we ‘officially’ reopen on the 28th, we are going to have a party.

Evolution: A History of Mitsubishi’s Ultimate Lancer

Though Mitsubishi’s current US product line has dwindled to a current state of just two crossovers and two sedans, there was a time when they loomed large in the tuner scene. Gathering momentum in the 1980s with a “Turbo all the things!” phase that led to the legendary 4G63 turbo powerplant, Mitsubishi went from strength to strength for the next two decades with cars that were on the cutting edge of technology and performance. A partnership with Chrysler led to the original DSM triplets, and when that relationship ended on a more or less amicable note, Mitsubishi built on their reputation in the American market with reliable, powerful, and desirable cars designed around the foundation established during those heady days. One of the major high points of Mitsubishi’s performance era was the long-running Evolution line of high-performance Lancer models, and we’re here today to take a look back on each generation from one to ten.

EVOLUTION I

Mitsubishi had twigged to the concept of an all-wheel-drive sedan with the Galant VR-4, which made its debut in 1988 in the platform’s sixth generation and continued through the eighth gen in 2002. Originally built as a homologation special for Group A rally competition, just over 3,000 would reach the US as 1991 and 1992 model year cars rated at 195 horsepower and 203 peak pound-feet of torque.

…in 1992 the first Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution models were introduced, carrying over the Galant VR-4 drivetrain.

While the Galant provided a toehold for Mitsubishi into WRC competition, it became clear that the smaller, lighter Lancer platform made more sense for race duty, and in 1992 the first Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution models were introduced, carrying over the Galant VR-4 drivetrain. The now-iconic 4G63 turbo inline four 2-liter engine was tuned to deliver 244 peak horsepower and 228 pound-feet of peak torque.

Two models were offered for public sale; the RS, which omitted convenience features like power windows and seats as well as anti-lock brakes (which would be disabled by those converting the cars to race duty anyway), and the more street-focused GSR. Another important difference was the rear differential – GSR models received a viscous coupling that progressively reduced slip between the rear axles in response to different rotational speed, while the RS came with a clutch-type limited slip differential (LSD) that became standard for future Evo RS models.

A look at vintage brochures from the era shows that it was quite common for Japanese domestic model new vehicles to be advertised and sold with inexpensive steel wheels and generic tires, as it was understood that buyers would immediately replace them with the aftermarket rolling stock they preferred, and the Evo I RS is no exception.

EVOLUTION II

For the 1994 model year, the Lancer Evolution got minor updates to its suspension and bodywork, as well as a bump in output from the 4G63 to 252 peak horsepower. Both the wheelbase and curb weight crept up by small increments, but for the most part things remained as they had been before, save for the substitution of a clutch LSD for the viscous unit across all Evo models.

EVOLUTION III

More meaningful changes for the Evolution came in early 1995 with the Evo III – though still based on the 5th gen Lancer platform, chassis stiffness was increased by a claimed 20 percent and functional changes to the bodywork improved the efficiency of brake cooling and airflow to the intercooler. The new Evo also received a redesigned rear wing incorporating a reshaped “wickerbill” trailing edge and new end plates, increasing downforce.

Most significant, though, were the changes to the 4G63 engine. The compression ratio was bumped up to 9.0:1, and the turbocharger gained a larger 68mm compressor wheel in place of the previous 60mm unit. Advertised horsepower rose to 266, and in order to homologate a new anti-lag system for competition use in Group A rally racing, production models gained a secondary air supply system that was inactive but still present.

EVOLUTION IV

With the introduction of the 6th generation Lancer platform for 1996, an all-new Evo model was developed as well. Though the turbocharged 4G63 was retained, the transverse engine layout was completely flipped, going from the clutch on the right side of the car and the timing belt and accessories mounted on the left to the exact opposite arrangement. Flow across the cylinder head remained the same relative to the engine bay; both the III and IV had the intake manifold next to the firewall, and the exhaust and turbo mounted to the front.

Also on the menu was a new twin-scroll turbocharger and more horsepower (276 ‘at the brochure’), but as before, the RS was more race-focused with a helical front limited slip differential and closer gear ratios in the manual 5-speed gearbox than the GSR. The Evo IV also received a very distinctive front clip with large, round fog lights that made it easily recognizable from its predecessors.

EVOLUTION V

Changes to the Evo continued at a furious pace; in 1997 the “World Rally Car” class was introduced to the competition rulebook, following Group A specs but dropping the homologation requirements, which influenced the design of the fifth-gen Evo that began production in 1998. Still based on gen six Lancer architecture, the new Evo’s bodywork was wider to accommodate additional wheel offset and an increased track width, along with larger-diameter 17 inch wheels and upgraded Brembo Brakes.

Higher-capacity fuel injectors, lighter low-drag “slipper” pistons, ECU hardware changes to allow flash tuning, and another revision to the turbo led to an increased official peak torque figure of 275 pound-feet (up from 261) for the 4G63, but quoted horsepower remained at 276, as this was the maximum Japanese manufacturers had agreed among themselves to admit to. This bit of fiction, referred to as the “gentlemen’s agreement,” had come about as an attempt to prevent a horsepower arms race on the one hand, and negative public sentiment from ‘overpowered’ cars being advertised on the other. In truth, all the gentlemen were sandbagging, and any car from this era quoted at 276 crank horsepower could be depended on to produce more (and sometimes MUCH more) straight off the showroom floor.

EVOLUTION VI

For the 1999 model year, the Evo received yet another bodywork revision – the enormous fog lights of the IV and V were downsized and moved farther apart to free up more real estate for brake and intercooler ducting, and a larger charge air cooler core as well as an upsized oil cooler were fitted. Quoted horsepower and torque remained the same, though the turbo received a titanium-aluminide turbine wheel in the RS model, reducing rotational inertia and thereby minimizing lag a tiny bit.

In addition to the stalwart RS and GSR models, the RS2 split the difference a bit by up-optioning with selected GSR bits, a limited-edition RS Sprint tuned by the UK Ralliart company was created with a marginally lower curb weight than the RS and a claimed (and probably accurate) 330 horsepower rating, and both RS and GSR Evo VI models were available in “Tommi Mäkinen Edition” trim with unique front bumpers, other cosmetic touches, lower ride height, and the RS’ exotic turbine wheel as standard equipment in the GSR as well.

This generation marked an important turning point for the Evo, as Mitsubishi dipped its toe into the international market with the Ralliart version – rather than being a strictly JDM car, the company would begin to directly court overseas buyers who had previously been limited to grey market imports.

EVOLUTION VII

The new millennium and a new seventh-gen Lancer platform begat another update to the Evo for 2001 – larger and heavier than the previous iterations, it was also more rigid with stronger sheetmetal and additional bracing, plus seam welding and additional spot welds in critical areas. Attention was paid to weight reduction in places where strength wasn’t critical, so the overall increase was less than 45 kilos.

The 4G63 powerplant received improved intake geometry in both the head and manifold, a bigger intercooler core and reduced exhaust backpressure, and a slightly smaller (and therefore faster-spooling) turbine housing, which pushed quoted peak torque up another 11 pound-feet to 283, but (you guessed it) horsepower stayed at a claimed 276. A sophisticated electric/hydraulic actuated multiplate clutch-type center differential replaced the previous viscous coupling, and the RS version got the computer-controlled Automatic Yaw Control that had previously been found in the GSR in place of a clutch LSD in the rear, as well as “sports ABS.”

For 2002 only, an automatic transmission equipped GSR-A model was available, which was intended as a distinctive and more-refined ‘Grand Touring’ Evo.

EVOLUTION VIII

For the 2003 model year, the big news for the Evo (at least for American fans, who had been lusting after the cars for years thanks to video games and a certain movie franchise utilizing them as ‘hero cars’) was that the car was finally coming to US showrooms. Spurred, in part, by the success Subaru was seeing with the USDM WRX, Mitsubishi went to the trouble and expense of “federalizing” the Evo VIII. Unfortunately, the Evo America got was in some ways watered-down, with an SAE-tested 271 horsepower from the detuned and emissions-compliant 4G63, and no active yaw control, among a plethora of other differences.

The RS and GSR models persisted, with JDM RS versions available with an optional 6-speed manual transmission and MR-spec versions of both with aluminum roof panels, cosmetic changes, and minor aero, interior, and functional upgrades. The 2005 MR GSR finally brought the 6MT option to US buyers, just in time for the generation to be replaced with the next.

Unfortunately, the Evo America got was in some ways watered-down…

EVOLUTION IX

Evolution number nine (with apologies to the Beatles) was first shown to the public in early 2005 as a 2006 model. Still built on the gen 7 Lancer platform, the polite fiction of the “gentlemen’s agreement” was finally dispensed with, and Mitsubishi announced crankshaft numbers of 287 horsepower and 289 pound-feet of torque from the mildly-reworked 4G63 thanks to an updated turbocharger and MIVEC variable valve timing on the intake camshaft.

In Japan, buyers had the choice of RS, GT, and GSR trim, with MR versions of the former and latter, while the GT split the difference between the stripped-down, race-ready configuration of the RS and the more street-oriented GSR. A relative handful of Evo IX wagons were sold in Japan as well, with the option of a GT-A automatic 5-speed transmission in place of the 6-speed manual in the GT and MR versions.

In the US, there was the standard-spec, the RS with an aluminum roof, radio delete, and stripper interior, the SE that featured aluminum hood, roof, and front fenders plus BBS wheels and other cosmetic distinctions, and the MR, which added a 6-speed manual transmission to the SE plus upgraded suspension dampers from Bilstein, special badging, and of course those distinctive MR “vortex generator” bumps above the back glass.

EVOLUTION X

The debut of the gen 8 Lancer also meant a new Evo, and, as it turned out, the end of the line for the model. Beginning production in late 2007, the final Evolution marked a radical change under the hood – gone was the tried and true 4G63, replaced by its successor across Mitsubishi’s product line, the 4B11. Once again nominally rated at 276 horsepower in the home market, in the US this new 2-liter turbo was advertised with 287 peak horses and 300 pound-feet at its introduction, a straight replacement for the outgoing engine, but with all-aluminum construction instead of the cast iron block topped by an alloy head that characterized the 4G63. The engine gained variable timing on both the intake and exhaust cams, and switched to a chain drive for the valvetrain instead of the previous belt. The new engine also moved to an “open deck” design to simplify production of the block, at the expense of losing a bit of the cylinder bore stability that made the previous powerplant capable of handling a truly irresponsible level of abuse.

In the US, the X received a 6-speed twin-clutch “Sportronic Shift Transmission” in MR trim, while GSR-spec cars retained the 5-speed manual. The Evolution got a fitting sendoff in 2015 with a Final Edition, uprated to 303 horsepower, but by the end the car was selling slowly in the US market, thanks in no small part to the $40k MSRP for a car that belonged to a better, bygone age of performance.

Today, it’s up for debate whether Mitsubishi has a future in the US personal vehicle market, and the existing slate of aggressively meh cars and crossovers in dealerships is a far cry from the glory days of the past. Still, nothing can dim the reputation of the Mitsubishi Evolution, which remained as an icon of high-tech performance across ten generations.

Happy Accidents:
Jay Roxas’ Mitsubishi Lancer EVO IX

We can’t control what life throws at us; we can only roll with the punches and make the most of what we’re given. Such is the case for Jay Roxas. If it wasn’t for some unplanned unpleasantness, the Mitsubishi Evo IX you see here might never have come to be.

Our story begins more than a decade ago, when Roxas first discovered his love for Mitsubishi’s rally-bred sedan. “Ever since the Mitsubishi Evo 8 came out, I’ve always wanted the car. It had always been my goal to get one,” he recalls. Finally, in 2011 he came across a 2006 model year Mitsubishi Evo 9, and decided to pull the trigger. He didn’t want to take a piecemeal approach, explaining, “I kept it stock for about five years because I was trying to save up enough money to do it the way I wanted all at once.”

“I took the [Evo IX] into the shop, and they were backed up and busy so it was going to take a while to fix, so I just said, ‘let’s do everything’…”Jay Roxas, Evo Owner

Call it fate, call it luck, call it karma, but everything happens for a reason, and in Jay’s case, a chance encounter with an irresponsible driver was the signal from the universe that it was time for the Evo to evolve. “I was actually in a hit and run, where a lady hit me from behind, and she tried to run away!” he recalls. “We chased her for like four miles, and it turned out she didn’t have insurance, didn’t have registration, and she had two kids in the car. It didn’t even have plates!”

Police got involved, justice was served, but Jay’s Evo was still in need of repair, and a decision had to be made. “I took the car into the shop, and they were backed up and busy so it was going to take a while to fix, so I just said, ‘let’s do everything’,” he recalls. “Everything” started with body mods from Voltex, from the front bumper to the widebody fenders and over-fenders to the quarter panels and side skirts. VIS supplied the carbon fiber hood and trunk, and the whole car received a custom Melbourne Red Metallic respray, based on the BMW factory color.

“…it’s not going to sit in the garage. I spent too much money on it for me to just look at it…”

“It has a full custom diffuser, and I had a custom front splitter made because I wanted something stronger than carbon fiber that wouldn’t get beat, because I am going to drive the car – it’s not going to sit in the garage. I spent too much money on it for me to just look at it,” Jay explains. The custom touches are an intentional nod to function as well as individuality. Per Jay, “If that accident didn’t happen, my car would probably still be stock right now. If I had to do it over again without that, the car would probably be full Voltex – everything, wing, diffuser, the whole body. But in that process, I realized I wanted to put my own twist on it instead of just copying what had already been done.”

The Mitsubishi Evo IX rides on Tanabe Sustec Pro coilovers set up by Chewerks in California’s City of Industry, and is shod with Milestar 265/35R18 XP+ ultra-high performance all-season tires on all four corners. The tires are engineered to deliver exceptional handling in dry and wet conditions, as befits a rally-bred chassis tamed for the street. This is an Evo that gets driven, so having a tire that balances tread wear, dry performance, and wet grip was a critical part of the equation.

Though the 4G63 long block and factory turbo remain stock, Jay’s Evo has received a full slate of well-thought-out bolt on upgrades for additional power, including an ETS front mount intercooler and piping, a full Tomei exhaust downstream of the turbine, and a KTM 3-port boost controller. With a dual map E85 or 91 octane tune by KT Motoring, the setup is geared for a max 25 PSI boost.

“The last time I had it on the dyno, it did 400 to the wheels, give or take, and for the track the way I use it, that’s all you really need,” Jay says. “If I want to push more than that, well, I will wait for the engine to give out and then do a full build.” In the meantime, Jay has a ride he can enjoy every time he turns the key. “In the past year, I’ve been going to nursing school, so I told myself that I have to hold off on what I do with the car,” he admits. “I don’t get to take it to the track like I did, and I will go to shows once in a while, but that’s about it. This is kind of the boring part, until I finish school.”

Though it sounds humble, Jay understands and appreciates what he has. “I want to focus on what’s important. The car is nice, but it isn’t my top priority. Where the car has taken me now, never was in my plan. For people to actually recognize it? Never in my plan. I wanted an Evo to track. I never thought I would be taking it to shows, and that people would invite me to bring it. I feel like it hasn’t even sunk in that people would do that.”

This 1961 Chevrolet Impala Is Effortlessly Graceful

One of the things that distinguishes true craftsmanship is making perfection look easy – long hours spent behind the scenes to ensure every element of your work is flawless, but all the outside world sees is a masterpiece that demonstrates a subconscious flow that just seems right. Such is this 1961 Chevrolet Impala, built by Hill’s Rod and Custom.

For the 1961 model year, Chevy did a complete rework of the Impala, which had made its debut in 1958 as a top-of-the-line Bel Air. Just one year later, the second generation Impala became its own series, and in 1961 the third gen Impala received yet another complete redesign. The most visually striking aspect for the ‘61 was the “bubbletop” roof line, which replaced the preceding Impala’s substantial C-pillar with graceful, arching sheetmetal that was far less obtrusive. The 1962 model returned to a more conventional rear roofline and backlight, making the ‘61 visually unique among its siblings from the early Sixties.

Over the years, the bubbletop Impala’s popularity has never faded – among the many designs produced by the Big Three during the early muscle car era, the 1961 Chevrolet Impala’s visual language never really fell out of fashion. It managed to thread the needle between ‘forgettable’ at one end of the spectrum and ‘over-the-top’ at the other, earning a place as a timeless classic. When a car like that comes into one’s possession, the challenge is to respect the design while still having something new to say, and our feature car is a perfect example of how that can be achieved.

Curt Hill, proprietor of Hill’s Rod and Custom, was the right man for the job. When Dave and Jodi Matarazzo entrusted their Impala to him for this build, it was a work-in-progress, but to get it to where it needed to be, some backtracking was necessary. “It was a roller with a custom frame already built, and we went ahead and did the motor, the exhaust, the air suspension, the wheelwells and everything involved in the engine bay,” Hill recalls. “We took it from a car that was supposedly ready for paint (but wasn’t even close) to finishing it up and getting it done.”

“Part of it was that before we started, we had to knock all the Bondo off the car!”Curt Hill, Hill's Rod and Custom

As it turned out, that process became more extensive than was first anticipated, but the Matarazzos were committed to doing things right. Per Hill, “Dave had a really good eye for color, and to how he wanted things done, so he definitely had a vision of how he wanted it to turn out.” The hue you see on the finished car is just as specific as all the other details. “It’s a custom color. Jodi had seen something similar on another car and really liked it, so we were working off of a picture and refined it from there,” Hill adds. But before the first hit of primer could be applied, the “ready for paint” sheetmetal needed a considerable amount of TLC.

“Part of it was that before we started, we had to knock all the Bondo off the car!” Hill recalls with a chuckle in his voice. While they were at it, Hill and his crew fabricated the incredibly clean engine bay to showcase the modern LS3 crate engine like a fine piece of jewelry in a velvet box, and the suspension setup was refined via Ridetech ShockWave air springs and shocks controlled via Accuair ride height sensors.

To handle the horsepower of the 4L60E-backed LS3 and make the most of the suspension precision offered by the custom chassis, air springs, and dampers, modern low-profile radial tires were a must, and Milestar XP+ ultra-high performance all-season rubber in 20-inch diameter was chosen. With a tread compound formulated to remain pliable across a wide temperature range, an all-season asymmetric design with wide circumferential ribs, large shoulder tread blocks, and an inside tread pattern optimized for wet and winter traction, the XP+ was an ideal match for a car destined to be driven, not just admired for its good looks.

Once everything was straight, mechanically sorted, and body-filler-free, Valley Custom Powder Coat was turned loose on the chassis, the shiny bits went off to Sherm’s Plating, Plant Interior got to work on the upholstery and other passenger compartment details, and Altissimo Restoration was finally able to lay down color and clear. “I’m proud of how the engine bay turned out, and the stance on the car is just right,” Hill attests. “We tried really hard to achieve an overall look where it’s definitely a custom car, but everything really flows together, and nothing seems out of place.”

“It was a long build,” Hill admits. “Start to finish, it was probably two and a half years total. It spent eight months in the paint shop, and like two and a half for the interior.” It’s hard to argue with the results, though, and in the end, Dave and Jodi Matarazzo have a Chevy that’s a unique expression of their own personal taste and class.

Exhaust 101

Everything You Need to Know About Exhaust

One of the most popular upgrades for any performance vehicle, from V8 Mustangs, Camaros, and Challengers through pickups and SUVs to “tuner” turbo cars is an aftermarket exhaust. Considering how common it is for owners to discard the factory pipes in favor of something different, we’re going to take a look (and listen) to the basics of exhaust systems from start to finish to highlight what you need to know. Whether you are looking for more horsepower, a better sound, or both, your bank balance and your neighbors will thank you for educating yourself before you strap on a new aftermarket exhaust. 

An exhaust system has to achieve a few primary functions – First (and most importantly from a performance standpoint), it has to efficiently move spent gasses away from the combustion chamber to allow room for a fresh charge of air and fuel to enter for the next power cycle. Second, it has to move those gasses to someplace that won’t dump a lot of waste heat in the engine compartment (Fun Fact: 40% or more of the heat generated during a car engine’s operation ends up going out through the exhaust) or asphyxiate the driver and passengers. Third, except for pure competition applications, it has to moderate the volume and sound quality of the exhaust noise. Finally, in modern OEM applications, it has to incorporate emission control systems to reduce the amount of pollutants released by the exhaust.

Understanding these functions is the key to understanding why factory exhaust systems are built the way they are, and knowing what the tradeoffs involved in modifying your exhaust will be. Let’s follow the path of a puff of exhaust from the cylinder to the tailpipe to see how all the components involved contribute to the process.

When the exhaust valve opens, hot, energetic, pressurized, but diffuse waste gas exits the cylinder and travels through the exhaust port and out of the cylinder head. Each cylinder has its own port, and those outlets are connected to each other by a manifold. In most OEM designs that manifold is made out of cast iron, which is a good choice for durability and keeping the overall size of the engine package small, but it can come with a performance penalty. To keep things compact, the manifold may have runners for each individual cylinder that are different lengths or even different diameters, and this offers performance part makers their first opportunity to find a few extra horsepower.

