
Lawsy
Donating Members-
Posts
960 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Lawsy
-
Make it like the back of a cyclist's helmet. :D
-
No, I think you still got owned. Now please shutup, your insolence and ignorance is starting to become frustrating. If you think you can sustain those volumes without going deaf, to put it simply, you're a moron. Back on topic I my opinion the sub needs allot of attention in the premium sound, its 150w pmpo which is far to weak, it needs 200 and 10" minimum to produce nearly the amount of sound required for those big low end notes with clarity, not just volume. The cabin size is far to great for an 8" to performe properly, 10" is a minimum really... Ford need to look at this, I get distortion at level 15 sometimes, that's not good enough.
-
With the BA (this was sortof answered before) the only thing that changes speedo readouts is overall rolling diameter of the tyre. I'm sure if you rang ford or their supplier you would be able to find out exactly how much and where from.
-
Dunno, but I bet those lines would need to be the diameter of a drain pipe just to get enough fuel up there! lol :D
-
Very nice. What are they? They are HP monaco's... and these fusions are nice too jeff They look awesome mate. On another note. If your going to spend this much, might as well go the herrod set for 3 grand (I think, I could be wrong, lol).
-
If you can give me the ratios and diff gear in your car and what tyres your running (be specific) I can tell you what you should expect. BTW, at 100 the T is actually going 97, and at 110, 106 is the real speed according to both wheels and motor....... All of my figures have been done at 6000 rpm, and I know that the standard I6 only gets to 5800 but meh... If you want a more realistic figure just tell me what limit.... I could write a VB6 program if you guys wanted, and it would work everything out for us.... Could be handy and good for future reference and comparisons......
-
2nd ones for sure.
-
As said, I had already figured it out but it still doesn't seem right as it stretches 2nd gear so far it isn't funny. btw, I measured the tyres on the Ghia, and sure enough top to bottom its nearly 26 inches.... I thought I would spam excel with some random crap and managed to come up with. =IF(tp="",IF(rim=16,rim+((tw/10*60/100)/2.54*2),IF(AND(rim=17,tw<235),rim+((w/10*50/100)/2.54*2),IF(AND(rim=17,tw>235),rim+((tw/10*45/100)/2.54*2),IF(OR(rim=18, 19, 20),rim+((tw/10*40/100)/2.54*2))))),rim+((tw/10*tp/100)/2.54*2)) Well, it works..... lol. btw, that actually doesn't do anything much, it simply works out the circumference of the tyre, but accounts for people who don't know their profile.... I was going to stick it in VB6, that's why I did it but then couldn't be bothered......
-
I'm sure I knew that at some stage....
-
I dunno whats giong on, but if im calculating it correctly, then we most definately aren't going to make it over 100 in 2nd gear.... with 17/235/45's on, and a 3.73 center, 91 is all we are going to get...... Heres my working. Tyre diameter = 17 + (235 * 45/100)/2.54 = 21.16338583. Then, 21.16 / 2.54 * PI which is 168.8763131. Now its as simple as working out rpm and ratios, so lets take the 73s and 2nd gear. ((rpm*60{per hour})/(diff*gear)*circumference)/100000 (cm in a kilometer). ((6000*60)/(3.73*1.78)*168.876)/100000 which is 91.56755128 ..... So um, where did I go wrong? With 18/235/40's on and the 3.46 center, you get 101.22 I dunno, I think you need to multiply the output tyre profile value by 2 to get the total tize, I just didn't think you would have tyres that damn big.... 235/40 profile tyres most certainly don't look near 25 inches in total diameter... that's a 4 inch sidewall, surely its not that much.... If it is then it blows out the other way, then we are doing 109 in second.... Why did I bother.......
-
1 thing I never quite understood is this. What is the reason for always having a 1:1 4th or 5th gear (depending on the box)? Is it simply easier to construct? Reason I ask this is because if I was to construct a gearbox, only if it coincidently happened to work out better, I wouldn't choose to have a 1:1 ratio at all. My 4th gear would be around about 1.05 or 1.10, while lowering third a further 2-5 points. 5th could then be slightly shorter by say, 2 points and 6th can remain the same as above. We can't have a perfect box I guess.... What im about to do is write up a quick excell doc to work it all out for us, so we can punch in whatever ratio we want at any rpm on any rim size with any diff ratio and get a speed reading.
