Lawsy

Auto XR6T in a lighter colour. The new 6 speed will make it frugal, a lighter colour will be roughly 2 degree's cooler in direct sunlight on a hot day (it does make a difference, its simple physics)... Then get an Edit, and at the same time get a fuel economy tune as well..... You'll end up with a 250rwkw tune for the weekends, as well as a fairly normal, but fuel efficient tune for your working days....

Sorry to hear it mate; on toward bigger and better. To me, something went wrong the last time you gave it the berries. Possibly the rod was fractured or a bearing got a tiny bit of grit in it, or something that is fairly freakish.... Then, while under engine breaking, there was just the right pressure, at the right frequency to make it give up... Remember, you hit the resonant frequency of a crack (yes, you can do this, the area along the crack itself has resonance) and that's it... gone.

He tried that.....

Because the engine is under absolute no load, taking it up to 2500rpm from cold wont hurt... Going any higher though, and you start slightly spooling the turbo... This is what can hurt....

We need a new smilie, one that just has a big nail and a hammer You hit it in one mate. Oh, but by a quick head count you wouldn't gain enough torque to be 0.5s faster, only about 0.3-4.... Torque x total ratio, area under the power curve gives you a rough idea...

Good man! Someone who preferes substance over compensation, if you get my drift.

I don't understand how someone, when presented with so many facts, can still continue to argue a point that was lost some 18 months ago... I wish he had some sort of mental disability to blame it on, then it wouldn't be leaving such a tarnish on the gene pool.....

Its impossible to tell, but is he at all happy?... Ok, originally I was also going to make the rating system a factor of the equation, because this would weed out the 'it became a pig' and 'it blew my car up' modifications. It would have been a rating out of 10, from you the customer or researchie, then applied to this simple formula ((X/2+5)/10). Or in words, half of your rating plus 5, out of 10. So 1/10 becomes 5.5/10, 9/10 becomes 9.5/10 etc. This then directly affects the results. As you can see, if you half the bang factor, then your rating is doubled. Since we are working on a dollars/results basis, then this is bad... Its the equivelant of more dollars for the same result.... Example. You have an old 92 1.8L SOHC charcoal astina that's done 290,000kms, burns more oil than petrol and has about 2% of its synchro's left in 1st, 2nd and 3rd gear... ... and then decided to bolt on a 500hp turbo, without changing anything else; it blows up. Though you might have a bit of change from $3k (there are reliable drop in $2k turbo conversions available, pretty cheap, but this is a bolt on, not conversion), and you might have achieved twice your previous power (briefly), the fact that it blew up means that the satisfaction rating would be 0/10 (well it could be 10/10 depending on how you look at it). When applied, this means its 5/10, or 1/2, which doubles the rating. What happens when you devide by half? It doubles (for the mathematically challenged here [anyone here play the pokies? Anyone?]). You get my drift... I'm sure if we could get people to post only about results they know of, or valid manufacturers claims (Valid: For instance, Brabus, who take already AMG fiddled mercs and turn them into monsters, they have a proven record and therefore their word stands up without too much questioning) then we will be sweet. And Brian, the reason I included a percentage increase value is purely to factor in exactly that. Some engines come from the factory fairly worked, and some come out as lazy as a sloth. In that case I'm sure if we steriod and adrenalin inject a sloth (so long as it doesn't die) that we would get some meaningful movement out of one. I think that if we could just get a few examples rolling then we could get some momentum, thus producing a decent list of mods and how they rate; hopefully across a fairly diverse range of cars.