Current state-of-the-art engine designs often make things difficult for anyone trying to build performance headers…

A manifold made of tubular steel, referred to as a header, is a common performance upgrade. Individual runners, called “primary tubes”, carry exhaust gasses to a collector where the output of several cylinders combines into a single stream. The collector does a couple of things besides just simplifying the plumbing from that point on – it reflects pressure waves along the primary tubes back to the cylinder head, and it lets each cylinder “talk” to each other. By carefully designing the length of the primary tubes and the volume of the collector, a good header can actually flow more efficiently than an exhaust port that’s open to the outside world by letting the waves of high and low pressure work together from cylinder to cylinder to actively scavenge exhaust gas in the engine’s main operating RPM range. 

Current state-of-the-art engine designs often make things difficult for anyone trying to build performance headers; because of ever-increasing emissions standards, it’s very common to have a catalytic converter built into the factory exhaust manifold so that it gets up to operating temperature as quickly as possible to reduce the amount of pollution during a cold start. Some engine designs even combine all the exhaust runners into the cylinder head itself, eliminating the manifold entirely. And in the case of turbocharged engines, the cast exhaust manifold is usually (but not always) also the mounting point for the turbo. All of these factors will determine whether a performance header is a worthwhile upgrade, or indeed even an engineering possibility, for your particular application. 

Speaking of turbos, you’ll frequently see a component called the downpipe listed as a performance upgrade. This particular piece of exhaust plumbing connects the outlet of the turbine section to the down-stream parts of the system, and in some factory engine designs it’s a well-known bottleneck for exhaust flow. Turbochargers like having as little restriction at the outlet of the turbine as possible; this is what lets them extract energy from the exhaust and use it to spin the compressor on the intake side. A well-designed aftermarket downpipe can increase horsepower throughout the RPM range as well as reducing boost lag. 

For both forced-induction and naturally-aspirated OEM engines, the next stop is usually the main catalytic converter(s). In V6 and V8 RWD cars, they’re often incorporated into an X-, H-, or Y-pipe, while inline engines with a single header have a simple section of exhaust pipe that incorporates this emission control device. Back when catalytic converters first became necessary in order to meet tailpipe pollution standards, they posed a serious obstacle to performance, causing a major restriction to exhaust flow that the engine had to fight. Today, both factory and aftermarket catalysts take a very minimal toll on horsepower, and depending on how aggressively emissions laws are enforced in your neck of the woods, removing or defeating them can be very expensive if you happen to get caught. Ultimately it’s between you and your conscience if you decide to roll the dice, but the performance penalty for a catalyst-equipped exhaust is much lower than it was back in the day.

You’ll often see variations on the term “cat-back” in aftermarket exhaust descriptions – this usually means the system has no effect on emission controls and is legit in all 50 states (at least from a pollution perspective). Factory exhausts need to meet specific sound level limits, as well as being durable enough to not wear out during the car’s warranty period even in salt-encrusted rust belt states, while being as inexpensive as possible. A good aftermarket cat-back system will offer superior materials and construction – typically stainless steel – while being lighter than the OEM exhaust, and if it’s particularly well designed (and the factory system is particularly bad) it may even increase horsepower and torque. 

Mufflers use a variety of different engineering approaches to reducing and changing the sound of the exhaust. Solid or perforated baffles inside the muffler body can be used to suppress specific frequencies by reflecting sound waves back on themselves, and packing materials like fiberglass are sometimes employed to absorb sound energy, though if the muffler is poorly designed, they can get compressed or even blown out over time, compromising the effectiveness of the system. Mufflers with a “straight through” design typically give less flow restriction at the expense of less sound reduction than designs that force the exhaust to change direction or travel through multiple internal chambers. Even the overall size of the muffler plays a role in how it sounds – more internal volume gives the designer more opportunity to modify overall noise levels and tune out unwanted frequencies. 

Of course, the main reason to replace the factory resonator and muffler system is to get an exhaust note that you like better than stock, and this comes down to personal taste. The only advice we can give you in this respect is, if it’s in any way possible, find somebody who already has the cat-back aftermarket exhaust you are considering and listen to it in person. Video and audio clips on the internet are better than nothing, but they are no substitute for hearing it yourself. It’s also important to ask yourself if it’s something you can live with all the time if it’s your daily driver, and if your need to flex on everybody who pulls up next to you at a stoplight is worth your neighbors actively hating your guts. A good exhaust system is music to your ears, but there are plenty of people out there who have hung new pipes on their car but secretly wish they’d picked something else, no matter how much they tell their friends it’s exactly what they wanted it to sound like. 

The bottom line is that your exhaust system is one of the first things people will notice about your car, and one of the last things you want to get wrong. Make sure you educate yourself, get input from other people who have done the upgrades you’re considering, and be realistic about how much of a performance increase you can expect and how much additional noise you’re willing to live with to get it.

Rally Legend:
Subaru Tecnica International (STi) History

Among Japanese car manufacturers, Subaru has always had the reputation for building quirky cars that defied mainstream thinking, but they’ve also led the way to many innovations that have become commonplace today. Sure, there have been plenty of weird and wonderful Subies like their first “sporty” car, the XT, the Brat, the SVX, and the Baja. But they were also the manufacturer who brought full-time all-wheel-drive to the masses, and they more or less invented the “crossover” market with the Outback (with apologies to the 1979-1987 AMC Eagle, which was as far ahead of its time as the 1957 Ford Fairlane 500 Skyliner with its retractable hardtop.)

Today, Subaru’s split personality can still be seen in their product lineup, dominated by CUV variations but also including a select few performance models, topped by the new S209 STI. To understand how we got to today’s Subaru Tecnica International, we need to hop in the Wayback Machine and take a journey to the fabulous Disco era, and the revolution brewing in rally competition.

HUMBLE BEGINNINGS

The current Subaru corporation can trace its carmaking roots back to tumultuous post-war 1950s Japan, and even further still to the Nakajima Aircraft Company of the inter-war period, creator of the B5N “Kate” torpedo bomber that was the mainstay of the Imperial Japanese Navy’s carrier strike groups during World War II. After the Allied victory, Nakajima was reorganized into Fuji Sangyo, Ltd. and then subdivided into a dozen smaller companies in 1950 as part of the Japanese government’s efforts to break the influence of powerful business interests known as Zaibatsu. In the swirling environment of rebuilding the country’s manufacturing infrastructure basically from scratch, several of the twelve business entities came back together to create Fuji Heavy Industries in the mid-fifties and started working on plans to build the kinds of small cars that had begun to supplant scooters and bicycles in the Japanese market as buyers became more affluent.

The car most familiar to Americans from this period has to be the 360, Subaru’s first model to be produced in substantial numbers. Falling within the “Kei car” regulations for smaller vehicles taxed at a lower rate in its home market, the 360 was imported to the US to the tune of about 10,000 units total by the ahead-of-his-time entrepreneurial genius / con-man (depending on who’s telling the story) Malcolm Bricklin, laying the foundation for today’s Subaru of America. Advertised as “Cheap and Ugly,” the 360 was powered by a 2-cylinder 2-stroke 356cc engine and had a curb weight of fewer than 1,000 pounds empty. When Brickin and SOA were unable to sell all the 360s brought into the ‘States, even at the bargain price of $1,300 new in 1968, he attempted to make lemonade out of the situation with a franchise scheme called “FasTrack” that combined RV sales with autocross-style parking lot racing of the 900 or so leftover cars that couldn’t find buyers. As you might imagine, this was not a wildly successful venture and quickly became nothing more than a footnote to Subaru’s racing history.

AN AGENT OF CHANGE

In 1968, Japan’s government-mandated a partnership between Fuji Heavy Industries and Nissan, with the latter taking a 20 percent stake in the former under a plan to make the country’s auto manufacturing sector more competitive internationally. After this merger, Subaru began making inroads into the US market, including the creation of the cult favorite Brat in 1978. The Legacy would follow in 1989, along with the Impreza, which was introduced in 1993. When Nissan was gobbled up by the Renault group just before the turn of the century, their piece of Fuji Heavy Industries was sold off to General Motors, leading to the weirdness of the badge-engineered Saab 9-2X, a mildly restyled Impreza. By 2005, GM had sold off their chunk of FHI, with a fraction going to Toyota, who later invested more capital to gain an overall 16.5% stake in the company. That intermarriage led to projects like the “Subieyota” BRZ/FR-S/Toyota 86 that we know today.

Against this backdrop of ownership changes, Subaru was making moves to break out from the “Cheap and Ugly” mold, and in the late 80s, one of the best ways for an automobile manufacturer to show off their chops was in the blossoming world of international rally competition. As early as 1980, Subaru had campaigned Leone coupes in the WRC, and while Audi is often seen as the pioneer in AWD performance with their seminal Quattro, Subaru was right there in the fight with their AWD competition models. In 1988, Subaru Tecnica International was founded to consolidate the company’s motorsports efforts under a single organization, and the new Legacy platform was drafted into competition service.

With the introduction of the Impreza for 1992, STi (the lower case “i” would be ditched in favor of capitalization in 2006) had a smaller, more nimble car as a starting point for their factory-backed rally efforts. In cooperation with the UK-based Prodrive motorsports company began to develop “World Rally eXperimental” (WRX) versions of the Impreza, first for competition and homologation, subsequently expanding to become a more broadly-based performance designation, much like Nissan had done with the NISMO moniker.

BIRTH OF A LEGEND

The original GC8A WRX, which was introduced in the waning months of 1992, featured power from a 237-horsepower turbocharged 2-liter version of Subaru’s then-new EJ engine, a flat-four design that followed in the footsteps of the previous EA design that dated back to the mid-1960s. The horizontally-opposed four-cylinder layout, while somewhat more expensive to manufacture than a typical inline-four, offers the advantages of being short front-to-back, allowing a longitudinal instead of transverse crankshaft layout even when coupled to an all-wheel-drive transaxle, and it also has a very low center of gravity compared to inline designs.

Though there was no official STi version of the GC8A, the WRX Type RA was offered as the starting point for competition modification, with deleted comfort and convenience features like air conditioning, power windows, and soundproofing. All WRX models at the time featured viscous coupling differentials in the center and rear, and the RA added a close-ratio manual gearbox to the mix.

…cars destined for 22B status received bodywork modification, a Bilstein suspension package, larger wheels and tires, STi brakes, and other modifications, creating the iconic “classic” WRX STi.

The following CG8B, which debuted for the 1994 model year, was the first WRX available with an official STi designation. The engine’s output was uprated from the standard 237 horsepower to an advertised 247 in the STi models, and an STi RA version, also stripped of components not needed for competition cars, delivered 271 horsepower “at the brochure” and substituted an electronically-controlled center differential that could be manually locked by the driver in place of the standard viscous coupling.

Fast on the heels of the 8B was the CG8C for 1995, bumping power in the WRX model to 256 ponies and 271 for the STi, and many different special versions were produced including Prodrive-prepped “Series McRae” cars for the UK market, and V-Limited editions for Japanese sales. The 8C model was superseded by the GC8D at the end of 1996 for the following model year with updated styling, 276 horsepower from the EJ20 in both the ‘standard’ WRX and STi models (likely a conservative number to stay under the ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ among Japanese manufacturers to not advertise any streetcar with more than 280PS), and a coupe version. The following CG8B, which debuted for the 1994 model year, was the first WRX available with an official STi designation. The engine’s output was uprated from the standard 237 horsepower to an advertised 247 in the STi models, and an STi RA version, also stripped of components not needed for competition cars, delivered 271 horsepower “at the brochure” and substituted an electronically-controlled center differential that could be manually locked by the driver in place of the standard viscous coupling.

More detailed changes followed for the GC8E for the 1998 model year, but the big news for enthusiasts was the extremely limited production (less than 450 total, primarily for the Japanese domestic market) of 22B STi. This version featured a distinctive wide-body fender fitment and the EJ22 engine, overbored to a 2.2-liter displacement but still nominally rated at 276 horsepower, though in reality producing substantially more. Starting with production line WRX Type R chassis, cars destined for 22B status received bodywork modification, a Bilstein suspension package, larger wheels and tires, STi brakes, and other modifications, creating the iconic “classic” WRX STi.

The highlight was the 2000 WRX STi S201 – limited to just 300 units, it had the entire STi parts bin thrown at it…

The GC8F and 8G rounded out the end of first-gen WRX production in 1999 and 2000, respectively, carrying over the majority of the previous design with minor detail changes and numerous special/limited editions. The highlight was the 2000 WRX STi S201 – limited to just 300 units, it had the entire STi parts bin thrown at it and a rated output of 305PS (300 horsepower, give or take a pony).

COMING TO AMERICA

For the 2001 model year, the Impreza received a complete makeover – the coupe version would no longer be available, but most notably, the car was given “New Age” styling (uncharitably referred to as “bug-eye” by many enthusiasts). In 2002, the WRX finally made it to US shores with a 227 horsepower turbo EJ20 powerplant. The “blob-eye” nose replaced the original styling of the GD platform in America for the 2004 model year, but more importantly, US buyers finally got access to an STi version of the WRX. Spurred by market competition from the 271 horsepower Mitsubishi Evo, Subaru gave stateside STi models a 300 horsepower EJ25 heart transplant, along with a larger scoop for the top-mount charge cooler and a Driver Controlled Center Differential that allowed manual selection of front to rear torque distribution from 50/50 to the automatic mode’s 35/65 split. The chassis received additional bracing, forged 17 inch BBS wheels were standard, and Brembo brakes went on all four corners.

2006 brought another facelift for the GD in US showrooms, with the “hawk-eye” front end making its debut. More importantly, though, motivation for the base USDM WRX was upgraded via substitution of the larger-displacement EJ25 in place of the EJ20, bumping horsepower just a bit to 230 but raising and broadening the torque curve. Upgraded brakes with four-piston front calipers, aluminum front suspension links, and 17-inch wheels became standard for the WRX as well. In 2007, a slew of minor changes (besides the “I” in STI getting promoted to upper case) was made to the top Impreza model, including suspension revisions (some of which were prompted by a desire to cut costs), taller second, third, and fourth gears, and a switch to a Torsen rear differential. An 800-unit run of the STI Limited model added some cosmetic touches to the exterior and leather upholstery.

The third-generation Impreza, introduced in the spring of 2007 for the 2008 model year, offered the STI model to US consumers exclusively in a five-door “mini-wagon” body style – sedan and coupe fans were out of luck. Five more horsepower was squeezed out of the turbo flat-four, for a total of 305, and some of the “boy racer” styling cues like the enormous hood scoop and wing of the previous version were toned down. Brembo brakes were again standard, along with 18-inch wheels, a helical limited-slip differential up front and a Torsen LSD in back, and the latest DCCD in the middle with three automatic and six manual modes to tailor torque delivery between them.

The “base” WRX received an upgrade in power to a rated 265 horses for 2009, while the STI model remained unchanged, save for minor details. The status quo remained through the 2010 and 2011 model years, and the STI kept pace with its perennial rival, the Mitsubishi Lancer Evo X. In 2012, a fourth generation Impreza was unveiled, but the WRX and STI lingered on, still based on third-gen architecture. Power for the STI remained the same, but a sedan version joined the 5-door body style to the joy of those who had missed the notch-back look. Much like Toyota had done decades earlier by splitting the Supra from its Celica roots into a model line of its own, Subaru had signaled that the WRX and STI would become distinct from the lesser Impreza lineup.

SEPARATE PATHS

The WRX and STI got their belated update for the 2015 model year, and while the “basic” WRX got another small bump in power with a switch to the 2.0-liter FA20F engine with an advertised 268 horsepower and 258 pound-feet of peak torque, the STI retained the 305 horse EJ carried over from the previous generation. This time around, long-roof fans were out of luck, as both models no longer were offered in hatchback/5-door/wagon body styles. With the Evo gone from the scene, the direct competition for the STI became cars like the AMG CLA45, which was considerably more expensive, and the Golf R and Focus RS – both worthy adversaries, but not necessarily something that would get cross-shopped against Subaru.

After cosmetic updates for 2018, there was finally some real news for 2019 – for the first time, there would be an “S-model” STI sold in America. The 2019 STI S209, unlike the largely hand-built S201-S208 models that were only available in the home market, cleared the obstacles in place for US homologation, very late in the model year. Based on the STI RA, which itself received a minor 5 horsepower bump to 310 ‘at the brochure,’ the S209 picked up a far more substantial increase to peak numbers of 341 horses and 330 pound-feet. Wider wheels and 265/35R19 tires, recalibrated suspension (including a 10mm drop to offset the taller tire package), grippier brake pads, and a ton of aero changes distinguish the S209 from its lesser STI brethren. Unfortunately, with just 209 cars slated for the US, a $10,000 premium in MSRP over the RA, and inevitable dealer markup shenanigans, this ultimate USDM STI is also breathtakingly expensive.

Whether you look at Subaru’s history and see their offbeat, iconoclastic approach, or focus on the wild-child STI division, it’s impossible to ignore the influence they’ve had on the automotive industry. While there’s no way to know what the future holds, it’s a safe bet to say that they’ll continue to follow their path, while the rest of the world tries to keep up.

Godzilla Rises:
The Nissan R32 Skyline GT-R

At the close of the 1980s, Nissan set out to create a car that encompassed the best of everything they were capable of producing – the most advanced drivetrain, the most powerful engine available to the general public, the most advanced electronics, and the most sophisticated driving experience they could deliver. The name they gave it, GT-R, was a direct reference to the car’s historic lineage, but to the world, the Nissan R32 Skyline was known simply as “Godzilla.”

If Japan had a social media status for its relationship with technology, it would be permanently set to “It’s complicated.” As an island nation, and a densely populated one at that, the country has always been reliant on its ability to do more with less. Even centuries ago during feudal Japan’s period of isolation during the Tokugawa Shogunate (look it up later if you’re not already familiar – it’s seriously fascinating) when almost all interaction with the Western world was cut off, there was Rangaku, a term describing the body of knowledge developed through their one remaining point of contact with the Dutch. Through Rangaku, Japan stayed abreast of world developments in technology, warfare, agriculture, and medicine, and when Commodore Perry and a US expeditionary fleet forced the issue in 1853, Japan went from a feudal society seemingly frozen in time to a fully-modern empire overnight.

After the Second World War (which had, as one of its many causes, Japan’s quest for resources to feed the country’s industrial economy), the country was back to square one, and in the rebuilding environment of the 1950s, a pop culture icon emerged from the depths of the ocean, born of atomic fire and intent on destruction for destruction’s sake – Godzilla. The OG Kaiju carried a lot of cultural baggage on his scaly shoulders, and over countless appearances in film and other media, his portrayal evolved to match Japanese society’s relationship with history and technology. Godzilla went from an amoral, elemental agent of chaos sent to punish mankind for its hubris, to humanity’s sometimes-ally; he might stomp you or set your neighborhood on fire, but he wasn’t going to let those other giant monsters disrespect the Earth, either.

What’s In A Name?

When the motorsports media gave the R32 Skyline GT-R the nickname “Godzilla” in reaction to the way it was laying down the hurt in the Australian Touring Car Championship series at the start of the 90s, it wasn’t inspired by anything much deeper than the mildly-xenophobic “Japanese monster” connection. But fans worldwide embraced the moniker, and another pop culture icon was born, representing Japan’s star-crossed love affair with bleeding-edge technology.

The R32 Skyline GT-R began as the brainchild of Nissan chief engineer Naganori Ito, who drew inspiration from Porsche’s 959 supercar. The 959 was the answer to the question, “What do you get when you throw a ton of money into developing the 911 platform to the very limit of what’s possible?” Launched in 1986, it was aimed squarely at Group B rally racing, but arrived just as the “killer Bs” were outlawed thanks to a series of serious and sometimes deadly crashes in competition. With no place to race, the extremely limited production Maximum Porsche became the ultimate high-tech German sports car for the street.

For Nissan, the starting point for their ultimate street car would be the new R32 Skyline chassis. Replacing the R31 Skyline, which had seen a GTS-R performance variant for Group A Touring Car homologation in Australia, the R32 chassis would have a veritable alphabet soup bowl’s worth of different variants – GXi, GTE, GTS, GTS-25, GTS-T, GTS-4, and finally the GT-R. No Skyline had held the GT-R designation since the short-lived C110 Skyline, which replaced the Hakosuka model in 1972, and the new R32 version embodied a radically different design philosophy from the simplicity of those previous models.

Nothing Ordinary About It

As with the 959, the R32 Skyline GT-R is an all-wheel-drive car built on a nominally RWD platform. The longitudinally-mounted RB26DETT inline-six engine is bolted to a 5-speed manual transmission similar to the one utilized in the 300ZX Turbo, backed by an electronically-controlled transfer case. The main output shaft sends power to the rear differential, while a propshaft extends forward on the right side of the transfer case to spin the front differential. The transfer case can vary the torque split from 0/100 front to rear to 50/50 by engaging a clutch pack upon computer command – borderline science-fiction stuff for the end of the Eighties.

