Lawsy

31.5 cm is the radius. Minus 2cm for 'squish' factor and you get 295mm rolling radius.. Theres actually a fair bit to this though, its actually not a blanket "this will work for every tyre" figure. It all depends on the type of tyre, the compount, the pressure, the sizes... Everything. Cup tyres with 25psi have stiffer sidewalls, but the contact area is made of sticky rubber so soft you can ball it off with your fingers. The sidewalls on these tyres don't squish at all, but the tread itself does. Therefore they squish less than a road tyre, even though they run 25-30psi vs our 35 - 45psi. So if you have mega sticky rubber with stiff as crap sidewalls, your tyres may act totaly different on a dyno. Another thing is that because of centrivical forces, the tyre is going to want to expand outward as speed builds. This may only have a 3mm effect but its worth mentioning, as I will normally round up to the nearest 5mm, because I can... I'd like to correct my above post as well. I actually took a little less off the radius by about half a cm than I posted above. I forgot that I originally took an inch and a bit of the diameter and not the radius, so if you wanna work it out, how I do it is this. I'll keep it to cm or mm as its allot less confusing.... (and rounding (usually up, see above) to the nearest 5mm is allot more accurate than 0.5 of an inch, but rough enough to not be confusing). This seems to work for pressures between 35- 45psi. Profiles for tyres wider than 235, squish factor. Taken from the Radius, not diameter. 30 - 35, 1.5cm 40 - 45, 2cm 50- 55, 2.5cm. Even if you have 285's, which obviously makes the sidewalls taller (as the profile is a ratio dependant on width) the pressure in the tyre relative to this aspect ratio is what counts, so it will still only squish 1.5cm if you have 285's... Infact, it will probably squish a little less. This is because the area of sidewall vs contact patch on the road is lessoned (and the pressure spreads accordingly, keeping the sidewalls more upright). Hope that helps. If anyone wants to know anymore, just PM me. I check the forums every 2-3 days or so (sometimes every day if I'm really bored). And I'm no rocket scientist, but thanks for the compliment.

I went away then tried to edit my above post, but it wouldn't let me... damnit. Anyways, I might as well add more to it now :D For a flywheel torque value, well... The reality is that there is no point trying to accurately calculate it. It could be anywhere from 600 - 630, but you'll never know without putting it on an engine dyno and checking.... The reason for this is, you have a torque converter. Torque converters do just that, they convert extra RPM into torque and heat. They, in a sense convert, power into torque as well, giving power peaks at lower wheel speeds and torque peaks at lower wheel speeds also. The max power would be lower at the wheels but the max torque will be higher at the wheels... So with this in mind, and considering you dropped 80nm through the driveline then you'll probably never really lose more than 80nm then, up untill a rediculous amount of power that is, because the extra RPM being forced upon the torque converter will cause it to slip a little bit more (not much more though because the pressure through the converter would be greater as well) and converter just a few more rpm into added torque at any given wheel speed while it struggles to lock If it was a manual though, which say had 60nm as the total loss, and as a rough guess add 5nm of loss with every 100nm increase in torque at the wheels... So if you made 600rwnm in a manual, you could say you roughly had 670nm at the flywheel. Or something like that, I really don't know... It's too inaccurate to bother with, we'll never get it right until someone puts there 350rwkw motor on an engine dyno, before 350 and after 350kw, to test it out. This could all be rubish, so just tell others you have about 550 at the wheels and you'll stay out of trouble 550 twisties can tow (and accelerate hard with) 5 tonne rigs up hills at 100km/h... Keep that in mind before sneezing at it!

