Lawsy

NO IT DOESN'T. How can more surface area possibly equal more grooves? By definition a groove is A GROOVE. Grooves do not contribute anything to the surface area. Surface area is the contact area of the tyre on the road surface. Where do grooves make any contact??? Also aquaplaning is a very different concept to what you seem to believe it to be. I refer you to my previous post on this to save others the boredom of repetition. lol you totaly miss understood what I was saying.. I should have been clearer. Such a simple miss type. What I meant is that the wider the tyre, the more grooves you can fit on it. I must have just stuck surface area in there (which is true depending on how you look at it still) in my rush to get out... The wider the tyre, naturally, the more grooves the tyre company is going to put accross the surface area. that's what I was getting at. Tyre manufacturers don't just increase the tread pattern by 20%, no, they change the groove pattern completely. They model the pattern differently to suit the width of the tyre. The tyre will be designed to disperse the same, if not a higher, volume water per cm of width... Hope that explains what I was getting it.... It should all make sense now!

But more surface area also = more grooves, and tyre companies put deeper channels in there wider tyres to compensate for this. The groove design plays a massive role in how a tyre performs... Tyre companies aren't stupid. Your comments (though its not your intention) indirectly is saying that they are for making larger tyres for non supercar applications. With todays brakes, ABS, etc, you will be hard pressed to find any car that has its stopping distance increased by having more traction. Infact, excluding stupid examples (like a dato with drum brakes), I don't think you'll find even 1... And even the dato will probably stop better. I mean, seriously, its just not feasable. The only thing limiting the stopping distance in a once off, (so rediculous heat buildup, brake fade, peddle feel are NOT the issues) emergency stop from 100km/h, is not the brakes themselves, but the lack of traction. So ABS has to kick in early... With more friction, you can apply more braking force before a loss of traction and the ABS kicks in later... The brakes will get hotter in this second test (meanig they are disipating MORE energy), so anymore than 3 stops like this might be detrimental (knowing the poor quality of hyundia's brakes), but I don't know of anyone who needs to do 4 or 5 emergency stops one after the other in an exel... Also, weight might play, oh, 5% in the braking equation... It plays a massive roll in overall handling, but not strait line braking... The brakes would hardly tell the difference... I've always thought the sudden, complete loss of traction due to the tyres not having full contact with the road, is aquaplaning... Not just a crap load of water, but still having control of the car...

I think the short blocks are almost identicle, but the long block would have all the differences... So a short block of either engine will give you everything you need and everything you don't need.

I agree only to a certain extent with you zap. Most wider tyres these days have a deep central groove and deeper tread patterns. These pass the water more efficiently than tyres that do not have a central groove (most tyres under 245, not all, but most). Also, aquaplaning in a 2 tonne car is rare anyway. Its very difficult to truely aquaplane such a heavy car (we've tried). Also, physics dictates that your braking distances MUST be reduced with a larger contact patch on the road (assuming the tyres friction coefficient is the same). Its simple physics; physics doesn't lie. You also need to realise that the BA range was built to safely, without modification, accept 19 inch rims/tyres. And lastly, the rolling circumference of the tyres is not much greater than the standard package anyway; the profiles people are purchasing these tyres in are usually allot lower than the standard profile... I've posted these figures before but I'll post them again just as a reminder. Circumferences are in centimeters. These are the more common aftermarket tyre sizes purchased for the BA (you can see why). Speed is @ 1909rpm (100.02km/h) in 6th gear using 245/40/18 as the control, rounded to 2 decimal places. 235/45/17 = 202.0986554... 98.51km/h 245/45/17 = 204.9260888... 99.89km/h 245/40/18 = 205.2088321... 100.02km/h 275/35/18 = 204.1092747... 99.49km/h 245/35/19 = 205.4915755... 100.16km/h 265/30/19 = 201.5645847... 98.25km/h 275/30/19 = 203.4495402... 99.17km/h 285/30/19 = 205.3344958... 100.09km/h So in reality there is only a negligable difference in the speeds, little difference in safety but with a greater road holding ability (in all conditions) as well as better asthetics. I cannot see how you draw a conclusion that there are more negatives than positives to getting larger rims (appart from the cheap crap that buckles as soon as you hit a pothole at more than 30km/h)...

I have a hypnosis training academy and a CD distribution company. Have a look at www.mindmotivations.com My abition is to be the fastest hypnotist on the planet Hence the need for a tricked up Typhoon Actually I just get bored with cars very quickly and am already hanging out for the series 3. Yeah well, if you have all this money to spend, then buy me one.....

Hi Qiksmurf, I am relying on you to prove that my car is stock...You can do it! My advise if you want it , your takoff must be contolled without wheelspin. Ride the clutch but don't floor it of the line, wait until the car is moving, release the clutch, then nail it. I try to imagine that the is on coming trafic and I need to cross the intersection as quickly as possible without wheelspin. The other great thing is the gearbox..you can change very quickly without fear of missing the 2 to 3rd change. I'm sure you will get 13..Even my worst run with wheelspin through all of first was a 13. Good Luck!! Cheers G that's what I wanna hear... Even with a crap start, you still got into the 13's... Brilliant!

This only works for either light, 4wd or cars with slicks and allot of grunt (<11's). With a heavy, rear wheel drive car on road tyres, you'll be lucky to get 0.2 out of rollout... Do a bit of maths and check it yourself. Even with an 11 second GTR, the difference is, at most, 0.4s.

The video will only play till the half way point then it shafts me... what is going on?

What I love is that this car hit the scales at 1810kg.... Imagine what taking 100kg off might achieve... I really think this car will break into the 9 second mark on its next drag meeting. Can't wait!