The front and rear suspensions are both multilink independent designs, and Nissan incorporated an early version of their HICAS rear-wheel steering system to provide up to one degree of both out-of-phase rear steer at low speed to tighten the turning radius, and in-phase steering while the car was at higher speeds to improve stability in turns. While modern drivers may consider this feature a mixed blessing in terms of handling (and many current R32 owners have “locked out” HICAS), when in proper operating condition the system does offer what was promised by Nissan’s chassis development team.

The star of the show in the R32 Skyline GT-R isn’t the driveline or the chassis, of course – it’s the RB26DETT under the hood. The cast iron inline six-cylinder block features 86mm bores and a crank with a 73.3mm throw for a “true” displacement of 2,568 cubic centimeters, rounded up to 2.6 liters for the purpose of general discussion. The block is topped by an aluminum dual overhead cam cylinder head with four valves per cylinder, and compression is a very mild (and turbo-friendly) 8.5 to 1. The intake valves are fed via a trio of two-barrel throttle bodies, effectively giving each cylinder its own throttle blade. On the exhaust side, there are two Garrett M24 turbochargers, each fed from its own set of three cylinders and equipped with integral wastegates set to regulate boost to 10 PSI.

Under-Promise, Over-Deliver

In factory trim, the GT-R’s RB26 is rated to produce 276 horsepower at 6,800 RPM and 266 pound-feet of torque at 4,400. These numbers are “at the brochure,” however – at the time, Japanese car makers had an understanding between themselves that none of them would advertise a car for sale with more than 280 PS (short for the German term ‘pferdestärke’ and often referred to as “metric horsepower” even though there’s a perfectly good SI unit for power – the kilowatt…) In any case, every Japanese car company with a high performance model produced engines that actually delivered well in excess of this fictional limit, and Nissan was no different. The real figure for an RB26DETT in factory tune is more like 315-plus horsepower, and with modification and increased boost the engine platform is capable of far higher power levels.

The star of the show in the R32 Skyline GT-R isn’t the driveline or the chassis, of course – it’s the RB26DETT under the hood.

The R32 GT-R was offered in a few different variants besides the ‘standard’ production model. In 1989 and 1990, 560 NISMO models were built – 500 were offered to the public to meet the homologation requirements for racing, with 60 used as competition cars. They were wildly successful in Japanese Touring Car Championship racing, winning 29 races in 29 tries and putting a lock on the series title from 1989 to 1993. More success was found in the Australian Touring Car Championship, which led to the Aussie press coining the nickname “Godzilla” for the R32 GT-R. NISMO models were visually distinct thanks to different aero bits and pieces, while the technical changes included the deletion of ABS and metal instead of ceramic turbine wheels for improved longevity in competition.

In 1991, upgraded safety equipment including door collision bars and an optional driver’s side airbag were added, and Nissan homologated a new variant with just under 120 cars produced for the Japanese N1 racing series, all with the company’s iconic white exterior. For 1993, the V-Spec model was added to follow changes in JTCC rules – previously, cars were limited to 16-inch wheels, but an increase of an inch of diameter led to new BBS “mesh” wheels in 17×8, plus a different method of clutch actuation, minor transmission improvements, and Brembo calipers gripping larger rotors to take advantage of the additional room inside the bigger wheels. A total of 1,453 R32 V-Spec cars were manufactured, and a mere 64 V-Spec N1s left the factory. Finally, in 1994 Nissan introduced the V-Spec II, which took the factory tire size from 225/50R17 to 245/45R17, with just over 1,300 cars built.

Making Dreams Come True

All told, between 1989 and 1994, there were something like 44,000 R32 Skyline GT-Rs made, including all the upgraded and racing variants. In America, the original Godzilla was the stuff of dreams for many enthusiasts, fueled by video games and a lust for anything legitimately JDM and off-limits to US drivers. For many years, the only way to get one on the road in the States was via sketchy grey market deals or working your way through ‘display and exhibition’ loopholes of questionable legality. Today, however, foreign-origin cars that were never offered for sale in the US that are more than 25 years old are finally legal to import and own almost everywhere (California and Hawaii impose their own rules) making the entire R32 GT-R production run available.

Is Godzilla something you’d like to have in your own garage? While the supply of US-legal R32 GT-Rs has certainly exploded, so has the pent-up demand for a car that so many of us salivated over in our youths, so a good, unmolested example can run in the $80,000+ range at auction. That’s a lot of money for a three-decade-old car, but it’s hard to put a price on living a dream, and for many of us an R32 Skyline gets our heart racing like no modern car in the same price range ever could.

Hakosuka Nissan Skyline GT-R

A Look Inside the Box

For ‘tuner car’ enthusiasts, the letters G, T, and R encode a lot of information in just three characters. In the modern era, they stand for engineering sophistication and high technology harnessed in the pursuit of speed, but the first Nissan Skyline GT-R to wear them was a performance car reduced to just the basics. It was as close to the “simplicate and add lightness” mantra as any factory vehicle to come from Japan’s classic period, and it had a humble nickname to match: “Box Skyline,” or Hakosuka (“Hako” for “box” and “Suka,” short for the Japanese pronunciation of the word “skyline,” which ends up being something like “sukairain”) in the native language’s portmanteau-speak.

The current GT-R, introduced in 2007 for the 2008 model year, started out as an engineering showpiece intended to incorporate every bit of advanced technology Nissan could bring to bear, not just in terms of the finished car itself but in design, materials, and manufacturing as well. Over the past decade, every new update to the GT-R has pushed bleeding-edge sophistication, from the DOHC twin-turbo V6 to the dual-clutch transmission and computer-controlled all-wheel-drive system. It’s a monster, quite deserving of the “Godzilla” nickname inherited from its immediate predecessors, but a better description would be “Gundam” or “Mecha” to reflect its distinctly technological focus. In short, it’s the closest thing to a spaceship on four wheels.

Product of a Simpler Time

It’s eye-opening, though, to compare today’s Nissan Skyline GT-R to the original Hakosuka, introduced a full fifty years ago. While the latest GT-R tips the scales at a grounded-to-the-ground 3,800 pounds and change, the Hakosuka is a mere wisp at just over 2,400. Instead of a 560+ horsepower VR38DETT, the Hako was motivated by a jewel-like S20 naturally-aspirated inline six with a full 400 fewer ponies. There’s no active torque split between the front and rear wheels in the seminal GT-R, just a limited slip differential in the rear. In fact, about the only numeric comparison the two end-points on the GT-R timeline have in common is a six-digit price tag – if you’re shopping for either the first GT-R or the latest these days, you better be ready to write a lot of zeros on that check.

One of the things that came along with Nissan’s merger with Prince Motor Company in 1966 was the Skyline nameplate; a line of sedans that debuted in 1957 and went through a number of generations that included a 1964 GT model for Japanese Grand Prix racing. For 1969, a new model was developed with the internal Nissan designation of PCG10. Dubbed the Skyline GT-R, this four-door sedan was first unveiled to the public at the Tokyo Motor Show in late 1968, and was sold exclusively through the Nissan Prince Store dealership network.

As late as the early 2000s, Nissan maintained multiple retail chains in Japan, with vehicles exclusive to each. At the time of the introduction of the Hako, the Nissan Prince Store’s counterpart was the Nissan Bluebird Store: While Prince outlets received cars like the various generations of Skyline, and later the 180SX, the Bluebird Store retailed the Fairlady Z models and the Silvia. In 1999, the descendant of the original Prince Store, which had also been titled the Saito and Cherry Store throughout its history, became Nissan Red Stage, while the original Bluebird store’s successor became Nissan Blue Stage. As seen with the 180SX and Silvia, there was a certain degree of crossover between the two main sales channels, but much like Nissan and Infiniti in the US, the idea was to separate products by price point and market focus.

With a design penned by Shinichiro Sakurai, an engineer who had formerly worked for Prince before the merger (and who would go on to oversee future Skyline generations, the Nissan MID4 concept car project, and be inducted into the Japan Automotive Hall of Fame), the Hakosuka was intended as a performance flagship to emphasize Nissan’s racing expertise. Power was derived from the S20 inline-six, which could trace elements of its design to the GR8 competition mill utilized in Nissan’s mid-rear-engine R380 race car, which itself was derived from previous Prince G-series production engines.

Straight-Six Smoothness

The S20 displaced 1,990cc, making it nominally a 2-liter design, with a markedly ‘oversquare’ bore to stroke ratio – pistons were 82mm in diameter and a crank throw of just under 63mm. This was necessary to provide as much room as possible in the pent-roof combustion chambers for two exhaust and two intake valves per cylinder in a DOHC cross-flow cylinder head. Induction was via a trio of two-barrel sidedraft Mikuni-Solex carburetors. In production trim, the S20 was rated at 160 peak horsepower at 7,000 RPM, and 130 pound-feet of torque at 5,600 RPM, with a 7,500 RPM redline. The entire engine package weighed just shy of 440 pounds, about 18 percent of the entire empty weight of the GT-R. You could have any transmission you wanted on your Hako, as long as you wanted a 5-speed manual. Finally, a clutch-type limited slip differential in the rearend ensured power made its way effectively to the pavement.

Instead of a 560+ horsepower VR38DETT, the Hako was motivated by a jewel-like S20 naturally-aspirated inline six with a full 400 fewer ponies.

Suspension design was sophisticated for a small sedan by the standards of the era; MacPherson struts in front, and a semi-trailing-arm independent rear. The ubiquitous MacPherson strut, patented just after the end of WWII, had the advantage of being both simpler and lighter than a double wishbone or multilink suspension, and despite often being thought of as a design intended for economy car FWD applications, it has been used with great success in a huge number of high-performance RWD applications throughout its long history as well. The semi-trailing arm rear was an effective way to accurately control suspension geometry with a minimum of complexity, and the layout combined with the light curb weight made the Hako GT-R unusually precise and rewarding when driven hard.

Simplicity reigned with the rest of the running gear as well. Steering was via an unassisted recirculating ball setup, and the brakes were unboosted as well. Up front, single-piston calipers squeeze vented discs, and in back, humble drum brakes help scrub speed upon demand. While that might sound archaic by current standards, the factory suspension, steering, and brake components were perfectly capable of exploring the outer limits of late-60s-tech tire grip.

The Hakosuka’s interior, while not Spartan, is definitely not overburdened with luxury touches. The upholstery and dash trim are above-average quality, with a pair of bucket seats in front and a token back seat that would be considered somewhat cramped even by JDM standards of the era. A drilled aluminum throttle pedal and a three-spoke wheel connect the driver to the machine, and the binnacle features large speedometer and tachometer gauges front and center flanked by four smaller round instrument clusters. Every Hako is right-hand-drive, of course – they were never produced in numbers that would lead to export to foreign markets (more on that in a minute) and they feature the quirky fender-mounted side view mirrors mandated by Japanese motor vehicle regulations that required placing them in a location where they could be viewed through a portion of the windows covered by the defroster vents.

A Short but Sweet Run

The PGC10 four-door Skyline GT-R was joined in 1971 by a two-door model with the internal Nissan designation KPGC10, and production would continue through 1972. In the four years the Hakosuka was built, a mere 1,945 cars were produced (with the two-door being more common by a factor of 1.5), but the GT-R absolutely dominated the competition in Japanese touring car racing with 49 consecutive wins and 50 victories overall in a little under three years. For 1973, the Box was replaced with the KPGC110 “Kenmeri” Skyline GT-R, which gained its nickname from the fictional couple “Ken and Mary” used in Nissan advertising, but only 197 were produced. After that model year the GT-R nameplate would remain unused until 1989, but that’s a story for another time.

Today, the Hakosuka is a highly-sought-after classic, and when they trade hands at auction, prices for examples in perfect condition are in the quarter-million dollar range. That’s not too bad for a car that retailed back in the day for 1.5 million yen (about $4,200 in 1971 dollars, equivalent to the buying power of $27k today). While the Skyline GT-R nameplate took a radical turn toward technological prowess and complex engineering upon its return in 1989, the original remains one of the purest examples of a “driver’s car” from the first wave of Japanese performance automobiles

Innovative Turbo Engines You Should Know

Factory Turbo Engines Have a Deeper Back-Story Than You Might Think – Here’s a Short History Lesson on the History of Boost

Any gearhead can tell you anything you want to know about the RB26DETT from the Skyline GT-R, the MKIV Supra’s 2JZ-GTE, Mitsubishi’s 4G63 that held a starring role in the Eclipse and Evo (and the 4B11T that replaced it in the Evo X), and perhaps even the 13B-REW that propelled the Mazda FD. But if you want real bench-racing credibility, there are turbocharged engines that paved the way for every modern factory boosted powerplant, from WRX STI to Focus RS, and we are going to show you how previous generations suffered and triumphed in the name of boost. Here are the turbo engines that paved the way…

1962 Olds Jetfire / Chevy Corvair Monza Spyder

More than five decades ago, General Motors answered a question literally nobody was asking with the first two US domestic OEM turbocharged engines to hit the market. Keep in mind that in the 1962 model year, the world-beating Chevy small block V8 engine was less than 7 years old, and that the future de-facto standard 4-inch bore 350 cubic inch version had just been introduced.

…owners had to keep a small tank of Oldsmobile “Turbo-Rocket Fluid” (actually a 50/50 mix of water and methanol) topped up.

At the time, Buick, Oldsmobile, and Pontiac (known as “BOP” collectively) were still using their own engine architecture instead of shared “corporate” powerplants, and Oldsmobile took their little 215 cubic inch, all-aluminum V8 and boosted it to a nominal 5 PSI with a single Garrett T5 turbo. To combat detonation and increase the effective octane of the required premium fuel, owners had to keep a small tank of Oldsmobile “Turbo-Rocket Fluid” (actually a 50/50 mix of water and methanol) topped up.

Rated at 215 horsepower, the 1962 Olds Jetfire wasn’t a huge success, and the added hassle of having to keep the water/meth tank full meant many owners eventually just had their cars converted to natural aspiration, making original Jetfires very rare and collectable today.

The Chevy Corvair Monza Spyder, also a 1962 model, had a very different engine layout than the Olds – a horizontally-opposed 6 cylinder air cooled engine sat over the rear wheels, displacing just 145 cubic inches (later raised to 164 with a longer stroke in 1964 models) and topped by a single turbo that increased horsepower from 80-95 for the naturally aspirated engines to a rated 150.

Neither the Jetfire or the Spyder set the world on fire, and both had very short production runs. With low gasoline prices and the domestic horsepower wars centered around larger and larger naturally-aspirated V8 powerplants, these two seminal turbo cars were simply too far ahead of their time.

Porsche 930 (1975-1989)

If you’re starting to get mailers from AARP lately, chances are that during your formative years, the word “Turbo” had a single meaning – the Porsche 911T. Known by its internal 930 code, the 911 Turbo started out as a homologation special to meet minimum production numbers for FIA competition, but almost immediately became synonymous for over-the-top performance for street cars. The original 3.0 liter horizontally opposed, air-cooled flat 6 engine used a single KKK (an unfortunate brand name, but not offensive in this context) turbocharger to deliver 256 horsepower.

…those with average or below skill could find themselves going from power-on oversteer to understeer to lift-throttle oversteer in the time it took to ruin a pair of pants.

Between 1975 and 1977, just over 2,800 911 Turbos were produced, and for 1978, the engine was given a 10 percent bump in displacement, an air-to-air intercooler plus a larger ‘whale tail’ spoiler to house it, and an increase in rated horsepower, now listed at 296. While it remained the flagship of the Porsche lineup, the new front-engine V8 928 was intended to replace it as the top of the line, and in 1980 it was dropped from the US market to save the expense of making changes to the engine to meet emissions regulations.

The 928 proved to be a sales dud, and for 1986 the 911 Turbo was back in the US with a 278 horsepower, smog-compliant powerplant. It would remain available through the 1989 model year, when the 930 was succeeded by the 964. During its production run, the combination of a strong rear weight bias due to the engine position and power delivery that suffered from turbo lag gave the original 911T a fairly-well-deserved reputation as a car that was best known for activating rich doctors’ life insurance coverage. Driven well, it was stupid-fast, but those with average or below skill could find themselves going from power-on oversteer to understeer to lift-throttle oversteer in the time it took to ruin a pair of pants.

Future generations of the 911 would tame the Turbo’s bad habits and make it a car that was not only quicker but more accessible to non-professional drivers, but there will never be another car that embodied the word “Turbo” so perfectly.

Mitsubishi 4G6 Family

While Porsche was introducing the world to the term “turbo” as a synonym for superlative automotive performance, Mitsubishi was hard at work in what might best be described as their “boost all the things!” era. In the early 80’s other Asian manufacturers were focused on capturing market share by building reliable, economical, durable vehicles for the US export market; Mitsubishi decided to do all that, but then offer a turbo-powered performance variant of almost everything they made as well, from subcompact hatchbacks to family cars. As a result, the world ended up with things like turbocharged versions of the Colt, Galant, Sapporo, Cordia, Tredia, and of course the Starion. Their engine of choice was the inline four cylinder “Sirius” platform, known internally as the 4G6 family.

This engine would eventually become well-known to US enthusiasts thanks to its presence in the Eclipse and Lancer Evolution in 2-liter 4G63 form, but variants ranged from 1.6 liters to 2.4 over its long production history, and 135 horsepower to more than 270 for the factory turbocharged variants. It found its way into all sorts of chassis layouts, including transverse FWD, transverse AWD, and longitudinal RWD.

…Mitsubishi was hard at work in what might best be described as their “boost all the things!” era.

Though the platform had some specific issues (like the infamous “crank walk” familiar to anyone who’s built a high performance 4G63) when pushed beyond factory spec, the durable cast iron block with a ‘closed deck’ design that supports the cylinder bores at the top where they encounter the greatest stress proved to be a winning design, making the 4G6 family one of the most successful turbo engines of all time.

Chrysler Turbo I/II/III/IV

Determined not to be outdone by their rival and sometimes engineering partner Mitsubishi, the Chrysler corporation developed their own lineup of turbocharged inline four cylinder engines during the early 1980s based off of their 2.2 and 2.5 liter architecture. This was a time of both enormous creativity and innovation at Chrysler (“Let’s build a small, practical FWD van that drives like a car and absolutely kill the market for station wagons!”) and complete, shameless cost-cutting (“…and we’ll build it on the same miserable K-car chassis as everything else we are trying to sell!”)

While the bean counting was necessary to save money, and along with $1.5 billion in loan guarantees helped to pull the company from the brink of bankruptcy, there were still powertrain engineers looking to make lemonade out of the post-oil-crisis lemons they had been handed. The Turbo I design added a T03 turbo pushing a little over 7 pounds of boost to the 2.2 liter engine, taking it from the low-90-horsepower range to over 140. Upgrading the mechanical wastegate to a computer-controlled one for 1985 allowed temporary spikes to 9 PSI and another couple of horsepower “at the brochure,” though the real benefit was more power under the curve that made more of a difference in actual acceleration than peak numbers would suggest. The larger-displacement 2.5 liter Turbo I found a home in the iconic Caravan/Voyager minivans starting in the 1989 model year, with 150 horsepower on tap.

The Turbo II added an intercooler and some other tweaks to the 2.2 liter Turbo I for use in the Shelby GLH-S in 1986 by Shelby Automotive, and for 1987 the factory began doing the same thing, but with better engine internals. More Shelby-badged performance cars followed using the Turbo II powerplant, rated at 12 PSI and 175 horsepower, as well as the LeBaron GTS and GTC. A switch to a Lotus-sourced 16 valve dual overhead cam cylinder head (replacing the previous SOHC head came with the Turbo III; very few cars (perhaps less than 2,000 total) were equipped with this 224 horsepower engine, primarily 1991-1993 Dodge Spirit R/T and Daytona IROC R/T models.

“Let’s build a small, practical FWD van that drives like a car and absolutely kill the market for station wagons!”

Then there’s the Turbo IV. Despite the nomenclature, it was actually introduced before the Turbo III, making its first appearance in the 1989 Shelby CSX, then being offered in 1990 in Shadows, Daytonas, and LeBarons. This SOHC, 8-valve 2.2 liter engine was notable for the fact that it used a Garrett “Variable-Nozzle Turbo” – this technology, which has made its way into diesel turbo applications today, uses a ring of movable vanes that surround the turbine wheel that allow the engine management system to dynamically adjust the characteristics of the turbo to allow fast spool-up without choking performance at high RPM. While rated horsepower was still set at 175, once again the area “under the curve” on the horsepower graph was greatly improved, making for a much quicker car. A relative handful of Turbo IV cars were made, and today, ones with unmolested factory VNT setups demand a premium from collectors.