-
Well, with the 3.73 diff, quarter times should be quite a bit faster, maybe 0.1 - 0.15 even. My reasoning is that the 2nd - 3rd and 3rd - 4th shift is shorter. This is based on that the current turbos run 3.46 centers, not the 73's. So, because there is no longer a shift at about 97km/h, the 0 - 100 time should easily be faster, and down the strip you will have the same number of shifts, but instead of running at say, 4750rpm(rough guess, no calculation was made) as you cross, this would probably be closer to 5000.... Or more even, is your velocity at this stage should be about 3 or so k's higher. My 2 cents, but that's how I read the figures. I could be so far off the mark it isn't funny though, im open to correction if this is the case.
-
The churchies aren't the ones who complain, its the *beep* non car enthusiasts who cry all the time.... Makes you wonder who has shares in kleenex doesnt it.....
-
Doesnt NEED to be TT, but that is the set up which will be much more logical as far as efficiency goes... I guess we all will just have to wait and see what happens... Really 5 yrs ago I'm sure it would of been abit of a giggle to think Ford making a turbo Falcon XR6 :lol: Was saying to be technically and financially feasable, it needs to be TT. But yeah, it would have sounded odd 5 years back wouldn't it! Now we can't get enough of it!
-
Stick her in performance mode. The shift times are slightly quicker than normal and it will push the shift as far up the tacho is possible before the limiter ruins your fun mate.
-
Hrmmmmmm, wouldn't it be nice if we had a money tree!
-
lol my mate had an outy, then it turned ini on him with about 10kg of beer gut, lol. I'm Mr.Out tyvm. And yes, something about those rims just seems to exagerate the size of the wheel arch, and even the size of the car. Or just makes the rim look like its been minaturised. Either way, I don't like it. I call for standard 18's on all xr's. Rubber prices come down if they are made standard on a high volume selling car (have to make more 18s thus it becomes cheaper to produce).
-
They don't realise, it isn't just developement, to make a turbo for a v6 not just financially viable, but technically viable, it needs to be TT. If nothing else, your production cost goes up stupidly high because of the nature of a TT setup and the equipment involved. I just don't see it happening cheaply, no matter who GM are making them for......
-
How much does it cost to run your car on? I swear our fairmont ghia seems underpowered and id like to know what other NA cars put down compared to mine.... I might try and turn up as I live near castle hill (5 minutes away). Also, got an address for me?
-
Someone had allot of fun.
-
If that's you in your picture, then no.... Anyone else who weighs LESS than 150kg, then yes
-
It just means someone managed to get an engine early and stick some huffers on it.... Not all that interesting :D Its interesting to note how much grunt our I6 makes with such little boost thought, or should I say, such little turbo 'strain'. For example, if you read on the nizpro forums, because of the intercooler and inlet tract setup, the turbo is actually working harder to make the 6psi of boost stock, than the the 9psi made with the nizpro kits.... I thought that was rather interesting from an engineers point of view, you would think ford would have thought about this. If the turbo has less 'straint' (I can't think of any good words right now, my bad) on it, that means it spools faster, last longer and makes the engine more efficient... No wonder even under fairly hard acceleration, the nizpro cars are getting almost as good as stock fuel consumption, and better consumption under lighter loads.... Anyway, to relate this to the topic, apparently the alloytech heads don't flow as much as Expensive Daewoo would like, nor does the inlet tract (manifold up) because of space saving. It will be interesting to see how much boost is required to make good numbers and how much stress is on the turbo. Nizpro, aps, everyone =/ says the xr6 heads flow damn well for stock heads, almost like they were purpose build to handle much more horsepower.... Hrrmmm, horsepower. This is a pre maths exam post so if its a bit wishy washy its cause my mind is elsewhere....
-
About to say the same thing.....
-
On another note, think about how easily nizpro are producing 300rwkw cars to get an example of a reliable, every day hi po falcon. I also think these figures you hear going around, or that have been 'leaked' out, about these 300kw alloytechs are nothing but fanciful marketting ploys. Does anyone else remember ford engineers saying "we saw up to 340kw while leaning the thing right out on the engine dyno". etc etc. These engineers got payed to sit there and play with the turbo 6 all day long to find the most reliable power figures around there given target. This is just Expensive Daewoo doing the same thing, but I would suggest more drastic measures were taken to obtian there figures.