I was thinking earlier on that XR6T owners quite possibly have the best bang for your bucks modification money can buy. Lets not isolate this just to XR6T's. I honestly would like to find out, on basically any car, what can provide across the board increases of 25-30% that the Edit does, for a similar price. So to do this, we'll have to take 2 different approaches. Outright power increase, $/kw. Before I show you what I mean, lets get a reasonable baseline. Lets keep this realistic, and take an accepted realistic real wheel power average of a fit XR6T, between manuals and automatics. I think 195 would probably be accepted by most for a fit XR6T. Not the fittest possible, but fit nonetheless. If you don't know the exact rwkW increase, but you do know flywheel or roughly, lets us know anyway. But keep it realistic and be as accurate as possible. Ok, Example 1 195kw XR6T. Most custom tuned edits get over 245rwkw these days, so lets take that. 50rwkW increase. Most custom tune jobs can get done for under 1600 dollars. 1600/50 = $32/kW. Example 2 You have a 500kw V8, and some specific modification alone gives you 600kw, at a cost of $10 grand, this is 10000/100, which is obviously $100/kw. Percentage increase over stock, $/% increase. Using the examples above, The Edit would be 1600/((245/195-1)x100) = $62.4 per percent. The other would be 10000/((600/500-1)x100) = $20 per percent. Put the 2 together and average them, gives you 47.2 and 60 bucks for each bang, for the Edit and v8 mod respectively.... For the other, its Its simple and it works, the lower the number, the cheaper it was for each increase in power. If you have a 10kw scooter and stick a 30kW shot nitros hit on it, then for a very short time (The time it takes for it to explode) you have 4 times the standard power... If this cost you $2000 to do, then you would have 2000/30 = $66.6/kW. But, you have 4 times the power, so 2000/((40/10-1)x100) = $6.6/%, pretty damn good. The average is 36.6 bangs for each buck... Clearly, this scooter wins for about 0.3 of a second before it blows up, killing the rider, and padestrians from the shrapnel.... Now, we need to sort of rate this as well. If a modification involves just a few kw at only a specific RPM range, then give it a rating out of 10 depending on how much of the rev range is improved. This is just what you personally believe the mod is worth across the board, almost like your satisfaction rating on the improvement (not the total result, but the improvement, smooth, linear, easy to use, peaky, harsh, dull, whatever. Its your opinion on the mod).. So fire away, and put some effort into it because it would be nice to know what makes and models have similar privileges to XR6T owners.... Also, just post down the seperate results, we might have to scale the total vs percentage increase if it seems crap or unmeaningful. We can sort that out later.

If you're in melbourn, talk to nizpro and ask them "Whats the best you can do with a budget of 2k". You come away with possibly the best bang for your bucks modification possible on almost any road car today. Infact, that got me thinking... What is the best bang for your bucks modification today, on any car? Hrmmm.. I'll have to start a new thread elsewhere...

Lawsy, my car has run an 11.1@125 with pump fuel and in full street trim. My Michelins are a very good tyre and I still reckon that at a set of lights on a dry road I would be able to win. The thing with lights is I can still get my car loaded whilst we wait for it to change. I can't load past 2000rpm as it will spin on most roads, so it doesn't take much to load it. If we both mash the brake and then the gas that should do for me. The other thing your not considering is the drivers. How many of the people with these cars can actually drive them? I know I can drive mine. Like I said earlier, if you're able to organise 1 in Melbourne somewhere I'll give them a few runs. Geea. That is true to a point, but rather than being a lack of skill, its a lack of knowledge... Of their cars strength.. So most of them know how to do it, because they took the driving course with the car, they are just soft core eunuch's (ie, no balls). The point is that a lambo merci, on a non prepped track, will do 11.5 all day in most conditinos. Motor managed an 11.7 in very unfriendly conditions. Consider this: Its computer knows the inlet temp and rough humidity, and changes AFRs and timing accordingly, varying output by a fair amount. On a track, I would say an 11.4 is on the cards, if not an 11.2 or better. Your pump-fuel-map time of under 11.2 would, on the road, be down about 0.1-0.2 of a second from rollout alone. That, and the surface differences mean that you're struggling to get a correvit to read south of 11.7. Add in 45º inlet temps (like Motor's airstrip run in the Merci) and you're really left wanting. Again I have to mention, it has tyres that are not only wider, but stickier. Oh, and having a similarly sticky pair of tyres up the front doing 30% of the work really helps.... Considering that most street light drags (on private roads that just happen to have street lights of course.... ) are not 400m long... They are 100m or less. You can't do the same 60' time of a car that has 4wd, weighs less, has more outright power, insanely more grip, better gearing and also with 400nm of torque from just 1000rpm. (This swells to 95% of peak torque, from 2500rpm till forever, then goes on to producing max power at 80 million rpm (a VERY wide power band to say the least). And its launch control doesn't drop below about 2500rpm when it gets a tickle...) It's physics; you just have to consider everything, leaving all ego's at home. Put it all together and you get a logical answer. And my answer is that you'll lose on the street most times, especially if he knows what hes doing, because you don't have 400m to come around him; you'll basically have a slippery intersection and a lane that's ending or merging 100m down the road. Even if the driver is a goose, as long as he/she is in sport, the electronics will take care of everything once the boot goes to the firewall. Don't even think about it in the wet, or around a slight bend... But, and buts are always good (when they are female), you will dominate on the track, everytime, without question. You could wheelspin for 20 meters, and still come around to win. So you win some and you lose some. Just be happy to know that your car is faster - when the conditions are right - than something worth 12 times as much, as well as being purpose built for speed.... That puts it all into perspective, don't you think?