Chrysler’s 2.2 and 2.5 turbo family combined some interesting technological innovation along with mass-market production numbers (at least for the Turbo I/II) and the common K-car platform made modifications and swaps pretty straightforward. We know there’s at least one 9-second street-legal turbo Voyager minivan out there, and these cars make excellent sleepers with their durable, easily upgradable engines.

Volvo Redblock

“What is Volvo doing in here?” you ask, quite rightly. “They’re that company that made a bunch of boring cars that looked like they were built from LEGO bricks in the ‘80s and ‘90s, and now all they do is weird, expensive crossovers.” While this is mostly true, some of those bricks were turbo-powered, and just like capital-T Turbo is intertwined in the gearhead consciousness with Porsche, capital-I Intercooler belongs to Sweden’s homegrown brand (even if they are owned by China’s automotive super-conglomerate Geely these days.)

“They’re that company that made a bunch of boring cars that looked like they were built from LEGO bricks in the ‘80s and ‘90s, and now all they do is weird, expensive crossovers.”

The Volvo “Redblock” engine family came about as an overhead cam replacement for their tried and true pushrod inline-fours from the 1960s, debuting in the 200 series cars. 2.1 and 2.3 liter turbocharged versions made their way into models bound for the US market. Power was modest at first – 127 horsepower for the low-boost 6.5 PSI B21FT – but soon enough, Volvo dropped the “IBS” (Intercooler Boost System) B21FT on us, complete with 157 horsepower and a big “INTERCOOLER” badge on the trunklid, rising to 162 horsepower for mid-’80s turbo 240s.

Turbo Redblock engines made the transition from 200 to 700 series cars at the tail end of the ‘80s, picking up a 16-valve head in the process and another 40 or so horsepower, before eventually being replaced by the prolific and very successful Volvo Modular family in the 800 and 900 series of FWD/AWD cars. Even though they weren’t around for as long as some of the designs we’ve looked at here and weren’t exactly sports cars on the same plane as the 911T, they led to a long line of popular turbocharged Volvo vehicles and put the word “Intercooler” firmly into our vocabulary.

Future Classic:
The Nissan 240SX Story

If you sat down with a pen and paper in hand and made a list of all the qualities that define a “fun to drive” car, you’d probably come up with things like a stiff, light two-door coupe chassis, rear-wheel-drive with an independent suspension all the way around (and lots of aftermarket parts to tweak it with), and a slick-shifting manual transmission. You’d keep it simple to make it affordable, and most importantly, you’d give it a rev-happy engine, perhaps with a turbo.

Mazda got close to nailing that formula with the first-gen RX-7, but dropped the ball with a live axle rear end. The FC RX-7 cured that deficiency, but got a bunch heavier and more expensive in the process. They’d move back in the right direction with the NA Miata, but despite its basic goodness, it was a hard car to take seriously, and being available only as a convertible didn’t help. Porsche’s 924 and 944 checked all the boxes except for “simple and affordable,” and Toyota and Mitsubishi took a run at it with the original MR2 and the Starion, respectively, but between the MR2’s mid-rear engine layout and Mitsubishi’s trademark general ‘80s high-tech weirdness in the Starion, neither of that Japanese pair really hit the mark, either. 

Only one manufacturer managed to artfully combine all those elements into a single platform – in 1989, Nissan introduced the S13 to the world, and a legend was born. Previous generations of the S platform had been successful in their own right, dating all the way back to 1975’s S10, which was known in the US market as the Datsun 200SX. The S110 and S12 followed in 1979 and 1984, respectively, and while they sold well enough both in Japan and abroad, they would barely hint at how popular the next revision would turn out to be.

In the native Japanese market, Nissan was sure enough of success with the new S13 to produce and sell the car in two cosmetically different but mechanically identical models; the hatchback, hidden-headlight 180SX, and the notchback, exposed-headlight Silvia. The two models were sold through separate marketing channels, with the 180SX as the “little brother” to the Fairlady Z and the Silvia retailed alongside the Skyline. 

Pop the Hood

Power for the S13 was initially derived from the iron-block 1.8 liter CA18DE or CA18DET, with the former being naturally aspirated and rated at 131 horsepower, and the latter turbocharged to produce an advertised 166 horsepower. Silvia buyers could select either powerplant, but the 180SX wasn’t produced in a non-turbo version. The free-revving dual overhead cam engine was a good match for the S13’s light weight and balanced chassis, which featured one of Nissan’s first sophisticated multi-link independent rear suspension systems paired with the ubiquitous MacPherson strut setup in front.

At launch for the 1989 model year, Nissan also decided that the S13 would be a good addition to their US car lineup. Only the 180SX would make the trip across the Pacific, though, and to avoid the time and expense required to “Federalize” the CA18, a different engine already destined for Nissan’s American vehicle lineup took its place – the KA24.

This is the point in our story where many of you will hear a sad trombone briefly playing in your head.

While the KA24 did indeed pick up a significant amount of displacement over the CA18 (no points for guessing that it was a 2.4 liter engine), that was about the nicest thing anyone had to say about it at the time. The vast majority of KA engines in US models ended up under the hood of Hardbody trucks and Pathfinder SUVs where its torquey long-stroke design made perfect sense. Like so many engines of the era, the KA24 used a cast-iron block with an aluminum head, and the valvetrain was driven by a timing chain rather than a belt. The engine was significantly “under-square” with an 89mm cylinder bore and 96mm crankshaft stroke, optimized for bottom-end torque capacity rather than high-RPM horsepower potential. 1989-90 USDM 240SX models got the SOHC, 3-valve-per-cylinder KA24E, rated at a less-than-thrilling 140 horsepower, 26 ponies down from the CA18DET in the 1989 180SX. 

Coming to America

All US S13 models would be available in both hatchback and notchback body styles, and in the 1992 model year, a convertible based on the notch was introduced, with the drop-top modification performed by American Specialty Cars in California. They all shared the same 180SX-style hidden headlight nose, but as early cars entered the used car market and ended up with front end damage thanks to drivers with more enthusiasm than skill, it became fashionable to replace the hidden headlight front bumper, hood, and fenders with Silvia sheetmetal imported from Japan. While the “Sileighty” trend started in the S13’s home country (as it was usually cheaper in Japan to convert a crashed 180SX to a Silvia front clip than replace the stock parts), in the US its popularity was driven by cosmetic concerns as well as the fact that ditching the US-spec energy absorbing front bumper and the pop-up headlights typically saved 30-plus pounds on the nose of the car. 

For 1991, the 240SX got a cosmetic facelift that (among other changes) replaced the “pignose” front fascia with one that retained the hidden headlights but had more of an aerodynamic, rounded look. The 240SX also got four more exhaust valves and an extra camshaft with the DOHC KA24DE engine, picking up another 15 horsepower in the process to a total of 155. This engine would remain as the only available powerplant for the duration of the S-chassis’ run in the US market, while in-the-know Nissan fans gazed longingly at the turbocharged 202-horsepower SR20DET that was standard equipment for the 180SX in Japan and other markets, starting in 1991.

For the 1994 model year, Nissan comprehensively reworked the S-chassis and launched the S14 Silvia in the home market, while keeping the previous S13 180SX in production as well through 1998. The hatchback body style was gone for the S14, leaving only the coupe version, and the overall look of the car took on a much more rounded design language. Another minor restyling for the 1997 model year brought an angular and aggressive look to the S14, and spawned the terms “Zenki” and “Kouki” to distinguish the two variations – colloquially “before and after” in Japanese.

Production of the S14 ended in 1998, replaced by the S15 in other markets, but the 1999 model year 240SX was the end of the line in the US. While it was reasonably successful in America, the uninspiring engine, lack of interior room, and relatively poor fuel economy put the 240SX in the position of being too slow to be a standout sports car, and too thirsty and impractical to compete favorably with the many FWD alternatives on the market at the time. 

Second Wind

The real success of the Nissan 240SX in the United States happened not at the dealerships but when the cars began to hit the used market. As one of the few Japanese RWD imports (and certainly the most affordable, compared to cars like the MKIV Supra and Lexus IS/Altezza) it was perfectly suited to the rise of grassroots interest in drifting in America. It didn’t hurt that a huge amount of aftermarket support was also available from well-known Japanese tuners (and sketchy eBay knockoffs) for owners looking to upgrade the suspension and driveline. The primary hurdle, however, was that “truck engine” under the hood. 

The KA engine family never inspired much interest in performance modification outside the United States, meaning that homegrown solutions to increasing output tended to be the norm for those who didn’t want to pull the trigger on a full engine swap. KA-T turbocharged conversions of varying levels of sophistication and build quality were the go-to option, and Turbonetics actually offered a complete T3/T4 hybrid kit pushing 8 PSI for 1995-1998 models that bumped rated horsepower to 240 at the crank. Though the KA’s architecture was definitely overbuilt for how lightly-stressed it was in factory tune, that strength was a boon for anyone strapping on a turbo. It didn’t hurt that lightly-used takeout KA engines from both swapped 240s and a whole generation of pickups and Frontiers were cheaply available in salvage yards, either.

The primary hurdle, however, was that “truck engine” under the hood.

 During the heyday of import and sport compact racing in the US, circa the mid-2000s, far and away the most popular engine swap for stateside 240SXs was the SR20DET. As mentioned before, this powerplant was standard equipment in 1991 and later 180SX models. Originally developed with a transverse FWD layout for the JDM Nissan Bluebird, the SR came in many forms over its long history in factory S13/14/15 applications. The different specifications are broadly grouped into a few categories based on the factory paint applied to the valve cover or its shape, making for a quick visual reference. 

This only covers the S13/14/15 factory applications for the SR20DET; in transverse front wheel and all wheel drive configuration it found a home in many other platforms, including a WRC Group A homologation version of the Japanese market Pulsar. With so many variations, the SR spawned a good deal of interest in swaps for US S-series cars, and even supported shops and tuners who specialized in that market for a few glorious years. Despite the fact that the SR had never been used in any Nissan sold in the US market, shipping containers full of them made their way to the pier at Long Beach and into the hands of American enthusiasts, a phenomenon made economically viable by the odd Japanese vehicle tax and registration laws that encouraged owners of cars more than a few years old to scrap them rather than keep them on the road.

Reaching Classic Status

Today, the Nissan 240SX is reaching the same status as the Datsun 510 achieved in the 90’s – clean, unmolested examples have reached the bottom of their depreciation curve and are heading upward in price as they become harder to find and more sought-after as competitive drift cars and daily drivers. Perhaps the single greatest influence on the current popularity of the S13/14 in the US is the fact that so many different powerplants, including Gen III/IV GM small-block V8 engines, are an easy fit into the 240SX’s generously-sized engine bay, making a naturally-aspirated 350+ horsepower swap fairly straightforward. Companies like Holley’s Hooker brand even make specific swap components (cast manifolds and tubular headers, engine mounts, and more) for LS swaps into S-chassis cars. 

A look at the grid for any drift event will show the “sportsman” categories heavily favor S13 and S14 builds; while the pro categories tend to have newer cars better represented due to bigger budgets for parts development and chassis testing, the Silvia is still the standard against which all other modern drift platforms are compared. All the kinks have been worked out, and there’s no need to reinvent the wheel when building a competition car from an S13 or S14 – practically any component you can imagine, from coilovers, handbrakes, cages, and even all the way to full upgraded suspension setups are available off-the-shelf, and often from multiple manufacturers. 

The 240SX might not have been the perfect car straight off off US Nissan dealers’ showroom floors, but it was close enough to make it a highly-desirable future classic in stock or full-drift form, or anything in between.

updated July 22, 2021

Your First Dragstrip Pass:
Safety Equipment

…once you’re hooked, you will absolutely want to empty your wallet and fill your driveway with cars just for the track.

The great thing about going to your local drag strip’s grudge night or test and tune day is that you get the chance to actually race your car on the track with very little extra effort or expense – it’s one of the best ways to get involved in motorsports without having to spend a ton of money or have a specially-prepared race car. Don’t get us wrong, though; once you’re hooked, you will absolutely want to empty your wallet and fill your driveway with cars just for the track. But in the meantime, the car you already have will do just fine as an inexpensive gateway drug.

 
One of the things that holds people back from getting out of the stands and into the staging lanes is concern over tech inspection and track safety rules. Depending on how quick your car is, you’ll have to meet some basic equipment standards in order to be allowed to run at a dragstrip that follows the NHRA or IHRA rulebook, and today we are going to take a look at those requirements so there are no surprises when the nice man with the clipboard asks you to hand him your tech card and pop your hood.

Safety requirements are broken down into three basic categories: How quick your car is (elapsed time), how fast your car is (trap speed), and what specific modifications you’ve made (things like adding an aftermarket supercharger, turbo, or nitrous system). The main criteria is elapsed time, and for each level of required equipment, you’ll see a break point for both quarter mile and eighth mile ET. The rules are divided up that way in order to make sure that cars running the shorter track length but accelerate just as hard as their quarter mile cousins have similar levels of safety equipment. Each level builds on the previous requirements unless otherwise noted, and please keep in mind that this isn’t the ultimate authority to what’s allowed or required – consult the NHRA rules and your local track officials if you’re in doubt

All Vehicles

In general, your car needs to not be leaking any fuel, oil, or coolant. Your battery needs to be properly secured with a real hold down clamp (no zip ties, shoelaces, or other janky fixes), and you will have to have a radiator overflow catch reservoir. Your tires should be in good condition, and you can’t have any broken wheel studs or missing lug nuts. Factory seatbelts are another necessity, and you will be required to wear a shirt, long pants, and closed-toe shoes. Finally, you’ll need a valid driver’s license or NHRA/IHRA competition license.

Plain old DOT-rated motorcycle helmets do not meet this requirement, so don’t grab the chrome-plastic skullcap you wear on your Harley and presume you are good to go.

Some tracks will have specific additional rules – in some places, all drivers will be required to wear a helmet, no matter how slow their car is, and you may also find tracks that prohibit anything but plain water in your cooling system, so check if you aren’t sure.

13.99 and Quicker (8.59 ⅛ mile)

• Approved helmet – this will need to have either a Snell or SFI rating sticker from within the last 10 years (for example, in 2019, the oldest acceptable Snell-rated helmet would be a M2010 or SA2010). Plain old DOT-rated motorcycle helmets do not meet this requirement, so don’t grab the chrome-plastic skullcap you wear on your Harley and presume you are good to go.

13.49 and Quicker (8.25 ⅛ mile)

• Convertibles only – an approved roll bar, and SFI-rated seat belts. Be aware of the fact that there are specific design requirements for drag racing roll bars that are different from those required for road racing or track days, so consult the rulebook if you are unsure whether yours meets the specification.
• Rotaries only – SFI certified clutch and flywheel plus flywheel shield.

11.49 and Quicker (7.35 ⅛ mile)

• Approved 6-point roll bar (see above)
• SFI-rated seat belts – this includes an ‘anti-submarine’ strap (making it a 5-point restraint) and it has to be either manufactured or recertified by the manufacturer in the last two years, as shown on the tag attached to the belt. As an aside, this is often a cause of grumbling among racers who think that recertification every two years is excessive, or even a way to force people to buy new belts they don’t need. The reality is that next to helmets, belts are the most important personal safety item in your car, and they’re easily damaged by sunlight, heat, and abrasion. If you’re putting together a car that will need SFI 16.1 belts, do yourself a favor and wait until you are completely done and ready to run the car before you buy them so that you get the most use out of them as possible before they need recertification. If you don’t want to go to the hassle of sending them back to the manufacturer for inspection after two years and just want to replace them, check out your local off-road forums to sell your old ones, because harnesses that are out of date but still serviceable are popular with ‘wheelers who aren’t concerned about high speed crashes.
• Manual-transmission cars – SFI certified clutch and flywheel plus flywheel shield.
• Rear-wheel-drive cars – Driveshaft loop.
• Jacket meeting SFI Spec 3.2A/1.

10.99 to 10.00 (6.99 to 6.40 ⅛ mile)

• Automatic Transmission – SFI-rated transmission shield and locking dipstick tube. The transmission shield can be either rigid or blanket-type, as long as it meets SFI 4.1 specifications.
• Rear-wheel-drive cars – Aftermarket axles and axle retainers.
• SFI-spec harmonic balancer.

9.99 and Quicker (6.39 ⅛ mile)

Single-digit timeslips are a big break-point for safety rules, where a whole bunch of new requirements kick in, including a competition license for the driver. Cars this quick are beyond the scope of this article, and by the time you’ve built one capable of running under a 10-flat quarter mile, you will already be well-acquainted with the safety requirements.

Trap Speed Safety Requirements

Note that these requirements apply to both quarter- and eighth-mile trap speeds, but generally speaking if you are going fast enough to trigger them, you’re already way past needing our advice…

• 135 MPH – SFI-spec padding anywhere the driver’s helmet may come in contact with roll bar or cage components.
• 135 MPH – All the same requirements as a car running faster than 10.00, regardless of actual elapsed time.
• 150 MPH – Parachute.

Modification-Related Safety Requirements

On the other hand, if you show up in your HEMI Challenger with a big aftermarket supercharger strapped to the top, all bets are off.

Here’s the part that trips people up; once you start modifying your car with speed parts, an eagle-eyed tech inspector may find certain changes trigger additional safety rules. For the most part, as factory cars have gotten quicker and quicker over the years, drag racing sanctioning bodies have been pretty lenient about allowing them to run in unmodified form even if they are technically past the ET limits for some requirements. This allows cars like late model ZR1 and Z06 Corvettes, Nissan GT-Rs, Shelby Mustangs, and Dodge Hellcats and Demons to pass tech.

On the other hand, if you show up in your HEMI Challenger with a big aftermarket supercharger strapped to the top, all bets are off. Here are some examples of safety regulations that are triggered by modifications made to your car, regardless of what elapsed time you are running:

• Non-OEM turbo, nitrous, or supercharger – SFI 3.2A/1 jacket for the driver.
• Water/Methanol Injection – The tank, pump, and lines can’t be in the passenger compartment, and if the tank is in the trunk, a solid bulkhead of .024-inch steel or .032-inch aluminum is required to isolate it from the driver.
• Nitrous Oxide – If the bottle is in the passenger compartment, it must be equipped with a “blow down” tube that vents the pressure relief valve outside the vehicle. No matter where it’s located, it must be “permanently mounted”; hose clamps and tie wraps aren’t acceptable, and you can’t just stuff it in the back seat footwell and run the passenger seat all the way back to jam it in place.

• Drag Slicks – If you’re running quicker than 14-flat in a RWD car and running slicks, you’ll need a driveshaft loop. Tires with DOT approval for street use don’t trigger this requirement until you go quicker than 11.50, as mentioned above.

• Spool – RWD cars with a “locked” differential need aftermarket axles and axle retention devices to go with, regardless of ET.
• Relocated Battery – If you’ve moved the battery from the stock location to the trunk, a master electrical cutoff mounted at the rear of the car and accessible from outside is required.

Preparation is the Key

We’ve covered the major points of required safety equipment here, but this article isn’t intended to be the final authority on the subject. Our goal is to give you an overview of what you’ll need to pass tech and have a safe, enjoyable day at the dragstrip. For most street-driven cars, the safety requirements are very easy to meet; first-timers are often wildly optimistic when estimating just how quick their whip actually is, so chances are that a good helmet and a car that isn’t dripping oil or antifreeze is all you will need.

The Toyota Supra Then and Now

When the fifth generation Toyota Supra was unveiled as a 2020 model at the 2019 North American Auto Show, many of the brand’s most loyal (and vocal) adherents had their worst fears realized. Months of rumors had been confirmed – the long-hoped-for successor to the totemic MKIV Supra was being built on a platform shared with the BMW Z4 as part of a collaboration between Toyota and the German automaker, extending right down to the turbocharged inline-six under the hood, and 8-speed ‘conventional’ torque converter automatic transmission.

While the new A90 would be significantly quicker than any factory-spec MKIV, and more advanced in every way that matters, there were those who saw it as a break with the Supra’s revered history and an unworthy successor. In reality, though, it brings the marque’s story full circle, taking it back to its roots in European sports car inspiration. Here’s a look at how the Supra became Toyota’s once and future performance flagship.

Wellspring of the Japanese Sports Car

In 1961, Jaguar introduced the E-Type; in a country that had finally shed the last of the rationing imposed in the Second World War just seven years earlier and was still struggling to rebuild its civilian manufacturing infrastructure, this sports car represented the very best of British engineering and design. As a historical fact, it was distilled, weapons-grade sex on wheels, and Enzo Ferrari called it “the most beautiful car ever made.”

Series 1 cars debuted with power from the XK6 inline-six, a silky-smooth powerplant that dated back to 1949 but proved so versatile and reliable that it would continue to be manufactured in various displacements and versions until 1992. If the small block Chevy is the engine that best represents American automotive engines through the years, Jag’s straight six is its refined, cultured equivalent on the Continent.

The E-Type’s production run spanned three distinct series between 1961 and 1975, but before it bowed out to be replaced by the aggressively-meh XJ-S, it inspired a whole generation of designers around the world. Its long hood/short cockpit coupé layout, necessitated by the front-mid placement of the long inline six behind the front axle, just looked “right,” and those responsible for penning new car concepts in Japan took notice.

