mx5cartalk.com

MrTurkey wrote:Great job Beavis, good to see the car continue to develop and get faster.

Hope to catch up at a track day sometime in 2020.

Cheers, Chris

Thank you Chris. Always hard to find time to get to track events, so far looks like I'll be busy for the first few months of 2020 already.

Just want to say a quick thank you for compiling and uploading the track events in Vic on your webpage! Its a great help!

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

RileyR wrote:Just want to say a quick thank you for compiling and uploading the track events in Vic on your webpage! Its a great help!

Glad to help! I just recently updated it for 2020 too:

https://beavismotorsport.com/track-days/

Just wanted to share a couple of pics which some of you may be interested in:






And if you have not already seen this video which I put together a few months back, here's a "montage" of building this car starting all the way back since I first purchased it.

WooHoo, it was time for another "montage"!

Why are you changing to the low mount?

ManiacLachy wrote:Why are you changing to the low mount?

Seconded.

Nice to see the built-in mount points for the heat shield.

Lokiel wrote:Nice to see the built-in mount points for the heat shield.

I thought the same thing, then checked the website and they're not shown. Guessing BB's is already modified.

Agree, nice touch. I saw them on one either on the website or the bookface thingy.

Re the high/low mount issue, I see a comment on his yt channel that the low mount wasn't available when BB got his high mount.

I'm still interested in pros and cons for the choice though. Just for science of course ... not like I might one day take a leap

ManiacLachy wrote:Why are you changing to the low mount?

Low mount didn't exist "back in the day" so I didn't have the option at the time otherwise it would've been my first choice. The new low mount is a nicer product in terms of flow/efficiency, material composition and cast quality. At least as far as I can tell anyway. Kraken seem to be constantly improving and trying to better their products.

Lokiel wrote:Nice to see the built-in mount points for the heat shield.

Agree, I am not the only one who has received a kraken low mount with heat shield studs, but I am not 100% sure if its something he puts on all of them or only if/when requested.

beavis wrote:Low mount didn't exist "back in the day" so I didn't have the option at the time otherwise it would've been my first choice. The new low mount is a nicer product in terms of flow/efficiency, material composition and cast quality. At least as far as I can tell anyway. Kraken seem to be constantly improving and trying to better their products.

I realise it was only the top mount back then, as it was when I bought mine in part based on your review. I guess I'm wondering why change a well functioning system? Are you expecting noticeable gains from the new configuration, or is it simply you can't help from tweaking and experimenting?

ManiacLachy wrote:I guess I'm wondering why change a well functioning system?

Oh yes, that is a good question. Indeed I would not normally change the setup that I have now for a relatively similar low mount alternative, certainly not worth the effort and cost for what is likely minimal benefit. Except for the fact that I was offered the low mount for a deal that was hard to say no to.

On face value it looks like an improvement in efficiency, but will it mean there is a measurable difference in performance/spool/power? for the moment I have no idea.

I thought I'd post this up here for anyone interested. Watch the video, Beavis' videos are always entertaining, but the short of it is he's sticking with his high mount Kraken, and he's giving away the low mount. So, if you're lusting after a Kraken low mount but haven't yet got the funds or pulled the trigger, get on it!

For what it's worth, Beavis, I completely understand your reasoning and I think you made the right call. The low mount is a great option on a street car, or one looking to eek every last drop, but for you on the track it will pose trackside maintenance/fix issues, provide minimal gains, and of course you'll be doing a lot of work to get it in. I guess it comes back to my question earlier, why would you mess with a setup that's working so well?

I like the low mount, I think it's perfect on a street car, it's a very clean stealthy setup. I'm sure you'll send it to a good home. Hopefully they'll update you, and you us, on how the build for it goes.

You definitely made the right choice in sticking with the high-mount manifold IMO.

Originally I had NitroDann make me a low-mount EFR6258 for stealth looks, improved flow and low centre of gravity benefits.
Amazingly he'd accomplished this with the P/S and A/C still installed (seriously, I can't stress enough how impressive this was given the lack of space down there), unfortunately EVERYTHING was hard to access (needing some components to be removed completely) and almost impossible to see so spotting issues at the track would be a problem.

The oil return line to the pan was an issue too, it was far too short and not flexible enough (something I still question on the new Kraken low-mount).
MT.net also has a thread for the EFR6258 where they recommend ensuring that the oil return sump hole is at least 1/2" to minimise oil frothing up the hose into the turbo's CHRA. Having a longer oil return hose to the sump reduces the chances of this too.