Well, on any old road a lambo will do a 3.6s 0-100 and 11.5s 0-400 quarter mile, all day, every day. Motor mag alone reproduced an 11.7 on an airstrip, in 37º heat, 90% humidity, on very abused tyres. Not exactly a racing surface, though possibly better than your average road. It reproduced similar times every thereafter. It didn't need race fuel, it didn't need a special map to be used, and it didn't need anything other than a mash on the brake, a mash on the throttle, then a releasing of the brake to do so. This takes roughly the same time it takes to clutch in, rev to 5 grand, dump the clutch in your normal manual car. It was just too easy... If you both started the PROCESS at the same time, then you wouldn't even have any boost yet, and when you did, the lambo would already be 30 meters ahead of you, diong 40km/h. But, you would crash tackle the raging bull on the strip... You could toy with it and ease off for half a second at quarter track to even it up, and you'd still come around him. You see, your top end geea is where its at. In a perfect run, you would have around, by my rough head calc, 9mph on a Lambo. that's alot and just goes to show where its time comes from... Its start. But on a track, it would also have a better start, and would also get close to breaking 3s to 100 (due to roll out). But having a monstrous, unforgiving surge up top from a big turbo that, on a normal road would simply amount to roll on wheelspin in 2rd and 3rd gear, is something else alltogether... So you can see that I'm not saying you're crap, geea/F6_UTE, its just that sometimes I just feel that your feet leave the ground a little, this is one of those times to come back down to terra firma and think about the physics of it. Considering physics hasn't been wrong in a very long time (ie, ever), I don't think it feels like being wrong now.... So my point is this; at your average street light tickle, a lambo has it, just. You simply cannot defy physics, or decades of practical racing examples.