[The first-gen RX-7] in typical Mazda weirdness used the incredibly compact 2-rotor Wankel 12A powerplant in an engine bay long enough to fit a straight-eight.

Japan was also emerging from its post-war struggle to rebuild, and carmakers were branching out from their utilitarian roots into ideas that would showcase their engineering and design chops as well as give them high-margin models for foreign (in other words, “North American”) markets. Nissan, still known as Datsun in the US, delivered their riff on the Jaguar sports car archetype with the 1970 240Z, which had similar long-hood/short-cabin proportions and an inline six under the hood. Mazda jumped in late in the game with the first-gen RX-7 in 1978, which was a visual homage to the 1968 Ferrari Daytona, but in typical Mazda weirdness used the incredibly compact 2-rotor Wankel 12A powerplant in an engine bay long enough to fit a straight-eight. Toyota’s hot take on the E-Type was the 1967 2000GT, which first appeared as a concept in 1965, but had an extremely short production run of a mere 351 cars. Priced at $6,800 in the US (the equivalent of almost $53,000 in 2019 buying power – a screaming deal in retrospect, but still higher than the contemporary Jag) it received rave reviews and could be considered Japan’s first ‘exotic.’

Power for the 2000GT came from a 2.0-liter DOHC inline six, rated at 148 horsepower and 129 pound-feet of torque. While it was a world-beater in terms of style and the equal of its rivals in performance, the economics of production simply didn’t make sense for Toyota, and the company’s halo car came and went in the blink of an eye.

Humble Beginnings

By the dawn of the 1970s, Toyota had made decent inroads in the US domestic market, laying the foundation for an empire that would eventually make them the world’s largest automotive manufacturer worldwide. Their focus on sensible, well-built mainstream cars and trucks was a winning long-term strategy, but the itch that had led to the 2000GT still needed to be scratched.

The Celica, Toyota’s entry into the sporty 2+2 coupe market, had made its debut in 1970, and the first generation cars had the styling and performance to rival Datsun’s 510. With the change to a second-generation “A40” design, somebody had the bright idea to create a high performance model that replaced the variety of four-cylinder engines that had come before with the 4M inline-six engine. This was essentially a bored and stroked version of the 3M that had been featured in the 2000GT, and it had already been utilized in some of Toyota’s other, larger cars like the Corona, Cressida, and Crown.

This fuel-injected single overhead cam engine displaced a nominal 2.6 liters and delivered a rated 110 horsepower and 136 pound-feet of torque. Because it was a longer engine than the inline fours powering the “normal” Celica, the new Celica Supra was stretched by just over five inches forward of the firewall to make room under the hood. It made its way to the US market in 1979, but by late 1980 the 4M had been replaced by the 2.8 liter 5M, which made an additional seven horsepower and nine pound feet “at the brochure.”

While a V-6 engine would have created a more compact powerplant (and eliminated the need for the extended chassis), the engineering advantages of the inline layout made it the darling of disco-era designers. Because of the firing order and position of the crank throws, an inline six has what is referred to as “perfect” primary balance, needing no additional balance shafts to offset inertial forces as the engine spins, making them unusually smooth in operation while still being simple. The only mechanical disadvantage compared to a “vee” engine with a similar cylinder count is the long crankshaft, which needs to be stronger than the very short and stiff ones found in V6 and inline four designs to prevent it from acting like a torsion spring. Though they would fall out of favor as the majority of automobile designs switched to front wheel drive layouts where transverse inline six engines weren’t very practical, they held on in sports car applications for the same reason the XK6 was the perfect engine for the E-Type: Refined power at any RPM.

Humble Beginnings: A New Celica Begets a New Supra

In 1981, both the Celica and Celica Supra received clean-sheet redesigns with the debut of the A60 chassis. The difference in overall length remained in order to fit the updated version of the 5M in the Supra, which ranged from 145 horsepower and 155 pound-feet all the way up to 178/169 in US trim between the 1982 and 1985 model years. Another significant change came in the form of a switch from a live axle to an independent semi-trailing arm rear suspension, offering improved handling potential.

Styling was also a clean break from the previous generation, with hidden headlights and an angular, almost “8-bit” design language that is still visually appealing today, while undoubtedly being a product of the 80s. In the US market, the Supra was offered in two main trims that shared the same basic running gear but differed in wheels, tires, and body cladding. The L-Type lacked the P-Type’s fender flares and came with a narrower wheel and tire package than the P-Type, and initially offered interiors that weren’t available in the P-Type.

Performance for the final A60 USDM Supras, while respectable for the era and a definite improvement on the mid-17-second dragstrip times of the previous generation, was nothing to write home about by modern standards – Car and Driver posted an 8.4 second 0-60 and 16.1 second quarter mile. Even so, these cars were perfect archetypes of the front engine/rear drive Japanese “sporty” car of the period, and helped build the Supra brand in the American market.

Clean Sheet

With the A60 chassis at the end of its production run, Toyota followed the same path as many of their peers by switching to a front-wheel-drive platform for the Celica that would be shared with the JDM Carina and Corona, but in a somewhat unusual move, split off the Supra as its own model for 1986, retaining rear-wheel-drive. The MKIII Supra was clearly an evolution of the MKII in both styling and performance, but for the first time a turbo option would be available in the US market. The A70 incorporated a lot of advanced (for the time) technology – while the 7M-GE and -GET’s DOHC 4-valve heads weren’t a revolution, the engines marked the first time Toyota had used distributorless ignition with a coil-per-plug design, and variable intake tract geometry was also introduced in the unboosted version of the 7M.

Power grew to 200 horses and 196 pound-feet for the naturally-aspirated inline-six in the US, while the 7M-GET delivered 232 horsepower and a whopping 254 pound-feet of torque from its nominal 3-liter displacement at a modest 5 pounds of boost. Car and Driver obtained a 6.4 second 0-60 time and a 15-flat at 91 MPH quarter mile timeslip for the turbo model – a significant improvement on the previous generation’s performance.

Through its 1986 – 1992 production run, the MKIII Supra attracted the attention of the growing Japanese domestic tuner market, which was just entering its golden age. The 7M-GET proved to be strong and reliable enough to tolerate upgrades like increased boost via wastegate controllers and turbo swaps, and while the Supra wasn’t quite as light as some of its contemporary rivals, it could certainly hold its own against other modified cars of the era. But with the next generation Supra, Toyota would once again wipe the slate clean and create a car that would come to encapsulate “tuner” culture like no other.

The Legend and the Reality

The A80, known by enthusiasts (though never referred to by Toyota) as the MKIV Supra, was another watershed change from the previous generation. Sharing the underpinnings of the USDM Lexus SC300/400 but more than a foot shorter overall, the new Supra embraced the softened, no-hard-creases design language that came to dominate mid-90s styling for both Japanese and US cars. While the MKIII had decent performance credentials, the 1993 MKIV Supra was intended to be Toyota’s flagship, and received upgrades everywhere on the spec sheet.

Front and center was the new 2JZ inline six; this three-liter engine developed a respectable 220 horsepower in naturally-aspirated GE form, but the real star of the show was the twin-turbo 2JZ-GTE, rated at 321 horsepower and 315 pound-feet for US-spec Supra Turbos. As a technological showcase, the 2JZ-GTE incorporated 90s cutting-edge technology – instead of using a single, medium-size turbocharger like the 7M-GET, the new powerplant was fed by two smaller turbos that were activated sequentially in order to reduce lag while still operating efficiently at high engine RPM and load. 

There was also significant effort placed into reducing the weight of the MKIV; unlike most cars that become heavier and heavier as the years went on, through extensive use of aluminum, magnesium, and composite materials, the A80 was actually more than 200 pounds lighter than the car it replaced. The end result of all the extra power, reduced weight, increased technological sophistication, and other improvements was a car that in Turbo form could do 0-60 in 4.6 seconds, run a 13.1-at-109 quarter mile, and pull 0.95g on the skidpad.

Unfortunately, the mid-90s was a bad time to be exporting (relatively) expensive sports cars from Japan, thanks to an unfavorable exchange rate and tightening safety and emissions regulations in the US. The MKIV only graced American Toyota showrooms from the 1993 model year introduction to 1998, though it would continue to be produced through 2002 for the Japanese domestic market. With no replacement on the drawing board, the Toyota Supra’s history was seemingly at its end. Until…

The “Hero Car”

Much like Scarface glamorized cocaine and the lifestyle of drug lords, and Pirates of the Caribbean idolized eye patches and crippling alcoholism, The Fast and the Furious pushed the gaudy extremes of import car fandom into the consciousness of the movie-going public.

You didn’t really think we were going to go all the way through this without mentioning The Fast and the Furious, did you?

Before it became just another action movie franchise, 2001’s TFatF was a love letter to the romanticized idea of the “tuner culture.” Much like Scarface glamorized cocaine and the lifestyle of drug lords, and Pirates of the Carribean idolized eye patches and crippling alcoholism, The Fast and the Furious pushed the gaudy extremes of import car fandom into the consciousness of the movie-going public. In the aftermath, many a naturally-aspirated FWD Mitsubishi Eclipse was subsequently molested by fans of the film, but the real hero car of the movie was the trashed MKIV Supra that Dominic and Brian restore and modify together.

It’s hard to separate the popularity of the Supra between its Hollywood halo and the inherent attributes of the platform, but even if the MKIV wasn’t desirable enough on merit alone to warrant the attention that has been paid to it in the last 20 years, that movie fame certainly added quite a bit to the legend. So when Toyota began to hint that there would be a new Supra after a two decade gap, expectations were high, but many were prepared for disappointment. Although the Scion FR-S/Subaru BRZ/Toyota 86 was well-received, that car was more of an homage to the nimble, cheap RWD Japanese coupes of the 70s and 80s, instead of a direct successor to a legendary performance car with a rabid fan-base.

The 2020 A90 Supra is shorter, wider, and over 100 pounds lighter than the MKIV. Output from the BMW-sourced single-turbo 3-liter inline-six is similar at 335 horsepower, but in terms of torque the B5830M1 stomps the stock 2JZ-GTE at 365 pound-feet. 0-60 happens in 3.8 seconds and the quarter mile flashes by in 12.3 seconds with a 113 MPH trap speed. Many fans won’t be happy that the only transmission choice is an 8-speed ZF automatic, but on the plus side, there’s that 1.07g skidpad number.

So the question remains – is the A90 a “real” Supra, worthy of the heritage of its hallowed MKIV ancestor, or is it just a badge-engineered BMW? On a practical level, the people who are going to be able to afford its $51,000 base price aren’t necessarily going to care too much about its street cred, compared to a 20-year-old car. They’ll cross shop it against its BMW Z4 step-sibling, the more expensive (and significantly quicker) Camaro ZL1 and Mustang Shelby GT350, and perhaps the base Porsche 718 Cayman.

The 2020 Supra beats the MKIV in every objective measure of performance, making the answer to that question easy for those who base their decisions on lap times and timeslips. But it’s also not a “real” Toyota, which will disqualify it for purists. So in the Sudden Death Overtime Round, you might ask yourself whether it embodies the spirit of the European sports car that kicked this whole thing off nearly 60 years ago – the E-Type. That’s a question only time can answer, but we’d say that the A90 has the right ingredients, even if the recipe isn’t quite the same one handed down from one generation to the next.

Your First Dragstrip Pass: Heads Up or Handicapped?

Or, “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Dial-In”

One of the great things about drag racing is that, in the words of legendary broadcaster Dave Despain, “It’s racing that you do, not racing that you watch.” Most motorsports have a high barrier to entry—in order to be competitive at even the lowest levels, you need a dedicated race car, a trailer and something to tow it with, and a fair amount of disposable income.

Of course, if your dream is to be the next John Force, you’ll need a dump truck full of money to reach that goal, but drag racing has always been about run-what-ya-brung competition going all the way back to its origins in the 1950s, and it’s definitely possible to have a lot of fun (and win some races) on a budget. It comes down to the difference between “heads up” competition and handicapped racing, and today we’re going to break down how these two broad categories work.

Heads Up Racing

Conceptually, heads up competition is the simplest form of drag racing, but in practice, things get a lot more complicated. Two cars line up, and both get the green light at the same time. First past the finish line wins, barring a “red light” start where one (or both) drivers jump the gun and leave the line before getting the green. In order to keep things fair, a set of class rules defines which cars run against each other, based on power, weight, and traction (or a combination of all three).

Power can be equalized by limits on engine displacement, which power adders are allowed, and even the type of fuel used. It’s common to see heads-up classes where cars powered by large-displacement naturally aspirated engines compete against others with smaller boosted engines (which are also limited in turbocharger or supercharger size) and nitrous-fed combinations that are restricted by the number of “stages” and nitrous jet size.

Weight is another way to try to make things fair; some combinations may be required to run a higher minimum weight across the scales at the end of a run than others in order to balance things out. Traction is the final piece of the puzzle—by limiting the size or type of tire, a heads up class can level the playing field, and by restricting the modifications allowed to a car’s suspension, another way of evening out the difference between combinations is introduced.

…A set of class rules defines which cars run against each other, based on power, weight, and traction.

Balancing all these factors is one of the hardest things a race series has to do, and it’s critical to how successful that organization’s races are in terms of the number of competitors. Nobody wants to build a car to the limit of the rules, then be uncompetitive because of a mid-season change that nerfs their combination, but it’s equally crucial to make sure that there isn’t a runaway escalation that turns the class into “pay to win.” As a result, even “entry level” heads up classes tend to be expensive, since they require a car that’s built to take full advantage of the rules if you want to be a frontrunner.

Handicapped Racing

Fortunately, a very long time ago drag racers figured out a way to let cars with vastly different speed potential compete against one another on a level playing field. Handicapped-start drag races, most commonly seen in the form of “bracket” racing, reward consistency and driver skill over raw speed. Here’s how it works:

Let’s say you have a moderately-quick street car. When you bring it out to test and tune night at your local drag strip, you typically run mid-13-second quarter mile passes, run after run. Your buddy has a car that’s got more power and more tire, and he’s running high tens. If you lined up against each other and started at the same time, you’d lose every race.

But you’ve street raced a bit, and so you know that to make things fair, you can negotiate a head start. On some rural two-lane, that might be getting a couple of car lengths, or having your buddy wait until you move before he does, but at the track, you can build that handicap into the timing system.

The beauty of handicapped-start drag racing is that literally anyone in any car can run against anyone else on a level playing field

If you know your car runs 13.50 in the quarter mile, and he knows his car runs 10.75, these predicted elapsed times can be “dialed-in” to the timing system. Because your car is slower, your side of the tree will show you a green light 2.75 seconds before your buddy, so if both of you have the same reaction time and run exactly on your predicted elapsed time, you’ll reach the finish line at the same instant. Just like that, a race that wouldn’t be a fair fight comes down to who reacts quicker.

“But wait!” you say. “Can’t I just sandbag and say my car is slower than it really is, and give myself a huge head start?” You certainly could, but that’s where the “breakout” rule comes into play.

In a bracket race, if you run quicker than your predicted elapsed time, you “break out” of your bracket and lose the race, unless your opponent did the same thing but by a greater margin. If you dialed in 13.50 and ran 13.48 while your buddy ran 10.78 on his 10.75 dial, you may cross the finish line first but still lose the race.

The beauty of handicapped-start drag racing is that literally anyone in any car can run against anyone else on a level playing field, but consistent success requires you to be able to very accurately predict your car’s elapsed time, and cut a quick reaction time. It’s a true test of how well you know your equipment and your driving skill.
Some drag racers will disparage bracket racing as being inferior to running a heads-up class, but it’s the easiest way to get on the dragstrip and build your experience and skill. Running your 13.50 street car down the track every Friday night beats sitting around in the stands and running your mouth about how you’re going to have a fast heads-up car “someday, when I can afford it” every time.

Your First Dragstrip Pass: Know Before You Go

Essential Information for Graduating from the Bleachers to the Burnout Box

Drag Racing is the most American form of motorsports, and is the one form of competition where almost anyone can participate. It’s “racing that you do,” not just “racing that you watch.” Maybe you’ve been to a couple of events at your local track, or maybe you live your life a quarter mile at a time on the street – here’s the essentials you need to know before you make your first dragstrip pass.

It’s Not Expensive

Most dragstrips try their best to keep “grudge night” and “test and tune” entry fees low. In most places, $25-$50 will get you as many passes down the dragstrip as you care to make during normal weekly racing. You might have to pay a little bit more for entry into events where there is an elimination ladder and prizes at stake, but if you just want to drive your car flat-out on the track, it will cost you less than dinner at a nice restaurant.

“But street racing is free!” you might say – well, while it doesn’t cost you anything up-front, there’s always the chance of thousands of dollars in tickets and court costs if you get busted, not to mention the fact that you aren’t getting an ambulance, safety safari, and EMTs on standby in case something goes wrong. You also aren’t getting the assurance that the guy lined up next to you isn’t driving some dangerous piece of junk either. Which brings us to…

You Can Race Just About Any Car That’s Safe Enough To Drive To The Track

Tech inspection, the process where your car is looked over by a track staffer to make sure it meets the minimum standards to race, might seem a bit intimidating. But in reality, unless you have a highly modified car, it’s going to come down to a few simple checklist items which are all just common sense. Is your car leaking anything? That’s going to be dangerous for you, and for anyone behind you, so it will definitely send you back for a refund on your tech card. Are you missing lug nuts? Trust me, telling the tech guy “You let Hondas run with four per wheel” will not convince him to let you race your five-lug Mustang down the track with a couple of sheared-off lugs. Do you have a proper battery tie down? Electrical fires are no fun, and a shoelace or a couple of zip ties aren’t going to cut it, even on the street.

“Get the trash, recyclables, crown-shaped air freshener, and basically anything you wouldn’t want hitting you in the junk out of there.”

Once you get inside the car, you’ll need working factory seatbelts at a minimum, but one of the most common ways to waste everybody’s time in the tech line is to roll up with a bunch of loose stuff rattling around in the passenger compartment, just waiting to hit you the moment you have to brake hard. Get the trash, recyclables, crown-shaped air freshener, and basically anything you wouldn’t want hitting you in the junk out of there.

For you nitrous enthusiasts, there are a couple of special considerations. First, the tank has to be properly secured to the body/frame of the vehicle, so that in the event of a crash it won’t become a projectile. Just pinning it in the back seat footwell by pushing the seat all the way back isn’t good enough, nor is bolting it to a loose piece of plywood and hoping for the best (both things I have actually seen people try before, by the way). Second, any time a nitrous tank is sharing space with your fragile human body, it needs what’s known as a “blow-down tube” that connects to the pressure relief valve and is designed to safely route the gas outside the body of the vehicle in the event the burst disc ruptures. If you have your bottle in a separate trunk, you don’t need a blowdown tube per the rulebook, but it’s still a very, very good idea.

You’ll Need A Few Things

For most street-driven cars, there isn’t a lot of special “safety equipment” you’ll need, but there are a couple things that often trip up new racers. Technically, most sanctioning bodies don’t require helmets on cars slower than a certain elapsed time cutoff, but many tracks have gone to a “helmets for everyone” policy to make it easier for the staff and safer for everyone. To get started, you don’t need anything fancy, but some helmets that are technically legal for use while riding motorcycles on the street aren’t considered sufficient for drag race use. At a minimum, you’ll want an open-face helmet with a SFI or Snell rating sticker that’s no more than 10 years old – no DOT beanies, weird chrome plated WWII biker helmets, skate lids, or the like. Many tracks have a few loaners on hand that you can borrow, but it’s best not to depend on it, and let’s face it – other people’s heads have been in there, and other people are often gross.

“Don’t try to go down the track looking like the love child of The Dude and Freddy Mercury in your mesh tank top and flip-flops.”

The second piece of gear you will absolutely need is long pants. This can literally be almost anything that covers your legs all the way down to your ankles, from sweatpants to jeans. It just can’t be shorts, and if you try to sneak around this rule because it’s too hot to sit in the lanes with long pants on, I can guarantee the person working the starting lanes will look inside and notice. You don’t need a long-sleeve shirt, but tank tops are also right out, as well as open-toe shoes. Don’t try to go down the track looking like the love child of The Dude and Freddy Mercury in your mesh tank top and flip-flops.

Pay Attention To The Track Staff, And Learn Basic Etiquette

Nobody is born knowing how things work at the dragstrip, and a good track staff will be happy to answer a first-timer’s questions to make your inaugural racing experience a positive one. Even if you’ve been a spectator before, there are still some things that might not be obvious if you’ve never raced.

First, if you are on street tires (not drag radials or slicks), don’t drive through the water box when the person running it motions you forward. You will drag a bunch of water and bits of rubber up to the starting line with you if you do, and everyone who IS on drag radials or slicks in the staging lanes behind you will silently judge you. Drive around it to the outside of the track. For that matter, don’t try to do a long, smoky burnout halfway down the track like you’re John Force – this is pointless on street tires, as they will develop less traction when they’re overheated, you’ll tear up the rubber laid down on the track, and usually if you go past the start beam during your burnout, you won’t be allowed to make a run anyway. A short “dry hop” to clean the tread of any debris before rolling up to the line is more than sufficient for street tires.