You have 3.46 diff gears? Is it just me or is that odd? Could have sworn that all T's had the 3.73... Well in that case, I'll have to take 6400N as your max tractive effort (the flat spot) as your true peak torque, as this is roughly where 3500rpm - 3800 would be. So in that case, with the 3.46 diff gears, you have 555nm... Even better

Well, look at lukes graph. See how the standard line has a peak of about 4500N? Well that's where there was a peak in torque (its actually a pretty flat curve. This is good because it is meant to be...). At this peak, the wheels saw 370nm. So if this car made the claimed 450nm at the crank, then it lost 80nm through the driveline and gearing. that's the answer to C) the torque at the rear wheels. If you dont apply the formula, the outcome is 1350nm. Yes the units are still in nm ((SI)distance x (SI)force must have units of nm), but it is meaningless. 1350nm relative to what? The reason the formula has the gear in there is because we are measuring at the wheels. The effect that the gear ratio's have during the dyno run need to be balanced out in order to give a meaningful result. If you have 4.11 diff gears, your Tractive effort will be higher, but when you apply the formula, you get the same value . This value is the torque relative to the engine after all drivetrain losses have been taken out. This is why tractive effort is harder to fudge playing with diff ratio calculations and running the car in 2nd gear or whatever... Cause when the formula is applied, it takes those ratio's into account, and gives you the real torque that is being applied to the axils.

That shell on windsor road seems to always be more expensive than the one closer to parra. I don't know why, but ever other station (shell or not) is cheaper than THAT shell (stockland mall). Rediculous...

Ahh but heres the trick, though the axils might be spinning 3.73 times per minute less than the engine, my calculation includes the total reduction (1 x 3.73). So the tractive effort is what the dyno reads directly, you then apply the formula, including the reduction gear, and you get what the actual applied rear wheel torque value is... This is the exact twisting force that the contact patch of your tyres is going to have to cope with. Its much harder to fudge these figures lower in the rev range than it is to fudge top end max power... The outcome, though some say is the flywheel torque, is not infact flywheel torque. The outcome (and this is provable, get me a dyno and I'll show you, has to be shown, not explained, so I'm not going to ) is always from the measured source of the tractive effort... If you bolted a wheel directly to the flywheel, you could measure the tractive effort, it would be higher by 3.73+drivetrain losses. So 530nm at the rear bags is one crap load of grunt and will force your eye balls to the back of your head without much trouble.

Some of the responses I've received from FPV customer relations/marketing have caused much on my part. Seems like either they're REALLY being coy, and towing the company line ("sorry sir, cant talk about that yet"), or they actually dont have any idea. Its almost like they answer quieries with only the current brochure in front of them for reference. Well, infact, that could be correct... The person who replies to your email is actually replying, in most cases, on behlalf of the person rather than the person themself... So they just might be the PA doing the daily email check, replying to the 'typical questions' and only passing on the personals or priority mail... This happens at work all the time.

there has been no mention of a Power increase in any of the releases, maybe they will announce it soon as if the mention an Increase of XR8 power, gives away that the GT would aswell... I'll wait and see, if everything else in the range gets more KW im almost sure the XR8 and GT would aswell XR8 Looks hot aswell You'd think that wouldn't you.... Lets just hope that there hasn't been any weight increases, and maybe even infact a few decreases. Its doubtful but heres hoping! Looks like I'll be thrashing a new T from power ford in the near future once more. Oh and those fuel economy figures are unreal, if that truely is a representation of reality (remembering we own a mk1 Ghia) then when we upgrade I'll be one happy chappy... That is of course if I can't convince the financial supplier of the house (my old man) to get into a T....

The metric version is this kw=T x RPM / 9549. He makes 245kw @ 5200rpm then; (245 x 9549) / 5200) = 445.62. It Removes all the rounding errors with the SI conversions. But max torque is never at max power Hope that helps.

You'll notice that whatevet the percentage increase in torque is, at any given rpm point, that that same percentage increase applies to the power as well.. Ok, so it has tractive effort stated, and just after 120km/h the TE curve flattens, this is most likely about 500 rpm after max torque... But it doesn't really matter because tractive effort doesn't need an rpm value to convert anyway. Lets take 6500 as your true max tractive effort, about 10km/h before the curve flattens. Torque = (rolling radius x Tractive effort) / total reduction x 1000 T = (300mm x 6500N) / 3730 T = 523nm at the rear wheels. Which is a damn good effort. I take rolling radius as this. You have 245/40/18's, total diameter is 25.5 inches. Minus an inch for tyres with a profile of 40 or more, running between 35- 45psi in the tyres. For working it out with lower profile tyres, take less than an inch. Say, 1 - 2 cm depending on just how low the profile and how much pressure is in the tyres. If you are on the dyno, simply measure it! Get a square, stick it ontop of the tyre and measure from the square to the ground. Easy! So 300mm is a nice, non fudged round number to use for this calculation... So that's it, you have nearly 530 tooheys news pushing your car allong....