I think a while back.. I read a post that geaa's car did 0-100 under 3sec ... I could be wrong, but I am sure I read it somwhere... Muzza As you found out, drag radials... This means he had roughly 3 times more grip than you could ever achieve on the open road. Just think about this for a second. Lambo Mrcielago -It has about 50 more kw. your 330 at the wheels is what, 380 at the fly? It has 426 at the fly and about half the drivetrain loss (proven as its top speed is dependant on this). -Sure, down a bit on torque but whatever, 650 is nothing to sneeze at and the curve itself is physics defyingly flat, so its strong everywhere. -4wd -Semi racing tyres (they might as well be if they aren't, they have more grip than your tyres, put it that way). -Above tyres are also extremely wide, it has about twice the driven surface area. -It also weighs less (1650[wet] vs 1700[dry]. Wet would mean about 1750). -It does over 100km/h in first gear. This isn't because it has long gearing either, it simply has nearly 3000 more RPM to play with.... Considering it makes 80% torque at 2000rpm, it isn't down on force. When it launches, revs don't drop below 2000rpm anyways. -Its computer helps it launch (with e-gear only). So just think about it for a tick. And the thing is, if he proves this on the track, hes proven nothing. On the track, he will have a surface that will give at least 50% more grip to play with, possibly more in total than the Lambo. I don't see how you can prove this comprehensivly, without a proper sat tracking timing system (corivet, sp?)... What I'm saying is, physically its possible. Easily, with the right tyres and a prepared surface, IE, WSID. On road tyres, and on the road, its pushing it a little, that's all I'm saying. And then I'm comparing that time with a similar time from another car, the Lambo, to give you an idea of why I might be doubting you. Please prove me wrong though, because it means that a manual ute can rip it hard, and that's a bloody good thing.

gf does that stand for Geeseman fella No it stands for: 'DBOSS is a sped'. :laughing:

Have you had the Edit re calibrated yet? I'm not sure but isn't there an RPM function with the line pressure, as well as the 'Drive/performance' line pressure function? If there is, you possibly could have it setup in such a way that if the computer deems the throttle position is low enough to change before 3000rpm, it will shift softly and smoothly... But as soon as you attempt to kick the firewall out, snap, the gearbox turns feral on you (which is always fun). Anyways, let us know how you go with the setup.

Hrmm.... I dunno. I'm sure its launching hard, but 3.65, that's faster than a Lambo with 4wd. I think the numbers are inaccurate. It would mean you are roughly doubling the friction cooefficient of the tyres, and I don't see how this is possible....

I know this is a little late, but I found a really good way of explaining oxygen and why it doesn't exactly burn. So I'll do my best on my understanding. A hydrogen atom on its own is unstable, its electrons are in the outer shell of the atom and have alot of potential energy (like a rock on the edge of a cliff). If you try and ignite it though, not alot with happen, it will just heat up and expand slightly (the rock gets warm). If it is mixed with oxygen (the rock is put on a balancing point of falling off the cliff) and ignited (pushed over the cliff) though, those electrons are very suddenly stabalised (rock hits the bottom, smashing whatever it hits, releasing alot of energy). The rock is still the same though, oxygen and hydrogen, its just at a lower potential state. To combine with oxygen and lower its potential, it must give off alot of energy in the process, in the form of heat. This makes everything expand at an extraordinary rate; an explosion. The result is water. Water still has the same number of oxygen atoms as was present before the reaction.... So the oxygen didn't actually burn. I found another site that says 'water is indeed the ashes from hydrogen and oxygen burning'. Its a funny way of looking at it, but pure water is the already burnt form of pure hydrogen and oxygen. The sun isn't actually burning, per say, either... It's a reaction; there isn't any oxygen around to actually burn the hydrogen. It's one big fussion reactor. The suns gravity and heat allow it to stay in a state of nuclear stability (though it really isn't, its going to burn out one day, but this would take billions of years from today to do so; it is just so efficient). It's so hot, the atomic vibrations alone can now sustain the fussion process. But gravity keeps it from destroying everything in our solar system, and keeps the efficiency near 99%. These are the only two things that continue the fussion proccess... They are vibrating that fast, not exactly burning. Think of a light filament. Its glowing white hot, but it isn't burning. Its the same thing with the sun; it's glowing white hot, but it isn't burning in the same way a pile of leaves burn... Hope that helps (probably not).

I hate averaging 5 hours of sleep, I'm uni and my headspace just feels like a thick fog. Anyone else farting alot lately? Damn I just can't stop... Great when around my mates, but not so good at the dinner table with the gf.... [EDIT] The two things stated above are un related...

I'm certain that concrete isn't at all worried about practicality or looks.... I think a larger there is a much larger cause to all of this....