Once the starter motions you forward, edge forward carefully until your prestage beam lights. Check where your opponent is, then move the rest of the way to fully stage once they are also ready in the prestage beam. Don’t be the noob who didn’t pay attention to where the photocells are, who either drives right through the beams and tries to stage on the back tire, or worse yet, drives all the way up right next to the tree. The starter will have to walk all the way out there to talk to you and get you to back up, and that’s not fun for anyone.

“…Get that battery secure, fix those leaks, and get out of the stands and into the staging lanes…”

When you get the green light, keep it pointed straight, try not to miss any shifts, and if something doesn’t feel right, don’t stay in it – If your car has real problems, move to the side of the track as quickly but safely as you can, instead of laying a stripe of oil or coolant all the way down through the finish line. If everything does go well, once you are past the finish, remember that usually (but not always! Check your local track for their particular procedure) the car in the lane closest to the turn-out has right of way to prevent cutting across the path of another vehicle.

Obviously, we can only scratch the surface in the space we have available here, but there’s lots more to learn – Stay tuned, because there’s more to come! In the meantime, get that battery secure, fix those leaks, and get out of the stands and into the staging lanes of the closest drag strip near you…

Luftgekühlt 6

There’s something about being a gearhead that seems to inspire a tribal instinct—a desire to seek out and commune with people sharing a similar interest. You see it in the eternal Ford versus Chevy rivalry, in the tuner car community where brand loyalty is as strong as family ties, and in the endless debates about what kind of racing is “the best,” from Formula One down to grudge night at the local outlaw eighth-mile dragstrip.

But when it comes to distilled essence of enthusiasm, it’s hard to find the equal of the air-cooled Porsche community. There are other marques that are more prestigious, perhaps—certainly Ferrari can lay claim to a racing history that rivals Porsche, and Lamborghini cars of the same era had a rarity and exoticness that put them in a different category altogether—but the cars from Stuttgart have always had a unique blend of racing success, outstanding performance, exceptional engineering, and most importantly, accessibility to those with big aspirations but relatively modest means.

What all that fancy language boils down to is that Porsche enthusiasts are a different breed, and it’s no surprise that their foremost annual gathering is something entirely unlike any “car show” you’ve probably ever attended.

“Luftgekühlt” literally translates to “air-cooled,” but American ears will hear that final syllable as “cult,” and honestly, that’s not all that inappropriate. To attend Luftgekühlt is to enter a secret society devoted to the veneration of the cars that made Porsche legendary.

Put together by racer-entrepreneurs Patrick Long and Howie Idelson, Luftgekühlt has taken many forms in its five past iterations, with three meets in eclectic SoCal locations (including one in a Los Angeles lumber yard), one in Munich, and one in London.

For Luftgekühlt 6, the Universal Studios backlot was turned into a 1:1 scale diorama to display more than 350 Porsches in a variety of settings, from the wild west to the streets of New York and even the Hill Valley courthouse square from Back to the Future.

Even the signage on the storefronts was changed to match the Porsche theme, helping to provide an immersive environment to properly appreciate the cars on display.

Cars weren’t parked quite so much as they were curated, placed in settings appropriate to their history and significance in the air-cooled boxer universe. Even the signage on the storefronts was changed to match the Porsche theme, helping to provide an immersive environment to properly appreciate the cars on display.

If you’re wondering how those cars ended up as part of this year’s event, the selection process for the opportunity to display your car at Luftgekühlt is exclusive, without being elitist—as the number of applicants greatly exceeds the space available, it comes down to how interesting your Porsche is.

Of course, cars with racing provenance, rare variations, and pristine examples of both street and competition models are well-represented, but what you come to realize is that every car you see has a story, and even the most humble air-cooled Porsche with the right soul can find a place in the spotlight.

Those fortunate enough to score a golden ticket to attend Luftgekühlt 6 as a spectator would be treated to an up-close look at Porsches as disparate as 917 racers in open-cockpit 917/10 Can-Am and 917K Le Mans variations, 911-pattern cars set up for every form of club and professional racing from GT to rally, and even an assortment of 914s, which were long considered the “ugly duckling” of the air-cooled Porsche family but have earned a new appreciation among collectors in recent years for their inherent good qualities as both competition cars and daily drivers.

There was also no shortage of truly exotic Porsches—as you would expect, the ultimate expression of the 911 design family, the 959 supercar, was represented at Luftgekühlt 6, but the most offbeat Porsche might have been the P312 “orchard tractor.”

Powered by a 24-horsepower 1.8 liter engine (air-cooled, of course), the P312’s most distinguishing feature is its streamlined bodywork, reminiscent of the “airflow” cars and trains of the 1920s and ’30s.

It wouldn’t be surprising if they ended up on the deck of an aircraft carrier, on the roof of a skyscraper in Dubai, or even aboard a purpose-built space station in low-earth orbit.

Porsche actually built a number of different tractors in the mid-20th century, primarily diesel-powered, but the gas-engined 312 was a specialized model with a few hundred constructed for the Brazilian coffee plantation market. The idea behind the swoopy sheetmetal wasn’t to reduce wind resistance; instead, it was designed to slip between trees without damaging delicate branches or fruit.

Luftgekühlt has taken a lot of different forms in a relatively short history, and this year’s gathering was certainly no exception to the eclectic settings seen in the first five. It’s hard to imagine how Long and Idelson will top the make-believe world of the Universal Studios backlot for Luftgekühlt 7 though.

It wouldn’t be surprising if they ended up on the deck of an aircraft carrier, on the roof of a skyscraper in Dubai, or even aboard a purpose-built space station in low-earth orbit. Wherever it ends up, though, you know that it will be an event air-cooled Porsche fans simply cannot miss.

What Is A Turbocharger?

State of Speed Basics – The Manly Art of Automotive Knowledge

Ah, the noble turbocharger… Is there a more hallowed, or more misunderstood piece of high-performance hardware? It is the very definition of simplicity with only a single moving part, but it’s also incredibly complex in design and engineering that requires a mastery of aerodynamics, physics, materials science, and advanced manufacturing. Of course, nothing has catalyzed more keyboard warrior bench racing conflicts, with the possible exception of “NOS.” Today, we will separate fact from fiction, dispel some myths, and provide a solid education on the history, technical aspects, and practical use of turbocharging as it applies to high-performance engines. Strap in, because it might get a little bumpy.

Air Apparent

First, let’s define what a turbocharger does. When turbos were first being seriously developed during the period between the First and Second World War, they were referred to as “turbo-superchargers” which is a pretty good encapsulation of what they do. Turbos are part of the larger family of superchargers, which are defined as devices that provide air to an engine at a higher volume and pressure than the ambient atmosphere; but turbos are distinguished by the fact that they are powered by a turbine that is spun by exhaust gas, instead of a direct mechanical connection to the crankshaft. How much power an engine can deliver is based on how much fuel it can burn, and how much fuel it can burn is determined by how much air is available to mix with that fuel. You’ll often hear people talk about engines being “air pumps,” and to a certain extent, that analogy can help you understand the dynamics involved, even though it’s not perfect. The term “volumetric efficiency” sums up the breathing ability of a particular engine, and how much it can breathe directly affects how much fuel can be burned (and ultimately turned into power at the wheels.) An engine that operates at 100% volumetric efficiency takes in every bit of air that will physically fit in its displacement in every complete intake cycle. For instance, a 2-liter, 4-stroke engine at 100% VE will swallow exactly 2 liters of ambient air for each intake/compression/combustion/exhaust cycle across all its cylinders. In a naturally-aspirated engine, most of the time it will be operating at less than 100% VE thanks to the inherent inefficiency of the intake tract, valvetrain, and other restrictions. It’s possible to actually get that theoretical 2-liter engine to gulp down more than 2 liters per cycle in narrow operating ranges, thanks to clever camshaft lobe profiles and tuned intake and exhaust manifold design. But even the absolute best naturally aspirated engine will be lucky to get a few extra percentage points above 100% VE—there’s only so much that can be done with atmospheric pressure pushing air into the cylinders.

Under Pressure

This is the point where superchargers come in. Once you have a way to artificially push more air into the engine beyond what the ambient atmosphere can provide, the sky is (literally) the limit when it comes to volumetric efficiency. Superchargers (and turbo-superchargers) found their first high-performance application in aircraft engines; as altitude increases, the air available decreases, and at high altitude, naturally-aspirated engines can only produce a small fraction of the power they do at sea level.

Initial experiments centered around using supercharging to “normalize” available power and keep it constant as an airplane gained altitude, since engine output was acceptable at ground level, and the designs of the day weren’t able to cope with high boost and extreme dynamic compression. That would change in World War II as improved metallurgy, better engine designs, and high octane fuel all came together to allow more and more boost over a wider range of conditions without damaging the powerplant.

Once you have a way to artificially push more air into the engine beyond what the ambient atmosphere can provide, the sky is (literally) the limit when it comes to volumetric efficiency.

While many aircraft engines employed superchargers that were mechanically driven off of the crankshaft (often with multiple compressor stages and two-speed transmissions), other designs employed turbo-superchargers that were driven by the pressure of exhaust gas. The advantages of a turbo over a mechanical supercharger were numerous; they didn’t need to be directly coupled to the engine (in fact, the turbocharger in the Republic P-47 fighter was a full thirty feet behind the engine, tucked away aft of the pilot in the rear fuselage).

It was easy to control boost with a wastegate instead of a complex mechanical transmission (more on that in a moment), and best of all, instead of taking power away from the crankshaft to spin the compressor, a turbine provided that power for “free” by using the energy of the exhaust gas instead. 

While they made an appearance on cars in the inter-war years, in the post-war period saw both mechanical superchargers and turbo-superchargers gain in popularity with factory applications and hot rodders of all stripes—the appreciation of the power of boost had become mainstream, and there was no turning back.

How a Turbocharger Works

Part of the subtle beauty of the turbocharger is how simple it is, mechanically speaking. At its core, a turbo is simply a turbine wheel, a compressor wheel, and a shaft that connects the two. On the “hot” side of the turbo, an exhaust manifold sends spent gasses into the turbine housing and to the outside of the vanes of a turbine wheel, causing it to spin. The shaft transmits that rotation to the “cold” side of the turbo, where the compressor wheel ingests air in the center, then slings it out around the diameter of the wheel into the compressor housing. Automotive turbochargers almost exclusively use this sort of ‘centrifugal compressor’ to produce boost—rather than moving air like a desk fan, it works more like a playground merry-go-round, using the small but still significant mass of the air itself to create increased pressure as it is forced from the center of the wheel to the edge, where it is collected by the compressor housing and sent on to the engine.

The fact that a centrifugal compressor doesn’t really care whether it is spun by a turbine or by a mechanical drivetrain has caused many a noob to misidentify a ProCharger or Vortech supercharger as a “turbo,” since they also use a centrifugal compressor, paired with a belt or crankshaft-driven gearbox to provide power instead of a turbine.

Though they look the same at first glance, a quick peek behind the compressor housing will tell you if it’s being powered by the crank, or by exhaust gas. 

As was mentioned before, one of the advantages of a turbocharger is that it doesn’t place any parasitic drag on the crankshaft in order to produce boost. The energy required to spin the compressor comes entirely from the flow of exhaust gasses, effectively recovering power that would otherwise be lost.

…rather than moving air like a desk fan, it works more like a playground merry-go-round…

In order to control boost and keep it at the desired level, a device called a wastegate is used on the “hot” side of the system, ahead of the turbine wheel. Using a combination of spring pressure and a pneumatic actuator, the wastegate is a valve that can open to allow some of the exhaust flow to bypass the turbine to regulate how fast it spins the compressor on the “cold” side of the turbocharger. In factory turbo applications, the wastegate is often built into the turbine housing inlet as an “integral” design and uses a regulated pressure source connected through a computer-controlled solenoid valve to the intake manifold to open or close itself, based on how much boost the engine management system is requesting at that moment. Turbocharger systems for racing or aftermarket systems for street use often use a separate stand-alone wastegate to allow more precise control or to provide a greater bypass capacity than an integral wastegate.

On the “cold” side, you’ll often find a device that looks very similar to a wastegate, but that performs a very different function. Whether it’s called a “blow-off valve” or a “compressor relief valve,” it’s not there to regulate boost. This component provides another vital function—because air has mass and inertia, and so does the spinning compressor wheel, whenever there is a rapid change in throttle position there will be a sudden surge in pressure inside the intake tract. A good example is during an upshift when the throttle is momentarily closed between gears. Air that has been rushing toward the throttle body suddenly meets a restriction, and a pressure wave bounces off of it and is reflected back towards the turbo. This wave tries to slow the rotation of the compressor since it’s moving in the wrong direction, and if it’s strong enough, it can damage the shaft or even cause it to snap.

A compressor relief valve uses an actuator that compares the pressure in the intake tract between the turbo and the throttle body against the pressure inside the intake manifold on the far side of the throttle blade, and when there’s a significant difference (indicating that the throttle is shut), it opens to release the trapped pressure and prevent compressor surge. If the valve is open to the atmosphere, this is the source of the characteristic “Psssh” sound so many tuner cars produce, but most factory turbo setups will quietly recirculate this air via plumbing that sends the pressure around the turbo and back to the inlet.

Details, Details, Details…

At its most basic, a turbocharger setup just contains the key components listed above—a turbocharger unit itself that contains a turbine and compressor linked by a shaft, a wastegate to regulate boost and prevent the pressure on the intake side from exceeding desired levels, and perhaps a compressor relief valve to help keep the turbo spooled between gears and reduce surge loads. Like anything else related to high performance, though, things can get as complicated as you can possibly imagine.

Starting with the center section of the turbocharger, the shaft, which turns at tens of thousands of RPM at full-tilt, needs to be supported by a bearing to let it spin with as little friction as possible. Most turbochargers use a plain bearing, which works like the main and rod bearings on the crankshaft, using oil pressure to provide a cushion. A step up from there in sophistication are ball-bearing center sections, which don’t require the same high volume of oil to do the job as a plain bearing and offer less friction (and a little advantage in how quickly the turbo spools up). Ceramic ball-bearing center sections offer lighter rotating components and even less friction, with a commensurate increase in price. Finally, turbocharger center sections are often water-cooled via a connection to the engine’s coolant system in order to thwart heat from making its way from the “hot” to the “cold” side and to prevent extreme temperatures from turning the lubricating oil into carbon deposits inside the bearings. The size of the turbocharger has a big impact on engine performance; the larger in diameter the components are, the more airflow they can provide (and the more horsepower they can support), but this comes at the expense of slower response to changes in throttle position because of the increased inertia of the rotating assembly. Large single turbochargers are popular for drag racing where lag isn’t an issue, but for other forms of racing or street applications, twin turbo setups are popular, especially for V-type engines where each cylinder bank can have its own turbo. Some factory twin-turbo systems (I’m looking at you, MKIV Supra!) used two different sized sequential turbos, with the smaller unit providing boost at low load/RPM and transitioning to the larger one under full-boogie demand.

There’s Always More To Learn About Turbochargers

While we’ve looked at the basics of turbocharging, In the space we have available here, it’s impossible to cover all the important technical aspects of turbo system design and operation, and we’ve intentionally left out subjects like compressor housing A/R ratios, how to read a compressor map, the effect of intercooling, water injection, and cool-burning fuels like methanol, and dozens of others. Nevertheless, we’ve laid a foundation for further study, should you be interested in learning more. Remember, nobody is born knowing all this, and the only dumb question is the one that you never ask.

The Jeep: From Willys to Wrangler

How the World’s Most Famous Go-Anywhere Vehicle Earned Its Stripes

If you had to pick a single candidate for “the most American car ever,” there are a lot of potential candidates. The Corvette would be near the top of the list—it’s always been “America’s sports car” from the original C1 racers at LeMans through the iconic split-window 1963 model and the C3 that defined the Apollo Era of American exceptionalism (and endured the dark days of smog restrictions and gas lines), all the way up to today’s C7 and upcoming mid-rear-engine C8 supercar.

You could also make a case for the Ford Mustang that launched the Pony Car wars and spawned the Camaro and Challenger, or the “shoebox” Chevy sedans that became a favorite of hot rodders. The original muscle car, the Pontiac GTO, would also be on the shortlist, and even the Ford Model T would be a strong contender, thanks to the way it put car ownership in the reach of the working class and created the impetus for America’s shift from roads designed for horse-drawn conveyance to ones better-suited for cars and trucks.

But out of all the possibilities, in the end there’s only one vehicle that truly deserves the title—the Jeep. In continuous production (and continually popular) since 1941 and showing no signs of ever falling out of favor, the iconic off-roader is the one motor vehicle that stands above the rest. Born in the shadow of looming global conflict, the original Jeep served admirably in the Arsenal of Democracy, transitioned to civilian life as a workhorse for farmers and ranchers, and evolved into a status symbol that never lost its off-road credibility.

While “Jeep” grew from a single, scrappy 4×4 light scout car into an entire brand that has encompassed multiple different platforms over the years, including today’s unibody SUV and crossover vehicles, what we’re really interested in is the MB, CJ, and Wrangler models that are first to mind when you hear the name “Jeep.” Here is their story.

Flat Fenders

The vehicle we know today as the Jeep began its existence as a US Army specification for a “Truck, ¼ ton, 4×4” just prior to America’s entry into the Second World War. Post-WWI, the country’s armed forces had been significantly drawn down and reorganized, and many experiments were in progress to determine how new technology would make the next conflict different from the static trench warfare that characterized the Great War.

…the original Jeep served admirably in the Arsenal of Democracy, transitioned to civilian life as a workhorse for farmers and ranchers, and evolved into a status symbol that never lost its off-road credibility.

Light trucks and cars had shown promise toward the end of that war as a way to conduct reconnaissance, quickly move troops, artillery, and supplies, and generally, replace the large numbers of horses that had previously done most of the heavy lifting. The Army had a number of vehicles already in development or production that ranged from a half-ton to 7.5 tons in payload capacity, but a need was recognized for a smaller, more agile vehicle in the quarter-ton capacity range for the reconnaissance and liaison role.

American Bantam, a manufacturer with a somewhat-troubled history of bankruptcy but plenty of experience with small cars, and Willys-Overland, another faltering Depression-era builder and seller of small cars, endeavored to produce prototypes to meet the somewhat-unrealistic specifications set out by the Ordinance Technical Committee: 4-wheel drive, a crew of three, a 75-inch wheelbase and 47 inch track width, a fold-down windshield, 660-pound payload, and an engine with a minimum of 85 pound-feet of torque, all weighing in at a scant 1,300 pounds empty. Oh, and by the way, bids were required in 11 days, with a deadline of 49 days for the first prototype and 75 days to deliver 70 test vehicles.

While Willys was the low bidder, they were passed over in favor of Bantam when they couldn’t commit to the incredibly short deadline, and the Army moved ahead with the project. Over the course of development, Willys and eventually Ford became involved, as Bantam didn’t have anything close to the production capacity that would be required for full-scale manufacturing. The specification evolved from the ridiculously-light 1,300-pound weight goal to a more sensible 2,160-pound maximum, and Bantam ended up being edged out of the project as the Willys MB and Ford GPW became the definitive production models, with the US Army securing the patent for what would be known as the WWII Jeep in 1942.

Over the course of the war, Willys would manufacture more than 360,000 MBs and Ford would build another 280,000-plus GPWs. Ford being Ford, while parts were mostly interchangeable between the two, many of the parts produced by Ford would be stamped with a stylized cursive capital letter “F” in the same font as the Ford logo.

Post-War Production

With the Second World War drawing to a close, and all of America’s manufacturing corporations eyeing the future beyond the massive expansion they’d experienced since 1941, Willys-Overland was keen to find a way to turn the MB into something that could be sold on the civilian market. In 1944 with victory in sight, they began to work on prototypes for the “Civilian Jeep,” or simply CJ, mainly consisting of removing military-specific details like blackout lights and adding a tailgate. The initial conversions would later be referred to as the CJ-1, though none have survived and details are scant. The follow-on CJ-2 prototypes would be another limited experiment with only a few scores produced for internal company testing of more civilian-friendly modifications, and a few still exist today.

These led to the CJ-2A, the first true production civilian Jeep, which introduced the now-trademarked 7-slot vertical grille (previous models had 9) and was primarily intended for the agricultural market with a wide range of factory accessories like winches, snow plows, mowers, and even welders powered off of the engine’s PTO mount. More than 200,000 were sold between the end of the war and 1949, in a bewildering array of possible configurations that have become a collector and restorer playground/nightmare.

