Lawsy

Well, I guess I could give you a rough idea anyway, hang on....

Well... If your being sensibiel, a full body undertray might be worth considering. If you have a full undertray that is roughly 1.5 inches thick (with full heat sheilding around the exhausts), that tapers up to the rear bumper, you can gain anywhere between 50 - 100kg of downforce at 200km/h... Might be worth considering.... Expensive yes, but a very efficient, low drag (lowers drag co efficient even, so its like "free downforce" in some applications) method of giving the car some stability. You will need it. BTW, how much torque is it making now? Is that 1100 figure up to date? Can't wait to see what this thing does from here......

Debadge, de- wing, dump another 2 inches... Other than that, it looks great!

I'm assuming you haven't sat in many GTR's then.... The ride is rough as, they don't like hard edges in our Aussie roads and sometimes you can even catch the front end wanting to tramline with groves.... I would never drive one accross australia, especially since I'm 6"4 @ near 100kg, you trying fitting me into the back of one for extended periods of time.... Just ain't gonna happen! T > GTR for comfort, anyday, everyday.

Anything that has a computer running it can be reverse engineered, all it takes is time.

A box that can handle 650 nm sort of makes u wonder wat ford are up to. Like maybe they have a GT-HO on the cards or something but then again I spose that's just wishful thinking Makes you raise an eyebrow doesn't it? I've head that out of the box, 650nm is what it will safely run at all day, everyday, without even giving the hint that it will break. I'm fairly sure Ford aus will exploit this sometime in the future, otherwise what would be the point?

Well, this box can shift without you even noticing it at light loads, and snap you into your seat with over 650nm of Austin V8 being called upon... With a few modifications I'm sure over 700nm would be easily handled.... And knowing ZF, its outright rating is probably more like 700nm anyway.... They leave a massive safety margin (in the order of 10%) to what is advertised. that's quite a big gap for the car industry....

240 at the rears has to be the easiest goal for this motor ever set. Get a custom tuned Edit AFTER you install a quality CIA and you will probly come back with a dyno sheet saying about 245rwkw with a torque curve fater than homer simpson....

In the Ghia I was overtaking trucks at 170 (you know, to be sure everything is working etc...) on the way to Adelaide, and yes, it does get floaty. But, even though I was within cm of touching the dirt on the side of the road, I managed to keep it strait without any real hasle. If you are complaining that its getting floaty at about 140 with an XR6t, which is lower (and therefore must have a lower lift coefficient with less air travelling under the car), and with more rubber, then the car is a little big for you atm.... Get used to it. Find a track and practice keeping the thing strait at 150 plus.... Once you get above that, you best be concentrating because that's when the dynamics of the car changes. Also, 180 is where the fun starts . On that note, has anyone here wondered how much of an effect having an underbody tray with a tapered rear (as in, the rear of the undertray tapers up into the guard, which helps reduce lift) would have? It might be something worth taking a look at because Aerodynamics plays a fairly large role at speeds over 90km/h. After 90 it actually starts taking significant amounts of power to keep the car moving against the wind. I'm sure there is an equation for this. that's why your car is most efficient at 80 - 90 (check your trip computer next time at these speeds, you should be able to get about 7L/100km). Meh, anyways.... Its too early, my brain hasn't turned on yet (I'm on a uni holiday for the week; vice chancelors week) so this post most likely wont make any sense and will be rank with spelling and/or huge grammatical errors....

I'd take the advice of a company that has been doing this sort of thing for nigh on 20 years over a forum member anyday.... Especially when such a company has a current customer (BCL) that has also been doing very similar things with turbo motors for nearly 20 years as well..... I think BCL just might know what he is talking about here mate.... I'm sure he will make the right choice and will get the right results. Good thread though.

That's what it's all about, I hate all show no go, but love all go subtle show, makes people think twice... Damn strait.

Your rims look totaly phat JB, gorgeous looking machine. What makes it even better is knowing that the bite is twice as powerfull as its visual bark. Love your work.

I have a similar high stall. I don't think it affects fuel economy much if at all. On my recent trip up north I was averaging 10.5/100km's measured physically. Not sure around town as it depends on my mood. It doesn't make the car sluggish either. My stall is only 2700-2800rpm, I can launch at the track at 2750 but on the road I am unable to stall it up past 2200rpm without causing wheel spin. Geea. Once the torque converter locks up though geea, of course fuel economy wont change, as it is in direct drive . Even at light throttle positions, just taking off you will be running a few rpm more, enough to have a small impact anyway.

OMGosh, look how I spelt vertical in my previous post..... Anyways, what are the total mods to your car thus far xlr8ed? I have never actually seen what you have done (appart from the latest dump pipe mod).