Can't remember... Wasn't particularly paying attention to what I was doing... I think it was a no, it doesn't use as much fuel hanging in gear. I think...

Astina - Near explosion point: "Why can't someone pay me enough money to go through uni and fund a 400rwkw XR6T, tight arses...."

not trying to sound dumb/smart but why is it not safe to coast in neutral? Its like being caught in the wrong gear in an emergency. If you're in 5th and not paying much attention, and have a very real need to go faster 5 seconds ago, you're pretty screwed. If you're in neutral, you're 100% up the creek without a paddle. Say a big truck loses his brakes and gives you warning with his horns about 50 meters behind you, hes doing 80, you're doing 60 at the time (say its down a hill in a 60 zone and compression braking just doesn't seem to be having much of an effect).... You'd wanna get to 90 or so pretty quickly. In 5th, you might get away with it, just, because you will find it alot easier to pick up 2nd and floor it. If you're in neutral, then your brain is too, it seems, and for some reason picking a lower gear and matching the revs properly is a task many fail.... Thus, acceleration doesn't happen and you find a truck finding its way between your legs, while you're laying down.... With a spread on. Not pleasant. (has happened, apparently). that's what the coppers want you to believe. My theory is that if I'm not retarded, I know what RPM my little oil burning 1.8L astina needs for 2nd gear at 60, by sound rather than the tacho, and I wouldn't have an issue. But I don't make it a practice of rolling around everywhere unless I'm being exceedingly lazy coming up to a set of traffic lights, which is highly uncommon because I heal toe every downshift I do, even at low rpm, and I come to a smooth, quiet, no fuss, no clutch slip or CV joint breaking stop... I found this hard to do in the XR6T though, as my little astina's engine, though it is definately waiting for the right time to explode, turns its own weight rather easily, and jumps up the rev range in an instant between 2500 - 5000rpm, heal toes are like taking a leak in the morning when you just woke up, they happen and you barely remember them. On either side of that RPM range though, it doesn't do alot other than make noise, and in the later case, burn oil and sound stupid. But you get that... In the T, it felt like I could explain quantum theory to someone in the time it took to get from idle to, well, 1000rpm. But then when you can chirp every gear from that point on, it all falls into place. Now, back on topic. The throttle shut, but a tiny bit of air slips past them obviously otherwise your engine would be sucking the throttle body through the exhaust.... Its tight, but not a perfect seal. The injectors do virtually nothing, they might dribble every now and then on the way down through the revs but that's about it... At idle, the injectors must put just enough fuel to keep a smooth burn happening, which means it needs a specific amount of fuel at all times, this happens to be more than a dribble. Also, the pumping losses have nothing to do with the fuel. The pistons are already moving at high speeds back and forth because the motor is turning so fast and has the weight of the components, flywheel and indeed the entire car to keep it going. The energy the engine expells is actually heat, its converting the rotational motion of the drivetrain and forward motion of the car into heat and sound.. that's pretty much it. Doesn't need fuel to do that, only enough to keep a bit of a flame happening, which is just a vapour. And sometimes not even that because there's enough exhaust gases hanging around still. /Long post, bored, procrastinating as usual because I don't want to do an assignment.