The next model, the CJ-3A, debuted in 1949 and included more detail changes to improve the transmission, axles, and suspension, and was adopted to replace the now-elderly wartime MB and GPW Jeeps in US military service as the Willys MC, designated the “Utility Truck, M38.” 130,000 or so were produced before being replaced by the CJ-3B in 1953, with more minor changes. Kaiser (yes, the same car manufacturer that eventually spawned the healthcare company) bought Willys-Overland that same year, and licensing of the Jeep design was expanded from Mitsubishi (who had produced the 3A in post-war Japan exclusively for police and other government use) to also include Mahindra in India, who would continue to grind out CJ-3B-based vehicles all the way through 2010.

The CJ-4 moniker was applied to a stillborn concept project in 1950-51, so the next Jeep model the world would see was the CJ-5. In various versions, it would remain in production from 1955 to 1983, and it soldiered on through many changes – not the least of which came when Jeep was sold to American Motors Corporation in 1970. In military service it would be known as the M38A1, and in 1972 AMC engaged in a major revision to the platform that increased the wheelbase by 3 inches, added overall length, and increased the size of the engine bay to accommodate both a 304 cubic inch V8 and 3.8 and 4.2 liter straight six engine options.

…Jeep fans absolutely lost their minds, with the YJ being panned by hardcore enthusiasts as an unworthy successor to the legendary CJ series.

AMC’s marketing increasingly targeted mainstream buyers instead of the agricultural and utilitarian appeal previous Jeeps had cultivated. Multiple appearance, accessory, and performance packages were offered, leaning heavily toward the stickers-and-stripes design ethos of the 1970s and early ‘80s.

A stretched-wheelbase version of the CJ-5 was designated as the CJ-6 and was produced between 1955 and 1981, but most of the 50,000 or so units made ended up overseas, with US availability ending in 1975. As a hint of things to come, a 4-door version was available, but never caught on domestically. The definitive “Civilian Jeep” model, the CJ-7, debuted in the 1976 model year in the US in production that overlapped its predecessor. It was visually distinctive from the CJ-5 primarily due to different door cutouts, but also featured changes to the ladder frame beneath the bodywork that allowed wider placement of the rear leaf springs for more chassis stability—the CJ-5 had been somewhat unfairly faulted for being dangerous in sudden obstacle avoidance maneuvers, and the suspension improvements were intended, in part, to address that issue. As the last of the classic Jeep models that could draw their lineage directly to the original WWII MB and GPW, almost 380,000 were built before the sun set on the CJ series in 1986.

Meet the Wrangler

For 1986, AMC (now owned by French auto conglomerate Renault) introduced a mostly-clean-sheet replacement for the CJ-7 named the Wrangler, with the internal chassis code YJ. The redesign continued the trend toward more safety and comfort features, but retained the Jeep essentials—leaf-sprung live axles front and rear, body-on-frame construction, a folding windshield and removable doors, and a strong bias toward off-road competence over everyday practicality. Nevertheless, Jeep fans absolutely lost their minds, with the YJ being panned by hardcore enthusiasts as an unworthy successor to the legendary CJ series. The distinctive square-headlight Wrangler continued in production through the purchase of the Jeep brand by Chrysler in 1987, with total production topping 685,000 units before the final 1995 production year.

Remaining 1995 YJ production models continued to be sold through the “missing” 1996 Wrangler model year, and the new TJ made its debut for 1997. Bowing to the power of nostalgia, the new Wrangler went back to round headlights, but introduced a major change to the suspension in the form of coil springs in place of the front and rear leaf spring setup that dated back to 1940. Once again, Jeep purists were enraged, but the Wrangler gained another major improvement in everyday on-road practicality in exchange for essentially no loss of off-road competence. The top engine option remained as a modernized 4.0L version of the venerable AMC straight-6, with 4-cylinder power in base models. A “Wrangler Unlimited” model, still retaining the 2-door body configuration but stretched 10 inches in wheelbase and 15 inches overall compared to the standard TJ, debuted for 2004, offering better room in the back seat and greatly improved towing capability.

TJ production wrapped up in 2006, and Jeep introduced the JK Wrangler for the 2007 model year. While still retaining live axle suspension and styling that was very similar to the TJ, the JK was a complete redesign that was wider and longer in wheelbase (though shorter overall) than its predecessor. Most importantly, the Wrangler Unlimited, AKA the JKU, introduced a true 4-door option with a 20-inch longer wheelbase while being less than 3 inches longer overall than the previous TJ Unlimited. This decision turned out to be hugely successful, with the overwhelming majority of JK buyers opting for the 4-door Unlimited model. Finally giving in to the inexorable march of progress, hardcore Jeep fans have embraced the JK/JKU, and the aftermarket has shown incredible enthusiasm for the third-gen Wrangler with an enormous variety of suspension, engine, and body upgrades.

For the 2018 model year, Jeep introduced the JL, which continues the tradition of body-on-frame construction and live front and rear axles, with more concessions to the luxury and comfort features buyers of the increasingly-expensive Wrangler have come to expect. While it remains the most competent off-road domestic vehicle you can buy off the showroom floor, especially in “Rubicon” trim, today’s Wrangler has come a very, very long way from the tiny “go-devil” known to US troops in WWII. Over the past eight decades, Jeeps have gone from a thrown-together way to haul a few soldiers and their gear across inhospitable terrain to luxury mall-crawler and every point in between. In the process, they’ve become the most uniquely American form of transportation, recreation, and personal expression, and there’s no end in sight.

Cowboy Cadillac: ’68 El Camino

Tim Clancy’s 1968 El Camino Has the Heart of a CTS-V

These days, it’s not uncommon to see pickups used as daily drivers, decked out with luxurious interiors more suited to a limousine than a work truck, and optioned out to the point where the additional features double the sticker price. But back in the muscle car era, pickups were seen as utilitarian tools, not status symbols. Ford, always looking to create new market segments, launched the Ranchero in the 1957 model year, and foreshadowing what would happen with the Mustang and Camaro a few years later, Chevy got into the game with their own El Camino in 1959.

Built on two-door station wagon platforms, these two original “utility coupes” were originally aimed at the Gentleman Farmer, with a bed large enough to carry a useful payload, but a car-like driving experience that the wife wouldn’t object to for weekend trips into town for shopping and Sunday services at First Baptist.

…business up front, party in the back…

While the Ranchero enjoyed a successful run, it was the El Camino that launched a “business up front, party in the back” fanbase that continues to this day, with intermittent pleas for General Motors to import the Holden Ute to the US like they had done with the Commodore (which was rebadged as the Pontiac GTO).

Unfortunately, with both Ford Australia and Holden out of the business of building vehicles, it’s unlikely that we will see the return of a domestic branded “utility coupe” to showrooms any time soon, but that doesn’t mean that things are hopeless for those desiring a Ute with modern power. Case in point: Tim Clancy’s 1968 Chevy El Camino.

“I’ve had it for about 24 years,” Clancy explains. “I paid 2,500 bucks for it. I drove it for a long time with the original 396 and Muncie 4-speed, and I just drove it until it started smoking so much that I had to stop driving it.”

Now, they say that old cars don’t die—people just run out of money to keep them going. But Clancy knew what he had, and didn’t want to part with it just yet. “About five years ago I started back in on it, doing some simple bodywork, and I got it painted and rechromed everything,” he recalls.

Now, they say that old cars don’t die—people just run out of money to keep them going.

Of course, the cosmetic fixes didn’t address the main reason why he parked it in the first place, and a quick rebuild of the big-block might have gotten his ElCo back on the road right away, but Tim had bigger plans in mind. Much bigger.

“It still had the 396 in it, so it sat for a while until I finally decided to pull the trigger and bought that LSA motor.” By which he is referring to the 6.2 liter supercharged LSA crate engine, derived from the 2009-2015 Cadillac CTS-V and 5th Gen Camaro ZL1, that currently resides between the front fenders of his El Camino.

“It was a hell of a deal,” he says, but writing the check payable to Chevrolet Performance was only the first step. “We had to refabricate everything in the engine compartment to move it all—all the reservoirs, cooling for the blower—it was quite an ordeal and a lot of work. Everything is essentially upgraded to 2017 standards,” he reveals.

Rated at 556 crank horsepower, with a little expert attention the true potential of the factory-stock crate engine was unlocked. Per Clancy, “I had it dyno tuned to around 605 horsepower, and eventually, we are going to upgrade it to about 850. But I am waiting for the warranty to run out—as long as there is that three-year warranty, I am going to hang with it.”

Backing the LSA is a T-56 manual transmission feeding power to a Mark Williams rear end stuffed with premium components including a NASCAR gearset. “it has a 5-link suspension with coilovers, but it is still light in the rear end, and when you reach the limit it wants to come around,” he admits. To fight that tendency, Clancy knew he needed high-performance rubber, but he didn’t want to sacrifice the look of the El Camino with a modern-style “pro touring” low profile wheel and tire combination.

Clancy says, “I could have gone with the normal ‘nostalgia’ radials on it, but I’d just end up dead in a ditch. I wanted the look but I needed tires that handle well. I’m just not willing to compromise on that.” The Chevy rolls on 15-inch “Rally” style wheels wrapped in Milestar Streetsteel radial all-season high-performance tires, which are designed specifically for muscle cars, hot rods, and classics. These tires blend current technology and timeless raised-white-letter styling to provide traction and handling that would seem like black magic back in ‘68.

600-plus rear wheel horsepower demands respect, especially considering that this Chevy is going to be handed down to the next generation. “I don’t sell cars,” Clancy explains. “When I do, I always regret it. I’ll keep all my cars and give them to my kid, and he’s also a serious gearhead.” With a modern drivetrain transplant, suspension upgrades, an interior refresh that kept things looking original, and tires that are up to the task, his 1968 El Camino is ready for whatever the next 50 years have in store.

“I have six other fast cars in the garage, but this is what I drive every day. I just really enjoy it. You can drive it hard and not worry about breaking it.”

In the Beginning: Ford Mustang

How the Original Pony Car Won America’s Heart

It isn’t very often that a single car model manages to create an entirely new market segment all by itself, but that’s exactly what the Ford Mustang did in the mid 1960s, and the other cars that followed its example from GM, Chrysler, and AMC all shared a moniker coined to reflect the Mustang’s equine name—the “Pony Car.”

While Pontiac had defined the Muscle Car formula of a big V8 engine in an intermediate-size chassis with the 1964 GTO, that was basically an option package on the otherwise-ordinary Tempest. Ford, headed at the time by the legendary Lee Iacocca, was working on a new small, sporty car design that wouldn’t look like any other car in the current fleet, though to save time and money it would share the majority of its underpinnings with the existing Falcon and Fairlane. Between late 1962 and the spring of 1964, a crash program took the Ford Mustang from a bullet list of goals to a production-ready design that would turn out to be an enormous sales success, paving the way for subsequent model generations that spanned more than 50 years of continuous production all the way to today.

Those goals included room for four with buckets and a floor-mounted shifter in front, an overall length of fewer than 15 feet from bumper to bumper, a curb weight under 2,500 pounds, and a starting price of less than $2,500 (about $20,200 in today’s dollars). Engines would include a base inline-six as well as an assortment of small-block V8 options, and both notch-back and convertible body styles. To say that Ford captured lightning in a bottle is an understatement—the Mustang prototype was the hit of the 1964 World’s Fair, and on the opening day of the fair, more than 22,000 orders were taken for the new car. Between the 1964 ½ model year (because the Mustang was introduced late in the model year cycle, the first 120,000 or so were technically 1964 models, though they carry 1965 VIN codes) and 1966 (the peak year of first-gen Mustang production) a whopping 1,288,557 Mustangs were built.

The best modern analogy would be to call it the iPhone of its day…

It’s hard to convey just how much excitement and interest the Mustang sparked when it hit showrooms, and GM, Chrysler, and American Motors all rushed to create their own cars to compete in the previously non-existent market segment. The best modern analogy would be to call it the iPhone of its day; while other cars preceded it that had some of the same features, none combined them in a way that defined a whole new type of enthusiast car like the Mustang did. Realizing what they had, Ford leaned into the Mustang’s popularity with ad campaigns that emphasized the idea of youthful exuberance, and even went as far as to disassemble a 1965 convertible into four main sections plus a few odds and ends, load the pieces into an elevator, and then reassemble the entire car on the 86th floor observation deck of the Empire State Building.

The Mustang’s ground-breaking long hood/short deck styling set the standard for the domestic competition through the 1960s and beyond, and racers began to adopt it as a platform for closed circuit and drag racing competition as well. Best-known is the Shelby GT350, which debuted in 1965. Carroll Shelby, who also imported the British-built AC Ace and re-engined it with Ford V8 powerplants to create the legendary AC Cobra, took Mustangs equipped with the 271 horsepower 281 cubic inch Windsor V8 and modified them with different carburetors, intake manifolds, brakes, and other small changes in order to prepare them to the limit of SCCA B-Production rules, where the cars won three years in a row. Through subsequent years, the Shelby Mustang became less race-focused and oriented toward high-performance street use, but the die was cast, and many a future Mustang would wear Shelby or Cobra badging in homage to these seminal performance cars (and many a baby girl or family dog would end up named “Shelby” as well.)

…other manufacturers who were now offering their own “pony cars” plus the 1973 oil crisis brought the first generation to a close.

Over the course of the Mustang’s first generation, which lasted through the 1973 model year, engine options included inline sixes as well as 289 and 302 cubic inch Windsor small-block V8s (named for their Canadian manufacturing location in Windsor, Ontario), plus 390, 427, 428, and 429 cubic inch big-block V8 power. The Mustang progressively became larger and heavier, and a major facelift for 1971 radically changed the car’s profile. Though still popular, sales were nowhere near what they had been during the glory days of 1965–1969, and competition from other manufacturers who were now offering their own “pony cars” plus the 1973 oil crisis brought the first generation to a close.

The replacement, Ford’s Mustang II, was already waiting in the wings—having seen the end of inexpensive gas and ever-stricter emissions standards on the horizon, the company was well-prepared with a new model that was smaller, more fuel-efficient, and as it turns out, universally hated by Mustang fans then and now. But that, my friends, is a story for another day…

Hip to be Square: 1974 Chevy Cheyenne

GM’s “Square Body” pickups are red hot these days, but Raymond Ernandez’s Cheyenne bucks the trend of pro touring over-restoration

Just like the muscle car is something that could only be invented in the USA, the pickup truck as a personal vehicle (and not just a farm implement or tradesman’s workhorse) is a uniquely American thing. Combine a two-door cab with a short bed and you have a vehicle with the intimate passenger compartment of a sports car and the practicality to haul a half-dozen beer kegs or a weekend’s worth of gear for the deer camp, should the need arise. It didn’t take much rationalization to talk yourself into one instead of a station wagon or four-door sedan, in the same way people convince themselves that a “crossover” SUV is a better answer to their needs than a minivan today. The single-cab short bed pickup perfectly occupied that space on the Venn diagram where coolness and practicality overlapped.

Between the 1973 and 1987 model year, General Motors built an absolute metric buttload of C/K series third-gen full-size pickups to this formula, and they proved to be popular, reliable, and to most people, disposable. Anyone who thought at the time they’d be sought-after rides thirty-five years down the line would be considered insane, but they’d also be right. Today, these “square body” pickups have a huge following, and you can’t do an online search for them without coming across a plethora of lovingly restored examples and scores of immaculate pro-touring builds.

The truck you see here is neither.

…perfectly occupied that space on the Venn diagram where coolness and practicality overlapped.

In Corvette-speak, it would be called a “survivor,” but a better term for Raymond Ernandez’ 1974 Chevy Cheyenne Super Custom Fleetside would be “honest.” Per Raymond, “I’ve always been a fan of the square-bodies, and when I spotted it, I knew it was a diamond in the rough.” Bought just over a year ago in (mostly) factory-original condition, this Spanish Yellow truck shows the years and the miles but has the kind of authenticity and honesty many enthusiasts try to restore away. Under the hood is the original 454 big block, topped by an anonymous chrome open element air filter perched on the 4-barrel and strapped with tubular headers of unknown origin, just like every Chevy V8 pickup wore back in the day.

“It’s currently a work in progress,” he admits, with only a few changes made since he obtained the truck. Three-inch drop spindles in front and a flip kit in back give the Cheyenne a modern stance, but the real key to the retro-cool look is the combination of 15-inch Rally wheels (8 inches wide up front, 10 in back) with Milestar Streetsteel tires in 245/60 and 295/50 profile front and rear. Tire technology has come a long way since the square-body trucks last left the assembly line, and these tires incorporate modern engineering with classic styling, including a contemporary all-season tread design and a timeless raised white letter sidewall. It’s the perfect combination of the right look for this truck with the performance that nothing from that era could touch.

…they proved to be popular, reliable, and to most people, disposable.

Raymond has a few different cars and trucks in his garage, but the Cheyenne gets the nod for both practical pickup duty and weekend outings. “I mainly take it to local truck shows and cruises where I can take my little boys along,” he explains. “They’re growing up to enjoy the truck and classic car scene.” While the C10 might have been unappreciated as more than just a working truck in its day, it’s great to see people like Raymond Ernandez passing the love of these once-overlooked mainstays of American automotive culture down to the next generation.

Living the Dream: The Impala SS

Raymond Ernandez’s 1962 Chevrolet Impala SS is the Fulfillment of Childhood Desire

Cars have inspired songwriters for decades, from the ‘30 Ford Woody in Jan & Dean’s Surf City to the epic battle between Ford and Cadillac Chuck Berry sang about in Maybelline, and of course Prince’s eponymous Little Red Corvette. But if you had to think of a song inspired by an engine, there’s only one that comes to mind: the Beach Boys’ 409. Chevy’s original big block V8 in its 409 cubic inch version didn’t just earn its reputation through displacement alone; it was rated at one horsepower per cube, the magic number for engine output in that era. Tonawanda built more than 15,000 of them in 1962, and they found their way into a select few factory performance packages, including the 1962 Impala SS.

That big Chevy with its now-iconic styling loomed large in Raymond Ernandez’s imagination as a child, and as an adult, owning a ‘62 Impala (and in particular, one with a 409) became an aspiration that had to be fulfilled. “As a young man, I grew up around Impalas,” he explains. “It was always one of my favorite cars and I always hoped to someday own one.” Fast forward to ten years ago, and the opportunity presented itself, but Raymond almost let it slip away.

“The guy who had it had a whole bunch of muscle cars, and he was doing some resto-mod stuff with them, putting in new engines and suspensions,” he explains. “We talked about the car, and I thought he wanted too much money because I didn’t really know what these cars were worth. I was interested, but I told him it wasn’t in my budget,” he recalls with a chuckle.

“With that motor, though, it was really worth what he was asking. So I just left it alone, but he ended up calling me back.” Eventually, a deal was struck, and Ernandez ended up acquiring the Impala for a relative bargain price. “Years went by and I worked on it, did the disc brakes and things, but until I started taking it to car shows where people recognized the car I didn’t really appreciate that motor. I had thought about putting in a 350 crate motor, and the guy at the shop I took it to just said, ‘I don’t want to pull this motor out…’”

That was definitely a wise choice, as the 409 under the hood wears the correct stamp for the car, adding to the authenticity of the big-block Impala. Due to issues with producing a transmission that could endure the 409’s torque, 1962 cars that were so equipped were only available with four-speed manual transmissions or the bulletproof Powerglide two speed automatic, but Ernandez’s SS has been tastefully upgraded with a TH400 built to handle the power. Other small changes have all been made with the goal of maintaining as much of the original car without over-restoring it, but still making it a practical, reliable, fun-to-drive classic.

A big part of that formula is the rolling stock — 17-inch five spoke wheels from Coys wrapped in Milestar MS932 Sport tires. These high-performance all-season radials are designed for a well-balanced response, excellent tread life, and superior all-weather traction, not that the Impala sees a lot of wet pavement, of course. A competent, comfortable touring tire like the MS932 Sport makes perfect sense on a car that’s intended to be driven, not just looked at, and the low-profile tires and retro-mod wheels are the perfect finishing touch to this Impala’s stance.

“It’s not like a perfect build, and it’s an older build,” Ernandez attests. “I don’t take it to big national shows, but I like going to local shows, and it’s won a lot of best-of-show.” Imperfect or not, in the end, the Impala is doing exactly what it should – making a kid’s dream come true every time the key is turned.

What Is an Intake Manifold?

State of Speed Basics – The Manly Science of Automotive Knowledge

Spend any time hanging around with gearheads and you’ll hear the term “intake manifold” thrown around, usually in the context of a discussion about the merits and weaknesses of various designs. What does an intake manifold do? It’s simply the piece of plumbing that connects the intake ports on the cylinder head to the carburetor or throttle body, distributing fresh air (and sometimes fuel – more on that in a minute) evenly to each combustion chamber. The design of the intake manifold has a profound effect on the performance of the engine, helping to determine whether it’s happiest at high RPM or churning out torque down low, and with some clever engineering it can even broaden an engine’s powerband far beyond what a simple, single pipe connecting an individual throttle body to the cylinder head can provide. 