I knew someone would build a makeshift wind tunnel sooner or later for there dyno room.... To bad the fans blow virticle, and not across.

Yeah, high stalls will always use more fuel around town, but drivability is actually still pretty good, from what high stall cars I've been around anyway (one being a 4500rpm stall, on a hemi).

BCL is a flippen legend in the making.

No one wants to steal a saab, appart from other women...... T stays in the garage.

RTA = the gay.

I don't know, its why I asked, but from experience you can get away with 1cm spacers without putting significantly extra load on the suspension. But to put decently sized tyres on the back of the BA, it would require that the suspension be strengthened enough to cope with the torsional stresses applied by an increase of 2.5cm in the moment of inertia being applied on the components. This is a significant increase in stress on the components, and 2.5cm is roughly what we need to put 4-5cm more rubber in contact with the road. This, like I said earlier, is about a 20% increase in grip. That means you can launch 20% harder and transfere 20% more force to the surface you are racing on. At WSID, this effect is multiplied. The tar used at WSID was built from a compound never before seen on an Australian race track, and provides the most insane amounts of grip. Go for a walk on the launch pad and then kick the ground with your shoe. On a normal road surface, you could probably kick it and just scrape your shoe allong. At WSID, if you stuff up your walking and accidently 'kick' the ground with your shoe, its like you just kicked an anvil, it is that sticky. You foot stops almost before it hits the ground...... So, we need bigger tyres to take advantage of this. Any increase in size gives a significant increase in grip at WSID....

A stock T is not going to achieve a genuine 225 atw. I don't care how cold the air is. To achieve that power increase you'll need to be running 8 psi as you say, which won't happen with a stock T. That's why people have overboost problems in bog stock cars on very cold nights at WOT. 105mph believable for a stock car? Nah. Agreed. :lol: Take a look at some of your old physics books and you'll find why I said "from a theory point of view". The amount of oxygen in a single cubic meter of air compressed to 6psi, in a 40-50% humidity environment and at 8°C would probably be the same amount of oxygen found in 28°C air compressed to 7.5psi. Its simply physics. Also look at my comment "if the ECU didn't have a cry"... It was speculation of what can happen given the right circumstances, not what did happen. I'm simply saying it isn't impossible, that given the right conditions, and if the ECU didn't totaly *beep* off on you, then you could theoretically produce 15% more grunt, given that the mods he has specifically allow the car to take full use any change in air temp. Its purely theoretical and totaly feasable. Its simply not physically or practically correct. Its all a matter of understanding what I was trying to get at

Should be interesting to see how hard this thing will go with the exhaust, edit etc.... But here is something you really need to do. Everyone knows, for a V8, the cam is what makes you power. Go to herrods and get there custom cam grind! It won't cost you an arm and a leg and you will pick up another 20 neddies at the rears. Do this, then the intake mods blah blah, exhaust - headers blah blah and then Edit the sucker. You will have a 250rwkw monster that will sound out of this world. Sure, it might only do a 13 second quarter, but that's better than 14 , and the sound will be something that EVERYONE will want a piece of!

Well that was fun.

Well, I don't mind the look of that pic.... If it was lowered with bigger rims and had a turbo stuck to it, I'd more than happily take one.

From theory, my explanaiton is as follows. Air density plays a vital role in drag racing. We know some information from what was given. For frost to form, in a reasonable amount of time, you need roughly 8°C with about 50% humidity. that's friggen cold air... The difference in density between 28°C and 8°C, with about 1000 p on the baro and with a dew point of 14°C, is about 18%. So the air going into the turbo is 18% denser, the air passing through the intercooler, cooling the heated compressed air is also 18% denser and is allot colder than normal. From this info you could take the intake charge as being easily 20% denser air than normal, assuming the ECU doesn't cut boost. With that in mind, with 20% more oxygen to burn, you will produce about 15% more power, give or take a bit. If he has a healthy stocker, with the intake mods he would have about 195rwkw. 15% more is 225rwkw. With 225 at the wheels, it just might be possible to run 107. Maybe. Heres an example. Top fuelers only break records when the air temp suddenly drops after a warm day. The track temp is high, the air temp is mega low and with low humidity. For a top fueler to go 4.5s instead of 4.7s requires around a 500hp increase. Big difference. So that's my explanation from theory. Heres my explanation from my gut feeling. My gut feeling tells me that, yes, he probably has a healthy T, but to pull 107 in an auto is a difficult task. 105, I'll believe him, see above reasons, but 107 is just that little bit past reasonable. I would suggest hes running something like 235 at the rubber bands and got a very good run. To get 235 in the auto means hes running about 8psi. There is no other way to get this sort of power from external mods alone. My vote, not stock.