power without torque = nothing........ Every single argument you add has torque or force involved.. Make the torque value zero and see how your maths go... It will all equal zero...... Power is nothing more than a thermometer on the wall telling you how hot it is. Torque = potential Power = (0*rpm)/9550 = farkin zero You are indeed correct, every power figure has some sort of torque or force involved. But, heres the trick. Without the right gear ratios, all the torque in the world will get you no where. But with the right gear ratio's, power will dominate as because power is work, and when you start getting into higher RPM bands, the work done starts to converge with the accelerative force curve vs gear ratio's (which is a bloody good grahp if you can make a nice one, might I add). We rate everything today in terms of power, not torque. This is because power is usefull, torque on its own, is not. You can have power/work/energy in many different forms in complete isolation to any torque or force, and it is still usefull. But we are talking about kenetics and rotational motion. This can be mathematically shown as Torque = work*9549/RPM If either power goes down, RPM must also go down to give the same torque. Eventually, if you converge both to 0, you have an infinitely large torque value, but the work done is 0. So what have you achieved? If we were talking about vector forces, then yes, you can have massive torque, zero applied distance and still have massive energy consumption. This can be shown through the manipulation of varies statics equations, which is what I think you were getting at in the back of your mind somewhere... Which is fair enough. The problem is, firstly, most F6's with the same gearbox and diff ratio wont beat a clubsport, sadly, and secondly, 1000kw with 200nm of torque will dominate any F6 currently on the road. It would have a diff ratio somewhere around the 8:1 mark (pretty stupid, but meh) and it would have more torque at the wheels.... I think you're getting confused. Power at the wheels will be roughly the same regardless of the gear you pick to run it in, only speed varies. Torque, or more importantly, tracive effort, changes from gear to gear. Wheel torque is what you want. Meaning you can have increadible amounts of power at the ENGINE and gear it down to give increadible amounts of torque at the WHEELS. This is why almost every single race engine on the planet is pushed to its RPM limit wherever possible, but the car they are put in have shorter diff ratio's... What I'm explaining to you is basically what race teams have been physically showing you for the last century. So, my personal preference would be to have an engine that made a perfectly flat torque curve untill its theoretical maximum RPM. Power is therefore ever increasing until this point, meaning you can achieve more work, with linear acceleration throughout the entire rev range, geared down to give increadible amounts of torque at the wheels. That would rock! Since I can't have that, then I wan't max power at 7500rpm, max torque at 5000rpm and 70% of that torque available from 2500rpm onwards with 4.10 diff gears. It would have greater wheel torque as opposed to having max power at 5000 rpm, with max torque at 2500 tapering off until 70% at max power, dropping further till redline... This would give insanely larger amounts of wheel torque. This can also be proven via graphing torque vs rpm vs gear ratio's on a 3d graph. The resultant is wheel torque, or simply work it out mathematically, using (total ratio) * torque * RPM,if you can be bothered. But right now, I can't. Enjoy :D I'm now going to sleep for 6 hours and then goto uni to do a test which I was meant to be studying for over the last 2 hours that I've spent getting my brain back into horsepower theory mode... Doh.

Ok I'm gonna have to explain this... Sigh. At the engine, you want power. that's it. Power. At the wheels you want torque, nothing but torque. What is in between? A gearbox. So in reality what do we actually want? A good combination of both. The rest is yours to figure out. Hint: Do a torque/power vs gear ratio graph for each gear and you'll get the idea.

Oh, you're infact wrong, and yet right all at the same time there. I've been bending my mind around this very problem for over a year now, trying to consider all of the different aspects of each (to tell you all of what I've tried to figure out, it would take pages and pages of explanation). In a nutshell, its all about the area under the POWER curve for between the relevant RPM points for each shift, then averaged, multiplied by the gear ratios.... You will find that this average is almost the same for every gear other than 1st, as you use a wider RPM band. You then multiply this average for each RPM point with the total gear ratio (including diff) then factor in a few constants with weight and you can work out accelerative force almost exactly, as long as you have an accurate traction equation (which is actually possible). This sounds lame but its actually easy to understand if you think about it. Power is work over time. Torque is a Force. Power is also (torque*RPM)/9550. It should be noted that 9550 is the RPM at which the power and torque curves will cross on a single scale graph where kW and Nm are the units. So I'll tell you what its all about. Its about how much area there is under the power curve, within a relevant RPM range, factoring in the gear ratios... Thast how you're wrong. This is how you're right! Within each gear, disregarding wind resistance, your linear accelerative force curve will exactly follow your engine torque curve... And the added engine RPM is infact converted to added torque through the gearbox for any given speed. I was going to go on and explain this in a bit of detail, but there is just so much too it, I really can't be bothered now....