Rollout accounts for a max of 0.4s on slicks running allot of power (read: 12s passes or less). On street rubber, rollout may account for 0.2s if you are lucky. Please get this fact right. turbocorty's time would be at most a 13.4 by any measure. I mighty fine effort.

I don't understand how you could be looking at a maxima.... The T would have to be about twice as comfortable, with more safety features, and allot more fun/practical. I don't see how that can be your 2 choices... If you said a liberty or something, that would be understandable, but a maxima? No this isn't just my personal opinion either, most will tell you that a maxima will put you to sleep faster than anesthetic...

Unless your Tony Schumacher... But anyway.... I would love to see what sort of mods have been done to make that silvia do a 10.4 second pass, and be streetable... Sounds like a bit of tripe to me. To make that much power, reliably, out of a 4cyl involves so much work it isn't funny...

Well at idle and at cruising speeds, this system would be far more efficient than drawing all the air through the turbine... If you have to suck air through a few meters of piping and then through the fins of a turbine spinning slower than the air flow itself, then the the result is going to be an engine struggling for air. Surely this isn't more efficient than having the car run as an NA?

Interesting points mate... To be honest, I'm not sure. All I know is that if you can somehow use the discharged pressure to help build boost more quickly in the next WOT application, then your onto a good thing..

You just need an exhaust that has the best flow rates.... Though it plays a small part still, the straw effect, that is so vitally important in a natural aspirated engine, has much less effect on a turbo engine. This is because the pressure pulses from each cylinder are lost through the turbine, so you get more of a constant flow of air through the exhaust rather than a pulse affect... This simply means you want an exhaust with as little backpressure as possible from the turbo back, but you want to have the most killer extractors possible going into the turbine.

Ask them.... Apparently they sourced exactly where the clunk was in the driveline, and fixed it... There is no slack from the engine to the input shaft and very little through the box itself (un noticable). The clunk is somewhere between the gearbox and the wheels... It might be a clunky diff, it might not be; either way, they will be able to fix it. Drop them a message.

Get the phoon. Even if it has the worst driveline shunt in the world, get them to give you a slightly better price and then simply take your car down to Mal Wood. Throw them a small wad of cash and you will have the smoothest falcon driveline possible, you won't be disapointed... The T I drove had horrible driveline clunk, and this would have to be the only issue that I would consider spending my own money on to get resolved... (If I was fortunate enough to own one...). No matter how fun pulling 3rds is, as soon as you start driving sedately, the clunk will get anoying... Once fixed, its all happy days

Its funny though, you only ever hear of the worst cases with the generic tunes on here.... You'll probably find that there are more happy customers out there with the generic tunes than not... You just don't know about them, its probably more like 80 - 20 infact. The AFR's for the generics are fairly conservative, and the tunes themselves are similar to stock, simply without torque reduction and more boost.... The reality of it is, not that much can go too wrong... Like I said, we hear the horror stories, not the good ones...

Yes they do suck, but its actually the complete opposite when it comes to the soft hands thing.. The people with girly hands are the ones that can't do it because they are a pack of soft retards who can't put then fingers where they want them... My fingers are probably bigger than most here, and if I can do it (cuts and all) then anyone can. Get some backbone ya panzies. mwhahahaha!

Not to mention that higher comp makes the 290 sound better.....

Sucked me in too..... bas*ard! Nice pics though......

Its funny, you would expect the NA to get about 13 flat doing allot of highway stuff (where you get 9l/100) but we only return about 13.8 - 14 in the ghia... Though, I guess it does weigh a bit more... You would still expect it to return better figures than that...

You should get a better cat, you'll probably find that your injectors and the like aren't totaly maxed out, but that your cat is holding everyting else back....

Go hard mate, well done! If you could squeeze just another 10kw out of the top end you'll get consistant 9.9's. Go for it!