I say go for it mate... And make sure you keep us up to date with the build up. With the fabrication and strengthening work your shop is capable of, there is absolutely no reason why you won't see 1500hp out of the 4L 6.

However, for leased vehicles, where the initial purchase price is low because of purchasing power and fleet discounts, plus the 'used' portion of the car's value being GST free, turnover at 2 years can be a good option. Keeping it for 3 years or longer means extra loss of value vs selling it while still under warranty. This is right, if you can get even a half decent sale price at the end of the 2 - 3 year mark, you can actually come out virtually unscaved and pick up a brand new one right where you left off...

I swear, THEY ARE ALL BLOKES...

that's epic man, glad to hear you are ok. that's all that really matters. Cars come and go, but God only gives us one chance at life. I'm glad to see you still have yours, cause that's where its at mate. You did well (hey, you might have saved that guys life who nearly cut you off), so chin up mate.

Oh nice one. Even in that state of tune, he should have a 9 really really soon... Great to see this car finally coming about! Its also great that we haven't heard of anything breaking yet!

The premium brakes fit into the 17's just fine mate. Looks good too I thought the premo's required the 18's? Well, you learn something new everyday! The 18's still look better though.....

About bloody time some people with sense entered the thread (bugster70 incl).... Big brakes + big rims (NO CHROME OR DIE!) = horny. Period. Stick to that formula and purchase your rims with that in mind, and you can't go wrong... for example. Stock brakes? 17 or 18's look just fine... Premium brakes? Goto have at least 18's! Some monster pizza dish size brakes? Then 19's+ are a must, obviously! Stick to that formula and kill everyone you see with chrome rims, and you cannot go wrong....

The problem is that all of the 20" rims people are putting on the T look, well, gay. No offense to all the owners in the above cars pictured, but crap man, every single rim shown is chrome... AAAHHHHHHH! DIE! I know its personal prefference, but chrome rims make me want to spew. Leave extra shiny additions to the rice club, make the body of your car a mirror finish, not your damn wheels... /me puts flame suit on.

LOL, yeah, I didn't see your post, you must have posted the instant I started my reply...

I reckon I got a bit of a theory on this one.... Its always bugged me why the losses are so inconcistant from car to car, of varying power levels.... It also got me thinking, why is it that some of the higher powered cars seem to have less transmission losses? (ie, 500+kw cars that have been chassis and engine dyno'd showing what seems to be overall, only about 18% or so). Well, I thought to myself "That can't be right!" So anyways, it goes something like this. Power is the work done, right? So its a form of energy... You can have kenetic, thermal and potential/chemical energy. This got me thinking "It can't be a simple percentage on a per gearbox basis, it just doesn't work! There must be a constant loss, then a loss due to friction (heat)... " Well, a gearbox has an inertial mass (the gears in the box.... )...... .. It takes energy to get these components moving and to keep them moving. This loss would have to be fairly constant as the weight doesn't change. This also includes drive shafts, axils and the diff. So all of these losses that are caused by the mass being moved all stay the same... Then, there the friction between all these weights in the gearbox, friction from moving the oil around, friction in the pumps, in the diff, bearings, etc. As a rule of thumb, the more pressure you apply to any 2 surfaces that have friction between them, the greater the friction is going to be... And the more energy required. This would not be constant though, infact this would probably be some form of the mechanical heat equation (which is ever so slightly exponential). But who cares, we'll just make it consistant for this... So there is always going to be a constant lose of about, say, 20kw in trying to overcome all the inertial masses in an automatic (probably 5 - 10kw less in a manual) and then a percentage loss after that due to the friction between the components.... Lets have a stab and make it, say, 16%.... You'll probably find this is allot closer to reality than just going "oh, its 25% - 30%" that most people dish out.... So, does it work? Well, sortof. 240 - (240(16/100)) = 201 201 - 20 = 181... That seems to be close to the norm for an auto, don't you think? This would mean that the large variances we see in engines are either the dyno's fault, or has something to do with the friction percentage. The mass of the entire drivetrain is pretty much the same every time... With a manual, it would probably be more like 15kw and 14% loss or something... Which would be 191kw... Again, fairly normal, for a manual. So it is fairly close here and seems to be ALOT more accurate when talking with big engines... So yeah, that's my theory... Feel free to prove me wrong, correct or maybe even agree! I really don't mind either way because it gave me something to do for the last 10 minutes that would have otherwise been work related.

Did anyone get a video of this run?

Hahaha, love it.... Reminds me of one of my brothers mates... Says good bye, does 3 heli's then leaves, facing 60° to the direction of travel for about 100m of our street..... The marks were there for over a year (yep, they were thick!).... Nice

Your car looks great mate. There is just nothing like a great looking, black car that's been freshly polished.... Love it!

I think that looks hectic. Respect where respect is due... And that demands respect. I tell you what, you could get away without the wing too... I think it might even look better sans spoiler (to have no wing, its goto be low... I think this fits that criteria)... Anyways, 10/10 mate, looks tops.

Everyone keeps ignoring peoples requests to show jeffs street exit.... SHOW IT!! From the sounds of things it was a sight to see (numerous other member comments)... Please, do it for the children.

People should look at it this way. He wants an edit; he requires more power for the weekends. He also wants, as a side benefit, seeing as there are no other engine modifications being made at this time, better economy during the week. Seeing as the engine itself is standard, it should be able to produce better economic figures than the factory state of tune, if the ECU is programmed specifically for that engines character. I think that sums up what he is trying to get at.... He wants to save money during the week in order for him to use it up on the weekends.... Or even have a net saving (in the long term) if hes lucky... Either way, what street tuner said sounds interesting and you guys should probably look into it....