The intake manifold for a multi-cylinder carbureted engine, like a classic domestic V8, has a few main jobs to do. It has to evenly distribute air to each cylinder, do the same for the fuel atomized by the carburetor, and have enough internal volume to keep the carburetor happy since it works best when it feels a consistent ‘pull’ of vacuum drawn by the engine as it runs. Manifolds for carbureted engines are referred to as “wet” because the air flowing through them has fuel mixed in, and they have to be designed without sharp turns or twists that might cause fuel to separate out as it tries to make the corner along with the airflow. 

“Dry” manifolds for modern EFI or direct injection engines have an easier job; they only have to evenly flow air, and can be a little more convoluted without ill effects. But wet or dry, there are some design elements both share. Ideally, an intake manifold should provide as little resistance to airflow as possible at wide open throttle – imagine sucking air through a straw, compared to breathing through a paper towel tube. If that was the only consideration, you’d just make the runners as big in cross-section as possible, but moving air also has inertia and velocity, so the diameter of the runners has to be a compromise between being large enough to have low resistance under high demand, but small enough to keep that column of air moving as rapidly as possible to help push out exhaust gas and completely fill the cylinder during the intake stroke. 

Runner length is also important; all other things being equal, longer runners boost torque at low RPM, while shorter ones favor horsepower at high revs. Many factory intake manifold designs take advantage of this by having internal butterfly valves that allow the engine to switch between long and short runners, or even have separate runners for multi-valve heads that employ variable camshaft lift, duration, and timing. Finally, plenum volume is important – this is the “reservoir” that all the individual runners draw from, and changing the size of the plenum can also profoundly influence an engine’s powerband. 

Some modifications, like “port matching,” a process where an intake’s individual runners are hand-shaped to precisely conform to the cylinder head’s intake ports, will benefit any engine. More extreme changes to runner length and diameter, plenum volume, and even the interior finish of the manifold are most useful when they’re part of an overall plan for the engine build. A race manifold won’t help an otherwise-stock street engine – in fact, the wrong manifold will often kill performance. Before contemplating a change to your engine’s intake tract, make sure you understand what the effects will be, and how it will interact with all the other factors of your combination, including camshaft grind, displacement, desired peak RPM, and even transmission gearing. 

An intake manifold’s job is to connect the throttle body or carburetor to the intake ports on the cylinder head(s). Individual runners connect the plenum (the central, shared space) to the ports, and their length and cross-sectional size play an important role in determining the power band of the engine. This manifold is a Weiand “dual plane” design for V8 engines that is designed to provide very streetable power delivery characteristics. Notice the “waffle” pattern at the bottom of each plenum – this is an intentional feature that helps keep the fuel and air consistently mixed on their way to the cylinders.

This Weiand V8 manifold is a “single plane” design with short runners and all eight cylinders feeding from the common central plenum. These kinds of manifolds are optimized for maximum horsepower at high RPM, but sacrifice torque down low. 

This aftermarket Honda B series manifold from Edelbrock has relatively short runners connecting the intake ports to the plenum, optimized for free breathing at high RPM. Notice how close the injector bungs are to the flange that bolts to the cylinder head – fuel sprays directly at the back of the intake valves, and doesn’t have to travel any distance through the “dry” intake manifold runners. 

Edelbrock’s Honda D series intake manifold has longer runners designed to match the more torque-biased design of that engine family. Long, narrow runners will encourage airflow velocity, which helps the cylinders fill completely at lower RPM. 

Check out this aftermarket Honda manifold – here, the injectors are placed higher up in the runners, which allows a little bit more time and distance for fuel to atomize before flowing past the intake valve.

Many factory and even aftermarket intake manifolds are made of composite plastics rather than cast aluminum. Because they act as a kind of insulator, they can keep intake air cooler than a metal manifold for the same engine. This is a CAD illustration of FAST’s intake manifold for LS V8 engines, and it shows the unique three-piece design that splits into an upper and lower plenum housing that conceals individual intake runners. 

A look inside the FAST manifold with the top removed shows the individual runners. They all draw air from the same plenum, but FAST offers different runner lengths to fine-tune the manifold’s performance to match an engine’s power band. 

What Is EFI?

State of Speed Basics – The Manly Science of Automotive Knowledge

In order for an internal combustion engine to run, you need to have some way to mix fuel and air together in the right proportions – too much of either ingredient, and the engine runs badly if it even runs at all. To make things more complicated, the right mixture is constantly changing all the time, depending on load, engine RPM, and even the weather. For most of automotive history, carburetors took care of this essential task but as the world demanded cleaner and more fuel-efficient engines, those complicated mechanical air/fuel mixers just couldn’t provide the precision and flexibility required and electronic fuel injection came to the rescue. So, what is EFI and how does it work?

At its most basic, an EFI system simply measures or calculates the amount of air an engine breathes, applies some logic that tells it how much fuel needs to go with it in order to burn properly, then adds that fuel to the intake air. Some EFI systems directly meter all the air that flows past a sensor – these are often called “mass airflow” for obvious reasons. Others, called “speed-density,” calculate how much air is moving through the engine based on factors like engine RPM, air temperature, throttle position, and what’s known as “volumetric efficiency” – a measurement of what percentage of the theoretical maximum airflow is actually making its way into the cylinders at any given moment. 

No matter which strategy the EFI system uses to calculate airflow, an oxygen sensor in the exhaust pipe provides feedback to the computer to help refine the air/fuel mixture. This “closed loop” operation gives the EFI the chance to continuously correct itself to compensate for any disagreement between the programmed fuel supply and what reality actually demands. The tweaks the computer learns during closed loop operation often carry over to “open loop” situations, like when you are at wide open throttle and full power. This means that an EFI engine is constantly adjusting itself to match the conditions. 

In the hands of a skilled tuner with the right software, EFI provides the opportunity to change how an engine runs with the click of a mouse and the alteration of a few numbers in a table, but for most of us, it just means that our cars run better, get better gas mileage and make more power, and start on a cold day at the turn of a key. 

Back in 1957, Chevrolet introduced Rochester mechanical fuel injection as an option on the Corvette, but the system was so temperamental to tune and so few dealership mechanics were trained to take care of it that many owners scrapped the entire system and replaced it with a conventional carburetor. Today, original Rochester “fuelie” setups are worth thousands of dollars whether in working condition or not.

During the transition from carburetors to electronic fuel injection in the late 1980s, many manufacturers used “throttle body injection” where the computer controlled a few large-capacity injectors located where the carburetor would be in an older engine. This was a very practical way to gain most of the advantages of EFI with the fewest changes necessary to the existing engine design, and today, throttle body EFI conversions like this one from FiTech are a popular way to upgrade to electronic fuel injection. 

All modern factory electronic fuel injection systems use an oxygen sensor (and often more than one) to determine the engine’s actual air/fuel ratio by sampling the exhaust gasses. This allows the EFI to continuously correct the ratio to deliver exactly the right mix for the conditions. Factory EFI systems used to rely on ‘narrowband’ sensors that could only signal whether the exhaust was rich or lean of the 14.7:1 air to fuel mixture that represents complete combustion, but today’s OEM engines (as well as aftermarket EFI systems) use more sophisticated ‘wideband’ sensors that can accurately measure a much broader range of lean or rich ratios.

This high-performance aftermarket EFI system from Edelbrock features sequential port injection – there is one fuel injector per intake runner, and the computer activates it in time with the opening of the intake valve for maximum precision. Some dedicated racing port fuel injection systems even have more than one injector per cylinder, with a small-capacity one providing very precise control at part-throttle and a large capacity injector that takes over at wide open throttle.

Electronic fuel injectors come in several standard shapes and sizes, as well as different flow capacities to match engines ranging from motorcycles to turbocharged Pro Mod dragsters. They all have one thing in common, though – they act as electronically controlled valves that deliver a precise dose of fuel on command, supplied from a pressurized fuel rail. This Holley injector is an older factory-style design that is still popular with racers thanks to its durability and high maximum capacity.

What Is a Carburetor?

State of Speed Basics – The Manly Science of Automotive Knowledge

There are three things necessary for an internal combustion engine to operate – Fuel, air, and a source of ignition. For most of automotive history, one piece of hardware controlled two of the three required elements: the carburetor.

At its most basic, a carburetor is any device that combines fuel and air into a mixture that will support combustion. In Perfect Chemistry Land, gasoline wants 14.7 parts air to each part fuel for a complete burn, but because engines don’t visit Perfect Chemistry Land very often, a carburetor has to be able to deliver air/fuel mixtures that are both leaner (more air) and richer (more fuel) than this perfect “stoichiometric” 14.7:1 ratio, depending on many different factors.

Sometimes the ratio will need to change for better fuel economy, or for maximum power. It will have to be different when the engine is cold than it is when the engine is up to its normal operating temperature. And it will even need to change moment to moment as the throttle (the “butterfly” valve connected to the accelerator pedal that controls how much air passes through the carburetor and into the engine) changes position.

In order to do that smoothly and effectively, carburetors evolved from simple devices that vaporized fuel into what are essentially sophisticated analog computers. The main data inputs are the manifold vacuum and throttle position, which represent how much air the engine is trying to draw in, and how much air the driver is allowing it to have, respectively. Based on these two primary factors, a complex series of air passages, calibrated orifices called ‘jets’ or tapered metering rods, and any number of other clever mechanical devices controlling the flow of air and fuel work together to deliver the correct mixture to the engine.

Carburetors fell out of favor for factory vehicles in the late 1980s as electronic fuel injection became available (and less expensive), with the last carbureted vehicles sold in the US bowing out in the early ’90s. Manufacturers found that EFI made it easier to comply with tighter emissions requirements, but in the world of high performance, carburetors still enjoy a lot of popularity for both street and race vehicles.

The Holley 4150-style carburetor is easily the most well-known performance carb and can be found on countless different factory muscle cars and race vehicles.

Edelbrock’s AVS carburetors are an update of another classic 4-barrel carb design. This polished show-quality model features an electric choke – the black cylinder on the left side of the carburetor contains a mechanism that automatically opens and closes the choke based on the electrical signal from a sensor installed in the engine’s cooling system.

Holley’s ‘Dominator’ 4500-series carburetor is the big brother to the classic 4150, designed for engines that need more airflow than a smaller carburetor can provide.

Carburetor Terms You Should Know

The appeal of a carburetor to a gearhead is that all the necessary tuning can be done with a selection of simple parts and a few hand tools – no laptop (and no electricity, period!) is required to make adjustments. Racers will typically take careful notes of how an engine performed under specific air temperature, barometric pressure, and humidity conditions with certain carburetor settings and parts in order to make it easier to reproduce the correct tune in the future and predict how changes will affect engine power and responsiveness. 

While carburetors have been around for more than a century, they still have a prominent place in high-performance engine tuning and will be around for many years to come in both racing applications and under the hood of classic cars from around the globe. 

Carburetor Glossery

• Choke: A movable device at the inlet of a carburetor that is designed to restrict airflow and richen the air/fuel mixture for better engine operation while cold. Many racing carburetors have no choke, as it can cause a restriction to airflow even when deactivated. Engines equipped with chokeless carbs are harder to start and require constant attention to the throttle to keep them running until they reach operating temperature
• Side-Draft/Down-Draft: Depending on the layout of the intake manifold, carburetors may be designed to flow air and fuel horizontally (side-draft) or vertically (down-draft). Side-draft carburetors are common on classic Japanese and European cars, while American V8 cars are typically down-draft.
• 2-Barrel/4-Barrel: Muscle car carburetors will often be referred to by the number of “barrels” or venturi intakes the carburetor has. Often abbreviated as “2/4bbl” or “2v/4v”, 2-barrel carburetors were most often found in lower-performance applications, while high horsepower engines featured 4-barrel carburetors, or even multiple 2- and 4-barrel carbs.
• Vacuum/Mechanical Secondary: In a 4-barrel carburetor, the engine normally draws air from only two of the four venturis. This allows more precise fuel metering than if all four were in operation at all times. In a vacuum secondary carb, the main throttle blades are controlled directly by a mechanical connection to the accelerator pedal, but the secondary blades on the other two barrels only open in response to a vacuum signal from the manifold that indicates the driver is at wide open throttle. A carb with mechanical secondaries has a mechanical linkage that progressively opens the second pair of throttle butterflies in response to the position of the accelerator pedal. Vacuum secondary carbs are considered more “streetable” and deliver better fuel economy than race-oriented mechanical secondary carbs.

This Holley “Tri-Power” intake setup combines three two-barrel carburetors on a single V8 intake manifold for a cool vintage look and high performance to match. 

Many classic Japanese and European cars with inline 4 and 6 cylinder engines used the classic Weber DCOE side-draft carburetor. The side-draft design allows a very low hood line because the intake manifold and carburetors (often one per pair of cylinders in performance applications) don’t extend above the top of the engine. 

While you won’t need a laptop to tune a carburetor, you will need an assortment of different components like metering jets, power valves, accelerator pump squirters and cams, and other small parts. 

This Holley street carb has both a choke (the rectangular gold plate) for easier cold starts and vacuum secondary throttle blades (controlled by the round, silver vacuum diaphragm mechanism at the top.)

Third Time’s the Charm With This ‘72 Chevy C10

Dustin Reed’s 1972 Chevy C10 Proves Love Is Sweeter The Third Time Around

As we move through different seasons of life, our priorities, our tastes, and even the people we hold dear change. As much as we are encouraged to embrace the new and put the past behind us, a rare few can persevere through these changes and come out on the far side with relationships and identity intact, making the conscious choice to build on what we have instead of casting it aside to chase something shiny and new. 

Such build on what we have instead of casting it aside to chase something shiny and new “I got it just after I dropped out of college in 2000, and it was a piece of junk that I picked up as a project,” Dustin explains. Built on a budget, and subject to the prevailing winds of automotive culture, the first two iterations weren’t quite as timeless and understated as what you see now. 

“We did silly stuff, like super-slammed and air-bagged out, the kind of thing that was popular at the time, where you could lay frame,” he admits. “You get older, and you get smarter, and I wanted something I could actually track, and that’s what it is built for now. You know things change over the years, funding changes, and this is actually my third attempt at a build. I like it better now.”

As a successful general contractor today, Reed finally has the resources to do justice to his Chevy’s potential. The most striking thing about this truck isn’t the modern, cammed-up LS3 under the hood, or the C4 Corvette front suspension, or Corvette brakes and coilovers on all four corners – it’s the way this Chevy has been turned into a true mid-engine layout, with the firewall extensively relieved to make room for the engine’s radical relocation.

“The craziest part of the whole thing is how the engine is set back 10 inches into the cab,” Reed says. “I was trying to achieve a 50/50 weight distribution, and sure enough, when we scaled it, it was dead on. There’s no truck that’s like that.” Reed’s goal is to maximize grip and turn some heads with the way his C10 turns. His chosen venue? “Autocross at first, and I am relying on Curt [Hill, of Hill’s Rod and Custom in Pleasant Hill, CA] to help me out, but I eventually want to run at Thunderhill and places like that.”

For street duty, Reed’s Chevy rolls on 20-inch 5 spoke wheels shod in 255/45ZR20 Milestar MS932 XP+ ultra-high-performance tires. These feature an asymmetric tread design with large outside shoulder blocks to provide consistent grip under heavy cornering loads, and 3D siping on the inside shoulder blocks combined with angled radial grooves and broad circumferential channels to direct water away from the tread face in bad weather.

While Dustin’s relationship with his Chevy has run hot and cold through the years, he’s glad he stuck with it, even though there are some things he might do differently if he could start from scratch. “I would do a full custom chassis rather than modify it the way I did,” he admits. ”It’s all one fell swoop that way, rather than messing with all that stock stuff, boxing the frame rails, and grafting all the components. I’d rather just roll in a ‘done’ chassis and drop the body on it. I did it the long, expensive way.”

Regardless, he’s happy with where they are today and finds that he’s getting back as much as he put in. “The way I look at it, this is something I really do need,” he explains. “Everybody needs an outlet. It’s almost like a way to meditate. It’s counseling. It’s therapy. It’s my out.”

LS Fest West 2018

Fans of GM’s All-Conquering V8 Gather in Las Vegas

It’s hard to believe, but 2018 marks the 21st anniversary of the introduction of the original LS1 engine for the 1997 model year. In those two decades, the LS family of V8 engines has become all things to all people and has been swapped into practically everything that moves – not just cars ranging from Mustangs to hot rods, but boats, aircraft, and even helicopters. 

It’s easy to make power with these inexpensive and anvil-tough engines, and if you can’t find the parts you want in a junkyard waiting to be reborn, the aftermarket has you covered with everything you need; blocks, internal components, engine management, and even swap kits to make installation paint-by-numbers simple. 

Recognizing how important the LS engine had become, back in 2010 Holley Performance Products organized their first LS Fest in Bowling Green, Kentucky, and ever since then, the annual event has drawn larger and larger crowds, with participants coming from all corners of the continent. It’s more than a car show, though – there’s something going on from the time the gates open until they close, on the dragstrip, the drift and autocross circuit, the chassis dyno, or the swap challenge tent. “An assault on the senses” is sort of a cliché, but it’s a totally appropriate description for a day at LS Fest.

In 2017, Holley added a second event to the schedule, the LS Fest West, taking over the sprawling dragstrip and motorsports complex at The Strip in Las Vegas, Nevada. May 2018 marked the second annual spring event, and as anticipated, it was even bigger than the inaugural LS Fest West.

“The best way I can put it to you is that LS Fest events are a party,” says Holley’s Blane Burnett. “Sure, there are competitions that take place within the event, but for the most part, everyone is here to enjoy what they’ve built and have a good time.” In case you think that Burnett might just be saying that to earn a paycheck, know this – He’s a True Believer with the cleanest daily-driven (and autocrossed) LS-swapped Nissan S14 you’ve ever seen. 

Speaking of swaps, one of the most striking things about LS Fest West 2018 was the sheer variety and number of LS-powered vehicles on the property. While the event runs three full days, it’s almost not enough time to take it all in, between all the various competitive events including drag racing, drifting, a road course time attack, and even off-road competition, then trying to see everything in the show-n-shine. 

We only got to experience a fraction of everything that was going on this year, but as you can see, if you are a fan of late-model GM performance (no matter what is wrapped around that engine) there’s a compelling reason not to miss LS Fest West 2019.

Mysterious Stranger: 1956 Chevrolet 3100

For every marquee Ring Brothers or Foose build you’ve ever seen cross the auction block at Mecum or Barrett-Jackson, there are hundreds, perhaps even thousands of hot rods and customs built in small shops you’ve never heard of that trade hands every day. Some are rough, some are so-so, and some are as perfect and polished as the best iron you’ll see on the show floor at SEMA.

Eric Samuels of High-Line Motorsports in Brea, California, is in the business of sorting the sheep from the goats – working with his father who founded High-Line more than 40 years ago, it’s his job to identify quality classic cars, customs, and hot rods with just a limited inspection and often no information on a vehicle’s history.

Such is the case with this 1956 Chevrolet 3100 pickup; per Samuels, “We took it in trade. We got it from somebody who bought it already done, so we weren’t able to find out who built it originally.” Even so, the quality of the work shines through, from the paint to the interior to the driveline. Under the hood of the 3100 sits a small block Chevy V8 of unknown specification, which by itself is a rarity for a modern hot rod.

“Everything done nowadays has an LS engine in it, and for this to even have dual carbs was a little strange,” Samuels admits. Those twin Demons hint at more than 350 cubes, but without disassembly, it’s impossible to know the engine’s exact specifications. “Unless we open things up to find out, it’s hard to know for sure, and between time and money it’s something we usually don’t do.”

Regardless of exact spec, that SBC backed by a 700R4 overdrive transmission and a reasonable final drive ratio (Samuels guesses the 10-bolt is running 3.11 gears) makes it a comfortable cruiser. The air suspension with an onboard compressor and in-cab controls let the driver go from stanced to road-ready at the touch of a button, and every amenity is in place for a daily driver.

Part of that nuanced ride comes thanks to the Milestar MS932 Sport tires wrapping the Billet Specialties wheels. The right rubber makes a huge difference in performance and comfort, especially in low profile applications like this pickup. It’s easy to end up with a buckboard ride quality with the wrong short-sidewall performance tires, but these 225/55R17 front and 255/55R18 rear tires are engineered to give an outstanding balance of traction, treadwear, and road manners to match the refinement of the rest of the package.

“It has all the late model comforts – you have leather, a tilt column, power windows, power disc brakes and power steering, Vintage Air – it’s basically a late model car with an old-school body,” Samuels explains. “Being around stuff a while, you know ‘this is done right, this is rough, this will sell, this won’t.’ Don’t get me wrong. There have been times when we’ve bought a car at auction that was a lot worse than we thought, but you take the good with the bad, and hopefully it’s more good.”

Though this Chevy 3100’s origins will forever be shrouded in mystery, it’s definitely one of the good ones. The bottom line for Samuels? “This one was so nice that it pretty much sold itself.”